此为英文文档Early-exit language transitioning programming - the rationale,the benefits and the limitations;background paper

Backgroundpaper

Early-exitlanguagetransitioningprogramming:Therationale,thebenefitsandthelimitations

ThispaperwascommissionedbyUNESCOasbackgroundinformationtotheInternationalMotherLanguageDay2023onMultilingualEducation-Anecessitytotransformeducation(Paris,21February2023).TheviewsandopinionsexpressedinthispaperarethoseoftheauthorandshouldnotbeattributedtoUNESCO.

Thispapercanbecitedwiththefollowingreference:BarbaraTrudell,2023,Early-exitlanguagetransitioningprogramming:Therationale,thebenefitsandthelimitations.PapercommissionedforInternationalMotherLanguageDay2023.

©UNESCO2023

ThisworkisavailableundertheCreativeCommonsAttribution-ShareAlike3.0IGOlicence(CCBY-SA3.0IGO;

/licenses/by-sa/3.0/igo

).

Forfurtherinformation,pleasecontact:

languages@

BarbaraTrudell

Early-exitlanguagetransitioningprogramming:Therationale,thebenefitsandthelimitations

2

Abstract

Issuesoflanguagechoiceinformaleducationcontextsarehighlyrelevanttosuccessfullearningoutcomes.Thechoiceofalanguageofinstruction(LoI)thatthelearnersunderstandandspeakiswellrecognizedasonedeterminerofinclusiveandequitableeducation,andasakeycomponentofaccomplishingbothSustainableDevelopmentGoal4andtheGlobalEducation2030Agenda.

Inmultilingualeducation(MLE)programming,themostcommonmodelsforincludinglocallanguagesintheformaleducationsystemaretransitionmodels:thelearner’sfirstlanguageisusedasmediumofinstructionintheearlygrades,afterwhichanotherlanguagebecomesthemediumofinstruction.Early-exitlanguagetransitionfeaturestheuseofthefirstlanguageintheearlyprimarygradesonly;late-exitlanguagetransitionmaintainstheuseofthefirstlanguagethroughthelaterprimarygrades,beforeshiftingtoanotherlanguageofinstruction.

InmultilingualnationsacrosstheglobalSouth,theearly-exitlanguagetransitionmodelisthemostcommonnationalMLEpolicychoice.Thispaperexaminesthebenefits,limitationsandpossibilitiesofearly-exitlanguagetransitionprogrammingacrosstheworld,withparticularfocusonitsimplementationincountriesofAfrica,AsiaandLatinAmerica.

Early-exitlanguagetransitioningprogramming:Therationale,thebenefitsandthelimitations

3

Tableofcontents

Abstract 2

Tableofcontents 3

Introduction

4

Languagepolicyandlanguagechoices

4

Languagetransitionmodels:early-exitandlate-exit 5

Early-gradereadingandearly-exittransition:Skillsandcurriculum 7

Thebenefitsandthelimitationsofearly-exittransitionprogramming 8

Conclusion 11

References 12

Early-exitlanguagetransitioningprogramming:Therationale,thebenefitsandthelimitations

4

Introduction

Issuesoflanguagechoiceinformaleducationcontextsarehighlyrelevanttosuccessfullearningoutcomes.Thechoiceofalanguageofinstruction(LoI)thatthelearnersunderstandandspeakiswellrecognizedasonedeterminerofinclusiveandequitableeducation,andasakeycomponentofaccomplishingbothSustainableDevelopmentGoal4andtheGlobalEducation2030Agenda(UNESCO,2022).Forvulnerableminoritypopulationsinparticular,theuseoftheirownlanguageasthemediumofinstructioncanmakethedifferencebetweensuccessandfailureineducation(ibid.,p.84).

