Stakeholder Mobilisation for Language Policy Planning in South African Education

Language barriers to teaching and learning in South Africa persist. The current study analyses the extent to which stakeholders have been involved in policy planning of language in South African Education system to develop a conceptual model of stakeholder mobilisation for language policy planning in education. This is in the light of literature, indicating inadequate stakeholder consultation in the planning of language policy for teaching and learning in both the basic and higher education sectors. Sources consulted in this problematic subject include language policy documents, databases, newspapers and journals to find the latest developments for the past 10 years, cognisance of transformations and policy changes. One significant finding is inadequate stakeholder consultation. One notable argument in literature is that students are neither proficient in the second language nor in their mother languages. However, major barriers to proficiency include negative attitude towards indigenous languages, a lack of equivalence of lexicon between English and indigenous languages, inadequate expertise in languages, as well as systematisation and implementation of policy. A conceptual model of stakeholder mobilisation for language policy planning that seeks to influence positive attitudes towards languages of teaching and learning is thus developed.


Language as a Vehicle for Communication
The hegemonic use of English and Afrikaans in the Education system in South Africa has been considered worrisome, hence the continued language policy reviews. Some researchers argue that educating students in a language that they do not understand increases the risk of failure and thwarts linguistic diversity (Nyika 2015;Sleeter 2010). It is interesting to note that the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) (2018) insinuates most students entering university face a dilemma that they are neither fully proficient in English nor in their own mother tongue, or their preferred language of learning in South Africa. Therefore, language policy planning could be more successful if guided by empirical findings on how language impacts performance and by stakeholder perceptions of languages of instruction in learning and teaching. Notably, due to the ongoing language policy reviews in the South African education system, there is no synthesis of stakeholder voices on the languages of teaching and learning (Lo T&L). Suffice it to say, effective communication is the basis for successful human transactions. Efforts have been made at pedagogic and content levels, to address the language barrier in teaching and learning in South Africa. However, if the language policy planning is not effectively communicated, all the other efforts could be in vain.
Apparently, language support structures are available mainly for the English language in most Higher Education institutions. This contradicts the Department of Higher Education and Training's (2018) observation that students are also not competent in their own mother tongues. According to Grayson (2009), developing the cognitive academic language proficiency needed for successful tertiary studies takes at least five years. This sounds an unachievable objective since many normal academic undergraduate programmes take three years to complete in South Africa. Therefore, an argument for a dual model from foundational levels is rational as it could be one way of improving proficiency in language.
to advocate stakeholder mobilisation for planning of language policy in the education system of South Africa. This aim is pursued by exploring the following objectives: (1) to analyse the communication efforts made by the South African Education system to address language barriers in teaching and learning for that past 10 years, and (2) to develop a conceptual model of stakeholder mobilisation for language policy planning. The time frame of one decade has been considered in the light of transitions, mergers and transformations that are occurring in both basic education and higher education institutions and could thus give a clear perspective of the trajectories South African education is taking in so far as communicating language policy is concerned.

Intricate Background of Language in Education
Reinforcing the view that language is an indicator of culture, Vygotsky's (1978) social constructivist perspective explains how culture, learning and understanding of concepts are intertwined. Vygotsky (1978) argues that exposure to cultural activities influences people's mindsets. Thus, the argument that a language used to communicate influences the way people think and consequently their worldview is reasonable, Vygotsky (1978), albeit not overlooking the globalisation of the world. Vygotsky's foregoing view prompts the argument that a limited linguistic competence and performance of individuals can consequently limit their worldview due to a lack of self-expression. Vygotsky (1978) considers intellectual development mainly as an influence of external factors embedded in culture rather than of individual effort. Thus, if learners are incompetent in both their mother languages and the second languages as implied by the Department of Higher Education and Training (2018), then language policy planning should be addressed as a matter of urgency.
