What Problem Does Mother Tongue Education Solve?

Mohsen Renani, a prominent economist and professor at Isfahan University, is known for his strong social character and sensitivity to the decisions made by officials and institutions. He strives to engage in public dialogue with policymakers through statements, letters, analyses, and research. Dr. Renani's writings are often taken seriously by those who believe that the role of economics and development in major decision-making should be increased and that these discussions should enter public discourse. With this background, I was surprised when I recently saw a text attributed to him about mother tongue education titled "The Murder of Mother Tongue and the Destruction of Development in Iran". My surprise grew as I read the text, which neither provides a correct analysis of the issue nor presents a credible solution, but is instead filled with rhetorical and emotional expressions. Initially, I even thought this piece might not be his. However, after finding the text on the author's Telegram channel and later on his website, I became convinced that the author is indeed Mohsen Renani. My initial surprise, shared by any reader familiar with Mr. Renani's work, is how someone whose expertise is in economics has entered such a sensitive area without sufficient study. One possible response is that he seems to believe that by linking language to development, he is viewing it from the perspective of a development specialist. While it is entirely possible to consider education, in general, and mother tongue education, in particular, from the perspective of development and growth, this requires understanding both sides of the discussion: language and development. A simple and concise meaning of development is "the transformation of knowledge into culture". This means that for development to occur, anyone should be adorned with this culture and should not enter any discussion without knowledge. Nevertheless, given that the situation in Iran in recent years is such that many individuals who do not even have ordinary literacy have significant platforms, it is understandable that someone like Dr. Renani feels entitled to engage in a discussion that he believes is important for development. However, the concern is that when someone at Dr. Renani's level repeats clichés that are commonly heard, his opinions may be perceived as scientific and become the basis for planning that could lead to greater harm. In this note, I will attempt to show, by reviewing various aspects of mother tongue education, that the issues surrounding mother tongue are neither singular in solution nor is its education the only way to improve educational conditions or even ensure educational justice. I believe that if Dr. Renani had at least examined the fate of similar discussions in other countries, the direction and reasoning of his article would have been more measured and realistic, and consequently, his words and recommendations would have been more practical. However, in what he has written and in his guidance to the "Seminar on Development and Educational Justice" (December 20, 2016), a set of hypotheses has been established that is one-sided and incomplete, leading to a conclusion that cannot be practical: the recognition of all languages of Iranian ethnic groups. The assumption that bilingual children are located in specific areas ignores the reality that Iranian ethnic groups are moving, living, migrating, and intermarrying within the country. Therefore, if we hypothetically prepare an educational package specifically for the Turks of Tabriz and the Kurds of Sanandaj, we must consider what we want to do with the Turks of Mashhad and the Kurds of Quchan. Mr. Renani views the issue of bilingual children within the framework of ethnic minorities rather than from a linguistic and educational perspective. From an educational standpoint, the issue of using the mother tongue for teaching an Armenian-speaking child living in Tehran or Isfahan is no different from that of a Turkish-speaking, Kurdish-speaking, or Arabic-speaking child and other prevalent languages across Iran. Therefore, mother tongue education should be examined beyond the linguistic groups concentrated in this or that province. Similarly, he assumes that bilingual children live in specific regions of Iran, such as Turkish-speaking and Kurdish-speaking provinces, and therefore, a special educational version can be prepared for those provinces. However, the social and demographic reality in today's Iran shows that, for example, many Turks and Kurds also live in Khorasan. This assumption that bilingual children are located in specific areas ignores the reality that Iranian ethnic groups are moving, living, migrating, and intermarrying within the country. Therefore, if we hypothetically prepare an educational package specifically for the Turks of Tabriz and the Kurds of Sanandaj, we must consider what we want to do with the Turks of Mashhad and the Kurds of Quchan. Language in the Family Another assumption he makes is that he believes bilingual children necessarily grow up in families where both parents speak a local language, such as both being Turkish, Arab, or Kurdish speakers. Here, too, the reality is different. It is true that there are many families where the father and mother speak a specific local language, but there are also many families where the father speaks one language and the mother speaks another. In the mixed Iranian society, linguistic differences are not a criterion for rejecting a suitable partner. A Persian-speaking person from Tehran can marry an Armenian-speaking girl just as a Gilaki man can marry a Turkish-speaking woman, and similarly, there are other forms of bilingualism within families. In such families, determining the mother tongue will not be easy. The assumption that children in these families speak "one" language will also be incorrect. Because a child whose father is Turkish and whose mother is Persian-speaking will naturally hear and learn both languages at home. In my opinion, an Iranian child can very well hear and learn up to four languages at home. To elaborate: Most Iranian children are Muslims. This point means that in the years before school, regardless of the mother tongue and local language they speak, they become familiar with a set of Quranic verses, traditions, and Islamic prayers, which inevitably introduces them to the Arabic language. Moreover, these children spend their leisure time watching television and satellite programs, and besides what they hear in their mother tongue within the country or through neighboring countries and their radio and television programs (e.g., Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Iraqi Kurdistan), they also interact with Persian programs and Persian-speaking individuals (such as officials, shopkeepers, and travelers) and naturally understand and perhaps use a large portion of Persian words and sentences. Therefore, every Iranian child, before entering primary school, due to religious reasons, is somewhat familiar with Arabic, and due to the use of public media, is at least somewhat familiar with Persian. This child, if urban and from a middle-class family, is likely to be sent to English learning classes or, through other means, such as the internet or digital games, may also become familiar with some English. In areas where two neighboring languages coexist, this assumption is also completely confirmed