Inmultilingualeducation(MLE)programming,themostcommonmodelsforincludinglocallanguagesintheformaleducationsystemaretransitionmodels:thelearner’sfirstlanguageisusedasmediumofinstructionintheearlygrades,afterwhichanotherlanguagebecomesthemediumofinstruction.Early-exitlanguagetransitionfeaturestheuseofthefirstlanguageintheearlyprimarygradesonly;late-exitlanguagetransitionmaintainstheuseofthefirstlanguagethroughthelaterprimarygrades,beforeshiftingtoanotherlanguageofinstruction.InmultilingualnationsacrosstheglobalSouth,theearly-exitlanguagetransitionmodelisthemostcommonnationalMLEpolicychoice.Atthesametime,thismodelhasthelowestfidelityofclassroomimplementationofanymultilingualeducationmodel,andisclaimedforvirtuallyanyuseofthelocallanguageintheprimaryclassroom.Hence,opinionsonthevalueandeffectivenessofthismodelvarywidely.

Thispaperexaminesthecontext,features,andpossibilitiesofearly-exitlanguagetransitionprogrammingacrosstheworld,withparticularfocusonitsimplementationincountriesofAfrica,AsiaandLatinAmerica.

Languagepolicyandlanguagechoices

Thefoundationforlanguageofinstructionchoicesintheclassroomistypicallysitedinnationallanguagepolicy,whichprovidesanational-levelplanofactionforlanguageuseingovernment,educationandsociety.Nationallanguagepolicymaybefoundembeddedinthenationalconstitution,orasastand-alonenationalpolicystatement;alternatively,languagepolicymayappearasoneoftheprovisionsofthenationaleducationpolicy.Theplacementofalanguagepolicydeterminestoalargeextenthowvulnerableitistochange,andhowsignificantthepoliticalpressuremustbeforpolicychangetotakeplace.Experienceindicatesthatlanguagepolicythatisembeddedinanationalconstitutionisgenerallythemoststable,whilelanguageprovisionsthatareincludedinotherpoliciesarethemostvulnerabletochange.

Thecontentandimplementationofnationallanguagepolicyareinfluencedbyanumberofissues,including:

•Thepoliticsofnationalidentity,andwhatKymlickaandGrin(2003,p.123)describeastherelationshipbetweenlanguagepoliticsandthepolicyofidentityconstruction.Patternsoflanguageuseareseenasamarkerofnationalidentity,thoughtherelationshipmaybeverycomplex.Thelinkbetweenlanguagepolicychoicesandissuesofidentityisequallyevidentatlocallevels,notonlythenationallevel(OduguandLemieux,2019,p.270).

•Concernforminoritylanguagecommunityrights.Fromapolicyperspective,linguistichumanrightsmayberecognizedintermsoftolerance,inwhichcommunitieshavetherighttousealanguagewithoutstateinterference;orintermsofpromotion,whichinvolvestheofficialrecognitionoflanguagerights,includingtheiruseintheeducationsystem(May,2015,p.355).

•Nationalaspirationsof‘belonging’inglobalsociety.Languagepolicy,especiallyasitisenactedinglobally-recognizedinstitutionssuchastheformaleducationsystem,isoftenintendedtofacilitatetheinclusionofanationstateinthe‘globalcommunityofnations’(Trudell,2021a,p.

5

32).

•Economicaspirations.Beliefsaboutthelinksbetweenspecificlanguagesandeconomicadvancementareextremelycommonatbothnationalandcommunitylevels(Trudell,2021b).Suchbeliefsoftenruncountertotheprevailingsocioeconomiccontexts,especiallyatlocallevels(ArcandandGrin,2013);nevertheless,theycanhaveconsiderableinfluenceonnationalandlocallanguagepolicies.

Theshiftinginterplayamongissuessuchasthesecanresultinunevenlanguagepolicyimplementationatbothnationalandlocallevels,aswellassuddenpolicychangesbasedonchangesinpoliticalperspectivesandintentions(Spolsky,2021,p.197).

