Browse results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 27,755 items for :

  • Brill | Sense x
  • Chapters/Articles x
  • Primary Language: English x
Clear All Modify Search

Abstract

Kritikal ang mga desisyon kabahin sa (mga) sinulti-an nga gigamit sa pagtudlo sa mga estudyante alang sa pagpalambo sa access ug kalidad sa edukasyon sa mga nag-kalain’laing pinulongan nga mga nasod. Nakita ang niagi’ng 30 ka tuig nga wala pa nahimo o naila kaniadto ang paningkamot aron ipakita ang potensyal alang sa kaugalingon nga mga pinulongan sa mga estudyante nga madala sa mga sistema sa edukasyon, bisan kung ang mga sistema padayon nga nagpunting sa nagpatigbabaw nga nasyonal ug internasyonal nga mga sinulti-an. Gisugyot sa kini nga kapitulo ang usa ka bag-ong analitiko nga balangkas aron susihon ang mga pagbag-o sa karon nga palisiya sa edukasyon sa sinultian ngadto sa paggamit sa mga sinultian nga pamilyar sa mga estudyante - magamit kini uban ang nagpatigbabaw nga mga sinultian. Nagsugod kami pinaagi sa pagpaila sa pagbag-o sa palisiya nga gisugdan (1) gikan sa itaas, (2) gikan sa ilawom, o (3) gikan sa kilid, nga gipaila ang mga aktor sa matag ang-ang. Gisugyot namo dayon ang mga pagbag-o sa mga panghitabo sa paglabay sa panahon, nga ginamit ang mga kaso nga na-dokumento sa nasod, ug gisugyot ang upat ka mga teoretikal nga modelo sa proseso sa pagbag-o sa palisiya. Nahibal-an namo nga ang malampuson ug malungtaron nga pagbag-o nanginahanglan ug interaksiyon tali sa tanang tulo nga lebel-ug pataas ug ang gipalawig nga panahon- diin ang partisipasyon sa komunidad usa ka hinungdanon nga hinungdan, dili usa ka sekundaryo’ng konsiderasyon. Sa katapusan, naghatag kami usa ka pagtuki sa mga klase sa pagbag-o sa palisiya ug mga proseso sa pagpatuman nga sigurado nga magpadayon. (Abstract in Cebuano [ceb]a language of the Philippines, translated by Chariza Desucatan and Jazz Digao)

Decisions regarding the language(s) of instruction for learners are critical for improving educational access and quality in multilingual countries. The past 30 years have seen unprecedented efforts to demonstrate the potential for learners’ own languages to be brought into education systems, even as those systems continue to focus on dominant national and international languages. This chapter proposes a new analytical framework to examine language-in-education policy change toward using languages familiar to learners—alongside dominant languages. We begin by characterizing policy change as initiated (1) from above, (2) from below, or (3) from the side, defining the actors at each level. We then suggest trajectories of change over time, using well-documented country cases, and propose four theoretical models of policy change process. We find that successful and sustainable change requires interaction between all three levels—and over an extended period of time—where community participation is a key factor, not a secondary consideration. We conclude by assessing the types of change processes that are most likely to contribute to sustainable policy change and implementation of the policy.

