MoBSE Must Justify the Exclusive Use of Wolof in the Pilot Project
By Dr. Alieu SK Manjang
For months, the Ministry of Basic and Secondary Education (MoBSE) has been engaging stakeholders—teachers, cluster monitors, headmasters, and education officials—in workshops and training sessions aimed at promoting and preserving indigenous languages for cognitive and academic development. However, a critical flaw in the approach has emerged: despite the stated objective of integrating national languages into schools, MoBSE has chosen to implement its pilot project using only Wolof.
While we acknowledge the need to enhance indigenous language education, the exclusive prioritization of Wolof raises significant concerns. The decision to pilot this initiative in Region 5 using only one language lacks transparency and demands justification. Several fundamental questions must be addressed:
1. Why Wolof?
Why was Wolof—spoken by the third-largest ethnic group—selected over other national languages?
What linguistic, academic, or policy justifications informed this decision?
Was there a comparative assessment of all national languages to determine their suitability for piloting?
2. Selection Criteria and Decision-Making Process
What framework or guiding principles did MoBSE use to select the pilot language?
Were linguistic diversity, equitable representation, and regional demographics considered?
3. Generalizability of the Pilot Findings
Each language has distinct phonetic, grammatical, and structural characteristics. How can the results of a Wolof-based pilot project be extrapolated to other languages?
If the project succeeds in Wolof, does that automatically mean it will work for Mandinka, Fula, Jola, or Serer?
Conversely, if it fails, would that be used as an argument against integrating other national languages?
4. Why Region 5?
What made Region 5 the preferred choice for this initiative?
Does Region 5 offer a linguistic and demographic balance that makes it a representative sample?
If the goal is national integration of indigenous languages, shouldn’t the pilot be conducted in multiple regions reflecting linguistic diversity?
5. Potential Policy Implications
Is this pilot project a first step toward integrating multiple national languages, or does it indicate a long-term preference for Wolof as the dominant language of instruction?
Will the results of the Wolof pilot be used as a justification for making it the primary indigenous language in schools across the country?
Since this project is funded with public money, MoBSE has an obligation to ensure transparency, inclusivity, and fairness in its design and implementation. The prioritization of Wolof—now officially labeled “Olof” in the project—over Mandinka, Fula, and other national languages has fueled speculation about possible biases in language policy. If MoBSE genuinely aims to promote linguistic diversity in education, it must address these concerns and provide clear, evidence-based justifications for its decisions.
A pilot project meant to integrate national languages should not begin by marginalizing most of them. MoBSE must clarify whether this is a stepping stone toward a broader multilingual policy or an indication that Wolof is being positioned as the primary indigenous language of instruction. Without such clarification, the credibility of the project remains in question.
