Many parts of Ghana are MULTILINGUAL by default, with children acquiring MULTIPLE FIRST LANGUAGES in an interesting admixture. Many Ghanaians are proficient to the same degree in 3 languages simultaneously. Often that means MEDIUM PROFICIENCY. If you live in, say, Kumasi or Sunyani, or Accra, for that matter, you will notice that most people can't speak any of the languages they communicate in with solid fluency. However, they are sufficiently expressive in a two or three languages. That is by far the overwhelming reality.

Unlike most parts of the advanced world, our official language is not also our most dominant language. Though the 'prestigious' language is indeed the official language.

The problem with the ongoing debate is that it is muddled. Some argue that FIRST LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION is superior when they often mean DOMINANT LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION. In a highly MULTI-LINGUISTIC society, most children typically operate in the dominant language (Twi, Hausa, Ga etc) rather than their first or NATIVE language (Nzema, Ahanta, Bono, Kasem etc.).

That is to say, as soon as they move out of the home (as early as year 1) they start to immerse in the dominant language. It is not surprising therefore that none of these Academics arguing fervently for FIRST LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION cannot point to even one empirical piece of research showing that NATIVE OR FIRST LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION produce superior results in highly MULTI-LINGUISTIC societies, with dozens of non-written languages, steeped in oral culture.

Invariably, they cite results from places like the US, Germany etc, where the languages under discussion are those with centuries of pedagogical development behind them (like Spanish, Turkish, Chinese etc). Next you interview one of them, ask for any peer-reviewed work showing that a child taught exclusively in Kasem or Dagaare till P4 does better eventually at BECE than one taught exclusively in English throughout. Substitute 'Kasem' for any of the non-dominant languages you can think of, and repeat the question.

THERE IS NO RESEARCH IN OUR PART OF THE WORLD THAT SUPPORTS THE THESIS THAT FIRST OR NATIVE, NON-DOMINANT, LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION IN HIGHLY MULTI-LINGUISTIC SOCIETIES TEND TO PRODUCE SUPERIOR OUTCOMES. We can turn our attention to English versus DOMINANT languages in our local cultural settings. Here we have the example of Tanzania, where researchers like Qorro have done extensive work. The results are both perplexing and fascinating. THE EVIDENCE NOW SHOWS THAT *IT IS A BAD IDEA* TO TEACH PUPILS IN THE DOMINANT, LOCAL, LANGUAGE FOR MUCH OF THEIR PRIMARY EDUCATION AND THEN SWITCH TO ENGLISH AT THE HIGHER LEVELS.

Consequently, Tanzania decided this year to switch to Kiswahili as the SOLE LANGUAGE OF INSTRUCTION ACROSS PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION. It seems to me that should we embrace this policy of local dominant language instruction in the primary years of education, our fate is more likely to align with the Tanzanian experience. At upper levels, pupils will grapple with English, and be found wanting. Particularly if the current decline in the quality of English in the larger society (see the newspapers) continues, and teachers in post-primary classes succumb to the general trend. The best approach is to deepen MULTI-LINGUALISM across the school system and INVEST IN PROFICIENCY ACROSS THE INTERNATIONAL (ENGLISH) AND DOMINANT LANGUAGES (TWI, HAUSA, FANTE, GA, DAGBANI, EWE) within the school and wider environment.

This means however that we need to invest in teacher training, the literary economy, the creative economy, and the STEM disciplines. Invariably, it means that OUR PRIORITIES are more related to IMPROVING THE CORE QUALITY OF INSTRUCTION and investing in the general creative and literary economy in order to encourage the growth and development of a society with PROFICIENT LEARNERS. My two cents.