Tag Archives: Inclusive learning opportunities

Global Perspectives on Indigenous Languages in Education: Commonalities, Challenges, and Reflections

Teacher's Experience/anecdotes, ,

Introduction

As a researcher and practitioner who has worked with language and education initiatives across several countries, I am often struck by the commonalities and unique characteristics of different approaches to incorporating Indigenous and minority languages into education systems. While each context demands its solutions, there is value in understanding how various countries have approached similar challenges. These efforts align with international frameworks like the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which affirms Indigenous peoples’ right to establish and control their educational systems and institutions providing education in their languages (United Nations, 2007).

The Constitution of Nepal 2015 makes a bold commitment to providing education in children’s mother tongues up to the secondary level – one of the strongest constitutional protections for linguistic rights in education globally. As Nepal works to implement this vision in over 123 languages (National Statistics Office, 2021b, 2021a), it joins other nations grappling with similar aspirations and challenges (see Benson & Kosonen, 2021).

This article examines commonalities and challenges across different contexts where Indigenous and minority languages are being incorporated into formal education systems. Rather than suggesting that any single approach should be replicated, the aim is to illuminate the diverse ways countries are working to fulfil children’s right to learn in their mother tongue. By examining these cases, we can reflect on common challenges, celebrate unique solutions, and perhaps find inspiration for context-specific innovations.

Mother tongue-based Multilingual Education in Nepal

Nepal’s commitment to mother tongue-based multilingual education (MTB-MLE) represents one of the strongest constitutional protections for linguistic rights globally. The 2015 constitution declares that “Every Nepali community living in Nepal shall have the right to acquire education in its mother tongue up to the secondary level” (GoN, 2015). This ambitious policy aims to serve some 7.7 million students across over 35,000 schools (Nepal Education Cluster, 2020), in a context where less than half the population speaks Nepali, the official language, as their first language (National Statistics Office, 2021b).

The model adopted in Nepal follows an early-exit transition approach, which sees children begin learning in their mother tongue and gradually transition to using Nepali as the medium of instruction by grade 3 (Fillmore, 2020). While this represents a shorter period of mother tongue instruction than most experts recommend (Skutnabb‐Kangas & McCarty, 2008), it marks a significant shift from historical Nepali-only policies and provides vital cognitive and social benefits for children in their early years of schooling.

Research on MTB-MLE programmes in Nepal has shown promising results. When children are supported to use their mother tongue in the classroom, they demonstrate greater comprehension, better retention, and more creativity (Phyak, 2016; RTI International, 2014; World Education, 2017). Teachers report seeing “smiles on their faces” and increased engagement when using the language children know best (Fillmore & Paudel, 2022). These positive outcomes encourage continuing efforts to expand and strengthen MTB-MLE implementation across Nepal’s diverse linguistic landscape.

Implementing this ambitious policy presents significant challenges. Resource development and teacher preparation are persistent issues (Fillmore & Paudel, 2022) while Nepal’s transition to a federal system has added new layers of complexity to education governance (Phyak & Ojha, 2019). Additionally, the demand for English-medium instruction, particularly in urban areas, creates pressure that can work against mother-tongue education initiatives (Sah & Li, 2018).

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander language programmes in Australia

Like Nepal, Australia boasts a rich linguistic landscape, with over 400 Indigenous languages existing before colonisation, and hundreds of migrant languages that have formed part of the linguistic landscape post-colonisation. However, Australian Indigenous languages are being lost at among the highest rates globally (Fukui, 2019). Only about 15 languages have a strong cohort of young, fluent speakers, though many more are being actively revitalised (AIATSIS, 2020). Education has greatly contributed to this decline, as teaching has historically and (for the most part continues to be) delivered almost exclusively through Standard Australian English (Hogarth, 2019). Research in Australia has shown that learning and speaking Indigenous languages can counteract the impacts of colonisation and bring benefits for educational outcomes (Jones et al., 2011), student engagement and attendance (Dickson, 2010; Lowe et al., 2019), social and emotional wellbeing (Dockery, 2020; Taff et al., 2018), and even health outcomes (Mayi Kuwayu, 2024).

