IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

An Issue of Urban/Rural Division? Examining Mongolian Language Educationin the IMAR
Qi Zhang
Dublin City University
Republic of Ireland

95

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

Abstract
Against the backdrop of the increasing disparities in urban and rural areas in China nowadays,
this qualitative study explores trilingual education in the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region(IMAR), with a focus on the Mongolian language programme. Through a field trip to five
primary and secondary schools, interviews and class observations reveal that students arehighly motivated in conducting their primary and lower secondary schooling throughMongolian, due to the high utilitarian value associated with Mongolian. Preferential policies
make it possible to maximise the chance of academic advancement, career prospects andpossible social upward mobility for learners of Mongolian. However, the dominant positionsof Putonghua as the national common language, and English as a lingua franca in schools withadmirable academic quality, restrict the ability to convert the linguistic capital of Mongolian
into other forms of capital outside of Inner Mongolia. The study reveals that the problems anddifficulties of Mongolian language education in compact ethnic minority regions tend to be thesame as those faced by other Chinese rural schools. The marginalisation of a minority language
is examined in relation to fast-paced urbanisation; changes would require institutional support
to enhance the symbolic value of the ethnic minority language.
Keywords: ethnic minorities, language policy, Mongolian, trilingual education, urbanisation,96

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

Trilingual education has been the de facto norm for ethnic minority schools in China since the2002 introduction of English in Year 3 of the elementary curriculum (Feng & Adamson, 2018).
Putonghua (the national common language, also known as Mandarin Chinese), the ethnic
minority language, and English co-exist in the schooling system. In the case of the Inner
Mongolia Autonomous Region (IMAR), the Mongolian language is offered together with
Putonghua and English.
The IMAR is a long, narrow strip in the northwest of China. It shares borders with Russia andMongolia (Dong et al., 2015). While Han is the dominant ethnicity in the region, the Mongols
are the main ethnic minority. According to the 2010 national census (National Bureau of
Statistics, 2012), in that year there were 19.65 million Han, an increase of 4.39% since 2000,
and 4.22 million Mongols, with a similar increase of 4.89%. More than 70% of the total numberof Mongols in the whole country (5.98 million; National Bureau of Statistics of China, 2011)
reside in the IMAR.
Despite this population growth, there seems to be a decrease in the level of interest in the
Mongolian language (Gao, 2011). Indeed, there is greater demand for Putonghua due to its
being “the language of power and access to economic well-being” (Tsung & Cruickshank,
2009, p. 550), as well as for English, owing to the forces of globalisation and future personal
development (Yi & Adamson, 2017a). The Outline of Mid- and Long-term Educational
Reforms and Developmental Plan for the IMAR (2010-2020) puts a joint emphasis on
Mongolian and Putonghua, in order to achieve the goal of bilingualism (Ministry of Educationof the PRC, 2011). This study sought to investigate whether Mongolian can survive and thrive,
bearing in mind the social and commercial advantages of Putonghua and English.
Against the backdrop of rapid economic development in China, there has also been fast-paced
urbanisation, leading to widening gaps between the urban and rural, as well as between largely
urbanised and less urbanised regions. The impact of regional economic disparities on trilingual
education has been pointed out in previous research (Feng & Adamson, 2018; Gao, 2011;
Zhang & Yang, 2017, 2018), which leads to the question of the role of these wide gaps inregional wealth in the implementation of trilingual education, especially for minority language
education, which faces declining interest among younger generations. In these circumstances,the current study entailed visiting five schools in Inner Mongolia in order to gain an in-depth
understanding of Mongolian language education against the backdrop of trilingual education
policies and China’s urbanisation.
Trilingual Education Movements in Inner Mongolia
Although Chinese official discourse in policies and documents still refers to bilingual
education, Mongol students have access to three languages: Putonghua, Mongolian andEnglish. Long before English was introduced to formal schooling in the early 2000s,
Mongolian and Putonghua bilingualism was practised in Inner Mongolia. Ma and Pan (1988)
conducted a survey of 2,089 households in 1985, involving both agricultural and pastoral
regions in Chifeng, the area where the field trip for this study was carried out. Over 90% of
Mongols spoke fluent Putonghua, while a substantial number of them no longer spoke
Mongolian. By comparison, around 47% of Han Chinese spoke at least some Mongolian, andmore than 70% of Mongols had mastered both languages (Ma & Pan, 1988).
The 1990s witnessed decreasing interest in Mongolian, particular in urban areas. The main
reason was economic reform and nationwide marketisation, which contributed to the superior

97

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

status of Putonghua and English being overwhelmingly dominant in terms of social mobility(Burjgin & Bilik, 2015). Government financial support for Mongolian education was also
gradually withdrawn, since the education sector was to be managed according to market forces(Bilik, 1998).
By 1995, the number of Mongolian primary schools had been reduced by 1,409 and the numberof Mongolian secondary schools had been reduced by 142 (Jin & Chen, 2010). In 1996-1997,
the number of primary school pupils instructed in Mongolian fell by 23,256 (Jin & Chen, 2010).
This pattern of reduction extended from major cities and banners – an administrative unit in
IMAR – to small towns and pastureland (Tan & Jin, 2017). Statistics published by the IMAR
Education Bureau in 1997 show the decreasing number of Mongol students learning Mongolian(Su, 2005, see Figure 1).

