By: Elham Houminfar - Radio Zamaneh, April 8, 2014
 |
| Saeed Peyvandi, sociologist and education expert residing in France |
The use of the mother tongue in education, beyond being a fundamental right, is a factor that enhances the quality of education and serves as an indicator of cultural pluralism in society.
Research shows a direct correlation between students’ academic success and education in their mother tongue. Incorporating multiple languages in an education system fosters mutual respect and acceptance of others within communities. Nevertheless, how to incorporate mother tongues into formal education remains a challenging issue.
Mother tongue education is not about isolating communities into small, insular "islands" where each group communicates solely in its own language. Rather, it involves a balanced bilingual approach in educational environments or using specific hours for particular groups of students. In this model, a national or intermediary language complements the mother tongue, with scheduled lessons and classes tailored to the context. At different levels of education, the amount of time and coursework dedicated to each language can vary. Bilingual education, when properly implemented, enables students to gain proficiency in two languages while preserving their identities, enriching the broader and local communities alike.
Although bilingual education is a simple term, it refers to a complex phenomenon requiring context-specific approaches. Education experts design these models based on the unique needs of each society.
In this regard, we spoke with Saeed Peyvandi, a sociologist and professor at the University of Lorraine, France.
Iran’s Education System: Centralization and Linguistic Challenges
Iran is a multi-ethnic and multilingual society. However, since the advent of modernity, the education system has been centralized and monolingual. What challenges does this system pose for students whose mother tongue is not Persian?
Saeed Peyvandi: Field research on children’s and adolescents’ learning processes has shown that when education is not in the mother tongue, the learning process can slow down or face disruption.
A student learning in a language other than their mother tongue must first overcome the significant barrier of language before they can focus on the subject matter. For example, in Iran, census data from 1986, 1996, and a sample survey in 1991 reveal that coastal or border provinces—where non-Persian languages are commonly spoken—have lower literacy rates, less access to education, and lower educational aspirations. Phenomena like early school dropout, failure to attend school, and academic underperformance are more prevalent in these areas. In other words, as I demonstrated in an earlier analytical article in French, there is a statistical correlation between mother tongue and literacy rates, school enrollment, educational continuation, and key educational indicators.
However, because this analysis is statistical and macroscopic, it is difficult to precisely isolate the effect of language from other factors such as poverty, economic development, the availability of educational resources, or unique regional cultural traditions. Despite these methodological ambiguities, the aforementioned study shows that other development factors, such as industrialization, urbanization, or women's employment, have less statistical impact on education than the role of the mother tongue.
Education and Identity: Interconnected Dimensions
Education is a multidimensional phenomenon, and identity is inseparable from it. Do you believe the exclusion of some students’ mother tongues from the education system can negatively impact their identity?
I agree that education and identity are deeply intertwined. Every learner—whether a student or a university attendee—confronts fundamental questions such as: Who am I? What am I learning? Why am I learning this?
Education always involves epistemic (knowledge-related) and identity-related dimensions. For this reason, learning in educational environments does not solely involve logical or rational aspects; the emotional and psychological facets of this process should not be overlooked. Knowledge and its acquisition form a relationship—a connection between the learner and the subject matter (mathematics, history, literature, sciences...) that also ties into one’s relationship with oneself, others, and the world.
Learning is not a passive transfer of information from one individual or system to another. Students come to educational spaces as members of society, human communities, and cultural domains. At the same time, educational institutions operate within societies shaped by histories, cultures, and educational traditions.
In learning processes, external dimensions (such as collective activities, educational norms, etc.) and internal dimensions (such as individual relationships with the subject matter, subjectivity, and personal life history) interact dialectically. Separating these dimensions is challenging, as they collectively shape a student's "awareness" of education and what it means to attend school.
When a novice learner can read and write the words they have spoken or heard, a specific sensory connection forms between their lived experience and education. However, when students learn in a language other than their mother tongue, their relationship with the subject matter, the social learning environment, and social interactions within that space may become disrupted. This affects:
- Their connection with the world, as the educational context diverges from their natural linguistic reality;
- Their relationship with others, especially if those others—teachers or characters in textbooks—represent a cultural identity different from theirs; and
- Their personal identity, creating tensions between inherited identities (familial, cultural, local) and the new identity they are expected to develop at school.
Learning a language has specific social, economic, and cultural consequences that cannot be separated from one another. Language and power in society cannot be detached from each other. Deciding how long the mother tongue should remain in the curriculum and what place it should have in the educational system is very difficult.
In fact, it can be said that the question of which subjects should be taught in the mother tongue and which in the national language differs for every community or even region in Iran. That is to say, it is variable. We cannot have a universal curriculum for all regions of Iran, can we?
