ED/GEMR/MRT/2017/P1/18

Background paper prepared for the 2017/8 Global Education Monitoring Report

Accountability in education: Meeting our commitments

Language of instruction in Southeast Asia

This paper was commissioned by the Global Education Monitoring Report as background information
to assist in drafting the 2017/8 GEM Report, Accountability in education: Meeting our commitments.
It has not been edited by the team. The views and opinions expressed in this paper are those of the
author(s) and should not be attributed to the Global Education Monitoring Report or to UNESCO. The
papers can be cited with the following reference: “Paper commissioned for the 2017/8 Global
Education Monitoring Report, Accountability in education: Meeting our commitments”. For further
information, please contact gemreport@unesco.org.

Kimmo Kosonen 2017

Outline
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Language of instruction policies and their implementation in Southeast Asia
 Challenges encountered in policy implementation
 Estimating the percentage of children and youth learning in their home languages in Southeast Asia
 Recommendations on the monitoring of the language of instruction policies
 Conclusion
 Bibliography

Abstract

Southeast Asian language of instruction policies have traditionally emphasized the official and national
languages. However, over the past two decades, a movement towards multilingual education (MLE) has arisen
in the region. Currently, policy support for the use of minority learners’ home languages differs widely between
Southeast Asian nations. Multilingual education which includes learners’ home language is increasing in
Cambodia, the Philippines, Thailand, Timor-Leste, and Viet Nam. This background paper commissioned by the
Global Education Monitoring Report attempts to: 1) present the development of language policies in primary
and secondary education in the 11 countries of Southeast Asia; 2) review the implementation of these policies
and challenges encountered; 3) estimate the percentage of Southeast Asian children who have access to
education in their home or first languages; and 4) recommend next steps for monitoring of the language of
instruction issues in the region.

2
Introduction
Southeast Asia is an Asian sub-region located between South Asia, China, and the Pacific region. It comprises 11
independent nations: Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR (Laos), Malaysia, Myanmar, the
Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Timor-Leste, and Viet Nam. More than 1200 languages are spoken and all major
world religions are practiced by the Southeast Asian population of over 600 million (Lewis et al., 2016).
Traditionally, Southeast Asian language policies have emphasized the respective official and national languages.
However, over the past two decades, a movement towards multilingual education (MLE) has arisen in the region.
The support for non-dominant languages (NDL) in education ranges from the Philippines’ and Viet Nam ’s strongly
supportive written language policies to Brunei and Laos, where the use of NDLs in education is currently
impossible (Cincotta-Segi, 2014; Kosonen, 2017b; Sercombe, 2014). The official languages are still preferred in
educational practice – even in countries with more pluralistic language policies. The Philippines is the main
exception. Pilot projects on multilingual education (MLE) also operate in several countries. English is the most
widely taught foreign language, and all Southeast Asian countries except Indonesia introduce English as a foreign
language at some point in elementary education – or use English as a language of instruction (Kirkpatrick, 2012).

Target 4.5 of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) calls for the elimination of “gender disparities in
education and ensure equal access to all levels of education and vocational training for the vulnerable, including
persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples, and children in vulnerable situations”. Although language of
instruction per se is not explicitly mentioned in this SDG target, other sources of information prove that many
children and youth are taught in a language they do not speak at home. However, there is relatively limited
information in the extent of this challenge, and credible data do not yet exist in most countries on the percentage
of children and youth who can learn through their home or first language. Nonetheless, thematic indicator 4.5.18
in the monitoring framework of SDG 4 attempts to address this issue. Southeast Asia has progressed towards
pluralistic language-in-education policies over the past decades, and thus it is useful to have a detailed look on
the situation and experiences in this region. Studying the language of instruction policies, their implementation,
as well as monitoring students’ access to instruction in their first language, can provide insights to other regions.
Consequently, this paper commissioned by the Global Education Monitoring Report attempts to:

1) present the development and status of language of instruction policies in primary and secondary
education in the 11 countries of Southeast Asia;

2) review the implementation of these policies and the challenges encountered;

3) estimate the percentage of Southeast Asian children (at the primary level per country) who have access
to education in their home or first language; and

4) recommend next steps for monitoring of language of instruction issues in the region.

This paper attempts to demonstrate (by giving relevant examples from Southeast Asian countries) the challenges
as well as potential means of alleviation of these challenges in the monitoring of primary students’ access to first
language-based education. The paper also discusses the strengths and limitations of the suggested thematic
indicator 4.5.18 (UIS 2016b), as well as raises concerns about data collection and analysis in terms of the language
of instruction.

An earlier GEMR background paper by Carol Benson (2016) discusses many similar themes. Therefore, this paper,
does not repeat the points already discussed in detail by Benson, particularly related to the theoretical
background on language and education issues. This paper attempts to build on the foundation laid out by Benson.
Furthermore, this paper aims to go beyond the somewhat philosophical (but certainly scientifically sound)
recommendations of Benson (although applying only to the Southeast Asian context), and propose practical

3
strategies for the Southeast Asian region to collect relevant data for SDG indicator 4.5.18. It should be noted that
at the time Benson’s paper was drafted, the proposed definition of indicator 4.5.18 by UNESCO Institute for
Statistics (UIS) was not yet available (UIS 2016b). This fact explains Benson’s detailed discussion on the different
aspects of the definition. Benson (ibid.) also provides detailed definitions of the key terminology, and this paper
follows Benson’s key terms, such as L1, NDL, and MTBMLE. For details, see Benson (2016).

Language of instruction policies and their implementation in Southeast

Asia
The respective national and/or official languages are the main languages of instruction (LOI) and languages of
literacy in all Southeast Asian education systems. Most countries allow some latitude to non-dominant languages
(NDL). However, three countries, Brunei, Lao PDR, and Singapore, use only the official languages in education.
The roles given to official and non-dominant languages differ widely in Southeast Asian language policies.
Countries with more pluralistic language policies, such as Cambodia, the Philippines, Thailand, Timor-Leste and
Viet Nam use some NDLs as languages of instruction in multilingual education. Over the past decade, interest in
the use of NDLs in education has increased, and a movement towards multilingual education has emerged
(Benson & Kosonen, 2012; Kosonen, 2013, 2017b; UNESCO 2015). This section discusses the language of
instruction policies and their implementation in all 11 Southeast Asian countries. The focus is on the countries
which have developed or are currently developing new policies over the past decades (Cambodia, Myanmar, the
Philippines, Thailand, Timor-Leste, and Viet Nam). The situation in these six countries is discussed first. The
sections after discuss the situation in the other five countries, all of which currently emphasise the
national/official languages in their education systems (Brunei, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, and Singapore).

An estimated 27 languages are spoken in Cambodia. The Khmer are by far the largest and most dominant
ethnolinguistic group in the Kingdom of Cambodia. The Khmer make up approximately 90 percent of the
population (Kosonen, 2013, 2017a; Lewis et al., 2016). The Constitution of 1993 stipulates Khmer as the official
language. Khmer was the exclusive language of instruction until the late 1990s, when bilingual education
programmes were first initiated in some minority areas. Five non-dominant languages are currently used as
languages of instruction and literacy (Kosonen, 2013, 2017a; Sun, 2009; Ton & Noorlander, 2016). Over the past
twenty years Cambodia has seen a gradual development of its language policies. The Education Law of 2007 gave
local authorities the right to choose the language(s) of instruction in certain minority areas. The “Guidelines on
implementation of bilingual education programs for indigenous children in highland provinces” was released in
2010 (Frewer, 2014; Kosonen, 2013; Ton & Noorlander, 2016). In 2013, the Bilingual Education Decree further
strengthened the position of non-dominant languages in education. Finally, after a series of consultations in
2014, the “Multilingual Education National Action Plan” (MENAP) was adopted in 2015 (ibid). The MENAP is a
detailed four-year plan on MLE implementation increasing the role of the government in the delivery of
multilingual education. However, the MENAP falls short of strengthening the Cambodian MLE model and is
unclear about the expansion of MLE provision to new languages.