In: Language Issues in Comparative Education II

Abstract

Kolleejonni Barnoota Barsiistotaa Itiyoophiyaa galma isaanii kan barsiistota barattoota miiliyoona 15 ta’an yoo xiqqaate afaanota lamaan dubbisuufi bareessuu barsiisan leenjisuu ta’e milkeessuuf daanqaalee hedduutu isaan mudata. Itiyoophiyaan Afriikaa keessaa biyya afaanota hedduu afaan barnootaa taasisuun imaammata barnoota afaanii hirmaachisaa ta’e qabaachuudhaan dursitudha; afaanot 23 ol ta’an kara idilaawaa ta’een barnoota sadarkaa tokkoffaa keessatti itti gargaaramti. Hata’u malee, leenjistootni barsiistotaa afaan dhalootaa kanneen kaadhimamtoota kana koolleejota keessatti barsiisan kutaalee 1-4tti dubbisuufi barreessuu barsiisuu irratti kan leenji’an miti. Kaadhimamtootni barsiistotaa kolleejota keessatti afaanota barnootaa irratti leecalloowwan dubbifaman ga’aa dhabuun, leecalloowwan afaanota kanaan maxxanfaman bal’innaan jiraachuu dhabuufi rakkoon dhiyeessii leecalloowwan dubbisa dijitaalaaf oolan kolleejota hedduu keessa jiraachuun tamsaasa leecalloowwan dijitaalaa gufachiisaniiru. Boqonnaan kun akkaataa ogeeyyiin dubbisuu Yunivarsitii Bulchiinsa Mootummaa Filooriidaa Kolleejota Barnoota Barsiistota Itiyoophiyaa wajjin ta’uudhaan akkaataa itti afaanota torbaaniin meeshaalee barnootaa itti qopheessan, ga’umsa lenjistoota barsiistotaa kaadhimamtoota leenjii duraa barsiisan haala milkaa’aa ta’een dabaluuf hojjetaniifi danqaalee leecalloowwan barnootaa afaanota garagaraatiin qopheessuu irratti mudataniifi hojiiwwan ga’umsa barsiisummaa barsiistota kolleejii ijaaruu itti raawwataman ibsa. (Abstract in Afaan Oromoo [hae], a language of Ethiopia, translated by Waktola Geneti and Ambissa Kenea.)

የኢትዮጵያ የመምህራን ትምህርት ኮሌጆች 15 ሚሊዮን ህጻናትን ቢያንስ በሁለት ቋንቋ ንባብ እና ጽሑፍን የሚያስተምሩ መምህራንን የማዘጋጀት ግባቸዉን ለማሳካት በርካታ ተግዳሮቶች አሉባቸዉ፡፡ ኢትዮጵያ በመጀመሪያ ደረጃ ትምህርት ማስተማሪያነት 52 ቋንቋዎችን የምትገለገል በመሆኑ፣ በአፍሪካ አካታች የማስተማሪያ ቋንቋ ፖሊሲን ተግባር ላይ በማዋል ቀዳሚ ያደርጋታል፡፡ ሆኖም ብዙ የአፍ መፍቻ ቋንቋ አሰልጣኝ መምህራን የታች ክፍል ንባብ ወይም ጽሑፍ ክህሎት (early grade reading or writing) ለማስተማር የሚረዳ ዝግጀት የላቸዉም ወይም ስልጠና አልወሰዱም፡፡ ሰልጣኝ መምህራንም ለአፍ መፍቻ ቋንቋ ትምህርት አጋዥ መጻሕፍትን በበቂ ሁኔታ አያገኙም፡፡ በእነዚህ ቋንቋዎች የተጻፉ ህትመቶች እጥረትም አለ፡፡ በብዙ ኮሌጆችም የቴክኖሎጂ መሰረተ ልማት ዝርጋታ ያልተሟላ በመሆኑ፣ የንባብ መጻሕፍት በዲጂታል እንዳይሰራጩ እንቅፋት ሆኗል፡፡ ይህ ምዕራፍ የፍሎሪዳ መንግሰት ዩንቨርሲቲ የንባብ ባለሙያዎች፣ ከኢትዮጵያ የመምሀራን ትምህርት ማሰልጠኛ ኮሌጆች ጋር በመተባበር በሰባት ቋንቋዎች የማስተማሪያ መሳሪያዎችን እንዴት እንዳዘጋጁ፣ ውጤታማ የቅድመ መምህራን ስልጠና መስጠት እንደቻሉና የኮሌጆችን አቅም ለማሳደግ የተከናወኑ ተግባራት ምን ምን እንደሆኑ ይገልጻል፡፡ በተጨማሪም ልሳነ-ብዙ የማስተማሪያ መሳሪያዎችን ለማዘጋጀት ያጋጠሙ ተግዳሮቶችን ለመፍታትና የአሰልጣኝ መምህራንን የንባብ እና የጽሁፍ የማስተማሪያ ስነ ዘዴ አቅም ለማሳደግ የተደረጉ ጥረቶችን ያትታል፡፡ (Abstract in Amharic [amh], a language of Ethiopia, translated by Dawit Mekonnen.)