Recognising this, recent policy developments have created new spaces for Indigenous languages in Australian schools. The national curriculum now provides pathways for teaching Indigenous languages as first, revival or second languages (ACARA, 2019). Individual states have also developed their approaches – for example, South Australia’s Bilingual Education Policy aims to “strengthen and reinvigorate the learning of Aboriginal languages” (Department of Education, 2019), while New South Wales has passed legislation to “promote, reawaken, nurture and grow Aboriginal languages” (NSW Government, 2017). The Northern Territory has a long history of strong, community-led bilingual schooling for Aboriginal children (Devlin et al., 2017), building on an approach described as ‘Two Ways’ or ‘Both ways’ education, which takes Indigenous languages and knowledge as the basis for later scaffolding students across into engagement with Western, English-medium content (Ober, 2009; Wignell, 1999).

In Queensland, where I live and work, teaching Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages is on the rise in schools, creating opportunities for meaningful community involvement while supporting student wellbeing and language revitalisation efforts. While programmes vary significantly based on local contexts and language situations, successful initiatives are characterised by strong community leadership and sustainable approaches to programme delivery (Crump et al., Forthcoming). Most programs focus on teaching language and culture for 1-2 hours per week, though some schools are exploring ways to integrate Indigenous languages more broadly across the curriculum.

Unlike Nepal’s nationwide mandate for mother tongue education, Australia’s approach to Indigenous languages in education remains more localised and varied. However, both countries face similar challenges around resource development, teacher training, and balancing local languages with national language priorities.

Mother tongue-based multilingual education in the Philippines

The Philippines was the first Southeast Asian nation to implement mother tongue-based multilingual education at a national scale. With over 170 languages (Eberhard et al., 2024) and most citizens speaking three or more languages, the Philippines demonstrates how a highly multilingual society can approach inclusive language education policy.

In 2009, the Philippines made a landmark shift when legislated MTB-MLE nationally through Department of Education Order 74 (Department of Education, 2009). This was further strengthened by the Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013 (Congress of the Philippines, 2013), which mandated the use of learners’ mother tongues as a medium of instruction in early grades. Today around 28 Indigenous languages are used as mediums of education (Eberhard et al., 2024).

Like Nepal, this early transitional model represents a compromise between pedagogical ideals and practical constraints. While research suggests that longer periods of mother tongue instruction are optimal for cognitive development (Thomas & Collier, 2002), both countries have adopted early-exit approaches that balance linguistic rights with societal demands for national and international language proficiency.

Early evaluations of MTB-MLE implementation have shown promising results (Ocampo, 2017). However, implementing such reforms at scale revealed persistent challenges around teacher training, materials development, and resource allocation (Fillmore, 2014; Metila et al., 2016). Many of these challenges mirror those faced in Nepal, where decentralisation has added additional complexity to implementation efforts. Both countries’ experiences highlight how strong policy frameworks must be matched with adequate resources and capacity building to achieve their inclusive aims.

Fortunately, as the Philippines is further along in its MTB-MLE implementation journey, there is a growing body of research into effective approaches and supports. For example, extensive research with schools of different language ecology types has documented the creative and resourceful ways to address these challenges in their local contexts (Metila et al., 2017).  Other research has shown that having a tailored instructional approach, materials, and bridging strategies for each language of instruction, that takes into account the characteristics of the language, is important for improving reading outcomes (Pouezevara, 2021).

Māori language nests in Aotearoa (New Zealand)

While I have not worked directly in Aotearoa (New Zealand), I draw inspiration and learning from the Māori language movement as one of the most successful examples of Indigenous language revitalisation through education.

From the 1970s when the Māori language was seriously endangered, community-led initiatives have transformed both educational opportunities and language vitality. The Te Kōhanga Reo (language nest) movement, which began in the early 1980s, pioneered an approach that immerses young children in Māori language and culture, led by Māori elders and communities (Tocker, 2015). This grew into Kura Kaupapa Māori (Māori medium schools) that now serve students from early childhood through secondary education (Tocker, 2015).

What distinguishes the Māori experience is the combination of strong community ownership, sustained policy support, and integration of language revitalisation with broader cultural and political aspirations (May, 2003). In 2023, over 75% of Māori students were enrolled in some form of Māori-language education and 12% were enrolled in Māori medium, where content is delivered in Māori for at least 51 per cent of the time (Ministry of Education, 2023).  Māori is the official language of Aotearoa. Unlike the early-exit models adopted in Nepal and the Philippines, or the language as a subject model in most Australian jurisdictions, many Māori medium programmes maintain instruction in te reo Māori throughout schooling, supporting genuine bilingualism and biliteracy (McBride, 2016).

