Challenges of teaching ethnic language in Burma
In
October 2016, more than 5,000 people took to the streets of Namkham, northern
Shan State, when the township’s education officials failed to pay ministry-allocated
stipends to ethnic language teachers.
 |
| Photo Jai Jai Lao Mong- an evening Shan language school in northern Shan State’s Mong Ngaw Township. |
This
was not the first scandal related to the teaching of native language in the
region. A few years ago, a high school principal in a small town in southern
Shan State was caught embezzling funds for the 2014-2015 academic year. After
one of the political parties in town pointed the finger at him, the principal
promised to return the money.
The
corruption was fueled by the fact that ethnic language teachers are not paid
monthly salaries like other teachers, and schools must apply for funds to pay
them retroactively at the end of the year. This discriminatory practice is just
one of many problems within the current system of ethnic language teaching in
Burma that urgently needs to be addressed.
Ethnic
language teaching was banned in public schools for four decades after the
military seized power in 1962. To accelerate a policy of “Burmanization,” the
military regime adopted Burmese as the official national language and forced
schools throughout the country to employ it as the language of instruction. Tutors
and activists who taught ethnic languages were threatened or jailed.
Changes
began after the 2010 elections and the opening up of Burma to the world.
Beginning in 2012, ethnic languages were allowed to be taught in government
schools, but only outside school hours, and with no budget from the Education
Ministry.
But
ethnic schools lacked textbooks. The government had arranged for Burmese-language
curriculum books to be translated directly into ethnic languages, but no one
used them as the translated texts did not follow the natural alphabet of the
respective languages. A Burmese kindergarten textbook was translated into Shan
by the Shan Literature and Culture Association, but never used. Ethnic
literature and culture associations had to try to develop their own textbooks
and then request they be authorized by the government.
Finally,
after being banned for over four decades, ethnic language teaching was formally
recognized under Article 44 of a new Education Law, passed in September 2014,
which declared that “in Divisions or States, teaching of ethnic languages and
ethnic literature can be implemented by state governments, starting from Grade
1 and gradually expanding [to higher grades].”
Schools
were still only allowed to teach ethnic languages outside regular school hours,
and only until grade 2. However, for the first time, a budget was allocated for
this subject. Starting in the 2014 academic year, the education ministry began
printing ethnic language textbooks which were mostly developed by groups
supporting ethnic literature and culture. Initially, the texts were printed in
color, but for the 2016-2017 academic year they reverted back into black and
white, and were printed in a smaller size.
Over
the past few years, the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund
(UNICEF), working in cooperation with the government, has been conducting
curriculum training for ethnic language associations so that they have the
capacity to develop textbooks. However, the government has not taken any
responsibility for ethnic language teacher training, which respective ethnic
literature and culture associations have had to organize on their own, and many
ethnic teachers have not had the opportunity to join.
A
recent study by ethnic researchers, “The impact of centralized education in
rural ethnic schools in Burma,” focusing on eight government schools in rural
Shan, Pa-O, Kayan and Kachin areas, found that in 2015 only four of
these schools taught their own ethnic languages. Major challenges included a
lack of teachers, negative perceptions by both parents and educators towards the
benefits of ethnic education, and students’ inability to attend classes outside
regular school hours.
In
two post-primary schools in Pa-O areas in southern Shan State, Pa-O language
was not taught. There were no native Pa-O teachers at the schools, and parents
did not actively support their children learning their language, the report
said, noting that parents and school committees were waiting for support from
the government in providing teachers, while the principals, who were not from
the local area, did not prioritize ethnic language teaching.
Similarly,
two post-primary schools in Kachin State were unable to arrange local language
teaching. Although local teachers were available, students were exhausted after
their long official classes, and only a few could join ethnic language classes
after school. When teachers tried to teach in the morning before school,
students were unable to come earlier as they lived too far away.
The
two post-primary schools in Shan areas covered in the study were able to teach
Shan language, as there were local teachers available, and the school
committees, including parents, were supportive of teaching their native tongue.
Local villagers also contributed to the stipends of the ethnic language
teachers, as government salaries did not come through until the end of the
year.
Karenni
language was being taught in the two schools in Karenni towns covered by the
report, mainly by government-employed teachers, some of whom were not locals
and did not speak the local language properly. This was following a directive
from the Department of Education requesting schools provide opportunities for
government-employed teachers.
This
policy had encouraged some Burmese teachers to join Karenni language teacher
training hosted by the Karenni New Generation Youth group and the Karenni Literature
and Culture Association. While it was a positive step that these teachers were
trying to learn Karenni language, it was unclear whether they were motivated by
the commitment to the community or by the chance to earn extra money. A more
effective policy, it was concluded, would be for ethnic languages to be taught
by those naturally fluent in the language and with an understanding of local
culture.
The
designated salary for ethnic language teachers is significantly lower than for
regular teachers. Ethnic language teachers are entitled to only 30,000 kyat
(about US$23) per month for eight months, even though classes are taught for
nine months of the year. Regular teachers are paid a monthly salary of 180,000 kyat
($138) throughout the year.
Evidently,
ethnic language teaching is not being adequately financed by the central Union
government. Even though Article 44 of the Education Law allows ethnic languages
to be taught, the state governments are not being given authority to collect
taxes to finance the proper implementation of this policy. The state
governments have to rely entirely on the union government for expenditure,
while resource allocation from the union-level to the state-level has no
transparency or accountability.
It
appears the central government has no long-term sustainable vision to promote
ethnic language teaching. Rather than having ethnic languages taught out of
school hours, mother-tongue-based multilingual education should be practiced,
giving every student the chance to learn their own language at school. Schools
should also have the authority to decide how many languages they teach,
depending on the ethnicity of their students, and to recruit teachers based on
their needs.
The
current top-down approach is ineffective and ignores the interests of local
people. Only a decentralized, bottom-up approach towards ethnic language
teaching will promote peace and sustainable educational development in Burma.
By Mwe Khur
Tags: Opinion
