At a critical juncture in the history of our education system, when the formal introduction of Creole in our schools is being seriously envisaged, one must not forget that the most important actors in the school community are: children, parents, teachers and curriculum planners. Their wishes and needs, their opinion, their role and importance cannot be undervalued. The voices heard are those of politicians, socio-cultural groups, trade unionists, religious leaders, linguists, newspaper editorialists? The real actors should be invited to express themselves before any decision is taken.

Dev Virahsawmy has made a very important distinction between Creole as a taught subject, and Creole as a medium of instruction. We must bear this crucial difference in mind while deciding what we exactly want.

Creole as taught subject

Do we all want our children to read and write in Creole as well as learn to read and write in English, French and Oriental languages? A positive answer to this question is in itself problematic as we are assuming that all children accept and all parents want their children to read and write Creole.

Would not such a decision make us as bad as the decried colonizers who imposed their languages on us? Or do we make the study of Creole optional and teach it at the same time as Oriental languages?

Such a decision would then amount to an official assertion that Creole is an ethnic language, which is not the case as Creole has long transcended ethnic barriers (if ever it was thought of as an ethnic language by some) to be the language used by most Mauritians. This practice will also unduly penalize those students who wish to study both Creole and an Oriental language.

Or do we make Creole an optional subject and offer it to anyone who wants to learn it, while others have a library period?

Teaching Creole as a subject is less problematic than making Creole the medium of instruction because the former will only require the training of a certain number of teachers, preparation of a curriculum, textbooks and reading materials.

The latter is more complex as it will affect the teaching of all other subjects; for English, French and the Oriental languages, one can expect the teachers? explanations as well as instructions in textbooks to be in Creole in the first few years of primary education. Should it be so, the whole educational system will be affected in the first years of primary education.

Creole as medium of instruction

Do we want our children to be taught in Creole, which means that all children will have to read and write in Creole as the textbooks will then be in Creole? Being made literate in the mother tongue is supported by some researchers as being the best means of acquiring literacy.

The document that is often cited to support mother tongue education is the 1953 UNESCO document. One must, however, bear in mind that this document came out at a very specific time in world history, the time of political decolonisation. Support for mother tongue education would thus have been as much a political act as it would have been a statement with pedagogical insight.

One must also bear in mind that some research has shown that literacy in a language other than the mother tongue does not necessarily stand as a disadvantage for children (1965 St Lambert experiment reproduced by Bruck et al 1971). The point with research is that it is always inconclusive: in any case, what has worked in one context does not necessarily mean that it will apply and work in another context ? each context has its own specificities.

Furthermore, when experiments are set up, researchers invest so many resources (money, time, well-prepared teachers, equipment?) in the project that success is almost ensured. This also applies to pilot projects; they are very interesting experiments but the fact that they have been purposely set up to investigate and possibly prove a specific point on an issue, one can expect the results to vindicate the researchers? viewpoint.

The challenge with applying a methodology proved successful in a pilot project is to sustain that same level of investment (money, time, well-prepared teachers, equipment?) all the time and in all the schools where it will be implemented.

Thus, making Creole the medium of instruction has its load of ethical and practical problems. Would it be ethical to impose Creole as a medium of instruction just as English was made the medium of instruction a century or so back? And are we adequately equipped and psychologically prepared to make Creole a medium of instruction? Are there enough reading materials in Creole?

Since most reading materials in Mauritius are in French and English, won?t the child feel psychologically alienated, marginalized and stigmatized if he/she reads in a language that is not commonly written in his/her immediate environment?

Teachers stay on

Teachers need to be trained to teach in Creole and then shift to English; textbooks must be written in Creole; a considerable amount of corpus planning has to be done and one cannot underestimate the cost (financial, time, emotional, will-power) of such planning. Making Creole the medium of instruction is not impossible, but it will carry with it, its measure of difficulty, which one must be prepared to face.

