estudiar
las
consecuencias
de
un
incremento
en
la
temperatura
sobre


Teachers’ support for language-in-education policies that impose English as medium of instruction seems to go against research findings which show that young learners learn best when taught through the mother tongue. What could account for the support? One strand of argument in answering this question touches on the influence of colonial language-in- education polices on postcolonial language-in-education policy initiatives. The current Zimbabwe language-in-education policy that directs how English and Shona/Ndebele should be used in the primary school cycle is no different from the colonial policy that allowed learners in the lower grades to use an indigenous language as medium of instruction before switching to English from grade four onwards (Hungwe, 2007). Gora (2013:124) reinforces this argument arguing that “colonial experiences continue to shape and define post-colonial practices in language planning. The colonial role of African languages and English as a language of wider communication persists thirty-two years after Zimbabwe attained political independence. The previous neglect and marginalization of indigenous languages during the colonial era is still carried within the Zimbabwe Education Act with reference to medium of instruction”. Hungwe and Gora’s arguments highlight the fact that language-in-education policies in postcolonial states like Zimbabwe remain the same despite political changes. The stagnation of language-in-education policies in postcolonial contexts such as Zimbabwe can be attributed to two factors: policy maintenance and policy shift. Continuation o f colonial language policies point to policy maintenance which Bamgbose (2004) describes as a direct

consequence of an inheritance situation defined as the way the colonial experience continues to shape and define post-colonial experiences and practices. In such a situation, as is the case in Zimbabwe, not only are policies maintained in terms of use or non-use of African languages for teaching, the colonial practice of confining African languages as media of instruction to the lower levels of primary education persists. In Zimbabwe, although there is a new language-in-education policy in place its provisions are not markedly different from colonial language-in-education policies. Therefore by supporting the national and school language policies teachers are accepting what has always been there. Several reasons are given for continuing to privilege English over indigenous languages.

Some of the reasons given for supporting use of English as medium of instruction given by teachers who participated in this study echo the well rehearsed reasons for maintaining English as medium of instruction in postcolonial contexts. The very act of transitioning from Shona/Ndebele to English as medium of instruction at grade four gives the impression that the other languages are not viable as vehicles for education. Teachers therefore argue that they might as well use English as medium o f instruction from the start arguing that longer means better.

Teachers in this study also supported language policies that enforced use of English as medium of instruction claiming English was neutral. Again this is the usual nationist argument for continuing to use English in postcolonial contexts that have populations speaking several languages. Researchers like Omoniyi (2007) reject this line of thinking arguing that governments in postcolonial Africa often present English as neutral and providing the magic

escape from threats to the nation state posed by multiple cultures and political divisions yet in reality they are just serving their own elitist agendas. Teachers probably view themselves as part of the elite group that has accessed education and have sufficient mastery of English which marks them apart from the rest of the general population. The fact that some teachers supported use of English as medium o f instruction arguing that they are parents too and prefer to have their children educated in English might indicate their support for parents’ tendency to equate use of English as medium of instruction with quality education

Despite the support for a language-in-education policy that privileges English over indigenous languages the non-adherence to the policy revealed in this section’s findings shows that there are contradictions between policy pronouncements and the reality obtaining in classrooms. The reality is that teachers often switch between the official medium of instruction and the mother tongue. This finding corroborates findings in other postcolonial contexts like Botswana, and South Africa (Probyn, 2005).

Learners’ support for school language policies that enforced use of English only presents a complicated picture. Learners’ reasons for supporting English only policies are the same as the reasons given by teachers for imposing English only policies in their classes. Is it mere coincidence or learners were merely rehearsing answers they knew their teachers would support? While it is possible learners were merely rehearsing teachers’ preferences for English, their attitudes towards English as medium of instruction might also have been influenced by their awareness of the general support for using English as medium of instruction among members of the community. In section 5.3.4 learners indicated that their

parents encouraged them to use English at school and the reasons given by the parents coincided with those given by teachers. So it is possible learners’ positive attitudes towards English as medium of instruction are not only shaped by their knowledge of teachers’ preference for English but also because of the positive reinforcement they got from parents and other members of the community. Erling and Seargeant (2013) argue that support for English only policies in postcolonial contexts like Zimbabwe is a reflection of strong ideologies of English as an international language (of development). People all over the world, no matter their status or location, are convinced by the ideology of English as being a language o f education, wealth, status, etc. ... So the big difficulty of applied linguistics is that the findings that learning is best delivered through the mother tongue has to face this strong ideology of English. The findings of this study do not seem to make good reading for the advocates for using the mother tongue as medium of instruction.