Conclusion

Looking across these diverse contexts, several common challenges and opportunities emerge in implementing mother tongue-based education (see also Angelo et al., 2022). First, all four contexts discussed grapple with resource development. The challenge is complicated by the need to not just translate existing materials but to develop culturally appropriate content that reflects local knowledge systems and ways of learning. Teacher preparation represents another shared challenge, with all four countries working to build a workforce capable of teaching in Indigenous and minority languages.

The role of community emerges as crucial across all contexts. The success of Māori-medium education demonstrates how strong community ownership and leadership can drive sustainable language programmes. Similarly, Nepal’s transition to federalism aims to bring decision-making closer to communities, while the Philippines and Australia have found that programmes are most successful when communities are actively involved in their development and delivery.

Each context also demonstrates different possible approaches to balancing local languages with national and international languages. Nepal and the Philippines have adopted early-exit transition models with a transfer to national and international languages from upper primary. This approach aims to provide crucial early learning support while meeting societal demands for proficiency in dominant languages.  In contrast, Māori-medium schools maintain instruction in te reo Māori throughout schooling, supporting genuine bilingualism and cultural sovereignty. In Australia, approaches vary based on community circumstances and aspirations – from full bilingual programmes in communities where children speak Indigenous languages as their first language, to language revival programmes where communities are reclaiming languages, and ‘language as subject’ models where Indigenous languages are taught as heritage languages alongside the mainstream curriculum.

What these examples make clear is that there is no single blueprint for incorporating Indigenous and minority languages into education systems. Success depends on adapting approaches to local contexts while ensuring adequate resources, sustained policy support, and meaningful community engagement. As we move through the International Decade of Indigenous Languages (2022-2032), these cases remind us that maintaining and revitalising Indigenous and minority languages through education remains both possible and vital.

References

ACARA. (2019). Rationale. https://www.australiancurriculum.edu. au/f-10-curriculum/languages/framework-foraboriginal-languages-and-torres-strait-islanderlanguages/rationale/

AIATSIS. (2020). National Indigenous Languages Report (p. 108). Australian Government Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications, the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS), and the Australian National University. https://www.arts.gov.au/what-we-do/indigenous-arts-and-languages/national-indigenous-languages-report

Angelo, D., Disbray, S., & Wigglesworth, G. (2022). Learning (in) Indigenous Languages: Common Ground, Diverse Pathways (OECD Education Working Papers 278; OECD Education Working Papers, Vol. 278, p. 107). Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). https://doi.org/10.1787/e80ad1d4-en

Benson, C., & Kosonen, K. (Eds.). (2021). Language Issues in Comparative Education II: Policy and Practice in Multilingual Education Based on Non-Dominant Languages. Brill | Sense. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004449671

Congress of the Philippines. (2013). Republic Act No. 10533 – Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013.

Crump, D., Thompson, L., Fillmore, N., & Disbray, S. (Forthcoming). Teaching First Nations Languages in Queensland Schools. In C. Steele, R. Ober, & R. Oliver (Eds.), Celebrating First Nations Languages and Language Learning in Australian Schools: Stories of Language Activism, Advocacy and Allyship.

Department of Education. (2009). DepEd Order No. 74 s.2009 – Institutionalizing Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education.

Department of Education. (2019). Aboriginal Education Strategy: 2019 to 2029. Government of South Australia.

Devlin, B., Disbray, S., & Devlin, N. R. F. (Eds.). (2017). History of bilingual education in the Northern Territory: People, programs and policies. Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2078-0

Dickson, G. (2010). No Warlpiri, no school?: A preliminary look at attendance in Warlpiri schools since introducing the first four hours of English policy. Ngoonjook, 35, 97–113. https://doi.org/10.3316/informit.880142325310560

Dockery, A. M. (2020). Inter-generational transmission of Indigenous culture and children’s wellbeing: Evidence from Australia. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 74, 80–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2019.11.001

Eberhard, D. M., Simons, G. F., & Fennig, C. D. (2024). Ethnologue: Languages of the World (Version Twenty-seventh edition) [Dataset]. http://www.ethnologue.com

Fillmore, N. (2014). Mother tongue-based multilingual education (MTB MLE) policy and implementation in Mindanao, Philippines: A grounded theory case study [Unpublished Masters Thesis, Deakin University]. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.18044.39043

Fillmore, N. (2020). Mother tongue-based multilingual education in Nepal: Past, present, and emerging trends. In A. W. Wiseman (Ed.), Annual Review of Comparative and International Education 2019 (Vol. 39, pp. 231–254). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-367920200000039020

Fillmore, N., & Paudel, J. R. (2022). Policy to practice, national to local: Multilingual education at the meso and micro levels of Western Nepal. In L. Adinolfi, U. Bhattacharya, & P. Phyak (Eds.), Multilingual Education in South Asia: At the Intersection Between Policy and Practice (pp. 69–92). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003158660

Fukui, M. (2019, November 30). Why Australia is known as a ‘graveyard of languages’. ABC News. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-30/language-loss-and-revival-australia-tongue-tied-and-fluent/11736450

GoN. (2015). Constitution of Nepal. Government of Nepal (GoN).

