The continued absence of local and international education experts in the ongoing debate over the Armenian government’s recent initiative to reopen foreign medium schools is surprising and highly regrettable. The debate has unfortunately turned into a purely political one, and various nationalist and ultra-nationalist forces have taken the lead in opposing the planned revisions to the Law on Education and the Law on Language.
The government and its Minister of Education, Mr. Armen Ashotian, on the other hand, continue to demonstrate their inability to explain their objectives and justify their initiative. Mr. Ashotian presented the bill today in the National Assembly and is expected to defend it tomorrow, 10 June 2010.
Using a street vendor-style negotiation tactic, Mr. Ashotian recently made some changes in his proposed bill. For instance, he lowered the number of proposed foreign medium schools from the original 28 to 15 but even the watered-down version of the ‘deal’ has not convinced anyone.
Treason!
Nationalist forces have gone so far as to accuse Mr. Ashotian of treason. At a press conference on 27 May, via Tert Armenian online daily, Mr. Parouir Hairikian, one the leading figures of the Armenian independence, said that the opening of foreign-language schools was a "very dangerous initiative." He called the ruling Republican Party of Armenia (HHK) to halt the initiative and recall the Minister of Education.
"They may blame anyone, the President, the Prime Minister, but HHK has better stop this initiative and officially recall the [education] minister it has appointed," he said, adding that there is nothing more repulsive than such a ‘display of contempt’ toward the Armenian language in the independent Armenia.
"The point is that they say in order to integrate into the achievements of world civilization and science, the Armenian language should be abandoned and, instead, the youth should be educated in a foreign language. This is a humiliating treatment of the Armenian language," he added.
Hairikian even expressed his fear of a violent backlash, such as armed attacks against such schools by radical groups, when and if they open.
Focus on the Learner
The debate continues between those who are for the “defense of the Armenian language and identity” and those who see no risks in this regard. What is, however, apparent is that neither side has a clear understanding of the roles and the objectives of schooling (primary and secondary education) which, to great extent, determine the question of the medium of instruction.
Schools, as modern day institutions, have two main functions: An academic one (transmission of knowledge, favoring personal development, development of skills) and a social one (preparing for the future integration into the society as citizens, qualifying for work or further education).
The primary choice for the language of instruction, both as a subject and a medium, is always given to the mother tongue as, according to all scientific evidence, this allows the student to lean better and the school to fulfill its first function effectively.
The complexity arises for minority students in multilingual / multiethnic societies as instruction in the mother tongue can prevent the school to perform its second function (prepare the student to exercise citizenship). For this reason, in democratic societies, schools usually adopt a bilingual education system. There have been extensive studies in post-Apartheid South Africa as well as in Quebec, Canada, which show the effectiveness and the desirability of bilingual education in such contexts.
The European Council recommendation 1740 dated 2006 on 'the Place of the Mother Tongue in School Education’ is also founded on these considerations. It stipulates:
“In European societies, everyday use of the official language is the main precondition for the integration of children whose main language is different from the official one of the country or region. However, a large amount of research yields common results on one point: immediate schooling of such children in a language they do not know well, or not at all, seriously jeopardizes their chances of academic success. Conversely, bilingual education based on the mother tongue is the basis for long-term success.”
In other words, EC prioritizes education in the mother tongue but, to prevent the marginalization of students whose mother tongue is different from the official language, it gives preference to bilingual education.
Back to Armenia, where the state language is Armenian and the mother tongue of the majority of students is equally Armenian, the use of Armenian as medium of instruction is a twofold requirement and hence the government’s recent initiative is, simply put, absurd – contrary to the interests of the learner (the student) and to the principal objectives of schooling.
Interestingly, even Mr. Ashotian has become somewhat knowledgeable about this. In explaining his latest watered-down version of the bill, via Hetq online daily, the Minister mentioned that there would be no foreign language schools at the elementary level (grades 1 to 4). “Upon consulting with experts, we came to the conclusion that a child’s language-based thinking develops in elementary school,” he said (what a revelation!).
In this way, he clearly admitted that:
1.
He and his team had devised a Law on Education and had sent it to the parliament before consulting with experts.
2.
He and his team at the Ministry of Education don’t know much about primary and secondary education.
Whose Rights?
One fundamental issue that also seems neglected in the current debate is the primacy of the right of the child, the learner, to have access to effective and relevant education. The rights of all other parties and stakeholders, including the parents, political parties, religious and ideological organizations, etc. are inferior.
As for the State, its main role is to protect the interests and the rights of the student – its future citizen – for whom it has the obligation to establish and protect the appropriate education system.
In Armenia, however, even the country’s Ombudsperson, Mr. Armen Haroutiunian, who is supposed to promote and defend human rights, seems confused in this regard. As one of the few people who have thrown their support behind the government’s initiative, he announced in an interview with RFE/RL’s Armenian Service, via ArmeniaNow, that “anyone has the right to education that would give them sufficient grounds for continuing it on the international level in the future”.
He implicitly recognized the predominance of the right of the parent to decide on the child’s schooling – as no one can expect the child to make such a complex decision. This declaration went unnoticed; not surprising in our paternalistic society.
The Way Out
At this point, I think the followings are needed to deal with the current confusion:
- Withdrawal of the proposed bill from the parliament
- Organization of public discussions with significant involvement of local and international education experts
- Resignation of Minister Ashotian and his team on the basis of their incompetence
For further reading on Council of Europe’s Language Policy, please click here.
