Multilingual Education: A Prerequisite for Sustainable Development in a Multicultural Society

Recently, Radio Farda published an article titled "What Problem Does Mother Tongue Education Solve?" (December 15, 2016) by Mehdi Jami. This article critiques the development-centric view of language that Mohsen Renani discusses in his piece titled "The Murder of the Mother Tongue and the Destruction of Development in Iran," claiming that a developmental approach to multilingual education centered around the mother tongue is ineffective. The author suggests that the issue of the mother tongue should be examined through the discussion of "language education." Believing that Jami's critique of Renani is unfounded, this article outlines my reasons for supporting Renani's perspective while critiquing the points raised in Jami's article. Mohsen Renani correctly addresses the direct relationship between mother tongue education and development, which aligns with findings from researchers worldwide. Moreover, the discussion of the mother tongue in connection with the Persian language transcends common stereotypes (for example, that the Persian language belongs to all Iranians) and adds depth to the conversation. Green, a Swedish education economist, is among the researchers whose studies across various communities have shown that recognizing linguistic differences and viewing speakers of different languages not as "illiterates" needing "cultural correction" but as valuable human resources has consistently aided economic development through mutual respect among citizens. Jami does not provide a clear definition of educational goals in his article, and there is no research from him on this matter. This absence leads to a fundamental question about the purpose of education remaining unanswered in his article. Is the goal of education, aside from the democratic development of society (scientific, economic, cultural development, etc.) and nurturing confident children and youth across all social strata, something else? Can an educational system train capable specialists for the future while constantly belittling students' identities due to their different languages? Jami believes Renani's discourse in this area lacks substance. However, in reality, Renani presents a model of multilingual education centered around the mother tongue that is validated by the results of hundreds of research projects worldwide. "Transforming the primary education system's approach from a teaching-centered to a nurturing-centered model creates an opportunity in bilingual provinces for programs related to nurturing personal capacities and social abilities of children in these provinces to be conducted in their mother tongue. It may be appropriate to focus on nurturing our children in the first three years of primary school using their mother tongue, addressing the growth of biological and personal abilities and the development of communication and social skills. During this period, they can also learn the culture and literature of their mother tongue, allowing them to approach the flourishing of their inner language and thought. Then, starting from the fourth year, Persian language education can begin gradually, so that by the end of the sixth grade, these children have learned to read and write in Persian and can fully engage in their scientific education in Persian upon entering high school." (From Renani's article) For credible research studies in this area, one can refer to the works of Tove Skutnabb-Kangas, which also provides a good historical overview of studies in this field. Kangas's research can be considered as evidence of the scientific robustness of Renani's proposed educational model. Mehdi Jami points out the complexity of the language issue regarding bilingualism, or more accurately, multilingualism, as a dominant condition across all of Iranian society and not just specific regions or provinces, emphasizing that multilingual education is a global challenge because multilingualism is a global phenomenon. However, the author draws incorrect conclusions from these accurate and precise premises, ultimately arguing that the discussion of multilingual education is a waste of time. In other words, in his view, since this problem is widespread, it is no longer a problem. However, in reality, precisely because the natural condition of human societies is multilingualism, the natural condition of education should also be multilingual. The diversity of multilingual education methods and models is a topic that seems unfamiliar to him, which is why he assumes that there is an abstract model of mother tongue education that should be uniformly applied to "Turkmen of Tabriz," "Kurds of Sanandaj," and "Turkmen of Mashhad and Kurds of Quchan." In reality, multilingual education has multiple models that vary from country to country, region to region, and school to school. These models should ideally be determined by marginalized students, their parents, their teachers who speak the same language, and the communities in which they live. Therefore, our insistence and attention must first be directed towards the legal and human rights of these communities to receive education in their mother tongue. The question of "What do we want to do with the Turkmen of Mashhad and the Kurds of Quchan?" is answered within the framework of dozens of diverse models designed for such students in ethnically and linguistically intertwined societies. In my opinion, the only reason these methods have not been elaborated in Persian is the prioritization of direction and content in discussions where even the most basic language rights of Iranian students, especially in regions with rich, strong, and historically significant cultures and languages, are overlooked by both the Iranian government and official institutions, as well as unfortunately by elites and intellectuals. Therefore, the focus of those interested in this discussion is usually on this primary concern. However, in the next step, to study serious research and discussions about the complexities of multilingual education, including multilingual education centered around the mother tongue, these discussions can and should be presented in a broad and open manner. For example, to see a serious discussion on this topic, one can refer to the book "Introduction to Bilingual Education" by Ofelia García and Colin Baker, both recognized language researchers. Thus, in the face of the global challenge of multilingual education, in a situation where it seems that the world is sliding into extreme nationalism, inaction and ignoring a problem that denial and neglect ultimately strengthen nationalist tendencies is the worst possible choice. Unfortunately, research shows that Iran has chosen this denial and neglect, as it currently has one of the most disordered conditions regarding multilingual education. Throughout