Hogarth, M. D. (2019). Y is standard oostralin English da onlii meens of kommunikashun: Kountaring White man privileg in da kurrikulum. English in Australia, 54(1), 5–11. https://doi.org/10.3316/aeipt.224527

Jones, C., Chandler, M. J., & Lowe, K. (2011). Sounds, spelling and learning to read an Aboriginal language. In J. Hobson, K. Lowe, S. Poetsch, & M. Walsh (Eds.), Re-Awakening Languages: Theory and Practice in the Revitalisation of Australia’s Indigenous Languages (pp. 311–323). Sydney University Press.

Lowe, K., Harrison, N., Burgess, C., & Vass, G. (2019). A systematic review of recent research on the importance of cultural programs in schools, school and community engagement and school leadership in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education (p. 28). Social Ventures Australia (SVA).

May, S. (2003). Maori-Medium Education in Aotearoa/New Zealand. In J. W. Tollefson & A. B. M. Tsui (Eds.), Medium of Instruction Policies. Routledge.

Mayi Kuwayu. (2024). Exploring links between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Language Use and Wellbeing (p. 4) [Research update]. Mayi Kuwayu, Yardhura Walani, First Languages Australia. https://mkstudy.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Summary_MKFLA_language-wellbeing_240829.pdf

McBride, C. (2016). Biliteracy and bilingualism. In Children’s literacy development: A cross-cultural perspective on learning to read and write (1–2, pp. 171–187). Taylor & Francis Group. http://public.ebookcentral.proquest.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=4218610

Metila, R. A., Pradilla, L. A. S., & Williams, A. B. (2016). The challenge of implementing mother tongue education in linguistically diverse contexts: The case of the Philippines. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 25(5–6), 781–789. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-016-0310-5

Metila, R. A., Pradilla, L. A. S., & Williams, A. B. (2017). Investigating best practice in Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education (MTB-MLE) in the Philippines, Phase 3 progress report: Strategies of exemplar schools (p. 45) [Report prepared for Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and Philippine Department of Education]. Assessment, Curriculum and Technology Research Centre (ACTRC). https://actrc.files.wordpress.com/2018/10/09-17-2018-mtb-mle-report-phase-3-v5.pdf

Ministry of Education. (2023, October). Māori language in schooling. Education Counts; Ministry of Education. https://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/statistics/maori-language-in-schooling

National Statistics Office. (2021a). National Population and Housing Census 2021, Table 1: Population by caste/ethnic-groups and sex [Dataset]. https://censusnepal.cbs.gov.np/results/downloads/caste-ethnicity

National Statistics Office. (2021b). National Population and Housing Census 2021, Table 2: Population by mother tongue and sex [Dataset]. https://censusnepal.cbs.gov.np/results/downloads/caste-ethnicity

Nepal Education Cluster. (2020). COVID-19 education cluster contingency plan, 2020 (p. 24). Nepal Education Cluster. https://www.doe.gov.np/assets/uploads/files/54ba4942574885a514869a72a6b456cd.pdf

NSW Government. (2017). Aboriginal Languages Act 2017. New South Wales (NSW) Government.

Ober, R. (2009). Both- ways: Learning from yesterday, celebrating today, strengthening tomorrow. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 38 Supplement, 34–39. https://doi.org/10.1375/S1326011100000806

Ocampo, D. S. (2017, March 2). Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education (MTB-MLE)  in the Philippines. https://au.eventscloud.com/file_uploads/806b6ab12b0ebe095fa59e1d66b0cadf_Dina_ForARNECwthdinasrevisions02-03-2017finalfromkeynote.pdf

Phyak, P. (2016). For our Cho:tlung: Decolonizing language ideologies and (re)imagining multilingual education policies and practices Nepal [Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Hawaii at Manoa]. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/51616

Phyak, P., & Ojha, L. P. (2019). Language education policy and inequalities of multilingualism in Nepal: Ideologies, histories and updates. In A. Kirkpatrick & A. Liddicoat (Eds.), The Routledge International Handbook of Language Education Policy in Asia (1st ed., pp. 341–354). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315666235

Pouezevara, S. (2021, April 28). Reading achievement in the Philippines: Does language complexity matter? Comparative and International Education Society Conference 2021. https://ierc-publicfiles.s3.amazonaws.com/public/resources/CIES%202021%20Language%20Complexity%20Study%20PRINTOUT.pdf

RTI International. (2014). Nepal Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA) study [Report prepared for the United States Agency for International Development]. RTI International.

