Linguistic and social equity for Yughur and Kyrgyz in China 1
Linguistic and social equityfor Yughur and Kyrgyz national minorities in northwest China: Disadvantages of either-or choice between dominant-language submersion and mothertongue education
Dr. Stephen A. Bahry,
Visiting Scholar,
Comparative, International and
Development Education Centre,
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education,
University of Toronto
Rakhat Zholdoshalieva,
Doctoral candidate,
Department of Sociology and Equity Studies in Education,
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education,
University of Toronto
This chapter presents the case of two little-known minority language communities in north-western China, and their linguistic, cultural and educational dilemmas. The two small, traditionally nomadic populations are: first, speakers of Sarigh Yughur and Shira Yughur languages of Sunan Yughur Autonomous County, Gansu, China; second, speakers of Kyrgyz of Kizilsu Autonomous Kyrgyz Prefecture, in Xinjiang, China.Both small nationalities face a common challenge:to achieve social equity with the dominant Han nationality through educational attainment, by developing sufficient Chinese language proficiency for educational success and participation in the wider society, while preserving their own language and culture. Theireducational dilemma is how to achieve both these goals.
These two communitieshave experienced diametrically opposed language-in-education policies: in Kyrgyz-speaking areas, mother-tongue dominant education, and in Yughur-speaking areas, Chinese-dominant education. A comparison of the latest published educational and occupational statistics from the 2000 census permits us to assess the impact on educational and life outcomes of these opposed monolingual approaches.
This is particularly significant for the Kyrgyz case, where language-in-education policy has been changing in the last five years to Chinese-dominant instruction, in effect applying the Yughur model to the Kyrgyz context. Furthermore, the analysis of thecases up until 2000 allows predictions to be made regarding changes in their subsequent educational attainment and occupational structure between 2000 and 2010, which can later be checked against 2010 data as it becomes available.
Since Yughur education has been entirely through Chinese as language of instruction (LOI);and Kyrgyz education has largely relied on Kyrgyz LOI with Chinese taught as a school subject,both are cases of monolingual, not bilingual, education, since there is no systematic use of two languages as LOI (Baker, 2006). Thus, a comparison of educational outcomes and perspectives on language, culture, and education among these two groups provides a useful comparison of these opposed monolingual approaches.
Chinese-language submersion has been accompanied by language shift among young Yughurs(Ba, 2007; Bahry, 2010; Luobuzangdunzhi, 2006),while Kyrgyz-medium education is said to lead to insufficient Chinese proficiency, and restricted educational and occupational opportunities (Dong & Wan, 2004).Each community has succeeded in one half of the dilemma while failing in the other; in each, an educational policy shift is taking place: in Sunan Yughur Autonomous County, an increased presence of Yughurin basic education; in Kizilsu Kyrgyz Autonomous Prefecture, a shiftto Chinese as the primary LOI for Kyrgyz education.Thus, several questions need to be investigated:
1)In the years 1980-2000 did Yughur and Kyrgyz educational attainment and survival rates differ notably between Chinese-dominant (Yughur) and mother-tongue dominant (Kyrgyz) models?
2)In recent years, what sociolinguistic effects have been reported as associated with the contrasting language-in-educationpolicies of Sunan and Kizilsu?
3)In recent years, what socioeconomic patterns(occupational structure) have been associated with the contrasting language-in-educationpolicies of Sunan and Kizilsu?
4)What perspectives on quality of education language(s) of instruction do Yughur and Kyrgyz minority stakeholders have?
[FIGURE 1 ABOUT HERE]
Social Equity, Language and Schooling
Considerable debate exists on the relation of language and schooling to social equity for language minorities within a diverse society. Critics of minority language instruction treat language as a neutral instrument for knowledgeacquisitionand social participation, best assured through monolingual instructionthe dominant language of wider communication (LWC) (Laitin & Reich, 2003; Pogge, 2003).
While language minority children can quickly acquire Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS) in a dominant language, Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP) necessary to academic content learning takes five to seven years to develop, one explanation of why language minority students taught in a second language often exhibit below grade level curriculum achievement(Cummins, 2001)
However, bilingual education in which the mother tongue and a LWC are used as LOIs can compensate for these weaknesses of submersion in a second language(Baker, 2006; Cummins, 2001; May, 2008). Indeed, a large-scale study of US language minority students found that those submersed in Englishexperienced lowest achievement and highest dropout, while thosereceiving enrichment bilingual education were able to attain or surpass grade level achievement norms and had the lowest dropout rates (Thomas & Collier, 2002).
