Current Issues in Language Planning

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rclp20

Language policy and planning in the teaching of

native languages in Pakistan

Zia ur Rehman Bazai, Syed Abdul Manan & Stefanie Pillai

To cite this article: Zia ur Rehman Bazai, Syed Abdul Manan & Stefanie Pillai (2023) Language
policy and planning in the teaching of native languages in Pakistan, Current Issues in Language
Planning, 24:3, 293-311, DOI: 10.1080/14664208.2022.2088972

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2022.2088972

Published online: 19 Jun 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 563

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rclp20
CURRENT ISSUES IN LANGUAGE PLANNING
2023, VOL. 24, NO. 3, 293–311
https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2022.2088972

Language policy and planning in the teaching of native

languages in Pakistan
a b a
Zia ur Rehman Bazai , Syed Abdul Manan and Stefanie Pillai
a
Faculty of Languages & Linguistics, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; bGraduate School of
Education, Nazarbayev University, Nur-Sultan, Kazakhstan

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The teaching of native languages is seen as being key to the Received 2 September 2021
development of cognitive skills, better academic performance in Accepted 9 June 2022
early grades and a resource for linguistic (re)vitalization and
KEYWORDS
cultural revival. This study examines the institutional challenges in Native languages; language
teaching and learning native languages in Pakistan. The study policy and planning;
uses teachers’ agency through the public sphere paradigm as a language-in-education
theoretical framework to investigate the concerns and opinions policy; bi/multilingualism;
of teachers and their agency regarding the challenges to native language-as-a-resource
languages policy. The majority of teachers overwhelmingly
support native languages, and endorse their importance in
education, particularly in the development of cognitive skills and
better academic performance. However, several institutional
challenges hold back the teaching of native languages in public
schools in Pakistan. The participants argue that native languages
need an effective language-in-education policy. In addition,
students, teachers and parents are not likely to deem native
languages as resources until they gain some economic value. The
study suggests that the current policy regarding native languages
should be reviewed and refashioned considering their importance
to students’ academic performance. Further, a dynamic policy-
making mechanism is proposed where stakeholders at every level
are able to coordinate in policy formulation and its effective
implementation.

Introduction
In recent decades, several factors such as globalization, urbanization, neoliberal turns in
education and the growing dominance and demand for English language have signifi-
cantly affected the choice of teaching languages and language-in-education policy
(LiEP) in public schools particularly in postcolonial multilingual countries. The interests
of various stakeholders involved in the process of developing and implementing LiEP have
created an interesting triangle. For instance, on the one hand, people in many postcolonial
countries generally believe that the learning of English language ensures social, intellectual
and economic upward mobility (Mahboob, 2011; Manan et al., 2021; Mohanty, 2019;
Rahman, 2007; Zainuddin et al., 2019). On the other hand, governments tend to believe

CONTACT Zia ur Rehman Bazai [email protected] Faculty of Languages & Linguistics, Universiti Malaya,
50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
© 2022 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
294 Z. U. BAZAI ET AL.

in a ‘one-nation, one-language’ ideology that can wield their multilingual communities

into one unified nation (Hamid & Rahman, 2019; Manan & David, 2019). However,
research findings in the field consider Mother Tongue Education (MTE) as a good edu-
cation model that promises the development of cognitive skills, better academic perform-
ance, and as being important to linguistic and cultural (re)vitalization (Manan, Dumanig,
et al., 2015; Mohanty, 2019; Mustafa, 2015; Panda & Mohanty, 2009; Rahman, 2019; Skut-
nabb-Kangas & Heugh, 2012; UNESCO, 2017). The findings also confirm that being edu-
cated in a socioculturally alien language can result in several drawbacks such as
‘incomprehension of subject material, cramming or rote learning, reduced creativity/criti-
cal thinking and parents’ disengagement from the learning processes of their children’
(Manan, David, et al., 2015, p. 453). This often results in students dropping out from
schools, particularly in rural areas (Benson, 2019; Pinnock & Vijayakumar, 2009). The
contradicting interests of various stakeholders can be a threat to these languages and all
their embodied knowledge. People are forced to involuntary shift from their own
mother tongues, and from their own cultures in their own lands (Hornberger, 2008; Skut-
nabb-Kangas, 2000), and their languages are often ‘associated with shame and backward-
ness’ (Cenoz & Gorter, 2017, p. 902). Consequently, the survival of these languages has
become a great challenge as the list of endangered languages grows longer.
Johnson (2013, p. 54) explains that ‘educational language policies have historically
been used to eradicate, subjugate, and marginalize minority and indigenous languages
and their users and are, therefore, instruments of power that influence access to edu-
cational and economic resources’ with schools being used as their instruments to
implement these policies. In this scenario, in order to promote regional, native, and indi-
genous languages, UNESCO (2017) emphasizes that high quality early childhood edu-
cation is only possible if it is in a child’s first language (L1) because it helps in the
development of cognitive skills, and the (re)vitalization of minority languages, their
culture and ethnolinguistic identity (Baker, 2001; Bazai et al., 2019; Benson, 2019;
Cummins, 2009; Manan et al., 2017). Moreover, it has been found that learning practices
in native languages enhance young students’ interest, participation, improve their aca-
demic results and reduce students’ dropout rates (Manan & David, 2019).
However, in the context of Pakistan, native languages, synonymously used here with
first languages or mother tongues (Richards & Schmidt, 2014), receive limited support
and recognition in Pakistan. Institutional support for the English language has made it
dominant in the linguistic hierarchy of the country. English is used as the official
language in all important domains of the government, and is a ladder to socio-economic
upward mobility (Manan, 2017). On the other hand, the neglect of native languages
weakens the status of these languages, and deprives most of their users from obtaining
formal literacy in their own languages (Bazai, 2018). From the very beginning, the
state’s language policy vision and formulation were founded on a conventional ‘one-
nation, one-language’ ideology. Such a stance is apparent in ‘the state’s policy of
neglect towards a number of numerically larger languages used by the major ethnolin-
guistic and ethno-nationalist groups’ (Manan et al., 2021, p. 2).
Within this context, this paper focuses on a potential bi/multilingual education model
in Balochistan, a multilingual province of Pakistan with the aim of exploring the major
institutional challenges that possibly hamper the successful implementation of teaching
native languages policy in public schools. In particular, this paper seeks to explore the
 CURRENT ISSUES IN LANGUAGE PLANNING 295

views of micro level stakeholders regarding their native languages, and the the role and
importance of these languages in education in the province.

