Amir Kalan - Radio Farda - February 1, 2017
 |
| Amir Kalan |
Recently, Radio Farda published an article titled "What Problem Does Mother Tongue Education Solve?" (January 4, 2017), written by Mehdi Jami.
This article critiques the developmental approach to language, as proposed by "Mohsen Renani" in an article titled "The Killing of the Mother Tongue and the Destruction of Development in Iran." It argues that a developmental approach to multilingual education, centered on the mother tongue, is ultimately unproductive.
Thus, the author suggests that the issue of mother tongue should be explored through the lens of "language education." Believing that Mr. Jami's critique of Renani is unfounded, I address, in this article, my reasons for supporting Renani’s perspective and offer a critique of the points raised in "What Problem Does Mother Tongue Education Solve?"
In "An Economic and Developmental Perspective on Language," Mohsen Renani aptly highlights the direct relationship between mother tongue education and development, which aligns with the findings of researchers worldwide. He also deepens the discourse surrounding the mother tongue in relation to Persian, moving beyond common clichés (such as Persian being a language belonging to all Iranians). Green[1], a Swedish education economist, is one of the researchers whose studies across various societies have produced numerous articles and books, showing that respecting linguistic differences and viewing speakers of different languages not as "illiterates" needing cultural "correction" but as valuable human resources has consistently fostered economic development based on mutual respect among citizens.
In his article, Mr. Jami does not provide a clear definition of the objectives of education, nor is there any research from him on the subject. This omission leaves a fundamental question about the purpose of education unanswered in his article.
Is the purpose of education anything other than the democratic development of society (scientifically, economically, culturally, etc.) and the nurturing of confident children and youth from all social groups? Can an educational system that continuously demeans students' identities because of their different language produce capable professionals for the future?
Mr. Jami believes that Renani’s discourse on this subject lacks focus on language education. However, in reality, Renani, in this same discussion, presents a model of multilingual education centered on the mother tongue, which aligns with the results of hundreds of research projects worldwide.
"Transforming the elementary education system from an instruction-based to a nurturing-based approach provides an opportunity in bilingual provinces to implement programs focusing on nurturing the personal and social development capacities of children in these provinces in their mother tongue. Perhaps in bilingual provinces, for the first three years of elementary school, we should focus on nurturing our children’s biological and personal development and enhancing their communication and social skills using their mother tongue. During this period, they can also learn the culture and literature of their mother tongue, gaining an opportunity to approach the boundaries of linguistic and cognitive growth. Then, starting in the fourth year, Persian language instruction can gradually be introduced, such that by the end of the sixth year, these children will also be able to read and write in Persian and be fully prepared to receive their scientific education in Persian upon entering secondary school." (from Renani’s article)
To access credible research in this field, one could refer, for example, to the works of Tove Skutnabb-Kangas[2], which also provide an excellent historical overview of studies in this field. Kangas’s research can be seen as further evidence of the scientific robustness of Renani's proposed educational model.
Mehdi Jami points to the complexity of the language issue by emphasizing bilingualism — or, more accurately, multilingualism — as the predominant condition throughout Iran, not just in specific regions or provinces. He stresses that multilingual education is a global challenge, as multilingualism is a global phenomenon. However, from these accurate premises, the author draws incorrect conclusions, ultimately arguing that multilingual education is a waste of time. In other words, he believes that because this is a widespread issue, it ceases to be a problem. In reality, precisely because multilingualism is the natural state of human societies, multilingual education should also be the natural approach.
It seems that he is unfamiliar with the diversity of methods and models of multilingual education, which is why he assumes that a single abstract model of mother tongue education exists that should be applied uniformly for the "Turks of Tabriz," the "Kurds of Sanandaj," and the "Turks of Mashhad and the Kurds of Quchan." In reality, multilingual education has multiple models that vary from country to country, region to region, and school to school. Ideally, these models should be determined by the minority students themselves, their parents, their teachers who speak the same language, and the communities in which they live. Therefore, our primary focus should be on the legal and human rights of these communities to receive education in their mother tongue.
