HOW CAN SPEECH-LANGUAGE.html


    
        
            
                How can speech-language therapists and audiologists enhance
                language and literacy outcomes in South Africa? (And why we urgently
                need to)

                
                

                Harsha Kathard

                Lebogang Ramma

                Michelle Pascoe

                Department of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Cape Town
            

            
            

            Heila Jordaan

            Sharon Moonsamy
            

            Department of Speech Pathology and Audiology, University of the Witwatersrand
        

        
        

        Anna-Marie Wium

        Sandra du Plessis

        Department of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, University of Limpopo (Medunsa campus)
    

    
    

    Lidia Pottas

    Department of Communication Pathology, University of Pretoria





Nasim Banu Khan

Department of Health, KwaZulu-Natal





Corresponding author: H Kathard (harsha.kathard@uct.ac.za)




    ABSTRACT

    Basic education in South Africa faces a crisis as learners fail to
    achieve the necessary outcomes in the related areas of language and
    literacy. The aims of this paper are twofold. Firstly, we aim to
    describe and discuss the education crisis by outlining the educational
    landscape, relevant policy imperatives and implementation challenges in
    post-apartheid education. The systemic factors contributing to the
    literacy crisis are emphasised. Secondly, we argue that speech language
    therapists and audiologists (SLTAs) have a role to play in supporting
    basic education in South Africa through developing language and
    literacy. It is suggested that the professions of speech-language
    pathology and audiology must be socially responsive and
    population-focused in order to make meaningful contributions to
    development in South Africa. The potential roles of SLTAs are discussed
    with suggestions for further actions required by the professions to
    enable a contextually relevant practice in a resource-constrained
    environment.

    
    

    Barbara Ehren (Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders,
    University of Central Florida) responds to the paper by raising the
    issues that SLTAs should be cognisant of, and making suggestions for
    the way forward.

    Keywords: language, literacy, basic education, speech language therapist and audiologist roles, South Africa




    
        ‘Creating
        literate environments and societies is essential for achieving goals of
        eradicating poverty, reducing child mortality, curbing population
        growth, achieving gender equality and ensuring sustainable development,
        peace and democracy.’
    

    Koichiro Masuura (2005, p. 5)

    
        ‘In
        today’s era of globalisation, economic growth depends
        increasingly on an educated workforce that is poised to take advantage
        of opportunities.’ USAID (2004, p. 2)

        
        

        Development as an ethos of practice for speech-language therapists and audiologists (SLTAs)

        In post-apartheid South Africa, all sectors have an obligation to
        contribute to the building of a democratic nation. To sustain this
        democracy, education as a basic human right for all people is
        fundamental (UNESCO, 2005); not having essential literacy skills is
        morally indefensible and an appalling loss of untapped human potential
        and economic capacity. As language is the medium used in the classroom
        for teaching and learning, it has major implications for a
        collaborative role between teachers and SLTAs. The professions of
        speech-language pathology and audiology are key roleplayers in this
        process. In this paper, we consider how the professions of
        speech-language therapy and audiology can advance development in South
        Africa through their contributions to Basic Education.

        The notion of development in this paper is underpinned by
        Sen’s (2001) conceptualisation of development as expansion of
        freedoms allowing choice. Many countries in the world, including South
        Africa, face serious challenges such as oppression, poverty,
        illiteracy, hunger, disease and threats to civil liberties. According
        to Sen (2001), development is about how we overcome these difficulties.
        The way to achieve development is to expand freedoms, allowing people
        to make choices. As human beings we aspire to having the right to elect
        our governments (political freedom), make choices about how we earn and
        spend (economic freedom), have opportunities to be educated and
        maintain good health (social freedom), engage with each other in a
        trusting way and benefit from protective social security. The different
        types of freedoms are interlinked; freedoms of one kind promote other
        kinds of freedoms.

        In South Africa, we achieved political freedom in 1994 but have a
        long way to go in achieving social freedoms, as health and education
        remain key areas of challenge. In the domain of Basic Education the
        professions can make key contributions through advancing education by
        supporting literacy development. Literacy has been defined as ‘an
        individual’s ability to read, write, speak and compute and solve
        problems at levels of proficiency necessary to function on the job and
        in society, to achieve one’s goals, and to develop one’s
        knowledge and potential’ (ASHA, 2002, p. 168). Literacy
        development in South African Basic Education is in a serious crisis. In
        2003, the Department of Education investigated literacy in grade 3
        learners and found that 61% were not achieving grade level outcomes
        (Centre for Evaluation and Assessment, 2006). The poor performance of
        learners was also evident in the Progress in International Reading
        Literacy Study (PIRLS), which included South Africa in a comparison of
        literacy across 40 countries (Mullis, Martin, Kennedy & Foy, 2007).
        Of significant concern was that South African grade 5 learners obtained
        the lowest scores despite being compared with grade 4 learners
        internationally (Scherman, van Staden, Venter & Howie, 2008). It is
        even more distressing to learn that South African learners were
        reported to perform worse than those in neighbouring countries such as
        Mozambique, Swaziland and Botswana, even though a larger educational
        budget is allocated in South Africa (Barry, 2006). The situation has
        not improved over time. The recent report on the Annual National
        Assessment of 2011 (Department of Basic Education, 2011b) indicated
        that 6 million learners (grades 2 - 7) were assessed in language and
        mathematics as part of its quality improvement strategy. The findings
        revealed that only 12 - 31% of learners had reached an ‘achieved
        level of performance’. The lowest results were evident in poor
        and rural communities. Learner failure is symptomatic of a systemic
        problem. Clearly, the quality of education is a problem and therefore
        all stakeholders are obliged to participate in improving schooling.

        Given that literacy, as part of communication, is key to learning,
        the potential role of SLTAs is invaluable. In proposing development as
        an ethos of practice we advance an equity-driven approach that forces
        engagement with the challenges experienced by the majority of South
        Africans. In the past, the professions served a privileged minority and
        as we plan for the future the emphasis must be on how the population as
        a whole can benefit from SLTA services. The lens of the professions
        must expand from a traditional impairment-driven frame to a broader and
        more inclusive framework which considers not only those who have
        language and literacy learning impairments, but those who are at risk
        for literacy development and hence educational failure as a result of
        disabling systemic conditions.

        In this paper, we share current thinking and relevant research
        regarding the contributions of SLTAs in promoting social freedom
        through our work in supporting literacy development. The emphasis is on
        our potential contribution to enhancing Basic Education since it is well

        established that a good foundation in education promotes long-term
        access to employment and health, but more fundamentally is a basic
        human right.

        Education in South Africa: the period prior to 1994

        The literacy crisis in South Africa cannot be understood without
        considering the history that shaped the current reality. The present
        education system with its systemic weaknesses was created by the
        combined influences of colonialism and racism. Three hundred years of
        colonialism resulted in a curriculum that denigrated and devalued local
        knowledge and identities, and reinforced the false notion that some
        people were superior to others. The curriculum was a vehicle to
        entrench the superiority of Europeans over native African inhabitants
        (Kumar, 2010). From 1961 to shortly before 1994, South Africa was under
        apartheid rule, a period characterised by an ideology of racial
        segregation and racial inequality (Cross & Chrissholm, 1990, in
        Ratshitanga, 2007; Welch, 2003). The segregated education system
        provided a different quality of education to African, coloured, Indian
        and white learners. ‘White education’1 
        benefited far more than that for other races in terms of fiscal
        allocation, which resulted in disparities in all aspects of education
        (Department of Education, 1995a). In stark contrast, the Bantu
        Education Act of 1953 was intended to provide an inferior education
        system for Africans (75% of the SA population) designed to maintain
        their status as labourers. Poor infrastructure, dilapidated and
        overcrowded classrooms, inadequate teacher training, lack of textbooks
        and learning materials characterised Bantu Education (Hartshorne,
        1992). Apart from a racially segregated education system, there were
        two separate components for mainstream and special education, also
        characterised by racial disparity. This resulted in a fragmented
        education system with large numbers of learners being excluded from
        mainstream education (Naicker, 2000). The fragmented and inequitable
        education system adversely affected the professional training of
        teachers, especially in the Bantu Education system. Of significance is
        that the teachers trained for apartheid education continue to teach in
        post-apartheid education without effective support and training (Wium,
        Louw & Eloff, 2010).

        The democratic elections in 1994 aimed to open the doors of learning to all South Africans (African National Congress, 1995).
        South Africa emerged as a democracy with a new constitution, which in
        turn became the bridge between the apartheid past and political reform (Department 

        

        

        

        of Education, 1995b). The chapter on human rights in the Constitution of South Africa (1996)
        spelled out the values of equality, dignity and freedom. Simultaneously
        there was an international call to eliminate illiteracy throughout the
        world, and to facilitate scientific and technical knowledge and modern
        teaching methods (Charter of the United Nations, 1990).

        
            Educational aspirations and challenges post-apartheid
        

        With the birth of democracy and the progressive South African
        Constitution in 1994, a key priority has been the strengthening of
        Basic Education. In 2009, the schooling system in South Africa had over
        12 million learners with approximately 400 000 teachers in 25 000
        schools. As in other countries, the schooling system comprises public
        and independent sectors. More than 11 million learners were enrolled in
        24 699 public schools and were taught by 3 872 837 teachers in 2009
        (Department of Basic Education, South African Country Report, 2011c),
        while 393 447 learners attended 1 207 independent schools, and were
        taught by 25 230 teachers. These figures are based on learners
        attending ‘ordinary’ or mainstream schools, and do not
        include figures for learners attending ‘special’ schools.

        The challenge set forth by the constitution
        was to create a just and equitable system that provides a good-quality
        education to all learners (Constitution of South Africa, 1996).
        Numerous reforms brought about fundamental changes in the process of
        redressing and enhancing equity: The South African Schools Act (Department of Education, 1996b) mandated children to attend school from the age of 5 to 15. The
        National Education Policy Act (Department of Education, 1996c) and
        National Norms and Standards for School Funding (Department of
        Education, 1998) resulted in fundamental changes in schooling. Two
        types of schools are recognised – independent and public schools
        – with major resourcing inequities between them and within public
        schooling. Funding for schools is currently aimed at equity and
        redress. Therefore, schools are now categorised on the basis of their
        resources and revised funding norms are meant to advantage the poorest
        schools. A system of participative governance was implemented which
        devolved decision making, allowing school governing bodies to make
        decisions about many issues including fees and language policy.
        Hofmeyer (2000) argues that South Africa, as a middle-income developing
        country, demonstrates its commitment to education by spending 23% of
        its national budget and 7% of its gross domestic product (GDP) on
        education. However, even this investment has not been sufficient to
        address historical inequities and provide quality education. 

        One of the immediate consequences of the Schools Act was learner
        migration (Chisholm, 2008). Within the public schooling system there
        has been migration of African learners to Indian, coloured and white
        schools; while Indian and coloured learners migrated to white schools.
        The flow of learners from white, coloured and Indian schools to African
        schools is almost non-existent. As a consequence of learner migration,
        classrooms, especially in urban areas, have become racially and
        linguistically diverse with the schooling system being unprepared for
        such change. Nevertheless the majority of African learners,
        particularly those who cannot afford to enrol in fee-paying schools,
        remain in under-resourced schools benefiting little in education
        post-apartheid.

        In addition to the changes discussed so far, the Inclusive Education
        Policy and the Language in Education Policy (LiEP) are of relevance to
        this paper. To raise education standards for all children, a more
        inclusive system was required. Such an inclusive approach is based on
        the classroom becoming a supportive environment for all members,
        including learners and teachers. Inclusive education is shaped by two
        major policy developments, namely White Paper 6 on Special Needs Education
        (Department of Education, 2001b) and the Revised National Curriculum
        Statement (RNCS) grades R - 9 (Department of Education, 2002). While
        the RNCS focuses on the curriculum and outcomes, Education White Paper 6
        is focused on inclusion and creating learning environments which
        benefit all learners. Inclusion, viewed broadly, is intended to create
        opportunities for all learners – regardless of race, gender,
        language, culture, class and disability – to participate
        optimally in education. The policy emphasises a shift from
        learners’ weaknesses to emphasising and building on their
        strengths. It also highlights the importance of collaborative learning
        and curriculum-based intervention. Learners with special needs, as well
        as those at risk, are in regular education or ordinary classrooms. To
        make it possible for all learners to access the curriculum, schools
        need to respond to learner diversity by transforming the curriculum and
        to minimise, remove, and prevent barriers to learning and development.
        The system, not only the learners, is required to change.

