Original Research

Renewed policy interest in extended mother tongue instruction: From mother tongue-based bilingual education as transition to mother tongue-based bilingual education as transformation

Jabulani Sibanda

Received: 02 Feb. 2026; Accepted: 24 June 2026; Published: 29 Aug. 2026

Copyright: © 2026. The Author. Licensee: AOSIS.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Abstract

Background: Despite the rhetoric of additive bilingualism, post-apartheid South African education is characterised by hierarchical colonial arrangements in which early-exit mother tongue-based bilingual education (MTBBE) models undermine literacy at the Grade 4 transition, reproducing linguistic and epistemic injustices.

Aim: The article critiques, maps out and deconstructs the power assumptions, dynamics and knowledges embedded in MTBBE to elevate the model from a temporary scaffolding strategy to an epistemic strategy.

Setting: The study analysis draws attention to the multilingual South African school system in the wake of the Basic Education Laws Amendment (BELA) Act.

Methods: Rather than a traditional empirical, participant-led method for data gathering, the study engages in a conceptual analysis based on the critical interpretivist paradigm, and relies on three interrelated conceptual lenses: Postcolonial language theory, decolonial epistemic justice and translanguaging theory.

Results: The study reveals how the current resurgence of MTBBE is plagued by policy amnesia of cosmetic and cyclical revivals and a profound conflict between performative symbolism and real decolonisation. The analysis unpacks five MTBBE prevailing myths (transitional, monolingual, reactive, utilitarian and magical). In opposition to these myths, the article offers an alternative theoretical framework based on five essential principles, along with a corresponding three-phased implementation approach (R-3, 4–7 and 8+).

Conclusion: Educational transformation entails an epistemological reorientation as well as infrastructural investments, which will ensure the permanence of African languages as part of epistemic success.

Contribution: This article fills an important theoretical void through offering a decolonial praxis-based framework of MTBBE.

Keywords: mother tongue instruction; translanguaging; languages of learning and teaching; bilingualism; epistemic access.

Introduction

Despite the resurgence of mother tongue-based bilingual education (MTBBE) being met with much optimism, much of the discourse around it is still framed within the confines of problematic assumptions that constrain the potential of MTBBE as an epistemically and linguistically transformative practice. Many discussions revolve around issues of language acquisition, language transition and implementation. Yet, very few of these discussions examine the assumptions underlying many conversations that tend to reduce MTBBE into a tool for improving literacy outcomes (Rakgogo 2024).

This article posits the existence of several long-lasting misconceptions that affect contemporary views of MTBBE. Informed by postcolonial linguistics, theory of decolonial epistemic justice, and translanguaging theory, it identifies these misconceptions and their role in multilingual education (Makalela 2024). The critical analysis culminates in the proposal of a new theoretical framework that shifts the focus from MTBBE as a transitional literacy approach, to a continuous practice of bilingualism and epistemic justice. A conception of MTBBE that breaks away from inflexible assumptions of a monolingual practice guiding state assessments, fosters the repositioning of African languages as foundational to epistemic sovereignty.

Contribution to scholarship

Despite the rich South African literature on the logistical problems associated with the Language in Education Policy (LiEP), this body of work typically tends to treat these problems merely as local implementation issues (Heugh 2013; Probyn 2024). This article builds upon previous research by going beyond mere critique and providing a deeper analysis of the ideological structure of MTBBE. In doing so, this research maps out five common cultural myths – including those of transition and monolingualism – that reveal the ways Eurocentric hegemony continues to be safeguarded by progressive language policies. Moreover, while many studies advocate small reforms in early-exit programmes, this article makes an important contribution by developing a coherent radical bilingualism framework.

Contextualising the contemporary mother tongue-based bilingual education debate

Africa has the paradoxical and unenviable position of being the only region where colonial languages still dominate as languages of learning and teaching (LoLT) or languages of learning, teaching and assessment (LoLTA) long after political independence. Prah (2009) confirms this enduring anomaly by noting that, for most African countries, indigenous African languages serve the education system as LoLTs in the initial 3 years or 4 years of formal schooling, before a colonial language takes over. South Africa is not an exception. In South Africa, only English and Afrikaans mother tongue speakers have the unique privilege of enjoying Grade R to university mother tongue education. This disparity is associated with persistent inequalities in literacy outcomes and educational attainment. For Makalela (2018), this linguistic inequality emanates from apartheid South Africa’s long history of linguistic separation where ‘indigenous African languages in South Africa have always been taught in isolation from one another’ (p. 227). This evidently reflects in educational outcomes, with learners who are prematurely compelled to transition to English medium instruction experiencing compromised literacy development and low academic achievement (Koch et al. 2009; Sailors et al. 2010).

The re-emergence of mother tongue instruction in post-apartheid policy

The MTBBE in South Africa is a cyclical resurfacing of an old language-in-education policy paradigm that has been traditionally associated with failed promises. Although sold in contemporary discourse as a revolutionary step forward, MTBBE risks resurfacing a tradition that goes back to colonial times.