Language-in-education practices can also influence identity development (Gee, 2001; Norton & Toohey, 2002). Indeed, linguistic submersion is not socially neutral, but doubly privileges dominant-language speakers, facilitating their content learning and identity development, while inadequately supporting these for language minority children (May, 2003, 2005).Identity further depends on its recognition by others (Taylor, 1992). Thus, school policies that recognize one language (and its speakers), but not those of others, will likely lead to dissatisfactionwiththe absence of official recognition of some languages (hence, groups) through their use as LOIs.
Educational equity, minority language & knowledge perspectives.
Tomaševski(2004)argues that quality education demandsfour ‘A’s; that is, availability, accessibility, acceptability, and adaptability. Social and linguistic equity for non-dominantgroups would thus depend on the acceptability of schooling to learners and their families, and its adaptability to their community’s knowledge, culture and language. Similarly, this implies a method of teaching and learning in a LWC that leads to additive and not subtractive bilingualism or first language loss (Cummins, 2001).
Submersion education is often justified bystatementsthat language minority parents “prefer” this for their children (Qorro, 2009).Fully informed choice, however, requires dialogue among researchers, minority communities, educators and policymakersabout the full range of available educational models and their effects (Corson,2001). Indeed, parents from non-dominant language groups once so informed were found in one study to be more likely to prefer maintenance bilingual education for their children (Heugh, 2002).
Language and Nomadic Education
Yughur and Kyrgyz, historically nomadic pastoralists, are still frequently engage in herding.However, policymakers typically assume the suitability of urban-style sedentary schoolingfor nomadic communities, with educational failure attributed to communities themselves rather than to inappropriate planning, ignoring the hardship in separating young nomadic children from theirlanguage, culture, and families. This neglect of alternate models that could better conform to nomadic communities also incurs immense costs (Krätli, 2000; Krätli & Dyer, 2009; Steiner-Khamsi & Gerelmaa, 2008).
However, nomadic children’s weak in state schooling achievement has been linked by some to inappropriate curriculum taught in a dominant language by teachers from outside the community who are unable to speak nomadic children’s languages (Aikman & El Haj, 2006; Krätli & Dyer, 2006). Nevertheless, herders are still predominantly viewed through the prism of premodernity, and,consequently, insufficient attention is given by researchers and policymakersto choice of language(s) of instructionand cultural content of the curriculum in nomadic education.
Language Policy and Minority Education in China
In China, mother-tongue (L1) education is constitutionally permitted for minority nationalities, while instruction in the state language, Chinese, is also required by law.Since 1949, language policy has gone through several stages:Stage I (1949-1966), when minority languages were promoted; Stage II (1966-1976),when minority languages were not tolerated and Chinese was promoted; Stage III (1976-present), with a permission stance towards bothminority languages and Chinese(Zhou, 2003, 2004).
Choice of LOI in minority areas devolves to local officials, resulting in considerable variation of practice (Blachford, 1999; Teng & Weng, 2001; Wang, 2002; Zhou, 2004, 2007).Moreover, the Chinese term, “shuangyu jiaoyu”, (literally, two-language education) is often translated“bilingual education”, although it can refer to any model in which two languages are present in some way. Thus, much “bilingual education” in China in fact has only one LOI, and is actually monolingual, not bilingual education (Baker, 2006; Bahry, in press). Table 1 illustrates some of the range of language-in-education models for national minorities in China.
[INSERT TABLE 1 about here]
Among certain minorities, language shift to Chinese is proceeding, creating concerns about identityloss (Bradley, 2005). Consequently, UNESCO China advocates for endangered language maintenance and revival through the use of minority languages in education (Moukala, 2003). Nevertheless, local officials, even those from language minorities, oftendo not even speak their nationality's language, and preferto pay lip service to cultural symbolism, while putting promotionof Chinese ahead of preservingminority languages (Bradley, 2005).
Increased central policy emphasis on Chinese language promotion has affected local policy (Zhou, 2004, 2007). For example, Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region authorities have promulgated experimental “bilingual education” withChinese LOI and minority languages taught as subjects by bilingual minority teachers (Ma, 2009; Strawbridge, 2008).
At the same time, most applied linguistics research in China avoids these policy questions, focussing instead on foreign language acquisition (Feng, 2005); thus, minority education language policy and implementation is insufficiently informed by findings of systematic examination of a broad range of relevant language-in-education models for minority education, including maintenance bilingual education(Bahry, in press).
This chapter presents an exploratory examination of language-in-education policies education, their sociolinguistic, educational, and occupational effects among the Yughur and Kyrgyz minority groups in China. It concludes with a comparison of the Yughur and Kyrgyz cases, and a discussion of the implications of these cases for policy and research.