        The RNCS is a curriculum guideline that
        describes the learning areas, learning outcomes and pace and sequence
        of learning expected in an academic year, as well as assessment
        standards (Department of Education, 2002).
        Although the Department of Education provided policy guidelines for
        each learning area, the onus rests on the nine provinces to customise
        these for their diverse populations. The RNCS specifically refers to
        the successful development of language and literacy as a basic
        foundation for successful learning in all phases for all learners
        throughout schooling. It emphasises the importance of quality of
        education during the foundation phase of schooling (grades R - 3), as
        well as the continued development of cognitive and linguistic skills
        through experiential learning. Although the policy emphasised the
        importance of language as a key part of learning during the school
        years, it is also well known that language learning is a lifelong
        process and one of the most reliable predictors of
        scholastic success is learners’ language and literacy development
        prior to grade 1. The RNCS for the foundation phase outlines three
        learning areas: literacy (including listening and language), numeracy
        and life skills. Each of these main
        learning areas has specific learning outcomes and assessment standards
        linked to the concepts, skills and values to be taught at each grade
        level (Department of Education, 2002). The implementation of this
        curriculum relies on strong communication/language skills of teachers
        and learners. Unfortunately, the implementation and success of the
        revised curriculum has been negatively influenced by a variety of
        factors, e.g. resources and teacher preparedness. Among these,
        communication as a key factor has been overlooked and hence has become
        a barrier to learning.

        When South Africa became a democracy in 1994, exemplary and
        progressive language policies were formulated to protect linguistic
        diversity (we have 11 official languages), promote language equity and
        develop the historically marginalised African languages. The LiEP
        (Department of Education, 1997) stipulates the right to education in
        the language of choice and promotes multilingualism within a framework
        of additive bilingualism, in which the home language (L1) is maintained
        while providing access to and the effective acquisition of additional
        languages (Bengu, 1997).

        Despite these enlightened policies, there is agreement that they
        have not been implemented either in the broader public domain or in
        education. English continues to be the dominant language in South
        Africa (Balfour, 2010; Beukes, 2009; Jankie, 2009; Lafon, 2009; Singh,
        2009; Sookrajh & Joshua, 2009; Webb, Lafon & Pare, 2010), at
        the expense and marginalisation of the other official languages
        (Alexander, 1997; Kamwangamalu, 2000; Mbatha and Pluddemann, 2004).
        Beukes (2009) attributes the incongruence between policy and practice
        to three main factors: the hegemonic position of English, the
        government’s lack of political will, and negative attitudes to
        the African languages. However, there is a strong sense that African
        languages should be developed as instructional media, while access to
        English should not be denied (Alexander, 2010; Webb et al.,
        2010). A central question is how this should be accomplished, and
        decisions on language in education practices may need to be informed by
        the context of education. Table I reflects the language of learning
        across grades.

        It is evident that in grades 1 - 3 the majority of learners are
        schooled in African/home languages. Between 1998 and 2007 there has
        been an increase in the number of foundation-phase learners (grades 1 -
        3) who learned in their L1. While the data indicate that there is a
        greater percentage of African L1 learners, it is also evident that
        approximately 25% have English and Afrikaans as LoLT. However, a major
        transition to English is evident at grade 4 as a consequence of the
        LiEP. In effect, the majority of learners do not learn in their L1 from
        grade 4. Of significance is that the majority of learners are not
        exposed to English or Afrikaans as a subject in grades 1 - 3 but are
        expected to learn and be assessed in these languages from grade 4
        onwards.

        
        

        Uneven performance

        Studies assessing the literacy and numeracy of primary school
        learners reflect significant inequality in achievement across different
        educational contexts, resulting in a bimodal frequency distribution,
        where the majority of learners perform in the lower range and a smaller
        number of children perform in the upper range (Fleisch, 2008; Taylor
        & Yu, 2008). The learners who do well attend former model C schools
        (higher-fee-paying public schools) and independent schools (Fleisch,
        2008). According to Webb et al.
        (2010, p. 276), two types of schools have evolved from the former model
        C system. The first type, referred to as ‘upper ex-model C
        schools’, are attended by elite and middle-class children of all
        races, who attain literacy and numeracy outcomes comparable to those of
        middle-class children anywhere else in the world (Fleisch, 2008). These
        schools are generally well resourced because the fees are determined by
        governing bodies. In these schools English or Afrikaans is typically
        used as the medium of instruction (LoLT) throughout, and the majority
        of teachers are first-language speakers of the LoLT.

        The second type, referred to as ‘lower ex-model C schools’ (Webb et al.,
        2010, p. 276) have fewer facilities and resources because the fees are
        lower, and many parents reportedly do not pay fees at all. As a result
        of urbanisation and migration within the urban population (Chisholm,
        2008), these schools are also demographically different from the upper
        ex-model C schools in that they are attended by predominantly African
        learners. White and Indian parents have either moved away from the area
        or have enrolled their children elsewhere (Chisholm, 2008; Webb et al.,
        2010). The teachers at these schools are predominantly English
        first-language teachers but are also increasingly English
        second-language speakers. The medium of instruction at these schools is
        English from the first grade.

        The use of English in these contexts is often determined by
        pragmatic reasons and is indicative of the heterogeneity in home
        language backgrounds of the learners in certain provinces. In this
        context, English as the LoLT may appear to be the only practical
        choice, since the complex multilingual composition of schools makes it
        difficult to select a particular African language as the LoLT. Rural
        and township schools, which are typically former African Department of
        Education and Training (DET) schools, are still attended predominantly
        by African learners. These schools continue to have very little funding
        and are poorly resourced in terms of libraries, electricity, water,
        etc. Furthermore, teachers at these schools were trained by the Bantu
        Education system and therefore require significant reskilling to
        improve educational quality. As indicated previously, in these schools
        the official policy is to use the L1 as the LoLT up to grade 3,
        frequently with little or no exposure to English as a subject in the
        foundation phase. From grade 4, learners then make the transition to
        English as the LoLT. However, this transition is not fully implemented
        in practice (Webb et al.,
        2010). It seems that in these schools, the L1 may be used (Brock-Utne
        & Holmarsdottir, 2003), code switching is common, and urban
        vernaculars are increasingly used to facilitate understanding and
        classroom interaction, mainly because the English proficiency of
        learners and teachers is not adequate (Webb et al.,
        2010). Despite this, learners are officially assessed only in English
        and the fact that they have to demonstrate their knowledge and
        understanding in a language which is at best their second (L2) or even
        third language (L3) is simply not acceptable (Lafon, 2008; Webb, 2004;
        Webb et al., 2010).
        Furthermore, while they have not developed adequate English language
        competencies for school, they are also not advancing the development of
        the L1 for academic purposes resulting in underdeveloped linguistic
        competencies across languages. Poor/underdeveloped linguistic
        competence in LoLT is considered to be a contributing factor to poor
        performance of children in this context (Alexander, 2005; Brock-Utne
        & Skattum, 2009; Heugh, 2009).

        
        

        Unsupported language transitions

        The transitional system was also implemented during the apartheid
        era, and was largely discredited in the Threshold project by Macdonald
        (1990), who showed that learners had not acquired a sufficient
        vocabulary to use English as the LoLT after 4 years of learning English
        as an L2. This policy has also been severely criticised by Heugh (2002,
        2009), who argues that L1 instruction should be implemented for at
        least 8 years. Drawing on educational outcomes research in Africa
        commissioned by the UNESCO Institute for Education and the Association
        for the Development of Education in Africa (ADEA) in 2004, Heugh (2006)
        maintains that if early L1 instruction is to be beneficial, it must
        continue at least to the end of grade 6 but preferably longer, because
        the academic language and literacy needed for the whole curriculum
        cannot be developed in the first 3 years. In line with an additive
        bilingual approach, she recommends that the L2 is developed through
        subject teaching so that it can become a complementary medium of
        instruction during the second half of secondary school. A sudden and
        unsupported switch from L1 to L2 as LoLT is not necessarily the best
        way to ensure high levels of proficiency in the L2. In addition, the
        literature on optimal age of L2 acquisition (e.g. Marinova-Todd,
        Marshall & Snow, 2000) suggests that in these contexts English need
        not be taught from the first grade, but can be introduced later when
        academic proficiency in the L1 has been established and developed.
        Older children who have consolidated the L1 and have access to a number
        of additional cognitive resources, such as explicit learning
        strategies, learn L2s more rapidly than younger children (MacWhinney,
        2005; Paradis, 2004; Ullman, 2001). In contrast, younger children
        develop languages gradually, and teachers need to be aware of how long
        it takes for children to become proficient in the additional language
        if it is to be used as a medium of instruction. 

        Heugh (2006) argues that although issues of poverty and ill health
        (e.g. HIV/AIDS) compound the language problem and result in the
        generally low educational outcomes throughout Africa, the inadequacy of
        early-exit transitional programmes has also been demonstrated in
        developed countries such as the USA and Canada, which are not as
        affected by such problems (e.g. Thomas & Collier, 2002 cited in
        Heugh, 2006). Heugh (2002; 2006) and Ramani, Kekana, Modiba, and Joseph
        (2007) believe that African languages can be used as the LoLT beyond
        the third grade. This claim is based on research by Heugh and
        Mahlalela-Thusi (2002), showing that considerable work was done on the
        development of African languages before, during and even after Bantu
        education. Heugh (2002) therefore urges stakeholders to consult these
        resources in African language departments across the country.

        On the use of L1 instruction beyond grade 3, Heugh (2009) adds a
        very important caveat. She maintains that research findings on first-
        to third-grade children often show no achievement differences between
        L1 children and children in either L2 instruction from grade 1, early
        exit from L1 instruction, or dual-medium instruction programmes.
        However, she points out that gaps in performance start to emerge late
        in the third year and reach significant levels by grade 6, and the only
        learners who perform at similar levels to their monolingual peers are
        those who have had instruction in their L1 as well as the L2
        throughout. The implication of this is that even if L2 learners perform
        similarly to monolingual peers in the first 3 grades, they will fall
        behind if they do not receive support in both their L1 and English. Her
        findings explain the reasons for the large-scale referral of grade 4 -
        6 intermediate-phase learners by teachers for literacy intervention in
        the Western Cape (Kathard & Pillay, 2006). The teachers in
        linguistically diverse classrooms in poor communities were concerned
        that the majority of learners who made the sudden unsupported
        transition to English were not meeting grade level outcomes for
        literacy. The teachers reported that learners had not developed
        foundation-phase language and literacy skills and they were not skilled
        to support these learners (Navsaria, 2010).

        Heugh (2006) claims that the language problems of children learning
        in their L2 have the most significant impact on their achievement in
        mathematics, since they achieve on average 10% less for mathematics
        than for language. In addition, Heugh (2009) cites recent evidence from
        Ethiopia, a much poorer country than South Africa, where children are
        instructed in their L1 (e.g. Amharic) for 4, 6 or 8 years. Children
        with 8 years of L1 instruction have higher scores across the curriculum
        (in mathematics, science and biology) than children with 4 or 6 years
        of instruction in the L1.

        One of the widely used arguments against bilingual instruction and
        therefore the use of the L1, concerns the perception that such
        programmes do not provide sufficient exposure to the L2, as instruction
        time between L1 and L2 is divided (Obondo, 2008). This is known as the
        ‘time on task argument’ (Genesee, Paradis & Crago,
        2004, p. 168). However, although exposure is necessary for acquisition
        it is not sufficient (Obondo, 2008). This has been repeatedly
        demonstrated in research showing either no significant differences in
        the L2 proficiency of children in L2 monolingual programmes and
        bilingual programmes or an advantage to those in bilingual programmes
        (Chisholm, 2001). There is therefore overwhelming evidence that an
        additive bilingual approach in which the L1 is used for as long as
        possible while the child acquires other languages is the best for
        African children (Obondo, 2008), and yet there is resistance to this
        across Africa.

        Importance of African languages in education

        ‘Being able to use the language(s) one has the best command of
        in any situation is an empowering factor and conversely, not being able
        to do so is necessarily disempowering. The self-esteem,
        self-confidence, potential creativity and spontaneity that come with
        being able to use the language(s) that have shaped one from early
        childhood ... is the foundation of all democratic policies and
        institutions. To be denied the use of this language is the very meaning
        of oppression.’ Alexander (2005, p. 3), in no uncertain terms,
        places a high priority on the use of African languages in education
        from the learners’ perspective. While he acknowledges the value
        of empowering learners with English, he argues against the hegemonic
        use of English, i.e. English is privileged over all other languages and
        results in loss or decline of indigenous languages.