Later research echoes Vygotsky (1978), emphasising that language is a crucial resource in fostering cultural, spiritual, and educational growth for economic, commercial, and political improvement (Barker 2011;Darder 2011). Language widens communication across communities, enriching cultural ideologies and beliefs. Barker and Darder's (2011) assertion that language is a crucial resource used to interact with the world should be hailed to unlock the voices of native South African students so that they can also share their experiences with the world. Therefore, insomuch as advocating indigenous language policy is a just cause, English, which is a global language should not be frowned at but should rather be utilised to share local experiences with the world. This suggests that more effective strategies should be employed to enhance understanding of concepts in English so that non-native speakers of the language can use it to share their experiences with the world. In their quest for an ideal model, Manyike and Lemmer (2014) discovered that despite low levels of learner achievement, parents prefer that their children learn in English at primary school levels. English preference by parents could be understood in the light of the dominance of the language in Internet and global communication. Statistics indicate that an estimated 76.9% South Africans use neither Afrikaans nor English, the dominant languages of instruction, as their mother language (Zikode 2017). Thus, this preference of English as a LoT&L by parents points to the need for a dual model. Importantly, there is scant literature on stakeholder consultation in language policy planning. Sparse studies have been conducted to find out the perceptions of students concerning the use of indigenous languages as mediums of instruction. For example, in a study by Parmegiani and Rudwick (2014), at the University of KwaZulu Natal, students resent isiZulu as a LoT&L. Another study by Mutasa (2015) indicates lecturers of content subjects' disregard for indigenous languages, viewing content as different from language. "Sixty per cent of lecturers of content subjects did not see merit in using indigenous languages in the teaching of their subjects" (Mutasa 2015, 15). One of the content lecturers responding to a questionnaire wrote that "those who want to learn in African languages should register in departments of African Languages" (Mutasa 2015, 15). Elsewhere, on the continent, in Malawi, for example, students at the Chancellor College of Malawi University rejected the endorsement, in 2014, of an exclusive English language policy from primary to tertiary education (Kamwendo 2017). The acceptance of an English only medium of instruction could, on the one hand, be viewed as acceptance of dominance where former colonial languages are viewed as a panacea to educational access and success and global acceptance. On the other hand, although using indigenous languages in teaching and learning could unlock learners' potential, it could have some adverse effects of exclusion. An example is that the dominance of Kiswahili in student-teacher communication, Batibo (2013), was detrimental to Tanzania's socio-economic, technological and cultural interaction with the world. Consequently, English was restored as the second language in Tanzania, and the country is still retracing its steps (Batibo, 2013). Therefore, the drive for indigenous language policy should be approached with caution, consultation and enlightening. In the light of such detrimental effects of the shift to indigenous languages as in Tanzania, the issue of language of instruction should not be handled with emotion, but there should be compromise in the light of the global dominance of the English language and hence the essence of a dual model so that end-users are commited to both their indigenous languages and a second language. http://journal.julypress.com/index.php/jed Vol. 6, No. 1;March, 2022 On the globe, European universities are moving beyond monolingual ideologies because of the internationalisation of higher education (Du Plessis 2020). Similarly, in America, a longitudinal study of 50 states over a period of 10 years conducted by Boyle et al. (2015) showed how dual programmes were successfully applied in the American education system. Importantly, Maseko (2014) advises that a dynamic partnership be established between the DHET and the Department of Basic Education in South Africa, to enhance effective multilingual education planning. This could be problematic if indigenous language policy has not been consistent from the primary school level. Apparently, the impediments to the implementation of a language policy for teaching and learning are complex and multifaceted, more especially due to internationalisation of education that makes systematisation of the project almost impossible. Thus, an argument for stakeholder mobilisation could yield positive influence in language policy planning where the end users' voices are integrated in language policy planning and implementation.
Largely, there is evidence in the literature that end-users, students, teachers and parents prefer the use of English second language as a medium of instruction in teaching and learning (Kamwendo 2017;Manyike and Lemmer 2014;Mutasa 2015;Parmegiani and Rudwick 2014). Interestingly, at the same time, there is a drive by students since their 2015 protests, to intellectualise indigenous languages. This synthesis of voices preferring English second language to indigenous languages justifies stakeholder mobilisation in language policy planning. Therefore, to make this project possible, there is a need for wide stakeholder consultation to determine the most applicable models of embracing dual models in context.

