Technical Findings of MoEST Principles, Practice and Planning of Multilingual Education Workshop

Covering States of Central, Eastern and Western Equatoria

Workshop location: Maridi, Western Equatoria

17th

- 25th

July 2008

Report by Staff Team

(Elizabeth Ferdinand (Director for National Languages, MoEST)1, Moses Mading

2 (Deputy

Director for National Languages, MoEST), Jackie Marshall3 (Technical Adviser), Tanya

Spronk4 (Technical Adviser))

1 Email: elizabethf1959@yahoo.com

2 Email: madingmakem@yahoo.com

3 Email: jackie_marshall@sil.org

4 Email: tanya_spronk@sil.org

2

Table of Contents

Abbreviations ..............................................................................................................................................3 1 Introduction.........................................................................................................................................4

2 Staff.....................................................................................................................................................5

3 Participants..........................................................................................................................................5

4 Workshop aims and achievements ......................................................................................................5

5 Summary of technical findings of the workshop ................................................................................6 5.1 Socio-linguistic analysis of each state ........................................................................................6

5.1.1 Ethnic groups and languages used ......................................................................................6

5.1.2 Language relationships and dialects ...................................................................................7

5.1.3 Language mapping..............................................................................................................7

5.1.4 Analysis of environment and resources available for each language group .......................7 5.2 Implementation of the language and education policy ...............................................................8

5.2.1 GOSS language and education policy.................................................................................8

5.2.2 Dealing with mixed language areas ....................................................................................9

5.2.3 Stakeholders and institutional relationships......................................................................10

5.2.4 Slogans for awareness raising...........................................................................................12 5.2.5 Impact of language use in class.........................................................................................13

5.2.6 Bridging between two languages ......................................................................................13

5.2.7 Teacher training for MT and BE.......................................................................................14

5.2.8 Recommendations for materials development ..................................................................17

5.2.9 Personnel needed...............................................................................................................18 6 Final recommendations by the participants ......................................................................................18

7 Participants evaluation of the workshop...........................................................................................19

8 Conclusions and next steps for the Department of National Languages, MoEST............................21

Appendix A - Course Participants ............................................................................................................22

Appendix B – Timetable ...........................................................................................................................24 Appendix C – Map showing states of Greater Equatoria..........................................................................26

Appendix D - Ethnic groups and maps extracted from different group exercises ....................................27

Appendix E – Suggestions from participants for promotional slogans ....................................................32

Appendix F - People nominated to attend a Southern Sudan Languages and Education Conference......33

Appendix G – Draft of teacher training modules outlines that could be added for BE/MT.....................34 Appendix H – Suggestions for the percentage of time spent using each language in the classroom .......36

Appendix I - Suggested organograms for structures relating to national languages ................................38

3

Abbreviations

BE Bilingual education

CEC County education centre CES Central Equatoria State

EES Eastern Equatoria State

GOSS Government of Southern Sudan

INL Institute of National Languages

IRL Institute of Regional Languages L1 First language (mother tongue)

L2 Second language

MLE Multilingual education

MT Mother tongue

MoEST Ministry of Education Science and Technology (GoSS level) SMoE State Ministry of Education

TTI Teacher Training Institute

WES Western Equatoria State

4

Technical Findings of MoEST Principles, Practice and Planning of Multilingual Education workshop, Maridi

17th

– 25th

July 2008

1 Introduction This workshop was organised by the Department of National Languages, MoEST, Juba. The workshop was for participants invited by the SMoEs of the states of Equatoria; Central (CES), Eastern (EES) and

Western (WES). Similar workshops had already been run for the states of Greater Bahr El Ghazal and

Greater Upper Nile. This report summarises the technical findings of this latest workshop and gives

recommendations arising from the workshop.

This report draws on the following:

• discussions during the workshop

• the written assignments done (often by state groups) during the workshop

See Appendix B for the timetable used for the workshop.

The workshop involved a lot group work with participants mainly working together with people from

the same state to analyze their situation at the state level. A few assignments were also done in language

related groups. Most participants engaged well with the course and with the group work. Whilst some participants were extremely able and coped well with the high academic content of the workshop, others

struggled as the sessions were delivered in English. During the group work, participants could use their

languages of choice, which helped those with less English skills to grasp more through discussion with

their colleagues.

The group work was collected after each assignment and typed up by the facilitators, so that an

electronic copy of the work could be kept by MoEST, SIL and also distributed back to the states. Each

state group kept a folder with the handwritten copies of this work. Each collection of write-ups are titled

‘State Write-up of Group Work for Principles, Practice and Planning of MLE Workshop’. For the purpose of brevity in this report they are referred to collectively as the ‘State Write-ups’. These write-

ups are a significant part of the input for this technical report.

Note, as there was limited time in the workshop, the write-ups done should not be taken as complete

pieces of work, but as good starting drafts for further development.

5

2 Staff • Elizabeth Ferdinand (Director for National Languages, MoEST)

• Moses Mading (Deputy Director for National Languages, MoEST)

• Jackie Marshall (Technical Adviser, Bilingual Education Coordinator, SIL)

• Tanya Spronk (Technical Adviser, Bilingual Education Specialist, SIL)

Moses Mading and Elizabeth Ferdinand dealt with most of the communications with the states prior to

the workshop relating to arrangements for participants and logistics. They were also responsible for the workshop logistics during the workshop. Jackie Marshall and Tanya Spronk handled the planning of and

delivery of the technical content of the workshop. Moses also facilitated two of the workshop sessions,

one on ‘language policy’ and one on ‘stakeholders and institutional relationships’.

3 Participants There were 36 participants in total; 10 representing Central Equatoria State, 10 representing Eastern

Equatoria, 14 representing Western Equatoria, and 2 representing partner organizations. See Appendix

A for their names and details. The participants came from a large number of different language groups,

including the following: Acholi, Avokaya, Baka, Belanda Viri, Bari (from various Bari speaking groups: Bari, Kuku, Nyangwara, Kakwa, Pojulu), Didinga, Dinka, Dongotono, Jur Modo, Lopit, Madi,

Morokodo, Moru, Mundu, Okoliye, Otuho, Toposa and Zande. Compared with the previous workshops

held, this was the largest number of language groups represented in a workshop.

4 Workshop aims and achievements The aims of the workshop were largely met. See the summary table below:

Main Aim: To prepare for the implementation of the Southern Sudanese languages and

education policy

Sub Aims: Achievement of Aim: To train education

personnel at state level

in the principals,

practice and planning of multilingual

education

Between 10 and 14 people per state were trained. There were

some representatives from both Eastern Equatoria and Central

Equatoria SMoE which should help with the planning and

information dissemination process.