        The use of African languages is also considered to be important for
        economic development and sustainability (Kamwendo, 2009). The period
        2005 - 2014 has been declared the United Nations Decade of Education
        for Sustainable Development. This refers to the use of current
        resources in ways that will ensure their continued availability for
        future generations. Education systems are the avenue through which
        individuals can be developed to create a sustainable future in terms of
        environmental resources, economic prosperity, and social justice
        (UNESCO, 2005). The use of former colonial languages (English, French
        and Portuguese) as media of instruction in African schools impacts
        negatively on educational achievement when these languages are not well
        known by the learners (Kamwendo, 2009). Dlodlo (1999) and Bunyi (1999)
        elaborate on this point by proposing that these languages, which
        contain words and concepts that bear little relationship to the
        learners’ daily experiences, deprive them of the opportunity to
        apply what they are learning to what they already know, which is a
        fundamental philosophy of learning (Reagan, 2009).

        Finally, the use of African languages as media of instruction in
        African schools can help to minimise the impact of noisy classrooms on
        speech understanding of most learners. Anderson (1999) reported that an
        average first-grader misses 1 in every 6 words when learning in a class
        with too much background noise. Further, learners who learn in
        classrooms with high background noise levels such as schools near the
        airport or railway tracks, often exhibit poorer reading skills than
        learners who learn in less noisy classrooms (Anderson, 1999). The
        negative effect of poor learning environment (i.e. classrooms with too
        much background noise) on speech understanding has been shown to be
        much greater in children who learn in an L2 in comparison with those
        who learn in their native language (Crandell, Smaldino & Kreisman,
        2004; Tabri, Chacra & Pring, 2010). Therefore, in South African
        schools where there are often less than optimal learning environments
        (e.g. overcrowded classrooms, too much background noise, etc.), using a
        language other than the language in which most learners are competent
        will severely limit their access to the information being communicated
        in class.

        
        

        Reasons for limited implementation of LiEP

        The main reasons for the dominance of English in education are the
        stigma attached to African languages as a result of ‘Bantu
        Education’ during apartheid (Nyika, 2009; Webb et al.,
        2010) and the view that English provides access to social and economic
        advancement. African parents associate poor-quality Bantu Education
        with being educated in an African language. Heugh (2000) argues that in
        the drafting of the outcomes-based curriculum, there was always a
        covert agenda that all children would ultimately learn in English,
        evidenced by the fact that language issues were reduced to the language
        and literacy learning area, as if they were not connected to the other
        learning areas. Development of terminology and materials in all the
        official languages, and teacher training for multilingual education and
        the new curriculum, were therefore not discussed (Heugh, 2000). The
        LiEP was announced 4 months after Curriculum 2005 was finalised, and
        Heugh (2000) maintains that the centrality of language in education was
        disregarded at a critical point in South Africa’s history.

        Webb et al.
        (2010) suggest the following additional explanations for the limited
        support for and non-use of African languages in education. First,
        learners have been found to have underdeveloped literacy in their L1,
        and are also aware of this (Barkhuizen, 2001; Pretorius, 2008; Webb et al., 2010). According to Webb et al.
        (2010), there is a general tendency for African language learners and
        teachers to overestimate their proficiency in English, and
        underestimate their L1 proficiency. Second, the African languages have
        not been adequately developed and standardised, and although there has
        been work in this area by the National Languages Bodies under the Pan
        South African Language Board (PanSALB), the standardised varieties have
        not been widely accepted, are not familiar to L1 speakers and are not
        used in formal contexts such as classrooms. In the development of the
        standard varieties there has been insufficient attention to status,
        acquisition and planning, and they are not seen to have economic or
        social power (Webb et al., 2010).

        The development of technical terms in African languages is also
        challenging in that there is considerable difficulty in finding terms
        for concepts (Singh, 2009). For example, Southern Sotho has only one
        term, ‘lebelo’, for ‘speed, velocity and acceleration’ (Moji, 1998, p. 258), and in isiZulu there is only one word, ‘amandla’,
        for ‘power, force and energy’ (Wildsmith-Cromarty &
        Gordon, 2009, p. 368). Dlodlo (1999, p. 321) attributes this conceptual
        void to the fact that African languages have not been used in education
        and consequently a modern scientific vocabulary has not developed. He
        argues for ‘giving scientific meaning to generally accessible
        words that are explanatory of the context, rather than borrowing from
        European languages ...’. This approach implies that acquisition
        planning (the actual use of languages) drives corpus planning (the
        development of terminology by language bodies) so that teachers do not
        need to wait for terms to be developed before they can be used in the
        classroom (Wildsmith-Cromarty & Gordon, 2009). Translation of
        English terminology is problematic in that English and the African
        languages are non-cognate languages, and there may be a lack of
        semantic and structural equivalence (Catford, 1965; Nida, 1975),
        lexical gaps (Fawcett, 1997) and translation shifts (Catford, 1965).

        The third reason for not using African languages in education
        is the increasing use of urban, code-mixed vernaculars such as
        Tsotsitaal, Iscamtho and Pretoria Sotho, in Gauteng schools in
        particular (Cook, 2008; Lafon, 2005). Webb et al.
        (2010) attribute this practice to the absence of well-developed
        standard languages, and the rejection of standard varieties
        particularly by the urban youth. This is because new terms, developed
        by experts on language boards, are experienced as contrived
        (Wildsmith-Cromarty & Gordon, 2009)
        and
        more aligned to rural dialects, which are slower to change than urban
        dialects, as a result of less contact with and influence from other
        languages (Anthonissen & Gough, 1998). An example of this dichotomy
        is the tension between urban and rural isiZulu. The rural variety is
        considered to be the standard, but is virtually a foreign language to
        urban schoolchildren who do not learn successfully using this form
        (Webb et al., 2010). 

        While the post-apartheid schooling policies offer an ideology of
        improved education, implementation has been of serious concern. The key
        issues of language and learning have not been given sufficient
        consideration and, as a consequence, the majority of learners are being
        systemically disadvantaged and hence cannot meet grade level outcomes.
        Although school governing bodies (SGBs) have authority to make LoLT
        policy decisions, Pluddemann, Mati and Mahlalela-Thusi (2000)
        anticipated that in the absence of a comprehensive plan to educate and
        support SGBs on the language learning policies, it is likely that they
        will take the path of least resistance and adopt policies which are
        easier to implement. In effect, the evidence in Table I confirms their
        concern, i.e. there has been little innovation or development of
        multilingualism in schools as English remains the LoLT beyond grade 4.
        Furthermore, those who have specific language learning and other
        communication disabilities remain masked in the system as the majority
        of learners are at risk for not meeting educational outcomes. Clearly,
        the discussion so far has demonstrated the impact of a systemic problem
        on learner outcomes. While some learners might have specific
        impairments, the majority of learners are disadvantaged because of
        systemic problems at school and in their communities. The pressing
        question that needs to be addressed, therefore, is: How can SLTAs
        support the education system to enhance language and literacy?

        
        

        Speech language therapists and audiologists in education: where are they?

        In the current system, SLTAs do not play a visible role in the
        public sector education for a variety of reasons. Firstly, as a
        consequence of apartheid-era policy, SLTAs were employed by the
        provincial Departments of Education at district level under the
        auspices of the ‘School Psychological Services’, benefiting
        a privileged minority. They also worked within a ‘special
        school’ model which offered services to learners based on their
        impairment/condition, e.g. schools for intellectually
        impaired/hearing-impaired/physically impaired children. In these
        historical educational contexts their traditional role was to identify
        learners who presented with ‘speech and hearing
        deficiencies’ and to provide the relevant therapy to treat them.
        Their interventions were guided by a medical model/deficit model which
        resulted in a pull-out approach where the child rather than the system
        was the focus of intervention. As a consequence, a small number of
        learners received individual support which was not cost-effective. With
        the dawn of the new democracy, several of the SLTAs previously employed
        in the education system remained as district facilitators for learning
        without rendering direct professional services. While their roles are
        emerging, their impact has yet to be felt by the majority of learners
        and teachers in the public sector in ordinary/mainstream classes who
        receive minimal direct support.

        Secondly, therapy to school-age populations has been offered
        mainly by private practitioners who are parent-employed and work in a
        pull-out model benefiting mainly individual learners who can afford
        help. Thirdly, although SLTAs are part of the education system, their
        roles in supporting general education in public sector schools are only
        emerging. They have not had opportunity to articulate their roles or
        the types of interventions which could potentially benefit education.
        Therapists are therefore still faced with the challenge, articulated by
        Lewis (2004), of making visible the links between language, literacy
        and learning, and demonstrating their role in supporting general
        education. A conceptual separation still exists between what is
        considered the domain of the teacher and the domain of the therapist.
        In moving forward, therapists must align interventions to engage with
        curriculum support and assist teachers and learners to meet learning
        outcomes.

        The current human resource capacity of SLTAs is severely
        limited. The authors were unable to gain official documentary
        information on the number of SLTAs employed in the Basic Education
        sector and their role. However, available human resource data indicated
        that there are 186 speech-language therapists (SLTs) across the country
        appointed at ‘special’ schools. In addition, there are 73
        ‘office-based’ therapists (general category which includes
        occupational therapists and physiotherapists) whose job functions are
        unknown (Schoeman, personal communication, July 2011). Given school
        populations and current challenges in the education system, it is clear
        that SLTAs are grossly under-represented. Within a resource-constrained
        environment, SLTAs must therefore creatively craft service delivery
        models and types of interventions that would serve population needs.
        Furthermore, SLTAs must be able to demonstrate that their interventions
        are beneficial, particularly in parts of the system that experience
        disadvantage.

        In the discussion that follows, the links between language, literacy
        and learning are explained and the potential role of SLTAs is
        discussed. While the evidence base for SLTA intervention in South
        Africa is minimal, developments in the USA and UK offer possibilities.
        The paper concludes with suggestions for further actions.

        
        

        Language, literacy and learning

        Language as a key part of communication is central to learning (Bohlmann & Pretorius, 2002; Owens, 2002),
        as it is required for the development of reading and writing, and
        therefore becomes a prerequisite for all other learning areas. Linked
        to learning, language is not only an important part of a person’s
        identity but also contributes to the understanding of other cultures
        and world views. It stimulates imagination and creativity, which link
        with arts and culture. It is also used to communicate information and
        to promote science, technology and environmental education. Language
        develops the critical tools required to become responsible citizens.
        The language learning area is crucial as it is central to
        people’s lives (Department of Education, 2002).
        Language is used as the medium for learning in all learning areas, and
        underdeveloped language skills impact negatively on academic
        performance (Bohlmann & Pretorius, 2002).

        While spoken, and not written, language is the domain most often
        associated with SLTAs, a large body of research (Bishop & Snowling,
        2004; Stackhouse & Wells, 1997) suggests that spoken and written
        language should be viewed on a continuum, with written language being
        developed on a foundation of spoken language, and phonological
        awareness acting as the mediating bridge between the two domains. Thus,
        SLTAs working in classrooms may be focused on any or all of a
        combination of these areas.

        There are others who suggest that written and spoken language
        develop simultaneously and influence each other (Scott, 2005).
        Supportive of a simultaneous development stance, the Department of
        Education (2002) in South Africa recognises that language learning
        outcomes for the foundation phase are collectively those of listening,
        speaking, reading and viewing, writing, thinking and reasoning, and
        language structure and use (Department of Education, 2002). They
        maintain that these outcomes should be integrated when taught and
        assessed, even though they are presented as separate outcomes.

        
        

        SLTAs in other contexts

        While South African SLTAs work towards the development of
        contextually relevant intervention practices, they can draw on the
        experiences of SLTAs in other contexts around the world. American
        therapists in particular have shifted from a traditional pull-out model
        to a classroom-focused approach. Here the SLTA’s role in the
        classroom is to support the development of a robust oral and written
        linguistic base, which includes a learner’s L1 and any additional
        languages (Ehren & Ehren, 2001). 

        Ehren (2009) describes the role of SLTs in a ‘content literacy
        continuum’, a five-level framework that addresses the speaking,
        listening, reading and writing needs of learners. Level 5 (therapeutic
        intervention) is the most intensive level where learners with language
        difficulties receive therapy from an SLT, either within the classroom
        setting or outside it. This is perhaps the model of working that many
        SLTs will be most familiar with. However, SLTs should also be involved
        at the other four levels, with Levels 1 and 2 involving close
        collaboration with classroom teachers, e.g. guiding the teacher’s
        use of language, identifying learners in need of further interventions,
        and determining the language underpinnings of the curriculum. For
        Levels 3 and 4, the more intensive and specific role of the SLT, again
        in collaboration with teachers, is outlined. The Royal College of
        Speech Language Therapists (RCSLT, 2011) describes a similar system of
        working which emphasises the SLT’s role at various levels within
        the school setting, ranging from highly specialised work with
        individual children to preventive work with all children or
        particularly vulnerable groups of children. The preventive focus should
        include working with parents and other community support structures to
        facilitate literacy development in the home context (Navsaria, 2010).

