Implementation of multilingual mother tongue education in Cambodian public schools for indigenous ethnic minority students

2.1 Multilingual mother tongue education in Cambodia

The development of multilingual education in Cambodia can be traced back to the efforts of International Cooperation Cambodia (ICC) and UNESCO to implement a bilingual non-formal education (NFE) project in 1997 in two northeastern provinces—Ratanakiri and Mondulkiri (Chap et al. 2003). Prior, most ethnic minority children had never attended school, and almost all females and over 80% of males were illiterate. The goal of the bilingual NFE program was to develop early literacy in both the national language (Khmer) and the mother tongues of indigenous children and adult speakers. Classes, usually offered in the evenings, used a model of instruction that begins in the vernacular and progresses to Khmer, with a culturally relevant curriculum. By 2003, the bilingual NFE initiatives were being implemented in three northeastern provinces—Ratanakiri, Mondulkiri and Stung Treng—focusing on five indigenous languages: Tampuan, Kreung, Brao, Kavet, and Bunong. Linguists associated with the ICC in collaboration with local linguists from the Royal Academy of Cambodia, developed orthographies for the indigenous languages, which were ultimately approved for official use by MoEYS in 2003.

The Cambodian government, driven by ideologies of nationalism and a narrow view of indigenous language and literacy as a temporary bridge to Khmer literacy, insisted that the indigenous languages be written using the Khmer alphabet (Gregerson 2009).

Drawing on the successes of the bilingual NFE project, in 2002, CARE International, with financial support from UNICEF and AusAid, worked with the Ratanakiri Provincial Office of Education (POE) to create a pilot multilingual education program featuring four key components: (a) establishment of community school boards, (b) creation of community schools, (c) development of a multilingual education curriculum, and (d) recruitment, training and support of community teachers (Boun and Wright 2013; CARE 2006, 2008; Nowaczyk 2015). In 2003, the program established six multilingual community primary schools in remote villages in Ratanakiri, covering Kreung and Tampuan languages and enrolling a total of 278 Grade 1 students. The main goal was “to address the needs of disadvantaged ethnic minority groups through the establishment of community schools targeting girls and boys who have never enrolled or who have dropped out of the formal system” and to provide MoEYS “with a model for the delivery of basic education in remote areas of Cambodia to highland minority peoples” (CARE 2006, p. 4). The program adapted the state primary curriculum to the local context incorporating life-skills that draw upon the knowledge and culture of community people.

As shown in Table 1, the multilingual education program is based on an early-exit, transitional model with a gradual decrease in the use of the indigenous language in Grades 1–3 and a simultaneous increase in the use of Khmer as a language of literacy and instruction until it becomes the sole medium of instruction by grade 4 (see Middelborg 2005).

Note that this transitional model is a “weak” form of bilingual education (Baker and Jones 1998; Baker and Wright 2021). As with the decision on indigenous language orthographies, ideologies of nationalism upholding Khmer as the national language led the government to resist proposals for a stronger developmental bilingual education model (e.g., through grade 6); the government viewed bilingual education as a temporary and quick “bridge” to the national language and curriculum (Wright and Boun 2016). Despite the limitations of the model, the program proved successful. By early 2006, the six schools enrolled 613 students (44% girls) and were staffed by 37 locally recruited, Indigenous community teachers. Between 2007 and 2009, CARE International collaborated with Mondulkiri and Stung Treng POEs to open MLE schools in Bunong and Kavet, respectively (Benson and Wong 2017).

A significant step in the expansion of multilingual education was its introduction into six state (public) schools in Ratanakiri in 2008, suggesting that “multilingual education was no longer a radical idea, … but one that the government was willing to trial in the mainstream education system” (Nowaczyk 2015, p. 8). In 2009, CARE began a pilot of MLE at the pre-school level by establishing play groups in seven ethnic minority communities. Following CARE’s model and curriculum, in 2011, MoEYS began implementing its own pilot of MLE pre-schools in 20 ethnic communities in five northeastern provinces, with support from UNICEF and technical support from CARE. After a decade of CARE’s work, advocacy and partnerships, CARE community pre-schools and community primary schools were handed over to MoEYS in 2013. Despite the handover, MoEYS felt that education officials in the POEs lacked the capacity to fully implement MLE programs, and requested CARE to continue capacity building for their staff. Thus, CARE’s technical assistance work is ongoing. According to MoEYS (2019), in the 2017–2018 academic year, there were a total of 94 MLE pre-schools and 80 MLE primary schools, enrolling 1,798 and 4,866 students respectively across the five northeastern provinces.