The historical trajectory: From missionaries to apartheid mandates

The issue of language authorisation in the educational context in South Africa has historically been politically framed. For instance, the 19th and early 20th-century missionary schools adopted mother-tongue teaching of largely literacy and religious curricula. Teaching in indigenous African languages was meant to achieve full understanding of the religious content. With the colonial and later apartheid periods, language policy shifted from native languages to the dominant use of European languages for education. The change was occasioned by the sinister motive of undermining any indigenous knowledge formation (Makalela 2018).

Further to that, the apartheid dispensation made mother tongue teaching compulsory until Grade 6 within the framework of the segregated system of Bantu Education. Given the malicious motive of depriving Black African students of cognitive growth and academic and socio-economic opportunities, the language education policy was oppressive, rather than empowering. However, what is ironic is that the segregated Bantu Education system and the repugnant regimes of colonialism and apartheid had language education models that extended the use of the mother tongue longer than the democratic government’s language-in-education models.

The democratic dispensation post 1994 necessitated legislative intervention to address deeply ingrained language hierarchies. For instance, Section 29(2) of the South African Constitution entitled learners to education in their preferred official language(s) (Republic of South Africa 1996) subject to ‘reasonable practicability’, an escape clause that provided a convenient loophole for denying these rights to most students. The constitutional requirement for language equality was meant to be implemented through the revolutionary Language-in-Education Policy (LiEP) of 1997, which promoted the use of additive bilingualism (Department of Education 1997). Subsequent complementary policies included the White Paper 6 of 2001, Ministerial Report on Indigenous Languages of 2003 and Draft Policy on the Incremental Introduction of African Languages (IIAL) of 2013.

Unfortunately, an extremely contradictory trend emerges in the South African educational context, where the same languages which have been declared essential in conceptual development are abruptly discontinued after the initial levels based on the wrong assumption that conceptual development is only required at the early years of education.

The contemporary resurgence of mother tongue instruction through mother tongue-based bilingual education and the Basic Education Laws Amendment Act rollout

In South Africa, MTBBE is not a novel idea, but rather a resurgence of an old language in education model characterised by both promise and neglect. While it has often been marketed and touted as a progressive innovation, MTBBE has manifested a pattern of revival rather than evolution, a revival that is almost cyclical, dating back to colonial, apartheid and post-apartheid eras.

The contemporary rise of MTBBE has been built on the foundation of localised pilot programmes and ongoing structural crises. From 2015 to 2017, pilot MTBBE programmes were run in the Eastern Cape and Limpopo provinces, extending mother tongue instruction past the usual Foundation Phase (Grades R-3) boundaries. Ngubane and Ngwenya (2025) systematically reviewed the pilot implementations and the dynamic translanguaging process in multilingual classrooms. It emerged that state-run programmes produced results that were overly inconsistent and too uneven to be instructive. The programmes were not sustained long enough to allow for longitudinal assessment of the impact of mother tongue instruction beyond Grade 3. This contrasts with Funda Wande’s research-based, early literacy education curriculum in isiXhosa, Sepedi and Afrikaans implemented from the Foundation Phase to Grade 3, whose success was proven through randomised controlled trials performed in the Eastern Cape, Western Cape and Limpopo, yielding positive effects on children’s reading development (Mason et al. 2024). The Department of Basic Education (DBE) took a decisive step between 2020 and 2023 to introduce home language teaching to Grade 6, culminating in the 2024 national announcement of the DBE rollout of the late-exit approach from Grades 4 to 7 through the Basic Education Laws Amendment (BELA) Act. This arguably represents the boldest step yet to legitimise MTBBE as a compulsory educational model at national level. Through that legislative requirement, the introduction of the late-exit model will be phased from 2025 to reach Grade 7 by 2028. In the absence of a conceptual shift, the introduction of this revived model will likely fall victim to the same structural constraints as previous models.

Research methods and design

Research questions

Main research question

This research study was guided by the following research question:

• How is MTBBE presently viewed in South African education discourse, and how do such views affect transformative multilingual education?

Sub-research questions

Further sub-questions for the study included:

• What are the prevalent misconceptions of present-day MTBBE discourse in South Africa?
• How may such misconceptions be interpreted from a postcolonial, decolonial and translanguaging standpoint?
• What considerations must guide a transformative approach to MTBBE that facilitates continuous bilingualism and epistemic access?

Conceptual and critical analysis design

This study employed a qualitative conceptual analysis approach informed by a critical interpretivist paradigm. Going beyond descriptive approaches that seek to reveal empirical data, the conceptual analysis approach sought to critically map, analyse, explore, and deconstruct the conceptual parameters, definitions and assumptions associated with a particular concept (Wiesner 2022), the MTBBE in this case. The focus shifted away from mere descriptions to a critique of how concepts work to construct meanings, rather than just establishing their presence or absence (Wiesner 2022). In this study, the critical perspective was applied in critically analysing the underlying presuppositions, power dynamics and knowledge structures embedded within dominant discourses to show how well-intentioned language policies end up reproducing linguistic hegemony associated with Eurocentrism.