The question of "what to do with the Turks of Mashhad and the Kurds of Quchan?" can be answered within the framework of dozens of diverse models designed for such students in ethnically and linguistically intertwined communities. In my view, the only reason these methods have not been extensively discussed in Persian is due to the prioritization of topics in a context where even the most basic linguistic rights of Iranian students, especially in regions with rich, strong, and historically significant cultures and languages, are ignored both by the government and by many intellectuals and elites. This is why those interested in this issue tend to focus on the fundamental starting point. However, as a next step, we can and should open up serious discussions on complex issues of multilingual education, including mother tongue-based multilingual education, and refer to serious works in this field. For example, one can look at Introduction to Bilingual Education by Ofelia García[3] and Colin Baker[4], both renowned language researchers, for a comprehensive discussion on this topic.
Thus, in confronting the global challenge of multilingual education, when the world seems to be on the verge of extreme nationalism, inaction and ignoring the problem, which ultimately strengthens nationalist tendencies, is the worst possible choice. Unfortunately, research shows that Iran has chosen this path of denial and neglect, making it one of the most unstable countries regarding multilingual education.
The Iranian Plateau has historically been multilingual and multicultural, and its people, as Mr. Jami emphasizes, are still accustomed to multilingualism. Multilingual education, centered around the mother tongue, is not only feasible in Iran but, given the linguistic richness and the region's illustrious history in education, Iran could provide an exemplary and successful model in this field.
Another point that Mr. Jami emphasizes is that it is natural for immigrants to submit to the dominant language of the host society, thereby sacrificing their mother tongue. He writes, "Millions of Iranians living outside Iran today confirm that their children, even if unfamiliar with the language of the host countries upon arrival, quickly learn it."
Aside from the fact that Turks, Kurds, Lors, Baluchis, Gilaks, and other non-Persian linguistic communities in Iran are not immigrants but indigenous people who have historically resided in and are essentially the rightful owners of the land they live on, the author’s reference to immigrants’ natural submission to the death of their mother tongue and acceptance of the host society’s language is neither accurate nor precise. It reflects a lack of awareness of the serious linguistic challenges faced by immigrant minorities in Western societies.
For example, research shows that the second generation of immigrants in the Netherlands and Luxembourg have less proficiency in the host country languages than the first generation, as identity denial has marginalized them[5]. Jim Cummins[6], in his research in Canada, shows that although immigrant children seem to learn enough English in one to two years to interact socially with their peers, they need five to seven years of continuous effort to acquire sufficient academic language skills for success in Canadian society. This effort is often overlooked by both parents and policymakers. These studies help explain why, according to TDSB statistics (Toronto District School Board), a third of Persian-speaking students in Toronto drop out of school. Iranians, after Spanish-speaking students and students from Somalia, have the highest dropout rates among immigrants, and this statistic has remained nearly constant over the past 15 years.
The author accuses language and identity activists, non-Persian teachers, and educational researchers of "resisting Persian language education." This accusation is far from the truth. The dominant view among supporters of mother-tongue education is not exclusionary or "either-or." The prevailing perspective—especially in multilingual education research—is an "as well as" approach. Minority communities are not seeking to eliminate languages; they aspire to enrich their linguistic resources and make worthy use of their mother tongues. What promotes an exclusionary mindset is the outdated concept of the "nation-state," which assumes that every single nation must have only one single language.
Mehdi Jami reiterates this incorrect perspective under the theory of "national citizenship and national education." However, in reality, speakers of other languages in Iran have shown respect for the Persian language by reading and writing in it and adding to its literary, musical, and dramatic heritage. Now, it would be appropriate for Persian speakers to also support the growth of all the languages within Iran’s vast geography.