Figure 1: The decline in the number of Mongol students learning Mongolian
Moving into the 2000s, and according to a survey of three secondary schools in Hohhot,
Chifeng and Tongliao, a large number of Mongol students reported code switching between
Mongolian and Putonghua, even when communicating with family members and among
themselves (Jin & Chen, 2010). A 2013 study confirmed that it was a common phenomenon
for Mongol students not to study Mongolian (Jin, 2014). The marginalisation of Mongolian
seemed to be underway across the IMAR (Yi & Adamson, 2017b).
Top-down measurements have been introduced to promote Putonghua and at the same timeencourage the study of Mongolian. The principle of separate schooling for Han and Mongol
children was adopted and promoted in the 1950s in order to allow Mongol students to benefit
from learning both their own language and Putonghua (Su, 2005, pp. 92–93). These schools
are named Mongolian National Schools (MNS).
In the late 1950s and early 1960s, the elementary school curriculum was changed to bring
Putonghua education forward from Grade 5 to Grade 3 and increase teaching hours (Su, 2005,
pp. 92–94). The Mode of Instruction (MoI) was also shifted from Mongolian to Putonghua
from Year 3 of junior high school. Specifically, there were two modes of classes at elementarylevel and three modes at secondary level, according to the MoI they employed (ibid., pp. 95;
see Table 1).

98

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

Table 1: Different modes of teaching according to MoI in late 1950s – early1960s(adapted from Su, 2005, p. 95)

Elementary
schools
Secondaryschools

Mode A
Mongolian as MoI
with Putonghua as a
subject
Except Putonghua,
all other subjects use
Mongolian as MoI

Mode B
Putonghua as MoI with
Mongolian as a subject

Mode C

Except Mongolian, allother subjects use
Putonghua as MoI

Some subjects (e.g.
Maths, Physics,
Chemistry) use
Putonghua as MoI,
some (e.g. History,
Geography,
Biology) use
Mongolian as MoI

N/A

Based on the modes of teaching in the 1950s, the Regulations of the IMAR for Ethnic
Education (The IMAR News, 2016) outlines that there are two modes of bilingual educationin the MNS nowadays. Mode A uses Mongolian as the MoI for all subjects, with Putonghua asa language subject from Grade 2 at elementary level. Mode B uses Putonghua as the MoI anddelivers Mongolian as a language subject. Therefore, Mode B differs from other Han Chinese
schools only in offering Mongolian as a subject. MNS usually adopt Mode A, while alsooffering classes in Mode B. Mode C in Table 1 is no longer in practice. Both modes introduce
English from Grade 3, as suggested by the central government.
Interestingly, Mode A schools are almost all Mongolian ethnic students from remote areas whoare boarders at the school, whereas Mode B schools are usually in cities and towns consistingof Mongol, Han Chinese and other ethnic students. The closer a school is to an urban city“where the geographical and living conditions are more influenced by the majority Chinese
culture” (Dong et al., 2015), the more likely that Mongolian is in a deteriorating position. In
other words, the urbanisation of a region seems to lead to the marginalisation of its ethnic
language (Dong et al., 2015; Yi & Adamson, 2017a, 2017b).
The current study entailed a field trip to five MNS in May 2018. Of the five schools, one is a
Mongolian ethnic primary school and one is a Mongolian secondary school. The other three
are MNS with Grade 1-6 at the elementary level and Grade 7-9 at the junior secondary level.
These schools offer nine different levels of teaching because of the nine years of compulsory
education in China. They are also called “nine-year education” schools.
Interviews with teachers, school leaders and local government officials, as well as classobservations, were carried out in the field study in order to scrutinise the motivations anddifficulties faced by students in the Mongolian language programme, with reference torural/urban division. The purpose of this data was to address the question as to whether
Mongolian can survive and thrive in light of the social and commercial advantages ofPutonghua and English and increased urbanisation.
Field Trip to Five Ethnic Minority Schools
The field trip took place in Chifeng, where previous research had been conducted (Jin & Chen,
2010; Ma & Pan, 1988), in order to answer the research question regarding the implementation

99

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020and development Mongolian language education in IMAR against the backdrop of urbanisation.
Chifeng is in the east of the IMAR, one of the twelve sub-divisions of the IMAR (see Figure2). With an area of around 90 thousand square kilometres, Chifeng consists of three districts,
seven banners and two towns (Chifeng Government website, 2018). It has the largest
population of all cities and banners (ibid.). Of its approximately 4.64 million people, 940,000
are Mongols (Chifeng Government website, 2018).

Figure 2: The location of Chifeng in the IMAR
The sheer size of Chifeng makes it impossible to visit all MNS. As a result, five Mongolian
ethnic schools were selected, including both elementary and secondary levels. Two schools,
Xianjin Primary and Secondary, are in developed urban areas, whereas the other three are in
remote small towns or villages.
Table 2 below shows the number of interview participants in the current study. “School leaders”
refers to staff who have a leading administrative role in a school, that is, headmaster. For the
purpose of strict anonymity, the term “school leader” is used rather than the exact job title. Allteachers interviewed are ethnic Mongols and native speakers of Mongolian. They wereeducated in Mongolian in Mode A or B in their childhood. They teach Mongolian, Putonghua
or other subjects including English, Maths and Physics. Their teaching experience ranges fromover four years to more than thirty years. Two officials from the local authorities were also
invited for interviews, in order to gain an understanding of the development of bilingual
education from a government perspective. Again, to protect anonymity, their job titles anddepartments are not specified.