Language and education in Pakistan

Pakistan, officially the ‘Islamic Republic of Pakistan’ (Government-of-Pakistan, 1973,
p. 2), and situated in South Asia, was a former British colony which gained independence
on 14th of August 1947. Administratively, the country is divided into four provinces
(Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, Sindh, Punjab and Balochistan), two autonomous territories
(Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan) and the Islamabad capital territory. Both of the
autonomous territories have their own administrative and political structures (Govern-
ment-of-Balochistan, 2018; Government-of-Pakistan, 2017a). The country is host to a
highly diverse range of ethnicities and about 77 languages (Bazai, 2018; Canagarajah &
Ashraf, 2013; Coleman, 2010; Eberhard et al., 2021; Pinnock & Vijayakumar, 2009;
Rahman, 2010). Table 1 shows the major languages of the country and the percentages
of their speakers respectively.

Educational system in Pakistan

The education system in Pakistan as illustrated in Figure 1 is divided into three main
streams: private schools, public schools and Madaris (religious schools). The national
education policy 2009 divides the private schools further into three sub-categories:

Table 1. Major languages of Pakistan.

Languages Percentage of Speakers
Urdu 7.08%
Punjabi 38.78%
Pashto 18.24%
Sindhi 14.57%
Balochi 3.02%
Saraiki 12.19%
Hindko 2.44%
Brahui 1.24%
Others 2.44%
Note: (Government-of-Pakistan, 2017a).

Figure 1. Educational System in Pakistan (Bazai, 2018). The Figure is from the first author’s master’s
thesis.
296 Z. U. BAZAI ET AL.

elite private schools, the non-elite schools and non-elite low-quality private schools
(Government-of-Pakistan, 2009).
Each stream of the education system follows its own LiEP and Medium of Instruction
(MoI) Policy. Presently, the provincial education department has adopted a subtractive
bilingual approach (Manan et al., 2019). In the context of Balochistan, this approach
replaces the students L1 and endorses the teaching of Urdu and English. For instance,
Urdu which is the second language (L2) of the majority of students, is used as the
MoI and also taught as a subject up to the higher secondary level. Both English and
Arabic are taught as foreign languages i. English remains a dominant language at this
level, and it is used as the MoI in higher education, whereas, Arabic is only taught till
Grade 8 (14-year-old students). Native languages, which are students’ L1, were only
taught after the 18th amendment in the national constitution (refer to the following
section) that made the teaching of native languages compulsory in public schools
where it is taught as a subject but only till Grade 2 at the primary level. Madaris are regis-
tered under the Wafaq ul Madaris board and Arabic is the main MoI in these schools.
The national constitution of Pakistan declares Urdu as the national language of the
country and allows provinces to promote their native languages, but ‘without prejudice
to Urdu language’ (Government-of-Pakistan, 1973, p. 149). In terms of the language in
the education system, the educational policies in Pakistan have been constantly changing
and reversing, which had led to them being referred to as a ‘dilemma’ (Mansoor, 2004,
p. 334), a ‘controversy’ (Rahman, 1997, p. 1) and as constantly ‘flip-flopping’ (Mustafa,
2015, p. 37). Moreover, these language policies mostly endorsed only English and
Urdu and put aside the native languages in the country such as Pashto, Balochi,
Sindhi, Punjabi and others. On 19 April 2010, the government of Pakistan introduced
the 18th amendment in the national constitution that devolved many other departments
including the education department to the provinces. After this amendment, Language
Policy and Planning (LPP) including developing and designing the curriculum, sylla-
buses and textbooks came under the purview of the provinces (Government-of-Balochi-
stan, 2013, 2014a; Siddiqui, 2010).

Sociolinguistic profile of Balochistan

Balochistan is the largest province by area of the country, but home to only 5% of the
total population of the country (Government-of-Pakistan, 2017b). The province has a
multiethnic and multilingual landscape. Many languages, such as Pashto, Balochi,
Brahui, Persian, Sindhi, Punjabi, Urdu, Saraiki, as well as many other minority languages
and dialects are spoken here. Table 2 shows that there are three dominant native
languages, Pashto, Balochi and Brahui in terms of their speakers in the province (Gov-
ernment-of-Balochistan, 2011, 2013; Government-of-Pakistan, 2017b). However,
English and Urdu are at the top of the linguistic hierarchy in the province as they func-
tion as the official and main languages of education.

Educational policies after the 18th amendment in Balochistan

Up to 2021, the education department of Balochistan issued four educational policy
documents, i.e. the Education for All Plan 2011–2015, Balochistan Education Sector
 CURRENT ISSUES IN LANGUAGE PLANNING 297

Table 2. Major languages in Balochistan.

Languages Percentage of Speakers
Pashto 35.34%
Balochi 35.49%
Brahui 17.12%
Urdu 0.81%
Punjabi 1.13%
Sindhi 4.56%
Saraiki 2.65%
Others 2.89%
Note: (Government-of-Pakistan, 2017c).

Plan 2013–2017, Balochistan Education Sector Plan 2014–2018 and the Balochistan Edu-
cation Sector Plan 2021–2025 with the assistance of UNICEF and UNESCO. These policy
documents mostly discuss issues in public schools such as infrastructure, teachers’
recruitments and training, the provision of textbooks and furniture, and policy proposals
and recommendations to resolve these issues. These educational policy documents are
also aimed at bringing quality and equity in both public and private schools to meet inter-
national goals such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and Education for All
(EFA) goals.
Balochistan follows the same educational system, and LiEP and MoI policy as it is in
the context of Pakistan. Currently, the province has the lowest literacy ratio, the lowest
enrollment ratio and the highest ratio of gender gap. The literacy rate is only 40%, with
the male literacy rate at 54%, but for females, the rate is much lower at 24% (Govern-
ment-of-Pakistan, 2020). The literacy rate measures the percentage of people aged 10
and above who attended schools and were able to read and write in Urdu. Similarly,
there is a wide gulf between the urban and rural literacy ratio, i.e. 61% and 33%, respect-
ively, with a high school dropout rate at 75% (Government-of-Pakistan, 2018; SDPI &
Alif-Ailaan, 2016). These data paint a bleak picture of the educational situation in Balo-
chistan, with no signs of improvement. One indicator of this worsening situation is the
phenomenal growth of English medium private schools in the province indicating low
confidence level from parents in the quality of education in public schools.