Participatory Theory as an Agent of Stakeholder Mobilisation
Language policy planning in education requires participation from the end users to consider their preferences as well as to enlighten them on the benefits of multilingualism. Thus, Participatory theory is apt in mobilising stakeholders for planning of language policy in multilingual South Africa. Participatory theory advocates active involvement of relevant stakeholders in the communication process. This is in consensus with Tufte and Mefalopulos (2009) who emphasise empowerment of people in the development process. Empowerment is the result of the process by which "communities decide what to do, lead where to go, and are involved in actions" (Waisbord, 2008: 509). Thus, participatory communication is defined by Soola (2002) in a way relevant to the current study, "the bi-directional sharing of ideas, information, knowledge and experiences among co-equals, a necessary ingredient for development". Participatory communication gives communities a voice to define their own problems and identify ways of resolving them (Imoh, 2013: 17). South Africa is still in the transition period of addressing the inequalities of the past colonial era and hence ongoing policy reviews in the education system. Therefore, through participatory communication, stakeholders can contribute in various ways to the many resources required in the intellectualisation of languages. In this way, individuals and communities feel that they own the problem and thus, feel obliged to resolve it. This view is opposed to globalisation and the preceding modernisation theory that view local cultures as "obstacles to progress and development" (Waisbord, 2008: 507) and where policies are imposed on the end-users. The scant literature reviewed indicates that generally, stakeholders were not adequately consulted on their views about LoT&L both at the basic and higher education levels and this could be contributing to negative attitudes among intended language users. Participatory action is undertaken using Participatory Action Research, which involves relevant communities to gather information to use for change in its various forms, be it social, economic or environmental (Pain, Whitman & Milledge et al., 2010). Participatory Action Research mobilises people who are concerned about or affected by an issue to initiate knowledge production and use. This would include language specialists, translators, content subject specialists, indigenous knowledge experts, Language Boards and language policy planners collaborating for change or improvement on the language policy in teaching and learning (Pain et al. 2010).
Participatory Action Research is described as the nature of knowledge that engages the research process through democratic participation and collective action, having been conceived in Central and South America as a tool for action against social injustice (Torre 2014). Change is the ultimate goal of Participatory Action Research, and it seeks to resolve issues including labour and educational policies, incarceration, threats to youth human rights, immigration violations, inequality in education, police brutality and over-surveillance, and LGBTQ discrimination (Torre 2014). Stakeholders are regarded as the experts, thus, participants are involved in all stages of the research process-the design, data collection, data analysis processes, and the dissemination of the findings (Torre 2014). Thus, early researchers such as Fishman (1994) assert that stakeholders including students, practitioners, and researchers, are co-responsible for language policy planning. Notably, research points out "Participatory Action Research and similar methodologies that foreground community knowledge are http://journal.julypress.com/index.php/jed Vol. 6, No. 1;March, 2022 circumstantially used, but they are rarely the starting point in development programmes" (Waisbord, 2008: 509). Programmes that follow pre-determined goals decided at the national, regional, or global levels are likely to contribute to problematic language policies.

Method
The study was conducted as an eploratory critical review of literature to determine the communication efforts taken by the South African Education system in language policy planning. Literature reviewed dates to 10 years, focusing on language policy planning for both the basic education and higher education departments. Various information sources amounting to 60, were consulted including 23 relevant journal articles, 11 books, 10 policy documents, 4 conference and seminar papers, 2 newspaper articles, 7 reports, 2 theses and dissertations and 1 encyclopaedia to tap into various efforts made in the communication of language policy planning. Sources were reviewed based on their relevance to stakeholder mobilisation and availability. Some exploratory themes were deduced from the literature, so the discussion is based on a thematic approach. The themes address the stated objectives: (1) to analyse the communication efforts taken by the South African Education system to mobilise stakeholders for language policy planning (2) to develop a conceptual model of stakeholder mobilisation for language policy planning.

Results and Discussion
The following themes indicating inadequate stakeholder mobilisation emerged from the analysis of trends in the literature: Communication of evolution of planning language policy in the education system; Stakeholder consultation in planning language policy in South African Education system; and Limitations to communicating the planning of language policy and implementation in South African education. Each of these themes is discussed in greater detail to address the objective of analysing the communication efforts taken by the South African education system to mobilise stakeholders for language policy planning. In response to the second objective, a conceptual model of stakeholder mobilisation for language policy planning for the South African education system is developed.