Colleges of Teacher Education in Ethiopia face numerous challenges in fulfilling their goal of educating future teachers to teach 15 million children to read and write in at least two languages. Ethiopia has one of the most inclusive language of instruction policies in Africa, with over 23 languages officially used in primary education. However, most mother tongue (L1) teacher educators at the colleges are not prepared to teach early grade reading or writing. Student teachers have very little access to reading materials in the languages of instruction, print materials in most languages are scarce, and the poor infrastructure at most colleges impedes the spread of digital reading materials. This chapter describes how Florida State University reading specialists worked with Ethiopian colleges to develop instructional materials in seven languages, increase the capacity to provide effective pre-service teacher training, and address challenges in both producing multilingual materials and building the instructional capacity of teacher educators.

In: Language Issues in Comparative Education II
Author: Eunice Kua

Abstract

Kanaa gûreya kaa nûre ila dummo na mbo tucin oŋon̰e, awuratin̰ du kanaa îniŋawo dîriye înu tindirin oŋon̰e. Awuratin̰ i du aditta îniŋa mbo katab geya îniŋa fandaŋta mbo ujim wanaŋto innde. Kanaa îniŋa mbo aditta îniŋa mbo iyanto îya ru, ili ta jam kitabta ndîŋar kobolokta lûtturaŋ, kitabta îniŋawo gâr ige, kaa kanaa îniŋa mbo dar mo nâyirinda ila, i indam nîyembo ndaŋ-ndaŋ te. Awuratin̰ Darfur mana Cad mo ninda ila kâddur wî Furta mbo Zogokor mbo Masaraa mbo ye. Mi kanaa masaraka kobolok 4 mbo 5 mbo îndiyen̰ asas mo dûkumta mbara na Cad mo saba na wîm nday, hâbutoo kâddur mosiŋa, in ken nen̰eŋesira kitab gi ta gi, kaa gâr nige wîwo kanaa nda tândakacire. Dora barnamic ta nî gu tûre, hâgudu gâsikandi nosinja nî gu ambenjere, hâgudu kobolokta kaa kâddunjar nîŋa mbo kimin̰ sibinaa îndiyen̰ mo gâr nige wî mbo, ŋgo ken ciciri barnamicta ûjim înigegiyoŋ tândari. Ama kaa kanaa nîŋ nenee mbo barnamic igu ûjim naŋ-kodo sîkal andadala. Ŋgo ken barnamic igu awuratin̰ dûkumta nîŋa i inda gi mbo nandakaciru rekelen̰o njiciro mena gu anjere. (Abstract in Massalit [mls], a language of Chad and Sudan, translated by Angela Prinz, Juma Ibrahim Harun, and Abdelmajid Abdalla Sileman.)

Language can be a precious connection to the past and a potent symbol of identity for displaced peoples. Refugees’ felt needs to maintain their culture and heritage through written language can be a powerful motivator for literacy and education, particularly among those from ethnolinguistic minority groups. Darfur refugees in Chad are mainly from the Fur, Zaghawa, and Massalit ethnic groups. This chapter discusses lessons learned from implementing home language (L1) literacy as a supplementary subject for grade 4 and 5 Massalit children in primary schools in two refugee camps in eastern Chad. It evaluates the unusual program design, grapples with the constraints of the learning environment, and describes the potential for cross-fertilization between a community-based literacy program for adults and youth and a school-based children’s program. This is a practitioner view that demonstrates both the benefits and challenges of adaptive program implementation in the refugee camp environment.

In: Language Issues in Comparative Education II
Author: Maik Gibson

Abstract

Katika kipengele hiki ninaangalia maswala muhimu ambayo mtafiti anakumbana nayo anapotambulisha mahali lugha mbambali zinatumiwa. Utafiti nilioufanya katika Jamuhuri ya Kidemokrasia ya Congo unatumiwa kama mfano na yale nilioyajifunza yanaelezwa hapa. Ninaeleza wakati gani yafaa kufanya utafiti kama huu na njia zinazofaa katika muktadha tofauti. Ninatoa mapendekezo suluhisho na wakati gani yale mapenekezo yanafaa kutumiwa katika dhana yanayoelekea ujuzi wa matumizi ya lugha. Ninamaliza na tafakari na pia mapendekezo kadhaa kuhusu matokeo ya utafiti huu kwa utekelezaji wa mipango ya elimu mahali yanapatikana lugha nyingi. (Abstract in Swahili [swh], a language of Tanzania and East Africa, translated by Bagamba Araali.)