100

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

Table 2: Study participants and manner of participation
School name
Xianjin Primary
SchoolParticipants

NumberSchool leaders 1
Schoolteachers

3

School leaders 1
Xianjin
Secondary School School2
teachers
ShengliMongolian
National School
HongqiMongolian
National School

Schoolteachers

Interview andobservation ofteaching

2

School leaders 1
Schoolteachers

Interview
Interview andobservation ofteaching
Interview
Interview andobservation ofteaching

6

School leaders 1
MeihaoSecondary School School
6
teachers
Local government

Government
officials

Participation in the
study
Interview
Interview andobservation ofteaching
Interview
Interview andobservation ofteaching

2

Observation
Two classes(Mongolian in Mode
A & B)
Two classes(Mongolian in Mode
A & B)
One class(Mongolian in ModeB)

Two classes(Mongolian andEnglish in Mode A)
One class(Mongolian in Mode
A)

Interview

Since MNS differ from Han Chinese schools in teaching and learning Mongolian, the teachingobservations were mainly of Mongolian classes and an English class was observed in one
Secondary School. The visit to each school was carried out in a similar format, starting with ageneral conversation with the school leader followed by class observations, and thenconducting interviews with teachers, including those who had given classes earlier, followed
by interviews with school leaders. This paper focuses on the results from the interviews,
drawing information from in-class practice and language policies wherever necessary. Since
all MNS implement bilingual education in two modes, classes in both Mode A and B wereobserved. The data below mainly present the common findings from both modes of class, withthe differences between them highlighted later. In total, ten semi-structure interviews and fiveclass observations were conducted. The average length of each interview is 113.6 minutes,
which generates totally 135,921 words transcription. Each class lasted 40 minutes and therefore
200 minutes of classroom observations were also completed.
Data Analysis
This study employs Bourdieu’s concept of linguistic capital to explicate the study of Mongolian
in five MNS. As Bourdieu (1991) points out, linguistic utterances or expressions can possessa certain value which is endowed with the contexts or markets where these linguistic products
are used. Moreover, the value associated with linguistic products varies (Bourdieu, 1991). A

101

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

person’s linguistic capital refers to their practical competence and ability to produce linguistic
expressions “which are highly valued on the markets concerned” (Bourdieu, 1991, p. 18).
Linguistic capital is associated with, and can be converted to, other forms of capital, such as
economic capital in the form of material wealth, cultural capital as exemplified by educational
qualifications, and social capital as defined as the aggregate of an individual’s groupmemberships and social connections (Bourdieu, 1986, 1991; Sunuodula & Cao, 2015). Finally,
symbolic capital, as in accumulated prestige or honour, is a credit that derives from other formsof capital as long as they are perceived and recognised as legitimate (Bourdieu, 1989). Eachform of capital has exchange value, and people may also participate in maintaining or altering
the distribution of different forms in the market. For instance, the mastery of a language(linguistic capital) may mean a good education (cultural capital) that can generate a well-paidjob (economic capital) and contribute to upward social mobility (social capital), in order togain prestige in the long term (symbolic capital). The current study examines the linguistic
capital associated with Mongolian, Putonghua and English. It probes the reasons for the fallinginterest in the minority language from the perspective of conversions of different forms ofcapital on the linguistic market.
Since Putonghua is the common language among all interviewees and researchers, it was
employed for the interviews. However, one of the researchers is a native Mongolian speakerand can communicate fluently in Mongolian with interviewees. Greetings were usually in
Mongolian and the Mongol researcher translated a few words and sentences for the researchteam when interviewees preferred to speak in their mother tongue.
The interviews were transcribed by one researcher and read in detail by two researchers
independently, to identify general themes across an entire set of interviews. Two researchers
later manually categorised and coded the interview transcriptions for thematic analysis. Insteadof frequency of occurrence, the occurrence of common themes was outlined and the themes
are discussed below. The quotations from interviewees presented were translated into English
by one researcher and then back-translated into Chinese by the second researcher, in order tomake sure the English translation accurately captures the meaning.
Academic advancement from learning Mongolian
Contrary to the decreasing interest in learning Mongolian discussed earlier, primary and juniorhigh school leaders and teachers said that parents liked their children to have Mongolian
language education, for the pursuit of academic advancement.
They [parents] are happy to send their children to our [MNS] school, since it will
be easier to get into university in the future [compared to attending a Han school].
Every student receives 10 extra points if their ethnicity is recorded as Mongol.
However, students [in Mode A and B] can enter a university with a lower mark[than Mongol students in Han schools with 10 extra points]. [Interviewee No. 7,
female, age 39]
This comment from a teacher exemplifies that students are apparently motivated to learn
Mongolian in order to gain better access to higher education. In fact, all teachers from Shengli
and Meihao schools sent their own children to attend an MSN, for this reason. There is afavourable admission policy for ethnic minorities, which entails adding 10 points to the overall
university entry exam score. However, this policy is applicable to all Mongol students,
regardless of whether they study through Mongolian or not. In contrast, lower entry mark102

