CHAPTER SIX: Discussion and Conclusion

A major underlying assumption in Samdhong Rinpoche's proposal for change of language of instruction in Tibetan schools is that it will lead to improvement of the educational achievement of Tibetan students (Appendix A). I will use what we have learned in the previous chapter to examine whether the Tibetanization Program may help in enhancing the educational achievement of Tibetan students in India.

In Chapter Five, we found that research studies on bilingual education in the United States were inconclusive about the effect of native language instruction on the academic achievement of minority language children. Some studies found that native language instruction for minority language children not only led to the enhancement of their English language skills but also of their general academic performance when compared to students instructed in English only (Rosier & Farella, 1976; Willig, 1985; Ramirez et al., 1991; Genesee, 1985). However, Baker and de Kanter's study (1983) concluded that the effectiveness of the Transitional Bilingual Education (TBE) is questionable. Moreover, we found that the main purpose of the bilingual education in the United States has been that of assimilating the minority language children into the mainstream English-speaking culture. Based on the bilingual education in the United States, it is difficult to conclude the effects of native language instruction for Tibetan students in India, even though both the cases ask the same question, Should the students be taught in their native language in an educational environment which predominantly favors English as the instructional language. The success of the Canadian Immersion Programs can not be appropriately used to suggest that native language instruction in Tibetan schools in India would lead to improvement of educational standards, primarily because the Canadian and Tibetan situation differ so much. In the Canadian case, the majority-language-speaking students are taught in a second language; in the Tibetan case, the student's first language is suggested as the language of instruction.

The experiences of educational programs involving three languages (Swain & Lapkin, 1991) may be quite relevant to the discussion of the Tibetanization Program. As discussed earlier, the Tibetan schools in India are required to implement India's educational policy of the Three-Language Formula. The consensus of these three studies was that it is possible to have a successful trilingual educational environment, contrary to a popular belief that a heavy language load in school curriculum would impede student's educational achievement. The studies done by Swain & Lapkin (1991) involve the use of a second language as the language of instruction in the early grade levels. Based on these studies, Rinpoche's assumption that the use of Tibetan as the language of instruction in Tibetan schools (as opposed to the use of English as the language of instruction) would lead to improvement in student's educational achievement is questionable.

The question on whether or not native language instruction for Tibetan students in India would help them attain better educational achievement is incomplete without asking: In what context are they to show a better educational achievement? From the discussions in chapters two, three, and four we realize that the choice of language of instruction in Tibetan schools can not be satisfactorily addressed without considering social, economic, and political factors influencing the functioning of these schools. In the following sections, we will analyze these factors in order to determine the feasibility of the proposal for change of language of instruction in Tibetan schools even if it were true that this change would lead to an improvement in the educational standards in Tibetan schools. Before we do this, we will look into some of the arguments for and against this change.

What may be some major reasons for Advocating the use of Tibetan as the Language of Instruction in Tibetan Schools? What are the strengths and weaknesses of this implementation?

Most of the arguments for and against native language instruction that we discussed in the previous chapter may be applicable to the Tibetan case as well. In the following sections we will discuss some of the major reasons for advocating the use of Tibetan as the language of instruction in Tibetan schools in India.

Strengths:
Better Educational Achievement

As discussed in the previous section, the major reasons for advocating the use of Tibetan, as the language of instruction in Tibetan schools is based on the assumption that teaching Tibetan students in Tibetan language would effectively remedy the perceived decline in the educational standards in Tibetan schools as implied in Rinpoche's paper (Appendix A). As we discussed in Chapter Five, in the United States, the advocates of native language instruction for LEP/minority language children use a similar reason: LEP/minority language children would show better academic performance if they are taught in their native languages. However, we have seen that research studies in the United States are inconclusive about the effect of native language instruction on academic achievement of LEP/minority language children.

The question as to whether Tibetan schools would show an improvement in their educational standards with the use of Tibetan as the language of instruction could actually be considered a premature one. This is because English has been the language of instruction prior to the mid-1970s when the Tibetan schools were considered performing satisfactorily. Assuming Rinpoche's claim that there has been a decline in the educational standards in Tibetan schools since that period is true, then the question is: Is it a valid assumption that the use of English has caused this decline in educational standards? Most probably, not. If the Tibetan students during the period, prior to the mid-1970s achieved academic success within the English-based educational environment, one is tempted to ask: Why wouldn't it be possible for the later Tibetan students to have similar success? It could be further argued that the perceived decline in the educational standards in Tibetan schools itself may be mistaken because there has not been any study done to validate the truth of it.