To involve stakeholders at the

state level and below

The workshop was a good step in involvement of state stakeholders. More will have to be done to involve

stakeholders at the community level.

To share information

between MoEST and

the state

A great deal of helpful information was shared in both

directions during the workshop.

To work out steps,

plans and guidelines

for the implementation

of the policy

Steps, plans and guidelines were worked on, though more

work will need to be done on these at state level. Similarly,

MoEST must take the workshop write-ups and discussions

and use them to define and refine implementation guidelines

for the language and education policy.

6

To prepare for a

Southern Sudan

languages and education conference

The workshop has helped prepare the ground for a language

conference.

5 Summary of technical findings of the workshop Each of the sections below summarises key findings from the workshop. Note, this is a summary of the outputs of an eight day workshop and should not be taken as a finished piece of work representing as it

does the pooled knowledge and ideas of those participating.

There was overlap in different assignments and discussions which was helpful in checking the

consistency and strength of information.

Footnotes by headings below make reference to the assignment the information was drawn from,

including the session number.

5.1 Socio-linguistic analysis of each state

5.1.1 Ethnic groups and languages used5

Each state completed an analysis and write-up of the ethnic groups and languages of their respective

states (see State Write-Ups for these in full). This included an assessment of the languages of wider communication at state level and of what languages are used in rural and urban primary schools.

Appendix D lists the ethnic groups given in each state. Usually the language spoken by the group is very

similar to the name of the group, where it is different it is also given. Note that there were a few groups

found that were missing from the tentative list of ethnic groups attached to the Southern Sudanese Constitution.

In summary, all the states are very multi ethnic. Each state listed between 13-18 ethnic groups. Some of

these groups live in more than one state. Some ethnic groups are quite large and probably dominant in

terms of population at the State level (Zande, Bari, Toposa, Otuho). Note though, that there are no up-to-date statistics available. Some ethnic groups speak closely related languages, for instance Bari,

Pojulu, Kuku, Nyangwara, and Kakwa regard themselves as Bari speakers.6 See next section for other

closely related languages.

Some of the indigenous languages (Zande, Bari, Toposa and Otuho), Simple Arabic (also called Juba Arabic) and English were given as languages of wider communication.

Urban primary schools largely use Simple Arabic (spoken only) and English. Rural primary schools use

the indigenous languages and English

Simple Arabic in spoken form and English, both written and spoken, are the main languages used in

government offices throughout all the states. Written Arabic is also used in offices in Juba.

5 Group Assignment: Session 1 – Linguistic analysis

6 Mandari is also related to Bari but less closely than these languages. No Mandari was present in the workshop and it is not

clear whether they would also regard themselves as Bari speakers.

7

5.1.2 Language relationships and dialects

The state groups came up with the following languages and closely related (those marked with ** are

the most closely related with at least 80% mutual understanding):

Similar Languages in WES

1. Avokaya and Moru (**)

2. Belanda Viri and Mundu

3. Baka and Bongo and Morokodo (**) 4. Balanda Bor and Luo (though Luo not a language of WES)

5. Makaraka and Zande (**)

Similar langs in CES

1. Bari language family(**):

a. Bari

b. Ngangwara

c. Pajulu d. Kuku

e. Kakwa

2. Keliko and Lugbara

Similar Languages in EES

1. Acholi and Pari (but only one way – Pari can understand more Acholi than Acholi can

understand Pari)

2. Didinga, Boya and Tennet (**) 3. Otuko, Lokoya, Logir and Imotong (**)

5.1.3 Language mapping7

Each state group drew a state map showing the areas of the language groups including ‘integrated areas’

where language groups are living together. These, with accompanying notes are given in each State Write-up. They are also given in Appendix D of this report. Note that these maps do not attempt to

represent the towns.

As an additional background reference, a map showing all of the states and counties of Greater

Equatoria is given in Appendix C.

5.1.4 Analysis of environment and resources available for each language group8

Each language group in the workshop worked on an analysis and write-up on their particular language

group. The analysis was broken down into examination of environmental (e.g. policy environment and

support and awareness for policy), system (e.g. supportive institutions, and systems for teacher training,

curriculum development), and resource (e.g. people and materials such as books) requirements. Various

7 Group Assignment: Session 12 – Language mapping and mixing

8 Group Assignment: Session 4 - Analysis of the status of environmental, system and resource requirements

8

resources, such as book lists from ACROSS and SIL, actual mother tongue (MT) books from SIL and

Institute of Regional Languages (IRL), policy documents, were made available to the participants to

help them do this.

This exercise confirmed that a low - moderate amount of resources (some materials, a few partially

trained personnel) exist for these language groups which, given the background of many years of war

situation, is respectable. Organisations mentioned that have supported materials development or

production included ACROSS, SIL, ADRA and UNICEF. ACROSS, SIL, UNICEF and some churches have done some teachers training for national languages largely in the 1970s-1990s. However this

training was short and most of teachers are no longer teaching.

Some of the languages have functioning language committees or language associations (e.g. Jur Modo,

Baka, Acholi, Madi). A few more have had these in the past but they are not currently operating. Some of the work for cross border languages like Madi and Acholi is/has been done in Uganda.

Overall, there is little institutional support for national languages at the moment.

For more about the policy environment see section 5.2.1.

5.2 Implementation of the language and education policy

5.2.1 GOSS language and education policy

5.2.1.1 Awareness of the GOSS languages and education policy9

There was a mixed perception of the participants of how aware parents and communities were of the

GOSS language and education policy. At least half the participants felt that parents and communities

were not aware of the policy and reasons supporting it.

Most participants felt that government authorities at state level were aware of the policy but at local

levels (payam and county level) were unaware. There was the occasional reversal of this with some

groups feeling local authorities were aware and supportive but the state was not.

These mixed perceptions arise form the wide geographical spread of the participants, different histories of language development of different groups and different involvement of outside organisations.

5.2.1.2 Changes to the current GOSS languages and education policy

No substantive changes to the current policy were offered by the participants. However their work on

‘bridging’ (see section 5.2.6) suggests some changes/expansion of the current language and education policy:

• It should be made explicit that the medium of instruction for pre-school is mother tongue.

• It should be stated that when English is started in P1, it is taught orally and used orally only.

• There should be a more gradual transition between mother tongue and second language (L2)

(English) in P4. Most participants suggested more use of mother tongue in P4 to allow for a more

gradual switch between the mediums of instruction.