Mother tongue-based multilingual education (MTB-MLE)

MTB-MLE refers to an organized and purposeful use of students’ mother tongue along
with other languages for literacy and learning. This also aims to make students proficient
in language skills and literate in multiple languages (Benson, 2019; García, 2009). In
Southeast Asia, the Philippines is the only country to legally institute an MTB-MLE
policy, which was implemented in pre and elementary schools (Tupas & Martin,
2017). The education department developed materials and equipped teachers and edu-
cational administrators for 19 languages (Ponce & Lucas, 2021) but as can be expected
in a county of an estimated 186 languages, there were issues in relation to accepting
the selected languages as the mother tongue of people in a particular region. As Tupas
and Martin (2017, p. 254) highlight, ‘issues of inclusion and exclusion have posed chal-
lenges to the smooth implementation of the MTB-MLE policy.’ There were also issues
with standardized orthographies of some of these languages, the lack of teaching and
298 Z. U. BAZAI ET AL.

learning materials, and teacher training. There is also the persistent perception of the
importance of English. The latter is perhaps not surprising given the previous bilingual
education policy of Tagalog-based Filipino and English (Ponce & Lucas, 2021; Tupas &
Martin, 2017; Young & Igcalinos, 2019). Thus, the implementation of the MTB-MLE
policy has not been without resistance, with some quarters calling for a shift back to
the Filipino-English bilingual policy and others wanting to adopt a completely monolin-
gual national language policy of teaching only Filipino (Young & Igcalinos, 2019).
In neighboring Malaysia, there is a choice of three languages as the MoI at the primary
school level: Malay, Chinese (Mandarin) and Tamil. The latter two types of schools can
be considered as part of the colonial legacy rather than an effort to enable children to
learn in their mother tongues (see Pillai et al., 2021). In the Mandarin and Tamil
medium schools, it is compulsory for students to study the national language, Malay,
and also English. However, at the secondary level all national schools are Malay
medium. Tamil and Mandarin may be offered as subjects at secondary schools. Unlike
Singapore, it is not compulsory for students to learn their mother tongue and in any
case, not all Malaysians of Indian descent are Tamils or speak Tamil
Under the dual language policy in Malaysia, schools can also opt to teach Mathematics
and Science-based subjects in English. Except for three indigenous languages (Iban,
Kadazandusun and Semai), no other indigenous languages are taught in schools (Pillai
et al., 2021). Other minority languages (e.g. Indian languages like Punjabi, Malayalam
and Telugu), tend to be taught and learnt at the community level rather than in
formal education. However, the general finding is that these countries support their
national languages and English often at the expense of minority languages.

Teachers’ agency as a theoretical framework

In recent years, many scholars have shifted their focus from a historical structural analy-
sis at the macro level (Tollefson, 1995) to examining agency that generally indicates ‘a
capacity and power to act in the world, attributed to social organizations or institutions
and individuals’ (Glasgow & Bouchard, 2019, p. 2). Similarly, Giddens (1986; cited in
Manan et al., 2021) refers to agency as the ability to change or make a difference in an
existing course of events. At the individual level, the micro level stakeholders, such as
parents, teachers and students, are considered as agents of change in education
(Baldauf, 2006; Liddicoat, 2018; Manan et al., 2021; Schmidt & Datnow, 2005). Teachers
are considered to be ‘central agents in language policy development’ (Baldauf, 2006,
p. 154) and the ‘final arbiters of language policy implementation’ (Johnson, 2018,
p. 62), with their role seen as ‘the center piece of educational change’ (Schmidt &
Datnow, 2005, p. 949). The agentive role of micro level stakeholders not only enables
them to create language policies, but also to interpret, negotiate, appropriate, adopt
and/or resist the macro level policies (Johnson, 2013). The agency of micro level stake-
holders as change makers in LPP and in its implementation has been receiving attention
in academia (Bouchard & Glasgow, 2018; Chau & Shunmugam, 2021; Hornberger &
Johnson, 2007; Liddicoat & Baldauf, 2008; Liddicoat & Taylor-Leech, 2021; Menken &
García, 2010). Among the main concepts used is that of Agency as a framework of analy-
sis to investigate and comprehend the intricacy of LPP (Glasgow & Bouchard, 2019;
Hornberger & Johnson, 2007; Ricento & Hornberger, 1996). Agency focuses on the
 CURRENT ISSUES IN LANGUAGE PLANNING 299

micro-level decisions involving a range of local actors such as teachers, parents, admin-
istrators and students (Tollefson, 2013). It investigates how these micro-level agents, in
particular teachers, can resist, highlight the gaps in language policy implementation and
transform these policies according to their aspirations, beliefs and contextual awareness.
Against this theoretical backdrop, and with reference to the aims mentioned in the
introduction section, this study investigates teachers’ agency in LPP creation and
its implementation in Balochistan.

Materials and methods

The study utilized a mixed-method approach through the use of multiple data elicitation
instruments.

Setting
This study was conducted in 30 public schools in three different districts of Balochistan,
i.e. Quetta, Killa Abdullah and Mastung. A convenient sampling was employed in the
selection of schools in all three districts. Quetta is the capital city and administrative
hub of the province and is a highly multilingual and multiethnic district. In Killa Abdul-
lah, Pashto is the dominant language whereas in Mastung, Brahui is the dominant
languages of the district.

Participants
A total of 187 participants, who are all teachers, were recruited from 30 public schools in
three different districts of the province. In order to collect the quantitative data, a ques-
tionnaire was designed and distributed among all 187 participants to obtain their views
on the role and importance of native languages and about the institutional challenges in
the teaching of native languages in public schools. All the participants were recruited via
convenience or opportunity sampling that involves sampling based on the convenience
of researchers and access of participants. In order to obtain the consent of principals and
teachers, each participant was contacted and consent forms were duly signed by each of
them. The participants were teaching at various levels at their schools: 42% were teaching
in primary schools (students aged from 4 to 10 years-old), 40% were middle school tea-
chers (students aged from 4 to 15 years-old) and 18% were teaching in secondary schools
(students aged from 10 to 18 years-old). In terms of their gender representation, 65.2%
participants were male and the remaining 34.8% were female teachers. The participants
had an average of 12.8 years of teaching experience (minimum of three years to a
maximum 32 years). For the semi-structured interviews, 14 participants were selected
from the same pool of 187 participants via purposive sampling.

Research tools and procedure

In this study, various data collection tools were employed: surveys, semi-structured inter-
views and classroom observations.
300 Z. U. BAZAI ET AL.