Maintenance of Language and Culture

Rinpoche's paper clearly mentions that a major goal and purpose of education for Tibetans in India is to enable them to maintain their language and culture. It is not to argue about the worthiness of this goal for the Tibetans in India. If the trends of language maintenance, by generations of immigrant populations in the United States (Porter, 1990) is generalizable for other immigrant populations around the world, then I am tempted to conclude that by the third generation of Tibetans in India, they would have shifted to the majority language of their host country, inspite of making rigorous attempts to maintain their native language through schooling. Unfortunately, this trend seems to be operating well for the Tibetans in India and elsewhere in exile. Tibetan families in India and elsewhere in exile realize this grave situation of the loss of heritage language, and are making concerted efforts in encountering this surmounting task. For example, de Voe (1987) says: Many Tibetans settled in Europe and North America are concerned about the loss of fluency in Tibetans among their younger children and devise methods to insure its use . . .. The Tibetan government-in-exile recently reached a consensus that Tibetan orphans would no longer be eligible for adoption by Western families until they were old enough to have had a firm Tibetan upbringing. (p. 61)

It is the fear of the loss of the heritage language and culture that seems to have actually motivated the proposal for change of language of instruction in Tibetan schools in India.

Political Motivation

The cause of Tibetans living outside Tibet is the occupation of their country by the People's Republic of China (PRC) in 1959. And the choice of Tibetans in India to remain stateless is primarily due to the fact that they anticipate a peaceful solution to their problems with PRC, which would ultimately enable them to re-establish a free Tibet.

A primary reason for establishing separate schools for Tibetans in India is, therefore, to inculcate a sense of Tibetan nationalism in them and train them to reconstruct their nation. Furthermore, the Tibetan community in India is the nucleus of Tibetan independence movement in exile under the leadership of the Dalai Lama. It is an unquestioned responsibility of this community to outline plans for the reconstruction process in a future independent Tibet. Education has been given the utmost importance in fulfilling this responsibility. An education through the Tibetan language is considered the most appropriate choice for the Tibetans in India, which could be later used as the model for an education system in a free Tibet. This is one argument used to advocate the use of Tibetan as the language of instruction in Tibetan schools in India. It is often thought that the legitimization of Tibetan as the national language of a free Tibet would make Tibet comparable to most free nations on earth which have their own national languages.

An analysis of the motivation for implementing the Tibetanization Program shows that it does not address the decline in educational achievement of Tibetan students. The debate on the choice of language in Tibetan schools is rather motivated by the political nature of the Tibetan independence movement in exile that sees education more as an instrument for maintaining Tibetan language and perpetuation of Tibetan nationalism than a means of successful life in India. How Feasible is the Implementation of the Tibetanization Program in the Present Situation of Tibetans in India?

We have analyzed the primary assumption for the proposed change of language of instruction in Tibetan schools in India: Teaching Tibetan students in Tibetan language would help them improve their educational achievement. Assuming that Tibetanization is valid and true, then the question would be: How feasible is its implementation in the present context of Tibetan life in India? We examine some factors pertinent to the discussion of the implementation of the Tibetanization Program.

Social Factors

The over 100,000 Tibetans in India are a tiny linguistic minority in a multicultural, multilingual country that has the second largest population (982,520,000) in the world. Census/population, 1998) The Tibetan language is one among approximately 400 different languages used throughout India (Sridhar, 1991). We have seen in Chapter Four that although only one percent of India's total population have linguistic ability in English (Aggarwal, 1991), English language is still the preferred language of instruction in the country's educational system.

We have found that despite the constitutional promises for providing government assistance to minority language groups in India for maintenance of their native languages, Hindi is being legitimized as the national language (Article 350 A in Government of India, 1984). Although English is designated as country's associate official language, it is still the most influential of all the languages used. In such a situation where the acquisition of English language skills is a necessary condition for success in life, Tibetans would have to take drastic measures to escape from this social reality. They might follow Porter's (1990) suggestion: Community members must take . . . strong measures if they are serious about keeping the language and the ethnic characters intact. Such efforts are very difficult to carry out, it seems, unless, the community closes itself off from outside influences as much as possible. (p. 176) Porter (1990) further mentions that self-segregatory religious communities that are also economically self-sufficient and have their own schools may succeed in accomplishing such a task (e.g., the Hasidic Jews in New York and the Amish in Pennsylvania).

The relative success of the Tibetan community in India in maintaining their language and culture over the past 40 years in exile may be due to the community's apparent isolation from the mainstream Indian life. But now, the community is increasingly drawn into extensive social, economic, and political contacts with people outside their community. It is, therefore, imaginable that the acquisition of Tibetan language skills alone is not sufficient and it is in fact necessary to acquire very good skills in English, Hindi and may be even other languages.