Data Sources
A search of Chinese and English language databases on Kyrgyz and Yughur language and education found a single “village investigation” on Kyrgyz (Dong & Wan, 2004), and Yughur (Zheng & Gao, 2004), and two articles (in Chinese and in English) on Yughur language and education (Ba, 2007). In addition, an unpublished case study provides recent qualitative data on Yughur stakeholder perspectives on language and education (Bahry, 2010). Quantitative data on Kyrgyz and Yughur educational attainment and survival to subsequent stages of schooling, and occupational status derive from the 2000 census. These data are supplemented by material published on the Kizilsu and Sunan government websites. China’s 2010 census data were not yet available at the time of writing; restricting our quantitative analysis to census data from 2000.
China’s Yughur Minority:Language, Education and Social Equity
Sunan Yughur Autonomous County, home of 98% of China’s Yughur, lies in northwest Gansu, (Xu, 2005). Its population reached 35932 in 2006, of which 9577 were Yughur, 9159 Tibetan, 15, 901 Han Chinese, and 1295 members of other nationalities (Sunan County, 2006). Yughurs nationality speak two languages, Sarigh (West) Yughur, a Turkic language, and Shira (East) Yughur, a Mongolic language(Arslan, 2006; Gao & He, 2003; Hahn, 1998; Nugteren, 2003).
Sunan County schools were expanded in the 1950s through Han volunteers, many of whom had learned an oral Yughur language (Gao & He, 2003). Yughur parents still recall this weak form of “mixed” Chinese-Yughur bilingual education positively (Bahry, 2010). Beginning in 1965, and throughout Stage II, Sunan County introduced aninnovative form of mass nomadic education, the Horseback School, with teachers riding to distant encampments, increasing educational access by coming to students (Lan, 2006). In Stage III, Horseback Schools and mixed bilingual education went out of use, and have been replaced by exclusive Chinese LOI(Bahry, 2010).
Yughur Language Planning and Use in Sunan Yughur Autonomous County
Sarigh and Shira Yughur are considered endangered, due to increasing shift to Chinese (Bradley, 2005; Hahn, 1998; Nugteren, 2003). In many districts the young no longer speak Yughur; in others, none under 30 years understand Yughur, while in one township, besides some elders, no one understands Yughur (Luobuzangdunzhi, 2006). Shira Yughurlanguage shift in one village has recently been investigated (Zheng & Gao, 2004). Villagers elementary-school-aged before 1982 were highly or moderately proficient in Yughur, but among those elementary-school-aged from 1982-2002, 10% or fewer could respond in Shira Yughur to questions posed in that language.
Nevertheless, development of a unified Yughur script and a Sarigh/Shira Yughur-Chinese dictionary is proceeding (Luobuzangdunzhi, 2006), despite the challenge of devising a script that conforms to Chinese, Turkic and Mongolic phonology(Arslan, 2006; Zhaonasitu, 2006). Furthermore, a Sarigh Yughur extra-curricular program was attempted in one school. Initially greeted with enthusiasm, this experiment failed: the teacher, a proficient speaker, had unsuitable materials and no training. Children found the course difficult and parents were disappointed in children’s lack of spoken ability (Ba, 2007).
China’s Kyrgyz Minority: Language, Education and Social Equity
Most ethnic Kyrgyz not only live in Kyrgyzstan,but also in China, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan and Turkey.[1] However, little attention has been given to Kyrgyz in minority contexts. Eighty percent of China’s160, 427 Kyrgyz lived inKizilsu Kyrgyz Autonomous Prefecture in Xinjiang in 2000 (China, 2003),[2]located in the southwest part of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, bordering Pakistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan (Hu, 2006; Olson, 1998; Zhou, 2003). Besides Kyrgyz, Uygur, Tajik and Han nationalities inhabit Kizilsu. Within Kizilsu,two countieshave a large Kyrgyz majority, one county a large Kyrgyz minority, and only 10% of inhabitants of Kizilsu’s central town are Kyrgyz,while the proportion of Kyrgyz in all districts decreased from 2000 to 2008.[3]
Weak cross-border partnerships keep Kyrgyz minorities culturally, geographically and linguistically marginalized, althoughthe Kyrgyz in Xinjiang, China, have available much literature in their language[4]. Kizilsu Kyrgyz have weak contact with Kyrgyzstan (Laruelle & Peyrouse, 2009), although tentative cultural contacts have been recently made (Kizilsu, n.d., “Kyrgystan Cultural Delegation visits Kizilsu”).