The preparation of the questionnaire underwent several stages of validation and cross
validation in order to achieve content validity. Initially, a total of five teachers and two
experts were consulted during the designing of questionnaire items. The teachers had
more than 20 years of teaching experience and the experts were both nationally and inter-
nationally published scholars in the area of Applied Linguistics. The translation of items
was also included in the questionnaire. Before administering the final copy of the ques-
tionnaires, a pilot study was conducted in three schools (two boys’ schools and other in a
girls’ school) involving 30 participants. The questionnaire had an acceptable internal
consistency of α = .728 based on a Cronbach’s Alpha test. For the analysis of quantitative
data, SPSS was used to generate descriptive statistics.
The interviews were conducted in Urdu and Pashto to avoid any language or com-
munication barriers and to develop a good rapport with participants in order to elicit
more in-depth responses. The interviews were first transliterated into Romanized
Pashto and Urdu for peer review and then translated into English. All of the participants
were assured of the confidentiality of their identities, and thus, pseudonyms were used
during data analysis and for reporting purposesto maintain anonymity. For coding, a
six-phase thematic analysis framework from (Braun & Clarke, 2006) was used. This
included (1) familiarization with data, (2) generating initial codes, (3) searching for
themes, (4) reviewing themes, (5) defining and naming themes and (6) producing the
report. In addition, classroom observations of teaching and learning practices of native
languages were also conducted in four government schools. These observations were
non-participant oriented and unstructured in nature. Short personal notes were taken
to assess the teaching of native languages during the observations. In the Quetta district,
six classes were observed comprising a total of 210 minutes.

Results
In the following sections, the findings from the interviews, questionnaire survey and
observations are presented.

Challenges to the teaching of native languages

Most of the participants welcomed the decision of the provincial government regarding
the initiation of teaching native languages in public schools. They understood that the
teaching of native languages enhances students’ interest and confidence level, improves
their academic performance through the development of cognitive skills and helps to
reduce rote learning at early grades. When the participants were asked about the signifi-
cance of the teaching of native languages at early grades in the survey, the majority of
them strongly agreed (57%) and agreed (30%) with the statement. Very few participants
disagreed with the idea of teaching native languages.
The qualitative data also supported the quantitative figures as the participants believed
that native languages function as useful resources for communication across all the
domains and contexts of students’ social life, i.e. at home, on the streets, in the commu-
nity, and even in schools. They felt that students can learn the content of subjects easily in
their native languages compared to learning it in English and Urdu as explained bya par-
ticipant :
 CURRENT ISSUES IN LANGUAGE PLANNING 301

Native languages are the communication languages of students at their homes, community
and even in their schools. They will learn any subject easily, when we teach them in their
own mother tongue. (Khizra)

Another participant suggested the following:

Due to the immense importance of native languages in learning content material and devel-
oping cognitive skills, I think all the subjects should be in their native languages at primary
level. It will reduce the learning of multiple languages at early grades. (Muniza)

From both the qualitative and quantitative data findings, the participants overwhel-
mingly advocated the teaching of native languages in government schools, particularly
at the initial grades. However, it was observed that despite its significance, there are
some profound institutional challenges which hinder the successful implementation of
the policy of teaching native languages in government schools in Balochistan. Thus,
both the government and the provincial education department need concrete steps to
resolve the following institutional challenges.

Clear LiEP in Balochistan

The participants pointed out that at present there is no LiEP in practice in Balochistan.
They also highlighted that currently, many languages such as English, Urdu, one native
language, and Arabic, are taught in public schools from Grade One. Challenges arise
from learning multiple languages at the same time and at an early stage of edcation.
As one participant says about LiEP and the plurality of learning language at early stages:
We need a sound LiEP to reduce the burden of learning various languages in schools. Due to
multiple languages, students are unable to master any language in schools (Abdur Rehman).

When the participants were asked regarding their proposed LiEP in government schools,
particularly at the primary level, the majority of them (55%) opted for the combination of
native languages and Urdu at the primary level in the survey, and 29% of the participants
chose all three languages, i.e. English, Urdu and native languages. Another 18% of the par-
ticipants said that both English and Urdu could be taught at the primary level.
As to whether the real issue is the LiEP, subjects or languages, one participant said the
following:
In Pakistan the greatest issue (of our education system) is language-in-education policy
rather than of the subjects or languages. (Tayyab)

Eight participants among the fourteen who were interviewed felt that only two languages,
i.e. native languages and Urdu should be taught at the primary level. For example, a par-
ticipant was ofthe opinion that:
We should teach only two languages at primary level, i.e. Urdu and mother tongues. Urdu
will help them to communicate with people of other provinces and with mother tongues
they will easily learn the content with interest. (Muteeb)

Another participant had the following opinion regarding the same issue:
At the primary level, it is better to introduce only two languages: mother tongue and English.
Learning mother tongues will help them to learn their lessons easily and cognitively and it
302 Z. U. BAZAI ET AL.

will also build a base for learning the English language. In this way we can reduce the burden
of learning languages. (Tayyab)

On the contrary, six participants were in favor of all three languages, i.e. native languages
along with Urdu and English. They argued that all three languages are very important for
the students because, in the native languages, students can learn and understand content
easily and conceptually but Urdu is needed for national needs and English is
necessary for international exposuret:
(A)t the primary level all three languages should be taught, i.e. the mother tongues, Urdu as
a national language and English as an international language. (Khizra)

Manan et al. (2017, p. 83) also reported similar findings in their study where they
observed that ‘LiEP in Pakistan is fraught with both conceptual as well as practical pro-
blems.’ Since independence, language policies in the country have been constantly chan-
ging and reversing and have been favoring only English and Urdu languages. They also
observed that due to the lack of a sound LiEP and political will, a successful native
language teaching policy will be a great challenge in Pakistan (Manan et al., 2017).
During our observations, we noticed that due to the absence of LiEP in the province,
the teaching of native languages apparently created more challenges than functioning
as a resource (Ruiz, 1984). A number of factors cause this, such as the burden of learning
multiple languages, overcrowded classrooms, lack of teaching aids, unsupportive learn-
ing environment at home and poor learning and teaching practices in schools, which
leads to the majority of students sinking rather than swimming successfully in their
language education and education in general (Baker, 2001).

Rethinking the MoI policy

The participants suggested that native languages should be taught as an MoI at the
primary level rather than teaching them as additional subjects. They understood that
when the students are enrolled in schools, they already have a sufficient command of
their home languages. Thus, the students will be able to easily learn the course content
taught in their home language with interest and confidence. A participant shared his
views about the time when the education department of Balochistan was in process of
developing the Balochistan Education Sector Plan 2013–2018:
I was a member of the Balochistan Education Sector Plan 2014 … we strongly protested for
the introduction of mother tongues at primary level. Their (mother tongues) importance
cannot be denied; thus, it should be introduced as a medium of instruction at primary
level, not as an additional subject. (Umair)

Another participant highlighted the role of native languages for more meaningful
learning:
We cannot deny the importance of native languages. We use three terminologies in litera-
ture to highlight the correlation between language and learning at primary level, i.e. no
learning, rote learning and meaningful learning. If we want to detach our students from
memorization, rote learning and want to develop their cognitive skills at the primary
level, then it is necessary to introduce MT as a medium of instruction and teach it as a
language. (Mubeen)
 CURRENT ISSUES IN LANGUAGE PLANNING 303

However, during classroom observations, we found that the teaching of native languages
as a subject was highly teacher-centered. The teachers were the center of activity in class-
rooms whereas the students were mostly silent listeners. The teachers managed to impose
pin drop silence in their classes. During the classes, the teacher read texts from the book
or from the blackboard, followed by the whole class reading themaloud in a chorus. An
array of reasons was identified for this and they include:

(a) Many primary level teachers had low academic qualifications.