In this chapter I look at some of the most important issues when conducting language mapping, exemplifying many of the lessons learned in one such project in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). I outline when it is important to do language mapping, and which methodologies are most useful in different contexts. I then discuss various issues and assumptions which can lead to inaccurate data, and propose solutions based, where relevant, on sociolinguistic concepts. I finish with some reflections/recommendations on what implications these findings have for the implementation of effective educational programs in multilingual contexts.

In: Language Issues in Comparative Education II
Authors: Lucy Maina and Roderick Hicks

Abstract

Iyiolo ena matua nelimu enkoitoi naimaitie laigerok oasishore olturur le Africa Educational Trust eibungare Ematua e Serkali e Kenya naitasheiki enkisuma (enkitengenare ompala) Ministry e Education tena siai naisomieki inkerra e pirimari enkutukut ormaasai tiatwa Laikipia North. Ilmaasai ora kumok te Laikipia North, enchoto nemedupa maendeleo, netii osina aa sapuk, netii enkisoma abori oleng, neitu sii eibung orkuak lo ilmaasai tenkiterunoto enkisoma oo inkera. Ekipuo aduaya imbaa naretu enkutuk oo ilmaasai tiatwa ntoiwo olosho telulungata peidimie ena bungaroto enkuntuk emaa too sukuuli, nekinguraa sii tenguton enetareto ena kutuk tiatwa ntoiwo pee eilepunye enkisoma oo inkera enye. Ekimbalie sii imbaa etipat naidimie ena program tiatua embulunye enkisoma oo inkera, neisulaki enkisoma o enkikena oo elototo sii oo sukuuli. Ekidipie aitoki enguraroto oo imbaa nemeishia too inkera ookulie kutukie neme naisomishoreki tiatwa sukuul. Eibala sii ajo melelek pee edumu inkera neme no ilmaasai enkisoma emaa, kake iyiolo inia paashikinoto neidimayu neitobiri eetae enkoitoi sidai. (Abstract in Maa [mas]—Laikipia North dialect—a language of Kenya, translated by Francis Merinyi, Steven Ole Timoi, and Alex Kimiri.)

This chapter describes the journey taken by the authors, working with Africa Educational Trust in partnership with the Ministry of Education in Kenya, when implementing official policy by introducing the local language, Maa, as medium of instruction in primary schools in Laikipia North. The mainly Maasai people in this area, which is characterized by poor infrastructure, poverty, and low levels of literacy, have traditionally been unenthusiastic about formal education for their children. We look at uptake of the Maa-based policy in terms of parent and community attitudes to the use of Maa in schools, examining the circumstances under which use of Maa has empowered parents to support their children’s education. We also describe the impact the program had on children’s learning outcomes, especially literacy and numeracy and on their attendance at school. Finally, we explore any negative impacts on children with a home language different from that used in school. While we conclude that children with other home languages may not pick up Maa as quickly as many assume, we also find that any negative impact is marginal and can be corrected given appropriate action.

In: Language Issues in Comparative Education II
Author: Kara Brown

Abstract

Seo päätükk pruuk ärq pikäaolist võrdlust keeletüü ja poliitiga kottalõ, midä om tett piirkunnakeele oppamisõ edendämises aoluulidsõl Võromaal Lõunahummogu-Eestin. Ma piä arru võro keele hääs tettüide tegemiisi arõnõmisõ ja muutumisõ üle katõl aovai-hõl, ku ma Võromaal naid asju lähküst kai (2001–2003 ja 2013–2014) ni katõn haridusastmõn, latsiaian ja algklassõn. Aśast arvusaamisõs tulõ pruuki Koseneni ja Bensoni mudõlit. Analüüs näütäs, et “üllest,” “kõrvalt” ja “alt” vahele ei saaq Eestin kimmit piire tõmmadaq. Keeleaśa ajajaq kargasõq ütest rollist tõistõ ja seo tähendäs, et nä liigussõq üllest tettävä poliitiga, kõrvaltmõotamisõ ja altpuult tettävä poliitiga tasapindu vaihõl nii, nigu näide ammõdiq ja elokäük ette säädväq. Niisamatõ inemiseq “liuglõsõq” “kõrvalt” tasapinna pääl, ollõn kõrd üten, kõrd tõsõn organisatsioonin. Niimuudu seo päätükk ka uur, kuis liigitäq tuud “üles-alla kargamist” ja “liuglõmist,” midä võro keele haridussüsteemi tuujidõ mitmõpoolidsõq köüdüsseq ja sõltumisõq soodustasõq. (Abstract in Võro [vro], a language of Estonia, translated by Evar Saar.)