        Because of the central role of language in learning (Slabbert, de
        Kock & Hanttingh, 2009), a system responsive to the needs of all
        learners must first and foremost consider how language and
        communication for learning can be maximised. Given the link between
        audition, language and literacy, SLTAs should provide supportive
        structures, which promote and enhance spoken and written language
        (Owens, 2010). Learners and teachers need language support that is
        functionally related to the academic and social tasks of school. The
        classroom’s cognitive activities are the best context, presenting
        the most significant and interactive opportunities for the learners, to
        enhance learning (Ehren, 2000). Having a close understanding of the
        relationship between curricular demands and the role that language and
        communication play in learning, teachers and SLTAs can address the
        academic and social challenges as a team within the classroom (Ritzman,
        Sanger & Coufal, 2006). The role of
        the SLTA is to use classroom activities as the basis for intervention
        and implement a format of team-teaching where both the teacher and the
        SLTA teach small groups simultaneously, or where the teacher works with
        the larger class, and the SLTA works with a smaller group needing
        support. One-on-one classroom-based intervention that centres on
        language strategies for classroom use with selected students is not
        excluded. The SLTA also acts as a consultant who advises teachers and
        primary caregivers on intervention strategies, and sets joint goals and
        objectives with the classroom teacher. This model requires in-service
        training of all teachers as well as primary caregivers with regard to
        the language curriculum, including metalinguistic and metacognitive
        processes, syntax and morphology, and listening and literacy skills. 

        SLTAs can work with teachers to identify and
        ameliorate acoustic barriers in the classroom to promote accessibility
        of the teacher’s speech to the learners. Further, they are better
        placed to advise teachers on the implications of hearing difficulties
        for individual learners, as well as devise effective management of
        their listening needs within a range of settings (British Association
        of Education Audiologists (BAEA), 2003). For these reasons
        SLTAs’ contributions would be valuable when collaborating with
        teachers, in planning relevant and meaningful learning programmes for
        all learners. A developmental approach within the policy of inclusion
        and collaboration is essential in preventing later scholastic
        difficulties (Owens, 2010). Finally,
        because of their scopes of practice, SLTAs are also essential in
        serving as the ‘key link’ professionals between the
        education and health systems to ensure seamless service provision to
        learners and teachers. In South Africa, the current policy in its
        intention provides a firm grounding for developing a collaborative
        approach. In the Education White Paper 6,
        support is described as the provision of training, mentoring,
        monitoring, consultation and collaboration. Clearly, all stakeholders
        must work towards the practical implementation. 

        
        

        SLTAs in classrooms: can we make a difference?

        Evidence from the international literature demonstrates that
        learners and teachers who have received support from SLT services have
        experienced positive outcomes supporting the goals of successful
        schooling (Ehren & Ehren, 2001; McCartney, Ellis & Boyle, 2009;
        Wilson, Nash & Earl, 2010; Wren, Roulstone, Parkhouse & Hall,
        2001). A systematic review (Cirrin et al.,
        2010) of the evidence base regarding SLT intervention for primary
        school learners over the past 30 years suggests that: SLT intervention
        has positive outcomes; direct classroom-based intervention is at least
        as effective as traditional pull-out models; and trained assistants can
        be as effective as SLTs when working with this population, but there
        are very few studies and an expanded research agenda is urgently
        required. This latter observation is particularly pertinent in our
        context.

        There are few South African studies that demonstrate the
        effectiveness of SLTA involvement in mainstream schools. Moodley,
        Chetty and Pahl (2005) argue that SLTAs are well positioned to support
        language, literacy and learning given their skills base. Therefore they
        must craft their roles in relation to the RNCS and inclusion. They
        focused on the role of SLTAs in developing learning and teaching
        support material relevant for a multicultural population through use of
        folktales. They make a strong case for the collaboration between
        teachers and therapists, suggesting that success will depend on a
        conscious change of attitude regarding their roles and responsibilities.

        Wium et al. (2010)
        reported on the benefits of teacher support in facilitating literacy
        and numeracy with foundation-phase learners in previously disadvantaged
        schools. They found that teachers benefited from a support programme
        provided by SLTAs, as they were better prepared to implement those
        learning outcomes for literacy and numeracy. Another local study by Du
        Plessis (1998) investigated whether a model of teamwork could lead to
        improved goal-setting and intervention at preschools where learners and
        teachers required support with language development. The results
        indicated that the most adequate goals and successful language
        intervention were achieved in the transdisciplinary model of team
        functioning between SLTAs and preschool teachers. It is speculated that
        role transfer, a specific characteristic of this model, led to the
        improvement. The sharing of knowledge, expertise and skills by
        professionals involved in education is notably the best way in which a
        learner’s potential can be realised (Du Plessis, Hugo & Soer,
        2000). A further investigation was done into the support needs of
        preschool teachers regarding language acquisition by preschool learners
        acquiring the LoLT. Preschool teachers acknowledged the need for
        knowledge regarding language acquisition and the need for support. They
        were willing to consult and collaborate with other professionals,
        including SLTs in support of preschool learners (Du Plessis, 2005).

        While these studies are encouraging, it is vital that SLTAs develop
        a strategy to enhance their presence in the education system. 

        
        

        Opportunities, issues and actions

        Becoming partners: Action Plan to 2014

        This paper has explained the current crisis in education, and
        its links to language and literacy development. Given the large-scale
        challenge facing South African education, it is imperative that SLTAs
        seek opportunities to support the national imperative for quality
        education. The Department of Basic Education, in recognising the
        enormity of the challenge, has formulated a longer-term vision
        reflected in ‘Schooling 2025’. The immediate steps are
        documented in a 5-year plan, ‘Action Plan to 2014’
        (Department of Basic Education; Notice 752 of 2010), which outlines 27
        goals to improve the quality of education. SLTA input is particularly
        relevant to several goals, the first of which is to increase the number
        of learners in grade 3 who by the end of the year have mastered the
        minimum language and numeracy competencies for that grade. The second
        goal highlights the importance of sustaining literacy and numeracy
        competencies to grade 6 learners. SLTAs would have to consider how they
        could support the realisation of these goals in partnerships to support
        current strategies. For example, the ministry has initiated the
        workbook project in all 11 official languages. The aim of the workbooks
        is to support more effective teaching, which is recognised as a
        significant constraint. The workbooks are intended to assist teachers
        with teaching content knowledge, as well as to monitor how learners do
        tasks. SLTAs could assist with developing materials to ensure that both
        language and content goals are met. Furthermore, therapists could make
        an important contribution to the review of the RNCS, and specifically
        to the national Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statements (CAPS)
        which have been developed for each subject for all grades.

        The provision of quality early childhood development has also been
        prioritised. The Department of Basic Education has indicated that all
        learners would have access to grade R by 2014. SLTAs could make
        critical inputs into this process to ensure that language development
        and emergent literacy skills are prioritised in the curriculum and
        teacher training. The Teacher Development Programme has been launched
        through the participation of all stakeholders, creating a further
        opportunity for collaboration between teachers and therapists.
        Therapists could support pre-service and in-service teachers in a range
        of areas to improve literacy outcomes.

        Clearly, SLTAs must intervene politically and raise awareness
        of their roles and their potential contribution. This process has been
        initiated by the Education Task Team in October 2010 under the auspices
        of the South African Speech-language Hearing Association. The task team
        have made submissions to the national Department of Education on the
        potential contribution of SLTAs, summarised below. While this is a
        first step, it is imperative that further strategic action is taken to
        ensure that the professions participate meaningfully in supporting
        Basic Education.

        
        

        Expand employment of SLTAs in Basic Education

        The further employment of SLTAs in the Department of Basic Education
        will provide systemic support in language and literacy development to
        support improved learning outcomes. In the current service delivery
        model, the Department of Health employs the majority of SLTAs who
        provide services for children under 6 years of age. School-aged
        learners are not given priority if they do not have an accompanying
        medical condition, leaving a major gap in support in the education
        sector. While the education sector has employed SLTAs, they service
        mainly schools catering for learners with special needs and are
        beginning to form part of district-based service delivery teams.
        However, the number of SLTAs is far from optimal and must be increased
        if teachers and learners are to obtain tangible support. The further
        employment of SLTAs will also affirm that the Department of Education
        is accepting responsibility for the support of learners and teachers,
        particularly in contexts where language and literacy problems are
        prevalent. The following employment options may be pursued:

        • Community service posts. Each year, approximately 200 SLTAs
        graduate from university. Graduates could be integrated into the
        education system by using a strategy of compulsory community service in
        education. This strategy was put in place by the Department of Health
        in 2003, and has been successful in establishing services in
        under-resourced areas. In the future, the graduates could be placed in
        either health or education settings during their community service year
        as their roles straddle these sectors.

        • Improving post provisioning in the Basic Education sector for
        qualified practitioners with emphasis on strengthening interventions to
        support language and literacy development in ordinary classrooms. At a
        minimum, SLTAs should be employed at every full-service school and
        collaborate on all district-based teams.

        
        

        SLTA competencies

        SLTAs will have to be (re)skilled to become effective participants
        in supporting Basic Education. While universities are aware of how
        SLTAs should be working to support Basic Education, the professions do
        not have guidelines for the specific competencies required to address
        the crisis. The majority of SLTAs trained in South Africa would require
        reskilling to develop competencies to address national priorities. Key
        issues that SLTAs must consider include the following:

        • What kind of service delivery models would be relevant for
        the South African context? What would intervention priorities be? What
        type of service delivery model would be effective and cost-effective?

        •	How would SLTAs support the development of all
        languages, especially African languages, particularly as the majority
        of clinicians are mainly English or Afrikaans first-language speakers?

        • How can SLTAs respond to the numerous calls to assist with
        developing English as an additional language? Would SLTAs need
        additional ESL competencies? 

        •	How can SLTAs lead or participate in social innovation needed to respond to this magnitude of crisis?

        •	What human resource base would be required, given the large-scale challenge?

        
        

        Conclusion

        This paper has outlined the challenging landscape of Basic Education
        in South Africa. Difficulties with the past and current system have
        impacted on learners and teachers to create a crisis situation. There
        are no easy solutions, but there are choices facing the professions of
        speech-language therapy and audiology, which if judiciously made, may
        lead to important and significant contributions to the Basic Education
        sector in this country. SLTAs must pursue a development agenda to be
        socially relevant. USAID (2004, p.2) suggests that the economic growth
        of a country depends on an educated workforce that is poised to take
        advantage of opportunities. There is a dual meaning here for SLTAs. We
        must strive to contribute to the development of that workforce through
        the enhancement of language, learning and literacy in Basic Education.
        Secondly, as professionals ourselves we constitute a small but highly
        educated workforce and if we wish to ensure the future relevance and
        value of our work in South Africa, we should take advantage of the
        great opportunities that currently await us in the education system.
        The professions must be strategic in their engagement with education.
        But we should also do what is right: educated and literate individuals
        have better long-term access to employment and health – they have
        freedom. What bigger contribution can speech-language therapists and
        audiologists make than this?

        
        

        
        

        Response

        
            The
            respondent, Barbara Ehren, offers commentary on the issues raised and
            makes further suggestions for the way forward. We asked her: ‘As
            a speech-language pathologist, how would you respond to this contextual
            challenge?’
        

        I appreciate the opportunity to respond to this paper not only
        as a speech language pathologist (SLP) but also as an educator with a
        longstanding interest in systems change. What the authors call for is a
        major shift in the roles and responsibilities of SLPs in South Africa,
        which will require changes in the way SLPs view themselves and their
        work scope, as well as how other educators view them and their
        contributions to student achievement in general and literacy
        specifically. These changes in perceptions must be accompanied by new
        or revised implementation mechanisms, including substantive alterations
        in processes and infrastructures within the education system at many
        levels.

        I wholeheartedly support this call for more substantive
        contributions of SLPs to literacy. It is in keeping with my own work,
        along with that of many colleagues in language/literacy and school
        practice who share this vision. It is inspiring to encounter kindred
        spirits working toward this end in another part of the globe. It is
        encouraging that mutual goals may provide an opportunity to collaborate
        on enhancing the impact of SLPs around the world, striving to make a
        difference in the lives of all human beings.