Sah, P. K., & Li, G. (2018). English Medium Instruction (EMI) as Linguistic Capital in Nepal: Promises and Realities. International Multilingual Research Journal, 12(2), 109–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2017.1401448

Skutnabb‐Kangas, T., & McCarty, T. L. (2008). Key concepts in bilingual education: Ideological, historical, epistemological, and empirical foundations. In N. H. Hornberger (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of Language and Education (pp. 1466–1482). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-30424-3_112

Taff, A., Chee, M., Hall, J., Hall, M. Y. D., Martin, K. N., & Johnston, A. (2018). Indigenous language use impacts wellness. In K. L. Rehg & L. Campbell (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Endangered Languages (pp. 861–884). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190610029.013.41

Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. P. (2002). A national study of school effectiveness for language minority students’ long-term academic achievement. Center for Research on Education, Diversity and Excellence.

Tocker, K. (2015). The origins of Kura Kaupapa Māori. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 50(1), 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40841-015-0006-z

United Nations. (2007). United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/declaration-on-the-rights-of-indigenous-peoples.html

Wignell, P. (Ed.). (1999). Double Power: English Literacy and Indigenous Education. Language Australia.

World Education. (2017). Medium of instruction: Improving early grade learning outcomes through the use of mother tongue (Sangai Sikaun Sangai Badhaun (Learning & Growing Together) Project Technical Brief Series 3; p. 8). World Education. http://3vvxza37b4sa2ci1ug2o2qwg-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/SSSB-Medium-of-Instruction-Brief.pdf

Author’s Bio: Naomi Fillmore is an applied linguist and an education specialist in the School of Languages and Cultures at the University of Queensland, Australia. Her research critically examines the intersections of language with education policy, pedagogy, and assessment in multilingual contexts, with a particular focus on Australia and Nepal. She has worked as a teacher, researcher, manager, and advisor in Australia, South and South East Asia, and South America.

The Interview on the issues of Nepal’s MTB-MLE policies, the relevance of the Government’s current policy on MTB-MLE and its implementation

Teacher's Experience/anecdotes, ,

Ram Ashish. Giri, Ph.D., is an academic at Monash College/Monash University, Melbourne, Australia where he has been teaching in the English language and degree programs since 2009. Professor Giri had his education in Nepal, the US, and Australia. After his Master of Education degree in English linguistics from Tribhuvan University, Nepal, he went to Columbia University, New York for an Ed.M. degree in Applied linguistics under the Fulbright Scholarship program, and then to Monash University, Melbourne for his PhD under the Australian government’s (IPRS) scholarship program. He has researched and published on a wide range of English language education issues. During his two-decade-long career abroad, Dr. Giri has published in international journals, written book chapters and published edited books. His next co-edited books entitled (a) English as a Medium of Instruction in South Asia: Issues in Equity, equality and social justice (to be published by Routledge) and (b) English as a Medium of Instruction: Case Studies from Asia (to be published by Springer) are due in early 2023. His research interests include TESOL, language testing, and language (education) policy. He is the co-founder of NELTA and currently the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of NELTA.

Our Choutari editor, Dr. Jnanu Raj Paudel, has interviewed to Dr. Giri on the issues on Nepal’s MTB-MLE policies, the relevance of the Government’s current policy on MTB-MLE and its implementation.

How can Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education (MTB-MLE) policies effectively address the cognitive, pedagogical, and linguistic challenges in a multilingual nation like Nepal?

MTB-MLE policies can play a crucial role in addressing the cognitive, pedagogical, and linguistic challenges in low-income multilingual nations like Nepal. This is a great question, though it is an overarching question. First, we need to look at what cognitive, pedagogical, and linguistic challenges there are for MTB-MLE policies as different types of challenges need different types or levels of treatments.  Second, we need to examine current MTB-MLE provisions, and then finally we should discuss how these policies can address the challenges.

