Petition to the Office of the Clerk
National Assembly
New Assembly Building
Banjul

Subject: Call for Transparency and Inclusivity in the Selection of National Languages for the MEISS Pilot Project

To:

Office of the Clerk
National Assembly
New Assembly Building
Banjul

CC:

The Honourable Minister
Ministry of Basic and Secondary Education (MoBSE)
The Gambia

 

From: Concern Citizens

 

Date: 25−02−2025

Petition for a Fair and Transparent Approach to National Language Selection in the MEISS Pilot Project

We, the undersigned, write to express our deep concern regarding the exclusive selection of Wolof as the sole national language for the Mainstream Effective Intervention Strategies in Schools (MEISS) pilot project. While we acknowledge MoBSE’s recent attempt to justify this decision, the explanations provided raise more questions than they answer.

Key Concerns and Requests for Clarification

1. Justification for the Exclusive Selection of Wolof

MoBSE has stated that the World Bank supported the pilot of one national language and that Wolof was chosen based on its dominance in the selected regions and the availability of pedagogical resources through a partnership with the Senegal-based organization Associates for Research, Education, and Development (ARED).

However, the official School Language Mapping Report (2024) contradicts this claim:

Mandinka (239 schools) and Pulaar (173 schools) are the most widely spoken languages in Gambian schools, with Wolof ranking third (146 schools).

The same report confirms that Mandinka has the highest availability of teaching materials (881 confirmations), followed by Pulaar (587), and then Wolof (431).

Given this data, why was Mandinka, the most widely spoken language in schools, not included in the first phase? If availability of teaching materials was the main criterion, why was Pulaar, which has significant resources through ARED, not considered?

2. Contradictions in MoBSE’s Justifications

MoBSE claims that Wolof materials were already available in The Gambia. However, reports have it that MoBSE conducted a study tour to Senegal, acquired materials there, and brought in Senegalese trainers to train Gambian educators. This suggests that efforts were made only after Wolof was chosen, raising the question:

Why was this level of effort not extended to other national languages like Mandinka, Pulaar, or Jola?

Why were existing Gambian-developed materials in these languages not used instead of importing materials from Senegal?

Furthermore, if Wolof materials were primarily acquired through ARED, it is important to note that ARED’s focus is on Pulaar and other Senegalese languages, with Wolof being a secondary area of work. This further raises doubts about the rationale behind prioritizing Wolof over Pulaar.

3. Stakeholder Consultation: Lack of Transparency

MoBSE states that Wolof was selected after consulting stakeholders. However, no evidence has been provided regarding:

Which stakeholders were consulted?

Were teachers, students, parents, and school administrators meaningfully engaged in the decision?

Did these consultations reflect the actual language preferences and needs of Gambian communities?

Available data suggests that most educational stakeholders favor Mandinka and Pulaar due to their dominance in Gambian schools. Were their views disregarded in favor of an ideological preference for Wolof?

4. Scientific Validity: Can a Wolof-Only Pilot Be Generalized?

MoBSE asserts that other national languages will be introduced in future phases. However, the decision to pilot only Wolof in Regions 1, 2, 3, and 5 while delaying Mandinka and Pulaar to later phases lacks scientific credibility.

How can the effectiveness of national language instruction be evaluated fairly if only one language is tested?

Why was Region 4 (Lower River Region), where Mandinka is dominant, entirely excluded from all phases?

Why were Mandinka materials from Casamance (which have been successfully used in Senegal’s literacy programs) not considered, when Wolof materials from Senegal were used?

A fair and transparent approach would have involved piloting multiple languages simultaneously in different regions to allow for meaningful comparisons.

5. Limitations of the School Language Mapping Report (2024)

MoBSE has stated that the 2023 school language mapping results are not generalizable beyond the 617 schools studied. However, the methodology of this report fails to capture the full linguistic landscape:

In Region 1, children often speak Wolof due to social pressure, rather than it being their mother tongue.

