Tuesday, 19 November 2013


Quang, Can Dai PhD *

I. Vietnam is a multi-ethnic and multi-lingual country
I. 1. The ethnic diversity of Vietnam
Vietnam is a multi-ethnic country with 54 ethnic groups. The Viet (Kinh) people account for 87% of the country’s population of 86 million (2009 census). The Viet mainly inhabit the Red River delta, the central coastal delta, the Mekong delta and major cities. The other 53 ethnic minority groups, totaling over 13 million people, are scattered in remote or mountainous areas (covering two-thirds of the country’s territory) spreading from the North to the South. Only some of Hoa, Cham, and Khmer are living in coastal (see the map 1).

List of ethnic groups in Vietnam[1]
Ethnic groups are presented in the following table in descending order of their populations: Table 1
Ethnic Minorities with Their Populations. (source from CIA- The world factbook )
Population (approximate only)
Name of ethnic group
1 million
Tay, Thai, Muong, Hmong, and Khmer.
Some 100,000
Hoa, Dao, Jarai, Ede, Bana, Nung, Sanchay, Chama, Xodang, San Diu, Raglai, Mnong, Hre, and Co Ho.
Some 10,000
Tho, Xtieng, Kho Mu, Bru-Van Kieu, Giay, Co Tu, Gie Trieng, Ta Oi, Ma, Co, Cho Ro, Ha Nhi, Xinh Mun, Churu, Lao, Phu La, Khang, and La Chi.
Some 1,000
La Hu, Lu, Pa Then, Lo Lo, Chut, Mang, Co Lao, Bo Y, La Ha, Cong, and Ngai.
Some 100
Si La, Romam, Pu Peo, Brau, and Odu (General Statistic Office, 2010)
a As one can see in the table above, the Cham people has a population of about 161,729 within the Vietnam border, and represents considerably less than 1 percent of Vietnam’s population (General Statistic Office, 2010).

Until now, there was a large gap in both the material and spiritual lives between peoples living in the deltas and those living in mountain areas as well as among ethnic minorities themselves. The Vietnamese government has worked out specific policies and special treatments in order to help mountain people to catch up with lowlanders, and has made great efforts to develop and preserve traditional cultural identities of each ethnic minority group, especially their distinct languages. At present, the projects of creating new writing scripts for minority peoples, and studying and developing traditional culture of each ethnic minority group together with programs of providing iodized salt for remote villages, equipping each village’s health care and hygienic station, fighting malaria, building free schools for ethnic minority children, settled agriculture and fixed residence... have obtained satisfactory results.
I. 2. The linguistics diversity of Vietnam
The number and variety of languages used by Vietnam's minorities reflect the country's ethnic complexity. Standing in the Indochina peninsula, the gateway to mainland and offshore Southeast Asia, Vietnam is the location of cultural intercourse in this region. Dozens of distinct languages as well as numerous dialects continue to unceasingly impact one another, and serve to distinguish different minority groups. The origins and distribution of many of these 53 languages have not yet been conclusively established. They can (exclusive of the Kinh language), however, be grouped loosely into three major language families, i.e. Austro-Asian Language Family, Austronesian Language Family and Sino-Tibetan Language Family, which in turn can be divided into several subgroups as shown in following table:
Table 2
Language Groups with Associated Ethnic Groups in Vietnam
Language groups
Ethnic groups
The Viet-Muong includes 4 ethnic groups
Chut, Kinh, Muong and Tho
The Tay-Thai includes 8 ethnic groups
Bo Y, Giay, Lao, Lu, Nung, Sanchay, Tay, and Thai
The Mon-Khmer includes 21 ethnic groups
Bana, Brau, Bru-Van Kieu, Cho Ro, Co, Co Ho, Co Tu, Gie Trieng, Hre, Khang, Khmer, Kho Mu, Ma, Mang, Mnong, Odu, Romam, Ta Oi, Xinh Mun, Xodang, and Xtieng
The Malayo-Polynesian includes 5 ethnic groups
Cham, Churu, Ede, Jarai, and Raglai
The Sino Group includes 3 ethnic groups
Hoa, Ngai, and San Diu
The Tibeto-Burman includes 6 ethnic groups
Cong, Ha Nhi, La Hu, Lo Lo, Phu La, and Si La (Hoang, 1996)
The Hmong-Dao includes 3 ethnic groups
Dao, Hmong, and Pa Then
The Kadai includes 4 ethnic groups
Co Lao, La Chi, La Ha, and Pu Peo (Lewis, 2009)