        At the outset, I would recommend a clarification with regard
        to the inclusion of audiologists in this mix. I would not want to
        minimise their contributions in supporting access to instruction by
        addressing acoustic considerations, especially in noisy environments,
        and in working with children and adolescents who are hearing-impaired
        to promote literacy acquisition. However, I do not see their potential
        contributions to the overall literacy agenda to be on a par with SLPs,
        because SLPs have many more roles to play in a wider variety of areas
        affecting literacy. I think that including both professions in a single
        package of ‘SLTA’ convolutes the issue and fails to send a
        clear message about what respective roles should be. Rather, I would
        define a suggested role set in education for each profession
        separately. Therefore, in the rest of my commentary, I shall address
        only SLPs.

        
        

        The rationale for the summons

        This call for SLPs to participate more broadly in language and
        literacy instruction is crucial to nations that recognise literacy as
        central to the development and maintenance of a democracy and that
        appreciate the corresponding urgency of addressing poor literacy rates.
        A literate citizenry is essential to promoting full participation in
        the way of life of a democratic society. Further, in our
        technologically advanced world, workforce readiness requires high
        levels of literacy, way beyond what previously has been considered
        ‘basic’ (Ehren & Murza, 2010). Therefore, a cogent
        argument is that with a matter of such urgency it behoves all segments
        of a society to be engaged in the effort, and SLPs should be no
        different. However, additional weight should be given to the case for
        SLP involvement, because they bring to the literacy table unique
        contributions, given their knowledge of language.

        In fact, the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
        (ASHA) recently promulgated as official policy a position statement and
        professional issues statement on the roles and responsibilities of SLPs
        in schools that embrace many critical roles, including those
        highlighting literacy within the context of SLPs’ unique
        contributions and within a broad range of responsibilities (ASHA, 2010,
        p. 1): ‘SLPs provide a distinct set of roles based on their
        focused expertise in language. They offer assistance in addressing the
        linguistic and metalinguistic foundations of curriculum learning for
        students with disabilities, as well as other learners who are at risk
        for school failure, or those who struggle in school settings’.
        Other companion roles articulated in the ASHA documents are in the
        areas of collaboration and leadership. The former arena lends credence
        to SLPs forging partnerships with other educators in support of
        literacy and the latter points to the advocacy needed from SLPs to
        assume new and expanded roles.

        In supporting SLPs’ contributions to the national
        imperative for quality education, I would endorse framing the
        conversation in terms of ‘backward design’ (Wiggins &
        McTighe, 2005) (which is basically what the authors have done); that
        is, to advocate that all stakeholders start with the end in mind in
        defining roles for SLPs (or anyone else, for that matter). In such a
        construct, the larger picture of the social and economic goals for
        South Africa provides the target for educational goals. Where South
        Africa wants to be as a nation then becomes the starting point for
        discussing roles of SLPs. Working backward from that point, the next
        question is ‘What has to happen in education to create the kind
        of society South Africans want?’ and from there, ‘What do
        SLPs have to do within educational systems to contribute to this grand
        plan?’ This is a different approach from looking first at
        SLPs’ roles based on their professional preparation and expertise.

        My own experience in working with SLPs in many different states
        within the USA is that this approach provides a convincing rationale
        for them to consider doing things differently. They see their potential
        contributions as serving a larger purpose, a key factor in motivating
        them to make the necessary changes. A titillating challenge for SLPs is
        to expand their sphere of influence in areas of major consequence to
        their country so that role definition is no longer just a matter of
        ‘This is what we do as SLPs’ but ‘This is what South
        Africa needs for us to do.’ Of course, in the final analysis,
        professional preparation and expertise are considered in defining
        roles, but they are not the starting point.

        
        

        Implementation considerations

        Even if taking larger roles with literacy makes sense to SLPs
        and other stakeholders, the practical aspects of implementation is
        where the ‘rubber hits the road’. For one thing, with the
        pull-out model having been the mainstay of service delivery, SLPs will
        need to expand their repertoire to accommodate refocused priorities.
        First, it is important to note that including more students and
        activities within the work scope of SLPs should in no way imply
        abandonment of students with communication disorders. Even with that
        population, SLPs would do well to consider alternatives to pull-out.
        For more effective and efficient services, a variety of delivery
        models, including in-classroom direct services and indirect services to
        teachers and caregivers (Ehren, 2000), should be considered. For
        example, when students with speech and language disorders are at a
        generalisation stage of therapy, pulling them out may not well serve
        the goal of transferring new behaviours to the classroom.

        However, within a broader scope of concern for literacy status with
        more students, it is of even greater import to consider a variety of
        options. Especially in light of limited resource capacity,
        contributions of SLPs may in many instances be to assist teachers,
        other professionals and caregivers who might be the primary deliverers
        of intervention. Therefore ‘indirect services’ are
        important to include in a menu of service delivery options. Thus,
        SLPs’ roles in intervention may expand beyond direct work with
        students who struggle with literacy.

        In this regard, I think it is helpful to think in terms of four types of activities with which SLPs may be involved:

        1.	Triaging students

        2.	Looking at students individually

        3. Deciphering patterns of strengths
        and challenges in learning with an eye on language underpinnings
        (foundations) that may be involved

        4.	Helping to decide who needs what service from whom

        5. Guiding language-sensitive
        assessment/instruction/intervention delivered by others, including
        accommodations for students with disabilities. (This may be
        accomplished by consultation/problem-solving, demonstration teaching
        and provision of professional development to others.)

        6.	Providing direct intervention to students on language underpinnings in collaboration with others.

        7.	Providing speech and language therapy to students with communication disorders.

        Given a broad array of service delivery options, SLPs will still
        need to make judicious selection of students to serve, directly and
        indirectly, deciding how best to use their expertise; otherwise, they
        will
        become overwhelmed with
        too much to do. A key component in effective and efficient deployment
        of personnel is collaboration among professionals to parlay resources
        and avoid redundancy or conflicting directions. Ehren and Laster (2010)
        and Goetze, Laster & Ehren (2010) have recommended a partnership
        among specialists who share an interest and expertise in language; in
        the USA that would include the SLP, reading specialists and teachers of
        English language learners. With whom might SLPs join forces in South
        Africa?

        As SLPs jump into the mainstream of education, they should avoid
        becoming just another pair of hands to do the work in schools that
        needs to be accomplished. That is, the tasks they are assigned should
        make use of their unique skill set in language and offer added value to
        the education of children and adolescents. Intervention activities need
        to be relevant to social and academic goals with the following caution:
        SLPs should not become responsible directly for mastery of subjects
        such as maths, social studies and science; instead they should
        facilitate access to these curricula through work on foundational
        language elements. Thus, curriculum provides the context, not the
        content of intervention, unless the curriculum under consideration is
        language arts. This approach does not require SLPs to be as expert as
        teachers in curriculum. What they need is enough knowledge about
        curriculum to select specific content as the raw material to teach
        language underpinnings.

        
        

        Content foci

        It is important to discuss language not just as prerequisite to
        learning but also as corequisite. Figure 1 is a graphic used by Deshler
        and Ehren (2008) to convey the ongoing contribution of language to all
        aspects of learning; it is helpful to explain how language is both
        foundational to learning at all stages, not just the basic foundation
        that precedes academic learning.

        Rather than thinking of language as developing linearly along a
        continuum, it might be more productive to think of it as reciprocal
        along all points on the continuum of learning, as the above figure
        would imply. Research has consistently demonstrated reciprocal
        relationships with listening, speaking, reading, and writing (e.g.
        Bradley & Bryant, 1983; Catts & Kamhi, 2005; Englert &
        Thomas, 1987; Gillon & Dodd, 1995; Hiebert, 1980; Kroll, 1981;
        Ruddell & Ruddell, 1994), all of which share linguistic, cognitive,
        metalinguistic and metacognitive underpinnings (Ehren, 2006).
        Highlighting the reciprocity of language processes and framing literacy
        as including listening, speaking, reading and writing, in my
        experience, helps SLPs to understand the relationship between oral and
        written language. Also, I would suggest that a focus on literacy should
        include more than phonology as a ‘mediating bridge’ and
        include differences in oral and literate styles with complexities in
        syntax, semantics and discourse structures.

        
        

        Systems change

        Even if there should be a resounding affirmation of the logic
        of this summons from many sources, change occurs slowly. Carefully
        consider the mountain you have to climb; don’t underestimate the
        time and energy required to reach the summit! Attending specifically to
        the requirements of educational reform and change will help manage and
        sustain the process. Consult notable authors like Elmore (2004), Fullan
        (2005), Guskey (2005) and Hall & Hord (2010), among others. Hall
        and Hord’s concerns-based adoption model (2010) is one that will
        be of particular assistance in implementing and managing change.

        The authors’ observation that the traditional roles of SLPs
        are rooted in a deficit model implies that broader roles with literacy
        will require not only a different mind-set but also a different
        skill-set to serve in these capacities. To prompt and then sustain this
        change, both pre-service and in-service professional development will
        be needed. In the case of pre-service education, two issues are
        germane: (i) preparing a sufficient number of SLPs to serve in expanded roles; and (ii)
        refining the university curriculum to include specific instruction in
        language and literacy issues, as well as methods in school practice and
        collaboration, among other important areas.

        However, it is difficult to imagine that universities could
        address all aspects of implementing literacy-related roles in schools
        in sufficient depth. Therefore, an important companion piece is
        in-service education. This preparation will also be needed to retool
        practising SLPs. In this regard, the evidence base on high-quality
        professional development should be heeded in the development of
        SLPs’ willingness and competency to engage in these roles
        (Desimone, Porter, Garet, Suk Yoon & Birman, 2002; Penuel, Fishman,
        Yamaguchi & Gallagher, 2007). Ongoing professional development,
        including experiences with initial learning, supported by follow-up
        activities will be essential. A major consideration is that if
        sufficient funding is not allocated to high-quality professional
        development for all involved, SLPs and their collaborators’
        efforts to move ahead will be in vain. (See standards for high-quality
        professional development from Learning Forward, formerly known as the
        National Staff Development Council at www.nsdc.org).

        SLPs who embrace these roles conceptually should be prepared to
        encounter challenges along the way. For example, articulation of roles
        with literacy is a reiterative process. Just because SLPs explain to
        school district or school building administrators what they have to
        offer to address literacy needs, does not mean these administrators
        will internalise this message immediately, if their schema for SLP work
        is rooted in traditional roles.

        Another consideration, however, is that to obtain buy-in from
        stakeholders, the latter must understand and appreciate what SLPs have
        to offer, starting with an appreciation for the role of language in all
        aspects of learning. I would not assume that most teachers have such
        understanding. One of the biggest obstacles we encounter in the USA is
        that teachers, especially of older students, do not understand the
        continued importance of language to the achievement of academic goals.

        Another systems issue is measuring the impact of SLPs’
        contributions. This is easier said than done. The impact of SLPs on
        literacy will be difficult to measure, especially if we extend roles to
        more than direct service to students. As we advocate for a
        collaborative approach, the whole may not equal the sum of the parts;
        i.e. the benefit to students may not be additive when collaborators are
        involved. The interchange among professionals may create a synergy and
        produce results that reflect a ‘shared creation’, as
        Schrage (1995) describes. How can we tease out the contributions of
        individual professionals if we view the result of collaboration to be a
        shared creation and not merely a completion of delegated tasks by a
        ‘team’? This is a matter of ongoing discussion in the USA.

        
        

        Conclusion

        In their closing section, the authors noted: ‘if we wish to
        ensure the future relevance and value of our work in South Africa we
        should take advantage of the great opportunities that currently await
        us in the education system’. I would suggest that relevance and
        value are the cornerstones that should mark the work of SLPs in all
        corners of the globe. I would further say that indeed the education
        system affords SLPs wonderful opportunities to use their knowledge and
        skills for substantive outcomes. We need to make a difference! Although
        that goal can be accomplished in a variety of ways, it makes sense that
        the impact of SLPs should be as broad as possible, given the needs of
        society and that literacy proficiency is surely one of those exigent
        needs. A mantra for me that may resonate with SLPs in South Africa is
        this quote from Hynds (1994, p. 162):

        ‘I teach so that the world will be a better
        place. It’s really that simple. I teach in the hope that some
        day, there might be a few more people who can use the gift of language
        in authentic ways: to respond to others, to learn new things, and
        ultimately, to positively influence the world in which we all must
        live.’ 

        
        

        Dr Barbara J Ehren, CCC-SLP, ASHA Fellow
    

    Board Recognised Specialist in Child Language

    Professor

    Director of the Doctoral Program

    Interim Associate Chair

    Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders

    University of Central Florida

    Orlando, Florida, USA

    
        References
    

    
African National Congress (1995). A policy framework for education, training and development. Johannesburg: ANC.