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

requirements and separate admission quotas are provided to students of Mongolian language(IMAR Government, 2016; IMAR Government Office, 2015). Each Chinese university has anadmission plan assigning different quotas to different regions for various majors. A separate
quota is usually set aside for students of Mongolian, making the university entry exam lesscompetitive for these students and with lower entry requirements based on exam results. Thismeans that an ethnic Mongol who studies through Mongolian can take advantage of both 10
extra points and lower entry point requirements.
Our Mongolian class has better teaching quality. Because the school values
Mongolian language education, very good and experienced teaching staff invarious subjects, like Maths and English, are assigned to our class. In addition,
the class size is relatively small, around 30 students compared to 40-plus students
in a normal Mandarin class. So each student can be better attended to. All thesecontribute to an overall good learning ambience. [Interviewee No. 6, female, age
38]This teacher mentioned that they promote the Mongolian language programme by outlining
these benefits to parents. In other words, aspirations for academic development throughMongolian language education are shown not only in the pursuit of a positive university entry
exam outcome, but also in the pursuit of better teaching and learning quality. Mongol students
and their parents are well aware of the conversion of linguistic capital into cultural capital in
the pursuit of good educational qualifications. Academic prospects, through either the highuniversity admission rate or the enhanced study experience, contribute to deciding between a
Mongolian or a Putonghua education.
Enhanced Job Prospects
Another main reason for learning through Mongolian that emerged in the interviews is
employment opportunity. Teachers, school leaders and government officials all repeatedly
mentioned one regulation – the IMAR government prescribes that 15% of staff must be
bilingual in Mongolian and Putonghua, a quota which applies to all public sector posts (seealso IMAR Government, 2016). Recruitment is not based merely on the ethnicity specified on
an individual’s official identity documents. There are written exams and oral interviews toensure that an applicant is indeed a fluent speaker of Mongolian (IMAR Government Office,2015). Interestingly, all the teachers we interviewed are beneficiaries of this policy.
… the regulation in the IMAR is that the ratio of ethnic minority civil servants to
Han civil servants should not fall below the overall ratio in the IMAR. Besides,
there are written exams and oral interviews to ensure that an applicant is indeed
a fluent speaker of Mongolian. In fact, IMAR government recruitment policies
specify that at least 15% of vacancies during annual public sector recruitment
should be reserved for university graduates taught through Mongolian.
[Interviewee No. 20, male, age 42]
Indeed, the 2010 census also shows that Mongols (N=4,933) ranked right below Han Chinese(N=1.21 million) as the second largest group of people with leading roles in the public sector,
public institutions and enterprises, Communist Party organisations and other parties (National
Bureau of Statistics of China, 2011). To some extent, Mongolian language education
guarantees job market value for graduates, demonstrating its social capital and the possibilityof converting it into economic capital.

103

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

Difficulties of Mongolian Language Education
The above two sections seem to draw a different picture to that of a declining interest in
Mongolian. Therefore, questions were asked during interviews about the contradiction between
the decline in the number of students learning Mongolian and the pragmatic motivations tostudy it. The two reasons typically given are exemplified below:
When students progress to senior high school, they are assigned to different
schools based on their exam results. Those with Mongolian language can enter
prestigious schools if they perform well in the exam. These prestigious schools
usually do not offer Mongolian. So a number of high-achieving students ofMongolian have to drop the language at senior high school level. [Interviewee
No.4, female, age 48]
It is hard for Mongolian to compete with Putonghua and English, since parents
and students see little pragmatic value in it. There has been always a need to learn
Putonghua. Since English was introduced into Grade 3 at elementary level in
2003, English has received a lot of attention from parents and students. They tend
to think Mongolian is of ‘no use’ to their future career. [Interviewee No. 5, male,age 54]
There is an entry exam to progress to senior secondary school, at the end of Year 3 of juniorsecondary. Students are allocated to different schools according to their results. Obviously,
high-achieving students are assigned to prestigious schools – usually Han Chinese schools notoffering Mongolian language programme – with a much better university admission rate,
excellent teaching quality and good facilities. Although the pragmatic aspect of Mongolian
language education is employed to motivate language learning, it also affects the continuity ofMongolian language study. Students seem to have no hesitation about replacing Mongolian
with other languages strongly associated with convertible capital.
Furthermore, when the study of Mongolian is driven by good chances for academic excellence,
this also affects teaching content even if students stay in MNS. In order to lead to highachievement in the competitive university entry exam, class content tends to be exam-oriented,
either focusing on the grammar and vocabulary needed in the exam, or on studying questions
that have appeared on previous exam papers. Two of the classes we observed spent the entire
class explaining one or two grammatical concepts on an exam paper from the previous year.
Another difficulty of Mongolian language education is in relation to the differences between
Mode A and Mode B. A government official mentioned that there has been a decrease in thenumber of students enrolling in Mode B. As the following quote reveals, one of the main
reasons for this may be the method of calculating the Mongolian language score on theuniversity entry exam for Mode B (see also Table 3).
The scores of Mongolian and English have been combined and recognised as theresult of one subject in the university entry exam since English was introduced
into the curriculum in 2003. The split between Mongolian and English was
initially 8:2 and then 7:3. In 2007, the weighting of Mongolian was lowered
further and the split became 5:5. The consequence is a significant drop in interestin Mongolian. In 2017, the proportion of Mongolian was brought up with a splitof 7:3 [between Mongolian and English]. This may not be ideal, as we hope
Mongolian can be recognised as a stand-alone subject in the university entry

104

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

exam. But hopefully the increased weighting of Mongolian will have a positive
impact on student intake. [Interviewee No. 20, male, age 42]
Consistent with the interview data, available official documents confirm that the weighting ofMongolian in the university exam has been changing since 2000 (IMAR Government, 2016;
The IMAR Education Bureau, 2000).
Table 3: The changing weighting of Mongolian in the university entry exam

