Bridging the Policy and Practice Divide: Integrating Critical Language Pedagogy and Development Education within Ethiopian Language Policy

Abstract: This article considers how language instruction functions as an instrument for the expression and action of power dynamics and identity negotiation in the wider trajectory of development.  Focusing on Ethiopia, a nation with over 80 spoken languages, the piece carefully analyses the persistent gap between the nation’s inclusive education policy and its inconsistent application in practice.  The article also contends that integrating critical language pedagogy (CLP) with development education (DE) closes the policy and practice divide.  Based on Freire’s (1970) idea of teaching and learning as critical enquiry that enables students to challenge injustice and shape their own realities, CLP frames language education as a social interaction, power distribution and competition.  DE also employs this core concept through critical analysis aimed at promoting global justice, sustainability and civic responsibility.  Though Ethiopia’s 1994 Education and Training Policy endorses mother-tongue instruction besides English aptitude, challenges such as the lack of trained teachers, resource limitations and an examination-focused curriculum continue to limit deep learning. 

By synthesising various policy documents and theoretical reflections, this article advocates an approach, which involves several aspects of teacher professional development, syllabus design, community and institutional participation.  It argues that integrating CLP’s and DE’s principles can promote language classrooms based on discussion, critical literacy and ethical reflection on values, thereby changing language pedagogy into both an intellectual and political enactment.  This article ultimately delineates language pedagogy as a means for critical enquiry and significant change, proposing that placing CLP firmly within Ethiopia’s language education system can improve language justice, interactive learning and viable development that provides useful insights for other multilingual nations looking to integrate their policy guidelines with liberatory pedagogical practices.

Key words: Critical Language Pedagogy; Development Education; Ethiopia; Language Policy; Freire; Multilingualism.

Introduction

Language education is innately subjective and is not a neutral and technical process (Ricento, 2000a).  As Heugh (2009: 68) prompts us, ‘language policy is never ideologically innocent’, since choices about the medium of instruction and syllabus design reflect how power is distributed and exercised in historical and political traditions.  In nations like Ethiopia where more than 80 languages are spoken, language education interconnects with justice, identity and development issues (Skutnabb-Kangas and Heugh, 2012).  It can either promote inclusion and cohesion or, conversely, preserve marginalisation and cultural subservience.  Freire (1970: 34) framed this double function, arguing that education either serves as a tool to facilitate conformity or it becomes a ‘practice of freedom’.  After the 1991 political shift, which restructured state power from a centralised system to ethnolinguistic federalism, Ethiopia’s constitution recognised language diversity and introduced a bilingual policy that endorsed mother-tongue instruction in primary education.  Simultaneously, it also promoted English as the medium of instruction for secondary and tertiary levels.  The reason for this introduction was both pedagogical and political.  More importantly, learning in students’ first language is believed to improve understanding, cognitive and identity development, while English aptitude facilitates the exchange of information in social and economic situations (Baye, 2010).  As Heugh (2011b: 226) states, this bilingual policy aimed to ‘reconcile the local and the global within a single educational vision’.

However, the process of putting these principles into practice is carried out inconsistently. For instance, schools face shortages of trained teachers and materials (Negash, 2019).  Classrooms are characterised by mechanical learning and preparing students on test-taking skills with no critical enquiry (Gebreyohannes, 2020).  Students often engage only in cursory activities without understanding the content or reflecting on its social consequences and political implications.  This ‘policy-practice gap’ (Vujcich, 2013: 21) reveals how structural and educational barriers challenge Ethiopia’s intentions for inclusive education.  Though the policy promotes language equity, in reality English hegemony continues, given its global status and the high-stakes tests that have significant effects on students’ future careers (Heugh, 2011a; Vujcich, 2013).  Accordingly, many students experience limited comprehension and active learning, and the educational advantages of mother-tongue instruction remain under-realised (Baye, 2010).  As Heugh (2011b: 234) warns us, ‘the dominance of English undermines the pedagogical advantages of mother-tongue education’. So, integrating CLP’s principles can change classrooms into places where language learning becomes a means for reflection, empowerment and independent learning.