Alexander, N. (1997). Language policy and planning in the new South Africa. African Sociological Review, 1(1), 82-92. 


Alexander, N. (Ed.). (2005). Mother tongue-based bilingual education in South Africa: The dynamics of implementation. Cape Town: Salty Print.


Alexander, N. (2010). The potential role of translation as social practice for the intellectualisation of African languages. PRAESA Occasional Papers No. 33. Cape Town: PRAESA.


American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) (2002).
Designing and implementing an early literacy screening protocol:
suggestions for the speech-language pathologist. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 33, 84-101.


American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) (2010).
Roles and responsibilities of speech-language pathologists in schools
[Professional Issues Statement]. www.asha.org/policy.


Anderson, K. (1999). When it comes to classroom acoustics, what’s appropriate? Volta Voices, 6, 16-17.


Anthonissen, C., & Gough, D. (1998). A pragmatic or purist
approach to language standards: Implications for outcomes based
education. Per Linguam, 14(1), 39-53. 


Balfour, R. (2010). ‘The long walk ...’ Language Learning Journal, 38(3), 249-251.


Bantu Education Act No. 47 (1953). Retrieved on 8 January 2011 from http://www.disa.ukzn.ac.za/. 


Barkhuizen, G. (2001). Learners'
perceptions of the teaching and learning of Xhosa first language in
Eastern and Western Cape high schools. Summary report. PanSALB Occasional Papers (3). Pretoria: Pan South African Language Board. 


Barry, D. (2006). A partnership to improve literacy. JET Education Services Bulletin,
14, 1-3. 


Bengu, S. (1997). Statement by Prof SME Bengu, Minister of
Education on the New Language Policy in General and Further Education.
In D. Brown (Ed.), Educational policy and the choice of language in linguistically complex South African schools. Durban: Education Policy Unit (Natal).


Beukes, A. (2009). Language policy incongruity and African languages in postapartheid South Africa. Language Matters, 40 (1), 35–55.


Bishop, D., & Snowling, M. (2004). Developmental dyslexia and specific language impairment: Same or different? Psychological Bulletin, 130(6), 858-886.


Bohlmann, C., & Pretorius, E.J. (2002). Reading skills and mathematics. South African Journal of Higher Education, 16(3), 196-206. 


Bradley, L., & Bryant, P. (1983). Categorizing sounds and learning to read: A causal connection. Nature, 301, 419-421. 


British Association of Education Audiologists (BAEA) (2003). Retrieved on 8 June 2011 from http://www.educational-audiologists.org.uk/documents/roles.pdf. 


Brock-Utne, B., & Holmarsdottir, H.B. (2003). Language
policies and practices in Africa – some preliminary results from
a research project in Tanzania and South Africa. In B. Brock-Utne, Z.
Desai & M. Qorro (Eds.), The language of instruction in Tanzania and South Africa (pp. 80-102). Dar es Salaam: E & D Publishers.


Brock-Utne, B., & Skattum, I. (2009). Languages and education in Africa: A comparative and transdisciplinary analysis. Oxford: Symposium Books.


Bunyi, G. (1999). Rethinking the place of African indigenous languages in African education. International Journal of Educational Development, 19, 337-350. 


Catford, J.C. (1965). Translation shifts. In L.Venuti (Ed.), The Translation Studies Reader (pp. 141-148). London: Routledge.


Catts, H., & Kamhi, A. (Eds.). (2005). Language and reading disabilities (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.


Centre for Evaluation and Assessment (2006). PIRLS of wisdom: The what, where, when and how of the international reading literacy study in South Africa. Pretoria: Faculty of Education, University of Pretoria. 


Charter of the United Nations (1990). Retrieved on 23 August 2010 from http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/index.shtml. 


Chisholm, L. (2001). Values, multiculturalism and human rights in apartheid and post-apartheid South African curriculum.
Paper delivered at the Saamtrek Conference, Cape Town, February. 


Chisholm, L. (2008). Racial redress means different things for different schools: case studies of five Gauteng schools. HSRC Review, 6(2), 15-17. 


Cirrin, F.,
Schooling,
T., Nelson, N., Diehl, S., Flynn, P., Staskowski, M., Torrey, T, &
Adamczyk, D. (2010). Evidence-based systematic review: Effects of
speech-language pathology service delivery model on communication
outcomes for elementary school-age children. Language Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 41, 233-264.  


Constitution of South Africa (1996). Retrieved on 23 August 2010 from http://www.acts.co.za/constitution/index.htm. 


Cook, S. (2008). Language policies and the erasure of multilingualism in South Africa. In M. Lafon & V. Webb (Eds.), The standardisation of African languages in South Africa: language political realities. Johannesburg: Insitut Francais d’ Afrique du Sud.


Crandell, C., Smaldino, J., & Kreisman, B. (2004). Classroom Acoustics: Measurement Procedures. Seminars in Hearing, 25(2), 189-200.


Department of Basic Education (2010). Notice 752 of 2010.
Retrieved on 18 March 2011 from
http://edulibpretoria.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/action_plan_for_2014.pdf.
  


Department of Basic Education. (2011a). Report on the 2008-2009 annual surveys for ordinary schools. Pretoria: Basic Education.


Department of Basic Education (2011b). Report on Annual National Assessment of 2011.
Retrieved on 8 August 2011 from
http://www.education.gov.za/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=1U5igeVjiqg%3D&tabid=358&mid=1325.
  


Department of Basic Education (2011c). South
African Country Report: Progress on the implementation of the Regional
Education and Training Plan (integrating the Second Decade of Education
in Africa and Protocol on Education and Training).
Retrieved on 8 August 2011 from
http://www.education.gov.za/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=B3Ql1NJKS3g%3D&tabid=422&mid=1261
  


Department of Education (1995a). White Paper on Education and Training
. Retrieved on 12 July 2010 from http://www.education.gov.za/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=855fT9w3A2U%3D&tabid=191&mid=484. 


Department of Education (1995b). South African Qualifications Authority Act. Retrieved on 12 July 2010 from http://www.capegateway.gov.za/Text/2005/8/a58-95.pdf. 


Department of Education (1996a). The organisation, governance and funding of schools (Education White Paper 2). Retrieved on 1 October 2011 from http://www.info.gov.za/whitepapers/1996/education2.htm. 


Department of Education (1996b). The South African Schools Act, Act 84 of 1996. Retrieved on 12 July 2010 from http://www.info.gov.za/acts/1996/a84-96.pdf. 


Department of Education (1996c). National Education Policy Act of 1996. Retrieved on 12 July 2010 from http://www.info.gov.za/acts/1996/a27-96.pdf. 


Department of Education (1997). The language in education policy and national curriculum statement. Retrieved on 22 September 2009 from http://www.thuthong.doe.gov.za/getlanguages/languages/FAQ/tabloid/2087. 


Department of Education (1998). National norms and standards for school funding. Retrieved on 12 July 2010 from http://www.education.gov.za/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=9DiDOH1U2k8%3D&tabid=188&mid=498. 


Department of Education (2001a). White paper 5 on early childhood education: meeting the challenge of early childhood development in South Africa. Retrieved on 13 January 2011 from http://www.polity.org.za/govdocs/white_papers/educ6.html. 


Department of Education (2001b). Education White Paper 6: Special needs education – Building an inclusive education and training system. Pretoria: Department of Education. 


Department of Education (2002). Revised National Curriculum Statement grades R - 9 (schools). Pretoria: Department of Education. 


Department of Education (2008). National strategy on screening, identification, assessment and support. Pretoria: Department of Education.


Department of Health (2006). A National Human Resources Plan
for Health. Retrieved on 24 October 2011 from
www.doh.gov.za/docs/factsheets/guidelines/hrplan/index.html. 


Deshler, D., & Ehren, B.J. (2008). CLC and RTI: Not a quantum leap. Florida SIM Update Conference, January, Altamonte Springs, Florida.


Desimone, L.M., Porter, A.C., Garet, M.S., Suk Yoon, K., &
Birman, B.F. (2002). Effects of professional development on
teachers’ instruction: Results from a three-year longitudinal
study. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis 24, 81-112.


Dlodlo, T.S. (1999). Science nomenclature in Africa: Physics in Nguni. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(3), 321-331. 


Du Plessis, S. (1998). Spanfunksionering in ’n preprimere program vir kommunikasiegestremde leerder. Unpublished
M Communication Pathology Dissertation. Pretoria: University of
Pretoria. http://upetd.up.ac.za/thesis/available/etd-09292006-170657/


Du Plessis, S. (2005). Multilingual preschool learners: a
collaborative approach to communication intervention. Unpublished DPhil
Dissertation. Pretoria: University of Pretoria.


Du Plessis, S., Hugo, R., & Soer, M. (2000).
Spanfunksionering in ’n preprimêre program vir leerders met
spesiale opvoedkundige behoeftes. Suid-Afrikaanse Tydskrif vir Opvoedkunde/SA Journal of Education, 20(4), 319-327.


Ehren, B.J. (2000). Maintaining a therapeutic focus and sharing
responsibility for student success: Keys to in-classroom
speech-language services. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 31, 219-229.


Ehren, B.J. (2006). Partnerships to support reading comprehension for students with language impairment. Topics in Language Disorders, 26(1), 42-54.


Ehren, B. (2009). Response to intervention: SLPs as linchpins in secondary schools. ASHA Leader, May 5, 10-13. 


Ehren, B.J., & Ehren,T.C. (2001). New or expanded literacy
roles for speech-language pathologists: Making it happen in the
schools. Seminars in Speech and Language,
22(3): 233-241. 


Ehren, B.J., & Laster, B.J. (2010, April). The language of
collaboration in RTI. International Reading Association Convention,
Chicago.


Ehren, B.J., & Murza, K.A. (2010). The urgent need to address workforce readiness in adolescent literacy intervention. Perspectives on Language Learning and Education, 17, 93-99.


Elmore, R.F. (2004). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, and performance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. 


Englert, C.S., & Thomas, C.C. (1987). Sensitivity to text
structure in reading and writing: A comparison between learning
disabled and non-learning disabled students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10, 93-105. 


Fawcett, P. (1997). Translation and language: Linguistic theories explained, Manchester: St Jerome Publishing.


Fleisch, B. (2008). Primary education in crisis: why South African school children underachieve in reading and mathematics. Cape Town: Juta.


Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership & sustainability: System thinkers in action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.


Genesee, F., Paradis, J., & Crago, M. (2004). Dual language development and disorders: a handbook on bilingualism and second language learning. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.


Gillon, G., & Dodd, B. (1995). The effects of training
phonological, semantic, and syntactic processing skills in spoken
language on reading ability. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 26(1), 58-68. 


Goetze, S., Laster, B., & Ehren, B.J. (2010). RTI for
secondary school literacy (pp. 173-211). In M. Lipson & K. Wixon
(Eds.), Successful approaches to RTI: Collaborative practices for improving K-12 literacy. Newark,
DE: International Reading Association. 


Guskey, T.R. (2005). Taking a second look: Strong evidence
reflecting the benefit of professional development is more important
than ever before. Journal of Staff Development, 26(1), 10-18.


Hall, G.E., & Hord, S.M. (2011). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.


Hartshorne, K. B. (1992). Crisis and challenge: Black education 1910-1990. Cape Town: New York: Oxford University Press.


Heugh, K. (2000). The case against bilingual and multilingual education in South Africa. Cape Town: PRAESA, Occasional Papers 6.


Heugh, K. (2002). The case against bilingual and multilingual education in South Africa: Laying bare the myths. Perspectives in Education, 20(1), 171-196. 


Heugh, K. (2006). An
evaluation of language education models in Africa: findings &
recommendations from the UNESCO Institute for Education-ADEA
stocktaking report on Lingua. Paper presented at the International Conference on Bilingual Education, Maputo, Mozambique. 


Heugh, K. (2009). Into the cauldron: An interplay of indigenous
and globalised knowledge with strong and weak notions of literacy and
language education in Ethiopia and South Africa. Language Matters, 40(2), 166-189. 


Heugh, K., & Mahlalela-Thusi, B. (2002). Terminology and schoolbooks in Southern African languages: Aren't there any? PRAESA Occasional papers (10). Cape Town: PRAESA. 


Hiebert, E.H. (1980). The relationship of logical reasoning
ability, oral language comprehension, and home experiences to preschool
children's print awareness. Journal of Reading Behavior, 12, 313-324. 


Hofmeyer, J. (2000). The emerging school landscape in
post-apartheid South Africa. Retrieved on 8 June 2010 from
http://www.sun.ac.za/if/Taakgroepe/iptg/hofmeyr.pdf. 