It is estimated that 117 languages are spoken in the Union of Myanmar (Lewis et al., 2016). The majority of the
population belong to the Bamar ethnicity (also called Burmese or Myanmar). The Constitution of 2008 stipulates
Myanmar (Burmese) as the official language, and currently Myanmar is the main language of instruction in
government schools. Possibly dozens of non-dominant languages are used – also as LOIs – in early childhood and
non-formal education programmes run by civil society organizations. No comprehensive details are available on
these efforts. It is estimated that some 30 percent of children do not speak Myanmar at the entry to formal
education (Aye & Sercombe, 2014; Kirkpatrick, 2012; Kosonen, 2017b; Martin, 2011). The National Education
Law of 2014 acknowledges linguistic diversity, yet stipulates only English as a LOI along with Myanmar. The Law
4
supports the teaching of non-dominant languages as subjects, and allows local languages to be used orally as
auxiliary languages to help non-Myanmar speakers understand the curriculum. The Law was criticized and it
prompted student protests. State-level language policies are being developed in some regions, and there will
likely be more latitude at least for the larger regional languages in education.

It is estimated that 183 languages are spoken in the Philippines (Lewis et al., 2016). Several languages, such as
Bicol, Cebuano, Illongo, Ilocano, and Tagalog, are spoken by millions of people. Many of these languages are used
as the lingua francas in their respective areas. According to the Constitution of 1987, Filipino (based on Tagalog)
is the national language, and with English it is also an official language. The official languages were used as the
languages of instruction for decades, but this meant that most Filipinos could not study through languages they
spoke at home (Kaplan & Baldauf, 2003; Kirkpatrick, 2012; Kosonen, 2017b; Tupas & Lorente, 2014). After
decades of privileging Filipino and English, the Philippines adopted a policy of Mother Tongue-based Multilingual
Education in 2009 (Gunigundo, 2013; Kirkpatrick, 2012; Metila et al., 2016; Tupas & Lorente, 2014). The
Department of Education’s Order 74 set the framework for MLE as the basis of educational language policy.
Reasons for the policy change included a realization of increasing disparities in learning achievement as well as
good results in L1-based educational pilots. There was also a major civil society movement which included
intensive debates on language and education issues in various media. Republic Act no. 10533 in 2013
strengthened the pluralistic language policy in education. It made the principles of multilingual education the
foundation of the formal education curricula. The learner’s L1 is the main LOI up to primary Grade 3, and Filipino
and English are introduced gradually as additional LOIs. Currently, 19 languages are used as the initial LOIs in
government schools, and dozens of other languages are used in programs supported by non-governmental and
civil society actors (Gunigundo, 2013; Metila et al., 2016).

An estimated 72 languages are spoken in the Kingdom of Thailand (Lewis et al., 2016), and the populations of
some ethnolinguistic communities, such as Lao-Isan, Kammeuang, Pak Tai, Pattani Malay, and Northern Khmer,
are in the millions. Available data on language populations are outdated, populations of larger languages, in
particular. Standard Thai (based on Central Thai as spoken in Bangkok) is the de facto official and national
language, and the Thai Constitution has no references to the official language. Though only an estimated 50% of
Thai citizens speak Standard or Central Thai as their first language (Kosonen, 2013; Kosonen & Person, 2014),
Standard Thai is widely spoken as a second language throughout the country, but no data are available on the
language proficiency of second language Thai speakers. Standard Thai has been the almost exclusive language of
instruction for about a century. Despite its wide use as a second language, it is reported that many children have
comprehension problems in the early years of education (Benson & Kosonen, 2012; Kosonen, 2013; Kosonen &
Person, 2014; Watson, 2011). Thailand’s first National Language Policy (NLP) was approved by two different
governments in 2010 and 2012, respectively. The NLP also deals with non-dominant languages and their use in
education. The NLP calls for the use of learners’ first languages as the basis for cognitive development. Political
instability has hindered the operationalization of the language policy. Several non-dominant languages are
currently used in L1-based education pilot projects run by academic institutions and non-governmental actors in
partnership with the Ministry of Education (Kosonen, 2013; Kosonen & Person, 2014). In 2015, two teacher
training institutions started to train MLE teachers, and in 2017 there has been serious discussion about an
operational plan as well as a budget to implement the NLP.

An estimated 20 languages are spoken in Timor-Leste (Lewis et al., 2016). However, a recent project on school
language mapping (Owen, 2015) discovered Timorese primary school students speaking a total of 30 languages,
and the Census of 2015 lists a total of 37 languages (Timor-Leste, 2015). According to the Constitution of 2002,
Tetun and Portuguese are the official languages and other “national languages” (meaning all local languages) –
including Tetun – are valued and developed by the state. Over a half of the Timorese do not speak either of the
official languages as their first language, and Tetun has many distinct varieties. In the years after independence
in 2002, Portuguese dominated as the language of instruction, even though most Timorese teachers had limited
proficiency in it and Tetun was used as an oral auxiliary language (Curaming & Kalidjernih, 2014; Kosonen, 2017b;

5
Taylor-Leech, 2013; Watson, 2011). The Basic Education Act of 2008 mandated both a standardized version of
Tetun and Portuguese as the LOIs and languages of literacy in formal education. The national policy on mother
tongue-based multilingual education was adopted in 2010 (Curaming & Kalidjernih, 2014; Taylor-Leech, 2013).
The policy stipulates the learner’s first language as the main LOI until Grade 4, with the gradual introduction of
Tetun and Portuguese – as subjects as well as LOIs. Indonesian and English would be taught later as foreign
languages. Curriculum development is on-going in Tetun as well as in some local languages. The first step in the
implementation of this policy has been the EMBLI pilot project which has been using three local languages in
multilingual education since 2012 with support from international organizations (Curaming & Kalidjernih, 2014;
Taylor-Leech, 2013, 2017). However, most schools still follow the Tetun-Portuguese formula as per the 2008 Act.

It is estimated that 108 languages are spoken in the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam (Lewis et al., 2016), but the
government officially recognizes only 54 ethnic groups. About 87 percent of the population is Vietnamese-
speaking Kinh, and the rest of the population comprises various ethnolinguistic communities, some of which
have large populations (Benson & Kosonen, 2012; Kosonen, 2013, 2017b; Phan, Vu & Bao, 2014). According to
the Constitution of 1992, the national and official language is Vietnamese. Many other written policies support
the use of non-dominant languages in education (Benson & Kosonen, 2012; Kosonen, 2017b, 2013; Phan, Vu &
Bao, 2014), but in practice Vietnamese remains to be the main LOI at all levels of education, whereas some NDLs
are taught as subjects. There is confusion over conflicting statements in different documents and their relative
weight (Benson & Kosonen, 2012; Kosonen, 2013). A few pilot programs are applying the principles of
multilingual education. They use minority learners’ first language along with Vietnamese, from preschool to the
end of the primary level, and positive results have been observed in these programs (Kosonen, 2013, 2017b;
Phan, Vu & Bao, 2014).

Southeast Asia comprises an additional five countries (Brunei, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, and Singapore).
However, these countries are favouring the official and national languages in education and hitherto have not
made any major efforts to support the use of non-dominant languages in education.

It is estimated that 15 languages are spoken in Brunei Darussalam. The Constitution of 1959 stipulates Standard
Malay as the official language. However, Brunei Malay, the first language of most Bruneians, is the main language
for oral communication (Lewis et al., 2016; Sercombe, 2014). Most Bruneians are plurilingual, but data on
academic language proficiency in different languages are not available. The national education system is using
Standard Malay and English as the languages of instruction (Kaplan & Baldauf, 2003; Kirkpatrick, 2012; Kosonen,
2017b; Martin, 2008; Sercombe, 2014; Watson, 2011). Educational policy and practice ignore all non-dominant
languages, including Brunei Malay.