Communication of Language Policy Evolution in South African Education System
One major way the South African education system has attempted to address the language barrier in teaching and learning is redressing the language policy. The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (Act 108 of 1996) gives everyone "the right to receive an education in the official languages of their choice in public education systems". The State has a duty "to ensure the fulfilment of that right", according to paragraph 5 of the Language Policy for Higher Education of the Republic of South Africa (Language Policy for Higher Education 2002, 4-5). However, this Constitutional Act has hardly been upheld, and 27 years after independence, language remains a barrier to access and having success in higher education (Department of Higher Education and Training 2018). This is understandable to some extent because African languages had not been intellectualised, a situation that has prevailed hitherto. Nonetheless, Ndamba and Van Wyk (2018), citing earlier research, maintain that African governments continue to perpetuate the former colonial languages as the mediums of instruction, thus promoting linguistic dominance. The foregoing view is contestable in the light of the resources and time required to develop adequate materials to intellectualise a language.
The Republic of South Africa 1996 Schools Act, together with the Republic of South Africa 1997 Norms and Standards for Language Policy in public schools, state "any of the 11 official languages can be the LoT&L in primary and secondary schools". These documents recommend foundational education using mother languages, which should be maintained throughout the curriculum, and additional languages at higher learning levels. It is arguable that this additive multilingualism could be contributing to communication barriers but rather learners should be exposed to multilingual instruction from foundational levels. The concept of multilingualism has been defined variously. The definition by the North-West University (NWU) has been considered for its clarity. The NWU Language Policy (2018, 1) defines multilingualism as "the use of two or preferably more languages, referred to as societal multilingualism, and the ability to use two or more languages, referred to as individual multilingualism". This implies that bilingualism may be used interchangeably with multilingualism.
Reflecting on these early policies, language policy planners should take a holistic approach to language planning from foundational levels, taking into consideration the language barriers students will encounter in higher education. Thus, students can acquire both the mother language/s and the second language/s throughout the education system, and this could be a way of addressing the language barriers that occur because of late acquisition. This suggestion is in the light of the general observation that a language is better acquired at an early age. Notably, learners acquire their primary, secondary and university education in their home language in other leading economies such as "England, France, Italy, Germany, India, China, or Japan" (Skutnabb-Kangas 2009, 5).
http://journal.julypress.com/index.php/jed Vol. 6, No. 1;March, 2022 In multilingual and multicultural South Africa, foreign teachers and where relevant, students, who are not competent in any indigenous languages can take a course in at least one indigenous language.
A new Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) was formed in South Africa after the 2009 elections to focus on post-school education. This separation from the Department of Basic Education could be contributing to a lack of harmony in the planning of language, resulting in learners who are incompetent in both the second languages and their own mother languages at higher learning levels. In relation to monitoring and evaluation, DHET (2015) upholds collaboration for language growth through various activities such as development of corpus, textbooks, dictionaries, and expertise to teach the languages. However, monitoring and evaluation can only follow from proper planning and implementation, which has remained problematic, and inadequate stakeholder involvement has played a role.

Stakeholder Consultation in Language Policy Planning
The Higher Education students' protests that began in 2015 in South Africa and have continued to recur were motivated by redressing language policy, among other reasons, such as the free education for students from low-income households that has been achieved to a certain extent, and indigenisation and decolonisation of education that is still being addressed. This saw a shift from English and Afrikaans to a language policy where English has become the LoT&L in most universities, for example, (Central University of Technology (CUT) Language Policy 2016; NWU Language Policy 2018; University of the Free State (UFS) Language Policy 2016). Although language policy documents are available in institutions, implementation seems to be inadequate and problematic, particularly in tertiary institutions (Kaschula 2013). For example, currently, the disparities in indigenous language development in the various universities makes it difficult to standardise policy.