Analytical lenses

The analysis was guided by three interrelated theories that offered critical lenses from which the analysis could be undertaken. Postcolonial language theory (Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o 1986) was employed to examine the privileging of English and the marginalisation of African languages within educational contexts. It guided the critical examination of the assumption that mother tongues should be considered subsidiary languages. Decolonial theorisations about multilingualism and epistemic justice (Fricker 2007; Makalela 2019) offered an analytical framework for questioning the relationship between language policies and epistemic inequalities. The decolonial lens provided guidance to evaluate the extent to which MTBBE approaches are based on a concern for epistemic justice and language access, or if they go beyond linguistic concerns. The translanguaging theory (García & Wei 2014) offered a useful framework for the evaluation of language practices beyond additive bilingualism. It guided the critical evaluation of existing MTBBE models based on the extent to which these models acknowledge learners’ full linguistic resources. Figure 1 presents the theoretical positions and their contribution to the study.

FIGURE 1: Theoretical foundations for the radical bilingualism framework.

Analytical process

The analysis process involved three steps. Initially, literature around the themes of MTBBE, multilingual education, language policy, translanguaging, and African language education was reviewed to unearth common arguments, assumptions and controversies characterising current debates about mother tongue education. The way in which MTBBE was presented in relation to literacy education, bilingualism, language transitions, educational reform, and social justice was especially significant.

Secondly, these common assumptions were examined using the analytical perspectives provided above. Through a process of iterative reading, comparison and synthesis of common themes, a series of dominant myths arose in connection with MTBBE. Finally, conclusions from the analysis of these myths were synthesised into a transformative framework for MTBBE. The framework thus, stands as an empirically underpinned theoretical framework for future application rather than a tested intervention.

Ethical considerations

This article followed all ethical standards for research without direct contact with human or animal subjects.

Results

Because the article utilises a qualitative conceptual and critical analysis design rather than an empirical, data-driven methodology, the findings section comprises frameworks and mappings emerging from the application of theoretical lenses to the current discourse.

Policy–practice disconnect and deficit discourses

National assessment reports document that a sudden and early shift from teaching learners in their home languages to English-medium schooling leads to a significant drop in literacy and numeracy skills among such learners – a pattern of achievement that has been confirmed severally through Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) progress reports (Spaull 2019). While the learner’s home language is considered the best medium for gaining conceptual knowledge, it is discarded once the learner passes the initial stages of early childhood education. They become victims of language policies which demand a rapid transition from learning in their home languages to English after the initial levels, particularly in Grade 4. This highly publicised policy-practice gap demonstrates that in spite of all the progressive rhetoric in legislation, the actual advantages of mother tongue education apply only to the Foundation Phase (Heugh 2013; Stoop 2017). According to Heugh (2009), even though multilingual education policies exist, ‘their practice is driven towards expensive monolingual practices which invoke contemporary, external-to-Africa discourses about education’ (p. 185).

Several deficit narratives are frequently used to justify early withdrawal from the use of African languages. The first one is a Eurocentric vocabulary-based argument that African indigenous languages lack the capacity for complex technical vocabulary necessary to engage in advanced levels of academic research or science. In pragmatic terms, such an argument implies that early exposure to English has a protective element that would prevent students’ future academic difficulties when the colonial language takes absolute dominance in schooling. Other equally unsubstantiated reasons given are the alleged impracticality of using mother tongues due to linguistic diversity in Africa as well as the possibility of national disintegration. There is also the assumption that proficiency in English is the only way into globalised knowledge production.

Critical scholars dismiss such views as persistent relics of colonial language ideologies. Probyn (2024) observes that coloniality-informed language ideologies dominate education through English, while suppressing home languages of both teachers and learners as legitimate learning resources. Applied linguists argue that African languages have the capability to express sophisticated scientific ideas when they are exposed to systematic corpus construction and additive approaches to teaching and learning (Heugh 2009; Makalela 2018, 2024).

According to the postcolonial analysis, such widespread deficit theories are directly related to the phenomenon referred to by Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o (1986) as ‘the linguistic colonisation of the mind’. Prah (2009) criticises the post-apartheid African elite for propagating colonial myths even as they pay lip service to the inherent value of mother tongues. For Van Pinxteren (2022), learners are forced to switch to English even before they achieve stable home-language literacy and second-language fluency. In turn, Sibanda (2017) dismisses two problematic assumptions associated with the transitional approach. Firstly, it assumes that students acquire full mother tongue literacy by Grade 3. Secondly, that home language literacy transfers to second language literacy to the point that by Grade 4, learners have sufficient proficiency in English to use it as a LoLT. Because of the falsity of these assumptions, the transition simply adds up to cognitive overload, linguistic attrition, and what scholars have called ‘strategic silences learners adopt in linguistically strange surroundings’ (Sibanda 2017).

Despite the official endorsement of additive bilingualism in policies, teachers often find themselves ‘smuggling the vernacular’ into the process of teaching through ad hoc code-switching and translanguaging to ensure understanding, although all instructional and testing materials are strictly monolingual (Cekiso 2025).

Against the backdrop of this dynamic, a dynamic that mirrors many other global trends in postcolonial educational exclusion, this article fundamentally redefines the very foundations of MTBBE as practised in South Africa. It presents MTBBE as a project of transformation, not merely a transient scaffold towards the acquisition of English language competency or a logistical expansion of mother tongue teaching. This article is neither a critique of any empirical instances of MTBBE implementation, nor a comparative study of diverse bilingual education schemes. The aim is to challenge existing conceptual misunderstandings and develop a transformative theory of MTBBE.