With 707 spoken languages, Indonesia is linguistically the most diverse country in Asia (Lewis et al., 2016). The
Constitution of 1945 stipulates Indonesian (Bahasa Indonesia) as the official language. Indonesian is also the
language of instruction and language of literacy at all levels of education. Only an estimated 10-20 percent of the
population speaks Indonesian as their first language, but up to 70 percent of Indonesians use it as a second
language (ibid.). However, data on second-language speakers’ Indonesian proficiency (particularly academic
language skills required in education) are not available. Some regional languages, such as Javanese, Madurese,
and Sundanese, are spoken by tens of millions of people, and many other languages have millions of speakers
(Kaplan & Baldauf, 2003; Kirkpatrick, 2012; Kosonen, 2017b; Musgrave, 2014). Although the Indonesian
Constitution guarantees the use and development of non-dominant languages, they are generally not used as
languages of instruction. Further, Law No. 20 of 2003 states that other mother tongues than Indonesian can be
used in the early stages of education. Nonetheless, in practice Indonesian is the exclusive LOI throughout the
nation, though a few pilot projects of mother tongue-based multilingual education (MTB-MLE) have begun in
Eastern Indonesia (ACDP, 2014).

6
In the Lao People’s Democratic Republic (Lao PDR) the estimated number of languages spoken is 84 (Lewis et
al., 2016). The Lao government has followed a Soviet-influenced classification of ethnic groups which is not
necessarily based on the languages people speak (Benson & Kosonen, 2012). Therefore, various sources disagree
on the number of languages and ethnolinguistic groups. According to the Constitution of 1991, Lao is the official
language. The Education Law of 2007 stipulates Lao as the language in education, and the government has been
reluctant to allow non-dominant languages in education. Yet, only about a half of the Lao population speaks Lao
as their first language (Lewis et al., 2016). This is a major challenge in educational development (Benson &
Kosonen, 2012; Cincotta-Segi, 2014; Kosonen, 2017b).

It is estimated that about 134 languages are spoken in Malaysia (Lewis et al., 2016). The largest ethnolinguistic
group, the Malays, represent about half of the population. The Constitution of 1957 stipulates Standard Malay
(Bahasa Malaysia) as the official and national language. Although Standard Malay is widely spoken as a second
language, few people, even ethnic Malays, speak it as their first language (Lewis et al., 2016). The use, teaching
and learning of any language is also guaranteed (David & Govindasamy, 2007; Kaplan & Baldauf, 2003; Kosonen,
2017b). In education, the “national primary schools” use Standard Malay as the main language of instruction,
whereas the “national-type primary schools” use another language, such as Mandarin Chinese, Tamil, or an
alternative Indian language, as the main LOI. Some non-dominant languages are offered as subjects in certain
schools (David & Govindasamy, 2007; Kirkpatrick, 2012; Kosonen, 2017b). From 2003 to 2012 Malaysia used
English as the LOI for mathematics and science, but the experiment discontinued as many teachers and students
in rural areas had difficulties using English for teaching and learning. Urban middle class, many of whom have a
good foundation in English, have complained about the return to Malay-medium instruction (Kirkpatrick, 2012;
Watson, 2011). However, interest in using non-dominant languages in education is increasing, but no major
efforts have yet started.

Lewis et al. (2016) list 24 languages for Singapore. Ethnic Chinese, who make up much of the population, have
traditionally spoken different varieties of Chinese. The rest of the population comprises Malays, Tamils and other
ethnolinguistic groups (Kaplan & Baldauf, 2003; Kosonen, 2017b; Watson, 2011; Wee, 2014). The Constitution of
1965 stipulates four official languages: Malay, Mandarin Chinese, Tamil, and English. The Constitution also
guarantees the use, teaching, and learning of other languages. English is the sole language of instruction in
education. All students also study one of the official “mother tongue languages,” i.e. Malay, Mandarin, or Tamil,
even though this language may not be spoken at home. Many younger Singaporeans are adopting English (and
Mandarin among some ethnic Chinese) as their main home language (Kirkpatrick, 2012; Watson, 2011; Wee,
2014). Nowadays, a notable proportion of children enter formal education from English-speaking households
(Wee, 2014), though the actual home language is often "Singlish", the Singaporean non-standard variety of
English.

Challenges encountered in policy implementation

Kosonen (2017b) discusses in detail the challenges of language of instruction policy developments in Southeast
Asia. He argues that the language policy choices reflect the ideologies and priorities of the respective
governments. He claims that governments face conflicting interests, and they try to find a consensus between
these interests. The policies and policy implementation reflect the governments’ positions on the official and
national, non-dominant, as well as international languages – predominantly English. Consequently, non-
dominant languages are rarely prioritised in language policies, unless cultural heritage and pluralism are
considered important values, or when strategies to improve learning achievement of minority populations are
explored. The latter point is becoming an increasingly important factor in language policy discussions in
Southeast Asia. Therefore, collecting more detailed data (related to SDG indicator 4.5.18, for example) on
educational development in linguistically diverse contexts is very timely. Nevertheless, most countries in

7
Southeast Asia and elsewhere still prioritize the national and official languages. The main rationale is the
strengthening of the national identity. Furthermore, English is prioritized in education when globalization and
economic development are the government’s focus (ibid.).

The previous section discussed the developments in Southeast Asian language and education policies, some of
which also support linguistic diversity. However, in many cases, these policies are not implemented to the full
extent. In Cambodia and Malaysia, for example, language policies support the use of only some non-dominant
languages in education (David & Govindasamy, 2007; Kosonen, 2013, 2017a, 2017b). Further, some countries
have internally conflicting policies making it difficult for any actor to clearly know what is and what is not allowed
(Benson & Kosonen, 2012; Kosonen, 2013, 2017b).

Although several countries have introduced more pluralistic language of instruction policies, there are still
concerns about the implementation of those policies. Questions remain particularly in Cambodia, the Philippines,
Thailand, Timor-Leste and Viet Nam on whether the outlined actions on multilingual education will be
implemented in practice. Viet Nam has the widest gap (among Southeast Asian nations) between policy and
practice. In fact, it has begun to weaken its previously supportive written policies to match the non-
implementation of earlier policies (Kosonen, 2013; 2017b). Further, the Cambodian model of multilingual
education, for example, has been criticized for being an early-exit transitional model (Kosonen, 2013, 2017a).
Minority learners’ L1 is used as a LOI until the end of primary Grade 3, after which Khmer is the exclusive language
of instruction (Kosonen, 2017a; Ton & Noorlander, 2016). Similar concerns also exist in other countries, such as
the Philippines and Thailand, as various programmes of MLE use the learners’ L1 for a relatively short time.

Pluralistic language policies and multilingual education are also opposed in the region, as few Southeast Asian
government officials or parents truly understand the importance of first language-based education. The most
commonly held misconception is that by simply introducing an unknown language, such as the official language
or English, to children as early as possible increases and accelerates the learning of that language (Benson, 2016;
Benson & Kosonen, 2012). This myth is used to justify the early introduction of the dominant languages.
Government officials and agencies often misunderstand the concepts of bilingual or multilingual education, and
they are commonly seen merely as effective approaches to teach the national language and English to
populations with low proficiency in these languages. Likewise, many consider initiatives with a minimal oral use
of minority learners’ L1 in classrooms as bilingual education. There is also confusion about the difference of using
languages for instruction or studying them as subjects. It is common to see Southeast Asian media reporting
about multilingual education, whereas in fact the question is about teaching non-dominant languages as school
subjects.

Assimilation of minority populations into dominant languages and cultures can be widely observed (Sercombe &
Tupas, 2014), and education systems play an important key role in assimilation. The most explicit form of
assimilation of linguistic minorities can be found in Viet Nam, where the expansion of Vietnamese-medium
preschools and boarding schools in minority areas is used to “strengthen” the Vietnamese language skills of
ethnolinguistic minorities (Benson & Kosonen, 2012; Kosonen, 2013, 2017b).