A quantitative qualitative survey of the NWU students by Hlathswayo and Siziba (2013) indicates that 53.91% of students preferred to be taught in English, which is significant, and likely being influenced by the dominant position of English in global communication. Ndhlovu (2013, 33) indicates also indicates "preference for English as a LoT&L was observed at the Universities of Stellenbosch and the Free State and the percentages of students' preferences for English (90% and 73.6%, respectively) were significant". Importantly, more than half of the respondents (53.72%) in Ndhlovu's (2013) study indicated that they would support mother-tongue instruction. Elsewhere, Setiyadi and Sukirlan (2019) indicate that Islamic school students in Indonesia consider English as a necessary language in the era of globalisation, without being interested in integrating with the native speakers of English. This implies that with adequate mobilisation and resource research, indigenous languages can be accepted positively as mediums of instruction, alongside English or other second languages.
Yet, apparently, English remains the dominantly preferred medium of instruction. Braam (2004) found that in a dual-medium English-Afrikaans school on the Cape Flats, 55% of the children registered in the English stream despite reporting that Afrikaans was their home language. Across the curriculum, these children were more successful academically than the Afrikaans-speaking children enrolled in the Afrikaans stream (Braam 2004). Based on this finding, the critique that teaching in the home language does not necessarily lead to better outcomes raised by (Fleisch, 2008, 112) calls for a rethinking of language policy. Importantly, adequate training and exposure could yield positive results. Thomas and Collier in an earlier study in (1997), in the United States, found that students who had undergone dual language instruction performed better at the end of high school than students who had experienced immersion in English. Thus, a dual medium of instruction could be ideal in the light of the globalisation of the world, but this should be adequately communicated to have the buy-in of the end-users.
Findings of a study by Rudwick (2018) using interviews to determine academic staff's views of a Zulu module at a university where Zulu is the provincial language, do not support the policy of a compulsory Zulu language module. With one exception, there was consensus among the White and Indian staff members interviewed, that the language policy decision concerning the compulsory Zulu module was repressive and inequitable. Notably, Rudwick's study was not conducted at a large scale and therefore is not representing many voices. Yet Sebola and Mogobola (2020) maintain that the project of Africanisation, although problematic, is still possible, arguing that all content is adaptable to an Afrocentric approach. Thus, Rudwick's findings could be a result of inadequate stakeholder consultation and mobilisation in language policy planning, leading to negative attitudes towards policy implementation among different races.
Equally concerning is the attitude of many students towards indigenous languages. For example, research at the University of Cape Town (UCT) by Mayaba et al. (2018) reports that Black students have accepted being taught in English while reserving their home languages for cultural identity and not intellectualisation. According to Mayaba et al., Black students have "accepted the privileged status associated with English" (Mayaba et al. 2018, http://journal.julypress.com/index.php/jed Vol. 6, No. 1;March, 2022 8). Mayaba's comment is rather pessimistic considering that learning materials were developed in English. The intellectualisation of indigenous languages is an enduring project that requires pooling of resources to develop adequate learning materials and recruit expert manpower to deliver teaching and learning in the relevant subjects. Importantly, an earlier study by Chetty (2013), indicates that the majority students at UKZN feels that teaching and learning Physics (and Science in general) in Zulu should be started when Science is taught at primary schools. One finding of Chetty's (2013) study is that usage of Zulu for Physics is complicated as many Physics words and terms are described by the same Zulu word, thus failing to convey the accurate Physics meaning, leading to misconceptions, and likely, poor student performance. This led to the conclusion that lectures should be conducted in English but supplemented by materials written in Zulu, which is reasonable in the sense of a lack of corpus. Chetty's (2013) study raises awareness of the broadness of the indigenous language project requiring a deeper engagement and involvement of all stakeholders. Meanwhile, teaching and learning can draw examples from indigenous knowledge while the language project is in progress and hence the need for stakeholder mobilisation to share knowledge.