The interconnectedness and interdependence of the global education system make it even more difficult to understand and handle.  The prevalent promotion of English as a medium of instruction and standardised tests, often encouraged by international programmes, risks marginalising local languages and knowledge systems.  As Skutnabb-Kangas and Heugh (2012: 69) argue, ‘uncritical adoption of dominant languages in education constitutes a form of epistemic violence’.  Alternatively, CLP provides an option promoting multilingualism that values both universal competencies, Indigenous hands-on knowledge systems and local identities. Recognising that language reflects beliefs, values and power dynamics, CLP carries out DE’s ethical and honourable aims of civic responsibility, critical consciousness and social justice (Bourn, 2015).  As Bourn (2015: 47) emphasises, DE needs to ‘engage learners in understanding the interconnections between local and global problems and in taking actions to bring about change’.  CLP thus offers the educational means of interaction, reflection and learners’ autonomy by which DE’s change ambitions can be made real.  Likewise, Ricento (2000b: 5) remarks that language policy ‘privileges certain ideologies while marginalising others’.

Therefore, evaluating languages as a social practice enables students to question inequality and ethically engage with the world (Norton, 2010; Janks, 2012).  This article addresses the following central question: how can CLP, integrated with DE, close the divide between Ethiopia’s language policy and practice?  Addressing this question requires three interconnected analyses: outlining the theoretical foundations of Freirean education, CLP and DE; evaluating the policy-practice gap in Ethiopian language education; and suggesting practical directions for improvements through continuous professional development (CPD), curriculum improvement and community participation.  These analyses project language education not simply as a technical endeavour but as an equity-oriented practice in Ethiopia’s development trajectory.  By linking policy, pedagogy and practice, this piece advocates for an education programme that teaches language as a means of cultivating critical literacy: the ability to read and rewrite the world.

Freire’s critical pedagogy, critical language pedagogy and development education as a theoretical model

Freire (1970) contends that education that fails to consider the pervasive and deep-rooted situations within the wider educational institution and the sociopolitical contexts that shape it would lead to domination rather than liberation.  Freire’s criticism of the banking model, in which students passively receive knowledge, discloses how conventional teaching and learning reproduces social hierarchies and silences voices that raise critical questions and evaluate information, thus ‘negating education and knowledge as processes of enquiry’ (Freire, 1970: 72). In contrast to banking education, he promotes a dialogic and problem-posing pedagogy based on praxis (reflection and action), by which teachers and students collaboratively create meaning and knowledge, develop critical consciousness and resist the powers that attempt to preserve and uphold inequality.  As he observes, education ‘either serves domination or liberation’ (Freire, 1970: 79).

Expanding this concept, CLP situates language as a social and ideological practice rather than an impartial communication medium (Pennycook, 2001; Fairclough, 1995; Norton and Toohey, 2004).  It exposes how hierarchical structures deeply rooted in established customs and historical practices breed inequities, while also promoting critical language awareness that enables learners to interrogate whose languages and identities are legitimised and heard and whose are marginalised and silenced (Canagarajah, 1999; Janks, 2010).  When connected with DE, CLP creates a global network of interconnections, fairness and equity while ensuring the long-term continuity of the system.  DE promotes ethical global citizenship and educational interventions targeted at positive change (Andreotti, 2006; Bourn, 2015; McCloskey, 2014).  Working in harmony, Freire’s critical pedagogy, CLP and DE provide an effective and logically dependable model for restoring Ethiopia’s multilingual classrooms as places of enquiry, empowerment and meaningful, lasting change, where language becomes both a means for learning and an instrument for liberation.

Freire’s canonical work remains basic to CLP, providing not only a criticism of language teaching methods but a conceptual rethinking of human engagement with language.  He challenges conservative and submissive teacher-student interactions by proposing a pedagogy of love based on hope and trust in the inherent ability of humans to grow, because ‘dialogue cannot exist without humility, love, faith in humanity and hope’ (Freire, 1998: 40).  This love is based on moral principles and responsibility rather than emotional sentiment or fantasy, and it affirms students as rational beings capable of transforming their realities.  For Freire (1970), teaching should be an act of shared cognition between teacher and student rather than a one-way transfer of information, in that ‘knowledge emerges only through invention and re-invention, through the restless, impatient, continuing, hopeful inquiry human beings pursue in the world, with the world and with each other’ (Freire, 1970: 72).