Persistent policy amnesia

Persistent policy amnesia is evident in South Africa in the emergence of MTBBE being characterised by a pattern of ‘change without memory’ (Young 2004). Rather than learn from the problems attending decades of MTBBE implementation, policymakers continue to roll out MTBBE as a pedagogic innovation. More disturbing is how the political discourse around MTBBE selectively highlights the advantages of mother tongue deployment in the curriculum while conveniently ignoring and downplaying the logistical, material and structural factors (Bacchi 2009), and inconsistencies between policy formulation and practice (Wildsmith-Cromarty & Balfour 2019) for the failure of previous language-in-education policies. As a result of policy amnesia, the emerging discourse on MTBBE is rendered a cosmetic or an administrative affair (Wiesner 2022). The challenges of dealing with English exam washback, inadequate teacher education and the absence of disciplinary materials in African languages trap the curriculum in an endless cycle where progressive language rights are re-legislated on paper but destroyed in their practical implementation.

The renewed interest in MTBBE in South Africa can more aptly be referred to as a policy revival than an innovation. This is instructive to an appreciation of why earlier progressive language education policies have failed to deliver consistent results (Heugh 2013) or provided inconsistent and disjointed results (Taylor & Coetzee 2013).

Moreover, the sudden shift from the native language of instruction to English at Grade 4 constitutes a key systemic bottleneck for effective teaching (McKay & Romm 2015). The problem is not about lacking progressive policies, but about failing to provide consistent support for these policies. There is much reproduction of multilingual rhetoric (Kaschula & Maseko 2014) rather than meaningful contribution to educational transformation. In this regard, MTBBE is important, not only to enhance educational practice, but also as a significant avenue for promoting linguistic equality and epistemological inclusion.

Symbolic versus decolonial dimensions

The official resurgence of MTBBE is animated by, not only literacy concerns, but also the disruption of entrenched linguistic hierarchies. For Heugh (2013), there is a significant disconnect between history and theory in South African education policy, with the state continually adopting progressive and additive rhetoric of multilingualism in the introductory stage of curricula, but continuing to adopt models where learners have to undergo an early structural shift to English-medium instruction. Through framing indigenous languages as a ‘temporary stepping stone’ in the early stages of schooling, the curricula effectively construct African languages as structurally and/or cognitively inadequate for disciplinary thought.

On the contrary, the decolonial dimension calls for an entirely different epistemological paradigm, one which actively challenges these hierarchies imposed by the West in a monolingual context. In the decolonial view, language cannot be understood as static, separate and compartmentalised boxes of cognition that Makalela (2016) describes as a now-defunct Euro-Colonial categorisation created specifically for the purpose of separating languages from each other. Decolonial practice goes hand in hand with the philosophical framework of Ubuntu translanguaging, according to which African multilingualism is fluid, porous and interconnected. Makalela (2016) asserts that any transformational pedagogy should rely on the complete multilingual repertoire of the learner to achieve conceptual understanding and develop literacy. Thus, in the light of the current MTBBE paradigm, it becomes clear what choice should be made between mere symbolic representation of diversity, and long-lasting fluid decolonial multilingualism, recognising African languages as continuous sources of knowledge production.

During International Mother Language Day or Heritage Day, there is a flagging of, and emphasis on, the cultural and identity dimensions of mother tongue instruction to attain linguistic equity and epistemic decolonisation. If care is not taken, such commemorative events can position, in the minds of people, solely the symbolic function of the mother tongue in Education that amounts to token and performative multilingualism. For the MTBBE to constitute real transformation beyond superficial revival, rhetoric and advocacy need to be complemented by relevant and adequate resources, as well as sound pedagogical praxis.

Deconstructing the hegemonic misconceptions of mother tongue-based bilingual education

A careful assessment of the existing Language in Education Policy (LiEP) frameworks shows that the problem of MTBBE stagnation does not just result from poor implementation, but is a reflection of fundamental pathologies in the existing concept of MTBBE (Heugh 2006). To create a transforming MTBBE practice, it is important to interrogate the emergent misconceptions proposed from the literature and policy discourse associated with MTBBE in South Africa’s education system.

Why interrogate the hegemonic misconceptions?

The misconceptions around the MTBBE model are not some trivial semantic issues, but fundamental myths that can potentially distort policy intentions, hinder pedagogical innovation and perpetuate epistemic access inequities. A misdefined MTBBE model results in a correspondingly misdirected implementation that then perpetuates the same linguistic hierarchies it seeks to dismantle. Conversely, sound conceptual clarity of MTBBE will inform effective pedagogy, sound policy and learners’ experience of linguistic identity. A misconstrued MTBBE will manifest in superficial implementation practices such as code-switching or literal translation, which, according to Maseko and Vale (2016), are strategies that merely alternate between languages without promoting true bilingual cognition. Such strategies continue to relegate African languages to auxiliary rather than epistemologically central positions, thereby compromising depth of learning and subtly positioning English as the language of intellectual legitimacy.

The five emergent misconceptions are analysed in relation to the three theoretical perspectives identified earlier, which informed the analytical categories for constructing a transformative MTBBE framework. The misconceptions are discussed in turn, considering each misconception’s definition, its deconstruction, as well as its contextualisation and integration in the MTBBE framework. These are not in any way exhaustive but illustrative of the dangers of misconceptions to the MTBBE project.