Weaknesses

The implementation of Tibetan as the language of instruction in Tibetan schools, without proper consideration for development of necessary skills in other languages, may

1. alienate Tibetan students from opportunities for successes in an English-dominated environment, and
2. retard the growing contacts between the Tibetan community and the outside world.

Speaking of the importance of community support for educational innovations in schools, we could learn from the failure of bilingual education programs in the central Australian schools which, according to Folds (1989), was not due to the difficulties with their implementations, but due to lack of support from the community. Folds mentioned that the community was forced by the prevailing economic demands to prefer regular only-English education for their children to the bilingual education programs.

Turning to the Tibetan case, we could ask then: Will the Tibetan community support the use of Tibetan as the language of instruction? To ascertain the general opinion of the Tibetan community on this proposed change a number of 110 recent (1992-95) Tibetan immigrants, living in Northern California, at Berkeley, were surveyed in December, 1998. Table 6.1 for the survey results may be noted .

On the basis of opinions of the survey respondents, who represent the general opinion of the larger Tibetan community in India, it can be concluded that there is a general agreement on the decline in the educational standards of Tibetan schools in India, but the decline is not caused by the continued use of English, as the language of instruction.

Although many community members believe in the positive educational effects of teaching Tibetan students in their native language, they are divided on their views on the feasibility of such an innovation under the present circumstances. Lastly, it is interesting to note that although many of the community members believe that their children would have a better future with an education received in English, they would not choose to send them to English-medium schools. Why would Tibetan parents choose not to send their children to English-medium schools? It may be because their priorities for their children rest more on issues of preserving and maintaining Tibetan language and culture, which they believe Tibetan schools are most capable of delivering.

Economic Factors

There are two main economic dimensions to implementing the proposed change of language of instruction in Tibetan schools in India. Firstly, Tibetan students have to encounter the economic demands from their host country. We have to ask; Will the change in language of instruction in Tibetan schools improve the chances of Tibetan students to effectively participate in the economic activities within India? It can be gleaned from the discussion in the previous section that active participation in major economic activities in India predominantly requires a high proficiency in English and languages other than Tibetan. The change in the language of instruction in Tibetan schools would presumably limit acquisition of language skills to maintain Tibetan language (which actually would have been the case as suggested by Porter, 1991), and Tibetan students are likely to graduate from their schools without sufficient knowledge of the language, in which major financial and economic activities are carried out in India. If Tibetan students were not equipped to achieve economic success in India, it would entail that they would fail to succeed educationally and politically too.

Secondly, the process of implementing the proposed change of language of instruction in Tibetan schools demands that the available funds for education of Tibetan children in India be diverted into facilitating the change. The Tibetan community and the Tibetan Administration presently do not have the financial strength to support the Tibetan schools in India. As discussed in Chapter Three, more than fifty percent of the Tibetan schools are financed by the government of India and the remaining schools are mostly financed through donations received from foreign philanthropic individuals and organizations. We also understand that more than 3,000 school-age Tibetan children in India do not attend schools currently, due to lack of facilities. Also there is a pressing problem to accommodate the continuous influx of new refugee children from Tibet and the Tibetan administration in exile is facing great financial constraints. (DOE, 1995) In this situation, where should the limited educational funds be allocated? Should we allocate funds into extending educational opportunities to maximum number of school-age children and immediate need of the new arrival children? Or, should we invest in planning and implementing the Tibetanization Program for the already school-going children who may not benefit much out of it?

It might be a wiser decision to use the available educational funds in educating maximum number of children, which would go a long way to provide a systematic education to all children in exile. Especially at a time when the Tibetan community in exile is making efforts to practicing a form of democracy, it would be most appropriate that the maximum numbers of young generation are literate and educated. In achieving such a goal, education through Tibetan language may not be the primary concern.

Political Factors

The proposal for change of language of instruction in Tibetan schools in India is basically political in nature despite the rhetoric that it is an educational remedy. As emphasized earlier, the functioning of Tibetan schools in India has to be viewed in light of the exiled Tibetan community's political goal of restoring Tibetan independence. And, living as stateless citizens in India, Tibetans are bounded by the laws of the land but they are not entitled to the same political rights that the Indian citizens have. Therefore, Tibetans in India do not have the same privilege of constitutional protection for the maintenance of their language and culture that an Indian minority group has. The Tibetans in India, however, have been fortunate enough to receive genuine help from the Indian government over the past 40 years in their efforts in maintaining and perpetuating their language and culture. But, how long would this last? One should remember that the trend of frequent political changes in India could impact the Indian government's policy on Tibetans in India. And, therefore, whatever political promises the Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru might have made to the Dalai Lama 40 years ago with respect to the treatment of Tibetans, might not be necessarily delivered now or in future.