The study did not pay more attention on the children’s oral comprehension in their ethnic languages, which would provide a more accurate representation of language competency.

Thus, the findings should not have been used as the sole basis for language selection in the MEISS pilot project.

Recommendations for a More Inclusive Approach

In light of the above concerns, we urge MoBSE to take the following actions:

1. Immediate Review of the MEISS Pilot Project:

Conduct an independent review of the decision-making process behind the exclusive selection of Wolof.

Provide a transparent report on the criteria used and the justification for excluding Mandinka and Pulaar.

 

2. Incorporation of Multiple National Languages in the Pilot Phase:

Expand the pilot to include Mandinka and Pulaar in Regions 1, 2, and 3 alongside Wolof.

Develop a comparative study of language impact, rather than relying on a single-language pilot.

 

3. Utilization of Existing Gambian Resources:

Prioritize locally developed materials in Mandinka, Pulaar, and Jola rather than relying on imported materials from Senegal.

Invest in indigenous writing systems like N’Ko and Adlam to strengthen grassroots literacy initiatives.

 

4. Transparent and Inclusive Stakeholder Consultation:

MoBSE must publish details of its stakeholder engagement process.

Conduct new consultations with teachers, students, parents, and local education experts to reassess language selection criteria.

 

Conclusion: A Call for Equity and Scientific Rigor

We believe in the importance of integrating Gambian national languages into the education system. However, this process must be fair, transparent, and evidence-based. The exclusive selection of Wolof—without scientific justification, broad stakeholder engagement, or consideration for existing resources in Mandinka and Pulaar—raises serious concerns about the integrity of the MEISS pilot project.

We urge MoBSE to take immediate corrective actions to ensure that language policy decisions reflect the true linguistic realities of The Gambia.

We respectfully request a formal response from the Ministry, particularly from Mr. Momodou Jeng, Director of the Curriculum, Research, and Development Directorate.

We remain committed to advocating for an inclusive, transparent, and scientifically sound approach to national language education in The Gambia.

Reflections on the MoBSE Officials’ Appearance on Kerr Fatou on tje 20/03/2025

Dr Alieu Manjang

The recent appearance of Mr. Momodou Jeng, Director of Curriculum and Mr. Sanyang from the Ministry of Basic and Secondary Education (MoBSE) on Kerr Fatou to elaborate on their justification for selecting Wolof for the national language pilot project raises significant concerns. While their discussion of the broader national language policy—teaching all subjects in national languages from Early Childhood Development (ECD) to Grade 3 and offering them as subjects beyond Grade 4—is a welcome development, the manner in which this policy has been formulated and implemented is problematic.

A major issue is the lack of public awareness and consultation. Even cabinet ministers and National Assembly members appeared unaware of the policy and its pilot phase until it became a subject of public criticism. This exposes a fundamental flaw in decision-making, as language policy is deeply intertwined with ideological, cultural, and identity politics. Given its implications on issues such as hegemony, domination, and power relations, especially in Africa, where language is closely tied to ethnic identity, the exclusion of political input from the formulation of this policy has rendered it controversial. Proper political alignment could have mitigated the ongoing controversy.

Despite the controversy being fueled by the exclusive selection of Wolof for the pilot project, the topic was largely ignored throughout the show. It was only addressed at the 59th minute when Mr. Jeng attempted an unclear and inconsistent justification for Wolof’s selection. His rationale evolved multiple times, each explanation raising further concerns. Initially, he stated that implementing an effective language policy required monitoring, material development, and teacher training, which necessitated selecting one language to start with, while the remaining languages were assigned to a consultant. However, he neither explicitly named Wolof as the chosen language nor disclosed which languages were handed to the consultant. More troubling was the absence of any mention of the consultant’s identity, leaving the public uncertain whether such a consultant exists.

