Gibson Ferguson Language Planning and Education Edinburgh ...

142 Language Planning and Education
efficiency and economic and human development. As regards education, there is
plenty of evidence, for instance (see Chapter 3), that second language skills are best
developed subsequent to the consolidation of literacy skills in a language with which
pupils are familiar, and that initial literacy, similarly, is usually best introduced in a
familiar local language. There is evidence, too, that where governments have invested
heavily in the early introduction of English, either as a subject or the medium of
instruction, it has often been to little effect (see Nunan 2003), a significant reason
for which is that resources of teachers and materials become overstretched leading
to poor quality teaching in English, poor provision of materials and ineffective
learning. 15
The use of English as a medium of primary education also tends to contribute
to the further marginalisation of indigenous local languages, which are, as several
commentators persuasively argue (e.g. Stroud 2002, 2003, Bruthiaux 2002),
valuable resources for development and empowerment. Extending their use would,
for example, allow marginalised communities to participate more fully in development
processes, leading to more sustainable and more relevant development. It
would enhance the democratic process by facilitating the exchange of information
between the political centre and local communities, and it would bind these
communities more closely to their schools, making them less alien places (Stroud
2003: 23).
Local languages, and associated multilingual practices, are also important in the
functioning of the informal economy, in which many of the poorest find their
livelihoods. In similar vein, Bruthiaux (2002: 203) argues that for the poorest sectors
of society basic literacy in local languages will make the most immediate contribution
to development and poverty alleviation. English language education, for
these groups, he adds, is largely an irrelevance, promising more than it can deliver,
and should therefore be targeted to those specific populations who ‘have a realistic
chance of participating in international exchanges soon’.
Added together, these arguments do make a persuasive case for extending the
use of local languages in education, and elsewhere. They do, however, have their
limitations, one of these being that while local languages can, as suggested, empower
and dignify, they can also constrain and limit. Another is that demand for English is
strong, even in poorer communities, many of which persist in seeing education in
local languages as an educational dead-end. Targeting English language education to
those who are likely to participate in ‘international exchanges’ sounds technocratically
reasonable but it leads to many further questions: Who is to do the
targeting? On what politically acceptable basis are specific populations to be targeted
and others not? How are those excluded going to be reconciled to the frustration
of their aspirations? In what ways will such targeting reduce socio-economic
inequalities?
The discussion appears to be leading towards the conclusion that any policy
solutions that assume a necessary opposition between English and local languages
and seek to promote one above the other are likely to be flawed. They are flawed
because English and local languages are both valuable for different reasons: English