Prior research on Cambodia’s MLE program has primarily focused on the development of orthographies in the indigenous languages and use for non-formal education (Gregerson 2009), the development of the pilot program by CARE (Middleborg 2005; Wright and Boun 2015), the government adoption and expansion of MLE (Benson and Wong 2017; Wong and Benson 2019; Wright and Boun 2016), and formal evaluation studies of government policy and implementation as well as formal achievement of MLE students (Ball and Smith 2019; Benson and Wong 2017; Lee et al. 2015). This study fills a gap by analyzing and reporting more closely the perspective of the national and local stake holders on the successes and remaining challenges of the programs, and by providing an in-depth look at actual classroom language and instructional practices that are largely absent from prior published work. Our proficiency in Khmer (Boun and Chan as native speakers, Wright as a non-native speaker) enabled us to communicate directly with the local political leaders and MLE educators without the need for interpreters. We were also able to directly observe and conduct deep analysis of classroom instruction and interactions—most of which was in Khmer. We believe this article provides one of the most extensive analyses and reporting of the direct words and actions of the local political leaders and MLE educators in Cambodia.

4.1 Successes

MLE pre-schools and primary schools were handed over to the MoEYS in 2013. Since then, the MLE programs have been expanded to more schools and helped to increase enrollment and reduce dropouts by removing language barriers and making instruction more accessible. As an MLE Core Trainer stated:

The enrollment only started [to increase] when the school introduced the multilingual education program. Now after five or six years, both the multilingual education and the national language education [programs] are running smoothly.

The director of the Mondulkiri POE declared:

Before, a lot of students failed because of the language barrier. Many failed because they didn’t understand; the teacher spoke Khmer and the students spoke ethnic language. It didn’t work, so students quicky dropped out. Thus, this multilingual education is important.

Ball and Smith (2019) note that increased enrolments and regular attendance by Indigenous students in MLE primary schools were cited by stakeholders as the most significant outcome of the MLE program. Expansion of the MLE programs also meant more schools built closer to the ethnic groups; many villages that never had school now have one. The Mondulkiri POE director noted that when he first started in the mid-1990s, there were only nine schools in the entire province, and “now we have 700 primary school teachers and the number of schools has increased to 90,” with 23 being MLE primary schools. As reported by MoEYS (2019), by 2018 there were a total of 94 multilingual pre-schools and 80 multilingual primary schools, enrolling 1,798 and 4,866 students respectively, across the five northeastern provinces.

Our observations of the four MLE schools confirm overall high enrollments and good attendance on the days of our visit, particularly in Grades 1–3 that provide mother tongue instruction (see Table 2). The MLE schools also had relatively high enrollments of girls, thus meeting a particular national education goal. Of the 20 classrooms observed, seven had no absences; eight had three or fewer absences. Kolap School had the highest number of absences in Grade 1 (−21), and Grade 2 (−8), but these classrooms were still overcrowded with over 33 students in attendance. Kolap and Pheap Schools were early MLE schools, thus the higher number of enrolled students in Grade 4–6 could be attributed to the success of the MLE program in grades 1–3. The MLE program is newer at Tong and Ravy Schools, thus the current students in grades 4–6 did not receive mother tongue education in the earlier grades, which may account for the lower enrollments. The Grade 3 teacher at Ravy School had not received bilingual teacher training, and thus only taught in Khmer; this may account for this classroom’s high absence rate (−12).

Another key success is the recruitment and training of ethnic minority teachers as MLE teachers, something that CARE emphasized as critical due to their extensive and relevant knowledge of the communities in which they work, as well as to their fluency both in their indigenous mother tongue and Khmer (Middelborg 2005). As a Core MLE Trainer in Ratanakiri explained:

At the beginning, there were not many teachers who were ethnic minority. Most of the teachers were young Khmer people and they didn’t know the ethnic language. So when they taught, it was like they were speaking a foreign language. The students didn’t understand and felt sleepy. But now, we have more teachers from the ethnic minority.