Another valid challenge in a few countries is the fact that ethnolinguistic classification is done with criteria not
necessarily based on the languages people speak. For instance, Viet Nam officially recognizes only 54 ethnic
groups, but many more languages are spoken in the country (Kosonen, 2013; Lewis et al., 2016), posing
challenges in the selection of appropriate languages of instruction. In Viet Nam and other countries ethnicity and
language proficiency is not necessarily a one-on-one match. At least in Cambodia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, and
Thailand issues on ethnolinguistic classification can be observed.

8
Estimating the percentage of children and youth learning in their home
languages in Southeast Asia
This paper is not the first attempt to estimate populations with access to education in their first language.
Globally, the challenges are massive, as Walter & Benson (2012) estimate that about 40 percent (i.e. over 2 billion
people) of world’s population lack access to education in their home or first language. This figure is based on
Walter’s (2009) estimates (see also Walter, 2008).

Over a decade ago, Kosonen (2005) estimated Asian populations who had access to education in their first
language. Figure 1 below shows the percentage of people in each country who speak a language used for
instruction as their first language. If several languages are used for instruction, the total population speaking
those languages as their first language is included. Kosonen (2005) cautions the readers about the credibility of
the figures given: “As exact figures for the populations speaking various languages are not always available, all
figures presented should be considered as estimates (Kosonen, 2005: 3)”. In hindsight, it can be said that the
figures at both ends of the graph are the most credible, whereas the figures in the range of 20-80 percent are
merely rough approximates. The language population figures were taken from an earlier edition of the
Ethnologue (see Lewis et al., 2016). Kosonen complemented the population figures of the Ethnologue with data
from other available sources, but generally the figures for many languages were inaccurate.

Figure 1. Estimated populations with access to education in their first language in East, South and Southeast
Asia (source: Kosonen, 2005)

Walter’s (2009) unpublished report has been widely used as a source to calculate percentages of people with
access to education in their first language. Pinnock’s (2009) report, for example, also uses Walter (2009) as the
source for its table (pp. 50-51) on “Large populations without access to education in home language”. In terms
of Asian countries, most of Walter’s (2009) figures as presented in Table 1 below are in line with Kosonen’s (2005)
estimates presented in Figure 1 above. The main exception is Thailand. Walter estimates that about 15% of the
Thai citizens have no access to L1-based education. He may have considered non-dominant languages related to
Standard Thai as dialects of it, whereas Kosonen (2005) considered them separate languages as per classification

9
of Lewis et al. (2016) (see also Kosonen & Person, 2014). Walter’s interpretation reflects a widely-held view in
Thailand as well as in other countries with a similar linguistic situation.

Table 1. Estimated percentage of population whose first language is not used in education (source: Pinnock,
2009)

Nation Percentage
Indonesia 90.37
Philippines 74.19
Malaysia 55.25
Myanmar 38.92
Thailand 15.27
Vietnam 9.2

Pinnock’s (2009) report adds two important footnotes relating to the data used in estimating the populations
without access to education in their home language: “note that these figures refer to the full population of
speakers of the affected languages, not just to school-aged children. School aged children are often estimated to
form approximately 25% of the population in developing countries, although there are significant variations”
(Pinnock, 2009: 51). Another footnote, though not directly related to Southeast Asia, reads: “in many Arabic
speaking countries like Egypt, the formal Arabic officially used for teaching is not the same as the informal Arabic
used at home” (Pinnock, 2009: 51). This is an important note, as the figures given for Egypt, Algeria, Iraq, for
example, are 100% in terms of the estimated population whose first language is not used in education. However,
the two points raised above, are examples of challenges in research methodology on the language of instruction
issue, and such issues should also be considered in Southeast Asia.

UNICEF and its partners conducted a survey of languages spoken in the primary classrooms of Lao Cai province
in Viet Nam (UNICEF 2012), and mapped pupils’ and teachers’ language proficiency in various languages. As two
languages were used as the languages of instruction, the study helped assess the proportion of pupils receiving
education in their first language. The results showed that in 64% of the classrooms all pupils shared their first
language. The study also identified linguistically homogeneous schools, where first language-based education
could be provided most easily. The principles and methodology of the Viet Nam mapping study were taken
further in Timor-Leste (Owen, 2015), which will be discussed in the case of Timor-Leste below.

UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS, 2016a) has recently conducted a regional survey of Asia-Pacific countries’
readiness to monitor progress towards SDG4 targets/Education 2030 agenda. Overall, most Asia-Pacific countries
consider indicator 4.5.18. difficult or very difficult to monitor, and few countries are ready to collect data on this
indicator. Not all countries even replied to the UIS’s survey, and thus the report does not present a complete
regional overview. Three countries from Southeast Asia (Brunei, Laos, and Thailand) did not reply to the survey
(Yano, 2015), and thus replies from only the following nine countries are available: Cambodia, Indonesia,
Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Timor-Leste, Viet Nam. However, the UIS (2016a) report only
provides a regional and sub-regional analysis, and does not identify which countries are ready to collect data on
which indicator. Apparently only three Southeast Asian countries have expressed their readiness to monitor
indicator 4.5.18 (R. Bajracharya, pers.com., Feb. 2017). To date, no reports are available showing national level
information on this issue. It is unlikely that most Southeast Asian countries can collect comprehensive data on
this issue rapidly, unless training as discussed by Owen (2015) in Timor-Leste is provided to local officials
responsible for data collection.

Table 2 (see also table 4) summarises the Southeast Asian situation in terms of primary students’ access to
education in their first or home language. The estimates are based on the currently available data (language

10
populations mostly from Lewis et al., 2016, and the summaries of language policies from an earlier section
above). The data available are not sufficient to calculate exact percentages for most countries, and therefore
using four categories to rank the eleven Southeast Asian countries is a way to show their relative positions.

Table 2. Relative positions of Southeast Asian countries in terms percentage of students in primary education
whose first or home language is the language of instruction.
Percentage Country
76 to 100% Cambodia, Viet Nam
51 to 75% The Philippines, Malaysia, Myanmar, Thailand, Lao PDR
26 to 50% Singapore, Timor-Leste
0 to 25% Brunei, Indonesia

Even a rudimentary assessment such as this reveals clear disparities in the region, and enables focusing further
research and monitoring on countries with the most needs. It is essential to note that major disparities exist even
within countries with high percentages. More research is needed in every Southeast Asian country to determine
the profiles of pupils without access to education in their first language.

The situation in each Southeast Asian country is unique, and the following section elaborates on the key issues
in each country. This discussion helps interpret the estimates in table 2 above and in table 4 which is displayed
at the end of this section. The baseline of all estimates in this section are based on Kosonen (2005), Walter (2008,
2009), and Pinnock (2009). The older estimates are updated with more recent data, if available, considering
changes in language of instruction policies and practices.

Cambodia and Viet Nam are in the highest quadrant of table 2. The majority of the population in these countries
are speakers of the respective national languages, which are the main languages of instruction as well. Therefore,
around or above ninety percent of all children in both countries have access to education in their first language.
Although Cambodia and Viet Nam provide multilingual education in some non-dominant languages (for more
details, see: UNESCO, 2015), thus far these efforts cover only a few thousand people – in comparison to millions
of speakers of the national languages. A major increase in the access figures can only be observed, if MLE is
extended to larger NDLs. Major disparities exist between dominant communities and minority regions, and thus
future research should focus on determining minority learners’ proficiency in the national languages as well as
on detailed data collection in areas where NDLs are spoken. The UNICEF (2012) survey in the Lao Cai province of
Viet Nam is a good start and model of what can be achieved with rigorous local level research.