The only moment Wolof was explicitly acknowledged as the selected language was when Mrs. Fatou Bin Jobe referred to it as the "Wolof project." Jeng’s justification for excluding Mandinka and Fula—the first and second most widely spoken languages in schools—was equally questionable. He argued that for a language to be used in education, it must be standardized, codified, and have a structured writing system, including dictionaries and handbooks. This implied that other languages, including Mandinka, lacked such resources, a claim that is demonstrably false.
Honorable Sidia Jatta, a linguist who has dedicated his career to developing Mandinka, was present on the show and could have easily refuted these claims. A wealth of materials exists in Mandinka, including:
•    Elementary Mandinka Sentence Book (1955)
•    Intermediate Gambian Mandinka-English Dictionary by David P. Gamble (1987)
•    English-Mandinka Dictionary by Muhammad I. Ashrif (1965)
•    A Defined Orthography for Gambian Mandinka by the Curriculum Development Center (1979)
•    A Grammar of Gambian Mandinka by E.C. Rowlands (1959)
•    A Short Study of the Western Mandinka Language by W T Hamlyn (1935), 
•    A Grammer of Gambian Mandinka by EC Rowlands ( 1959)
•     Toward a Defined Orthography for Gambian Mandinka by Sidia S Jatta (1977), 
•    A Grammar of the Mandingo Language with Vocabularies by Maxwell Macbrair (1891) 

These and tens of grammar, dictionaries, and manuals for teaching Mandinka have been developed by the Peace Corps since the 1970s, and the most recent one was developed in 2014. Other indigenous efforts also proved the codification of Mandinka, including books by Kitabu Jabang, who wrote more than 20 books and whose knowledge was sought by the Ministry alongside Sidia Jatta.

While some might argue that these materials are meant to be adult learning materials, it refuted the claim made by Mr Jeng that other languages are not standardised and codified compared to the Wolof language. All these books prove the establishment of standard Mandinka, which is formalised through its nouns, including grammar, spelling, and pronunciation, through dictionaries, grammar books and usage guides. More recent Mandinka use in formal schools includes logographic, syllabic and alphabetical uses. MoBSE itself confirmed the availability of Mandinka materials as reflected in answer given by teachers in the school languages mapping survey conducted by the ministry as teachers 881 teachers confirmed the availability Mandinka materials compared to 587 in fula and 431 in Wolof, however Mr Jeng alleged that he and Mr Sanyang confirmed that this not the case during their tour of 100 school.

 Nevertheless in Senegal as part their efforts to improve reading and writing skills in schools, Senegalese Ministry of National education in partnership with USAID produced Mandinka materials including phonetic, teaching manual for teachers the Initial Reading Enhancement Program for All to teach students from ECD to grade three which is currently being taught in Mandinka dominated regions including in Tambacounda. Thus, this confirmed not only the availability of material in Mandinka in the Gambia but also in the Senegal where Mr Jeng and team show the need to adopt Wolof language not Mandinka or Fula despite the availability of materials in the country as confirmed by Mr Jeng himself and our research as we already have such materials which we shared with teachers in the ongoing Wolof project who confirmed that similar materials are used for Wolof. More importantly, Sidia Jatta confirmed during the program that the African Language Academy has materials in Mande (which he explained include Jula, Mandinka, Bambara, and Malinke). Now the question is why Mr Jeng and the team need to adopt Wolof materials beyond Gambia, not Mandinka, which is more developed within the country. 

Moreover, the Roman alphabet is inadequate for certain African languages, including Mandinka, which has seen significant advancements through the N’ko (ߒߞߏ ) script. This script has been successfully codified and standardized, making it as viable as English, French, or Arabic for formal education. More than six N’ko schools are being operated across the Gambia by communities and N’ko associations. Thus, if technical considerations such as materials and orthography were decisive factors, Mandinka should have been prioritized.