Inthisnationalpoliticalenvironment,thepedagogicalaspectsoflanguagepolicyarenotalwayscarefullyconsidered.Nevertheless,nationalpolicycanhaveaconsiderableimpactonstudentlearningoutcomes.Formaleducationisprimarilyalanguage-mediatedenterprise(Walter,2008,p.129),andlanguagepolicyhassignificantimplicationsforpupils’languagefluenciesandlearningoutcomes.Thisiswhy,whereclassroomlearningisconcerned,thestakesoflanguagepolicychoicescanbehigh.

Languagetransitionmodels:early-exitandlate-exit

Languageineducationpolicyisthespecificplanthatguideslanguagechoiceanduseintheclassroom,asbothlanguageofinstructionandlanguagetobetaughtasasubject.Thetwoprimaryapproachestolanguageuseintheclassroomare:1)theuseofonemajorlanguageofinstructionthroughoutprimaryschools,whetheritisthepupils’homelanguage(L1),ornot;and2)theinitialuseofanL1aslanguageofinstruction,followedbytransitiontoanL2(orLx

1

)languageofinstructionatsomespecificgradelevel.

Whereapolicypermitsonlyaninternationalormajornationallanguageofinstructionintheclassroom,totheexclusionoflocallanguages,thequestionoflanguagetransitiondoesnotarise.Thischoicetoexcludelocallanguagesfromtheformallearningenvironmentispartlyresponsibleforthelowachievementandhighdropoutratesseeninmultilingual,low-resourceeducationcontextsacrosstheglobe(UNESCO,2016).DatafromUNICEF’sMultipleIndicatorClusterSurvey6(MICS6)indicatethattheuseofaninternationallanguageofinstructioninsteadoflocallanguagesis‘associatedwithhigherinequalityinthedistributionoflearningoutcomesandlowerperformanceoflearnersfromthepooresthouseholds’(UNESCO,2020,p.221).

LanguagetransitionmodelscanbeimplementedwhenthelanguageineducationpolicypermitsMLEprogramming,thatis,theuseofmorethanonelanguageofinstructionintheclassroom.Languagetransitionmodelsarefoundedontherecognitionoftheimportanceofusingalanguageofinstructionthatthelearnerunderstands,atleastthroughtheprimarygrades.Asnotedabove,early-exitandlate-exitlanguagetransitionprogrammessharethesamefeatureofbeginningwiththeL1asthelanguage

1Theterm“Lx”referstothesecond,third,oradditionallanguagesinamultilingualenvironment.

Early-exitlanguagetransitioningprogramming:Therationale,thebenefitsandthelimitations

6

L1LoIacrossthe

curriculum,grades1-3

Readingtaughtas

subjectinL1,grades1-3

Grade4asafull

languagetransitionyear

ofinstruction,andthenshiftingthelanguageofinstructionovertimetoanon-homelanguage(L2orLx).Theargumentfortransitiontothenon-homelanguageisthatpost-primaryschoolingwillrequirefacilityintheL2inanycase,andthatthepupilisthereforebestservedbyexposuretotheL2asamediumofinstructionbeforethattime.

Theearly-exittransitionmodelisbyfarthemostcommonofthetwotransitionmodels.ItusestheL1asmediumofinstructioninthelowerprimarygrades;afteruptothreeyearsofschooling,themajororinternationallanguageofschooling(L2orLx)becomesthemediumofinstructionfortheremainderofthechild’sschoolingexperience(Erling,AdinolfiandHultgren,2017,p.22).Thelate-exittransitionmodelissimilar,butitdelaysthetransitionofmediumofinstructiontothelateupperprimarygrades.However,thedistinctionbetweenthetwomodelsismorethanjustthenumberofyearsgiventoL1-mediuminstruction.Experiencehasshownthatplanning,resourcingandimplementingalate-exittransitionmodelintheglobalSouthtypicallyrequiressubstantiallyhigherinstitutionalandcommunitysupportfromthestart;italsoyieldssubstantiallybetterlearningoutcomes(Schroederetal,2021).