(b) The education department did not provide any training sessions on the teaching of
native languages.
(c) Despite being native speakers, the majority of the primary teachers were only profi-
cient speaking their native languages.

(d) The teachers had never taught native languages before.

(e) The absence of trained native language teachers.

Enhancing the economic value and status of native languages

Low economic value, the absence of institutional and governmental support, the teaching
of native languages creates more challenges. This leads to doubts and questions in the
minds of parents, students and teachers. The participants of this study argued that
although the introduction of native languages was a good decision and the participants
understood the significance of native languages in education. However, the parents weigh
native languages in terms of future employment of their children. Due to its perceived
low economic value, one participant opposed the teaching of native languages saying
the following:
There is no need to teach native languages to students as they learn them (native languages)
at their homes. Moreover, there are no jobs for native languages and there is no future
without English in our country. One can get elite jobs only, if he/she has English language
proficiency. (Rohana)

Generally, there is a high regard for and emphasis placed on the learning of English due
to its high economic value and it is the language of higher education. Therefore, perhaps
the government can provide job opportunities to allay the fears of the parents as
suggested by the participants:
... the perception of people regarding the native languages cannot be changed until the native
languages have some governmental and institutional support or they have some economic
value, for instance English and other major languages have. (Fahim)

... until the government announces job opportunities in native languages, people will not
give importance to native languages because we compare them (native languages) with
the English. (Jaffar)

Previous studies conducted in the city also report similar findings. For instance, Manan
et al. (2017) also found similar attitudes among students, teachers and principals towards
the importance of native languages in education in low-fee private English medium
schools of Quetta. The majority of participants in their study considered English more
304 Z. U. BAZAI ET AL.

important for both successes in higher education and for their brighter future than native
languages.

An uncertain future of native languages: from resource to burden

Apart from very few participants, almost all the participants considered native languages
as a resource (Ruiz, 1984) for the young students. They were of the opinion that due
to the lack of proper LiEP, a lack of interest from both the current provincial government
and the education department, this valuable resource is becoming more of a burden or a
problem. For instance, the provincial government initiated a policy about the teaching of
native languages, but the education department neither appointed new language teachers
nor provided any training sessions for existing primary level teachers. As observed by one
of the participants:
Being a native speaker of Pashto, I can only speak it. I cannot read it nor write it. I started
teaching Pashto to my class (Kindergarten) with the help of my two colleagues who have full
command on the language. Now the issue is the teachers of Grade one and two are non-
natives. They do not know the Pashto language. How will they teach the language to
their classes? Most of our schools are facing a similar issue. (Sami)

The fact that there are teachers who are non-native speakers in the primary schools in the
provincial public schools is another important reason for making the teaching of native
languages a problem. Many schools stopped the teaching of native languages as they have
no or very few native teachers at the primary level. A participant observed the unavail-
ability or scarcity of native teachers. He remarked that, ‘the majority of teachers in our
schools are non-native teachers … neither the (education) department appoint new
language teachers to teach Pashto, Balochi and Brahui’ (Sana Ullah).
The absence of textbooks in native languages appears to be another challenge. It is the
responsibility of the Education Department to provide free textbooks in all government
schools of the province. According to a participant:
This year (2018) we have received the native languages textbooks only for Kachi (kindergar-
ten) class, no books for Awal-aala (grade one) and Doyaam (grade Two). The received text-
books for the Kachi (kindergarten) class is also fewer than the total number of students in
the class. We have 87 students in our (Kachi) class whereas we received only 35 books.
(Abdur Rehman)

Discussion
The issues caused by not teaching young students in their native languages is echoed by
Malone (2018), p. 28):
One reason that many linguistic and ethnic minority children perform poorly in school is
that they are often taught in a language they struggle to understand. Around 221 million
children speak a different language at home from the language of instruction in school, lim-
iting their ability to develop foundations for later learning.

Similarly, as previously mentioned in this paper, in Balochistan, Urdu is used as an MoI

and also taught as a subject in public schools but as presented in Table 2, it is the mother
tongue of only 0.81% of the population in the province. Thus, 99% of the students have to
 CURRENT ISSUES IN LANGUAGE PLANNING 305

learn Urdu along with English when young students themselves are struggling to learn
their own mother tongues. Moreover, the textbooks of other subjects, such as science,
social studies, mathematics and general knowledge, are also written in Urdu. Most stu-
dents in this province, especially those from the rural areas, hardly use Urdu in their day-
to-day communication, but are expected to learn to read, write and to understand the
concepts in these subjects in Urdu. While UNESCO (2000, p. 17) stressed ‘a relevant cur-
riculum that can be taught and learned in a local language and builds upon the knowl-
edge and experience of the teachers and learner,’ in Balochistan, students’ prior
knowledge, their sociolinguistic and cultural experiences gained at home and in their
community are completely excluded from their education.
The findings in this study confirm the agency of teachers and their role not only as
agents of change, but also as monitors to identify the barriers because of their critical
contextual awareness of micro level settings. The findings also reflect that the teachers
welcomed the initiative of the provincial assembly of Balochistan when it legislated in
support of teaching native languages as a subject in all public schools in the province
(Government-of-Balochistan, 2014b). It was assumed that this was the right decision.
Stakeholders, such as teachers anticipated that the teaching of native languages both as
a subject and MoI in public schools would prove beneficial to the students in several
ways including in the development of cognitive skills, and enhancement of the students’
interest in the course contents. Similarly, it was also anticipated that the new policy
would result in better academic performance, and more importantly reduce students’
dropout ratio, which is the highest in the country.
However, contrary to expectations, the policy of teaching native languages has suffered
severely from the lack of proper implementation in public schools in Balochistan. The
findings also suggest that this policy failed in the province due to the lack of interest
by the provincial government and the education department. Language policies in Paki-
stan are mostly designed around the promotion of English and Urdu. Key decisions are
mostly made behind closed doors by politicians and bureaucrats without considering the
local realities. Generally, the decision process is highly centralized. Contrary to the level
of support English and Urdu receive, native languages barely receive the same level of
goodwill or support. Thus, in the context of Balochistan, this policy appears to
become more of a problem than a resource (Ruiz, 1984). The major reasons include:

(a) the introduction of native languages as additional subjects but not as a MoI.
(b) failing to appoint new native languages teachers.
(c) failure to arrange training sessions on the teaching of native languages.
(d) the lack of teaching and learning facilities in public schools.
(e) lack of textbooks in native languages
(f) the exclusion of private English medium schools from this policy.