its history, the Iranian plateau has been multilingual and multicultural, and its people, as Mr. Jami emphasizes, are still familiar with multilingualism. Multilingual education centered around the mother tongue is not only feasible in Iran but, given the linguistic richness and the glorious history of education in this region, Iran can provide a prominent example and a successful model in this field. Another point emphasized in Jami's discussion is the acceptance of migrants to the dominant language of the host society and the sacrifice of their mother tongue as a natural phenomenon. He writes: "Millions of Iranians living outside Iran confirm that their children, even if they are unaware of the local language upon entering European countries, quickly learn it." Regardless of the fact that Turks, Kurds, Lurs, Baluchs, Gilaks, and other non-Persian linguistic communities in Iran are not migrants but historical residents and, in a sense, the rightful owners of the land they live on, the author's reference to the natural acceptance of migrants to the death of their mother tongue and the adoption of the host society's language is also inaccurate and stems from ignorance of the serious linguistic problems faced by minority migrants in Western societies. For instance, research shows that the second generation of migrants in the Netherlands and Luxembourg has less proficiency in the languages of the host countries than the first generation because the denial of identity has marginalized them. Jim Cummins, in his research in Canada, shows that although it seems that migrant children learn enough English within 1 to 2 years to engage verbally with their peers, achieving proficiency in academic language, which is essential for success in Canadian society, requires 5 to 7 years of continuous effort, which is often overlooked by parents and educational policymakers. This research explains why, according to TDSB statistics, the main educational district in Toronto, one-third of Persian-speaking students in the city drop out. Iranians have the highest dropout rates among migrants after Spanish speakers and Somali students, and this statistic has remained almost constant over the past 15 years. In his critique, the author accuses identity/language activists, non-Persian teachers, and education researchers of "resisting Persian education." This accusation is false. The prevailing view among supporters of mother tongue education is not exclusionary or, in other words, "either this or that." The common perspective, especially in the world of multilingual education research, is "both this and that." Minority communities do not think about eliminating languages; they hope to enrich their linguistic repertoire and make proper use of their mother tongues. What promotes exclusionary views is the classical and outdated interpretation of the concept of "nation-state," based on which each single nation has only one language. Mehdi Jami reiterates this incorrect interpretation in the framework of the theory of "national citizen and national education." However, in reality, speakers of other languages in Iran have fulfilled their right to respect for the Persian language by reading and writing it and contributing to its literary, musical, and theatrical heritage. It is now appropriate for Persian speakers to also strive for the further growth of all languages in the vast geography of Iran. The author further considers the "officialization" of many Iranian languages to be problematic. It seems he overlooks the differences between "official language," "official educational language," and "language of instruction," which is why the examples he provides to reinforce his argument are misleading and confuse the audience. For instance, to have multilingual schools that also teach in the mother tongue, there is no need to officialize all languages. India has two national official languages (Hindi and English), 22 state official languages (official educational and administrative languages in their respective states), and dozens of educational languages from preschool to doctoral level. In fact, contrary to Jami's opinion, there is no need to officialize all languages for mother tongue instruction. Canada has two official administrative and educational languages, but dozens of schools operate in various languages with effective governmental support, including Persian language classes that provide services to Persian speakers with the help of immigrant support organizations funded by the Canadian government. Regarding the former Soviet Union, while the theories presented in the article are correct in some details, they do not provide an accurate picture of the linguistic situation and language policies in that country. In extensive discussions with Steven Bahri, a multilingual education researcher in China and Central Asia, about multilingual education in Central Asia, the countries around the Caspian Sea, Afghanistan, and Tajikistan, he confirmed that while this region has not been a paradise for multilingual education, the multilingual situation in these areas, both during the communist era and now as independent countries, has been more flexible than the current policies in Iran. It is true that "until the quality of teaching methods, school planning and management, equipment, and parent-school relationships, and dozens of other factors improve, merely changing the language will not solve any problems." However, several points must be added to this correct observation. One is that, as mentioned above, no one is seeking to change the prevailing language or eliminate any specific language. The goal is to add to the educational languages. Furthermore, no one has claimed that mother tongue education will solve all problems in educational systems. However, teaching in the mother tongue at least addresses the problem of mother tongue education, and this problem is by no means a small one. I borrow from the writings of "Nieto" and "Bourdu" that "multilingual education is closely related to critical education, combating racism, and social justice." The successful implementation of multilingual education in Iran is a thermometer of tolerance, respect for differences, and democratic behavior in this society transitioning to new historical periods. Therefore, it is fair to say that teaching in the mother tongue is only one problem, but solving it indicates the resolution of many other issues. Mr. Jami, as a middle-class Persian speaker living outside Iran, and considering his mother tongue, has not experienced the calamities of a monolingual educational system as a student whose mother tongue is devalued. He can question, "What problem does mother tongue education solve?" In fact, solving the problem of mother tongue education in Iran may have a direct and immediate impact on the lives of millions of Iranian students.