It is widely researched and documented that learning in one’s own mother tongue enhances cognitive development and helps students grasp complex concepts more easily. It builds a strong foundation for learning additional languages. Studies have also reported that in addition to promoting minority languages, MTB-MLE establishes better home-school relationships, increases target communities’ participation in education; and helps retain school enrolments. MTB-MLE programs where students first develop their language and cognitive skills in their own languages play a detrimental role in gradually transitioning to the learning of and through national or international languages.

Despite the widely reported benefits that MTB-MLE enhances cognitive abilities such as problem-solving, creativity, and multitasking, it faces serious cognitive, pedagogical, and linguistic challenges. Learning in multiple languages, especially at a very young age can create a cognitive load on students. It can also create difficulties in processing and retaining information in and through multiple languages. For example, though it helps promote linguistic diversity, code-switching and code-mixing become a common phenomenon which could also complicate the learning process and assessment. The pedagogical challenge is that designing a curriculum that effectively balances multiple languages can be challenging. It requires rigorous planning to ensure that students develop proficiency in all languages without one dominating the others. Furthermore, implementing MTB-MLE often requires significant resources, including trained teachers, appropriate materials, and infrastructure. Finally, the conventional assessment regimes may not adequately assess the abilities of multilingual students, as these tests are often designed with a monolingual mindset. This can result in unfair evaluations of multilingual students’ skills.

Moving on to MTB-MLE policies, Nepal’s MTB-MLE policy is flawed. First of all, it is not its organic ideology as it was not developed as Nepal’s original vision of multiple-language ecology.  An organic policy has two dimensions, a population dimension and a systemic dimension. In terms of population dimension, it is all quite well-known that in the multi-party-political set-up, the dominant political parties have attempted to create ethnic and linguistic demarcations by dividing the nation into ethnic territories by promising them their linguistic/ethnic identities. MTB-MLE, thus, became donor-driven and patch-work and guided as well as constrained by external ideologies. It lacks a systemic dimension as it has not evolved from the intrinsic aspirations of the Nepalese people and therefore, is not characterized and supported by system-based arrangements. For example, the target communities have mixed attitudes toward the roles their languages play in education or identity construction. They take a utilitarian perspective and are generally unwilling to educate their children in their mother tongue because they are not convinced that it will ensure quality education. They desire their children to be competent in the dominant languages for economic success and social mobility through wider opportunities, even at the cost of their own language. It is evident that MTB-MLE has limited support from target communities who question its relevance as it does not bring them socioeconomic benefits and does not ensure the prosperity and development of their children. This is a systemic issue.

Now let’s talk about how such a policy can address the challenges. By addressing the following, MTB-MLE policies can address the cognitive, pedagogical, and linguistic challenges.

First of all, the MTB-MLE should be based on Nepal’s vision of a multilingual nation and the aspirations of its people. The Government of Nepal and its supporting international communities need to work out a policy that is unique to Nepal, its suitable linguistic landscape, and its people’s aspirations.  It should be above the political parties’ ideologies, and sustainable to Nepali conditions. Such a policy includes policy frameworks that prioritize multilingual education and allocate resources for its effective implementation.

Above all, it should recognize that English, as a local language, has to be suitably situated in the MTB-MLE and that multilingual education in Nepal should be envisioned with English, not without it. The policy initiatives should engage the community in the development and implementation of MLE policies to ensure that the educational content is culturally relevant and supports local language communities. Community involvement can also foster a supportive environment for students both at school and at home. The initiatives should create and distribute educational materials in multiple languages. These resources should be contextually appropriate and accessible to students from various linguistic backgrounds within a given school context. Above all, they should develop inclusive language policies that recognize and integrate the linguistic diversity of students to enhance learning outcomes, without prioritizing the socio-economic value of such languages. These policies should promote the use of multiple languages in the classroom, allowing students to leverage their entire linguistic repertoire.

In a nutshell, Nepal needs a new vision for its MTB-MLE. It needs a new approach, a new policy framework that values all languages of a given context equally well and situates them appropriately in its educational regime. It needs to recognise that English is an integral part of the Nepalese linguistic landscape and therefore must be accorded an appropriate space in its educational system. It needs a plurilingual approach to language education.

Specifically, how can these policies bridge the gap between linguistic diversity and academic achievement while ensuring equitable and inclusive learning opportunities for all students?