9 Group Assignment: Session 4 - Analysis of the status of environmental, system and resource requirements

9

5.2.1.3 Implementation guidelines for the languages and education policy

Many participants emphasised the need for implementation guidelines for the language and education

policy to be written. The main responsibility for this falls on the Department of National Languages in liaison with the states. Following are suggestions for what could be included in implementation

guidelines:

1. Guidance on choice of languages:

a) What will be done in urban (usually mixed language areas)

b) What will be done in rural areas with mixed languages (there are fewer of these)

c) Who decides (e.g. parents, school administration, village, payam, county or state

administration) on which language(s) a school will use and what is the process and guidance

criteria for making those decisions?

d) Will some languages be implemented first? What criteria be used?

e) How will closely related languages or dialects be handled?

2. Recommended structures and people to be in place to support bilingual education:

a) At language group level

b) At county level

c) At state level

d) At national level (e.g. in Institute of National Languages)

3. Guidance as to when a language is ready to be used in schools including the following areas:

a) What needs to be in place in terms of materials for students and teachers

b) What needs to be in place in terms of training

c) What needs to be in place in terms of people and structures

4. Recommended commitments required at different levels (language group, county, state, national)

before a program can begin

5. Recommendations for cooperation across states (e.g. when a language group is in two or more

states)

6. Suggested timing of implementation. E.g. Implementation will start in rural areas? When will supportive institutions be set up?

7. Suggested models of implementation: What combination will there be of a minimal/ fast track

approach and full implementation?

5.2.2 Dealing with mixed language areas

5.2.2.1 Possible approaches to use in mixed language areas10

Discussions, assignments and the state mapping exercise revealed that most rural areas in these states

are not mixed and therefore the issue of how to deal with mixed rural areas in these states largely does

not arise. It was generally suggested therefore that the implementation of the policy start in rural areas.

Where language groups are living alongside each other in mixed or integrated areas (both rural and

urban) there were two main approaches suggested by the participants for language choice in P1-P3:

10

Group Assignment: Session 12 – Languages and proposals for languages in rural areas

10

1) Use the language of the majority (often the children know both languages anyway). Some extra

strategies given to go with this approach were:

• Give extra support and encouragement to any minority children in the classroom.

• Encourage minority children to start learning the language of the majority before they start

primary school.

• Encourage minority groups to set up ‘out of school’ language and literacy classes for their children if desired which include their own language.

2) Have two classes or streams in a school (or separate schools)

5.2.2.2 Possible steps for choosing a language for a school in mixed areas

The following were gathered from assignments and class discussion:

1) Research, survey and consultations need to be carried out (e.g. with PTAs, parents, chiefs,

intellectuals, and local authorities) regarding policies and implementation of MT in urban areas.

2) Data collection should be included as a basis for future decisions.

5.2.2.3 Analysis of urban areas in each state11

Each state group did a linguistic analysis of the towns in their state and made a proposal for languages

to be used in their urban primary schools. This covered the towns of Maridi, Yei, Kaya, Bazi, Juba,

Kajokeji, Torit.

Below are estimates of the language population distribution of each of these towns:

• Maridi: Baka (45%), Morokodo (25%), Avokaya (20%), Mundu (10%)

• Juba: Bari speakers (80%), Others (20%)

• Yei, Kaya, Bazi: Kakwa speakers (85%), Others: Mundu, Baka, Makaraka, Avokaya, and others

(15%)

• Kajokeji: Kuku speakers (90%), Others (10%)

• Torit: Otuho (70%), Lokoya(10%), Others (20%)

Those in the group discussing Torit suggested using Outho (the majority language of the town) for the

first three years of primary education. Similarly for the Central Equatorian towns, it was suggested that Bari be used for the first three years of primary school. Maridi does not have a majority language and

this group did not come up with a decision, saying that it would depend on the choice of the community

and the government policy (i.e. more discussion would be needed with the community, and clearer

guidelines from the government would help)

5.2.3 Stakeholders and institutional relationships12

The roles of some of the main stakeholders in the implementation of bilingual education were discussed

by different groups. Below is a compilation of their ideas:

Language Committee:

• Review and approve new materials written in the language

11

Group Assignment: Session 12 – Languages and proposal for languages in urban areas 12

Group Assignment: Session 13 – Roles of Different Stakeholders

11

• Evaluate and revise materials already in use

• Distribute the produced material

• Approve the language (e.g. make choices (relating to words, grammar, spelling) to standardise

the language)

• Mobilize resources

• Supervision (of whom?)

• Report the activities pertaining to the language to the language coordinator

• Plan for the language development

• Raise awareness about the importance of language

Parents/Guardians

• Speak the language and encourage the use of language

• Teach the language and culture to their children

• Send our children to schools promoting MT

• Visit our schools, and be a resource people (e.g. for songs, drama, arts, etc.)

• Literate parents should teach others in the MT

GoSS/MoEST

• Develop policies relating to effective use of MT in schools and or institutions

• Develop implementation guidelines

• Develop institutions

• Conduct research

• Support development of MT materials (in terms of planning and budget)

• Support training of MT teachers and tutors (in terms of planning and budget)

• Incorporate language work into Curriculum Development Centre and universities

• Solicit sufficient funds for language work

• Receive and use reports from language coordinators

States/Counties

• Implement the policies devised by GoSS/MoEST. Develop sub-policies needed for this level.

• Distribute the budget

• Monitor & evaluate the implementation

• Collect data/carry out surveys

• Recruit language teachers

• Train teachers

• Encourage language activities of the language committee and coordinators

• Encourage production of MT materials

• Establish libraries

Cultural Associations

• Revive, promote cultural activities including dances and songs

• Record traditional and gospel songs

• Demonstrate the value of culture

• Train the children in practical applications of the culture

• Preserve valuable cultural items and artefacts

• Establish a cultural museum or archives

12

Payams

• Selecting the teachers for training

• Identify resource persons

• To supply the county information/data needed about language (e.g. languages known by children on entering school?)

• Implement the language policies at this level

• Establish resource centers

• Form language committees

• Encourage the use of the language

• Distribution of materials like textbooks to bomas and coordinator information to the county.

• Reports to the language coordinator and committee

Traditional Leaders

• Act as role models and resource persons (e.g. through maintaining and reviving cultural

activities like story telling, dancing)

• Pass on indigenous knowledge and skills

• Preserve artefacts

• Demonstrate cultural values

• Show concern about the culture

• Preserve and control language usage.

There is a lot of overlap between the role of cultural associations and traditional leaders above which is unsurprising since traditional leaders would usually form part of a cultural association.