Accounts of bitter experiences of Tibetan refugees in the neighboring countries of Bhutan and Nepal testify to the possibility of changes in the host country's policies on the stateless Tibetans. In 1974 the Bhutanese government terminated its provision of educational support to Tibetan refugees (Information Office, 1981) and demanded that the Tibetan refugees accept Bhutanese citizenship as a sign of allegiance to their host country (de Voe, 1987). In Nepal, the government nationalized all Tibetan schools in 1974 in the process of implementing the 1971 New Education Plan that envisaged nationalization of all private schools in the country and institution of Nepali as the language of instruction (Forbes, 1989). Forbes further recalls that the New Education Plan required admission of Nepalese students into previously all-Tibetan schools and the new school curriculum excluded teaching of Tibetan language, religion and culture. In 1981, the Nepalese government acknowledged the failure of its 1971 educational policy and passed the Seventh Amendment Education Rules allowing private schools to reopen. The Tibetans now had a chance to regain control of their school (Forbes, 1989, p. 112).

As much as it is a political matter that the Tibetans in India would propose the use of Tibetan as the language of instruction, it is also a political matter that the Indian government would want to see maximum assimilation of Tibetans into the host culture and economy. One can discern the Indian government's assimilation policy on Tibetans from their argument for terminating provisions of free education for all Tibetan children born in India, as they could not be considered as refugees (Narayan, 1984; Shrimali, 1984). There is a clash of interests between the host country and its guests. Asking for an approval from the government of India for the use of Tibetan as the language of instruction in Tibetan schools entails long and hard political negotiations between the two.

Educational Requirements

Will the proposed change of language of instruction in Tibetan schools be effective in implementing the CBSE school curriculum? How do Rinpoche's suggestions for curriculum plan for Tibetan schools fit into the Indian school education system? These are the two main questions addressed in this section. Based on the previous discussion of the lack of constitutional rights for Tibetans in India, Rinpoche's anticipation for a separate education system for Tibetans in India might be considered a distant hope. As discussed in Chapter Three, Tibetan schools currently follow the school curriculum prescribed by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE). Tibetan schools may not be required to use English as the language of instruction in implementing the CBSE curriculum, but it is very doubtful that this curriculum could be effectively taught and learned through Tibetan language. Even if it were possible to implement the CBSE curriculum using Tibetan as the language of instruction, a question remains: Would students be able to transfer the subject knowledge acquired through Tibetan language if they were to continue their education through a second language?

We have seen in Chapter Five that some research studies have concluded that subject knowledge is transferable across different languages. But in the Tibetan case, there are practical problems in implementing the CBSE curriculum in Tibetan language, that make the Tibetanization Program less feasible, however desirable the change may be.

Looking deeper into the practical realities of incorporating the change of language of instruction in Tibetan schools, we have to deal with many other school factors, such as:

1. teacher supply;
2. teacher qualification;
3. administrative autonomy;
4. educational material (especially, textbooks); and
5. school schedule.

We have seen in Chapter Three that the current situation of Tibetan schools fails to address these factors appropriately in implementing a well-established Indian education system; much less can be expected from the current situation to accommodate the change of language of instruction.

Tibetan schools in India have a shortage of qualified teachers. Almost all the teachers in these schools have graduated from Indian universities, where they have been trained to teach in English. Will the teachers who graduate from Indian universities feel comfortable or be efficient in teaching school subjects in the Tibetan language?

It is one thing to be bilingual or trilingual, which most Tibetan teachers are, but it is another thing to expect them to teach in their native language for which they were not trained. Currently, most Tibetan teachers teach bilingually during a particular non-language class; most often, they switch back and forth between Tibetan and English. Similarly the Indian teachers mostly use Hindi and English in their lectures. Students do the same in classroom interactions, although they write the non-language exams in English. As a result, students graduate schools without proper mastery of either Tibetan or English language. Using Porter's (1990) term, they may be considered as semi-lingual meaning poor skills in two languages. Using Tibetan language as the sole language of instruction in Tibetan schools may lead the students to be highly proficient in the Tibetan language, but this may not be the main goal for the education of Tibetans in India.