Mode A
Mode B

2001-2004
The higherscore of thetwo
The higherscore of thetwo

2004-2005
2006-2007
2008-2016 2017A combination of Mandarin and English
8:2

7:3

5:5

7:3

A combination of Mongolian and English
8:2

7:3

5:5

7:3

Unlike Mode A, which combines two prestigious languages – Putonghua and English –students of Mode B study towards a subject combining two languages with significantly
different linguistic capital. When the split was 5:5 between Mongolian and English in Mode B,
students may have felt there was no need to work hard on Mongolian, as working hard on
English instead compensated for this in terms of the overall result – and English is a language
more useful for individual advancement, in terms of both academic performance at tertiarylevel and better employment opportunities. Comparing the benefits of learning English withthe efforts made to study both English and Mongolian, it is not surprising that students preferto devote their attention to English. In other words, minority language education seems to entail
prudent planning by students and parents, aimed at maximising the ability to convert linguistic
capital into other types of capital.
Differences Between Urban and Rural MNS Schools
The contrasting information received from urban and rural schools highlights one aspect of this:access to and availability of teaching resources.
There are a variety of training opportunities for us each year offered by the
Education Bureau of the IMAR, Chifeng city or the county. The training involves
class observations and reviews, studying the new curriculum standards, pedagogy,
etc. We are also required to write a short essay of 400-500 words after a training
session to reflect on what we have learned.
Interviewee in an urban MNS [Interviewee No. 12, female, age 30]
We look forward to training opportunities. There are indeed one or two chances[for training] each year provided by the IMAR or in Chifang city. However, there
are around twenty teachers in our school. Each teacher is given a heavy teachingload and so we can only afford to send one teacher per year for training. You canimagine, it takes more than twenty years for a person to get his/her turn.
Interviewee in a rural MNS [Interviewee No. 15, female, age 25]
Class observations indeed show that the teaching process is still predominantly the traditional“present, practise and produce”, which usually involves presenting a grammatical concept andshowing its usage to students, before asking them to produce it on their own. Previous research

105

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

(Ma, 2009; Zhang & Yang, 2017) also finds poor training provision for rural schoolteachers as
a result of the heavy workload. In addition to their teaching responsibilities, rural teachers haveto take on a substantial amount of non-teaching duties, one of which is related to the large
number of “left-behind” children and the poor regional economy in rural areas.
There are a large number of left-behind children in our school. Their parents
migrate to work in cities and so they are left behind. There are generally at least
three to five children whose parents are not with them and so are looked after by
grandparents [or other relatives]. If we count children with either their father ormother not with them, that would be countless [too many to know the exact numberof children]. [Interviewee No. 13, male, age 36]
The left-behind children need extra attention from our teachers. These children
tend to have issues with academic study and in life, or even develop psychologicalproblems. When a teacher notices something not right or not normal, we need tolook into it. [Interviewee No. 14, female, age 37]
These comments indicate both the profile of left-behind children and the concerns surrounding
them. A few recent studies have revealed the problems resulting from children being left behind,and their well-being has become a pressing issue (Chang et al., 2017; Guo & Zhang, 2018;
Huang et al., 2018). In these circumstances, a government document – “Opinions towards
Strengthening the Care and Protection for the Left-behind Children in Rural Areas” – wasissued in 2016 to emphasise the roles of different entities, including schools, in the service
system providing care to left-behind children (State Council, 2016).
On the one hand, rural school teachers need to take on extra work in order to better observe thedevelopment of these children and offer help when needed. On the other hand, teacher
recruitment for rural schools may not be easy, for two reasons. One reason, mentioned byschool leaders and one government official, is the low quota for teaching staff, which is usually
set by the IMAR Education Bureau according to the ratio of students to teachers. It is difficult
to argue for a higher quota for teacher recruitment with the declining enrolment in Mongolian
language programmes. The other reason is that rural regions – being economically backward –are not an attractive destination for university graduates in Mongolian. Nowadays, “It is easy
to lose the language in the rapid urbanisation,” said one government official.
Discussion
It is generally evident in other studies that the main reason students partake in minority
language education is the “desire to maximise the benefits” they can gain from favourable
policies such as high university admission rates and enhanced job prospects (Zhang, 2018, p.
10). In relation to ethnic minority students in rural regions, there is indeed a generally low
university admission rate, as shown in the study of Huang (2018). In these circumstances, thepossibility of enhanced academic experience and high academic achievement underpins the
incentives for Mongolian language study. This also affects the approach to daily academic
practices, such as the course content.
The pragmatically oriented value of the minority language programme is associated not onlywith academic advancement in the short term, but also with upward social mobility in the longterm. Better access to higher education usually indicates better opportunities after graduation.
Importantly, an annual quota of at least 15% of civil servant vacancies is available for106

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

university graduates in Mongolian. This preferential employment policy in the IMAR isemployed to encourage enrolment in Mongolian language education. Though not all learnersof Mongolian will be willing to apply for a job in the public sector, or be successful in doingso, bilingual education in Putonghua and Mongolian certainly increases their life opportunities
and provides a positive vision of a privileged position in society. This pragmatic aspect appears
to outweigh the symbolic importance of the minority language.
Nevertheless, the high utilitarian value of the Mongolian language programme is a doubleedged sword. Students seem to be motivated to study the Mongolian language when they areable to trade its linguistic capital for other forms of capital. As soon as there are other better
opportunities for enhanced learning experiences and life opportunities, students do not hesitate
to switch to the Putonghua programme or devalue the study of Mongolian. This can be seen in
the loss of high-achieving students in MNS schools at senior secondary level and the Mode B
drop-out rate. In other words, the pragmatic perception of Mongolian language education canbe easily deconstructed.
Favourable university admission policies have been used as a bargaining tool by schoolteachers
and leaders to encourage the study of Mongolian, and in this respect previous research hasprobed the low admission rate into top universities among minority schools in rural areas(Huang, 2018). The reasons for this include regional economic backwardness, shortage ofteaching staff, loss of high-achieving students, outdated teaching pedagogy and school
management, and poor quality of primary and junior secondary education.
In fact, these factors can be found in most rural schools, rather than specifically in rural
minority schools. Therefore, the obstacles and problems that minority language education faces
nowadays are de facto connected with the regional economy – a key contextual element
influencing the implementation of bilingual education (Feng & Adamson, 2018) – andessentially lie in the linguistic capital associated with the minority language. With growing
contact with Han Chinese and international society in real life and in the virtual world,
Putonghua and English undoubtedly represent strong linguistic capital that can be converted
into economic gain and/or symbolic power. There is also a diminishing need for the use ofMongolian in students’ immediate milieu, especially with the “changes in the way of life offormer nomadic herders” (Burjgin & Bilik, 2015) in the context of urbanisation. With theshrinking of rural or pastureland in the IMAR, the linguistic exchanges in Mongolian that cantake place have been significantly restricted.
Furthermore, a 2001 government document – “Decisions Regarding Basic Education Reforms
and Development” – proposed merging and reducing the number of rural schools (StateCouncil, 2001), in order to “optimise education resources” in terms of “school building
renovation, standardising the education system, urbanisation development, migration andrelocation” (Article 13 of State Council, 2001, paras. 33–34). Between 2001 and 2010,
approximately 220,000 rural schools in China were closed down, with the vast majority of theirstudents enrolled in urban boarding schools instead, and the IMAR is no exception (Li, 2006;
Yuan, 2014). Instead of sending urban children to pastureland for Mongolian language
improvement, as suggested by Su (2005), Mongol children from pastureland and rural regions
lost the opportunity to gain exposure to the ethnic language when they began attending urban
boarding schools. As Yi and Adamson (2017b, 2017a) point out, Mongolian is slowly giving
way to Putonghua and English, which may accelerate the pace of marginalisation.
Indeed, this study illustrates that favourable policies, including enhanced opportunities for107