Optimalimplementationoftheearly-exittransitionmodelinvolvesseveralprogrammefeatures,includingtheuseoftheL1forallsubjectsacrossthecurriculum,readinginstructionintheL1,learningmaterialsintheL1,astrongL2languagelearningsyllabus,ayear-longlanguagetransitionfromtheL1totheL2,andteacherswhoarefluentspeakersandreadersofbothlanguages.(SeeFigure1below.)Thelate-exittransitionmodelsharesmostofthesesamefeatures,buttheyarepresentthroughgrade5or6ratherthanendingatorbeforegrade3.Theomissionofoneormoreofthesefeaturesisthemostcommonreasonforfailureofalanguagetransitionprogrammetodeliveracceptablelearningoutcomes.

Figure1.Keyfeaturesofafullyimplementedearly-exit(grade3)languagetransition

2

programme

Fullyimplementedearly-exittransition

program(transitioningrade4)

Teachersfluentspeakersandreaders/writersofL1andL2

Strongcurriculum-basedL2languagelearning,grades1-3

Subjectlearningmaterialsin

theL1,grades1-3

2Figure1wasdevelopedbytheauthorin2022,incollaborationwithLeilaSchroeder.

Early-exitlanguagetransitioningprogramming:Therationale,thebenefitsandthelimitations

7

Early-gradereadingandearly-exittransition:Skillsandcurriculum

AsshowninFigure1above,readinginstructionintheL1isakeycomponentoftheearly-exitprogramme.Early-gradereading(EGR)programminginlocallanguageshasbeenaprominentfeatureofdonor-assistedprimaryeducationprogrammingformorethanadecade,

3

andisoftenassociatedwiththedevelopmentandextensiveuseoftheEarlyGradeReadingAssessment(EGRA)tool.

4

WhileL1-mediumEGRprogrammingmaybeofferedinthecontextofearly-exit(orlate-exit)transitionMLEcurricula,itsimplementationhasnotbeenlimitedtoprimarygradecurriculathathaveareadingsubjectoralanguagetransitionmodel.Wherethenationalcurriculumdoesnotincludereadingasasubject,andwherethereissomecurriculumreferencetothelocallanguage,theL1-mediumEGRprogrammeisusuallyimplementedinthecontextofthe‘mothertonguesubject’.

ThebroadapplicationofL1-mediumEGRinstruction,relativelyunlinkedtoaparticularcurriculummodel,maycauseconfusionbetweenEGRprogrammesandearly-exittransitionMLEprogrammes.Readingiscertainlyacentralskillinanyeffectiveprimarygradecurriculum;Blankenbeckler(2020,pp.42-43)citessubstantialevidencethat

‘theuseofthemothertongueasmediumofinstructionforfoundationalliteracyhasatremendouslypositiveimpactoneducationqualityandacademicgrowthofindividuallearners,especiallyinlow-incomecontexts.’

Thereisalsoevidence,citedbelow,thatgirlsmaybenefitfromL1-mediumEGRprogrammingevenmorethanboysdo(BensonandWong,2017,p.10).

AsFigure1indicates,however,L1-mediumreadingskillsareonlyonecomponentofaproperlydesignedandimplementedlanguagetransitionMLEprogramme.Theotherfivecomponentsareequallyimportant:useoftheL1aslanguageofinstructionacrossthecurriculum;subjectlearningmaterialsintheL1;teachers’oralandwrittenfluencyinbothlanguages;theprogrammedacquisitionoforalandwrittenL2skills;andayear-longprocessoftransitioningfromL1-mediumtoL2-mediumteachingandlearning.