It is worth mentioning that technical considerations do not determine a language to be chosen among many. According to sociolinguists, in a multilingual context, a language rooted in the nation's history and the conscience of the people of the nation is used to reflect the roots and identity of society. Thus, the issue of materials or cost, as well as other technicalities of a particular language, is secondary in the presence of political will, which can guide the allocation of resources towards the codification and standardisation of language to be taught. Honorable Sidia has alluded to this during the show by citing the example of Somalia, where former President Mohammed Siad Barre ordered that the Somali language be chosen among the other three languages as an official language for a specific period in the 1970s. Honorable Jatta also cited the examples of Rwanda, which has recently adopted Kiswahili to reflect the political will of the leadership to determine the national language. Thus, it is unfortunate that the national language issue in The Gambia is left with technocrats to decide, who are insensitive to the political implications of their decision.

Beyond Wolof's choice, other critical issues remain unaddressed. Why was Wolof chosen to be piloted in four regions in the first phase, despite being only the third most dominant language in schools? Why were Mandinka and Fula relegated to a later phase with Sarahule in regions 5 and 6? Why was the Lower River Region (LRR) entirely excluded from the pilot? Additionally, MoBSE representatives failed to specify the timeline for nationwide implementation or the sustainability of the project beyond its pilot phase. Given that the RISE initiative, through which MISS is funded, is set to phase out in 2029, there is real concern that the project may never extend beyond Wolof.

In sum, Mr. Jeng and his team's explanations raise more questions than they answer. The lack of transparency, inconsistent justifications, and exclusion of critical stakeholders from the decision-making process suggest that the selection of Wolof may have been influenced by factors beyond those publicly stated. If the government is serious about developing a fair and effective national language policy, it must ensure inclusivity, transparency, and alignment with both technical and political considerations.

Concerns About MoBSE’s Operationalization of Language One ( L1)

Dr Alieu MANJANG

During the discussion, it became evident that MoBSE lacks a clear and consistent definition of what constitutes L1, leading to confusion in its application. Sidia describes L1 as the students' natural language, while Mr. Jeng defines it as the language children use at home and in school. In contrast, Mr. Sanyang interprets it as the language the teacher understands at home. This inconsistency extends to the methodology of the school language mapping survey, where terms such as language practice, language preference, language choice, and language comfort are used interchangeably to describe what is referred to as the "national language" in schools.

A critical question remains: To what extent should a student's L1 be defined as the language they speak within the school environment, given that prevailing language ideologies often pressure students to use a particular language for social acceptance, to fit into the community, or to avoid negative judgment from their peers? Moreover, how should students’ language choices in school be interpreted as an indicator of their language comfort?

Notably, MoBSE avoids using the term "mother tongue," which is the standard measure for quantifying language speakers for educational purposes. This omission raises serious concerns, particularly in urban areas where students' linguistic behavior in classrooms, schools, and public spaces does not necessarily reflect their L1. Linguistically, L1 is traditionally understood as the language a child is exposed to from birth and acquires within the critical period of language development—often referred to as the native language or mother tongue in academic literature. However, MoBSE's conceptualization, as presented by Mr. Jeng and Mr. Sanyang, diverges significantly from this standard definition.

This discrepancy calls into question the internal validity of MoBSE’s school language mapping survey, particularly in Region One i.e. Banjul and KMC. The survey results indicate that 21 out of 24 schools in this region are Wolof-dominated, based on students’ language use in school interactions. However, MoBSE has categorized this as their L1, which then serves as the basis for introducing Wolof as the primary language of instruction in all schools across Banjul and KMC.

Furthermore, the small sample size undermines the external validity of the survey results. While 617 schools were surveyed, the methodology included only students from grades 1 to 3, with just six students per school tested for language comprehension and only three parents surveyed per school. In total, 11,000 observations were recorded. However, given that the total student population stands at 285,000, this sample size is too small to yield generalizable conclusions about language use and proficiency across the region.

Signed: Concern Citizens