Presently, there is more demand for English-speaking teachers in India. It is natural that prospective candidates for teaching careers would choose to meet this demand. Hence, there would be Tibetan teachers who might be highly qualified to teach in English but not in Tibetan language. Requiring teachers to use the Tibetan language to teach in Tibetan schools would not only be a problem for them, but also for the students who might find it more difficult to pursue further studies in Indian colleges.

Speaking of teacher qualification, we must remember that a large number of teachers in Tibetan schools are Indian who do not speak or write the Tibetan language. How can we deal with this situation when we propose using Tibetan as the language of instruction? Do we replace them with Tibetan teachers or re-train them? Both choices are hard and complicated.

We understand that more than half the total number of Tibetan children in India are administered by the government of India through the Central Tibetan Schools Administration (CTSA). The Department of Education (DOE) does not have much freedom to effect a major change like the use of Tibetan as the language of instruction in the CTSA schools. In view of the past experience where the DOE and CTSA view each other with suspicion (Dhondup, 1985; Tenzin, 1986), it is doubtful if CTSA would support the DOE's plans for the change.

It is a necessary condition that textbooks be made available in Tibetan language for all school grades, in all non-language subjects in order to facilitate the change. Rinpoche had suggested the formation of a Curriculum Committee (see Appendix A) to meet this condition, but it is doubtful if the project's cost have been thoroughly considered. Under the present circumstances of the Tibetan community, with its insufficient financial capability to support and maintain proper functioning of the existing Tibetan schools, it is hard to imagine how it would be possible to finance such an expensive project.

Turning to Rinpoche's curriculum plan for the elementary grades (see appendix A), it is conspicuous that the plan includes instruction of Tibetan language and English or Hindi, and not three languages as required by the Indian national policy on education. There is a precedence of non-compliance with the Three Language Formula; such as, in Tamil Nadu and Mizoram where two languages are permitted in school education (Chaturvedi, 1976). But the Tibetan schools may not enjoy the same privilege as these two Indian states in deciding how many languages Tibetan students should study. As long as the Tibetan schools are affiliated with the CBSE, a central government agency, compliance with the Three Language Formula may be required. The provision of facilities for study of Tibetan language as one of the three languages in Tibetan schools (Narayan, 1984; Singha, 1991) may be considered a special consideration by the CBSE. Indian students in other CBSE affiliated schools are, however, required to study Hindi, English and one of the 15 official languages of India as listed under VIII Schedule of the Constitution of India (Singha, 1991). Non-compliance with the CBSE's language requirements by Tibetan schools means asking for problems of loosing national recognition for their educational programs and standards. Should the Tibetanization Program be Implemented?

If the main purpose of proposing the use of Tibetan as the language of instruction in Tibetan schools is to remedy the perceived decline in educational standards in Tibetan schools, one could argue that the purpose for the change is misguided because:

(a) the decline in educational standards in Tibetan school is perceived within the context of an English-language-based education and its remedy might lie within itself, related to school factors affecting educational achievement, such as teacher quality, and morale of students and teachers; and (b) it is wrong to conclude that the use of English as the language of instruction in Tibetan schools has led to the decline in the educational achievement of Tibetan students. On the other hand, if the main purpose of the proposal is politically motivated, as discussed earlier, then there may be good reasons to teach Tibetan students in their native language. Tibetan students in India face the challenges of achieving educational and economic success for the individual, and political success for their community (Nowak, 1984), but it may be wrong on the part of the educational planners to focus their attention on just the political interests of the community.

No matter how convincing might it be to suggest the use of Tibetan as the language of instruction in Tibetan schools to enable Tibetan students to acquire high proficiency in their language and to maintain their culture, it can not be denied that they have to live and operate within the larger Indian society. And, in order to achieve political success for their community, they would need to be highly educated in English and become economically successful. The harsh realities of life in India for Tibetans demand that they become more actively involved in all spheres of life in the country, not alienate themselves from the mainstream. In so doing, Tibetan schools must enable their students to acquire both a good basic education and language proficiency beyond Tibetan. From the analysis of the feasibility of the implementation of Tibetan as the language of instruction in Tibetan schools, we realize that it is not very feasible to incorporate such a change in the present situation. Even if it were feasible, there do not appear to be any convincing educational arguments to support such a change.

Based on this thesis discussion, the following Recommendations may be made:

1. There should be a closer examination of the feasibility of implementing Tibetanization program.
2. The Tibetanization Program should be properly analyzed for its costs and benefits to the Tibetan community in India;
3. There should be wider public discussion of the purpose and implementation methods of Tibetanization Program;
4. A moratorium should be placed on the implementation of the Tibetanization Program until above steps have been sufficiently considered.