In bilingual policy contexts like Ethiopia, this approach holds deeper meaning.  It positions students as collaborative creators of knowledge who can resist restrictive social hierarchies and engage in instruction as an emancipatory process rather than assimilation.  Language education thus becomes a site where power is exercised and identities are negotiated.  Ricento (2000a: 3) notes that ‘language policy and practice are never ideologically innocent’.  Norton and Toohey (2004: 19) similarly contend that classrooms reproduce inequality when they disregard socio-political issues, while Crookes (2013: 45) indicates that language pedagogy must integrate ‘the social, cultural, and political dimensions of communication’.  The rationale in this article echoes Ethiopia’s multilingual education experience, where tensions continue between policy aspirations and classroom realities (Skutnabb-Kangas and Heugh, 2012).  Although mother-tongue instruction is the official policy, shortages of trained teachers and an exam-centred curriculum restrict analytical interaction (Baye, 2010).

Freire’s focus on dialogue offers a means to support inclusive education by affirming linguistic and cultural diversity as legitimate elements of the learning process, thereby mitigating entrenched inequalities.  Overall, Freire’s pedagogy advocates education as a change catalyst and emancipatory process.  By emphasising interaction, reflection and collective enquiry, it provides the ethical and philosophical foundation that later informed approaches such as CLP and DE. While Freire did not work within CLP, his principles underpin its critical orientation by framing language learning as a social, political and transformative practice-core commitment that both CLP and DE draw upon to bridge the gap between policy intentions and meaningful change (McCloskey, 2014; Bourn, 2015).

Critical language pedagogy (CLP)

CLP extends Freire’s (1970) concept of critical pedagogy to language education, understanding language as a social practice shaped by power dynamics, ideology and identity rather than as a neutral communication apparatus (Pennycook, 2001; Norton and Toohey, 2004).  In this view, language classrooms are spaces for critical enquiry and engagement where students examine how language practices either reinforce or resist inequality and develop the autonomy to act upon social problems.  As Pennycook (2001: 6) states, language education should not only interpret the world but also attempt to transform it, recognising that teaching is ‘never a neutral enterprise’. Conspicuously, language is instilled with ideology: the social structures, words and usages of a language naturally carry and transmit the underlying beliefs, values and hierarchies of the society that uses it.  In this sense, CLP positions students as collaborators in knowledge creation who analyse how language forms sometimes reproduce, and at other times challenge, prevailing power relations (Norton and Toohey, 2004; Crookes, 2013).  Fundamental to this pedagogy is critical literacy, which is the ability to speak, read and write in ways that interrogate everyday discourses and transform the world for the better.  Janks (2009, 2012, 2013) conceptualises this through four interconnected aspects, hegemony, access, diversity and design, which together promote fairness, equal rights and the transformation of the educational system.

CLP therefore pushes language pedagogy further than grammatical or communicative ends toward nurturing critical consciousness and learner autonomy.  It encourages students to link learning content with their lived realities to expose the systemic inequalities that language reveals (Crookes, 2013).  In contexts like Ethiopia, where English symbolises global mobility yet deepens social divides, CLP enables teachers and students to uncover what Skutnabb-Kangas and Heugh (2012: 69) call ‘linguistic imperialism by substitution’, thereby reclaiming language and language expression within the education process (Canagarajah, 1999).

Development education

Development education is a critical educational movement that situates learning within global interdependence and highlights how inequalities are produced and sustained.  Rather than treating development issues as neutral or purely technical problems, it adopts a transformative stance, encouraging learners to question the social, political and economic forces that shape relationships within and between countries.  Bourn (2015: 47) describes DE as an approach that ‘enables people to understand the links between their own lives and those of people throughout the world and to act towards achieving a more just and sustainable world’.  This idea directly echoes Freire’s (1970: 36) emphasis on education as ‘reflection and action upon the world in order to transform it’, aligning DE with the Freirean understanding of education as praxis.  Building on Freire’s focus on dialogue and action, DE promotes interaction, participation and learner autonomy, aiming to move beyond simple awareness-raising toward informed, ethical and responsible action (McCloskey, 2014).  As Andreotti (2006) argues, DE’s strength lies in its critique of neoliberal models of development and in its promotion of critical global awareness and alternative visions of collective responsibility and sustainability.  Recent evaluations of DE, like those conducted by the Irish Development Education Association and the Development Awareness Raising and Education Forum, show that DE initiatives are frequently supported by non-governmental organisations and policy frameworks that emphasise human rights, international justice and sustainable development (Daly and Regan, 2022).  These agendas have contributed meaningfully to establishing DE as a legitimate and policy-recognised field of educational practice.

