OSSREA Publications

Linguistic Human Rights and Language Policy in the Kenyan Education System

Kembo Sure and Nathan O. Ogechi

Executive Summary

The research was aimed at identifying the linguistic and pedagogical challenges experienced by teachers and pupils in the Kenya primary schools where English is used as the medium of instruction from Standard Four. Specifically it was an analysis of classroom discourse in mathematics and science lessons conducted in English and to determine the extent to which language of instruction supports or hinders participation in these verbal exchanges. Language attitudes were also tested to elucidate whether Kenyans support the introduction of English as the medium of teaching their children in primary school and thereby establishing the acceptability of the language policy. The observation and recording of class lessons covered 26 Standard Four English, Science and Mathematics lessons and 8 Standard Eight Science and Mathematics classes.

The main instruments of data collection were the questionnaire for the language attitude test and an audiotape recorder for classroom discourse. The attitude data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) computer software which provides appropriate statistical analysis in social science research. The classroom discourse data were analyzed on a case by case basis, with each classroom exchange being regarded as a text, which was our unit of analysis. The focus of analysis was on: turn-taking patterns, question types, tone of teacher speech, appropriateness of expressions and words in science and mathematics discourse, and level of pupils’ linguistic preparedness generally. 

The assumptions of the study were:

1. That introduction of English in the fourth year in Kenyan primary schools is premature, hinders effective acquisition of the requisite knowledge and skills and therefore constitutes a violation of the learner’s right of access to quality education; and
2. That the communication problems experienced in classroom discourse were primarily of a linguistic nature and that without implementing an appropriate language-in-education policy, no quality learning can be expected.

The findings of the study point to the ineffective classroom communication, which leaves the teacher as the dominant participant in classroom exchanges and pupils providing minimal verbal contribution and hence gaining very little from these lessons. Specifically, we found that:

1. Teachers initiated all the classroom talk and pupils only responded to questions asked by the teacher. Thus, pupils were largely passive recipients. Rote learning was encouraged in all the lessons observed.
2. The teacher questions were predominantly the recall type, requiring one-word answers and the answers were mostly choral. Pupils hardly asked questions. There was no initiative on the part of or opportunity for, the pupils to take charge of their learning or learn from each other. The teacher was the source of knowledge. 
3. Children, even where they had a chance, were unable to express themselves effectively in English even in Standard Eight classes. In a few cases (and they were very few in two urban schools) where pupils showed active participation were evidence that language proficiency is largely to blame for non-participation by pupils.
4. Teachers had difficulty explaining scientific and mathematical concepts simply and clearly because they lacked the appropriate lexical resources to facilitate this. This often led to code-switching to Kiswahili and other local languages, but with very little remedial/developmental consequences. In many cases even code-switching was inappropriately applied and led to even more confusion.
5. Generally, the tone of teacher language directed to pupils disregarded the rules of politeness and contextual appropriateness. Many times they sounded rude or outright insulting to the pupils and this caused intimidation and frustration, especially in the Standard Eight classes where pupils are in their teenage stage with all its emotional and cognitive implications. 
6. Apart from the inappropriate choice of words and expressions for classroom talk, the teachers’ conversational style remained generally invariable throughout the lesson, making the lesson monotonous and discouraging pupils’ involvement.
7. The tone, style and difficulty level of teachers’ language did not vary from Standard Four to Standard Eight. It was as if the pupils possessed the same level of experience and cognitive abilities, so that there was no need for adjustment of content and style of speech as naturally occurs in adult speech and speech directed at children by native speakers.
8. The content of Standard Four English lessons was far behind the linguistic demands of the mathematics and science lessons, and therefore, did not support the (current) policy of English as the teaching medium. While the English lessons focused on basic vocabulary and simple sentences, the mathematics and science lessons were dealing with highly abstract vocabulary, involving causation and logical relationships, which the children ought to have mastered in their mother tongue before being moved to the English medium.
9. The general attitude towards English is positive and the replacement of English by the Kenyan languages would be resisted by the parents. The Kenyan public does not see anything wrong with the present policy and it is therefore up to the government and scholars in education and linguistics to highlight the dangers inherent in the policy and to persuade teachers, parents and pupils that there is a better way of doing things. 

Our conclusion is that it is undemocratic and a violation of children’s fundamental rights to introduce English as the medium of instruction in the fourth year of primary education since that excludes them from classroom participation and denies them access to quality education. With numerous examples of successful bilingual education programmes in the world today, some of which are cited in this work, the government must act quickly to remedy the situation by introducing English only after at least five years of primary education through mother tongue. This can be done without compromising the effective acquisition of English in later years during secondary and tertiary education.