This is completely true. If we want to respond to the important request of those whose mother tongue is not Persian, we must have a very flexible and open national curriculum.
This means that part of the curriculum should be general and applicable to all of Iran, while part of it should be assigned to the relevant region. Alongside learning the local and indigenous language, learning topics related to that language should also be included.
For example, if in Kurdistan music is connected to people's lives and the Kurds want to have a music program in their educational system, this flexibility should exist in the curriculum. Therefore, each region should be able to determine a portion of the curriculum for itself, similar to the gradual experiences in some countries, such as Spain.
In Spain, 55 to 60 percent of the educational time is dedicated to the national program, and the rest is in the hands of the region and each educational institution. There are other experiences where the autonomy of the regions goes even further.
India and Switzerland are among the countries that have granted wide educational autonomy to their regions due to their linguistic and ethnic diversity.
This is something I don't think is currently feasible in a country like Iran, which has no historical background or experience in such matters. Perhaps the initial solution to start this experience is to create an open curriculum that includes both national and local aspects.
In some regions of Iran or even in certain cities, we observe the presence of diverse linguistic groups. How can we use the mother tongue in these areas without separating children? In other words, how can we avoid sending children to different schools based on ethnicity? For example, in some of our cities, neighboring children are friends and attend the same school, but one family is Kurdish and the other is Turkish, or we have intense ethnic-linguistic diversity in Khuzestan. How can we ensure that these children are not separated while still using their mother tongue?
In my opinion, priority should be given to teaching the mother tongue in areas that have greater linguistic homogeneity because, in terms of education, creating such conditions, especially in Iran, is not an easy task. Sometimes it may be necessary to define part of the curriculum even at the local level and within each educational institution. In other words, each school should be able to include a specific indigenous language in its programs based on its unique needs.
In some countries around the world, part of the responsibility for curriculum planning is assigned to educational institutions, and not all schools in a city, region, or country follow the same program. At the same time, there are other solutions as well. For instance, for scattered students who want to learn their mother tongue, special classes could be set up, sometimes at the level of a city. For example, Kurdish children living in Isfahan could attend Kurdish classes that are held in different parts of the city. This experience is already in practice in Canada, where those in English-speaking regions who wish to learn French can attend special classes.
I think from an educational perspective, this is feasible. Although implementing it is difficult and requires time, it all depends on whether the country's public policy is to move toward recognizing and teaching minority languages. If there is such political will, a practical educational solution will be found.
In some European countries, such as France, many students from immigrant families have the opportunity to learn their mother tongue alongside French or English, despite geographical dispersion. Even Persian and Arabic are among these languages.
In a conversation about mother-tongue education, you spoke of another form of symbolic violence for non-Persian-speaking students. Could you elaborate on this?
Symbolic violence, as defined by Pierre Bourdieu, refers to the imposition of the language of instruction on students from minority regions who speak a different mother tongue.
These students, without the ability to protest, are forced to study in a language other than their mother tongue or learn content that often targets their identity and culture. Disrespect or ignoring the "other" is one of the main features of the educational discourse in Iran. Ethnic minorities in Iran can be considered as "internal others" who are marginalized in various ways by the educational system or have no place in the Shi'a-centered curriculum.
This educational approach and the imposition of a discriminatory system on all students can be seen as a form of symbolic violence against a part of the youth in Iran. The educational system does not allow these students to express their opinions or resist this imposed education, and their only way to resist is to drop out of school or escape the system. This form of resistance also reflects a type of symbolic violence, and its victims end up ruining their professional and social futures.
Does learning the mother tongue prevent students from learning a second or third language (foreign language)?
Learning, knowledge, and language are intertwined with the distribution of power in society. That is, someone who speaks both Persian and a foreign language well has more power and ability than someone who speaks neither Persian fluently nor English. This power could be economic, professional, social, symbolic, or any other form of power.
The issue is that children who are educated in indigenous languages may fall behind in mastering the national language (Persian) or an international language (English). Thus, if educational policies are not implemented properly or if there is no sensitivity to the possible secondary consequences of mother-tongue education, this could create a new social inequality. By social inequality, I mean the inequality arising from not mastering the main languages and not being able to progress in higher education or enter the labor market. In this way, a positive desire to value a culture and language, if not carefully implemented, can have negative social consequences. We saw this in the former Yugoslavia regarding non-Serb minorities, or in the United States when it was decided in California to allow Spanish-speaking immigrants to learn in their mother tongue. In practice, they struggled with English and this eventually became a barrier to their educational and professional advancement and social mobility.
