Afagh Rabii-Zadeh - Radio Zamaneh - February 21, 2022
 |
| Prof. Amir Kalan |
Amir Kalan, professor of multilingual education at McGill University: “Both mother tongue education and instruction in the mother tongue, as well as any use of the mother tongue during the learning process, represent forms of anti-discriminatory education.”
The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) designated February 21 as International Mother Language Day on November 17, 1999—a global occasion especially significant for ethnic groups in Iran whose languages are not officially recognized.
The mother tongue is the language through which every individual, prior to any formal education, acquires the ability to think and convey meaning. Moreover, each language serves as a mechanism for reflecting the culture of the people who speak it.
Realizing the right to mother-tongue education in Iran would create conditions for linguistic minorities to formally use their own mother tongue instead of Persian. However, if this fundamental right is achieved, what model would mother-tongue education follow? What definition does modern linguistics provide for the mother tongue, and what approaches are there for teaching in mother tongues in multi-ethnic regions?
To explore these questions further, Radio Zamaneh interviewed Amir Kalan, author and professor of multilingual education at McGill University in Canada.
Radio Zamaneh: How essential is mother-tongue education in Iran?
Amir Kalan: When we talk about mother-tongue education, we mean anti-discrimination education. Both mother-tongue instruction and education in the mother tongue—as well as any use of the mother tongue during the learning process—are forms of anti-discriminatory education.
I would like to answer your question by posing another question that sheds light on the issue: Are you asking how essential anti-discrimination education is? The need for anti-discrimination education is infinite. Essentially, educational systems without anti-discrimination education are ineffective and may as well not exist. Without this goal, they, in fact, contribute to the process of oppression. So, if we view the question from this perspective, the clear answer is that this issue is infinitely important.
Having mother-tongue instruction and the use of the mother tongue in the learning process is critical. Without this aspect of anti-discriminatory education, we are effectively conveying the message that we are not only suppressing students whose language is not the dominant one, but that likely all sorts of other forms of oppression exist within this system as well. Certainly, anyone who doubts this probably remains silent regarding the suppression of girls, the LGBTQ community, and the notion that students from different religious backgrounds deserve equal educational opportunities in such a system.
Therefore, it is very clear that this question is about anti-discriminatory education. This is the philosophical, ethical, and programmatic perspective on educational planning. However, we also know there are other essential dimensions. We know that a significant part of children’s academic success depends on the use of their mother tongue. We know it fosters the growth of economically and developmentally marginalized communities. Thus, it is entirely evident that this issue must be resolved as soon as possible.
■ How does mother-tongue education contribute to strengthening solidarity and peace in society while preventing new boundaries, conflicts, and divisions?
Using the mother tongue does not necessarily create new divisions. There is a difference between an official language and a language of instruction. A country can have one official language while supporting multiple languages of instruction. Changing the language of instruction in a class, region, school, or even for a group of students in one classroom doesn’t require altering the official language or changing geographical boundaries. It is often assumed that changing the system means transforming the entire school system.
First, this would be a very gradual process since such changes are inherently sensitive and must start with small-scale studies and pilot projects in a limited number of schools to examine the results. Second, the flexible, multilingual education system we envision covers a wide spectrum. One approach on this spectrum is to train teachers within the current system to employ anti-discriminatory methods. This means, for instance, that if a teacher is teaching Persian in a non-Persian-speaking region, at the very least, they should know not to mock students’ accents. The teacher should also understand that the texts chosen to teach Persian should be culturally relevant to the region.
Teachers in non-Persian-speaking areas should employ examination methods that accommodate and assist their students. This is just one part of the issue. Even within the current system, where Persian is the dominant language of instruction, anti-discriminatory practices can be implemented within teacher training programs.
On the other end of this spectrum are schools with flexible, multilingual education that emphasizes the mother tongue. In these schools, students begin literacy education in their mother tongue and then transition to an intermediary or official language after a designated period.
This complexity is often hard to understand for those who view the use of the mother tongue in education as part of a political or ideological agenda. My recommendation for individuals with such views is to recognize that an official language has no direct bearing on the language used in education; these are two separate matters that should be considered independently. Conflating these two issues is fundamentally flawed.
Achieving either an official or instructional language requires various cultural, social, and political efforts. In my view, changing a country’s official language involves specific political processes, which are unrelated to changes in the language of instruction.
■ Due to assimilation or changes in demographic composition, linguistic diversity is now present in many cities. For instance, in some cities in the Khuzestan and Fars provinces, communities of Lur, Arab, Qashqai Turk, and Persian speakers all live together. How should mother-tongue education be provided for these minority groups, and what can be done to avoid “othering” between ethnicities and foster solidarity among them?
This situation exists in many countries and is not unique to Iran. For example, in cities like Montreal and Toronto in Canada, multiple ethnic groups live side by side. As I mentioned regarding the two ends of the spectrum, the solution in such communities is to retain an intermediary language alongside anti-discriminatory education. In these schools, it should be understood that students have different accents, and all these accents are beautiful. There should also be spaces in schools where students can express their language, through activities like poetry readings and theater.
When it is not feasible to provide education in all languages present in a region, an intermediary language is used, and students are allowed to produce multilingual texts for some of their assignments. Many additional methods could be suggested for such situations, but the examples I provided for promoting anti-discriminatory and compassionate views in schools could be effective.
In these areas, there are likely more ethnically homogeneous regions. If schools could be established in such areas, my recommendation would be to implement a flexible, bilingual system centered on the mother tongue, allowing students to work in their mother tongue in the early years of schooling.
Whenever asked what model of education should exist in multi-ethnic areas, my response is that models cannot be predetermined; instead, one must examine the local social structure and demographics, and gather input from parents and teachers in those regions. Factors such as student numbers in such areas can also guide decisions on educational structure.
The second approach is to distinguish between the official (or political) language and the instructional language. In a city like Urmia, for example, this approach is entirely feasible. Kurdish and Turkish can be used in some schools, and even trilingual schools could be established. In short, we should not seek a one-size-fits-all model for implementation across all schools.
Link to the original text in Farsi: Radio Zamaneh article.