The director of the Ratanakiri POE added:

If teachers are all Khmer and they communicate with ethnic children, how could they understand each other? That’s why later on, we use ethnic teachers in the areas with a lot of ethnic people, so it’s easier for them to teach their students.

Wong and Benson (2019) state that an important part of the success of MLE is the engagement of local members in the development and implementation of the MLE policy. In a strategic evaluation report, Frawley (2019) pointed out that “MLE provided an opportunity for the recruitment and training of ethnic minority teachers because of their cultural knowledge and their fluency in L1 and Khmer” (p. 27). The recruitment has resulted in an increase in the number of MLE trained teachers, as well as the number of women employed as MLE teachers.

The MLE programs have also been found to contribute to the maintenance of indigenous cultures and languages. The director of the Mondulkiri POE stated:

Multilingual education helps in their village, their community. For example, some villages didn’t have school, but after we created one, they participated and it helps them maintain their language and culture. It helps them to keep their language, meaning they have both the spoken and the written language.

Despite the “weak” transitional model, the importance of language and culture was reflected in the MLE program. For example, the MLE curriculum and materials consider indigenous perspectives and values, contributing to the maintenance and preservation of traditional cultures and lifestyles (Nowaczyk 2015). Moreover, ethnic minority teachers are able to make connections and references to their community, culture, and traditions, and help indigenous students to maintain their ethnic minority culture and identity (Frawley 2019). Thus, the curriculum and instruction are culturally relevant and sustaining (Paris and Alim 2017).

Finally, an important success is the institutionalization of MLE through policy development. Prior to MoEYS’ take over of MLE schools in 2013, the only policy document to guide the implementation was the Bilingual Education Guidelines (MoEYS 2010). Since 2011, MoEYS, with input from partner agencies, has further developed a number of policy documents including the Education Strategic Plan for 2014–2018, the 2013 Prakas (Proclamation) on Identification of Languages for Khmer National Learners who are Indigenous People, and the 2015–2019 and 2019–2023 Multilingual Education National Action Plans (MENAP). Through these policies, MoEYS has provided itself and its development partners with guidance and frameworks for the planning, budgeting and implementation of the MLE programs, giving MLE a relatively secure position in primary education. These policies reflect MoEYS’ commitment to providing high-quality basic education to ethnic minority children. The vision of the 2019–2023 MENAP is to ensure “all Indigenous people have access to inclusive and equitable quality mother-tongue-based MLE and life-long learning opportunities, to become valuable and productive citizens and contribute to the sustainable, cultural and socio-economic development of the country” (MoEYS 2019, p. 3). The MENAP lays out three main objectives: (a) expand demand for and supply of inclusive, sustainable and equitable quality MLE programs for Indigenous people, especially children; (b) improve access to quality MLE, linking with cultures, traditions and customs of Indigenous people; and (c) promote participation and collaboration between Indigenous communities and relevant stakeholders.

4.2 Challenges

The expansion of MLE creates a need to increase the number of qualified teachers. As reported by Ball and Smith (2019), there is a need to attract ethnic minority language speakers and to retain teachers who have completed MLE training in order to improve quality. However, our findings reveal challenges in recruiting and retaining quality MLE teachers. As noted by a Core MLE Trainer in Ratanakiri:

From the beginning, we ran many multilingual education programs, like 10 or 10 plus. But now we closed down six [programs]. The first one we closed down is Kachagn, which used Kreung language, because there were no teachers, or the teachers’ knowledge was very limited.

Lack of school buildings, financial resources and other curriculum materials were cited as the challenges in MLE implementation. The physical educational infrastructure was still a big challenge with lack of funding. School buildings were leaking, especially during rainy seasons. The classrooms were often overcrowded, lacking sufficient chairs and tables, sometimes leading to children dropping out. An MLE teacher from Kolap commented:

The district reminds us frequently to fix the classrooms. We did, twice a year, but the wall is leaking when the rain comes. … The challenge when we have more students is we lack chairs and tables for them and the room is crowded. This is the problem. When we request to the district, if the number of students is still 59, they don’t allow a split. They only allow [a split] when we get to 60. So, 59 students are too crowded in one room.

