Search

While decolonisation is usually discussed in relation to countries that were formally colonised, countries that have not been formally colonised have also faced challenges related to colonialism. In this case, it is worth considering whether decolonial theory has more widespread applicability to respond to global challenges faced in the postcolonial era. This article documents the historical trajectories of colonisation and decolonisation of the school curriculum in Nepal. Although Nepal was never formally colonised, the introduction of modern schooling in Nepal was informed by the British colonisation of India, where local languages were replaced by English in the curriculum, diminishing the value of local languages and knowledges. Against this backdrop, the Nepal government issued a series of policies supporting Nepali supremacy, but the expansion of English was not significantly challenged. Rather, the policies resulted in a double colonisation of ethnic/Indigenous languages: external colonisation by English, and internal colonisation by the Nepali language. However, significant decolonisation efforts have recently made space for minoritised languages in the curriculum. This article illustrates these colonisation and decolonisation waves, shaped by the government, local communities and other actors. Drawing on Nepal's legislative and educational policies, the article relates language policy decisions and actions as decolonial efforts to support ethnic/Indigenous languages and explores the implications for understanding tensions around decolonisation of curriculum.

Language policy and planning in Nepal has been contested due to the co-existence of multiple contradictory discourses concerning teaching and learning of local, national, foreign, and international languages. Recently a multilingual policy was issued to create space for the once-banned ethnic/indigenous languages in public schooling, further complexifying the landscape. A few studies have paid attention to teaching and learning of the lesser taught ethnic/indigenous and foreign languages; however, what discursive orientations have contributed towards enabling (or constraining) the use of such languages in education and how have yet to receive scholarly attention. Framed by the perspectives of the intersectionality of discourses, and drawing on in-depth interviews with policymakers, headteachers, teachers, students, and their parents of five schools of Nepal, this paper concludes that the interplay between broader discourses such as globalisation, neoliberal marketisation and nationalism has played a significant role in shaping language policy decisions and localised practice of language(s). It also reveals that the spaces for ethnic/indigenous languages in education are delimited, in preference of English, Nepali, and other emerging foreign languages, leading to their further marginalisation. Such trends diminish the potential use of lesser taught languages, threatening Nepal's multilingual education policy towards sustaining existing linguistic diversity.

The medium of instruction (MOI) has been a contested issue in multilingual polities globally, as English medium of instruction (EMI) has seen unprecedented growth, threatening the use and sometimes very survival of local/indigenous and even national languages. While the struggles to address related issues have been well researched, how and why local level policymakers enact the well-meant national policies in a way that marginalises indigenous languages and expands EMI has yet to receive due attention. The research is scarce especially when language policy and planning (LPP) is dealt with as part of overall educational governance. Drawing on in-depth interviews with senior policymakers in two similar constituencies in Nepal, and appropriating David Block's agency framework [(2012). Unpicking agency in sociolinguistic research with immigrants. In S. Gardner & M. Martin-Jones (Eds.), "Multilingualism, discourse, and ethnography" (pp. 47-60). Routledge.], the paper shows the elements of structure that enable or delimit the decision-making of different policymakers concerning the MOI. While professing multilingualism as their ideal language policy, the policymakers are designing policies that sideline indigenous languages. This unintended outcome results from dealing with diverse aspects of structure, i.e. history, physical and imagined spaces, culture, and discourses around languages. Though situated within Nepal, the discussion has wider implications for understanding agentive acts in this globalising world and for LPP as part of general educational policymaking.

In recent years, in Nepal, while some languages of the nation are on the verge of extinction, some foreign languages (such as Japanese, Korean, Chinese) are emerging as new attractions among the youths and adults and are widely taught in the marketplaces through the private sector initiative. Against this backdrop, in this article, we have examined the current foreign language teaching and learning situation drawing on qualitative empirical data obtained from the institutes involved in foreign language instruction in a city in Gandaki Province of Nepal. The data were collected from a survey in forty institutes, ten individual interviews and five focus group discussions. Drawing on the data, an ecological model was adopted, which focused on dynamic interaction, co-existence, and competition among languages, and findings were discussed in line with these aspects of ecological understanding. Findings revealed that learning foreign languages has been established as a conduit towards economic gains and opportunities for employment and education, which has largely been contributory towards reshaping the ecological relationship among the foreign languages in Nepal.