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

continued education and future career, make possible the conversion of Mongolian linguistic
capital into economic, cultural or social capital, at least within the IMAR. In return, different
types of capital transferred from the linguistic capital also stimulate minority language study.
There seems to be an ecological flow back and forth between the study of the language andpersonal development, motivated by regional preferential policies. Nonetheless, closer
examination reveals that this superficially healthy circulation in a restricted linguistic spacecannot be translated into a larger society, a fact which to a large extent limits the ability of thelanguage to “empower”.
As Wu and He (2018) state, two competing forces influence ethnic socio-economic disparities.
One is state preferential treatment policies aimed at reducing the gap between ethnic minorities
and Han Chinese; the other is that the market tends to enlarge this gap. Urbanisation can beperceived as “a manifestation of the capitalist mode of production in that cities areconstructions of capital accumulation that exacerbate existing inequalities” (Iossifova et al.,2018, p. 2). Linguistic capital should not be excluded from the interpretation of capital
accumulation and social disparities in the process of urbanisation. The urban/rural division
results in, for instance, large-scale migration, which pushes people to carry out linguistic
exchanges in a wider society and raises awareness of the poor economic significance of theminority language. That is to say, the lack of provision to convert the linguistic capital of theminority language into other forms of capital aggravates its marginal status.
In addition, the symbolic importance of Mongolian has not been fully exploited for thepromotion of minority language education. In the battle of capital accumulation, the symbolic
value of a language, or language variety or variation, competes with other forms of capital, andcan quickly give way to economic gain. Yi and Adamson (2017a) indicated that a sense of
pride in Mongolian ethnic identity should be nurtured and encouraged to be aligned with
Chinese citizenship. This needs institutional support from “mass media, [… and] social, legal
and administrative services in Mongolian” to “provide the language with status” (Yi &Adamson, 2017b, p. 161). However, the enrichment of the symbolic power of Mongolian
should not be left only to teaching staff, who already have limited access to teaching resourcesand extra workload. There is certainly an opportunity here for top-down policies to support the
spread of Mongolian traditions, culture, literature, history, etc., while maintaining a balance
between ethnolinguistic vitality and national integration.
Conclusion
The current study examines the development of trilingual education in the IMAR and reports
on a field trip to five minority schools in the IMAR, highlighting the current practices oftrilingual education and perceptions of the minority language programme in the region.
Through data from interviews and class observation, this article reports on the motivations forlearning Mongolian and the difficulties of student retention, as well as the impact of theurban/rural division on minority language education. In the context of fast-paced urbanisation,
the linguistic capital associated with a language can be quickly realised, examined andexchanged in the linguistic market. Although the ethnic affirmative policies in the IMAR
enhance the linguistic capital of Mongolian and highlight its pragmatic value, student interestin the minority language programme is still affected by the relatively poor provision forconverting the linguistic capital of Mongolian into other forms of capital. Importantly, the lackof economic significance of Mongolian is market-operated and thus difficult to change,
whereas the symbolic importance of the minority language can be underlined “throughcoordinated and coherent policies” (Yi & Adamson, 2017a, p. 334).

108

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

Instead of analysing minority language education on its own, the current study has situated thisagainst the backdrop of urbanisation. This approach demonstrates that trilingual education inminority regions confronts the difficulties caused by urban/rural division, which may shed lighton the development of language programmes in China in general. It should be pointed out thatthe current study entailed a field trip to five schools in the Chifeng area, just one of twelve
regions within the IMAR. It is indeed difficult to travel to every part of Inner Mongolia, which
is vast. It is recommended that future research expand the field trip area, in order to gain abetter overview of trilingual education practice in the IMAR. In addition, the current study
focuses primarily on the school context. It would be worthwhile for future studies to also
examine the Mongolian language programme in higher education institutions in the IMAR, in
relation to the career prospects of Mongolian language graduates.