As noted above (see Table 2), Grade 1 at Kolap had 59 enrolled students, but even with 21 students absent, four students were still crammed to a desk. If all students showed up, many would have no place to sit.

This and other challenges were acknowledged by the director of the Ratanakiri POE:

The second problem is with the school buildings. Third is with the resources. Fourth is the budget plan for multilingual education is higher than that of the normal schools, but our money is little. It’s a special program, so it needs more money than the normal program.

A Core Trainer in Ratanakiri highlighted the low teacher salary:

Their salary was also very low. It was 120,000 Riel [about $30 USD a month] before. They said if they work for others, they could get from 20,000 to 25,000 Riel [about $5 to $6 USD] per day … so, they resigned from their job, so we only had Khmer teachers and they couldn’t teach the multilingual education.

Frawley (2019) maintains that an insufficient number of MLE teachers, low teacher capacity and inadequate teacher training pose a risk to the quality of the program.

The other main challenge has to do with the academic calendar. Prior to the MoEYS handover, the MLE schools adopted an alternative school calendar to allow for indigenous children to accompany their families to their farms during planting and harvesting seasons. MoEYS, however, insists on the use of the national academic calendar (Benson and Wong 2017). As justified by the director of the Ratanakiri POE:

If we adapted to their schedule, it’s different from the bigger society. So, we have to follow the bigger society. … We try to align it to the public school since it could be difficult to collect data about, for example, monthly or semester results. If we allow customization, our data would definitely be difficult to gather.

Another issue with the alternative calendar was the need for more teachers, textbooks, and classrooms as children need to attend school in the mornings and afternoons. The potential obstacle was a possible negative impact on the retention of teachers who want to work fewer hours over more days during the regular academic schedule, rather than in concentrated periods of intensive teaching. However, the traditional, centralized academic calendar was found to limit inclusion for some students, particularly boys. As reported by Ball and Smith (2019), seasonal demands of family farming, poverty and lack of safety are persistent barriers to enrolment and regular attendance in some communities. They argue that the use of an alternative calendar is an example of an “equity-based approach” (p. 64). Unfortunately, MoEYS prioritized standardization of the academic calendar for the Ministry’s own administrative convenience.

4.3 Language development and use in the MLE classrooms and schools

Research question #2 asks, “What is the nature of Khmer and indigenous language use in MLE classroom?” As noted above, the MLE model adopted by MoEYS from CARE is a “weak” form of bilingual education following a transitional model with indigenous mother tongue and Khmer language instruction in Grades 1–3. Math is expected to be taught in the indigenous language in Grade 1 and in Khmer starting in Grade 2. Social studies is expected to be taught in the indigenous language in Grades 1 and 2 and in Khmer in Grade 3. All instruction in Grades 4–6 is in Khmer, though ideally, with continuing indigenous language support.

The opportunity to receive instruction and develop literacy in the indigenous language during the first three years of schooling is indeed empowering. Nearly everyone we interviewed spoke of the importance of helping indigenous students maintain their languages and cultures, and this ideal is reflected in the MLE policy documents. However, the reality is most instruction by Grade 3 is in Khmer, and these MLE students will receive Khmer-only instruction in grades 4–12. Research in other contexts reveals that with limited opportunities for further mother tongue development after grade 3, most students will shift to dominance in the national language with limited bilingual proficiency by the time they graduate from high school (Baker and Wright 2021). However, during our focus group interviews we learned that two of the MLE teachers were graduates of the MLE program at their schools; this fact was pointed out with a great deal of pride by their former teachers, who now teach alongside them. Thus, it may be that this transitional model is less “weak” in this unique context than it may be in others.

CARE International’s original plan for a 6-year developmental bilingual model was reduced to a 3-year transitional model by the government, and to date MoEYS has resisted calls in prior MLE program evaluations to adopt a stronger MLE model (Benson 2011). While the POE official in Mondulkiri asserted in his interview with us that 3 years is “enough of a bridge,” the POE official at Ratanakiri appeared to be more open to at least a pilot of a stronger 6-year developmental model. Several of the Core MLE Trainers expressed similar support for a stronger model, and the CARE staff expressed some optimism that MoEYS would support a pilot 6-year developmental model in the near future.