Hynds, S. (1994). Making connections: Language and learning in the classroom. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon. 


Jankie, D. (2009). Nurturing the dialogue on mother tongue
education in Southern African societies. In G. Kamwendo, D. Jankie
& A. Chebanne (Eds.), Multilingualism in education and communities in Southern Africa. UB Tromso Collaborative Programme for San Research and Capacity Building.


Kroll, B. (1981). Developmental relationships between speaking and writing. In B. Roll & R. Vann (Eds.), Exploring speaking-writing relationships: Connections and contrasts (pp. 32-54). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.


Kamwangamalu, N.K. (2000). Language policy and mother tongue education in South Africa. The case for a market oriented approach.
Paper presented at the Georgetown University Roundtable on Languages
and Linguistics (GURT), Georgetown University, Washington, DC, May. 


Kamwendo, G. (2009). African languages, education and sustainable development: An introduction. Language Matters, 40(1), 1-3. 


Kathard, H., & Pillay, M. (2006). Practice innovations: Language practitioners in (South African) classrooms. The International
Journal of Learning, 13, 3-13.


Kumar, A. (2010). A synoptic view of curriculum studies in South Africa. Journal of American Association for the Advancement of Curriculum Studies, 6. Retrieved on 13 March 2011 from
http://www2.uwstout.edu/content/jaaacs/Kumar_V6%20copy.htm. 


Lafon, M. (2005). The future of isiZulu lies in Gauteng: The
importance of taking into account urban varieties for the promotion of
African languages, with special reference to isiZulu. Issues for a
debate. In V. Webb, A. Deumert & B. Lepota (Eds.), The standardisation of African languages in South Africa. Pretoria: PanSALB. 


Lafon, M. (2008). Asikhulume! African languages for all. A
powerful strategy for spearheading transformation and improvement of
the South African education system. In M. Lafon & V. Webb (Eds.), The standardisation of African languages in South Africa: language political realities (pp. 35-59). Johannesburg: Insitut Francais d’ Afrique du Sud.  


Lafon, M. (2009). Language policy and nation-building in post-apartheid South Africa. Language Matters, 40(2), 261-265. 


Lewis, F. (2004, winter). Speech therapists in schools:
Curriculum integration and curriculum innovation - challenges to the
school speech-language therapist of today. Communiphon, 337, 36-37.


Macdonald, C.A. (1990). Crossing the threshold into standard three. Main report of the Threshold Project. Pretoria: Human Sciences Research Council.


MacWhinney, B. (2005). A unified model of language development. In J.F. Kroll & A.M.B. de Groot (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 49-67). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 


Marinova-Todd, S.H., Marshall, D.B., & Snow, C.E. (2000). Three misconceptions about age and L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly, 34(1), 9-34. 


Mashau, S., Steyn, E., van der Walt, J., & Wolhuter, C.
(2008). Support services perceived necessary for learner relationships
by Limpopo educators. South African Journal of Education, 28 (3).


Masuura, K. (2005). Foreword. In Education for all. Global Monitoring Report, Literacy for life. Paris: UNESCO. 


Mbatha, T., & Pluddemann, P. (2004). The status of isiXhosa as an additional language in selected Cape Town schools. Cape Town: PRAESA, Occasional Papers 18.


McCartney, E., Ellis, S., & Boyle, J. (2009). The
mainstream primary classroom as a language-learning environment for
children with severe and persistent language impairment –
implications of recent language intervention research. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 9(2), 80-90.


Moji, N.C. (1998). Investigation
of conceptual and language difficulties affecting the understanding of
several mechanics concepts among some African teachers and students. PhD thesis, University of Natal, Pietermaritzburg.  


Moodley, S., Chetty, S., & Pahl, J. (2005). The school-based speech-language therapist: choosing multicultural texts. South African Journal of Communication Disorders, 52, 40-50. 


Motshekga, A. (2011). Statement on the release of the annual
national assessment results for 2011. Retrieved on 6 August 2011 from
http://www.info.gov.za/speech/DynamicAction?pageid=461&sid=19525&tid=
36106. 


Mullis, I., Martin, M., Kennedy, A., & Foy, P. (2007). IEA’s progress in International Reading Literacy Study in primary schools in 40 countries. Boston College: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Centre.


Naicker, S.M. (2000). From apartheid education to inclusive education: the challenges of transformation. Paper presented at the International Education Summit for a Democratic Society, Detroit, MI, 26-28 June.


Navsaria, I. (2010). Written language expression in linguistically diverse classrooms in the Western Cape: a case study. Unpublished Masters dissertation. University of Cape Town.


Nida, E. (1975). Principles of correspondence In L. Venuti (Ed.), The translation studies reader (pp. 126-141). London: Routledge.


Nyika, N. (2009). Language complaints as an instrument of
language rights activism: The case of PANSALB as a guardian of the
right to mother-tongue education. Language Matters, 40(2), 239-260. 


Obondo, M.A. (2008). Bilingual education in Africa: An overview. In J.Cummins & N.H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopaedia of language and education (2nd ed., vol. 5, pp. 151-161). New York: Springer Science. 


Owens, R.E. (2002). Language development: An introduction (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.


Owens, R.E. (2010). Language disorders: A functional approach to assessment and intervention (5th Ed). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.


PanSALB (2011). The Pan South African Language Board. PanSALB News, 2(5), 1-5. Retrieved on 12 October 2011 from http://www.pansalb.org.za/home.html. 


Paradis, J. (2004). On the relevance of specific language
impairment to understanding the role of transfer in second language
acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, 67-82. 


Penuel, W., Fishman, B., Yamaguchi, R., & Gallagher, L.
(2007). What makes professional development effective? Strategies that
foster curriculum implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 44(4),
921-958.


Pluddemann, P., Mati, M., & Mahlalela-Thusi, B. (2000). Problems and possibilities in multilingual classrooms in the Western Cape. Final research report. Cape Town: PRAESA.


Pretorius, E. (2008). What happens to literacy in (print) poor
environments? Reading in African languages and school language
policies. In M. Lafon & V. Webb (Eds.), The standardisation of African languages in South Africa: language political realities (pp. 60-87). Johannesburg: Institut Francais d'Afrique du Sud.


Ramani, E., Kekana, T., Modiba, M., & Joseph, M. (2007).
Terminology development versus concept development through discourse:
insights from a dual-medium BA degree Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 25(2), 207-221.


Ratshitanga, M. (2007, 20 March). Our present is indeed connected to our past. Pretoria News, 15.


Reagan, T. (2009). Language matters. Reflections on educational linguistics. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. 


Republic of South Africa (1998, 2 November 1998). Further Education and Training Act. Government Gazette. Retrieved on 4 February 2011 from http://www.westerncape.gov.za/Text/2004/10/a98-98.pdf. 


Republic of South Africa (2005). Position paper on early childhood care and development: draft for discussion. Retrieved on 4 February 2011 from http://www.hsrc.ac.za/Document-1648.phtml. 


Ritzman, M.J., Sanger, D., & Coufal, K.L. (2006). A case study of a collaborative 


speech-language pathologist. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 27(4), 221-231.


RCSLT (2011). Guidance
on quality standards for local authorities and schools as commissioners
of speech and language therapy services in the UK. Retrieved on 2 May 2011 from http://www.rcslt.org/docs/quality_standards_scools_2011. 


Ruddell, R.B., & Ruddell, M.R. (1994). Language acquisition
and literacy processes. In R.B. Ruddell, M.R. Ruddell & H. Singer
(Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (4th ed., pp. 83-103). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. 


Scherman, V., van Staden, S., Venter, E., & Howie, S. (2008). South African performance in PIRLS 2006: a national crisis. Symposium papers: National reflections on international comparative achievement studies (Part 4). Pretoria: University of Pretoria. 


Schrage, M. (1995). No more teams! Mastering the dynamics of creative collaboration. New York: Currency Doubleday.


Scott, C. (2005). Learning to write. In H. Catts & A. Kamhi (Eds.), Language and reading disabilities, (2nd ed., pp. 233-273). Boston, MA: Pearson. 


Sen, A. (2001). Development as freedom. New York: Oxford University Press.


Singh, P. (2009). Trawling through language policy: practices and possibilities post 1994. Language Learning Journal, 37(3), 281-291. 


Slabbert, J.A., de Kock, D.M., & Hanttingh, A. (2009). The brave 'new' world of education: creating a unique professionalism. Cape Town: Juta. 


Sookrajh, R., & Joshua, J. (2009). Language matters in
rural schools in South Africa: are educators making the implementation
of the Language in Education Policy (1977) work? Language Learning Journal, 37(3), 323-338. 


Stackhouse, J., & Wells, B. (1997). Children’s speech and literacy difficulties I: A psycholinguistic framework. London: Whurr Publishers. 


Tabri, D., Chacra, K. & Pring, T. (2010). Speech perception in noise by monolingual, bilingual and trilingual listeners. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 46(4), 411-422.


Taylor, S., & Yu, D. (2008). The importance of socio-economic status in determining educational achievement in South Africa. Development Policy Research Unit. Stellenbosch: Stellenbosch University, Department of Economics: Working Papers.


UNESCO (2005). Education for All (EFA): Global Monitoring Report. Literacy for all. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved on 4 December 2008 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001416/141639e.pdf. 


UNESCO (2007). Experts' consultation on the operational definition of basic education (No. ED/BAS/RVE/2009/PI/1) Paris: UNESCO.


United States Aid (2004). USAID: Sub-Saharan Africa overview.
Retrieved on 30 September 2009 from
http://www.usaid.gov/policy/budget/cbj2004/sub-saharan-africa/. 


 Ullman, M.T. (2001). The neural basis of lexicon and grammar in first and second language: The declarative/procedural model. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4, 105-122. 


Webb, V. (2004). African languages as media of instruction in South Africa: Stating the case. Language Problems and Language Planning, 28 (2), 147-173.


Webb, V. A., Lafon, M., & Pare, P. (2010). Bantu languages
in education in South Africa – Ongekho akekho! The absentee owner. Language Learning Journal, 37(3), 273-292. 


Welch, T. (2003). Educator education in South Africa before,
during and after apartheid: an overview. In J. Adler & Y. Reed
(Eds.), Challenges of teacher development: an investigation of take-up in South Africa (pp. 17-35). Pretoria: Van Schaik. 


Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005) Understanding by design. Expanded 2nd edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall/Pearson.


Wildsmith-Cromarty, R., & Gordon, M. (2009). Policy versus
practice: the role of the home language in learning mathematics and
science in English-medium classrooms. Language Learning Journal, 37(3), 359-370. 


Wilson, G., Nash, M., & Earl, G. (2010). Supporting
students with language learning difficulties in secondary schools
through collaboration: The use of concept maps to investigate the
impact on teachers’ knowledge of vocabulary teaching. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 26(2), 163-180. 


Wium, A. M., Louw, B., & Eloff, I. (2010). Speech-language
therapists supporting foundation phase educators with literacy and
numeracy in a rural and township context. South African Journal of Communication Disorders, 57(1), 14-22.


Wren, Y., Roulstone, S., Parkhouse, J., & Hall, B. (2001).
A model for a mainstream school-based speech and language therapy
service. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 17(2),107-126.






    
        
            GLOSSARY OF TERMS
        

        	
                    Annual National Assessments (ANAs)

                	
                    Annual National Assessment (ANA)
                    in literacy and numeracy is performed for grades 3, 6 and 9 to
                    continually measure the performance of individual learners and that of
                    classes, schools, districts, provinces and the country as a whole. It
                    provides information on individual learner performance, but also
                    informs the Department how the sector as a whole is functioning. Going
                    forward, ANA results will enable the Department of Education to measure
                    the impact of specific programmes and interventions to improve literacy
                    and numeracy (Motshekga, 2011). 

                
	
                	
                
	
                    Basic Education 

                	
                    ‘Basic Education’
                    includes both primary and secondary education and is guaranteed to
                    everyone without any discrimination or exclusion based notably on
                    gender, ethnicity, nationality or origin, social, economic or physical
                    condition, language, religion, political or other opinion, or belonging
                    to a minority. Beyond preschool education, the duration of which can be
                    fixed by the State, Basic Education consists of at least 9 years and
                    progressively extends to 12 years (UNESCO, 2007). 

                
	
                	
                
	
                    Community service

                	
                    In South Africa community
                    service differs from that in other countries, where it is related to
                    volunteerism. In an effort to redress previous inequalities in the
                    South African Health System, the Department of Health launched the
                    National Human Resource Plan in 2006. Newly qualified graduates (e.g.
                    medical and allied health professions) are employed by the government
                    for a period of 1 year to provide professional services to communities
                    (ranging from urban to rural) where a need exists to make up for the
                    shortfall in such skills (Department of Health, 2006). 