The clear majority of the Philippine’s population speaks as their first language one of the 19 languages used for
instruction as per the MTB-MLE policy. Most of these languages are the largest in terms of speaker population,
and serve as languages of wider communication in their respective regions. However, no accurate figures are
available on the number of L1 and Lx speakers of these languages (for the best estimates see the Philippines
section in Lewis et al., 2016). The MLE policy is implemented in many, but not all, schools in areas where the 19
languages are spoken. Further, Pradilla, Metila, and Williams (2017) discovered that only 60 percent of pupils in
their research area spoke as their home language the language used for instruction. The study was limited in
scope in terms of languages used and the number of pupils involved, but the results likely reflect the reality in
other areas as well. Therefore, it is fair to assume that up to three quarters of Filipino children may have access
to education in their first language, but only in the early grades of primary education (up to Grade 3).
Nonetheless, to date, no detailed data are available on the extent of MLE policy implementation, even though
schools record information on pupils’ home languages. A priority would be to identify populations with access
to first language instruction to get a more detailed idea of who benefits and who does not benefit from the MTB-
MLE policy.

11
In Malaysia, many distinct varieties of Malay are spoken in the country. Local varieties of Malay exist in a diglossic
relationship with Standard Malay, and are often seen as dialects of Standard Malay. Many non-Malays are
estimated to be bilingual in some variety of Malay. However, no data are available on the Malaysian population’s
proficiency in Standard Malay. It can be assumed that more than half of Malaysian children, among them
bilinguals, have a good proficiency in Standard Malay when they enter formal education. Also, many ethnic
Chinese and some Tamils have access to education in their assumed home languages. A clear majority of ethnic
Chinese children study in Mandarin Chinese at the primary level (Wang, 2017), but no data are available on
whether Mandarin Chinese (rather than another Chinese language) is their actual home language. The
percentage of children receiving first language instruction in Malaysia can only be accurately estimated when
detailed data are available on all pupils’ proficiency in Standard Malay, if they receive Standard Malay-medium
education, or pupils’ proficiency in Mandarin Chinese or Tamil, if they receive instruction in those languages.

It is estimated that over sixty percent of Myanmar population are Bamar-speaking and thus receive education in
their first language. About a third of school-aged children have no access to first language instruction. No data
exist on the level of bilingualism in Bamar by mostly urban children from non-dominant language backgrounds.
Such data are essential to determine more accurate figures. Another key area of research is the extent of private
and community schools in non-Bamar speaking areas, where the main regional language is usually used for
instruction. Anecdotal evidence points to the fact that thousands of children learn in such schools, but no figures
are currently available.

The case of Thailand is quite similar to Malaysia. Most Thai citizens, despite their home language, have some
proficiency of Standard Thai, the official language, as it is widely used in the media and to provide government
services. Yet, no data are available on people’s proficiency in it. The home language of most Thai citizens is a
language related to Standard Thai, and thus they are often mistakenly considered to speak Standard Thai as their
first language. However, not all people, particularly in rural areas, have high academic proficiency in Standard
Thai. The actual figure for children in early grades is estimated above fifty percent. Language shift to Standard
Thai is occurring in many urban areas where another Thai-related language has traditionally been the main
language of wider communication. The shift has been slower in rural areas. Several pilot projects on multilingual
education are using smaller NDLs, but the number of pupils in these endeavours is still rather small (for more
details, see: UNESCO, 2015), causing no major change to this estimate.

Lao PDR is a highly diverse country linguistically, but Lao is the only language of instruction used. Therefore, the
percentage of children receiving first language instruction can only be accurately estimated when detailed data
are available on all pupils’ proficiency in Lao. Currently, the estimated percentage in Laos is around or slightly
above fifty percent of the school-aged population. In addition to first language speakers of Lao, it is likely that in
the capital city and larger provincial towns some pupils from non-dominant language backgrounds are bilingual
in Lao.

Timor-Leste is the only Southeast Asian country in which a nation-wide survey of language use in schools has
been conducted. Thus, the Timorese case is discussed in detail. The World Bank funded the study of the Ministry
of Education (Owen, 2015) to map the languages spoken by primary school pupils and their teachers. The study
used inputs from over 8000 teachers. The data from all primary schools of the country were collected as follows:
“The project was conducted by working with the Education Management and Information System (EMIS)
Department of the Ministry of Education to train the school directors from the 1,415 schools on how to collect
the data. The teachers in these schools were to identify the strongest language of each child and then list these
languages for their classroom with the number of students for each one. The teachers also reported their own
strongest language and the other languages that they could speak noting how well they could speak them”
(Owen, 2015: 2).

12
Owen’s (2015) report shows that over fifty percent of primary school children (Kindergarten to Grade 6) were
reported to have Tetun Prasa, the main language of instruction in the country, as their strongest language.
However, the report reveals that the percentage of Tetun Prasa speakers may be inflated, because “some
teachers may have overreported the number of students speaking Tetum Prasa as their strongest language”
(Owen, 2015: 4). There is anecdotal evidence to support this claim (see also Owen, 2015: 17-19). More than half
of Timorese children enter Grade 1 speaking another language than Tetun Prasa, but from Grade 3 upwards
these children are often listed as L1 speakers of Tetun Prasa (K. Smith, pers.com., April 2017). Further, the figures
from the population census of 2015 (see table 3) show that only about 30 percent of primary school pupils are
L1 speakers of Tetun Prasa or Portuguese, the main languages of instruction.

The Timor-Leste survey raises issues about data collection methodology at the school level, as different
assumptions about what constitutes the first language can influence the data collected. This may explain the
difference of about 20 percent in the school language mapping and the national census. Currently, approximately
30-50 percent of primary students in Timor-Leste can be estimated to have access to first language instruction.
There are pilot projects on multilingual education using some NDLs, but the number of pupils in these activities
is still rather small.

Table 3. The percentage of Tetun Prasa and Portuguese speaking children in Timor-Leste (source of the table’s
data: Timor-Leste 2015).
Reported L1 Percent of total
Age group
All 0-4 5–9 10 – 14
Tetun Prasa 30.60 % 33.87 % 29.91 % 29.58 %
Portuguese 0.12 % 0.05 % 0.08 % 0.12 %
Total 33.92 % 29.98 % 29.70 %

However, the Timorese study shows that through collaboration of various actors, a nation-wide survey on
language of instruction can be conducted. Unfortunately, neither the Ministry of Education nor the World Bank
has published any reports, which could serve as examples to others planning similar studies.

In Singapore, approximately 30-50 percent of pupils receive education in their first language, English. English is
the sole language of instruction at all levels of education, and high proficiency of cognitive and academic skills in
English is needed to succeed well in the Singaporean system of education. More accurate figures can be
determined only after the accurate proportion of the population with English as their first language is identified.

In Indonesia, the percentage of primary school pupils with access to first language instruction is estimated to be
above 10 but below 25 percent. It is probable that many urban children in non-Indonesian speaking families are
becoming bilingual in Indonesian, or are shifting from their heritage language to Indonesian altogether. Pepinsky
(2014) discusses this situation referring to the Javanese: “But as Javanese move outside of these regions [areas
with lots of Javanese] — and especially in urban areas — the probability of speaking Indonesian jumps
dramatically”. Yet, no accurate figures are available for this phenomenon (see e.g. Fuadi, 2016; Pepinsky, 2014).
The Indonesian census does not include data on linguistic competence or the level of bilingualism. More detailed
research is urgently needed in Indonesia, the linguistically most diverse nation in Asia. However, the above
estimate reveals that a clear majority of Indonesian pupils, i.e. tens of millions of children, do not receive first
language instruction. This may explain some of the low learning achievement in the country.

In Brunei, the percentage can only be accurately estimated when detailed data are available on pupils’
proficiency in various languages. It is essential to test pupils’ skills in the official languages of instruction, Standard
Malay and English, and determine the percentage of pupils with L1-level skills in these languages. Currently, the

13
estimated percentage is in the range of 5-20 percent, and rural/urban disparities can be assumed to be high. This
estimate will likely be contested by those who consider Brunei Malay and Standard Malay to be the same
language.