109

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

References
Bilik, N. (1998). Language education, intellectuals and symbolic representation: Being anurban Mongolian in a new configuration of social evolution. Nationalism and Ethnic
Politics, 4(1–2), 47–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/13537119808428528
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory andresearch for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). Greenwood.
Bourdieu, P. (1989). Social space and symbolic power. Sociological Theory, 7(1), 14–25.
https://doi.org/10.2307/202060
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Harvard University Press.
Burjgin, J., & Bilik, N. (2015). Contemporary Mongolian population distribution, migration,
cultural change, and identity. In R. Iredale, N. Bilik, & F. Guo (Eds.), China’s
minorities on the move: Selected case studies (pp. 53–68). Routledge.
Chang, H., Yan, Q., Tang, L., Huang, J., Ma, Y., Ye, X., & Yu, Y. (2017). A comparative
analysis of suicide attempts in left-behind children and non-left-behind children inrural China. PLOS ONE, 12(6). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178743
Chifeng Government. (2018). Introduction to Chifeng [Zoujin Chifeng]. Chifeng
Government Website. Retrieved July 9, 2018, fromhttp://www.chifeng.gov.cn/channels/2.html
Dong, F., Narisu, Gou, Y., Wang, X., & Qiu, J. (2015). Four models of Mongolian
nationality schools in the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region. In A. Feng & B.
Adamson (Eds.), Trilingualism in education in China: Models and challenges (pp.
25–45). Springer. http://doi-org-443.webvpn.fjmu.edu.cn/10.1007/978-94-017-93520_2
Feng, A., & Adamson, B. (2018). Language policies and sociolinguistic domains in thecontext of minority groups in China. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural
Development, 39(2), 169–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2017.1340478
Gao, Y. (2011). Development of English language education in ethnic minority schools in
Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region. Intercultural Communication Studies, XX(2),
148–159. Retrieved November 17, 2020, from https://www-s3-live.kent.edu/s3fsroot/s3fs-public/file/12YouhanGao.pdf
Guo, K., & Zhang, X. (2018). A study of protection and countermeasures of the left-behindchildren’s rights and benefits in rural China [Woguo nongcun ertong quanyi baohu ji
duice yanjiu]. Journal of Chinese Youth Social Science[Zhongguo Qingnian Shehui
Kexue], 37(4), 79–84. Retrieved November 17, 2020, fromhttp://xb.cyu.edu.cn/zxqk/gqml/201808/W020180830357680409533.pdf
Huang, Youci. (2018). An investigation and countermeasure of the current development ofsenior high schools in the county regions of ethnic minorities: A case study of tier I
university admission rate in the counties of Napo, Leye and Xilin in Guangxi[Shaoshu minzu diqu xianyu gaozhong fazhan xianzhuang diaocha yu duice: Yiguangxi napo xian, leye xian, xilin xian gaozhong yiben shangxian qingkuang weili].
Teaching Reference of Middle School [Zhongxue Jiaoxue Cankao], 3, 58–59.
Retrieved 17 November, 2020, fromhttp://www.cqvip.com/qk/87371b/201809/7000581242.html

110

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

Huang, Youqin, Song, Q., Tao, R., & Liang, Z. (2018). Migration, family arrangement, andchildren’s health in China. Child Development, 89(2), 74–90.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12699
IMAR Education Bureau. (2000, April 19). The notice of the IMAR Education Bureau
regarding the university entry exam subjects and results for students instructed in
Mongolian and Korean after ‘3+X’ is implemented in the IMAR. IMAR Education
Bureau Website. Retrieved September 14, 2018, fromhttp://www.nmg.gov.cn/art/2000/4/26/art_2535_1553.html
IMAR Government. (2016, June 2). Opinions of the IMAR government towards increasing
the speed of development of the ethnic minority education [Neimenggu zizhiqu renminzhengfu guanyu jiakuai fazhan minzu jiaoyu de yijian]. IMAR Government Website.
Retrieved September 13, 2018, fromhttp://www.nmg.gov.cn/art/2016/2/6/art_4044_3536.html
IMAR Government Office. (2015, January 12). The implementing opinions forwarded by the
IMAR government towards further developing the Mongolian language education andcareer development in the higher institutes [Neimenggu zizhiqu renmin zhengfu
bangongting zhuanfa guanyu jinyibu zuohao gaodeng xuexiao mengguyu shouke
xuesheng peiyang he chuangye jiuye gongzuo de shishi yijian]. IMAR Government
Website. Retrieved September 13, 2018, fromhttp://www.nmg.gov.cn/art/2015/12/1/art_4025_3473.html
IMAR News. (2016, September 29). No. 24 Notice of the 12th IMAR People’s CongressStanding Committee: The regulations of the IMAR for the ethnic education[Neimenggu zizhiqu di shi’erjie renmin daibiao dahui changwu weiyuanhui gonggao
di 24 hao: Neimenggu zizhiqu minzu jiaoyu tiaoli]. IMAR News Website. Retrieved
September 13, 2018, fromhttp://gov.nmgnews.com.cn/system/2016/10/13/012156744.shtml
Iossifova, D., Doll, C. N. H., & Gasparatos, A. (2018). Defining the urban: Why do we needdefinitions? In D. Iossifova, C. N. H. Doll, & A. Gasparatos (Eds.), Defining theurban: Interdisciplinary and professional perspectives. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315576282
Jin, Z. (2014). From the perspective of cultural capital, exploring student decrease and thenational cultural inheritance of primary and secondary schools of Mongolian teaching[Wenhua ziben shiyu xia mengyu shouke zhongxiaoxue ‘shengyuan weisuo’ yu
minzu wenhua chuancheng tantao]. Journal of Educational Science of Hunan Normal
University, 13(4), 38–43. Retrieved November 17, 2020, fromhttp://www.hnsfdxxbjkb.cn/index.php?m=content&c=index&a=show&catid=32&id=
127
Jin, Z., & Chen, T. (2010). An investigation and reflection on ethnic language identity ofMongolian Education in Inner Mongolian area [Neimenggu mengguzu jiaoyu zhong
minzu yuyan rentong de diaocha yu sikao]. 47(6), 70–75. Retrieved 17 November
2020, from https://www.enaea.edu.cn/uploadfiles/201403/1396244168.pdf
Li, J. (2006). The current situation and measures of the educational development of Inner
Mongolian nationality [Neimenggu minzu jiaoyu fazhan xianzhuang ji duice].
Heilongjiang National Series, 96(6), 106–111. Retrieved November 17, 2020, fromhttps://www.enaea.edu.cn/uploadfiles/201403/1396242585.pdf