Plurilingual education policies can effectively bridge the gap between linguistic diversity and academic achievement while ensuring equitable and inclusive learning opportunities for all students through several key strategies:

First of all, Nepal should recognise the fact that MTB-MLE in Nepal is NOT practicable without English. Efforts were made even before 1990 to implement mother-tongue education without English. It became evident soon that tongue education alone was neither effective nor accepted by the very target communities simply because English wasn’t a part of it. Later on, in order to make mother-tongue education practicable, English was introduced in the very first year of mother-tongue education. The recent studies on MTB-MLE indicate that the concerned communities do not perceive it useful without English. Therefore, MTB-MLE, in order to be practicable in the Nepalese context needs to visualise plurilingualism (multilingualism) with English, not without it.

Plurilingual/ multilingual education policies can create an inclusive and equitable learning environment that values linguistic diversity and promotes academic achievement for all students. This holistic approach ensures that every student has the opportunity to succeed, regardless of their linguistic background. The Government of Nepal should create a comprehensive language policy that recognises and supports the use of multiple languages in education. This includes official recognition of English and minority languages with an educational context and their inclusion in the curriculum.

The three-language education formula of MLE is, therefore, faulty. In addition, the MTB-MLE curriculum should be designed to incorporate multiple languages, ensuring that students can learn in their mother tongue while simultaneously introducing additional languages. This is also known as plurilingualism. Plurilingualism education policy recognises and integrates the linguistic diversity of students in a classroom to enhance learning outcomes. The policy promotes the use of multiple languages in the classroom, allowing students to leverage their entire linguistic repertoire.

The mother-tongue-based plurilingual education engages the community and parents in the development and implementation of policies and ensures that the educational content is culturally relevant and supports local languages. Community involvement can also foster a supportive environment for students both at school and at home. The policy will support equitable and inclusive learning opportunities when it ensures that resources, both human and material resources, are distributed equitably across communities and schools, particularly in rural and disadvantaged areas. This includes providing textbooks, learning materials, and technological tools in multiple languages.

In this way, the policy can bridge the gap between linguistic diversity and academic achievement.

How well do you think the government’s policy of prioritizing mother tongue instruction in the early years of education aligns with its practical implementation in schools? Are the policy provisions and actual practices in harmony, or do you see significant gaps?

The alignment between government policies prioritising mother tongue instruction in the early years of education and their practical implementation in schools often varies significantly across different regions and communities. The Government of Nepal has formulated policies that emphasise the importance of mother tongue instruction in early education. As I mentioned earlier, these policies are based on research showing that children learn best in their first language, which supports cognitive development and academic achievement. These policies provide guidelines for curriculum development, teacher training, and resource allocation to support MTB-MLE. However, there are serious gaps between the policies and their implementation in terms of curriculum development, teacher training, and resource allocation. The practical implementation of these policies is faulty because one of the main challenges in implementing these policies is the lack of adequately trained teachers who are proficient in the local languages. Additionally, there is often a shortage of teaching materials and resources in the mother tongues. Furthermore, effective implementation requires substantial investment in infrastructure and ongoing funding. In many rural, outlying, and disadvantaged communities, schools may lack the necessary resources to fully implement mother tongue instruction. But most important of all, the implementation lacks community and parental support. MTB-MLE should include community aspirations which may prefer instruction in a more widely spoken language like English and Nepali. Effective monitoring and evaluation mechanisms are also crucial to ensure that policies are being implemented as intended. However, these mechanisms are often weak or absent, making it difficult to assess the impact of mother-tongue instruction policies.

To sum up, while the policy provisions for MTB-MLE are well-intentioned and based on research, there are significant gaps in practical implementation. Addressing these gaps requires a concerted effort from governments, communities, and international organizations to provide the necessary resources, training, and support to the policy provisions and actual practices at the grassroots level.

Based on your rich experience of both policy and practice levels, what do you think are the key issues creating obstacles in materializing the inclusive and equitable policy to empower learning?

I would like to include a couple of statements to say what inclusive /equitable policy may mean:

“Inclusion is really about making schools a reflection of their community and we commit to ensuring that any child that walks into our school will be included, will be supported, and be part of our community”.

‘Students experience inclusive education when they can access and fully participate in learning, alongside their similar-aged peers, supported by reasonable adjustments and teaching strategies tailored to meet their individual needs. Inclusion is embedded in all aspects of school life and is supported by culture, policies, and everyday practices.’