Of the above, the role and composition of a language committee is likely what will need most attention

and clarification. There are some tensions between language committees as they currently exist or have

existed in the past (which have been largely voluntary and played more of an advisory role to language projects) and what might be needed for the future.

There was some discussion about the role and place of the Institute of National Languages (INL) in

relationship to the Curriculum Development Centre (CDC). There is a proposal that INL will be

established in Maridi. It was felt whilst INL should have a close relationship with the CDC (i.e. perhaps be a sister institution) it should not fall under the CDC (i.e. not be a department of the CDC).

INL will also need strong relationship with all institutions involved in teacher training, .e.g TTIs,

universities, CECs. One reason for this is so that relevant teacher training can be piloted and introduced.

Research into languages also needs to be covered either by INL, Universities or between them both.

5.2.4 Slogans for awareness raising

The participants brainstormed various slogans that could be used for promoting bilingual education. The

unedited slogans are given in Appendix E. Drawn from these are some of the most powerful ones:

• Mother tongue is the pillar to our cultures

13

• Mother tongue – our heritage

• Do you want your culture to die? Use mother tongue!

• Mother tongue is the key to quality education.

• Mother tongue is the light of education

5.2.5 Impact of language use in class13

State groups said that the way languages are currently being used is negatively impacting the classroom

in terms of learning and using child centred teaching methods.

In CES, the group said that English is being used as the Medium of Instruction in most of the classes,

though there is some use of L1 in the rural areas. L1 is used as “everyday” language in rural areas, as well. They also mentioned that the teaching of both English and Arabic languages are being “diluted”

because there is no good system in place for the teaching of any language.

In EES, English is used as the medium of instruction, however, English “is not well understood, so we

go back to L1 for further explanation”.

In WES, the language used in the classroom differs between towns and villages. In the towns, they are

code-switching between English and Arabic. In the rural areas, teachers and students code-switch

between English and the L1.

An unsystematized code-switching, according to research, often results in the loss of the L1, in favor of

an international language, such as English.

Some of the suggestions from the different groups to encourage more student-centered and effective

learning were:

• More teaching and learning materials in the Mother Tongue (L1) must be produced and

supplied to the schools.

• Teachers must be trained to teach using L1 as a medium of instruction.

• More mother tongue needs to be used in the schools by both teachers and students for learning

academic content as well as for giving instructions and general day to day running of the classes.

5.2.6 Bridging between two languages14

Most of the state groups suggested the following pattern be used to transition between the mother tongue as medium of instruction in lower primary and English in upper primary:

• Use mother tongue completely for at least one year of pre-school (this can be assumed from the

current policy but is not explicitly stated).

• MoI in P1 should be the mother tongue, with only a small amount, if any, of L2 introduced orally.

• Start L2 (English) in P2 as a subject orally only and move into written L2 in later grades.

According to the policy that switch from MT to L2 as medium of instruction happens abruptly in P4. All of the state groups proposed a plan which would strengthen the existing policy by allowing for a

more gradual switch between the mother tongue and L2. Most participants suggested more use of MT

13

Group Assignment: Session 7 – Impact of Language on classroom 14

Group Assignment: Session 8 - Bridging

14

in P4 (for up to 25% of the time in class) to allow for a more gradual switch between the mediums of

instruction.

• CES group mentioned that exams in early primary grades, and even up through P4, should be given through the MT.

• All groups also suggested an increased use of MT in upper Primary, again to lessen any abrupt

transition to English as medium of instruction. More details of the suggested allotment of language

use are found in Appendix H.

5.2.7 Teacher training for MT and BE

5.2.7.1 Patterns for MT teacher training in the past

Since the course had some participants who had knowledge of how teacher training involving MT had

been done in the past, time was spent in the workshop sharing and discussing this in order to see if there

were helpful models that could still be used.

Pre-1957 teacher training models which included training in/for MT

The pattern of primary and secondary schooling was as follows:

1 a) 2 years of bush school in rural areas (for children from rural areas this replaced the first two years

of elementary schools). Equivalent of P1 and P2. The medium of instruction was a Sudanese

indigenous language.

1 b) 4 years of elementary school: P1- P4.

2) 4 years of intermediate school: P5-P8. 3) 4 years of secondary school: S1-S4.

There were two categories of teachers: ‘approved’ and ‘qualified’. Pupils successfully completing P4

could go to Vernacular Teacher Training Centres (VTTCs). In Equatoria these were in Yei, Palaca and

Mogwi. After completing this two years training at the VTTC they became ‘approved’ teachers and could teach in ‘bush’ schools.

Pupils who graduated from intermediate school could go to a teacher training college to train to become

‘qualified’ teachers. For Equatoria, the TTIs used were Mundri or Busri. It also seems that ‘approved’

teachers could go to TTIs to increase their training and qualification to become ‘qualified’ teachers. Training of secondary school teachers was not discussed.

Institute of Regional Languages (IRL) (1978- 1987)

Patrick Ladu, who worked for IRL including for a period as the Vice Principal, gave a presentation on

how IRL was structured and worked. The following notes are taken from his presentation.

IRL was created in 1978 by the Southern Ministry of Education. IRL was set up on a ‘counterpart

model’, i.e. key positions had someone from the Ministry of Education and SIL sharing the role, with

the idea of SIL training the upper cadre of the institute and the SIL’s role being phased out. SIL

supported IRL largely through provision of these SIL counterparts and training.

This upper cadre of IRL, trained language officers. Language officers in turn were responsible for much

of the work in, and training for, specific languages, i.e. they trained supervisors, literacy inspectors,

writers, trainers of trainers and teachers. The Language officers were employed by Ministry of

Education (there were no state ministries at the time). They were originally teachers chosen by the counties or district supervisor in the area where they were teaching to be sent to IRL for training.

15

Materials for the training at all levels were developed and provided by SIL. Language materials were

developed by SIL with the help of the language officers and others trained. IRL trained teachers that were already trained to use the MT materials. (I.e. IRLoffered in-service teacher training).

Work on the Role A languages (those languages chosen for use in schools at the Rejaf Language

Conference of 1928) moved faster than the work on Role B languages.

Patrick commented that what was lacking for all the languages was supplementary readers. There were

few writers, so writing was slow.

During the second war (1990s)

During the war, UNICEF and agencies that were a part of OLS based in Kenya started implementing “Emergency Education” projects, behind SPLA lines. In 1994, an education workshop/conference was

held in Lokichoggio, and resolutions and documents were drawn up about building up the education

during the war.

Patrick was involved in developing some of the phase training modules to be used during the war which came out of this 1994 conference. These modules gave some ideas for how to teach in MT. The Sudan

Literature Centre (part of ACROSS) was involved in producing some of these materials.