Andreotti (2011) cautions, however, that when DE principles become embedded within institutional policies on education and development, there is a risk that the broader education system may unintentionally depoliticise the approach.  This can occur when political agency and collective action are understated in favour of technocratic, expert-led interventions that present information as objective and value-neutral.  Such tendencies may weaken DE’s transformative and liberatory potential, reducing it to a set of transferable skills rather than a critical engagement with power, inequality and global interdependence.  In essence, DE provides a space for ethical and critical participation, inviting learners to examine issues of power and justice in an interconnected world.  It functions both as an extension of Freire’s critical pedagogy and as an international educational movement, advancing his liberatory ideas through collective efforts toward global justice, critical consciousness and transformative social action (McCloskey, 2015).

Synthesis: A Freirean bridge between CLP and DE

Freire’s critical pedagogy offers the fundamental theoretical underpinning for both CLP and DE. Each builds upon his conception of education as a ‘practice of freedom’ (Freire, 1970: 81), linking reflective practice with an intent to change social realities.  CLP applies this idea to language, showing how linguistic practices can reproduce or contest power structures.  DE, on the other hand, extends Freire’s notion of praxis into the domain of global development, connecting education to international issues of justice, sustainability and collective responsibility (Bourn, 2015; McCloskey, 2014).  Taken together, CLP and DE illustrate what Janks (2012) describes as the movement from critical literacy to critical action, in which students examine not only how language constructs inequality but also how global political and economic systems such as neoliberalism, colonial legacies and class structures sustain it.  Therefore, incorporating Freire’s theoretical insights into language and development education transforms classrooms into spaces of interaction, negotiation and active participation (Norton and Toohey, 2004).  Within this dynamic, teachers assume the role of what Giroux (1988: 127) calls ‘transformative intellectuals’, mediating between linguistic empowerment and global critical awareness.

In the Ethiopian context where language education intersects with social hierarchy, multilingual governance and wider global aspirations this combination of policy insights and theoretical literature offers a coherent educational philosophy.  It synthesises Freire’s liberatory ethics, CLP’s critique of language, identity and power, and DE’s commitment to addressing the root causes of poverty, inequality and injustice.  As DE is fundamentally grounded in Freirean pedagogy, both approaches share the aim of promoting transformative educational experiences that blend critical reflection with socially responsible action.  Ultimately, CLP and DE each draw on Freire’s critical pedagogy through their shared commitment to dialogue, reflection and social transformation.  While CLP focuses on how language practices shape and are shaped by power in specific social and linguistic settings, DE extends this orientation to the global level by fostering critical global awareness and encouraging engagement with the structural economic, political and social conditions that produce inequity.  Collectively, they demonstrate the development of the Freirean concept of education from classroom-based critique to international praxis, positioning education as a means to question and transform linguistic, cultural and economic systems.  Within this framework, CLP develops critical literacy as a form of consciousness-raising about power through discourse, whereas DE cultivates critical global understanding highlighting how local lives are linked to global forces and how collective action is required for fairness and sustainability (Bourn, 2015; McCloskey, 2014; Crookes, 2013).  Both approaches enable students to become agents of knowledge creation and transformation, recognising that their local experiences are inseparably connected to international problems, global power relations and political structures.

The policy and practice divide in Ethiopia’s language education

Ethiopia’s language education policy exhibits significant contradictions.  On the one hand, it is among Africa’s most inclusive policies on paper, while on the other, its implementation remains inconsistent and uneven.  Article 5 of the 1995 Constitution (Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, 1995) recognises all Ethiopian languages as equal and grants regional states authority over the language of instruction.  Similarly, the 1994 Education and Training Policy (ETP) (Ministry of Education, 1994) operationalises this principle by introducing mother-tongue instruction in primary schools and English as a medium of instruction at tertiary level.  The policy aimed to balance local empowerment with global participation, enabling students to engage with their communities while preparing for international opportunities.  As Heugh (2011b: 26) notes, the ETP sought ‘to reconcile pedagogical effectiveness through mother tongue with the pragmatic necessity of English for higher education and international communication’.  Despite these intentions, persistent systemic and socio-political challenges have limited the policy’s effectiveness.  Shortages of contextually appropriate teaching resources and insufficient professional support constrain the delivery of effective bilingual education (Baye, 2010). Furthermore, curriculum design often prioritises standardised testing and content coverage over creativity, critical thinking and socio-political consciousness, thereby exacerbating inequalities and privileging learners with greater linguistic and economic capital (Gebreyohannes, 2020; Skutnabb-Kangas and Heugh, 2012).