(Quotes from Education Policy Statement, QLD, Australia, 2018)

There are several key issues that create obstacles in materialising inclusive and equitable education policies as envisioned in the statements above. These challenges can be broadly categorised into societal, systemic, and resource-related factors:

The first issue that works as a barrier to materialising inclusive and equitable policy is societal attitudes and misconceptions. Societal attitudes towards students from diverse backgrounds, including those from disadvantaged communities, can lead to segregation and discrimination. There are misconceptions about the capabilities of students speaking certain ethnic or minority languages which result in lower expectations and limited opportunities. For example, in some communities, there may be resistance to inclusive MTB-MLE education due to cultural norms and beliefs that prioritise certain languages or educational practices over others. This is known as the politico-economic valuation of languages. In other words, policies to include or exclude languages in education in terms of their political and/or economic value play a significant role in creating barriers to implementing inclusive education.

Another barrier could be the uniform, national, and standardised pedagogic regimes. Standardised curricula and teaching and testing regimes can hinder personalised teaching and individualised learning support for diverse learners. Furthermore, these uniform frameworks often disregard the varied needs of disadvantaged students and thus fail to implement inclusive education. Additionally, discrepancies between national policies and local implementation practices often create gaps. Policies that are not effectively communicated or supported at the local level may lead to uneven implementation practices. Lack of community involvement can also disarray the effective implementation of the policies. A lack of community engagement from these stakeholders can hinder implementation processes and practices.

You have been supervising and evaluating both academic and institutional research studies related to language in education policy and practice. What aspects of MTB-MLE have been explored to a greater extent and what areas of this issue are still unexplored?

Studies on MTB-MLE have explored various aspects of the MTB-MLE policy, including its implementation.  They have reported that the monolingual policy was replaced by the MTB-MLE policy after the restoration of democracy in 1990. Since then, the government has attempted to create conditions for an effective implementation of MTB-MLE. The Constitution of Nepal (1990) officially recognised Nepal as a multilingual country. The current Constitution of Nepal (2015), endorsing the recognition, ensures people’s right to get education in their mother tongue and, for that purpose, to open and operate schools and educational institutes. The studies have also pointed out that the subsequent policy documents such as the Education for All National Plan of Action (2003-2015), the National Curriculum Framework for School Education (2007), and the School Sector Reform Plan (2009-2015)  have echoed the constitutional provisions. Nepal has also ratified various international covenants, including the Universal Declaration of Linguistic Human Rights (1996) and the UN Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007).

The studies have shown that a number of languages have been used as mediums of instruction at the elementary level, and textbooks are available in 26 mother tongues. Recently, the Language Commission of Nepal in 2020 recommended 10 languages to be used as mediums of instruction in 10 different regions, where a class usually has 80% or more students speaking a single mother tongue.

However, they have revealed that although the Government’s aim was to extend such a program to 7500 schools, its ambitions remained largely underachieved.  For example, research has shown that although MTB-MLE is informed by sound policies, its implementation has been very weak. MTB-MLE classes have been reported to use more than two languages as mediums of instruction instead of the designated mother tongue. They also reveal that MTB-MLE schools teach the mother tongue as a subject, introduce one single language to linguistically diverse groups of students, and apply word-to-word translation to help students understand the content instead of developing language skills.

Despite the significant research strides, what remains to be explored firstly is a model that is appropriate for Nepalese plurilingual classrooms. Most MTB-MLE programs in Nepal are implemented supposing that schools and their communities are linguistically homogeneous. However, most schools are linguistically diverse, and there is a need for a model or models that address the plurilingual learning needs of these students. So far, the studies have shown how effective or ineffective the existing MTB-MLE model is. No research has come up with any new models that are suitable for plurilingual schools. Secondly, nearly two-thirds of Nepal’s languages have only oral traditions. Some ethnic or minority languages exist primarily in oral form. Developing educational materials and teaching methods for these languages is a challenge that has not been fully researched and addressed. Thirdly, there is limited research on the long-term impact of MTB-MLE on educational outcomes. More studies are needed to evaluate the effectiveness of these programs and to refine them based on evidence. Finally, the claims of cognitive, educational, and linguistic benefits of MTB-MLE are based on research conducted in other contexts. No such studies have been conducted in Nepal. It is time that Nepal makes a concerted effort to conduct large-scale research to substantiate and justify these claims.

Dr. Giri’s note: I am thankful to Dr. Jnanu Raj Paudel, the Editor of the ELT Choutari for the opportunity to share my personal views on some of the issues on Nepal’s MTB-MLE policies. The relevance of the Government’s current policy on MTB-MLE, particularly its implementation, has been contested. My response to your quarries attempts to bring out some pertinent issues surrounding this policy.