This chapter draws on a diachronic comparison of the language policies promoting regional language instruction in the historic Võrumaa area of southeastern Estonia. I consider policy developments and changes both between the two periods of my fieldwork (2001–2003 and 2013–2014) and across the pre-primary and primary levels to gain insights into the ways the Kosonen and Benson (this volume) framework can be applied. The analysis points to the permeability of the boundaries in Estonia between “above, side, and below” and how a range of language policy actors “category-jump,” that is, how they move across levels (i.e., above, side, below) in terms of their professional affiliations across and within time periods. Individuals also “slide” across the “side” from organization to organization. The chapter also explores the ways category jumping and sliding facilitate interdependence and interconnectedness among those involved in Võro language-in-education policy.

In: Language Issues in Comparative Education II

Abstract

Ekimega kino kikwania enkola eyo okunhunkuza olulimi mu nkola ne entambuza eye ebyendhegeresa mu mbeera dhe ennimi enhingi. Enkola eno esobola okukozese-bwa okutegeera amaani no obunafu obwe enkola edhiri gho buti, oba okulondoba ensonga lunkupe edheetaaga okukolebwaku okusobozesa okuleetawo enkyukakyuka empanguzi. Ennhinga eitaanu edhe enkola eno ni dhino: (i) embeera eyo olulimi mu bughangwa mwe lughangaalira no obughagizi bwa abanakyalo; (ii) ensengekezo eye empandiika; (iii) ebye endhego ne ebikozesebwa mu kwega no okwegeresebwa; (iv) okughandiisa kwa abasomesa, okutendekebwa no okugheerezebwa mu bifo bye bakol-eramu; era (v) okulondobolwa no okubuuzibwa. Enkola eno esoboka okukozesebwa ku luse lwe kyalo, kiketeze, oba nsi. Okitundu ekisembayo mu kimega kigema ku nkoz-esa ya nkola eno okugeragerania olulimi mu nkola eye ebyendhegeresa mu Kenya ni Uganda, ne engeri enkola eno bwetegekebwa mu nkola. Wairenga ghaligho entegeka ibiri entongole edheefaananirizakuuku, ekirigho kiraga kiti mu Uganda enkozesa ye ennimi edhitali dha bughagufu bungi needhisinga okukozesebwa mu myaka egisook-erwaku mu kusoma okutandikirwaku, atenga mwo mu Kenya, Luzungu na Kiswayiri neebiteebwaku eisira. (Abstract in Lusoga [xog], a language of Uganda, translated by Cornelius Wambi Gulere.)

This chapter proposes a framework to analyze language-in-education policies and practices in multilingual contexts. The framework can be used to understand the strengths and weaknesses of current policies, or to identify specific issues that need to be addressed to successfully make changes. The five factors of the framework include: the sociolinguistic context and community support; (ii) orthographies; (iii) curriculum and materials; (iv) teacher recruitment, training, and deployment; and (v) assessment and examination. This framework can be applied at the local, regional, or national level. The last section of the chapter applies the framework to compare the language-in-education policies in Kenya and Uganda, and their implementation. Despite two very similar official policies, systems in place in Uganda favor the use of non-dominant languages in the early years of primary school, whereas English and Kiswahili are favored in Kenya.

In: Language Issues in Comparative Education II
In: Language Issues in Comparative Education II
Author: Diane Dekker

Abstract

Úlí ning kapagnasán na ning yátung mamúnga yang masalése ing edukasiun, míras king kékatámung pansin a ing amánung gagamítan king pámanurû ya ing pékasúsî king máyap nang pámamúnga ning pámanigáral. Ing pisasabian king pigampang amánuking-pamagáral (language in education policy) nung nú ing múmúnang amánu na ning mágáral (first language of learners) yang mákasáup king pámagpalábung ning edukasiun, kambé na ning pisasabian díkil king pámamié makatalaruan at é mángabírang pámanigáral karing sablâ, kayábé la ngan déni karing pisasabian ning Millenium Development Goals, Pámagáral Para Karing Sablâ (Education for All), at ining Sustainable Development Goals a pégumpisán na ngan ning United Nations. Saddiasaddia, ding pigampang amánu-king-pamagáral (language in education policy) kabud da nó mú susúlat déning mánungkúlan king gubiérnu a alang bitasang pámisanggúní karing mémalén at mangálating táwu. Ining papil a ini, salugsugán né ing maging papil da réning kíkimut king pámalénan, manibat king bábo, karing misusumángid a kámpu, at manibatan king lálam, a maliáring magmunikálâ king pámagpalábung at pámamamalákad ning pigampang amánu-king-pamagáral (language in education policy). Ing pámanialugsug king nung makanánu lang makásáup ding miyáliwang kíkimut a réti king pámanlíkas at pámamalákad ning pigampá ó polisiá kéti king Pilipínas maliári yang magsilbing alimbáwâ karing áliwang bangsang mángángas isaplálá ré ing parálan ning multilingualismu king karélang pambangsang kanawan. (Abstract in Kapampangan [pam], a language of the Philippines, translated by Mike Pangilinan.)