Inaddition,thereisacrucialdifferencebetweenskillsacquisition(whetherofreading,mathematicsorotherskills)andtheknowledgeacquisitionthatisexpectedatthecompletionoftheprimary-gradecurriculum.Ithaslongbeenrecognizedthatthereductionofcurriculumtothelearningofcertainspecificskillsmakesitdifficultforlearnerstoachieve‘theneededlevelsofunderstandingthataregreaterthanthesumofthesediscretefactsandskills’(Komoski,1990,p.72).Successfullearningofallthatisincludedintheprimarygradecurriculumrequiresmuchmorethanjustoneparticularskill,evenaskillascentralasreading.Forthisreason,effectiveMLEprogrammingmustbemorecomprehensivethansimplyanEGRprogrammeinthelocallanguage.

3SeeforexampleUSAID’s2015overviewofearlygradereadingprogramsinsub-SaharanAfrica:

MicrosoftWord-

State_of_Literacy_report_covers_090115_r2.docx()

.

4

EGRB|WhatIsanEGRA?()

.

8

Thebenefitsandthelimitationsofearly-exittransitionprogramming

Asnotedabove,theearly-exitlanguagetransitionmodelcanbecomparedandcontrastedwiththelate-exitlanguagetransitionmodel,sincebotharefoundedonsimilaraims.Intermsofassessedlearningoutcomes,early-exittransitioniscertainlytheweakerofthetwolanguagetransitionmodels.Comparativestudiesofthetwomodels,suchastheYoruba-languageIfePrimaryEducationResearchProject(Fafunwaetal,1989)andHeughetal.’sassessmentofEthiopia’s4-,6-and8-yearmultilingualprogrammes(Heughetal,2010),indicatethatlate-exitlanguagetransitionprogrammesyieldstrongerend-of-primaryexaminationresultsthandoearly-exitprogrammesinthesamelinguisticandpedagogicalcontexts.Inaddition,studiesshowthatwhenthetransitionoflanguageofinstructionfromtheL1toanL2takesplaceintheearliergrades,pupilsdonothavesufficientclassroomtimetomastertheL2wellenoughtouseiteffectivelyasamediumoflearningthereafter(Schroederetal,

2021,p.50).Whereearly-exittransitionprogrammingisinadequatelyimplemented,andthefeaturesdescribedinFigure1aboveareneglected,itslong-termacademicresultsareevenlessimpressive(Bretuo,2021).

Thus,wherethegoalofprimary-gradeprogrammingisexpressedintermsofenhancedend-of-schoolassessmentresultsintheupperprimarygrades,thismodelislikelytodisappoint.However,end-of-primaryschoolexaminationresultsarenottheonlycriteriabywhichearly-exitprogrammingmaybemeasured.Studiesofseveralearly-exittransitionprogrammesaroundtheworldhavedemonstratedarangeofgainsthatcanaccrueinthecontextoftheseprogrammes,particularlywhenalloftheearly-exitprogrammecomponentsdescribedinFigure1arecarriedout.

Learningoutcomes:ExamplesfromAsia

StudiesofMLEprogramminginCambodiaoverthelastdecadehaveyieldedsomeimportantcomparisonsoftheearly-gradelearningoutcomesofpupilsinMLEprogrammeswiththeircounterpartswhowerenotintheprogrammes.BensonandWong’s(2017)descriptionofanearly-exitMLEprogrammeinlocalCambodianlanguagesandKhmercitestwostudies,carriedoutbyLee,Wattand

Frawley(2015)andKrauseandJoglekar(2016),whichidentifiedseveralspecificlearningbenefitsoftheCambodianMLEprogramme.

•TheLeeetal.studyfoundthatethnolinguisticminoritylearnersinMLEprogrammesperformedbetterinmathematicsthanthoseinnon-MLEprogrammes(BensonandWong,2017,p.10).

•TheKrauseandJoglekarstudyfoundthat,intheMLEschools,girlsdidsignificantlybetterthanboysonthereadingassessments.Thisdifferenceinperformancewasnotseeninthenon-MLEschools(ibid.).

•TheLeeetal.studyalsoshowedthatMLEstudentsdidnotlagbehindtheirnon-MLEpeersinlearningKhmerasanL2;thisdemonstrated‘thattheinvestmentoftimeandeffortonL1literacydidnotdetractfromtheirL2achievement’(ibid.pp.9-10).