Quite a lot of teachers were trained through this emergency training, but materials were lacking.

UNICEF tried to reprint them, but numbers were inadequate for the schools.

5.2.7.2 Current Status of teacher training for MT15

There are currently quite a number of organisations supporting education (e.g. through building schools,

education centres or training). Some of these have included, or do include, Southern Sudanese

languages in their programs (ADRA, NCA, ACROSS, SIL, IAS, Save the Children, SSIRI, SIDF). Generally however little teacher training is currently happening for MT.

5.2.7.3 Proposals for teacher training now

As a foundation to discussing how best to integrate teacher training for MT and BE into existing

models, the proposed models for teacher training in general were presented. These are summarised

below:

Two main paths to becoming a qualified teacher are proposed:

• pre-service training done at Teacher Training Institutes (TTIs)

and

• in-service training done at County Education Centres (CECs).

Secondary school graduates will be able to take 2 years pre-service training at one of the TTIs, whilst

grade 8 graduates (or those already practicing as teachers) do in-service training over 4 years to qualify as teachers. Both of these will lead to a Southern Sudan General Primary Teacher Certificate.

It is intended that there is a unified teacher education curriculum, so that those going through either pre-

service or in-service training cover the same material. The unified curriculum for teacher education was

15

Group Assignments: Session 4 - Analysis of the status of environmental, system and resource requirements and Session 11 – Teacher training being conducted

16

published in 2006, and gives module descriptions for 4 levels of training. However it does not describe

modules needed for mother tongue or bilingual education.

5.2.7.4 Proposals for MT and BE teacher training

There are both challenges and opportunities to training teachers for bilingual education. Any proposal

for teacher training needs to accommodate these. Older models discussed in the previous section

accommodated these to some extent.

A major opportunity is that it is much easier to teach someone to become a fluent reader and writer of their own language, which they already speak, than to teach them to become fluent and literate in a

foreign language; English.

However structuring training which incorporates MT is more of a challenge. It is generally easier to

provide language specific training more locally (e.g. at county or state level). It will be difficult for any one teacher training institution to cover all the languages of Southern Sudan.

Possible solutions in keeping with these opportunities and challenges are:

Distribution of teacher training for MT and BE

Possible solution:

It is likely that teacher training for MT and BE, particularly that which is language specific, will have to

be done more locally, at county or state level. At county level only one or two languages need be

covered. At state or regional level (e.g. in TTIs) only selected languages of the region would be covered.

Feedback and recommendation from the participants:

There was agreement with the above. The groups that discussed this issue suggested that specific

Southern Sudanese language related training be done in County Education Centres (CECs), whilst TTIs

focus on a general overview of teaching methodology and specialisation in the second language

(English). It may still be possible (and probably desirable) to cover some general methodology relating to BE at TTI level. Those student teachers going for pre-service training at TTIs could either have an

entry requirement to have completed certain modules related to teaching through a Southern Sudanese

language in a CEC before they start at the TTI, or they could be released to go to these courses whilst

they were at the TTI.

One group allocated languages to different CECs as given below:

EES:

i. Magwi: Acholi, Madi

ii. Torit: Otuho, Lokoya

iii. Kapoeta: Toposa iv. Budi: Didinga, Buya

v. Ikotos: Lopit

CES:

All five counties will do teacher training for the Bari language. In addition:

i. Juba: Lulubo, Lokoya ii. Terekaka: Mandari

iii. Yei: Bari, Keliko, Lugbara

WES:

i. Mundri: Moru, Morokodo

ii. Mambok: Jurmodo iii. Maridi: Baka, Mundu, Avokaya, Zande, Morokodo

17

iv. Ibba: Zande

v. Yambio: Zande, Moru

vi. Nzera: Zande, Moru vii. Ezo: Zande

viii. Tamburu: Zande, Belanda

ix. Nagero: Belanda, Zande

Different levels of primary school certification

Possible solution:

Have a 2 level primary school teaching certification, one qualifying teachers for lower primary school

and the other for the whole of primary school. The current unified curriculum for teacher education

splits into 4 levels (to cover the 4 years of in service training?). Modules which focus more the national

languages and bilingual education should be added at all the levels. Completion of all modules in levels 1 and 2 could be made the criteria for the lower primary teaching certificate and completion of the

remaining modules the criteria for the full certificate. A draft outline of extra modules needed for

bilingual education is given in Appendix G.

Feedback and recommendation from the participants: There were mixed feelings about this. Whilst it would get basic teachers into the education system more

quickly, some felt a two tier system of teachers could lead to discrimination.

5.2.8 Recommendations for materials development

Time was spent discussing the types of materials that would be needed for both a full implementation of

an MLE program, as well as an “emergency” fast track implementation. Basic literacy books, such as ABC books, ABC Charts, ABC story books and primers are needed for each language. Additionally, a

large number of graded reading materials are also needed to build reading fluency. However, as

discussed in section 5.1.4, many of these basic resources already exist, especially for Role A languages.

The following is a more detailed list of books that will most likely be needed for a full implementation of a MLE program:

• Primers for literacy in L1

• Subject text books in L1

• Teacher’s guides in L1 and English

• Small dictionary/glossary in L1 and English • Reference grammar books in L1 and English

• Stories and other information books for reading to gain fluency in L1 and English

• Transition books to aid in the transition from L1 to English

• In later stages, textbooks for both learning English as a Subject and for subject areas using

English as a medium of instruction.

When developing materials, participants agreed that local involvement was necessary. Any textbooks

that are translated into the MT from English must be carefully tested to ensure the level of difficulty is

appropriate for the grade level of the learners. Other methods suggested to develop materials include recording traditional stories from the communities, and having teachers involved in the process.

During the session on materials development, each participant was able to write a Stage One story in

their own language, in order to experience an easy method of producing reading materials in a simple

and cost-effective manner.

18

5.2.9 Personnel needed16

There was a lot of discussion over which personnel would be needed in order to fully implement the

language policy. It was agreed that personnel would be needed at the national, state, county and payam

levels.

All of the state groups came up with a suggested organogram of the personnel needed for each level.

These organograms include roles which already exist within current Ministry structures (such as county

inspectors and teachers) as well as additional roles which relate more specifically to National languages

(such as MT writers, artists, and language coordinators). Language committees were mentioned by all state groups as a necessary part of the system.

Both WES and CES included the Curriculum Development Center in their organograms, as they will

need to be involved in the production of materials and curriculum for MT. Two states indicated that all

of the work involving National Languages should be done under the ultimate supervision of the Institute of National Languages.