This paper presents the use of translanguaging in the assessment of content subjects in the context of Nepal's higher education. Since its proposition in the 1990s, translanguaging has been receiving much scholarly attention in multilingual educational contexts. In such contexts, individuals' language practices show a shift from the understanding of languages as separate autonomous systems to the recognition of integrated and heteroglossic practices. Drawing on the analysis of relevant policy documents and examinees' answer sheets of formative assessment, and interviews with eight purposively selected teacher educators teaching at the master's level at a university in Nepal, this paper reports that examinees' translanguaging practices in responding to assessment questions exhibit their translanguaging instinct resisting unplanned English-prioritised monolingual policies. It also reveals fluidity and simultaneity in examinees' use of diverse linguistic resources defying demarcated language boundaries as aspired by the institution's English-prioritised policies. The study further reports layered translanguaging exercised by examinees which educators acknowledged as an attempt to enhance efficacy in content communication. Examinees' translanguaging practices and educators' acknowledgment of translanguaged writing indicate collective resistance from the bottom-up countering monoglossic ideologies in assessment systems. This implies consideration of examinees' and educators' roles in promoting translanguaging for future language policy changes to facilitate effective assessment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Language policy and planning in Nepal has been contested due to the co-existence of multiple contradictory discourses concerning teaching and learning of local, national, foreign, and international languages. Recently a multilingual policy was issued to create space for the once-banned ethnic/indigenous languages in public schooling, further complexifying the landscape. A few studies have paid attention to teaching and learning of the lesser taught ethnic/indigenous and foreign languages; however, what discursive orientations have contributed towards enabling (or constraining) the use of such languages in education and how have yet to receive scholarly attention. Framed by the perspectives of the intersectionality of discourses, and drawing on in-depth interviews with policymakers, headteachers, teachers, students, and their parents of five schools of Nepal, this paper concludes that the interplay between broader discourses such as globalisation, neoliberal marketisation and nationalism has played a significant role in shaping language policy decisions and localised practice of language(s). It also reveals that the spaces for ethnic/indigenous languages in education are delimited, in preference of English, Nepali, and other emerging foreign languages, leading to their further marginalisation. Such trends diminish the potential use of lesser taught languages, threatening Nepal's multilingual education policy towards sustaining existing linguistic diversity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The medium of instruction (MOI) has been a contested issue in multilingual polities globally, as English medium of instruction (EMI) has seen unprecedented growth, threatening the use and sometimes very survival of local/indigenous and even national languages. While the struggles to address related issues have been well researched, how and why local level policymakers enact the well-meant national policies in a way that marginalises indigenous languages and expands EMI has yet to receive due attention. The research is scarce especially when language policy and planning (LPP) is dealt with as part of overall educational governance. Drawing on in-depth interviews with senior policymakers in two similar constituencies in Nepal, and appropriating David Block's agency framework [(2012). Unpicking agency in sociolinguistic research with immigrants. In S. Gardner & M. Martin-Jones (Eds.), Multilingualism, discourse, and ethnography (pp. 47-60). Routledge.], the paper shows the elements of structure that enable or delimit the decision-making of different policymakers concerning the MOI. While professing multilingualism as their ideal language policy, the policymakers are designing policies that sideline indigenous languages. This unintended outcome results from dealing with diverse aspects of structure, i.e. history, physical and imagined spaces, culture, and discourses around languages. Though situated within Nepal, the discussion has wider implications for understanding agentive acts in this globalising world and for LPP as part of general educational policymaking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AbstractThe logics of policy privatisation in schooling, including decentralisation, school autonomy, and discretionary funding mechanisms, shift responsibility for particular types of students onto individual schools and their staff. Burch (2021) asks to what extent the most disadvantaged students in government schools are able to access services most beneficial to them, under these emerging forms of privatisation. With this question in mind, this paper considers the delivery of English as an Additional Language/Dialect (EAL/D) services under the umbrella of the Queensland Department of Education Inclusion policy, in two Queensland government secondary schools. We tease out how the Inclusive Education (IE) policy, of which EAL/D is a subset, is interpreted and translated (Ball et al. 2012) in the situation of privatisation practices. We found that inclusion was understood as primarily targeted at students with disabilities, and that mainstreaming of all learners was considered unsustainable for teachers. In interpreting and translating inclusion for EAL/D, both schools pushed back against the ‘mainstreaming’ discourse, and instead, EAL/D service was provided through targeted programs, staffed with key specialist personnel. In both cases, privatisation logics enabled the ‘EAL/D aware’ principals to justify and enact specialised EAL/D services. In this policy context, there is a need for widespread professional development to ensure all principals understand and apply appropriate supports for EAL/D learners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]