The transitional misconception

I consider the transitional misconception the most pervasive of the misconceptions. It views MTBBE as a temporary scaffold or bridge for early literacy that eventually gives way to total English-medium instruction in Grade 4, rather than a framework for epistemic justice. Such conceptualisation is in opposition to evidence from additive bilingual models. While the transition misconception seems pragmatic, it reproduces a linguistic hierarchy. As Heugh (2015) rightly cautions, where the mother tongue is a bridge to English, that kind of bridge would collapse before learners cross over to the intended English side. Thus, this misconception relegates African languages to the realm of early literacy and valorises English as the ultimate language of teaching and learning.

This postcolonial MTBBE misconception perspective perpetuates what Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o (1986) calls the ‘linguistic colonisation of the mind’, which turns indigenous African languages into simple, primitive stepping stones in the development of early literacy. This misconception downplays empirical evidence on additive bilingual programmes. A longitudinal evaluation of the Additive Bilingual Education Project (ABLE) notes that sustained mother tongue instruction improved outcomes in both languages involved more than when mother tongue instruction was used as temporary scaffolding (Koch et al. 2009:126).

Cutting this bridge short with only Grade 4 of English medium instruction leads to its inevitable collapse due to incomplete development of cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP). The transitional view of MTBBE is a misconception considering that genuine transformative MTBBE should frame the mother tongue as a permanent epistemic pillar that supports sustained bilingualism and intellectual equity, rather than a temporary measure and a relic of early learning.

The monolingual misconception

The monolingual fallacy opines that MTBBE should privilege one language, the mother tongue, and exclude others. This then acts out in practice, where English is almost absent in the Foundation Phase, only for it to abruptly emerge and dominate instruction in the later grades, usually the fourth grade. The anomaly explains why Sibanda (2017) recommends that, in the Foundation Phase, ‘… the Home Language (HL) needs to be developed to CALP proficiency levels and the FAL beyond the Basic Interpersonal Comunication Skills (BICS) level to reasonable initial CALP levels’. The irony is that a model designed to foster bilingualism degenerates into a monolingual model. The misconception is based on a Eurocentric, non-monoglossic approach which stigmatises the flexibility of languages. From the decolonial and translanguaging perspectives, the cognitive overload and the necessity to practice ‘strategic silences’ arise from putting multilingual students in the straitjackets of a monolingual approach in a multilingual environment.

McKinney and Tyler (2024) define translanguaging pedagogy in ways that challenge monolingual framings by saying:

In (trans)languaging-for-learning, the emphasis is on using one’s full linguistic and semiotic repertoire in order to develop and show understanding of learning, rather than to demonstrate mastery of the use of standard named languages. (p. 3)

This counters the misconception that MTBBE must operate within monolingual paradigms. Genuine MTBBE has room for both languages and introduces the second language early, without displacing the first. That way, bilingualism becomes a continuum of meaning-making, rather than a sequential replacement of one language with another.

Such a separation is contrary to translanguaging which, according to McKinney and Tyler (2024), focuses ‘on the use of one’s entire language and semiotic repertoire to show learning, rather than mastering the use of standard languages’. In an empirical study, Makalela (2018) shows that ‘breaking down of linguistic barriers’ in teacher-training intervention programmes leads to ‘strong evidence of mutual intelligibility, extended transcultural identity of the speakers, and increased metalinguistic consciousness’ (p. 235). Real-life implementation of MTBBE involves utilising learners’ entire language repertoire.

The reactive (or corrective) misconception

In this misconception, MTBBE is only a tool of redressive justice, of retribution and reparations through political symbolism rather than a challenge to contemporary structures and assessments of academic achievement. The misconception frames MTBBE primarily as a response, and an affront to colonial legacies. It is positioned as a tool used to remedy the historical marginalisation of African languages. Such a purely corrective and reactive outlook often ends up as performative, despite the well-intentioned need for redress. The conception reduces MTBBE to an advocacy and mere political positioning. Even while seeking redress, such a conception still positions English as a reference point against which the success of African languages as LoLTs is measured. The more they approximate how English fared, the more successful they are rated to be. Such thinking undermines the transformative agenda of epistemic justice that the model, and even the misconception, intends to promote. A pro-active, decolonial interpretation should reposition African languages as epistemic LoLTs in their own right, rather than as restitution tools only (August-Mowers 2025).

Considering the decolonial framework offered by Maldonado-Torres (2016), such a misinformed position allows the persistence of ‘coloniality of power’. If African languages are recognised only in the context of superficial cultural celebration or a mere performative gesture of political activism, this reflects the critique offered by Prah (2009) about elites who ‘profess lip service to the value of national languages’, while avoiding transformation of material power.

Such a limited perspective maintains what Heugh (2021) calls ‘the emancipation of English through African languages’, where English remains a stable standard against which African languages are gauged. In line with the arguments of Janks (2014) and Maseko and Vale (2016), as long as the role of English as the language of high-stakes testing persists after Grade 3, such policy remains symbolic as opposed to transformative due to its inability to dismantle structural inequities.