by experience that children become familiar with these languages; for instance, a Turkish-speaking child learns things from his Kurdish-speaking playmate or an Isfahan child learns words and sentences from his Armenian playmate. Therefore, the likelihood that an Iranian child enters the first grade of primary school without any familiarity with other languages is weak in our current conditions, especially if this child has grown up in urban areas, and since today the majority of Iran's population lives in cities, the issue of "monolingualism of the child" and the limitation of his knowledge to the hypothetical mother tongue is not very strong. However, even if this is the case and the child is monolingual, it is a well-known fact that children learn very quickly and have a particular innate talent for learning different languages. The experience of millions of Iranians who now live outside Iran supports this fact that their children, even if unaware of the local language upon entering European countries, quickly learn it. And usually, after a while, they correct their parents' language learning. Today, there are many families that introduce their children to two or three languages from the time they begin to speak. The issue of language learning among Iranian immigrants (whether Persian-speaking, Turkish-speaking, Kurdish, or others) is an important topic that also shows another angle of the discussion: the level of interest and need to learn a language. The immigrant child also needs and is encouraged to learn the language of the host country. There is no mental or identity barrier for him. No child learning English thinks he is no longer Iranian. Why should a Turkish-speaking child in Iran think that if he learns Persian, he has lost his Turkish identity? Does the resistance to learning Persian not require examination? Why has this resistance to learning Persian arisen while if the same family were to migrate, they would willingly teach their children a non-native language? Mother Tongue, National Language, Global Experience Beyond the family level, we reach national experiences in other countries around the world. The issue of "mother tongue education" is not unique to Iran; it is a global matter. Therefore, both in raising the issue and in proposing solutions, the experiences of other countries in this regard must be considered. For example, millions of Spanish-speaking children live in the United States. If we propose a way to teach the mother tongue, it should also be applicable to Spanish-speaking children with modifications. However, if we follow this line of mother tongue education and consider it the key to solving educational issues for children, should this demand also be pursued outside of Iran? Do host countries accept that they will provide education for Iranian children in their local and mother languages? If we proceed with the assumption that mother tongue education can necessarily help in the mental and educational growth of children, we have set an inaccurate and perhaps misleading premise as our guide. Testing this assumption is simple: If we transfer all the educational content of today's Iranian education system to Turkish, Kurdish, Arabic, and other local languages of Iran, will we achieve better educational results than what we currently see in the country's schools? In our neighboring region, the former Soviet Union has specific experiences with a certain understanding of language and its education, leading to specific results that are also a resource for our discussion and an accumulated experience from which we must learn from its errors and successes and not propose paths that have been taken and have not reached their destination. For instance, in Uzbekistan, while the official language is Uzbek, you can study in your mother tongue, which may be Tajik. However, it is clear that if you did not know Russian during the Soviet era or did not know Uzbek during the independence era, you would not have social mobility, and your job selection circle would be very limited. The consequences of this type of educational system, which is in front of our eyes, can be easily studied during a research trip. Beyond considering the experiences of others in neighboring countries and the world, we must also reflect on the value we place on mother tongue: The educational disruption that Dr. Renani and many social activists focus on is not solely related to "language" (local or national and whether it is singular, bilingual, or multilingual). For example, in the same Uzbekistan, you see that school children know Russian, Uzbek, and their mother tongue. However, this does not mean that their educational growth is sufficient or good. Therefore, if we proceed with the assumption that mother tongue education can necessarily help in the mental and educational growth of children, we have set an inaccurate and perhaps misleading premise as our guide. Testing this assumption is simple: If we transfer all the educational content of today's Iranian education system to Turkish, Kurdish, Arabic, and other local languages of Iran, will we achieve better educational results than what we currently see in the country's schools? It is clear that the answer to such a question cannot be positive. Because the complementary assumption also receives a negative answer: Suppose all children in Iran are Persian-speaking and we have no issues regarding mother tongue education (since in this assumption, everyone speaks Persian) and all can study in Persian from the beginning of school. Do we need any other changes besides "changing the language" in the current educational system to achieve better results? Education is something beyond language In reality, the quality of education, teaching methods, and the school system depend on more than language and are beyond language. And as long as the quality of teaching methods, education, planning, school management, equipment, and the relationship between parents and schools, along with dozens of other components, are not improved, merely "changing the language" will not solve any problems. In other words, educational improvement or educational justice in the language of development is not unidimensional, and that dimension is not language. Mr. Renani and his like-minded individuals assume that "mother tongue education yields better results." Testing this assumption is not difficult: Do all those who study in a single mother tongue—such as Turkish or Persian—achieve the same desirable results? If the answer to this question is negative, we must ask ourselves a more important question: What is the problem with our school education besides language that renders it ineffective? If our school is ineffective based on Persian, transferring that school to Turkish or any other language will not make it effective. The solution must be sought elsewhere. In other words, the assumption of mother tongue education is based on the premise that language itself has scientific content, and it is enough to use the mother tongue to solve educational issues. However, if this were the case, those whose language is Persian and who also study in Persian should all become strong and effective students. However, we see that even these Persian speakers struggle with writing in Persian, and the school cannot teach it correctly. The conclusion we draw is that there are other issues besides language, and this intense focus on the value of mother tongue may be misleading.