9

Early-exitMLEprogramminginthePhilippineshasalsoyieldedenhancedlearningoutcomesforL1-mediumlearners.Inastudyoftheexperimentalearly-exitMLEprogrammecarriedoutintheLubuaganlanguagecommunity,WalterandDekker(2011)notethatresultsofa2008assessmentshowed‘aconsistentadvantageforchildrenintheexperimentalprogramme(MLE)acrossallthreegradesandallsubjectsinthecurriculum’(p.679).Theauthorsfurtherstate:

‘thesefindingsthusprovidestronginitialevidencethattheuseoflocallanguagesforinstructionalpurposes,insteadofcompromising,actuallyenhancesmasteryofcurricularcontentincludinginthemorecriticalareasofmathsandscience’(ibid.).

Whilesuchoutcomesinearlyprimarygradesdonotnecessarilytranslatetosuperiorperformanceinend-ofprimaryexaminationsorsecondaryschoolperformance,theydospeaktothevalueofL1-mediumlearningforyoungchildren.Notonlyarethelearningoutcomessignificant;childrenwhosucceedintheclassroomarealsolesslikelytodropoutofschool,morelikelytowanttokeepcomingtoschool,andmoresupportedbytheirfamiliesthanthosewhoconsistentlyfailattheirlearningtasksintheearly-gradeclassroom.

Parentandcommunityengagementinthepupil’slearning:ExamplesfromAfrica

Early-exitprogramminghasalsobeenshowntogarnersupportfromparentsandcommunitiesfortheuseoftheL1asmediumofinstruction.Suchsupportdoesnotalwayscomeeasily,however.InastudyofTharakalanguagecommunitiesincentralKenya,Schroeder(2004,p.382)concludesthat‘astheprogramexpands,parentsandeducatorsneedtobeconvincedthattheuseofthemothertongueisnotgoingtocompromisetheeducationoftheirchildren.’Parentsinlow-resourcecontextsparticularlytendtoberisk-aversewhenitcomestotheirchildren’seducation,andacceptanceofalocalMLEprogrammedependsonparents’beliefthatL1-mediumprogrammingwillnotdetractfromtheirchildren’schancesatsucceedinginschool.

Interestingly,itistheuseofthecommunity’slanguageasmediumofinstructionthatfacilitatesthisinclusionofparentsintheirchildren’seducation,allowingparentstounderstandandcritiquewhatishappeningintheclassroom(Trudell,2007,p.560).Parentalqueriesregardingthecurriculumandhowitisbeingtaughtcanonlyhappenwhentheparentunderstandsthelanguagebeingusedintheclassroom.Benson(2004,p.212),evaluatingdatafromMozambique,arguesthat‘themereactofbringingthecommunitylanguageintotheschoolmakestheschool,theteacherandthecurriculummoreaccessibleandunderstandable’.

SupportforMLEprogramminggrowsasparentsobservetheirchildren’simprovedlearningoutcomes.Trudell’sstudyoflanguage-usemodelsinBurkinaFaso(Trudell,2012,p.372)describesparents’realizationthat‘justlearningtoread,writeandcalculateintheirownlanguageputschildrenaheadofthosewhoaretaughtonlyinalanguagetheydonotunderstand.’ThisknowledgeprovidedtheprimarymotivationforthoseBurkinabèparentsandcommunityleaderswhoweresupportingtheseL1-mediumprogrammes,andresultedinincreaseddemandfortheprogrammes.Benson(2004,p.

214)alsonotesthattheabilitytoclearlyassessMozambicanpupils’progressinschool,aswellasthe

10

‘kindsofrelationshipspromotedbybilingualprogrammes’,contributesignificantlytocommunitysupportfortheprogramme.