Regional differences further intensify the policy-practice divide.  While the federal system allows language autonomy, regions vary widely in teacher training, curriculum development, syllabus design and provision of instructional materials (Vujcich, 2013).  Some regions have fully implemented mother-tongue programmes, whereas others lack the capacity to enforce the policy effectively, undermining the equality objectives of the ETP (Heugh, 2011b).  Historical legacies also continue to influence public attitudes.  Centralisation and Amharic hegemony have contributed to a perception among many parents that proficiency in English or Amharic supports social mobility and economic advantage (Baye, 2010; Heugh, 2009).  These societal preferences push schools to prioritise hegemonic languages, weakening support for mother-tongue instruction (Gebreyohannes, 2020).  The dominance of English in secondary and tertiary education further complicates the situation, as teachers struggle to maintain mother-tongue literacy while preparing students for English-medium advancement (Vujcich, 2013).  Closing the policy-practice gap requires more than amendments to the policy itself.  It necessitates a systemic overhaul, including enhanced teacher training, the development of culturally responsive curriculum, equitable distribution of resources, and sustained community participation.  Only through such coordinated efforts can Ethiopia realise the transformative potential of its language policy, improving both educational quality and language justice (Heugh, 2011b; Baye, 2010).

Strategies for integration: Bridging the policy-practice divide in Ethiopia

Closing Ethiopia’s language policy–practice divide requires a purposeful integration of CLP and DE philosophies.  These approaches link language empowerment with social transformation, positioning language pedagogy as a means of promoting justice and critical consciousness rather than neutrality (Freire, 1970; Pennycook, 2001; Heugh, 2011b).  The strategic areas below outline how Ethiopia can translate policy intentions into effective classroom realities.  To achieve this, integration must involve coordinated and sustained actions across the education system to address the current implementation gap.  The following four interrelated areas propose practical mechanisms through which Ethiopia can convert policy standards into meaningful pedagogical practice.

Teacher Professional Development (TPD)

Educators are central to policy implementation, and the quality of their training directly influences classroom effectiveness and learning outcomes.  Continuous Professional Development (CPD) should therefore prioritise multilingual instruction, critical literacy and learner-centred pedagogy (Heugh, 2011).  Training must also prepare educators to navigate Ethiopia’s dual language requirements: supporting mother-tongue instruction while strengthening English proficiency that is, students’ abilities to speak, read, write and understand English with confidence.  In addition, CLP- and DE-informed training encourages educators to cultivate critical awareness, enabling learners to question the political hierarchies and cultural norms embedded in language use and language education (Norton and Toohey, 2004; Crookes, 2013).  Professional learning structures such as peer collaboration, expert mentoring and academic learning communities can further support reflective practice and help teachers adapt pedagogical approaches to their specific contexts.

Curriculum and pedagogical improvement

Integrating CLP and DE into the core curriculum requires shifting from fragmented, content-heavy syllabi toward hands-on and enquiry-based pedagogies.  Educational approaches that emphasise debate, project-based learning and problem-solving tasks promote critical engagement with real-world issues (Janks, 2012; McCloskey, 2014).  Using socially meaningful and contextually relevant materials such as those reflecting Indigenous knowledge, local experiences and global challenges strengthens learner engagement and makes education more widely significant.  A well-structured progression from mother-tongue literacy to English proficiency should be designed to support students’ cognitive, linguistic and critical development in ways that align with development education objectives.  This means building strong foundational learning in the mother tongue while gradually expanding English skills, enabling learners to participate confidently in both local and global contexts.

Resource provision and infrastructure

CLP and DE delivery rely upon access to and availability of suitable education resources and infrastructure.  For instance, schools need textbooks, supplementary materials and digital resources both for mother tongue instruction and for English classes, complemented by home developed content that upholds cultural meaningfulness and international application (Tonegawa, 2025). Investment in libraries, digital platforms and cooperative learning venues that promote experiential teaching and learning methods, which are central to critical and multilingual education should be encouraged.