Global attention to the improvement of education outcomes has brought to the fore the language of instruction as a key determinant in achieving good learning outcomes. United Nation’s initiatives of the Millennium Development Goals, Education for All, and now the Sustainable Development Goals all include discussions on the inclusion of the first language of learners in language-in-education policy as improving academic achievement and providing equitable and inclusive education for all learners. Traditionally language-in-education policies were authored by government officials with little or no input from the grassroots level where policy is implemented. This paper explores the roles of societal actors from above, from the side and from below who influence both language-in-education policy development and implementation. An exploration of how these various actors contribute to policy shift and policy implementation in the Philippines provides an example for other nations desiring to maximize multilingualism as a means of national development.

In: Language Issues in Comparative Education II
Author: Carol Benson

Abstract

Eka ndrimana leyi, ndritirhisa malandrela ya kucinca ka mafambisela ya ndondrisisu ya xiyimu xa hansi-henhla-tlhelo maseketeliwaka hi Kosonen na Benson ka timhaka toyelana ni dondro matikweni ya Etiyopiya na Musambiki. Matiku ha mabidri makumeka endleleni yotirhisa tindrimi ta xintu ta vadondri eka svigava sva ta dondro. Ndrikambisisa lesvingahlamuxelaka svona kuhambana ka mfambu wa matiku ha mabidri mayelanu ni macincela ya ta mafambisela ya ta tiku, kuhangalaka ni kuyisa mahlweni ta madondrisela hi tidrimi tinyingi niku kumbe ndlela yezru ya nkambisisu yingatrhuka yib’ika kumbe kuhlamuxela mhaka leyi. Mfambu wa tiku la Etiyipiya mayelanu ni ta dondro hi tidrimi ta xintu wusukela henhla, lesvingayendla akuva Vurhangeli dra Svipandri driseketeliwa hi vahisekeli va xitlhelo akuva kuseketeliwa kulandra ni kuyisa mahlweni vudondrisi hi tidrimi leti kutani tikumekaka eka xigava xa ta dondro. Kasi tikweni dra Musambiki, vahisekelei va xitlhelo, ni hi kupfuneteliwa hi vavulavuli va tidrimi tokala mpfumawulu, vasungulile nakambe vayisa mahlweni ta kucinca ka madondrela, kasi mafambisela ya tiku ya Xifumu masala he ndrhaku. Vahisekeli va xitlhelo, kupatrana ni vakulukumba-nyota, vave ni vukumeki dra lisima eka matiku ha mabidri. Timhaka ta matiku ha mabidri tihikomba mapimisela man’wana mayelanu ni masimekela nhambi ni hi mafambisela ya ta donfro hi thelo ta tidrimi. (Abstract in Xironga [rng], a language of Mozambique, translated by Samima Patel and Félix Filimone Tembe)

In this chapter I apply Kosonen and Benson’s above-below-side policy change framework to the cases of Ethiopia and Mozambique. Both countries are in the process of incorporating learners’ own languages into their education systems. I examine what their different policy change trajectories may mean for expansion and sustainability of MLE, and whether our framework may have predictive and/or explanatory value. Ethiopia’s policy was initiated from above, causing regional education offices to rely on side actors to sustain implementation and expand languages offered. In Mozambique, side actors with the support of language communities from below have initiated and sustained change, with official government policy lagging behind. Side actors, including key individuals, have played important roles in both countries. Nuances in each case suggest new ways to think about language-in-education policy change processes.

In: Language Issues in Comparative Education II