The education ministry's recently unveiled 12-point reform plan to update the national curriculum contains several notable recommendations. Among them, the proposal to increase the education budget to five per cent of GDP stands out as both timely and necessary. Bangladesh has long spent less on education than many comparable countries, and higher investment is crucial for improving infrastructure, teacher training and learning outcomes. However, another proposal in the reform package - introduction of a compulsory third language at secondary level - deserves careful reconsideration.
Citing the rationale behind the move, State Minister for Education and Primary and Mass Education Bobby Hajjaj said the initiative was designed to respond to the demands of the international labour market and higher education. According to the plan, languages such as Arabic, Chinese, Japanese and French may gradually be introduced so that students can develop multilingual skills and expand their employment prospects.
Indeed, language proficiency has long been a challenge for Bangladeshi migrant workers. For tens of thousands of expatriate workers, limited communication skills often act as a barrier to higher wages and better positions abroad. Language competence is also essential for entering labour markets such as Japan, South Korea and Germany, where proficiency in the local language is often a prerequisite for employment.
Given these realities, the idea of introducing a third language in the curriculum is a sensible one. However, a closer look reveals several practical and structural challenges that could make its implementation impractical.
To begin with, the education system cannot ensure effective proficiency in the languages that are already being taught, namely Bangla and English. A research by the National Academy for Primary Education shows that nearly 79 per cent of third-grade students lack basic skills in reading, writing and comprehension in Bangla, their mother tongue.
Then again, the second language - English - is a compulsory subject from primary school to higher secondary level. That means students study the language for more than a decade. Yet the outcome remains disappointing. Question remains how many students can confidently speak or write in English after completing their intermediate studies or even graduation?
Did the authorities ever investigated why students fail to acquire proficiency in English despite such prolonged exposure?
The system has long prioritised rote learning over practical application, focusing heavily on the memorisation of scripts, vocabulary and grammar. Under these conditions, introducing an additional compulsory language risks merely expanding the culture of rote memorisation rather than fostering genuine linguistic proficiency.
Another practical concern is which language should be introduced - Chinese, Japanese, Arabic, or a European language? In that case, where will the government get so many qualified teachers from for the different languages for all the schools nationwide? Bangladesh already faces an acute shortage of skilled teachers in core subjects such as mathematics, English, science and ICT. Adding new language could further strain an already stretched system.
Moreover, the assumption that learning a third language from school is essential for global competitiveness is also debatable. Language skills needed for employment can often be acquired later through targeted training. If the goal is workplace communication, specialised language courses can be made mandatory for adults preparing for overseas employment. Once individuals identify a specific career need, they can acquire practical language skills through focused training programmes that may last six months or one year.
Therefore, rather than expanding the number of subjects, the priority should be to strengthening the quality of education. Improving foundational literacy, reforming teaching methods and investing in teacher training would likely yield far greater benefits. Without addressing these core challenges, adding a third language to the curriculum could be counterproductive.