The group from WES made the following suggestions with respect to recruitment:

• INL Principle is responsible for recruitment at GoSS level.

• At state level, it will be the director for training and the Ministry of Education recruits the state

language coordinator.

• At county level, the county education officer and the inspector recruits the county language

coordinator

• Payam Education officer plus the community recruit the payam language coordinators

Full organograms can be seen in Appendix I. These should be taken and used as the basis for future

recommendations about structures needed.

6 Final recommendations by the participants Towards the end of the workshop the participants in their state groups were asked several questions. Below in italics is a compilation and summary of what all the groups said (many said similar things

overlapping things). The recommendations in full are contained in each State Write-Up.

1) Resulting from this workshop:

a) What will you do to help the implementation of the language and education policy?

• Render this w/shop report to the state and county authorities

• Incorporate the workshop implementation plans into our state’s county plans.

• Raise awareness at all levels through meetings, workshops, and the media on the importance of Mother Tongue education

• Start implementation by using/reprinting materials already developed

• Collect Mother Tongue materials from the community and others

• Evaluate and edit the MT literature collected materials. Write new material

• Identify and train teachers

• Find ways of reviving, motivating and sustaining the language committees

• Establish a small state language library/archive

b) What do you recommend your state ministry of education to do?

16

Group Assignment: Session 14 – worksheet for personnel

19

• State should incorporate MT into their plans and polices

• State should build awareness and support for the policy

• These plans should include the following:

• Accelerate construction of the CECs (they are crucial to the work of BE)

• Review the existing MT materials

• State to request the county to select MT ToTs and teachers for immediate training.

• Deployment of language officers at all levels

• Training the ToTs and Teachers

• Avail the budget for the promotion and implementation of the MT and BE

• Collect data about the languages in the state

• SMoE should work in close collaboration with the state ministry of culture and information.

c) What do you recommend Dept of National languages MoEST to do?

• Act as a strong advocate for this program

• Solicit funds for the program

• Avail funds to the states for programs

• Implement immediately MT and BE e.g. through:

• Supporting the production of materials

• Conducting language related workshops at the least once every year

• INL should be established and functioning within a reasonable period of time

• Immediate recruitment of language coordinators (with funds for motivation and retention)

• Plan for a translation workshop for L2 to L1 curriculum materials.

• Conduct a thorough survey on some of the undeveloped national languages

2) How do we encourage cooperation and peace between the different language groups

• Call meetings with different community leaders and churches, including a State language

conference

• Organize a national cultural event in the communities to promote peace

• Bring different language committees into one place.

• By sharing materials (e.g. books)

• By respect and use of majority languages by minority but also the learning of minority

languages by the majority

• By encouraging joint socio-cultural activities

• Encouraging cross-transfer of teachers within the state

3) Please nominate 5 people from your state groups to go to a Southern Sudan language and education

conference.

See Appendix F for people nominated by participants to attend a Southern Sudan Languages and

Education Conference.

7 Participants evaluation of the workshop On the final day of the workshop, the participants were asked to fill in anonymous evaluation forms,

which asked six questions. The evaluations are summarized below:

1. In what ways did you find this workshop helpful to you?

All of the participants found the workshop very helpful and interesting, as they were introduced to

GoSS’s language policy, the importance of using the mother tongue in education and were given tools

20

to begin planning for Multilingual Education in their states. They also appreciated the group work and

the chance to discuss language and education issues with their colleagues in greater Equatoria. Some

participants mentioned that they appreciated the recognition of the many languages in Equatoria, as well as gaining more knowledge about the other languages in their states.

2. Which sessions were most helpful to you? Say why they were most helpful.

In general, participants felt all of the topics were helpful. Specifically, many of the participants

indicated that sessions covering the following topics were most useful:

• The importance of building a firm foundation in L1 before transitioning to L2 and how to build a strong bridge from one language to another (7x)

• The basis for bilingual education (6x)

• Materials and curriculum development. (3x)

• Phases of implementation for an MLE program (3x)

• How MLE programs have been implemented in other countries.

• Teacher training and how L1 training can be integrated into the existing systems.

• Overview of the Southern Sudanese language situation.

• The Sudanese constitution section on language and culture, as well as the Southern Sudan

education policy

• The costs of bilingual education.

3. Which sessions were least helpful to you? Say why they were not helpful.

The majority of participants indicated that there were no least helpful topics. However, topics suggested

as least helpful were mapping of various ethnic groups in S.Sudan, the requirements for a successful MLE program, Bridging from L1 to L2, and the review of graded reading material.

4. What things do you think should have been included in this workshop but were not?

Again, many participants said that all relevant topics were included and had no further comments. Two

of the participants mentioned that the facilitators failed to ask participants what their expectations of the

workshop were. Five of the participants commented that the duration of the workshop should be increased to at least three or four weeks. Several of the participants also indicated that a sitting

allowance should have been given. Two participants mentioned that L1 writing skills could have been

taught (though this was beyond the scope of the workshop).

5. How do you plan to use what you have learnt in these workshops?

Overwhelmingly, the participants indicated that they would use what they learned in the workshops for advocacy for the use of national languages in education and for mobilization in their communities,

churches, payams, counties and states. Many commented that they would go and talk with teachers,

language committees, elders and state officials to lobby for the implementation of the language policy.

Some also commented that they would also go back to their states and work with State personnel to

draw up implementation plans for their particular state. Three participants plan to continue to write stories in their own languages, as they did during the materials development session.

6. Please give any suggestions you have about the workshop (location, food, timetable, content,

teachers, etc.).

The participants, in general, were happy with the practical logistics of the workshop. Some commented

that Maridi was a nice quiet location to hold the workshop. Because of the larger than expected number of participants, there was not adequate accommodation for everyone, therefore some of the participants

did not have comfortable sleeping arrangements. There were many comments about the lack of variety

and limited portions of food and tea. The timetable was also fine with most people, though some

21

commented that they would have liked to have a longer program, as indicated above. Likewise, the

content was deemed appropriate and was appreciated by all. There were good comments about the

professionalism, enthusiasm and knowledge of the facilitators. One comment said the facilitators were “vigilant and inspirational”.

8 Conclusions and next steps for the Department of National Languages, MoEST

The workshop was an excellent step in preparing the ground for implementation of the language and

education policy. The Department for National Languages needs to:

8. Use the information and ideas gathered from the workshops as a basis to develop: a) Implementation guidelines for the language and education policy.

b) A national strategy and plan for implementation of the languages and education policy.

c) More detailed proposals for the Institute of National Languages

9. Help facilitate states/counties wishing to start implementation e.g. through funding, printing and

distribution of existing materials in the languages. 10. Work on more detailed proposals for a Southern Sudan language and education conference, and

coordination of different partners who may be involved.