The utilitarian misconception

The utilitarian misconception only values the mother tongue for its instrumental role in facilitating quick early literacy or numeracy gains and enhancing comprehension. This reductive utilitarian misconception conceives MTBBE as an easy and quick way to literacy, which strips it of its potency as a long-term cognitive and cultural resource. The language of its essential function beyond a mechanism of communication, to locating issues of identity, culture and power structures. Within this misconception, language functions solely as a tool for transmitting essential knowledge, and is devalued as a sovereign cognitive process. By regarding instruction in one’s mother tongue as a quick fix for gaining immediate comprehension abilities, this approach dismisses native languages as legitimate discourses of mediating complex knowledge. The misconception ignores the deeper epistemological issue of the home language providing students’ epistemic agency. For Heugh (2015), the mother tongue should be regarded as a ‘carrier of knowledge’, not only as a means of efficient communication; otherwise, its restriction to efficient communication amounts to epistemic violence (Hurst & Mona 2017). It engenders in the learner the attitude that only Western languages can mediate higher-order thinking abilities. Proper conceptualisation of MTBBE should valorise the mother tongues for their intrinsic cognitive or intellectual and cultural worth, and not just their pedagogical utility.

The magical misconception

Within the magical misconception, MTBBE is ascribed magical powers and considered a panacea for structural inequalities and literacy crises. Once MTBBE is perceived as a miracle fix and silver bullet, there is then no need to consider investment in teacher training, bilingual materials and equitable resource allocation. Without these, the prospect of MTBBE fostering genuine transformation is illusory. Instead of recognising the need for a full-scale reconstruction of South Africa’s education system, this myth argues that a simple shift in the language of instruction would resolve the nation’s literacy problem. Genuine MTBBE is systemic in nature and requires epistemological and infrastructural investment.

Armed with this misconception, policymakers can create a façade of progress without having to confront practical, material and human resource challenges like the lack of infrastructure, uneven resource distribution and a lack of teacher capacitation.

These five misconceptions are not seen as distinct policy issues but rather arise out of the intersection between the three theoretical approaches. Postcolonial theory helped to understand how the power dynamics in the languages of colonialism persist in the field of education; epistemic justice and decolonial theory pointed to the impact of such power dynamics on access to knowledge; and translanguaging theory offered an understanding of how the deployment of learners’ full linguistic repertoires can surmount the limitations of previous progressive language policies.

Towards an epistemic conceptualisation of mother tongue-based bilingual education

Having debunked the hegemonic notions about mother tongue education as a temporary and precarious scaffolding device, this section of the article re-theorises MTBBE, not simply as a technocratic adaptation, but a complex ideology of instruction. There is a need for a shift from language being a tool for gaining content knowledge, to utilising it as the knowledge and context itself. For me, genuine MTBBE involves five mutually reinforcing concepts supported by various theoretical perspectives. These are:

• Sustained Duration (Beyond Grade 3) – Epistemic Justice (Fricker 2007)
• Additive Linguistic Pluralism – Postcolonial Resistance (Ngùgì wa Thiong’o 1986)
• Integrative Fluidity – Translanguaging & Ubuntu (Garcìa & Wei 2014; Makalela 2016)
• Intentional Structural Equity – Decolonial Turn (Maldonado-Torres 2016)
• Transformative Epistemic Agency – Anti-Epistemic Violence (Hurst & Mona 2017)

Principle 1: Sustained duration

Genuine MTBBE is intrinsically sustainable. It outrightly rejects early-exit approaches and uses learners’ native languages consistently through all phases of learning. This avoids the disruption caused by sudden language switches at Grade 4, which has traditionally been responsible for limiting learner literacy levels. This tenet advocates the epistemological theories of Fricker (2007) on epistemic justice, whereby learners’ linguistic capital is accepted and affirmed, and they are considered legitimate ‘knowers’. The recognition of learners as knowers entails teaching and testing them in their strongest languages to allow them to work with difficult subject matter and avoid cognitive exclusion. This approach is evidence-based, and for Sailors et al. (2010), sustained mother tongue instruction adds considerable value to learner results in both their first language and English.

Principle 2: Additive linguistic pluralism

Mother tongue-based bilingual education is essentially additive, guaranteeing that the functionality of the mother tongue in the education process is preserved forever, and that it is recognised as a scientific and innovative language alongside another language, such as English. In contrast, subtractive bilingualism denotes a situation where English reigns supreme beyond the initial stages of the study and ultimately supersedes the home language. The idea under consideration is based on the postcolonial language theory advanced by Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o (1986). As language embodies the culture and identity of people, preservation of both languages as vehicles of scientific knowledge prevents the African child from becoming alienated at school.

Principle 3: Integrative fluidity

Genuine MTBBE is integrative, intentionally connecting learners’ cultural and home realities with formal schooling by breaking down the artificial, rigid boundaries between languages. This principle is anchored in García and Wei’s (2014) Translanguaging Theory, which views a multilingual individual’s linguistic repertoire as a singular, fluid and holistic system rather than fractured, isolated boxes. In the South African context, this translates to what Makalela (2018, 2019) conceptualises as Ubuntu Translanguaging, an African ethical and pedagogical framework where languages oscillate and reinforce one another, reflecting the cultural worldview that ‘a language is a language through other languages’. Empirical backing is found in Mgijima and Makalela’s (2016) study that demonstrated that, when Grade 4 learners are permitted to use translanguaging techniques, their cognitive and metacognitive inferencing skills are enhanced by bridging the home-school divide.