The big question therefore remains: what do we want for our children? Creole as a subject or Creole as a medium of instruction, both or neither? A lot has been written by linguists, they have been consulted and interviewed, and what comes out is that not all of them agree (refer to l?Hebdo Sunday 16 February 2004) that Creole as medium of instruction is the best pedagogical solution. In this ardent debate, we seem to have overlooked the main protagonists in this situation: parents and teachers. What do parents want for their children?

Can we be so condescending as to take such an important decision without having consulted them? A national referendum on the whole issue will allow them to express their views. The exercise will be healthy, democratic and the outcome of the referendum will give some guidance to the government (who are the deputees of the general public) as to the course of action to follow.

One must stop and think: the debate that has been taking place in the press in the past few weeks is followed by those parents who buy newspapers and are educated enough to make their own minds about the whole issue. How many parents/people does that amount to? One can hypothesize that a certain (significant?) percentage of them can send their children to a private school should they see that it uses a system which is more to their liking? Many people do not know exactly what is going on, do not know what is at stake or who have an opinion, but do not have the power (the voice) to say what they think and what they want.

And what about the teachers? They are the permanent element in the whole structure: governments come, governments go; ministers come, ministers go; students come, students leave but teachers stay on. They are on the terrain, they work with children in star schools or ZEP schools, day in day out, year in year out. They know what happens in practice and few researchers can claim to match this practical experience. What do they think?

Can we be so condescending as to ignore their opinion? For any system/method to operate, the support of all stakeholders, especially that of parents and teachers is crucial. They need to believe in the system, they need to have a positive attitude, they need to feel motivated to be able to participate and contribute fully in the successful implementation of any proposed programme. And this can only happen if they are part and parcel of any process of reform, if they share what is proposed and not made to perform what is alien to them.

Ms Balgobin has made a very interesting point ? one must not assume that having Creole as medium of instruction will solve all problems. What we believe is most important, whichever decision is taken, whichever system is adopted is doing things properly: train and prepare teachers to deal with our educational system and our linguistic context; provide well-stocked libraries to all schools and make sure they are used by the pupils; organise classes with fewer pupils. This will give teachers time for individual attention.

The example of the Seychelles might be relevant here as before independence, they had a language policy in education similar to what we have in Mauritius. In the early 1980s, the educational system was creolised (with Creole as medium of instruction in the first few years of primary education). Unfortunately, no research was carried out. Therefore, no one can say whether the new system is ?better? than the previous (colonial) system. But, it has been argued (Salabert; 2002) that the switch from Creole to English is not such an easy task and that there have been many practical problems with the institution/maintaining of Creole as medium of instruction (teacher training, use and status of Creole, pedagogical and reading materials, to mention but a few).

Wide consultation

The Seychelles are now moving towards the introduction of English and French (in its oral form) at pre-primary school and an earlier introduction of English as medium of instruction. Salabert thus argues that the creolisation of any educational system must be accompanied by reforms in pedagogy, methods and materials content.

Instead of rushing into changing a system that has been around for a hundred years, we should seriously consider making the present system better and more workable. If the resources are available to sustain the setting up of a completely new system, then these same resources can be used to upgrade the existing system. In the meantime, all necessary contacts should be established and all stakeholders be consulted so that if urgent need is felt for change, then it can be operated in optimum conditions. Changing any system without proper preparation (logistics, emotional) might lead to unforeseen difficulties.

<B>A. Auleear

A. M. AuleeaR-Owodally

Bibliography:</B>

Bruck, M. & Jakimik, J. & Tucker, G. R. (1971) Are French immersion programmes suitable for working class children? A follow-up investigation. Word 27: 311-314.

Lambert, W. E. & Tucker, G. R. (1972) Bilingual Education of Children: the St Lambert Experiment. Newbuiry House Publishers, Inc., Rowley, Mass.

Salabert, G. (2002) ?Les Seychelles: Problématique du trilinguisme vingt ans après les premières réformes du système éducatif? IN Tirvassen, R. (ed) Ecole et Plurilinguisme dans le Sud-ouest de l?Océan Indien. L?Harmattan.