111

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

Ma, R. (2009). The development of minority education and the practice of bilingual
education in Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. Frontiers of Education in China,
4(2), 188–251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11516-009-0012-3
Ma, R., & Pan, N. (1988). A study of Mongol-Han intermarriage in the pastureland of rural
areas in Chifeng [Chifeng nongcun muqu menghan tonghun de yanjiu]. Journal of
Peking University, 3, 76–87. Retrieved November 17, 2020, fromhttp://www.shehui.pku.edu.cn/upload/editor/file/20171123/20171123145047_7116.pd
fMinistry of Education of the PRC. (2011). Outline of mid- and long-term educational reforms
and developmental plan for the IMAR (2010-2020). Ministry of Education of the PRC
Website. Retrieved August 21, 2018, fromhttp://old.moe.gov.cn//publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/s5520/201104/117465.html
National Bureau of Statistics. (2012, February 28). The main results of the IMAR from the2010 Census [Neimenggu Zizhiqu 2010 nian diliuci quanguo renkou pucha zhuyao
shuju gongbao]. National Bureau of Statistics of PRC Website. Retrieved August 15,
2018, fromhttp://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/tjgb/rkpcgb/dfrkpcgb/201202/t20120228_30397.html
National Bureau of Statistics. (2011). Tabulation on the 2010 population census of the P.R.C.
National Bureau of Statistics of PRC Website. Retrieved July 16, 2018, fromhttp://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/pcsj/rkpc/6rp/indexch.htm
State Council. (2001, May 29). Decisions regarding basic education reforms anddevelopments. State Council of PRC Website. Retrieved October 13, 2018, fromhttp://old.moe.gov.cn/publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/moe_406/200412/4730.html
State Council. (2016, February 14). Opinions of the State Council towards strengthening thecare and protection for the left-behind children in rural areas. State Council of PRC
Website. Retrieved September 17, 2018, fromhttp://www.gov.cn/zhengce/content/2016-02/14/content_5041066.htm
Su, D. (2005). Multidimensional perspectives on bilingual education: A case study ofMongolian primary schools in the IMAR [Duowei shiye xia de shuangyu jiaoxue
fazhanguan—Neimenggu diqu mengguzu xiaoxue ge’an] [Ph.D. Thesis]. Minzu
University of China. Retrieved November 17, 2020, fromhttp://cdmd.cnki.com.cn/Article/CDMD-10052-2005066813.htm
Sunuodula, M., & Cao, Y. (2015). Language learning and empowerment: Languages in
education for Uyghurs in Xinjiang. In A. Feng & B. Adamson (Eds.), Trilingualism in
education in China: Models and challenges (Vol. 12, pp. 65–99). Springer
Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9352-0_4
Tan, C., & Jin, Z. (2017). Breaking the bottleneck of the normal shrinking enrollment ofstudents taught in Mongolian in Inner Mongolia [Neimenggu diqu mengyu shouke‘shengyuan weisuo’ qushi jiqi pojie]. Journal of Research on Education for Ethnic
Minorities, 28(1), 89–96. Retrieved November 17, 2020, fromhttp://www.cqvip.com/qk/82061x/201701/671460725.html
Tsung, L. T. H., & Cruickshank, K. (2009). Mother tongue and bilingual minority educationin China. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 12(5), 549–
563. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050802209871

112

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

Wu, X., & He, G. (2018). Ethnic autonomy and ethnic inequality: An empirical assessment of
ethnic policy in urban China. The China Review, 18(2), 185–215. Retrieved
November 17, 2020, from http://hdl.handle.net/1783.1/94737
Yi, Y., & Adamson, B. (2017a). Life in a trilingual school: Perspective from Inner Mongolia.
In R. Maclean (Ed.), Life in schools and classrooms: Past, present and future (pp.
323–335). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-3654-5_20
Yi, Y., & Adamson, B. (2017b). Trilingual Education in the Inner Mongolia Autonomous
Region: Challenges and Threats for Mongolian Identity. In C. Reid & J. Major (Eds.),
Global teaching (pp. 145–163). Palgrave Macmillan US. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781-137-52526-0_8
Yuan, Y. (2014). Problems of and improvement measurements for the removal and merging
the IMAR rural primary and secondary schools [Neimenggu Zizhiqu nongcun
zhongxiaoxue chedian bingxiao chansheng de wenti ji gaijin cuoshi] [Master of Arts,The Inner Mongolia University]. Retrieved November 17, 2020, fromhttp://cdmd.cnki.com.cn/Article/CDMD-10126-1014269981.htm
Zhang, J. (2018). Niche market and individual practices in Tibetan language education in
China: An ethnography of language policy. International Journal of Bilingual
Education and Bilingualism, 22(3), 274–289.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2018.1502742
Zhang, Q., & Yang, T. (2017). Bilingual education for the Tujia: The case of Tujia minority
schools in Xiangxi autonomous prefecture. International Journal of Bilingual
Education and Bilingualism, 23(4), 381–399.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2017.1358694
Zhang, Q., & Yang, T. (2018). Reflections on the medium of instruction for ethnic minorities
in Xinjiang: The case of bilingual schools in Urumqi. International Journal of
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2018.1442409
Corresponding author: Qi Zhang
Email: qi.zhang@dcu.ie

113