Principle 4: Intentional structural equity

A genuine MTBBE is not a utopian pedagogical theory, but is both realistic and intentional. It requires careful alignment of macro-level policies with micro-level classroom dynamics and significant investment in bilingual teacher training, textbook writing and high-stakes assessments. This amounts to a decolonial turn in education articulated by Maldonado-Torres (2016) who calls for the overthrowing of the ‘coloniality of power and knowledge’. Intentionality, in this regard, means transcending the technocratic and compliance-based ‘multilingualism rhetoric’ decried by Heugh (2009). It means ensuring that states provide funding to produce epistemically dense bilingual textbooks and glossaries instead of the cheaper and less profound process of translation.

Principle 5: Transformative epistemic agency

The other transformative feature of genuine MTBBE is that it changes mother tongues from merely serving as tools of translation to access existing knowledge, to becoming tools of knowledge creation. This is a direct challenge to the concept of epistemic violence as coined by Hurst and Mona (2017), which involves the marginalisation and intellectual devaluation of African language speakers due to colonial educational structures. Mother tongues are deployed as vehicles of cognition, critique and creativity, thereby elevating classrooms to sites for social and linguistic justice rather than spaces for mere passive translation of knowledge.

A transformative mother tongue-based bilingual education framework: From transition to sustained bilingualism

Seeing that the MTBBE model is a resurgence on account of the previous models not having succeeded, there is a need for a radical bilingual framework that eschews the limitations of the previous models and translates the reimagination into practice, through a phased model of MTBBE implementation. I propose an MTBBE framework that draws on the three pillars as support for a gradual, phased MTBBE implementation. I propose a phasing in of the MTBBE through the three phases of Grade R-3, 4–7 and 8+.

Phase 1 (80% Mother-Tongue [MT]/20% English)

Phase 1 (Grades R-3) concentrates on foundational bilingualism, whereby 80% of instructional time in class is dedicated to teaching through the mother tongue. Such a ratio is scientifically proven due to language acquisition thresholds that prove that CALP, which enables complex concept mapping, can only be achieved if the mother tongue acts as the main epistemic point of reference (Cummins 2000; Sailors et al. 2010). The 20% time allocated to English language is deliberately used to additively introduce the language without causing subtractive linguistic loss.

Phase 2 (50% MT/50% English)

The Framework for Phase 2 (grades 4–7) calls for balancing learners’ bilinguality by ensuring that the mother tongue and English share the burden of languaging equally on a 50/50 basis. During this phase, success depends on the investment made in producing bilingual terminologies, visual scaffolds and bilingual text materials. The dual medium 50/50 rejects the historical transitional cliff in Grade 4. It is scientifically founded on the principle of linguistic interdependence that states that advanced cognitive skills will only transition between languages easily if both media are afforded equal teaching and lexical status without cognitive overload or silencing the learner (García & Wei 2014; Sibanda 2017). There should be progressive integration of both languages even in assessments.

Phase 3: Flexible translanguaging (Grade 8 and beyond)

Phase 3 (Grade 8 onwards) involves the transition from inflexible percentages of language allocation (80/20 or 50/50) to a flexible concept of macro-translanguaging throughout the syllabus. This approach is explicitly based on the theoretical postulate of a Unitary Linguistic System of García and Wei (2014), who argue that multilinguals do not have discrete ‘language boxes’, but rather an integrated linguistic system. At this level, requiring learners to stick to inflexible monolingual language lessons when engaging in complex academic knowledge creates unnecessary cognitive dissonance and alienation. Additionally, Phase 3 is theoretically anchored in the notion of Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency of Cummins (2000). Figure 2 represents the three phases of the framework.

FIGURE 2: Radical bilingualism framework.

This three-phased framework shifts MTBBE from being a bridge, a common metaphor for conceptualising MTBBE, to a continuum that linguistically empowers learners and has its anchor in linguistic pluralism. The model, properly implemented, would develop and sustain bilingual competence, and guarantee no cognitive or linguistic discontinuity between the phases. The proposed MTBBE implementation framework’s strength lies, not only in the judicious application as discussed, but also in its use in conjunction with other models.

Table 1 summarises the three-phased framework that advocates sustained bilingualism over monolingual dominance, while infusing the three key pillars.

Unlike typical MTBBE models that consider African languages as merely transitional to monolingual English education, the proposed model in Table 1 views MTBBE as a continuous process of developing bilingual capabilities at the level of primary, secondary and tertiary education as opposed to transitioning to a monolingual educational context. The proposed model attaches importance to both first and second languages as equally essential sources for teaching, learning and knowledge production.

This model includes three development stages, during each of which learners develop their bilingual capabilities without disrupting their academic progress. The Foundation Phase (Grades R-3) focuses on developing basic skills in literacy and numeracy using the first language while slowly introducing the second one. During the Intermediate Stage (Grades 4–7), the process shifts towards balance between the two languages and the use of translanguaging, allowing students to utilise all their linguistic repertoires. The Senior Phase and beyond (Grades 8+) see learners developing their ability to use both languages as equally pivotal to critical thinking and knowledge production.