The author goes on to consider the “officialization” of many Iranian languages as problematic. It appears he fails to distinguish between "official language," "official educational language," and "language of instruction." This oversight leads to misleading examples that may confuse readers.
For example, to have multilingual schools that include mother-tongue instruction, there is no need to make all languages official. India has two national official languages (Hindi and English), 22 official regional languages (used for administration and education in their respective provinces), and dozens of instructional languages from preschool through PhD programs. In contrast to Jami's argument, providing mother-tongue education does not require making every language official. Canada, for instance, has two official administrative and educational languages but hosts schools offering instruction in multiple languages with effective government support, including Persian classes funded by Canadian government-backed immigrant support organizations for Persian-speaking communities.
Regarding the former Soviet Union, although some details in the article are correct, the overall portrayal of linguistic conditions and policies there is inaccurate. In my extensive conversations with Steven Bahry, a multilingualism researcher specializing in China and Central Asia, about multilingual education in Central Asia, the Caspian Sea countries, Afghanistan, and Tajikistan, he affirmed that while this region was never a "paradise of multilingual education," multilingualism there—whether during the communist era or now, as independent states—has been far more flexible than Iran’s current policiesint that "unless the quality of teaching methods, school planning, management, equipment, and parent-school relationships, among many other factors, improve, merely 'changing the language' will not solve the problem" is indeed valid. But there are several points to add. First, as mentioned above, no one is seeking to change the dominant language or eliminate a specific language. The goal is to add to the languages used in education. Also, no one claims that mother-tongue education would solve all the issues in educational systems. However, teaching in the mother tongue, at the very least, solves the problem of mother-tongue education itself, which is by no means a small issue. To borrow from the works of "Nieto" and "Bourdieu," "Multilingual education is deeply interconnected with critical education, anti-racism, and social justice" .
The simplementation of multilingual education in Iran would serve as a gauge of tolerance, respect for diversity, and democratic behavior in a society transitioning into a new historical era. Thus, it is fair to say that while teaching in the mother tongue is a single issue, solving it could lead to progress on many other challenges.
Mr. Jami, as a middle-class Persian-speaking person living outside Iran, has not experienced, as a student whose mother tongue is undervalued, the plight of a monolingual educational system. Hence, he can disregard the experiences of millions of Iranian students and ask, "What problem does mother-tongue education solve?"
In fact, addressing mother-tongue education in Iran might not have an immediate or direct impact on those whose mother tongue is Persian. However, it will rapidly transform the lives of students who enter an educational system where they are set up to lose from the outset. The educational system would send a message to minority children that their language and culture are respected and that, most importantly, they are sources of knowledge, literature, and creativity. Solving this issue would give families who do not know Persian the confidence that they are not "illiterate" or "unrefined" and that they can play an active role in their children’s education. This solution would rebuild the confidence and self-esteem of millions of citizens so that they do not view themselves through the lens of the "Other."
With the successful establishment of multilingual education in Iran, the country’s languages will no longer be seen as a problem but as resources for knowledge and creativity. Solving this issue will signal to everyone that Iranian society is undergoing civilizational transformations, with its citizens becoming more mature, complex, creative, and freedom-seeking than before.
Amir Kalan, Language Education Researcher, University of Toronto
Footnotes:
1- Francois Grin
2- Tove Skutnabb-Kangas
3- Ofelia Garcia
4- Colin Baker
5- PISA (2012) Untapped Skills: Realising the Potential of Immigrant Students. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation & Development.
6- Jim Cummins
7- Kalan, A (2006) Who’s Afraid of Multilingual Education? Conversations with Tove Skutnabb-Kangas, Jim Cummins, Ajit Mohanty and Stephen Bahry about the Iranian Context and Beyond
8- Nieto, S. and Bode, P. (2008) Affirming Diversity: The Sociopolitical Context of Multicultural Education (5th edn). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Link to the original text in Farsi: Radio Farda's website.