                
	
                	
                
	
                    Curriculum and assessment policy (CAPS)

                	
                    The National Curriculum and
                    Assessment Policy Statement is a single, comprehensive, and concise
                    policy document, which will replace the current Subject and Learning
                    Area Statements, Learning Programme Guidelines and Subject Assessment
                    Guidelines for all the subjects listed in the National Curriculum Statement Grades R - 12.
                    It is important to note that the development of National Curriculum and
                    Assessment Statements must not be seen as a new curriculum but only as
                    a refined and repackaged National Curriculum Statement Grades R - 12 (Department of Education, 2008). 

                
	
                	
                
	
                    District level

                	
                    Each provincial Department of
                    Education is known as the ‘provincial level’ of management.
                    Each provincial level has several ‘district offices’ known
                    as the ‘district level’ of governance. Each school district
                    is a geographical unit as determined by the relevant provincial
                    legislation, or prevailing provincial practice, and manages a number of
                    schools within a specific geographical district. District-based support
                    teams are a group of professionals whose responsibility it is to
                    promote inclusive education through training, curriculum delivery,
                    distribution of resources, identifying and addressing barriers to
                    learning, leadership and general management (Department of Education,
                    1996a, 1996b). 

                
	
                	
                
	
                    Early childhood development (ECD)

                	
                    Early childhood development
                    (ECD) covers the education of a child from the period from birth to 9
                    years of age which is a critical time of change in his/her social,
                    physical, cognitive, and emotional development (Department of
                    Education, 2001a). In the South African context ECD refers to the
                    policies and an approach where parents and caregivers participate
                    actively in their child’s programme (family-centred approach)
                    (Republic of South Africa, 2005). 

                
	
                	
                
	
                    Ex-model C school

                	
                    Model C schools existed in the
                    period just prior to democracy in South Africa. This categorisation no
                    longer exists and the schools are therefore referred to as
                    former/ex-model C schools. These former model C schools were permitted
                    to top up their funding with fees payable by the parents of the
                    schools. Thus, former model C schools varied in relation to their fees,
                    budgets, teacher-to-student ratios, and quality of facilities
                    (Department of Education, 1996a). 

                
	
                	
                
	
                    Foundation phase 

                	
                    The foundation phase includes
                    grades R, 1, 2, and 3. It provides the learning that forms the
                    grounding or basis for literacy, numeracy and life skills (Department
                    of Education, 2002). 

                
	
                	
                
	
                    Full-service school

                	
                    Full-service schools are
                    ordinary schools which are specially equipped to address a full range
                    of barriers to learning in an inclusive education setting (Department
                    of Education, 2008).

                
	
                	
                
	
                    Further education and training (FET) 

                	
                    Refers to levels of education
                    which are above ‘general education’ but below ‘Higher
                    Education’. FET consists of grades 10 – 12, which are
                    offered in high schools (Department of Basic Education) or FET Colleges
                    (previous technical colleges) (Republic of South Africa, 1998). 

                
	
                	
                
	
                    General education

                	
                    ‘General education’
                    refers to the compulsory school attendance phase as referred to in
                    section 3 of the South African Schools Act (Republic of South Africa,
                    1998).

                
	
                	
                
	
                    Independent school

                	
                    Private or independent schools
                    receive no funding from the government and are funded entirely by fees
                    paid by the parents. The general perception is that the teacher:
                    student ratio is lower than in government schools and that the standard
                    of education is high (Department of Education, 1996b).

                
	
                	
                
	
                    Intermediate grades 

                	
                    The intermediate grades of primary education comprise grades 4 - 6 (Department of Education, 2002).

                
	
                	
                
	
                    Language in Education Policy (LiEP)

                	
                    The Language in Education Policy
                    (LiEP) in South Africa provides for schools (depending on their needs)
                    to adopt either one language as a medium for learning (home language)
                    or use two languages: a home language in the early grades and a second
                    one later as language of learning. According to the LiEP, whichever
                    route is followed, the underlying principle is to maintain home
                    language(s) while providing access to and the effective acquisition of
                    additional language(s) (Department of Education, 1997).

                
	
                	
                
	
                    Language of learning and teaching (LoLT)

                	
                    The Revised National Curriculum
                    Statement (RNCS) stipulates that the learner's home language should be
                    used for learning and teaching wherever possible. This is particularly
                    important in the foundation phase where children learn to read and
                    write. The LoLT is the language of the majority of learners in the
                    school/class, which is used for teaching in the classroom (Department
                    of Education, 2002). 

                
	
                	
                
	
                    Ordinary schools 

                	
                    An ordinary school is a school that is not a special school (Department of Basic Education, 2011a). 

                
	
                	
                
	
                    Pan South African Language Board (PanSALB)

                	
                    PanSALB was established in 1995
                    to promote multilingualism in South Africa by fostering the development
                    of all 11 official languages, while encouraging the use of the many
                    other languages spoken in the country (PanSALB, 2011).

                
	
                	
                
	
                    Provincial departments of education

                	
                    The provincial Departments of Education reside in each province of South Africa, under the National Department of Education.

                


    




    
        	
                    
                        GLOSSARY OF TERMS
                    

                	
                
	
                    Public school

                	
                    Public schools are under the
                    jurisdiction of the government and learners are subsidised by the
                    provincial legislature. At public schools, parents vote on the level of
                    school fees. Poor parents are given exemption or reductions. A public
                    school may be either an ordinary public school or a public school for
                    learners with special education needs. The latter should receive
                    relevant educational support services for these learners (Department of
                    Education, 1996b). Public schools are governed by elected school
                    governing bodies, which have a significant say in the running of their
                    schools.

                
	
                	
                
	
                    Revised National Curriculum Statement

                	
                    The RNCS stipulates the specific
                    outcomes and the assessment standards to be achieved for a specific
                    grade. It provides the framework for what learners should know in order
                    to become ‘… citizens that are multi-skilled,
                    knowledgeable, sensitive to environmental issues and able to respond to
                    the many challenges that confront South Africa in the 21st
                    Century’ (Department of Education, 2002). 

                
	
                	
                
	
                    School psychological services

                	
                    The school psychological
                    services were multidisciplinary units consisting of psychologists,
                    remedial educationists, speech therapists/audiologists, and career
                    counsellors. They provided services (assessment, management and
                    intervention programmes) to learners who experienced barriers to
                    learning, and in career counselling. Under the previous dispensation
                    such services were available only to children in former white schools
                    (Mashau, Steyn, van der Walt & Wolhuter, 2008).

                
	
                	
                
	
                    Senior phase

                	
                    The senior phase of education
                    comprises grades 7 - 9 with the child promoted to high/secondary school
                    at the beginning of grade 8 (Department of Education, 2002).

                
	
                	
                
	
                    South African Department of Education: Basic Education and Higher Education

                	
                    The former Department of
                    Education was the South African Government department responsible for
                    education and training until 2009. Since then it has been split into
                    the Department of Basic Education (schools) and the Department of
                    Higher Education and Training (universities, technikons). 

                
	
                	
                
	
                    Special education 

                	
                    Special education in South
                    Africa consists of special schools that offer segregated education for
                    learners with specific education needs. A special school is one that is
                    resourced to deliver education to learners requiring high-intensity
                    support (Department of Basic Education, 2011a). Special education needs
                    are based on specific disabilities: e.g. physical/mobility impairments,
                    blindness, deafness, autism spectrum disorders, epilepsy, learning
                    disability and cognitive impairments. 

                


    




    
1  It is acknowledged that
        reference in terms of 'black education' and 'white education' is highly
        contested in the current context. These terms are used to explain the
        racial divide that was created by the apartheid system.
    



    
    




    
        Table I. Percentage of learners by language of learning and teaching across grades in 2007

        	
                    
                        LoLT
                    

                	
                    
                        Gr 1
                    

                	
                    
                        Gr 2
                    

                	
                    
                        Gr 3
                    

                	
                    
                        Gr 4
                    

                	
                    
                        Gr 5
                    

                	
                    
                        Gr 6
                    

                	
                    
                        Gr 7 
                    

                	
                    
                        Gr 8 
                    

                	
                    
                        Gr 9
                    

                	
                    
                        Gr 10
                    

                	
                    
                        Gr 11 
                    

                	
                    
                        Gr 12
                    

                	
                    
                        SA
                    

                
	
                    Afrikaans

                	
                    9.5

                	
                    9.6

                	
                    9.9

                	
                    12.3

                	
                    12.2

                	
                    12.2

                	
                    13.2

                	
                    13.1

                	
                    14.0

                	
                    12.7

                	
                    12.1

                	
                    12.8

                	
                    11.9

                
	
                    English

                	
                    21.8

                	
                    23.8

                	
                    27.7

                	
                    79.1

                	
                    81.1

                	
                    81.6

                	
                    80.6

                	
                    80.9

                	
                    80.0

                	
                    81.2

                	
                    82.0

                	
                    81.4

                	
                    65.3

                
	
                    isiNdebele

                	
                    0.7

                	
                    0.8

                	
                    0.8

                	
                    0.3

                	
                    0.3

                	
                    0.3

                	
                    0.3

                	
                    0.1

                	
                    0.1

                	
                    0.1

                	
                    0.1

                	
                    0.1

                	
                    0.4

                
	
                    isiXhosa

                	
                    16.5

                	
                    15.0

                	
                    14.0

                	
                    3.1

                	
                    2.5

                	
                    2.0

                	
                    1.9

                	
                    1.6

                	
                    1.4

                	
                    1.3

                	
                    1.2

                	
                    1.5

                	
                    5.5

                
	
                    isiZulu

                	
                    23.4

                	
                    21.7

                	
                    20.1

                	
                    1.5

                	
                    1.0

                	
                    1.0

                	
                    1.0

                	
                    1.1

                	
                    1.1

                	
                    1.1

                	
                    1.1

                	
                    1.1

                	
                    6.8

                
	
                    Sepedi

                	
                    8.3

                	
                    9.1

                	
                    9.2

                	
                    1.1

                	
                    0.9

                	
                    0.9

                	
                    0.9

                	
                    0.9

                	
                    0.9

                	
                    1.0

                	
                    1.0

                	
                    1.0

                	
                    3.1

                
	
                    Sesotho

                	
                    4.7

                	
                    4.8

                	
                    4.4

                	
                    0.5

                	
                    0.4

                	
                    0.3

                	
                    0.4

                	
                    0.4

                	
                    0.5

                	
                    0.5

                	
                    0.4

                	
                    0.3

                	
                    1.6

                
	
                    Setswana

                	
                    7.5

                	
                    7.4

                	
                    6.8

                	
                    0.6

                	
                    0.5

                	
                    0.5

                	
                    0.6

                	
                    0.6

                	
                    0.7

                	
                    0.6

                	
                    0.5

                	
                    0.3

                	
                    2.4

                
	
                    Siswati

                	
                    2.1

                	
                    2.1

                	
                    1.7

                	
                    0.4

                	
                    0.3

                	
                    0.3

                	
                    0.3

                	
                    0.1

                	
                    0.1

                	
                    0.1

                	
                    0.1

                	
                    0.1

                	
                    0.7

                
	
                    Tshivenda

                	
                    2.2

                	
                    2.4

                	
                    2.4

                	
                    0.3

                	
                    0.2

                	
                    0.2

                	
                    0.2

                	
                    0.4

                	
                    0.5

                	
                    0.5

                	
                    0.6

                	
                    0.5

                	
                    0.9

                
	
                    Xitsonga

                	
                    3.1

                	
                    3.3

                	
                    3.1

                	
                    0.7

                	
                    0.6

                	
                    0.6

                	
                    0.6

                	
                    0.7

                	
                    0.7

                	
                    0.8

                	
                    0.8

                	
                    0.8

                	
                    1.4

                
	
                    
                        Total
                    

                	
                    
                        100
                    

                	
                    
                        100
                    

                	
                    
                        100
                    

                	
                    
                        100
                    

                	
                    
                        100
                    

                	
                    
                        100
                    

                	
                    
                        100
                    

                	
                    
                        100
                    

                	
                    
                        100
                    

                	
                    
                        100
                    

                	
                    
                        100
                    

                	
                    
                        100
                    

                	
                    
                        100
                    

                


        Source: Department of Basic Education (2010).

        LoLT = language of teaching and learning.

    




    
    




    
    




    
    




    
        Fig. 1. The ongoing contribution of language to academic learning (from Deshler & Ehren, 2008, used with permission).