[TABLE 3 ABOUT HERE]
Kyrgyz Language Planning and Use in Kizilsu Kyrgyz Prefecture
Kyrgyz is a Turkic language related to Kazak and Uygur, with northern and southern dialects spoken in Kizilsu, as in Kyrgyzstan (Hu, 2006; Johanson & Csató, 1998; Olson, 1998). Before 1949, Xinjiang schoolstaught in modern Chinese, or in vernacular Uygur, apparently with Kyrgyz not used formally as an LOI in that period (Benson, 2004; Schluessel, 2009).
During Stage I, Kyrgyz was written in China in modified Arabic script,and in Stage II either in modified Cyrillic or romanized Kyrgyz. Youth educated in Stage II were thus rendered functionally illiterate when Arabic script returned to use in the late 1970s (Benson, 2004; Hu, 2006; Zhou, 2003). These script changes have also hindered communication with Kyrgyz in Kyrgyzstan, where Cyrillic script is used.
Comparison of the Yughur and Kyrgyz Cases
Although there is a concern to achieve social equity through education in both Sunan Yughur Autonomous County and Kizilsu Kyrgyz Autonomous Prefectures, until recently, the two jurisdictions have taken very different approaches to doing so.
In Sunan County, language-in-education has shifted from Chinese LOI with supplementary oral Yughur instruction during Stages I and II (1949-1976), i.e., mixed bilingual education, to monolingualChinese-medium instruction with no inclusion of Yughur as LOI or as a subject, i.e., dominant language submersion (Stage III). In contrast, Kyrgyz schools in Kizilsu applied monolingual mother-tongue education at the elementary level with Chinese taught only as a school subject. After elementary education, students could continue Kyrgyz-medium education in technical stream junior and senior secondary schools; or in Chinese-medium academic stream programsif they could demonstrate sufficient Chinese proficiency, or alternatively attend Kizilsu’s single Kyrgyz-mediumacademic secondary school in the prefecture center (Dong & Wan, 2004; Kizilsu Bureau of Education, 2009). Such structured specialization of streams by LOIseems to result in Kyrgyz-medium education directing most Kyrgyz students into the vocational stream.
In light of community concern about accelerating Yughur language loss, Sunan County policy now states that minority languages are taught in pre-schools and elementary schools (Sunan County Government website, n.d.), while the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region’s current “bilingual education” policy assumes that a Chinese-dominant instruction will lead to increased educational attainment and achievement. Kizilsu Prefecture has only recently begun to implement this policy in rural Kyrgyz-dominant districts.
Yughur and Kyrgyz Educational Attainment and Survival
Comparable statistical data on Yughur and Kyrgyz education are available from the 2010 census for attainment, from which survival rates from each stage of schooling to the next can be calculated. The figures below contrast Yughur and Kyrgyz educational attainment over time from 1980-2000.
Throughout this period, Kizilsu Kyrgyz education has emphasized Kyrgyz-dominant primary education, while Sunan County has emphasized Chinese-dominant education. As is evident from Figure 2, Kyrgyz and Yughur primary attainment rates differ only slightly. Apparently, then, opposed approaches to language-in-education seem to have led to virtually identical outcomes.
[FIGURE 2 ABOUT HERE]
As a result of the extension of compulsory education to include junior-secondary education, we see the gender gap in junior-secondary completion gradually disappear for both ethnicities (See Figure 3). However, Yughur junior secondary attainment rates are higher than Kyrgyz rates over the same period, with a small but steady increase in the Yughur-Kyrgyz gap during this time. Figure 4 illustrates the primary-junior-secondary survival rate, understood as the percentage of primary graduates who continued to and completed junior secondary education. In this period, primary-junior secondary survival rates have been steadily increasing among Yughurs of both genders, and female Kyrgyz, while it has stagnated among Kyrgyz males.
[FIGURES 3 & 4 ABOUT HERE]
Figure 5 displays Kyrgyz and Yughur upper secondary attainment for the same period, combining academic and technical streams. The gender gap in upper secondary attainment also disappeared for both ethnicities. Yughur completion rates are consistently higher than Kyrgyz rates by about 5-6%. However, when we examine Figure 6, which displays the junior-upper secondary survival rates, we see a slight lowering of survival rates for both ethnicities and genders, culminating in almost identical survival from junior to upper secondary completion of Yughur males and females and Kyrgyz males, with Kyrgyz female survival rates for the most recent cohort 5-7% higher than the rest. Thus, while one rationale for the use of Chinese LOI in minority education is preparation for Chinese-medium academic stream senior secondary school, these data do not indicate that choice of LOI at earlier levels of schooling has much effect on survival to the end of upper-secondary education.