Table 4 below summarises the Southeast Asian situation in terms of the percentage of pupils whose first language
is the language of instruction.

Table 4. Estimated percentage of Southeast Asian pupils in primary education whose first or home language is
the language of instruction (SDG indicator 4.5.18).
Note that only the figures for Cambodia, Viet Nam and Timor-Leste are relatively accurate. The estimates of other countries
vary depending on: 1) the definition of pupils’ home/first language, 2) the level of minority pupils’ bilingualism in the official
languages of instruction, 3) the extent of MLE policy implementation (for which detailed data are not always available), and
4) whether local varieties of major languages are considered “dialects” or different languages. In most Southeast Asian
countries, no detailed data are yet available on pupils’ language proficiency in different languages, available figures for
language populations are often inaccurate and dated, and different sources provide different information.

Access Country
High Range Cambodia (~90%)
Viet Nam (~90%)
Medium Range The Philippines (~65-75%)
Malaysia (~60--%)
Myanmar (~60--%)
Thailand (~50--%)
Lao PDR (~50--%)
Low Range Singapore (~35-50%)
Timor-Leste (~30-50%)
Indonesia (~10-25%)
Brunei (~5-20%)

Recommendations on the monitoring of the language of instruction

policies
This paper has shown that, by using the currently existing data, it is difficult to monitor credibly and in detail the
language of instruction situation in Southeast Asia. Therefore, the main recommendation of this paper is that
ministries of education, national statistical offices, and their international partners emphasise regular and
standardised data collection, including data on language of instruction. UNESCO’s regional office is facilitating
the monitoring of SDG 4 targets in collaboration with UNESCO’s Asian member states. Additionally, UNICEF’s
Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS) are conducted in many countries. Emphasising the importance of data
on language of instruction issues in these monitoring processes can be a major step towards enhanced
monitoring.

UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS, 2016b) provides standardised metadata for all the proposed thematic SDG4
indicators. UIS has also assisted UNESCO’s regional efforts in SDG 4 monitoring. However, the UIS document adds
that “the metadata included in this document have been developed by the UIS and are currently still in draft
form” (UIS 2016b:2). Even though the metadata discussed is not final, it is useful to study the proposed definition,
and discuss the strengths and limitations of indicator 4.5.18. The document defines the indicator as “percentage
14
of primary students whose first or home language is the language of instruction” (UIS 2016b: 46), and continues:
“first or home language is defined as the student’s main language of communication outside the school
environment. It is usually either the first language students learned or the language of their family or local
community” (UIS 2016b: 46). The purpose of this indicator is: “to measure the extent to which children in primary
education are learning in a language with which they are familiar” (ibid.). The document also lists the data
requirements and sources: “number of primary pupils by first or home language and information on the language
of instruction” (UIS 2016b: 47), and “administrative data from schools on the language of instruction and the first
or home languages of pupils” (ibid.). Limitations of data collection and analysis are also discussed: “determining
each pupil's first or home language may not always be straightforward and schools may not always record this
information. Even if pupils are taught in their first or home language the quality of the teaching may not always
be sufficient to ensure that good progress in learning takes place” (UIS 2016b: 47).

The elaboration on the key issues and unpacking the suggested key terms by UIS enables a standardised means
of data collection. However, depending on who collects the data, some terms, such as “main language of
communication outside the school environment” and “language with which they are familiar” may be
interpreted differently by different data collectors. The Timor-Leste survey (Owen, 2015) is a case in point. For
example, even a basic oral proficiency of a language can be interpreted as an indication of the given language
being a pupil’s first language.

Additional challenges may be faced in the case of macrolanguages, as mutually non-intelligible language varieties
may be called by the same name. The Ethnologue (Lewis et al., 2016) uses “macrolanguage” to refer to a group
of related languages that share a common "identity", even though the speakers of different varieties do not have
mutual intelligibility. A generic term, such as Arabic, Chinese, or Malay, for example, is used when referring to
varieties of a macrolanguage, but the speakers of different varieties do not necessarily understand each other.
Challenges related to this issue can be observed in most Southeast Asian countries. A special attention must be
paid on macrolanguages in Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Timor-Leste, and Thailand. The main languages of
instruction in these countries have characteristics of a macrolanguage.

UNICEF’s Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS) are conducted around the world, also in Southeast Asia. The
latest MICS Questionnaire has included questions related to the language issue, thus acknowledging SDG
indicator 4.5.18. Earlier MICS only gathered information on the first language of the household head, so this is
positive development in terms of data disaggregation. Table 5 below shows the key MICS questions (FL7-FL10)
on the language issue.

Table 5. An excerpt from UNICEF’s MICS Questionnaire for Children Age 5-17. (Source: UNICEF, 2017)
FL7. Which language do you speak most of the time at home?
Probe if necessary and read the listed languages.
FL8. Check CB7: During the current school year did the child attend school or preschool at any time?
CHECK ED9 IN THE EDUCATION MODULE IN THE HOUSEHOLD QUESTIONNAIRE FOR CHILD IF CB7 WAS NOT ASKED.
FL8A. Check FL7: Is READING & NUMBER BOOK available in the language spoken at home?
FL9. What language does your teachers use most of the time when teaching you in class?
Probe if necessary and name the listed languages.
FL10A. Now I am going to give you a short story to read in (Language recorded in FL9). Would you like to start
reading the story?
FL10B. Now I am going to give you a short story to read in (Language recorded in FL7). Would you like to start
reading the story?

15
The questions on languages in MICS may be useful in the collection of relevant data for indicator 4.5.18. The
assessment aspect on questions FL10A and FL10B are a good way to operationalise data collection. However,
texts in many of the smaller languages in Southeast Asia are not readily available, and thus testing pupils’
proficiency in their assumed home language may not always be possible. Further, to collect good quality data
using these questions, the survey-takers need a good understanding of the linguistic situation of the region in
which they are working. Macrolanguages and alternate names of many languages may complicate systematic
identification of pupils’ first languages.

To help fine-tune data collection strategies, it may be useful to analyse two systems of assessment which have
already been successfully used in Viet Nam and Timor-Leste (Owen, 2015; UNESCO, 2015). Combining the
strongest points of these systems with MICS or UNESCO’s regional monitoring efforts may help operationalise
data collection and provide data of improved quality.

UNESCO (2015) lists a set of questions (see table 6) to help identify different ways languages are used in
multilingual education. Many Asian programme personnel have assessed their education programmes using
these categories, and the results are available on the UNESCO (2015) website. Categories 1 and 2 of this set
indicate the use of pupils’ first language as the language of instruction. This classification distinguishes categories
1 and 2 from categories 4, 5, and 6, which are sometimes mistakenly considered multilingual education which
includes the pupil’s first language as an LOI. Although detailed data on pilot projects in some countries, such as
Cambodia and Thailand, are available, the data are far from complete. This mapping project is based on inputs
from volunteers, and thus it is not a regular monitoring mechanism. Nonetheless, the biggest value of this effort
is the definitions of language use in classrooms, which other monitoring efforts could adopt.

Table 6. Different categories of using languages in the classroom (source: UNESCO, 2015).
1. Language of instruction (LOI) is the learners’ mother tongue (MT or L1) and their second language (L2).
2. Language of instruction is the mother tongue only.
3. The second language is officially the language of instruction.
4. Language of instruction is the second language with MT as subject.
5. Mother tongue is used orally, no written materials – officially.
6. Mother tongue is used orally, no written materials – unofficially.
7. Second language (L2) is taught as second language.
 Mother tongue or first language (L1) is seen as a language that a speaker (a) has learnt first; (b) identifies
with; (c) knows best; (d) uses most. Mother tongue is also called vernacular, native language, or home
language. It should be noted that bi- or multilingual people may consider several languages their mother
tongues.
 Second language (L2) is a language that is not the mother tongue of a person, but one that the speaker is
required to study or use. It may be a foreign language or a language of wider communication. A second
language may be a language that is not spoken in the immediate environment of the learner, or it may be
one widely spoken outside the home. For ethnolinguistic minorities, the second language usually is the
national or the official language, employed in contexts such as schools, interaction with government
agencies, or communication with other language groups.

