Teaching in vernacular should be discouraged
Feb 17, 2008
I write in response to the article by Anselm Wandega titled: “Language policy hinders unity†that was published in The New Vision, January 28. Wandega analysed the language policy in a compelling manner. Anyone who engages in business or employment that enables them to interact with other commun
By Mary Amuge
I write in response to the article by Anselm Wandega titled: “Language policy hinders unity†that was published in The New Vision, January 28. Wandega analysed the language policy in a compelling manner. Anyone who engages in business or employment that enables them to interact with other communities in Africa will agree that this is not the time when the local languages should take precedence over national or international languages.
Earlier this year, I felt alienated from fellow East Africans at a conference in Nairobi when participants spoke in Swahili yet I could not talk beyond a mere greeting!
I have consulted about the current language of instruction approved for the lower primary pupils by the Ministry of Education and found that it is only urban (Kampala) schools that have choices to make between English and Luganda or any other local language preferred by the school management.
Other districts must choose from Luo, Ateso, Akarimojong, Runyakitara, Luganda, and Lugbara or any other language approved by respective District Language Board. However, the language must have a written orthography.
This implies that if Uganda has 81 districts, 81 languages or more could end up on different pupils’ curricula because some communities in the same district speak different dialects.
A language board in Kasese district may choose Lukonzho for their schools even though it is in the greater Toro region. Are we really promoting equal opportunities, especially now that we have the Equal Opportunities Commission in place?
Another dilemma arises in the case of intercultural marriages. If a female primary school teacher from Isingiro district marries a man from Amolatar district and relocates there, she would find it difficult to adapt to her new work station if the only option she has is to teach in Langi.
It would also be difficult for her to assist her Langi speaking children with their homework since she may not be conversant with the language in which her children are taught.
The timing of the policy was wrong. For most languages, there is no written material for teachers and pupils apart from what the curriculum development centre is trying to draft hurriedly with a lot of grammatical and orthographical errors.
The curriculum centre risks making assumptions. Take a case of the Bugisu region where all materials are in “Lumasaba†a common accent among the southern Bagisu.
An elder in Budadiri will view this as cultural invasion. This happened when the Bible was translated in Lumasaba and several people opposed this, questioning whether this was the appropriate language for each section of the community Bugisu region. The Ministry of Education has never made local languages part of the teacher-training curriculum (I need to be corrected if I am wrong).
How do they expect the teachers to teach what they have never been adequately oriented to? What they got at the launching of the current curriculum was a few weeks of discussions and they were commissioned to implement the language policy. Are we not killing education in the country?
Language is a sign of identity and a national language is a form of national identity.
When we communicate in English at an international conference, one can tell a Nigerian from a Ugandan, an Ethiopian from a Tanzanian, a South African from a Ghanaian on the basis of their articulation and accent. That already gives us identity and we should aim at fostering this uniqueness.
The education ministry should state the principles they based on to come with the current language policy for Primary One pupils.
The writer is a concerned citizen
I write in response to the article by Anselm Wandega titled: “Language policy hinders unity†that was published in The New Vision, January 28. Wandega analysed the language policy in a compelling manner. Anyone who engages in business or employment that enables them to interact with other communities in Africa will agree that this is not the time when the local languages should take precedence over national or international languages.
Earlier this year, I felt alienated from fellow East Africans at a conference in Nairobi when participants spoke in Swahili yet I could not talk beyond a mere greeting!
I have consulted about the current language of instruction approved for the lower primary pupils by the Ministry of Education and found that it is only urban (Kampala) schools that have choices to make between English and Luganda or any other local language preferred by the school management.
Other districts must choose from Luo, Ateso, Akarimojong, Runyakitara, Luganda, and Lugbara or any other language approved by respective District Language Board. However, the language must have a written orthography.
This implies that if Uganda has 81 districts, 81 languages or more could end up on different pupils’ curricula because some communities in the same district speak different dialects.
A language board in Kasese district may choose Lukonzho for their schools even though it is in the greater Toro region. Are we really promoting equal opportunities, especially now that we have the Equal Opportunities Commission in place?
Another dilemma arises in the case of intercultural marriages. If a female primary school teacher from Isingiro district marries a man from Amolatar district and relocates there, she would find it difficult to adapt to her new work station if the only option she has is to teach in Langi.
It would also be difficult for her to assist her Langi speaking children with their homework since she may not be conversant with the language in which her children are taught.
The timing of the policy was wrong. For most languages, there is no written material for teachers and pupils apart from what the curriculum development centre is trying to draft hurriedly with a lot of grammatical and orthographical errors.
The curriculum centre risks making assumptions. Take a case of the Bugisu region where all materials are in “Lumasaba†a common accent among the southern Bagisu.
An elder in Budadiri will view this as cultural invasion. This happened when the Bible was translated in Lumasaba and several people opposed this, questioning whether this was the appropriate language for each section of the community Bugisu region. The Ministry of Education has never made local languages part of the teacher-training curriculum (I need to be corrected if I am wrong).
How do they expect the teachers to teach what they have never been adequately oriented to? What they got at the launching of the current curriculum was a few weeks of discussions and they were commissioned to implement the language policy. Are we not killing education in the country?
Language is a sign of identity and a national language is a form of national identity.
When we communicate in English at an international conference, one can tell a Nigerian from a Ugandan, an Ethiopian from a Tanzanian, a South African from a Ghanaian on the basis of their articulation and accent. That already gives us identity and we should aim at fostering this uniqueness.
The education ministry should state the principles they based on to come with the current language policy for Primary One pupils.
The writer is a concerned citizen