After the modernization of Iran's educational system and the hegemony of the Persian language, along with several other factors, other languages and dialects in Iran have been marginalized. To counter this negative outcome, would the use of the languages of other ethnicities in Farsi-speaking areas be effective? In schools, we learn Arabic and English, albeit imperfectly. Can one of the languages of the Iranian ethnicities, along with other cultural elements, be included in the educational system of Farsi-speaking regions? For example, Arabic, Kurdish, Balochi, Turkish, or any other language spoken by the other Iranian ethnicities.
I believe one of the ways we can elevate the status of non-Persian languages in Iran is by integrating them into the curriculum and academic activities in various forms at all educational levels.
Languages spoken within the borders of Iran are part of our cultural heritage, and isolating or weakening them means losing part of our cultural capital. Public opinion, official institutions, and intellectuals in society should view the status and importance of the Persian language from this perspective. If, in the future, we succeed in recognizing and valuing the languages spoken by various communities in Iran based on qualitative, educational, and scientific grounds, regardless of their statistical significance, it will be a significant step toward constructing a new understanding of Iranian culture and our shared heritage.
Teaching minority languages in various regions, including Persian-speaking provinces, is an interesting initiative and has symbolic importance. However, at the same time, all of these efforts require public consensus, more work, and the creation of the necessary practical conditions. It should also be understood that this initiative does not imply that all these languages hold equal weight in society or in cognitive and cultural fields.
What is the relationship between Persian and other major languages spoken in Iran?
Languages worldwide are products of historical processes that have shaped their current symbolic and real status. The capabilities of a language, the power and cultural richness it represents, and its use in scientific, academic, and media domains are important indicators of a language's significance. For example, the status of English or Chinese today can be evaluated compared to a century ago.
Persian, in comparison with other major world languages, has numerous weaknesses and sometimes struggles to convey the complexities of the modern world and scientific advancements. These issues are even more pronounced for indigenous languages in Iran. However, if we look back at Iran's history, we can see the special status of this language, especially among intellectuals, and its importance in the fields of culture and literature. This historical status, which extends beyond Iran's borders, gives Persian a unique role that should also be considered in educational discussions.
A concern that is often raised about the use of mother tongue or bilingual education is the potential division among Iranians due to this type of education. Some believe that bilingual education or the presence of mother tongues weakens national unity. This concern is not limited to the central regions; many Turks and Kurds share this view. How real might this concern be?
This question has been present since the beginning of Iran's educational system. Those who were pioneers in establishing Persian as the only language of instruction were not all Persian speakers themselves.
Roshdiyeh, as one of the main figures in the new educational system in Iran, designed his teaching methods in Persian. Among politicians in Iran, as in many countries, there has been a belief that national unity and cohesion are achieved, at least partially, through a single language of instruction for all. In other words, mother tongue education was seen as a threat to the integrity of Iran.
In France, the constitution stipulates that education should only be in French. At the beginning of the 20th century, seven million people in France did not speak French as their native language, but today there is no one whose first language is not French. In fact, the "bulldozer" of the dominant language has eradicated or significantly weakened local languages, and while Europe is gradually accepting mother tongue education, local languages can no longer regain their former historical and cultural status.
In Iran, as I mentioned, this fear has existed. One of the reasons for this is that many of these local languages are spoken on both sides of Iran's borders, and there is always a concern that learning these languages could fuel separatist tendencies. However, we can also hypothesize that the more people in society feel their identity and culture are respected, the deeper and more conscious their connection to the community can be.
These are important political and sociological theories that can be raised in this discussion. The key point is that, since the establishment of the modern educational system, there has never been an opportunity for civil society, public opinion, active community forces, political parties, and both governmental and non-governmental institutions to engage in a reflective dialogue about the merits and potential harms of mother tongue education, speaking one's mother tongue, and recognizing local identities.
Our society has never had an open, critical discussion on these significant social issues. As a result, there are many misunderstandings and sometimes exaggerated opinions, which, in my view, stem from this historical lack of dialogue and the suppression of this issue. The research by Ms. Iran Mohammadi on schools in Kurdistan shows how sensitive Kurdish children are about their identity and language, and how the inability to learn in their language and the lack of respect for it causes them deep internal suffering, frustration, and creates a sense of distrust toward the rest of society, the national language, and national unity.
We should not forget that today's world is transformed, and we are no longer in an era where governments could easily erect walls between territories and regions. If such demands have been realized in some parts of the world, this issue could become a universal demand. The desire to live in a society that respects the identity and freedoms of its citizens has become a public demand.
Read the original article in Farsi here on Radio Zamaneh's website: https://www.radiozamaneh.com/136054