Canvin(2003)observedthissamephenomenonamongBambaracommunitiesinMali,wherepupils’improvedlearningoutcomesconvincedparentswhowereinitiallywaryofthelocallanguage-mediumprogrammetosupportit.Asaresultofthissupport,pupilenrolmentnumbersfortheprogrammeincreased.Similarly,anevaluationofanL1-mediumprogrammeinKenya(Wangia,2021)foundthattheparentsinterviewedhad

‘seenmarkedchangesinthelearnerswhoarebecomingmoreinquisitiveabouttheindigenouslanguagesandareabletoengagetheirparentsinthelessonstheyarelearning.[Theparents]nolongerseethelearningofmothertongueasathreattolearningEnglishaspreviouslyperceived’(p.10).

Indigenouscommunityrights:ExamplesfromLatinAmerica

Foratleast50years,bilingualeducationinmanyLatinAmericancountrieshasbeenframedintermsofhelpingtoprovideindigenouspeoplewithaccessandopportunitiestoclaimtheirpoliticalandculturalrights,aswellasmeetingtheirchildren’srighttobetaughtintheirownlanguage.Overtheyears,bilingualeducationpracticesinthispartoftheworldhaveencompassedlanguagemaintenance,late-exittransitionandearly-exittransitionmodels.Wherethesevariousmodels(notonlyearly-exittransition)havebeenpromotedandadopted,thethemeofrecognizingandpromotingtherightsofindigenouscommunitiesthroughtheuseofindigenouslanguagesofinstructionhasremainedextremelyimportant.

OneimportantarticulationofthisperspectiveistheInterculturalBilingualEducation(IBE;inSpanish,EducaciónBilingüeIntercultural)movementthatspreadacrosstheregioninthe1970sand1980s(López,2009,p.8),andwhichisstillinfluencingeducationpolicyandpracticeintheregion.AdoptionofIBEhasbeenaccompaniedinmanycasesbypoliticalreform,as‘lawsandregulationswerepassedrecognizingtherightofindigenouspeoplestoeducationintheirownlanguages’(ibid.p.9).MostcurrentiterationsofIBEtendtofocusonearly-exitlanguagetransitionmodels,thoughtheoriginalaimofIBEwasamuchbroaderuseofindigenouslanguagesaslanguagesofinstruction(López,2020).Still,thelongevityofthemovement,anditseffectivenessininfluencingnationalpolicywhereindigenouspeopleareconcerned,isimpressive.

EvenbeforetheemergenceoftheIBEmovement,indigenouspeoplesoftheregionhadbeenawareofthecriticalneedforformaleducationinordertopreventexploitationbythe‘outsideworld’andtodefendtheircommunities’landrights.InPeru,thisconvictionwasresponsibleforthepositivereceptionofabilingualeducationprogrammethatwasestablishedforindigenouscommunitiesinthePeruvianrainforestregion,bythePeruvianMinistryofEducationandSILPeru,in1952(Trudell,1993,p.20).Theprogrammebeganasaresponsetothelackofaccesstoprimaryeducationexperiencedbythesemonolingualindigenouscommunities,inlargepartduetotheuseofSpanishasthelanguageofinstructioninPeruvianprimaryschoolsatthetime.By1964,thebilingualeducationprogrammehadgrownintoalate-exittransitionprogrammeforchildrenin21languagecommunities,featuringthe

11

useoftheindigenouslanguagesacrossthecurriculumandarobustSpanishasasecondlanguagesubject.

OneimportantoutcomeofthesebilingualeducationprogrammesfortheindigenouspeopleofthePeruvianAmazonhasbeentheirroleinhelpingthemtogaincontrolovertheirowneconomicandsociopoliticalfuture.Forexample,theAwajún(alsocalledAguaruna)ethniccommunityrecognizedearlythebenefitsofformaleducationwhenitwascarriedoutinthelanguageofthecommunity:increasedlegalrecoursewherelandrightswereconcerned,participationintheregionalandnationalpoliticalarena,andtheabilitytofightabuseandexploitationby