Reaction to MoBSE’s Justification of the Exclusive Selection of Wolof in the MEISS Pilot Project
Dr Alieu SK Manjang, Doha – Qatar
Following public demand for justification regarding the exclusive selection of Wolof in the ongoing Mainstream Effective Intervention Strategies in Schools (MEISS) pilot project, the Ministry of Basic and Secondary Education (MoBSE) has provided clarifications. However, these explanations raise more questions than answers.
According to MoBSE, the World Bank supported the pilot of one national language in the MEISS program, which is being implemented in 55 schools across Regions 1, 2, 3, and 5. The dominant language in these schools—Wolof—was selected based on the availability of resources in The Gambia and a partnership with the Senegal-based civil society organization Associates for Research, Education, and Development (ARED).
However, I would like to highlight several critical issues that require further reflection and clarification.
The Availability of Wolof Materials!
MoBSE claims that Wolof materials were readily available in The Gambia before the project or were developed after Wolof was selected. Does this imply that the pedagogical materials used in national language programs between 2011 and 2016—including Effective Intervention Strategies—were deemed irrelevant?
If those materials were pedagogically insufficient, how can MoBSE describe the results of these programs as successful in enhancing students’ literacy and numeracy skills? If they were indeed useful, why was there no attempt to build on them to implement the pilot, especially considering the possibility of selecting more than one language?
MoBSE stated that Wolof-based materials were made available through its partnership with ARED. However, an examination of ARED’s website and the World Bank reports on ARED’s activities indicates that most of ARED’s materials are in Pulaar followed by other Senegalese languages, including French and Wolof. ARED, a non-governmental organization founded by in 1990, focused on promoting literacy in francophone African countries. Sonja Fagerberg Diallo passed in 2008, and the Chief Executive Officer is Mamadou Amadou Ly.
This raises a crucial question: Why didn’t MoBSE select Pulaar, given the availability of pedagogical materials through ARED? This choice would have been more logical, considering that MoBSE’s own school language mapping results confirm Pulaar as the second most used language (173 schools), following Mandinka (239 schools), while Wolof is used in only 146 schools.
Contradictions in MoBSE’s Justifications
MoBSE’s claim that Wolof has more available pedagogical materials than other languages contradicts its own school language mapping report, which shows:
881 teachers confirmed the availability of teaching materials in Mandinka
587 teachers confirmed availability of Pulaar materials
431 teachers confirmed availability of Wolof materials
If ARED’s Wolof materials were purchased for the pilot, why didn’t MoBSE mobilize local experts and invest in resources already developed in The Gambia through previous language education initiatives? This would have fostered a more sustainable, homegrown approach to developing pedagogical materials across all national languages.
Moreover, after the validation of the pilot program, MoBSE conducted a study tour to Senegal, acquired materials there, and brought in Senegalese trainers to train Gambian educators. This contradicts the claim that Wolof educational resources were readily available in The Gambia. Instead, deliberate efforts were made to procure and develop Wolof materials exclusively for this project.
Unanswered Questions
Given this reality, several pressing questions remain:
1. Why was a similar effort not made for other major Gambian languages, such as Mandinka, Pulaar, and Jola?
2. Why were existing educational materials in these languages—developed within The Gambia—not utilized?
3. If Wolof materials were borrowed from Senegal, why were similar materials in Mandinka and Jola from Casamance not considered?
Stakeholder Consultation: Who Was Consulted?
MoBSE claims that Wolof was selected after stakeholder consultation. However, it remains unclear who these stakeholders were and what their positions were. What about the perspectives of:
Teachers
Students
Cluster monitors
Parents
Headteachers
Available data suggests that most educational stakeholders favor Mandinka and Pulaar for their dominance in schools and resource availability. Were their views considered in the decision-making process?
The Issue of Generalizability: Can a Wolof-Only Pilot Be Scientifically Justified?
MoBSE asserts that other national languages will be included in future pilot phases. However, this does not adequately address the central concern:
Why was Wolof the only language selected for the first phase?
Additionally, from a scientific and pedagogical standpoint, can the results of a Wolof-only pilot program in Regions 1, 2, 3, and 5 be generalized to all other languages?
Mandinka, the largest language in all regions except Regions 1 and 3, was not piloted in any of these regions. This is despite the availability of Mandinka educational resources within The Gambia and the possibility of borrowing the World Bank and USAID-sponsored Mandinka materials from Casamance that are being used by Senegalese government for literacy education in schools.
Furthermore, MoBSE’s school language mapping report confirms that Mandinka is the dominant language in Region 2, with 75 schools using it, compared to only 17 using Wolof. Yet, the pilot program still selects Wolof for Region 2.
In justifying the exclusive use of Wolof in the pilot program, MoBSE stated that Wolof would be implemented in four regions (Regions 1, 2, 3, and 5), while Mandinka, Pulaar, and Sarahulleh would be introduced in Regions 5 and 6 during the second phase. Jola, Serer, and Manjako would then be included in Regions 2 and 3 during the third phase. This raises a legitimate concern about why Wolof, the third most dominant language in schools according to the School Language Mapping Report, is prioritized in four regions, while Mandinka and Pulaar, the first and second most dominant languages, are limited to only two regions. Even more notably, Region 4 (LRR) is entirely excluded from all phases of the pilot program.
Limitations of the School Language Mapping Report (2023)
MoBSE has stated that the 2023 school language mapping results are not generalizable beyond the 617 schools included in the study. However, the methodology of this report fails to capture the true linguistic landscape of the country.
The study measured language behavior among Grade 1–3 pupils in classrooms, campuses, and school environments.
In Region 1, children often adopt Wolof as a social survival strategy due to language ideology pressures, where speaking Wolof ensures acceptance, integration, and prevents bullying.
The study did not adequately assess children’s oral comprehension in languages associated with their ethnic backgrounds.
Thus, the report’s findings should be treated with caution, and the government should have conducted a more comprehensive assessment to determine the most suitable language(s) for each school.
MoBSE Must Embrace Pragmatism Over Ideology
It is unrealistic and costly to integrate all eight national languages into the education system at once. MoBSE should adopt a pragmatic approach, similar to Senegal, by selecting one or two dominant languages for systematic integration as maybe dictated by the linguistic landscape in each administrative region.
More importantly, MoBSE should invest in grassroots initiatives that promote African indigenous writing systems like N’Ko and Adlam.
N’Ko is increasingly being adopted by community-based schools and has a growing body of locally developed resources to fill the gap in pedagogical materials.
With government support, these initiatives could enhance literacy in national languages while reducing reliance on foreign-produced materials.
Conclusion: The Need for an Inclusive and Transparent Language Policy
A pilot project should be representative, incorporating multiple languages to provide meaningful comparative insights. A single-language pilot inherently creates bias and may not accurately reflect the realities of a multi-language educational system in The Gambia.
Our concerns are not about opposing local language education. On the contrary, we advocate for a fair, inclusive, and evidence-based approach to language policy implementation. The people of The Gambia deserve clarity, transparency, and justification for decisions that shape their education system.
We look forward to further clarification from MoBSE, particularly from Momodou Jeng, Director of the Curriculum, Research, and Development Directorate.
We will continue to monitor this issue closely to ensure that the necessary steps are taken toward a more inclusive and transparent approach to local language education in The Gambia.