The highly structured MLE curriculum features comprehensive teacher guides for each subject and grade level with detailed lesson plans laid out in a clear scope and sequence. CARE also developed high-quality student books in the indigenous languages and in Khmer for use in mother tongue and Khmer language instruction. The teacher training developed by CARE, now carried out in a fast-track training process by the MLE Core Trainers, includes an explicit focus on using the teacher guides and student books to plan and deliver the prescribed lessons.

Our observations and video analysis reveal overall that the MLE teachers closely adhered to the MLE model and the scope and sequence of the curriculum with fidelity, including using the designated language of instruction for each subject at each grade level. The Grade 1–3 bilingual teachers appeared to speak, read, and write their indigenous languages and Khmer with fluency. Likewise, the students did not appear to have any trouble participating in indigenous or Khmer language instruction. The students we observed reading aloud in Khmer or their indigenous language appeared to do so with little difficulty. With only a few exceptions, students spoke in designated language of instruction.

Rigid scope and sequences and scripted lesson plans can be controversial given that they remove teacher autonomy in making instructional decisions based on their own assessments of the linguistic and academic strengths and needs of their students (Wright 2019). Likewise, the strict separation of languages in bilingual programs runs counter to the translanguaging realities of bilingual speakers, and prevents students and teachers from drawing on all of their full linguistic repertoire to support classroom teaching and learning (García and Wei 2014, 2015). While the MLE teachers we observed mainly adhered to the designated language of instruction for each subject, we did notice several Khmer words were spoken during mother tongue language and math instruction, though in most instances these were likely cognates or loan words from Khmer. However, we did observe some clear instances of translanguaging during mother tongue instruction in Grade 1 and math instruction in Grade 2, as will be discussed below. This finding suggests that some teachers are beginning to break from the strict separation of languages and are more freely drawing on both languages to ensure student learning. Nonetheless, we did not observe any instances of translanguaging among the teachers or students in Grades 4–6, where all instruction and all interactions were in Khmer, including in classrooms with indigenous teachers.

4.4 Nature of teaching and learning in the MLE schools and classrooms

In this final section, we consider the quality of the instruction by addressing research question #3, “What is the nature of teaching and learning in MLE classrooms?” It is important to first acknowledge the challenge of teaching in these schools. While the school buildings varied from basic wooden buildings with dirt floors, to more elaborate wooden and concrete structures, the small classrooms in each school had similar challenges. None had electricity. Classroom furnishings were limited to basic wooden desks and benches, a basic wooden teacher table and chair, a chalkboard or whiteboard, and a small storage cabinet. Thin walls carried the noise of one classroom into another; concrete classrooms were particularly loud as sound echoed off the floor and walls. Despite the challenging conditions, the teachers proved to be highly dedicated. Each dressed sharply—women in traditional sarongs and colorful blouses, men in slacks and long-sleeve dress shirts. Most created print rich environments in their classroom with posters, instructional charts, and samples of student work posted on the walls and hanging from the ceiling in both Khmer and the indigenous languages. Teachers’ desks were neatly organized; some brought in tablecloths and flowers to enhance their workspace.

Despite the limited resources, the teachers made best use of what they had. While the lessons were teacher-centered, closely following the teacher guides, we observed a range of good teaching strategies and techniques. We also observed a few teachers who appeared to be taking some license in customizing lessons from the teacher guides. The teachers made heavy use of the chalk/white board, neatly writing the date, the title and number of the lesson, and selected text passages or exercises.

For Grades 1–3, the CARE MLE curriculum provides a number of short, colorful, high-quality, culturally relevant books for student use during mother tongue and Khmer instruction. Cambodia’s standard math, Khmer reading, and social studies textbooks following the national Khmer curriculum are used in grades 4–6, and in 3rd grade for math. While these textbooks were clearly being used in the classrooms, we found that most lessons focused on the chalk/white board at the front of the classroom, where the teachers and students engaged with selections from textbooks copied onto the board. In the sections that follow, we detail the nature of instruction for mother tongue language, Khmer language, math, and social studies.