Adapted version of an article first published in L'Express on 09/03/2004
A great deal has been said about the use and teaching of Creole in Mauritian schools. [...]
What is worrying with the current debate on Creole is that it is being presented as THE solution to our main educational problem – the high rate of failure. Creole, according to some, is the panacea for all our problems. The fact is that the use of Creole in schools is not forbidden and many teachers already use it while teaching.
It is probably high time we stopped mixing politics, communalism and emotions with education for the good of all concerned. What we need are decisions based on data and/or empirical research. This would include reviewing research on similar issues in other countries. One such review could focus on mother-tongue medium and English-medium schools in countries like India that have well-developed local languages. We could more specifically examine the difference in scholastic performance of students attending both types of schools and their professional success in life, as well as parents’ and employers’ attitudes to both types of schools.
We need to establish empirically that those taught through Creole would perform better than those taught through English and French. We could start with an experiment with two classes (one using Creole as medium of instruction and the other using English and French) within one region/school with randomly allocated students using similar education aids, teaching methodologies and curricula. We should also ensure that teachers of both classes are equally competent/ experienced. After six months to one year, we should be able to establish whether one of the classes performs better than the other, and whether the difference is significant. Appropriate measures would consequently need to be adopted especially if the results are confirmed when the experiment is replicated under similar conditions. If, however, we fail to find any significant difference then there is no alternative but to opt for the status quo.
We would also need to ensure that by enforcing large-scale utilisation of Creole in schools we do not further disadvantage those who already have little or no exposure to English and French at home. We do not doubt the sincerity of those who support the use of Creole to help the underprivileged. On the other hand, one cannot escape the irony that while pretending to help the socially and academically underprivileged and thus deriving political credit, others might unwittingly push these children deeper into a ghetto from which they might find it still more difficult to extricate themselves.
It is unfortunate that until now much of the review of academic performance has focussed on the socio-economic deficiencies of pupils and not on the shortcomings of the system, namely school management, curricula, textbooks, methodology, teacher training and performance, among others. One also notes a failure to hold the school responsible for compensating the deficiencies of the home environment as well as the absence of any attempt to adapt the curriculum to take into account socio-economic realities of underprivileged groups. This would have facilitated understanding and helped to overcome linguistic barriers. This almost exclusive tendency to hold the victims wholly responsible for their plight fully disregards observations that a competent head teacher and a few motivated teachers can bring significant improvement in school performance irrespective of the socio-economic conditions of the pupils.
It is equally deplorable that there is hardly any attempt by school authorities to ensure that quality and volume of input by teachers are of acceptable levels. One knows of some star colleges where language teachers correct only 3-4 essays per year. How can one expect their students to demonstrate satisfactory proficiency in writing skills (unless one relies on private tuition)? The fact of the matter is that there is insufficient monitoring of the quality and quantity of teachers’ work especially in State schools. Even if poor performance is observed, the range of management actions is limited by the competence of the head of school and/or system-related constraints.
In some cases, one may even question the skills of some teachers and, by extension, the skills of some trainers as well as the quality of the teacher-training programme. In extreme cases, one could question the teachers’ mastery of their subjects. We may have unpleasant surprises if some were asked to take tests in the subject they teach.
However, many teachers who use exclusively Creole as a medium of instruction do so because of their own deficiencies. This exclusive use of Creole in the classroom has nothing to do with children’s ability levels. It often coincides with poor teaching, deficient language skills and poor grasp of the subject matter by the teacher, as well as poor performance of pupils. Finally, the latter are in a vicious cycle where the inevitable result can only be failure.
The opposite can also be true. Competent teachers use mainly English and French and a little Creole to facilitate understanding and this does not necessarily hamper learning. Competent teachers in lower primary use a wide range of methods (gestures, visuals, models, etc.) to transmit knowledge, skills and values. Young children are very skilful at imitation provided the input is rich and intensive enough. Even while playing, the one who takes the teacher’s role inevitably uses English or French.
In view of this, we may have to take a more rational view of the issue of Creole at school. It is clear that the school system is characterised by problems that the introduction of Creole may not solve. The main one being the absence of effective management and quality control at all levels. When parents realise many years later that they have been misled, it may be too late.
No comments:
Post a Comment