22

Appendix A - Course Participants

Maridi

17 - 25 July, 2008

Names State Position Organization or Institution

Mother Tongue Contact Information

1 Henry Doku

Elikana

Central Deputy Director Examinations Kajokeji County Bari 773148533

2 Benea Sunday

Edward

Central Head Teacher P/S Lainya County Bari 0477 132 860

3 Anthony A. Lodira Eastern D/Head Teacher Chukudum/Budi County Didinga

4 Rufino Lomong Eastern D/Director Education Toposa

5 Salvatore Ulego Jovano

Eastern Teacher Loa Secondary School Madi

6 Margaret Nakong Beato

Eastern Teacher Didinga 882 163 111 947

7 Odong Joseph Kamilo

Eastern School supervisor Makong county Luo/Acholi/Langukwe

752967439

8 Inyasio Kumbanyaki

James

Western Inspector, planning and statistics, county education office

Ezo county Zande

9 Saverio Nyasipai Western A/M/Teacher Tambura county Zande

10 Alfred Joseph

Kazima

Western Teacher Ezo county Zande

11 Benjamin Justin

Mangawai

Western School officer Ezo county Zande

12 Jean Apollo Kanyama

Central Tutor TTC, Juba County Bari

13 Mary Leyo Simbe Menu

Central D/Director Pre-school education SMoE CES Bari 012151197, 0477140037

14 Adonga David Localamoi

Eastern Teacher SMoE Okoliye 917559853

15 Celeste Ohure Muu

Eastern Teacher SMoE Otuho

23

16 Emmanuel Yairo Sill iman

Western Teacher Maridi Mundu

17 David Latio Antipas

Central Head Teacher SMoE Yei Bari

18 Victor Lodu Loku

Nyombe

Central Teacher SMoE Juba county Bari 126077213

19 Emmy Emmanuel Lavirick

Western Inspector for Panning CED, Mvolo Morokoda 882164309503, 0477202679

20 Patrick Ladu Central Director for Partner Agencies SMoE Nyangwara (Bari) 0477100891,

patrickladu84@yahoo.co.uk

21 Luka Maring Patrice

Eastern Director for Quality Promotion and Innovation

SMoE, EES Lokoya 0477 173 104

22 Henry Jubek

Philimon

Central Head Teacher Juba Commercial

Secondary School

Bari c/o Patrick Ladu

23 John Goni Rabbi Western Curriculum and Exams Tambura county Balanda

24 Oliver Khamis Western Inspector Maridi Avokaya

25 Clement Enosa

Khamis

Western Teacher Maridi Mundu

26 Alfonsio Modi Central H/Master SMoE Bari 126077213

27 Wilson Sali

Enosa

Western Teacher Maridi Mundu

28 Dominic Loye Eastern Grade 10 Supervisor SMoE Dongotono 0477 173 104

29 Mathew Lokanga Eastern Grade 14 Master SMoE Lopit 0477 173 104

30 Phodunze Martin Elia

Western Head Teacher - Michael Towil B Primary School

SMoE Baka

31 Mararungu John Andrew

Western Teacher SMoE Baka

32 William Dissi Western SIDF Logistican SIDF Jur Modo c/o SIDF, Mvolo

33 Wilson Rehan

Apollo

Western D/County Education Director Mundri County Moru Education Department,

West Mundri County 34 Scopas Elias NGO Educational Consultant Kakuma Literacy

Program

Moru scopaselias@yahoo.com,

0477 143 993 35 Adut Garang Dut NGO ADO Education Save the Children

Sweden

Dinka adut.garang@swedsave_ke

.org 36 Edward Taban

Mangashe

Central Teacher Morobo County

24

Appendix B – Timetable 17th – 25th July, 2008

Week 1

Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4

8:15-8:30

8:30-10:30

Registration Opening

Overview of Workshop

2) The basis for multilingual education

4) continued…with related assignment/ presentations/

questions

7) Impact of Language use on classroom practice

10:30 tea break tea break tea break tea break

11:00-1:00

1) The context for

languages and education in

S Sudan (linguistic, socio,

cultural, historic, political)

3) Language and Education

Policy in S Sudan

5) Methods to teach

literacy

8) Bridging between two

languages

1:00-2:00 lunch lunch lunch lunch

2:00-4:00 1) Continued

Plus related assignments

Last hour- 15 minute

presentation from each state on their assignment

4) Status of language

development in S Sudan

and what needs to be in

place for a language to be used in school

6) How multilingual

education has been

implemented in different

places

Free afternoon

4:00 tea break tea break tea break tea break

25

Week 2

Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 Day 8

8:15-8:30

8:30-10:30

9) Costs of implementing multilingual education

10) Teaching skills needed

for multilingual education

Assessment and evaluation

for multilingual education

Contd.

15) Possible steps and stages for implementation

for any one language group

18) Outstanding issues, what’s next and final

recommendations

10:30 tea break tea break tea break tea break

11:00-1:00

11) Integrating teacher training needed for

multilingual education into

existing models

13) Stakeholders and Institutional relationships

16) Curriculum and material development

needed for multilingual

education

Contd.

1:00-2:00 lunch lunch lunch lunch

2:00-4:00 12) Dealing with mixed

language areas and related

assignments

14) Personnel requirements

and recruitment

17) Phasing of

implementation of various

languages

Closing ceremony

4:00 tea break tea break tea break

26

Appendix C – Map showing states of Greater Equatoria (source FAO, UN)

27

Appendix D - Ethnic groups and maps extracted from different group exercises

Western Equatoria ethnic groups

Avokaya Azande

Baka Balanda Bor

Balanda Viri

Bongo Gollo

Jur M odo (not given in tentative list of ethnic groups attached to Southern Constitution) Makaraka

Moro Kodo (not given in tentative list of ethnic groups attached to Southern Constitution)

Moru Mundu

Nyamusa (not given in tentative list of ethnic groups attached to Southern Constitution)

Notes on WES maps

In this map the county boundaries are shown with solid lines. Boundaries between the language areas are not drawn however each county has the language groups of that

county marked in blue pen. It is not clear from the map whether Balanda refers to Belanda Viri or Belanda Bor (which are unrelated languages).