Community and stakeholder participation

Community and stakeholders’ continuous cooperation and participation should also be extended beyond schools.  It should include parents’, communities’ and policymakers’ participation in discussion about the educational and social value of mother-tongue instruction, English proficiency, CLP and DE (Skutnabb-Kangas and Heugh, 2012).  Relationships among schools, universities and non-governmental organisations may also simplify the exchange of information and culturally suitable and significant resources, strengthening the social network that sustains multilingual and critical education.

Policy alignment and monitoring

Institutional intersection and consistent monitoring are also vital for transforming CLP principles into practice.  Education authorities should establish mechanisms for evaluating implementation, identifying barriers and adapting strategies to regional contexts (Heugh, 2011b).  Feedback from educators, students and the community at large should inform adaptive policy cycles that continue to respond to language and cultural realities.

Promoting learner autonomy

At the heart of CLP is the development of learner interdependence and active participation.  Students should be enabled to question how language builds social hierarchies to investigate local issues and greater global concerns of inequities (Freire, 1970; Pennycook, 2001; McCloskey, 2014).  Activities like student-led study, community discussions and collective problem-solving can change classrooms into places of social learning and ethical development.  Generally, incorporating the concepts of CLP and DE into Ethiopia’s language education system requires coordinated improvements in teacher training, curriculum redesign, equitable resource distribution, community participation and good governance.  Such integration not only improves language proficiency but also cultivates critical awareness and civic responsibility, promoting Ethiopia’s broader goals of equity, development and fundamental change in the basic structure of the language education (Heugh, 2011; Gebreyohannes, 2020).

Conclusion

This article has surveyed and critically examined the interconnections among Ethiopia’s language policy, CLP and DE, with particular attention to how CLP can help narrow the persistent gap between policy intentions and classroom realities.  Ethiopia’s language education landscape presents both opportunities and challenges.  While national policies recognise the importance of mother-tongue instruction and the role of English for international participation, implementation continues to be constrained by limited resources, insufficient teacher preparation, rigid curricular structures and exam-driven instruction (Heugh, 2011b; Baye, 2010).  These conditions reproduce student passivity and socio-cultural inequalities, underlining the need for pedagogical reform.

CLP reframes language education as an interactive, socially negotiated process that promotes dialogue, autonomy and critical consciousness (Freire, 1970; Pennycook, 2001).  When connected with DE, which emphasises global awareness, social justice and collective responsibility (McCloskey, 2014; Bourn, 2015; Andreotti, 2011) learning is positioned as both a cognitive and political activity.  Together, these perspectives highlight that language teaching is not merely about skill acquisition but also empowering students to interrogate power structures, challenge inequities and participate ethically and critically in a globalised world.

Ethiopia’s experience therefore illustrates that well-written policy documents alone are insufficient without structural and strategic transformation.  Effective implementation requires continuous teacher development, participatory and context-responsive curriculum design, pedagogies that value critical engagement, equitable resource distribution and strong collaboration among stakeholders (Heugh, 2011b).  Such measures foster learning environments grounded in dialogue, cooperation and enquiry conditions essential for cultivating socially responsible and critically aware graduates.  The implications for DE are particularly significant.  Using language education as a platform for critical and ethical engagement can help nurture learners who are linguistically proficient, socially conscious and development-oriented.  This approach advances the cognitive, cultural and socio-political dimensions of education while aligning with Ethiopia’s broader development goals.  Moreover, Ethiopia’s experience offers valuable insights for other multilingual nations, demonstrating how integrating CLP and DE can promote inclusive and equitable learning that shapes how students perceive, interpret and act upon the world.

Ultimately, closing the policy-practice divide requires a comprehensive and interconnected strategy that embeds CLP principles within language teaching while reinforcing DE’s focus on global consciousness and civic responsibility.  When effectively implemented, this integration can transform classrooms into spaces of dialogue, participation and social action strengthening learning outcomes, institutional effectiveness and sustainable development (Heugh, 2011; McCloskey, 2014).

References

Andreotti, V (2006) ‘Soft versus critical global citizenship education’, Policy and Practice: A Development Education Review, Vol. 3, Autumn, pp. 40–51.