Rahman (2019, p. 372) also points out the disempowering effect of only applying MTE in
government schools:
The state appeases the language activists by agreeing to teach the mother tongue and then
applies this policy only to government schools, i.e. underprivileged children. In that case it
will only ghettoize poor students while the elite will continue to study through the medium
of English.
306 Z. U. BAZAI ET AL.

In view of the challenges and lack of teaching facilities highlighted by the participants in
the findings, there is a need to rethink and refashion the LiEP to adopt native languages
as an MoI at least till Grade three to improve the literacy ratio, under the umbrella of the
18th amendment, a constitutional provision which allows provinces to make their own
policies according to their own geographic, demographic, economic, sociolinguistic,
and sociocultural needs.
The findings also suggest that the sense of agency empowers the micro level stake-
holders to resist or even reject the language policies (Liu et al., 2020; Manan et al.,
2021). Apart from teaching in the classes, teachers need to monitor and act as managers
to identify the weaknesses and gaps in the educational policies during the implemen-
tation in schools. Based on their contextual awareness, the participants in this study high-
lighted several fundamental issues. These included: the poor academic qualifications and
teaching skills of teachers, the lack of teaching and learning facilities and in-service train-
ing, and poor allocation of teaching time per subject which all contribute to students’
inability to learn four different languages particularly in rural areas. These institutional
challenges in the teaching of native languages need to addressed so that the provincial
education department can effectively adopt an MTB-MLE policy in Balochistan. This
approach uses students MT along with other languages, such as Urdu and English, to
develop students’ literacy not only in their own MT but also to be proficient in multiple
languages in systematic ways (García, 2009). Besides, MTB-MLE has the potential to
improve educational access, equity and quality particularly for girls, parents’ partici-
pation and socially marginalized groups. Research also suggests that MTB-MLE can
also help to reduce the ratio of students’ failures, repetition, and drop-outs (Ball, 2010;
Benson, 2019). More importantly, MTB-MLE is apparently more suited to the province
of Balochistan both in geographic as well as in demographic terms because the province
can be mapped into three main belts/divisions i.e. Northern, Central and Southern Balo-
chistan (Eberhard et al., 2021). In Northern Balochistan, Pashto is the dominant language
in districts such as Zhob, Lorelai, Duki, Ziarat, Killa Saifullah, Pishin, Killa Abdullah,
while in central Balochistan, Brahui is the major language in districts such as
Mastung, Kalat, Khuzdar, Much and Bolan. Similarly, Balochi iss the dominant language
of the inhabitants in the districts of Southern Balochistan such as Chaghi, Kharan,
Washuk, Awaran, Panjgur, Kech, (North-eastern Balochistan) Dera Bugti, Barkan and
Kohlu. These dominant languages (as mentioned in Table 2) can be used as the MoI
in public schools. However, in linguistically diverse contexts particularly in cities such
as Quetta, the education department can opt either for the Language of Environment
(LE) (Mustafa, 2015) or local lingua franca (Ponce & Lucas, 2021), or Urdu as
the MoI for those students who do not want LE as the MoI. In addition, other factors
may also be considered during the LPP development such as students’ sociolinguistic,
cultural and economic backgrounds. We also emphasize that the proposed policy
should be implemented in all public and private schools.

Conclusion and limitations

This study raises the unheard voices of teachers as agents of change and reflective thin-
kers (Kumaravadivelu, 2006). This study also proposes their role as monitors for the
ongoing language policies in the country where teachers are customarily treated as
 CURRENT ISSUES IN LANGUAGE PLANNING 307

blind followers of policies mandated from the macro level. This study reports that the
teachers in the province attach immense importance to native languages teaching at
the early stages. However, they highlighted their concerns regarding the institutional
constraints and challenges that need efficient and concrete steps from the government
and the provincial education department to resolve these issues. If the challenges are
not addressed now, the teaching of native languages will lose all its significance, associ-
ated benefits, and become a burden for the younger generation of students. Thus, this
study proposes MTB-MLE at the primary level after resolving all the issues mentioned
in the findings. This study also highlights the undue emphasis on the early English
medium education which is based on misguidance, ill-informed fallacies and often
leads to low academic performance of students (Coleman, 2010; Manan, 2017; Manan
& David, 2019; Mansoor, 2004; Mustafa, 2015; Panda & Mohanty, 2009; Rahman,
2008, 2019; Skutnabb-Kangas & Heugh, 2012).
In conclusion, although the sample and data may be small in size, they still indicate
that the views of teachers should be taken into account in the context of Balochistan.
Future studies could incorporate the views of teachers from the other districts as well
as those of policy planners in order to obtain more in-depth, and nuanced perspectives
and to build a more holistic understanding of the issue at hand.

Notes
A main part of this study was a part of the first author’s master’s thesis and forms the
foundation of his current doctoral research.

Acknowledgement
The authors like to thank all the teachers from three districts for their valuable time and
cooperation.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes on contribtuors
Zia ur Rehman Bazaia is a PhD scholar, faculty of languages and linguistics, Universiti Malaya,
Malaysia. His area of interests are Language policy and planning, language-in-education planning,
native languages planning, and discourse analysis. He can be contacted at [email protected]
Syed Abdul Manan is an associate professor, at the Graduate School of Education, Nazarbayev
University, in Nur-Sultan (Astana), Kazakhstan. He completed his PhD at the Faculty of
Languages & Linguistics, Universiti Malaya, Malaysia. His areas of interest are general sociolin-
guistics, language policy & planning, language-in-education, mother tongue based instruction
and multilingualism. His PhD research is focused on a critical survey of the English-medium
private schools in Pakistan. His research papers (co-authored) have recently been published and
accepted for publication in various prestigious journals.
Stefanie Pillai is a professor at the Faculty of Languages and Linguistics, UniversitiMalaya (UM).
Her main areas of research interest include the acoustic features of spoken languages and language
308 Z. U. BAZAI ET AL.

use in multilingual contexts. The latter includes language policies and the documentation and revi-
talization of endangered langauges in multilingual settings. l i

ORCID
Zia ur Rehman Bazai http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2857-9291
Syed Abdul Manan http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8703-5876
Stefanie Pillai http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1693-5022