A study by Mthombeni and Ogunubi (2020) found that many of the students (72%) that were interviewed about their views on the bilingual policy at the UKZN indicated that they were not consulted about the language policy. This suggests a more democratic policy development to avoid negative attitudes. Thus, those at the receiving end should be given a voice in the decision to apply a language policy, in this case, students and educators. This is in consensus with the participatory approach to development communication which advocates for the involvement of end-users from the inception of an idea. The study by Mthombeni and Ogunubi (2020) further discovered argument against use of isiZulu for its failure to Africanise since it is not a major language in Africa. Thus, Mthombeni and Ogunubi's (2020) findings imply that the end-users may not take the language seriously even if they enrol for it since they have not been convinced of its importance.
On the African continent, Canvin's (2003) findings from her dissertation research among the Bambanankan-speaking communities in Mali support the possibility of influencing stakeholders' views. Canvin's study showed that parents' negative views about the use of mother language as a medium of instruction changed as students in schools where the mother language was a language of instruction outperformed their peers in the schools where a second language, French, was the only language of instruction. Some parents are reported to have transferred their children to the schools where the mother language was used as a medium of instruction, increasing the enrolment at these schools (Canvin 2003). These variations in stakeholder preferences for LoT&L in different geographical environments imply adequate consultation with stakeholders in context.

Limitations to Implementation of Language Policy in South African Education
The communication of language policy planning and implementation has been riddled with problems. For example, the shift in policy from English and Afrikaans as parallel mediums, to English, in most historically White Afrikaans universities has caused racial tensions. For example, the UFS was dragged to court by the proponents of Afrikaans as a medium of instruction and the Constitutional Court ruled in favour of the university's language policy change and English became the primary medium of instruction (News24 2017). Lately, civil organisations, including political parties have started petitioning the University of Stellenbosch to reverse its decision to change its primary language of instruction from Afrikaans to English (Marvin 2021). These court cases could be seen to be a result of inadequate communication and consultation with stakeholders. Furthermore, the fact that most materials for content subjects were developed in English and imported from the developed countries is one of the education sector's major predicaments. Thus, concerted effort is required to develop and/or rewrite these materials in indigenous languages, drawing from local experiences and hence the need to mobilise stakeholders to pool the required resources. Kaschula (2013) indicates that one of the problems with the implementation of the language policy in South African Higher Education is that there is no plan nor specification on who is responsible to ensure its implementation. Apparently, the latest DHET (2018) language policy draft does not indicate how funding will be disbursed to support the development of language policy, nor does it clarify who is responsible for what. Notably, in terms of sections 6(5) (a) and (b) of the Constitution, Pan South African Language Board (PanSALB) (2015-21) must promote or further language use and language rights and create conditions that are conducive for language development. PanSALB (2015-21) has developed a stakeholder mobilisation plan to coordinate relationships with its key stakeholders and create partnerships with them to assist PanSALB in fulfilling its mandate. Yet, some respondents in empirical findings indicate that they were not consulted about language policy planning. Some indicate their positions regarding language policy, but these have not been adequately taken into consideration. To this end, a model of stakeholder mobilisation for language policy planning is developed to inform communities of the importance of consultation. developed a guide based on information assembled from a review of findings on language use in education, particularly with respect to using familiar languages to provide instruction (Research Triangle Institute International 2015). This review included academic research on language-of-instruction policies and practices, language acquisition, and reading development, as well as documentation regarding country-level and project-specific experiences and evaluations of efforts to provide instruction in mother languages, or other languages familiar to children, (Research Triangle Institute International 2015). The currently proposed model adapts the stakeholders identified by the USAID.
The conceptualised model emphasises collaboration of the Departments of Basic and Higher Education in developing language policy in a holistic manner to enhance continuity from the Basic to Higher Education levels. In this way, policy planners should consult with teachers and lecturers, in their capacity as the policy implementers, from pre-primary to tertiary levels, as well as parents and students, who are the major stakeholders, to find a common perspective on the approach to take in the planning, at local, provincial and national levels. Government departments responsible for planning of the curriculum, development of textbooks and book printers should collaborate in the conceiving of ideas and development of the required resources for the relevant languages to promote positive attitudes towards the languages in question.