The Timor-Leste survey discussed earlier (Owen, 2015) is a good example of school-level data collection. Table 7
below presents the set of questions used to determine pupils’ “strongest language”, which in most cases would
be one of the home languages of a child. As this set was used quite successfully in a nation-wide study, and over
8000 teachers successfully collected the data, these questions could be adapted to other contexts. If teachers
are used to collect language-related data, it is essential to provide sufficient training to them to ensure that they
fully understand the difference between the first language and the language of instruction.

16
Table 7. Guidelines for determining pupils’ “strongest language” in Timor-Leste (source: Owen, 2015: 13).
The language that student knew the best and could easily and readily use.
The language that the student spoke the most. (Often the language of the home, and the community)
Usually the language that the student learned first from their mother, father and family.
The language that the student knew best before they began school.
The strongest language is NOT a language that the student only began learning when they came to school.
The strongest language is NOT the student’s parent’s language if he/she did not grow up speaking this
language. (This often happens when parents are bilingual and move to a different area than where they grew
up. i.e. moving from the countryside to Dili)
Helpful questions for identifying the strongest language:
 What language does the student speak on the playground when playing with friends?
 What language does the student speak with parents?
 What language does the student use when they are very excited, angry, happy, or sad?
 What language does the student dream in?

Conclusion
This paper has shown that it is possible to accurately estimate the number of children with access to education
in their home or first language. However, much of the needed data are currently not available on most countries,
and therefore detailed regional analysis is not yet possible. The lack of data is not related only to the data on
language of instruction, but hinders the overall monitoring of SDG 4 (Montoya & Vedeler, 2017). This paper has
discussed examples of data collection on language of instruction, and those cases can help monitoring elsewhere.
To properly assess the language of instruction situation, it is important that attention is paid to at least the
following points.

The following pieces of data are required for the assessment of good quality on children’s access to first language
instruction:
 language policy (“theoretical” access)
 the actual use of pupils’ first languages as a language of instruction (“practical” access), as policies
supportive of the first language are not always implemented in all schools and regions
 language classification; the definition of language versus dialect/non-standard variety
 language populations of second language speakers of the national or official languages – the level of
bilingualism (some testing may be needed)
 language populations of L1-speakers of non-dominant languages
 language proficiency of students and teachers in all languages used for instruction

The most important point is to determine the pupils’ real first or home languages, i.e. the languages in which
they have the best chances to succeed in academic learning. Self-assessment of the child’s home languages is
straightforward in cases where language borders are clearly defined. However, in ethnically and linguistically
diverse contexts self-assessment may not always be sufficient. The issue is critically important when language
classification is contested or when the home language is a local variety of a macrolanguage. In some cases, a
“heritage language” or the parents’ first language may be listed as the child’s sole L1 due to ethnic identity (rather
than linguistic skills), even though the child may have better proficiency in a language of wider communication.
On the other hand, a child may say that he or she speaks, Chin, Chinese or Malay, for example, but as many
distinct language varieties are included under these generic terms, the actual oral variety of a language must be

17
determined. Sometimes it may even be necessary to have test-based assessment of the children’s proficiency in
their self-reported home language. Relying only on data acquired via self-assessment or the assessment of the
household head will likely provide inaccurate and unreliable figures.

Finally, it is essential to agree upon practical and sustainable means of data collection. Some case studies
discussed in this paper show that teachers, for example, can collect data on the language issues. Teachers could
also be trained to conduct tests on language proficiency. Additionally, international organisations such as
UNESCO and UNICEF as well as INGOs involved in educational development could encourage ministries of
education to add records on children’s language skills when the children are enrolled in early childhood
education or primary school. UNICEF’s (2012) study in Viet Nam and the World Bank study in Timor-Leste (Owen,
2015) discussed earlier provide insights into such successful school-level data collection.

18
References

ACDP (2014). Rural and remote area education strategic planning study for Tanah Papua, 2014. Jakarta:
Education Sector Analytical and Capacity Development Partnership. http://www.acdp-indonesia.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/08/ACDP039-RRA-Strategic-Planning-Study-for-Tanah-Papua-2014.pdf Accessed 21
February, 2017.

Aye, K.K., & Sercombe, P. (2014). Language, education and nation-building in Myanmar. In P. Sercombe, & R.
Tupas (Eds.), Language, education and nation-building: Assimilation and shift in Southeast Asia (pp. 148–164).
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Benson, C. (2016). Addressing language of instruction issues in education: Recommendations for documenting
progress. Background paper prepared for the 2016 Global Education Monitoring Report.
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002455/245575E.pdf Accessed 23 February, 2017.

Benson, C., & Kosonen, K. (2012). A critical comparison of language–in–education policy and practice in four
Southeast Asian countries and Ethiopia. In K. Heugh, & T. Skutnabb–Kangas (Eds.), Multilingual education and
sustainable diversity work: From periphery to center (pp. 111–137). New York: Routledge.

Cincotta-Segi, A. (2014). Language/ing in education. In P. Sercombe, & R. Tupas (Eds.), Language, education
and nation-building: Assimilation and shift in Southeast Asia (pp. 106–130). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Curaming, R.A., & Kalidjernih, F. (2014). From sentimentalism to pragmatism? Language-in-education policy-
making in Timor-Leste. In P. Sercombe, & R. Tupas (Eds.), Language, education and nation-building:
Assimilation and shift in Southeast Asia (pp. 68–86). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

David, M.K., & Govindasamy, S. (2007). The construction of national identity and globalization in multilingual
Malaysia. In A.B.M. Tsui, & In J.W. Tollefson (Eds.), Language policy, culture, and identity in Asian contexts (pp.
55-72). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Frewer, T. (2014). Diversity and ‘development’. In P. Sercombe, & R. Tupas (Eds.), Language, education and
nation-building: Assimilation and shift in Southeast Asia (pp. 45–67). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Fuadi, C. (2016). Bilingualism: The situation in Indonesia. Faculty of Applied Linguistics Program, Yogyakarta
State University. http://www.tukangterjemah.com/2016/04/bilingualism-situation-in-indonesia.html Accessed
21 March, 2017.

Gunigundo, M.T. (2013). Language and education policy developments in the Philippines. A plenary
presentation at the Fourth International Conference on Language and Education, Bangkok, 6-8 November
2013. http://www.lc.mahidol.ac.th/mleconf2013/PPTnNotes/Parallel%20Session%20III%20-
%20Policy%20Support%20for%20MLE%20-%20Final.pdf Accessed 20 February, 2017.

Kaplan, R.B., & Baldauf, R.B. (2003). Language and language-in-education planning in the Pacific Basin.
Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Kirkpatrick, A. (2012). English in ASEAN: Implications for regional multilingualism. Journal of Multilingual and
Multicultural Development, 33(4), 331-344.

19
Kosonen, K., & Person, K.R. (2014). Languages, identities and education in Thailand. In P. Sercombe, & R. Tupas
(Eds.), Language, education and nation-building: Assimilation and shift in Southeast Asia (pp. 200-231).
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Kosonen, K. (2017a). Cambodia. In A. Kirkpatrick & T. Liddicoat (Eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Language
Education Policy in Asia. Abingdon: Routledge.