References
Baker, C. (2001). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (3rd ed.). Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Baldauf, R. B. (2006). Rearticulating the case for micro language planning in a language ecology
context. Current Issues in Language Planning, 7(2-3), 147–170. http://doi.org/10.2167/cilp092.0
Ball, J. (2010). Enhancing learning of children from diverse language backgrounds: Mother tongue-
based bilingual or multilingual education in the early years. Retrieved from: http://unesdoc.
unesco.org/images/0021/002122/212270e.pdf
Bazai, Z. u. R. (2018). English as a subject from grade one: A bottom-up analysis of policy and
implementation in Balochistan. [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Balochistan University of
Information Technology, Engineering and Management Sciences.
Bazai, Z. u. R., Manan, S. A., Shah, J., Afzal, M., & Khan, M. (2019). Native languages and edu-
cation in Balochistan: A bottom-up analysis of theory and practice. Balochistan Journal of
Linguistics, 7(2019), 165–181.
Benson, C. (2019). L1-based multilingual education in the Asia and Pacific region and beyond. In
A. Kirkpatrick & A. J. Liddicoat (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of language edu-
cation policy in Asia (pp. 29–42). Routledge.
Bouchard, J., & Glasgow, G. P. (2018). Introduction. In J. Bouchard & G. P. Glasgow (Eds.), Agency
in language policy and planning: Critical inquiries (pp. 1-19). Routledge.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Canagarajah, S., & Ashraf, H. (2013). Multilingualism and education in South Asia: Resolving
policy/practice dilemmas. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 33, 258–285. https://doi.org/
10.1017/S0267190513000068
Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2017). Minority languages and sustainable translanguaging: Threat or
opportunity? Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 38(10), 901–912.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2017.1284855
Chau, M. H., & Shunmugam, K. (2021). Every teacher a changemaker: Reflections on teacher
agency and empowerment. The English Teacher, 50(2), 85–101. https://doi.org/10.52696/
FWYM7144
Coleman, H. (2010). Teaching and learning in Pakistan: The role of language in education.
Islamabad: British Council.
Cummins, J. (2009). Fundamental psycholinguistic and sociological principles underlying edu-
cational success for linguistic minority students. In T. Skutnabb-Kangas, R. Phillipson, A. K.
Mohanty, & M. Panda (Eds.), Social justice through multilingual education (pp. 19–35).
Multilingual Matters.
Eberhard, D. M., Simons, G. F., & Fennig, C. D. (2021). Ethnologue: languages of the world. (24th
ed.). Retrieved from: http://www.ethnologue.com
García, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Wiley-Blackwell
Pub.
Glasgow, G. P., & Bouchard, J. (2019). Introduction. In G. P. Glasgow & J. Bouchard (Eds.),
Researching agency in language policy and planning (pp. 1-11). Routledge.
 CURRENT ISSUES IN LANGUAGE PLANNING 309

Government-of-Balochistan. (2011). Education for all plan, Balochistan. Government of

Balochistan www.unesco.org.pk/education/documents/.../EFA_Plan_Balochistan_2011-2015.
pdf
Government-of-Balochistan. (2013). Balochistan education sector plan 2013-2017. Government of
Balochistan www.gob.pk/Uploads/Balochistan%20Education%20Sector%20Plan.pdf
Government-of-Balochistan. (2014a). Balochistan education sector plan, 2014-18. Government of
Balochistan www.gob.pk/Uploads/Balochistan%20Education%20Sector%20Plan.pdf
Government-of-Balochistan. (2014b). The Balochistan introduction of mother languages as a com-
pulsory additional subject at primary level Act 2014. The Balochistan Gazette http://
pabalochistan.gov.pk/pab/pab/tables/alldocuments/actdocx/2018-10-23%2014:48:44act032014.
pdf
Government-of-Balochistan. (2018). Balochistan education statistics 2016-17. Education
Management Information Systems (EMIS) http://emis.gob.pk/Uploads/
BalochistanEducationStatistics/Balochistan_Education_Statistics_2016-17.pdf
Government-of-Pakistan. (1973). The constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Government
of Pakistan. http://www.na.gov.pk/en/downloads.php
Government-of-Pakistan. (2009). National education policy. Islamabad: Government of Pakistan.
Government-of-Pakistan. (2017a). Economic survey of Pakistan. Islamabad: Ministry of Finance.
www.finance.gov.pk.
Government-of-Pakistan. (2017b). National education policy 2017-2025. Islamabad: Government
of Pakistan.
Government-of-Pakistan. (2017c). Province wise provisional results of census -2017. Bureau of
Statistics, Government of Pakistan. http://www.pbscensus.gov.pk/
Government-of-Pakistan. (2018). Pakistan education statistics 2016-17. National Education
Management Information System Academy of Educational Planning and Management,
Government of Pakistan.
Government-of-Pakistan. (2020). Pakistan economic survey 2019-20. Government of Pakistan.
www.finance.gov.pk
Hamid, O., & Rahman, A. (2019). Language in education policy in Bangladesh: A neoliberal turn?
In A. Kirkpatrick & A. J. Liddicoat (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of language
education policy in Asia (pp. 382–398). Routledge.
Hornberger, N. H. (2008). Introduction. In N. H. Hornberger (Ed.), Can schools save indigenous
languages? (pp. 1–12). Palgrave Macmillan UK.
Hornberger, N. H., & Johnson, D. C. (2007). Slicing the onion ethnographically: Layers and spaces
in multilingual language education policy and practice. TESOL Quarterly, 41(3), 509–532.
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00083.x
Johnson, D. C. (2013). Language policy. Palgrave Macmillan.
Johnson, D. C. (2018). Research methods in language policy and planning. In J. W. Tollefson &
Pérez-Milans (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language policy and planning (pp. 51–70).
Oxford Univserity Press.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding language teaching: From method to postmethod.
Routledge.
Liddicoat, A. J. (2018). Constraints on agency in micro-language policy and planning in schools: A
case study of curriculum change. In J. Bouchard & G. P. Glasgow (Eds.), Agency in language
policy and planning: Critical inquiries (pp. 147–170). Routledge.
Liddicoat, A. J., & Baldauf, R. B. (2008). Language planning in local contexts: Agents, contexts and
interactions. Multilingual Matters.
Liddicoat, A. J., & Taylor-Leech, K. (2021). Agency in language planning and policy. Current Issues
in Language Planning, 22(1-2), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2020.1791533.
Liu, Y., Wang, H., & Zhao, R. (2020). Teacher agency and spaces in changes of English language
education policy. Current Issues in Language Planning, 21(5), 548–566. https://doi.org/10.1080/
14664208.2020.1791532
Mahboob, A. (2011). English: The industry. Journal of Postcolonial Cultures and Societies, 2(4), 46–
61.
310 Z. U. BAZAI ET AL.