Andreotti, V (2011) Actionable Postcolonial Theory in Education, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Baye, Y A (2010) Mother-Tongue Education and Educational Outcomes in Ethiopia, Addis Ababa: Addis Ababa University Press.

Bourn, D (2015) The Theory and Practice of Global Learning, London: Routledge.

Canagarajah, A S (1999) Resisting Linguistic Imperialism in English Teaching, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Crookes, G (2013) Critical ELT in Action: Foundations, Promises, Praxis, New York: Routledge.

Daly, T and Regan, C (2022) Education, Action, Solidarity, Now! An Audit of Development Education and Global Citizenship Education Resources in Ireland 2017–2020, Dublin: DevelopmentEducation.ie.

DARE Forum / SALTO-Youth (n.d.) Implementing Development Education: Guidebook, Brussels: SALTO Youth Resource Centre.

Fairclough, N (1995) Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language, London: Longman.

Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (1995) The Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa: FDRE.

Freire, P (1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed, New York: Continuum.

Freire, P (1998) Pedagogy of Freedom: Ethics, Democracy, and Civic Courage, Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Gebreyohannes, A (2020) Language policy, ideology and practice in Ethiopian schools, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, Vol. 41, No. 4, pp. 325–338.

Giroux, H A (1988) Teachers as Intellectuals: Toward a Critical Pedagogy of Learning, South Hadley, MA: Bergin and Garvey.

Heugh, K (2009) Literacy and bi/multilingual education in Africa: Recovering collective memory and expertise in T Skutnabb-Kangas et al. (eds.) Social Justice Through Multilingual Education, Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 103–124.

Heugh, K (2011a) ‘Productive engagement with linguistic diversity in tension with globalised discourses in Ethiopia’, Language, Culture and Curriculum, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 223–241.

Heugh, K (2011b) ‘Theory and practice in language education policy: The Ethiopian experience’ in A Ouane and C Glanz (eds.) Optimising Learning, Education and Publishing in Africa: The Language Factor, Paris: UNESCO, pp. 223–255.

Janks, H (2009) Literacy and Power, New York: Routledge.

Janks, H (2010) ‘Language, Power and Pedagogies’ in N Hornberger and S McKay (eds.) Sociolinguistics and Language Education, Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 40–61.

Janks, H (2012) ‘The importance of critical literacy’, English Teaching: Practice and Critique, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 151–164.

Janks, H (2013) ‘Critical literacy in teaching and research’, Education Inquiry, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 241–249.

McCloskey, S (2014) Development Education in Policy and Practice, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

McCloskey, S (2015) ‘Development Education as an Agent of Social Change’ in G McCann and S McCloskey (eds.) From the Local to the Global: Key Issues in Development Studies, London: Pluto Press, pp. 135–149.

Ministry of Education (1994) Education and Training Policy, Addis Ababa: Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia.

Negash, T (2019) ‘Language teaching and learning in Ethiopia: Challenges and Perspectives’, Ethiopian Journal of Education Studies, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 45–62.

Norton, B (2010) ‘Language and Identity’ in N Hornberger and S McKay (eds.) Sociolinguistics and Language Education, Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 349–364.

Norton, B and Toohey, K (2004) Critical Pedagogies and Language Learning, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pennycook, A (2001) Critical Applied Linguistics: A Critical Introduction, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Ricento, T (2000a) Ideology, Politics and Language Policies: Focus on English, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Ricento, T (2000b) ‘Historical and Theoretical Perspectives in Language Policy and Planning, Journal of Sociolinguistics, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 196–213.

Skutnabb-Kangas, T and Heugh, K (2012) Multilingual Education and Sustainable Diversity Work: From Periphery to Center, New York: Routledge.

Tonegawa, Y (2025) ‘Multilingual education in Ethiopia: Use of the Mother Tongue and Lingua Franca’, Language Policy Journal, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 101–118.

Vujcich, D (2013) ‘Policy and Practice on Language of Instruction in Ethiopian Schools’, Comparative Education Review, Vol. 57, No. 1, pp. 1–23.

Getaw Girma Zemedu is a lecturer and researcher at Debre Berhan University in Ethiopia.  His scholarly work focuses on language teaching practices, language assessment policy and practice, critical thinking, critical language pedagogy, multilingual education, and language policy in Ethiopia within broader postcolonial African contexts.