The government and its Minister of Education, Mr. Armen Ashotian, on the other hand, continue to demonstrate their inability to explain their objectives and justify their initiative. Mr. Ashotian presented the bill today in the National Assembly and is expected to defend it tomorrow, 10 June 2010.
Using a street vendor-style negotiation tactic, Mr. Ashotian recently made some changes in his proposed bill. For instance, he lowered the number of proposed foreign medium schools from the original 28 to 15 but even the watered-down version of the ‘deal’ has not convinced anyone.
Treason!
Nationalist forces have gone so far as to accuse Mr. Ashotian of treason. At a press conference on 27 May, via Tert Armenian online daily, Mr. Parouir Hairikian, one the leading figures of the Armenian independence, said that the opening of foreign-language schools was a "very dangerous initiative." He called the ruling Republican Party of Armenia (HHK) to halt the initiative and recall the Minister of Education.
"They may blame anyone, the President, the Prime Minister, but HHK has better stop this initiative and officially recall the [education] minister it has appointed," he said, adding that there is nothing more repulsive than such a ‘display of contempt’ toward the Armenian language in the independent Armenia.
"The point is that they say in order to integrate into the achievements of world civilization and science, the Armenian language should be abandoned and, instead, the youth should be educated in a foreign language. This is a humiliating treatment of the Armenian language," he added.
Hairikian even expressed his fear of a violent backlash, such as armed attacks against such schools by radical groups, when and if they open.
Focus on the Learner
The debate continues between those who are for the “defense of the Armenian language and identity” and those who see no risks in this regard. What is, however, apparent is that neither side has a clear understanding of the roles and the objectives of schooling (primary and secondary education) which, to great extent, determine the question of the medium of instruction.
Schools, as modern day institutions, have two main functions: An academic one (transmission of knowledge, favoring personal development, development of skills) and a social one (preparing for the future integration into the society as citizens, qualifying for work or further education).
The primary choice for the language of instruction, both as a subject and a medium, is always given to the mother tongue as, according to all scientific evidence, this allows the student to lean better and the school to fulfill its first function effectively.
The complexity arises for minority students in multilingual / multiethnic societies as instruction in the mother tongue can prevent the school to perform its second function (prepare the student to exercise citizenship). For this reason, in democratic societies, schools usually adopt a bilingual education system. There have been extensive studies in post-Apartheid South Africa as well as in Quebec, Canada, which show the effectiveness and the desirability of bilingual education in such contexts.
The European Council recommendation 1740 dated 2006 on 'the Place of the Mother Tongue in School Education’ is also founded on these considerations. It stipulates:
“In European societies, everyday use of the official language is the main precondition for the integration of children whose main language is different from the official one of the country or region. However, a large amount of research yields common results on one point: immediate schooling of such children in a language they do not know well, or not at all, seriously jeopardizes their chances of academic success. Conversely, bilingual education based on the mother tongue is the basis for long-term success.”
In other words, EC prioritizes education in the mother tongue but, to prevent the marginalization of students whose mother tongue is different from the official language, it gives preference to bilingual education.
Back to Armenia, where the state language is Armenian and the mother tongue of the majority of students is equally Armenian, the use of Armenian as medium of instruction is a twofold requirement and hence the government’s recent initiative is, simply put, absurd – contrary to the interests of the learner (the student) and to the principal objectives of schooling.
Interestingly, even Mr. Ashotian has become somewhat knowledgeable about this. In explaining his latest watered-down version of the bill, via Hetq online daily, the Minister mentioned that there would be no foreign language schools at the elementary level (grades 1 to 4). “Upon consulting with experts, we came to the conclusion that a child’s language-based thinking develops in elementary school,” he said (what a revelation!).
In this way, he clearly admitted that:
1.
He and his team had devised a Law on Education and had sent it to the parliament before consulting with experts.
2.
He and his team at the Ministry of Education don’t know much about primary and secondary education.
Whose Rights?
One fundamental issue that also seems neglected in the current debate is the primacy of the right of the child, the learner, to have access to effective and relevant education. The rights of all other parties and stakeholders, including the parents, political parties, religious and ideological organizations, etc. are inferior.
As for the State, its main role is to protect the interests and the rights of the student – its future citizen – for whom it has the obligation to establish and protect the appropriate education system.
In Armenia, however, even the country’s Ombudsperson, Mr. Armen Haroutiunian, who is supposed to promote and defend human rights, seems confused in this regard. As one of the few people who have thrown their support behind the government’s initiative, he announced in an interview with RFE/RL’s Armenian Service, via ArmeniaNow, that “anyone has the right to education that would give them sufficient grounds for continuing it on the international level in the future”.
He implicitly recognized the predominance of the right of the parent to decide on the child’s schooling – as no one can expect the child to make such a complex decision. This declaration went unnoticed; not surprising in our paternalistic society.
The Way Out
At this point, I think the followings are needed to deal with the current confusion:
- Withdrawal of the proposed bill from the parliament
- Organization of public discussions with significant involvement of local and international education experts
- Resignation of Minister Ashotian and his team on the basis of their incompetence
For further reading on Council of Europe’s Language Policy, please click here.
No comments:
Post a Comment