Malone, S.. (2018). MTB-MLE resource kit: Including the excluded: Promoting multilingual edu-
cation. Bangkok: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. https://
unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:48223/pf0000246278
Manan, S. A. (2017). The English-medium fever: Rethinking medium of instruction policies in
Balochistan [Paper presentation]. At the Language & Learning Conference: A Deliberation
on Language-in-Education Policy and Practice in Pakistan, Lahore, Pakistan, 19-20 May 2017.
Manan, S. A., Channa, L. A., David, M. K., & Amin, M. (2021). Negotiating English-only gate-
keepers: Teachers’ agency through a public sphere lens. Current Issues in Language Planning,
22(3), 290–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2020.1839219
Manan, S. A., & David, M. K. (2019). Deprescriptivising folk theories: Critical multilingual
language awareness for educators in Pakistan. The Language Learning Journal, 49(6), 1–18.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2019.1657487
Manan, S. A., David, M. K., & Channa, L. A. (2019). Opening ideological and implementational
spaces for multilingual/plurilingual policies and practices in education: A snapshot of scholarly
activism in Pakistan. Current Issues in Language Planning, 20(5), 521–543. https://doi.org/10.
1080/14664208.2018.1543162
Manan, S. A., David, M. K., & Dumanig, F. P. (2015). Disjunction between language policy and
children’s sociocultural ecology – an analysis of English-medium education policy in
Pakistan. Language and Education, 29(5), 453–473. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2015.
1046882
Manan, S. A., David, M. K., & Dumanig, F. P. (2017). Ethnolinguistic dilemma and static main-
tenance syndrome: A study of language policies and language perceptions in Pakistan.
Language Problems and Language Planning, 41(1), 66–86. https://doi.org/10.1075/lplp.41.1.
04man
Manan, S. A., Dumanig, F. P., & David, M. K. (2015). The English-medium fever in Pakistan:
Analyzing policy, perceptions and practices through additive bi/multilingual education lens.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 20(6), 736–752. https://doi.org/
10.1080/13670050.2015.1080659
Mansoor, S. (2004). The status and role of regional languages in higher education in Pakistan.
Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 25(4), 333–353. https://doi.org/10.
1080/01434630408666536
Menken, K., & García, O. (2010). Negotiating language education policies: Educators as policy-
makers. Routledge.
Mohanty, A. (2019). Language policy in education in India. In A. Kirkpatrick & A. J. Liddicoat
(Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of language education policy in Asia (pp. 329–
340). Routledge.
Mustafa, Z. (2015). The tyranny of language in education. Karachi: Oxford University Press.
Panda, M., & Mohanty, A. (2009). Language matters, so does culture: Beyond the rhetoric of
culture in multilingual education. In T. Skutnabb-Kangas, R. Phillipson, A. K. Mohanty, &
M. Panda (Eds.), Social justice through multilingual education (pp. 301–319). Multilingual
Matters.
Pillai, S., Kaur, S., & Chau, M. H. (2021). The ideological stance of multilingualism in education in
Malaysia in the press 2000-2020. Austrian Journal of South-East Asian Studies, 14(2), 173–193.
https://doi.org/10.14764/10.ASEAS-0058
Pinnock, H., & Vijayakumar, G. (2009). Language and education: The missing link. www.cfbt.com/
evidenceforeducation
Ponce, A. R. C., & Lucas, R. I. G. (2021). Language attitudes in linguistically diverse contexts:
Implications for mother tongue education programme in Central Mindanao, Philippines.
Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01434632.2021.2002341
Rahman, T. (1997). The medium of instruction controversy in Pakistan. Journal of Multilingual
and Multicultural Development, 18(2), 145–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434639708666310
 CURRENT ISSUES IN LANGUAGE PLANNING 311

Rahman, T. (2007). The role of English in Pakistan with special reference to tolerance and mili-
tancy. In A. Tsui & J. W. Tollefson (Eds.), Language policy, culture, and identity in Asian con-
texts (pp. 219–239). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Rahman, T. (2008). Language policy and education in Pakistan. In S. May N. H Hornberger (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of languages and education (2nd ed, pp. 383–392). Springer.
Rahman, T. (2010). Language policy, identity and religion: Aspects of the civilisation of the Muslims
of Pakistan and North India. Islamabad: Quaid-i-Azam University.
Rahman, T. (2019). Mother tongue education policy in Pakistan. In A. Kirkpatrick & A. J.
Liddicoat (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of language education policy in Asia
(pp. 364–381). Routledge.
Ricento, T. K., & Hornberger, N. H. (1996). Unpeeling the onion: Language planning and policy
and the ELT professional. Tesol Quarterly, 30(3), 401–427. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587691
Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. W. (2014). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied lin-
guistics (4th ed). Routledge.
Ruiz, R. (1984). Orientations in language planning. The Journal for the National Association for
Bilingual Education, 8(2), 15–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/08855072.1984.1066846415-34
Schmidt, M., & Datnow, A. (2005). Teachers’ sense-making about comprehensive school reform:
The influence of emotions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(8), 949–965. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.tate.2005.06.006
SDPI, & Alif-Ailaan. (2016). Alif-ailaan Pakistan district education ranking 2016. www.alifailaan.
pk/district_rankings
Siddiqui, S. (2010, October 11). 18th Amendment and education. Dawn. https://www.dawn.com/
news/570524
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2000). Linguistic genocide in education or worldwide diversity and human
rights? Routledge.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T., & Heugh, K. (2012). Multilingual education and sustainable diversity work:
From periphery to center. Routledge.
Tollefson, J. W. (1995). Power and inequality in language education. Cambridge University Press.
Tollefson, J. W. (2013). Language policies in education: Critical issues. Routledge.
Tupas, R., & Martin, I. P. (2017). Bilingual and mother tongue-based multilingual education in the
Philippines. In O. García, A. M. Y. Lin, & S. May (Eds.), Bilingual and multilingual education
(pp. 247–258). Springer International Publishing.
UNESCO. (2000). The Dakar framework for action: Education for all. Meeting our collective com-
mitments. World forum on education, Dakar, Senegal, 26-28 April 2000, UNESCO, Paris.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000121147
UNESCO. (2017). Mother tongue-based multilingual education: The key to unlocking SDG 4-quality
education for all. https://bangkok.unesco.org/content/mother-tongue-based-multilingual-
education-key-unlocking-sdg-4-quality-education-all
Young, C., & Igcalinos, T. (2019). Language-in-education policy development in the Philippines.
In A. Krikpartick & A. J. Liddicoat (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of language
education policy in Asia (pp. 165–184). Routledge.
Zainuddin, S. Z. B., Pillai, S., Dumanig, F. P., & Phillip, A. (2019). English language and graduate
employability. Education + Training, 61(1), 79-93. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-06-2017-0089