Kosonen, K. (2017b). Language Policy and Education in Southeast Asia. In T. McCarty & S. May (Eds.) Language
Policy and Political Issues in Education (pp. 477-490), Chapter 35, Vol. 1 of S. May (Ed.) Encyclopaedia of
Language and Education, 3rd edition. New York: Springer. DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-02320-5_35-1

Kosonen, K. (2013). The use of non-dominant languages in education in Cambodia, Thailand and Vietnam: Two
steps forward, one step back. In C. Benson, & K. Kosonen (Eds.), Language issues in comparative education (pp.
39-58). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Kosonen, K. (2009). Language-in-education policies in Southeast Asia: An overview. In K. Kosonen, & C. Young
(Eds.), Mother tongue as bridge language of instruction: Policies and experiences in Southeast Asia (pp. 22-43).
Bangkok: SEAMEO.

Kosonen, K. (2005). Overview on the Use of Local Language in Education in South-East Asia. In First Language
First: Community-based Literacy Programmes for Minority Language Context in Asia (pp. 3-8). Bangkok:
UNESCO. (http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001402/140280e.pdf)

Lewis, M.P., G.F. Simons, & C.D. Fennig (eds.) (2016). Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Nineteenth edition.
Dallas, Texas: SIL International. Online version: http://www.ethnologue.com Accessed 20 January, 2017

Martin, P. (2008). Educational discourses and literacy in Brunei Darussalam. International Journal of Bilingual
Education and Bilingualism 11(2), 206–225.

Martin, R. (2011). Education in Myanmar: Opportunity for limited engagement. In C. Brock, & L.P. Symaco,
(Eds.), Education in South–East Asia (pp. 121–137). Oxford: Symposium Books.

Metila, R.A., Pradilla, L.A., & Williams, A.B. (2016). The challenge of implementing mother tongue education in
linguistically diverse contexts: The case of the Philippines. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher 25(5), 781-
789. DOI: 10.1007/s40299-016-0310-5

Montoya, S. & Vedeler, D. (2017). Everything is in place to track global progress on education: Except the data.
Blog, 29 June, 2017. UNESCO Institute for Statistics. http://uis.unesco.org/en/blog/everything-place-track-
global-progress-education-except-data Accessed 11 July, 2017.

Musgrave, S. (2014). Language shift and language maintenance in Indonesia. In P. Sercombe, & R. Tupas (Eds.),
Language, education and nation-building: Assimilation and shift in Southeast Asia (pp. 87–105). Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.

Owen, J.E. II (2015). Timor Leste Classroom Language Mapping Preschool to Grade 6. Ministério da Educação,
República Democrática de Timor-Leste. July 2015, SIL International. Unpublished project report.

20
Phan, L.H., Vu, H.H., & Bao, D. (2014). Language policies in modern-day Vietnam. In P. Sercombe, & R. Tupas
(Eds.), Language, education and nation-building: Assimilation and shift in Southeast Asia (pp. 232–244).
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Pepinsky, T. (2014). Indonesian, the Language Killer. https://tompepinsky.com/2014/01/29/indonesian-the-

language-killer/ Accessed 21 April, 2017.

Pradilla, L.A., Metila, R.A., & Williams, A.B. (2017). Determining how mother tongue-based multilingual
education (MTB-MLE) shapes student learning outcomes: A look at the critical role of the medium of instruction.
A paper presented at the 11th International Symposium on Bilingualism, 11-15 June, 2017, Limerick, Ireland.

Pinnock, H. (2009). Language and education: the missing link. How the language used in schools threatens the
achievement of Education for All. London, UK, CfBT Education Trust and Save the Children Alliance.

Sercombe, P. (2014). Brunei Darussalam. In P. Sercombe, & R. Tupas (Eds.), Language, education and nation-
building: Assimilation and shift in Southeast Asia (pp. 22–44). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Sercombe, P., & Tupas R. (Eds.) (2014). Language, education and nation-building: Assimilation and shift in
Southeast Asia. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Sun, N. (2009). Education policies for ethnic minorities in Cambodia. In K. Kosonen, & C. Young, (Eds.). Mother
tongue as bridge language of instruction: policies and experiences in Southeast Asia (pp. 62-68). Bangkok:
SEAMEO.

Taylor-Leech, K. (2013). Finding space for non-dominant languages in education: language policy and medium
of instruction in Timor-Leste 2000–2012. Current Issues in Language Planning 14(1), 109-126.

Taylor-Leech, K. (2017). Building bridges through multilingual schooling: a mother-tongue pilot in East Timor is
showing the way. http://www.languageonthemove.com/building-bridges-through-multilingual-schooling-a-
mother-tongue-pilot-in-east-timor-is-showing-the-way/ Accessed 21 April, 2017.

Timor-Leste (2015). Population and Housing Census 2015. Government of Timor-Leste.

http://www.statistics.gov.tl/

Ton Sa Im & Noorlander, J. (2016). Cambodian Multilingual Education System Teacher Education. A paper
presented at 5th International Conference on Language and Education: Sustainable Development through
Multilingual Education, 19-21 October 2016, Bangkok, Thailand.

http://www.lc.mahidol.ac.th/mleconf/2016/Documents/PresentedFiles/Plenary%20II%20-
%20Ton%20Sa%20Im%20and%20Jan%20Noorlander.pdf Accessed 21 February, 2017.

Tupas, R., & Lorente, B.P. (2014). A ‘new’ politics of language in the Philippines. In P. Sercombe, & R. Tupas
(Eds.), Language, education and nation-building: Assimilation and shift in Southeast Asia (pp. 165–180).
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

UIS (2016a). Country readiness to monitor SDG 4 education targets: Regional survey for the Asia and Pacific
region. Information paper no. 31, September 2016. Montreal: UNESCO Institute for Statistics.
http://dx.doi.org/10.15220/978-92-9189-202-0-en Accessed 21 May, 2017.

21
UIS (2016b). Metadata for the thematic indicators for the follow-up and review of SDG 4 and Education 2030,
October 2016. Montreal: UNESCO Institute for Statistics.
http://www.uis.unesco.org/Education/Documents/eatlas-sdg-metadata-matrix-en.pdf Accessed 21 May, 2017.

UNESCO (2015). Mapping of classroom language practices. Bangkok: Asia Multilingual Education Working
Group. http://www.unescobkk.org/education/multilingual–education/mle–mapping–data Accessed 21 May,
2017.

UNICEF (2017). MICS Questionnaire for Children Age 5-17 (15 February 2017). UNICEF.
http://mics.unicef.org/tools Accessed 21 February, 2017.

UNICEF (2012). Lao Cai primary classroom language profile. Hanoi: UNICEF, Lao Cai DOET, MOET & SIL
International. http://www.unicef.org/vietnam/Lao_Cai_mapping_profile_set.pdf Accessed 18 May, 2017.

Walter, S. L. & Benson, C. (2012). Language Policy and Medium of Instruction in Formal Education. In Spolsky, B.
(ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Language Policy. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 278-300.

Walter, S. (2009). Language as a variable in primary education. Arlington, TX: SIL International. Unpublished.

Walter, S. (2008). The language of instruction issue: Framing an empirical perspective. In B. Spolsky & F. Hult
(eds.), The handbook of educational linguistics, 129–145. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Wang, Xiaomei (2017). The management of Chinese identity through language planning in Malaysian Chinese
schools. A paper presented at the 11th International Symposium on Bilingualism, 11-15 June, 2017, Limerick,
Ireland.

Watson, K. (2011). Education and language policies in South-East Asian countries. In C. Brock, & L.P. Symaco,
(Eds.), Education in South–East Asia (pp. 283–304). Oxford: Symposium Books.

Wee, L. (2014). The minoritization of languages in Singapore. In P. Sercombe, & R. Tupas (Eds.), Language,
education and nation-building: Assimilation and shift in Southeast Asia (pp. 181–199). Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.

Yano, S. (2015). Integrating Education 2030 in education planning at country level: Identifying and meeting the
capacity development challenges. A paper presented at the Asia-Pacific Meeting on Education 2030
(APMED2030), 25-27 November, 2015, Bangkok, Thailand.
http://www.unescobkk.org/fileadmin/user_upload/efa/APMED2030_PPTs/APMED2030_Session_12_SYano.pd
f Accessed 18 June, 2017.

22