Furthermore, language specialists should take the lead in developing orthographies and other relevant materials for learning in the respective languages. Teachers and teacher unions should conduct needs analysis research to provide information to relevant stakeholders, of the material and human resources required, in the concerned languages. Teacher training institutions need to develop language policies and plans, in consultation with all other stakeholders for harmony and effectiveness. Communities play a crucial role in language development and enrichment for both indigenous knowledge and second languages by providing culturally relevant contexts as well as motivating their children to embrace languages in education. In this way, policy planning is both top-down and bottom-up and is likely to yield notable adoption. Consultation and collaboration are important to gauge "instructional resources available, experiences, attitudes and beliefs, gaps and identifying modifications to existing approaches to using language for education" (Research Triangle Institute International 2015). Training and resource requirements can then be put in place accordingly. Currently, there is no synthesis of languages for education needs-analysis for South Africa in the literature. Other stakeholders such as legal practitioners should be seen to be playing their roles, one main one being that of redressing marginalisation of indigenous languages, Legal Practice Council (2020), and this can be effectively done in close consultation with the community in question. Language Boards such as the PanSALB (2015PanSALB ( -2021 should satisfy its manadate of recommending, raising awareness of and ensuring development of multilingualism, drawing from findings after consultation with the end users. Content subject specialists, language translators and interpreters and language practitioners should work in collaboration with education departments in the development and standardisation of corpus in indigenous languages and in developing innovative ways to teach second languages. Education departments should reach out to Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs), other relevant government departments and communities such as the corporate world to pool the required resources. NGOs such as USAID, for example, can assist in supporting language standardisation and terminology development for education while the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), for example, can provide a toolkit for language standardisation (Research Triangle Institute International 2015).
The current model is a two-way and circular communication model as indicated by the arrows, and this could enhance achievement of the project at a wider scale where all stakeholders are working in collaboration. The stakeholders should form partnerships where possible to enhance the pooling of resources and the speeding up of the project. The government, as the policymaker, should facilitate synergies between the central community (Education, Higher Education, students, parents) and other communities, to maximise knowledge sharing and resourcing. Insomuch as the client-centred approach is herein advocated, the practical realities should be acknowledged, considering the multifaceted nature of the problems of implementation, to enhance sustainability of the project. As asserted by Darquennes et al. (2020), language policies in higher education require a variety of related policies for effective implementation, such as personnel policy, curriculum policy and resourcing policy.
Drawing from the intricacies that come with planning language in education revealed in the literature, indigenous languages should be developed and used alongside English, which is a global language, throughout the whole education system from pre-primary to tertiary education to enhance systematisation and globalisation. However, stakeholders' input at a larger scale is required to enhance some form of systematisation and harmonisation. Van der Walt (2016) argues that parents and teachers or language practitioners and to a certain extent, students, can formulate a Language of Education Policy that is uniquely suited to that institution, at the same time, cautioning that institutions are not immune to dominant ideologies. Nonetheless, stakeholder mobilisation advocated in the model can cater for wider contribution in language policy planning and implementation, thus making the project sustainable.

Conclusion and Implications
The literature is evident to conclude that end-uders prefer English second language to indigenous languages in teaching and learning. The major challenges that emerged in adopting a sustainable language policy include negative attitudes towards indigenous languages, a lack of corpus in indigenous languages, absence of a language that the African continent can identify with, racial tensions between English and Afrikaans proponents and largely, failure to uphold a participatory approach in language policy planning. It is rational to conclude that stakeholder consultation and mobilisation in planning language policy in Education has been inadequate in South Africa. The fact that the Basic Education Department discontinues the use of indigenous languages after elementary primary levels is one major indicator of an inadequate language policy in education. This has contributed to language barriers in teaching and learning at higher levels, where students have been reported to be incompetent in both their own indigenous languages as well as in the second language, English. The apparent rejection of indigenous languages in favour of English second language for learning by students, parents and teachers in a context where students protested for recognition and intellectualisation of indigenous languages is a double-edged sword. Though it is a justified decision for government to democratise language policy planning in universities, the lack of an integrated language policy from foundational school levels, a lack of resources to implement an indigenous policy in addition to English, negative attitudes towards languages, and a lack of consultation and communication makes it a long-term project. The developed model, if adopted, implies stakeholder mobilisation and harmonisation in language policy planning as well as pooling of resources, with the anticipated goal of addressing the language barrier in teaching and learning.