The sustainability of the transformation process is contingent on, not just deciding on how to allocate language, but also the coherence between assessment, teacher training, curriculum, learning materials and infrastructure. Each stage includes a set of guidelines on bilingual assessments, teachers’ professional development and resource development. That way, the emphasis for MTBBE is placed, not only on language transition, but also on epistemic participation. While language fluency remains an important aspect of bilingual education, the aim of implementing MTBBE is to develop learners able to read, write and produce knowledge in different languages. In essence, MTBBE becomes more than an educational method, but also a tool for ensuring linguistic equality.

Discussion

Implementation considerations

The practical implementation of the framework is in the:

• systematic investment in African-language resource development
• integration of bilingual pedagogy into pre-service and in-service teacher education
• development of multilingual assessment systems that evaluate content knowledge as well as language development.

Complementary pedagogical models

The linguistic realities of South African classrooms are so complex that deploying a single model, however good, cannot be enough. The MTBBE model I have envisioned can realise its full epistemic potential if there is a complementary and synergistic deployment of other related models alongside it. I discuss how the translanguaging pedagogy, dual-medium instruction, multimodal literacy and the Language Across the Curriculum (LAC) models can enrich the MTBBE model.

Translanguaging pedagogy acknowledges learners’ full linguistic repertoires as holistic and valid resources for communication. In the context of MTBBE, translanguaging legitimises the fluidity of language interaction and integration and dismantles the arbitrary boundaries between the mediums of instruction. Learners draw on their full linguistic and semiotic resources to negotiate meaning, enhance agency and foster cognitive flexibility (García & Wei 2014). Applied together, translanguaging animates MTBBE’s structural bilingualism in a way that helps learners to connect advanced or complex concepts employing familiar semiotic resources at their disposal.

With dual-medium instruction, there is an alternation or combination of two languages in a lesson within a subject area. For me, by two languages, I mean the mother tongue and the supposed global language, even when there is more than one mother tongue in the context. These allow for parallel bilingualism. While the early-exit model privileges the global language, dual-medium instruction fosters a sense of equilibrium between the mother tongue and the international language across the schooling phase. According to a study by Heugh (2013), dual-medium instruction enhances the acquisition of both the content and the language.

Multimodal pedagogy deploys a range of visual, digital and kinaesthetic modes alongside linguistic expression. The deployment of the full range of semiotic resources is particularly important in multilingual contexts, as that provides learners access to meaning even when linguistic mediation falters (Sibanda & Chikiwa 2024). Multimodality then comes in to complement MTBBE by extending literacy beyond words in ways that affirm diverse cognitive pathways that we use to convey meaning in everyday communication.

Language across the curriculum proceeds on the premise that every teacher is essentially a language teacher tasked with providing language-supportive strategies across all the subjects of the curriculum to enhance academic literacy in both languages operative within the specific context. The LAC model complements MTBBE by extending bilingual learning to the entire curriculum. The LAC model is pedagogically transversal.

The deployment of these models in conjunction with the MTBBE model will provide a holistic, multidimensional language-responsive system that enhances participation and access.

Comparative insights from global and regional contexts

The viability and structural weaknesses of the proposed model find their parallels in mother tongue-based multilingual education (MTB-MLE) and intercultural bilingual education (IBE) around the world. Analysis of these examples helps to pinpoint the exact prerequisites necessary for the success of structural translation from policies into practice. Table 2 summarises important insights from comparable global contexts instructive to the South African context.

A comparative synthesis of the literature reveals that an effective MTBBE approach relies heavily upon the development of a unified and state-supported infrastructure. Genuine change will be brought about by coordinated changes in attitudes towards language, policy reform within institutions and significant investment in personnel and educational materials. Moreover, domestic implementations of international ‘best practice’ curricula face major obstacles in implementation due to lack of locally relevant and linguistically grounded planning (Mason et al. 2024).

Conclusion

The renewed interest in extended mother tongue instruction through the MTBBE instruction model in South Africa constitutes an opportune moment to shift away from the transitional bilingual paradigm towards the transformation of the whole multilingual education discourse. From this critical conceptual analysis, it is evident that taking language policy changes as some kind of translations of texts or administrative revivals does not address the underlying structural issues. The process of transformation will be sustainable if the deeply rooted myths of transitional, monolingual, reactive, utilitarian and magical thinking are debunked and replaced with an approach characterised by durable, additive pluralism, integrative flexibility and structural equity. It is only possible to realise the promise of epistemic justice enshrined in the Constitution of South Africa once the African languages are regarded not as temporary bridges but as permanent and complex means of academic success.

Acknowledgements

The author declares that no financial or personal relationships inappropriately influenced the writing of this article.

Jabulani Sibanda: Conceptualisation, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. The author confirms that this work is entirely their own, has reviewed the article, approved the final version for submission and publication and takes full responsibility for the integrity of its findings.

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

The author declares that all data that support this research article and findings are available in the article and its references.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and are the product of professional research. They do not necessarily reflect the official policy, or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency or that of the publisher. The author is responsible for this article’s results, findings, and content.

References