28

WES Map

29

Central Equatoria ethnic groups

Avokaya

Baka Bari Kakwa

Keliko Kuku

Lokoya Lulubo Lugbara

Makaraka Mundari

Mundu Nyangwara Pojulu

Notes on CES map

This map places all Bari speaking groups (Bari, Kakwa, Pojulo, Kuku Nyangwara) under

the area called ‘Bari’.

CES Map

30

Eastern Equatoria ethnic groups

Acholi Boya/Laarim

Didinga

Dongotona Imatong

Jiye Lango speaking Lokwa Latuko/Otuho

Logir Lokoya

Lopit Lorwama speaking Okoliye (not given in tentative list of ethnic groups attached to Southern Constitution)

Madi Nyangatom

Pari Tennet Toposa

Kachipo

Notes on EE Map

Boundaries between language areas have not been shown, rather each area has been shown with a green star giving the centre of that area. It is not clear what the red shaded

area represents. Post- workshop discussions with Eastern Equatorians indicate that it may be an area of different groups of people that are combined together under the name Lango

but which are actually a number of different groups with their own identity speaking only partially related languages.

31

EE Map

32

Appendix E – Suggestions from participants for promotional slogans

• Mother Tongue is a way to good education

• Mother tongue is the foundation for bilingual education

• Mother tongue is the pillar to our cultures

• Mother tongue upholds tradition

• Mother tongue – our heritage

• Do you want your culture to die? Use mother tongue!

• Support promotion of national languages

• Mother tongue is the bridge to education

• Mother tongue literacy preserves culture

• Educate children through mother tongue

• Mother tongue is the key to quality education.

• Mother tongue promotes girls education.

• Mother tongue is the key to identity

• Mother tongue is the light of education

• Mother tongue enhances lifelong learning.

• Mother tongue is a stepping stone to international learning • Promote national languages in South Sudan

• Promotion and advocacy for mother tongue education

• Education is the right of every individual in which mother tongue is the wheel or bridge.

33

Appendix F - People nominated to attend a Southern Sudan Languages and Education Conference

Western Equatoria:

Sapana Abuyi Ajulu (Mvolo – SIDF)

Inyasio Kumbonyiki James (Ezo) Wilson Rehan Apollo (M undri)

John Goni Rabbi (Tombura) Emmy Emmanuel (County Ed. Office)

Central Equatoria:

Patrick Ladu NGO Coordinator Juba (CES)

Prof M agga Yokwe Prof of linguistics Juba University Amule Felix CED Yei County

Henry Doku Elikana D/Director for exams Kajokeji County

Joseph Abuk Ministry of Culture & Info Juba (CES)

Reserve members:

Mary Simba D/D for preschool education CES

Henry Jubek PhilimonH/T Juba Day school Juba Tito Ben CED Lainya

Contact information: Patrick Ladu (0477 100 891) patrickladu84@yahoo.co.uk

Henry Doku Elikana (0773148533)

Eastern Equatoria:

Odong Joseph Kamilo (M agwi county) Celeste Ohure Mun (Torit)

Adonga David Locaklmoi (Ikotos) Margaret Nakong Beato (Budi)

Rufino Lomong Lokubal (Kapoeta South)

34

Appendix G – Draft of teacher training modules outlines that could be added for BE/MT

Module Name Overview of topics included Level

Introductory Reading and

Writing in M T

Introduction to reading and writing in M T.

Assumes student teachers are literate but may not be fluent in reading and writing their own

language: • Reasons for teaching in M T

• Spelling rules

• Grammar of the language • Reading and writing practice

• Writing long and short stories

• Writing stories for children

1

Teaching literacy in MT I • Differences between first and second

language teaching • Introduction to reading theory

• Orientation to MT materials for P1 and P2

• Practice in teaching material with

particular focus on P1 materials

• Literacy activities and games

• Promoting language and literacy in the school and community.

1

Teaching literacy in MT II • Working with the community

• More reading theory

• Assessing pupils reading and writing

• Practice in teaching materials with particular focus on P2 materials

• More literacy activities and games

• More on promoting language and literacy in the school and community.

1

Teaching literacy in MT III • Orientation to the P3 MT materials • More literacy and language activities

and games

• Collaborating with community • Bridging between two languages

2

Language across the curriculum I

• Teaching P1- P3 subject materials through mother tongue

• Orientation to any teaching helps

• Pedagogical language in M T

• Special issues and vocabulary (e.g.

numbering systems)

2

35

Module Name Overview of topics included Level

Language across the curriculum II

Particularly focuses on P4 and above when there will still be a need to use MT at least

orally even if main medium of instruction is English.

• More on bridging between two

languages

• Techniques for constructively using two languages in the class.

• Practice in using two languages in class.

3

Advanced Reading and

Writing in M T • Practice in reading and writing more

complex texts (including different genres) in M T.

• Orientation to MT materials for P4- P8

• Activities for teaching P4- P8 MT

class

• Collaborating with the community

4

36

Appendix H – Suggestions for the percentage of time spent using each language in the classroom

WES

Class Mother Tongue English KG 1 – 2 98% 2%

P1 90% 10%

P2 80% 20%

P3 75% 25%

P4 25% 75%

P5 10% 90%

P6 5% 95% P7 5% 95%

P8 5% 95% CES

Class Mother Tongue English KG 1 100 % 0%

KG 2 90 %

10 % Oral L2 only

P1 85 % 15% Oral, starting literacy in L2

P2 85 % 15 % Oral/ Literacy

P3 80% 20 % starting to use as medium of instruction for some subjects

P4 75% Some subjects can be in L1, and exams are in L1.

25 % as M oI for some subjects

P5 60%

40% as M oI. Subjects taught in L2

are examined in L2

P6 50% 50% Subjects taught in L2 are examined in L2

P7 25% 75%

M oI is L2, all subjects in L2, and exams in L2

P8 10% 90%

37

EES

Class Mother Tongue English

KG 1 100 % 0%

KG 2 90% 10%

P1 80 % 20%

P2 70 % 30% P3 50% 50%

P4 25% 75%

P5 20% 80% P6 10% 90%

P7 5% 95%

P8 1% 99%

38

Appendix I - Suggested organograms for structures relating to national languages

Western Equatoria State

Principle

(INL)

** Directors

of Training

Curriculum

Development Center

Editors Artists Writers

Language Coordinators

(each state)

Trainers Chief

Inspector

**County Inspector

**Supervisor

Teachers Language

Committee

** Denotes

personnel who

are already in place

39

Eastern Equatoria State:

Director for Quality

Director for INL

State Coordinato

County

Director

Writer’s

Artists

Deputy County

County

Coordinato

Payam Supervisor

Payam

Coordinato

Payam Inspector

Teachers

40

Central Equatoria State