Promoting Local Languages in Ugandan Primary Schools: The Community as Stakeholder
Abstract
The community is an important stakeholder in language education, and community views are critical for the successful implementation of new language policies. This article reports on a study on multilingual language policies conducted in two primary schools in two communities in eastern Uganda, one rural and one urban, from 2005 through 2006. The study focused on community responses to the new language education policy, which promotes the teaching of local languages in the first four years of schooling, using questionnaires, individual interviews, and focus-group discussions to collect data from the two communities, each linked to a local primary school. The findings show that in both communities, although participants were generally aware of the new local-language policy, they were ambivalent about its implementation in their school. They recognized the importance of local languages in promoting identity and cultural maintenance, but a higher priority was their children's upward mobility and the desire to be part of wider and more international communities. Further, while area languages such as Luganda and regional languages such as Kiswahili were perceived to have some benefits as languages of wider communication, it was English that received unequivocal support from both communities. The study concludes that parents and communities need to be better informed about the pedagogical advantages of instruction in the local language and that communities need convincing evidence t…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
When students and teachers acquired valued digital skills, their cultural capital and social power grew.
“While Norton and her colleagues do not suggest that what is socially imaginable is also socially available in the African context, it was clear that as students and teachers developed valued digital skills, they also gained increasing cultural capital and social power.”
From Identity and a Model of Investment in Applied Linguistics (2015) · cites this paper as Tembe & Norton, 2008
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 71 · Cited by 57
- Authors
- Tembe, J., & Norton, B.
- ORCID
- Norton, Bonny
- Venue
- The Canadian Modern Language Review
- Published
- 2008-09
- Volume
- 65
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 33-60
- ISSN
- 0008-4506 (ISSN-L)
- 1710-1131
- OpenAlex
- W1992785931
- Cited by
- 57
- References
- 71
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 7 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 13.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Canadian Modern Language Review/ La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes (publishedVersion)
- Project Muse (Johns Hopkins University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Multilingual Education and Policy
- Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Linguistic and Sociocultural Studies
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Second Language Learning and Teaching
- Keywords
- local language education, community stakeholder perspectives, elementary school, Luganda, Swahili language, English-medium instruction, cultural identity, global citizenship, language policy implementation, Uganda
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review