Almost half of the minority groups have writing scripts. Hoa, Cham, Thai, and Khmer have their own traditional writing systems. Tay, Nung, Hmong, Muong, Koho, Ede, Bahnar, H’re, and Jarai have romanized scripts.
Although they speak different languages, the ethnic groups live close to one another and so one group can know the language of others through everyday relations. And although they are involved in cultural exchange, they keep retaining the identity of their own culture. The diversity of the cultures of ethnic groups does not take them off the track of the common development of the nation, just as the unity in the diversity.
II. The policies and implementation of Bilingual education
II. 1. Language policy of the Vietnamese government
After the Declaration of Independence was announced in Ba Dinh Square on 2nd September 1945, the Vietnamese government, from The Democratic Republic of Vietnam to The Socialist Republic of Vietnam, paid attention to linguistics policy and followed bilingualism consistently to build a unified society in this multilingual nation. This is manifested in legal documents.
Since 1946 Vietnam's Constitution, which has been amended three times, in 1959, 1980 and 1992, has clearer provisions of more consistent aims at equality among different languages in the nation. Article 5 of the first Constitution (1946) stated: “Ethnic minorities have the right to receive compulsory and free primary and lower-secondary education in their languages.” Article 5 of the 1981 Constitution reconfirms this principle: “Ethnic minorities have the right to use their own languages and scripts, maintain and develop their good traditions, practices, custom and culture[2].” Article 5 of 1992 Constitutional amendment of the socialist republic of Vietnam stipulated that: “Ethnic minorities have the right to receive compulsory and free primary and lower-secondary education in their languages, use their own languages and scripts, maintain and develop their good traditions, practices, custom and culture.”[3]
Other documents were issued to detail the activities in different localities to apply to different ethnicities in the whole country. For example, on 10th August 1969 the Government Council issued Decision 153/CP on the establishment, improvement, and use of ethnic scripts; reviewed the results of the implementation of Decree 206/CP; and stipulated the scope and extent of using the scripts of the ethnic groups in primary and lower-secondary schools: “Where the pupils know a little of the national language, the ethnic minority scripts together with the Vietnamese language and scripts shall be taught in kindergarten and other grades of elementary education.” (1969, p. 11)
After the liberation of South Vietnam, the Central Communist Party Committee issued a decree on 11th November 1977, which specified: “The languages and writings of all ethnic groups shall be respected”. Right after that, Decree No. 23/CT-TW on 15th December 1977 about the management of ethnic issues in the current situation was proclaimed and included information about government project 135 on the development of the social, economy and education in ethnic, remote and mountainous areas. Decision 153-CP of the Government Council focused on language policy and was to be implemented in accordance with the situation of South Vietnam. To further settle the language policy, the Government Council promulgated Decision 53-CP on 22nd February 1980, which concerned the writing systems of ethnic minority groups. The decision emphasized “the right and duty of all Vietnamese citizens to learn the national language” and stipulated that “in ethnic minority areas, the ethnic minority languages and writing shall be taught together with the national language in primary schools and Continuing education centers.” (1980, p. 8). The above documents deeply affected the implementation and the results of developing ethnic language and sustaining multilingualism in Vietnam.
The Ministry of Education Circular 01was issued on the 3rd of February 1997 and provided detailed guidelines to implement the language policies and regulations mentioned in the previous decision. Article 4 of Education Law is the basis of these words from the Circular: “Elementary education was implemented in Vietnamese. Ethnic minority groups have the right to use their own language together with Vietnamese for instruction in elementary education.”[4] However these sound policies and thoughtful regulations may only be properly realized if there is a measure of cooperation between government and language communities together seeking successful implementation.
In recent years, the teaching-learning of ethnic languages has moved to a new theoretical and practical phase of development based on Decree 82 and Circular 50. Decree 82/2010/CP, clearly allows the use of local languages to teach and reform the curriculum in schools. Under this Decree, minority languages may be taught as a subject in schools when they meet all the following conditions: (1) the Ethnic minority has aspirations for the learning and maintenance of their mother tongue; (2) the minority languages to be taught and learned in school are the traditional forms popularly used by the community and have the approval of specialized agencies or are supported by a letter issued by competent authorities; (3) the programs and textbooks to be used in the minority language teaching are compiled and assessed under the provisions of the Minister of Education and Training; (4) teachers of minority language subjects must be qualified by proper training at a teacher training college, or a pedagogy university; and (5) the physical facilities in which the teaching of minority languages meets the requirements prescribed by the Minister of Education and Training.
Minority language teaching at one time was mostly provided in regular elementary school. The policies now permit the extension to secondary schools, high schools, and colleges for teacher education, as well as teaching minority languages in continuing education centers for people of all ages. The completion of minority language programs is certified in accordance with regulations set by the Ministry of Education and Training. The decree also stipulates yearly the amount of funds to be set aside for minority language programs, training and salaries of teachers, encouragement of minority students, and state provision of textbooks and reference books.
Decree 82/2010/CP regulates programs for teaching Mother Tongues in Schools and provides for the creation of continuing education Centers. Implementation of the intent of the decree is provided in detail in the Joint Circular 50/2011/TTLT- BGDDT-BNV-BTC which was passed in 2011 and importantly contains guild lines for specific financial support, and responsible units. It is too early to say that with these powerful guidelines Vietnam will be one of the leading nations with good models in teaching minority languages. However should Vietnam consistently implement the language policy and plans as stated in the Decree 82/2010/CP and other legal documents there is a source of optimism.
II. 2. Bilingual education in Vietnam
There are two phases of implementation of bilingual education in Vietnam: before 1981 and after 1981.
II. 2. a. Before 1981: In this period, bilingual education was not paid much attention since the government was occupied with the chaos of the early days of unification. Before 1975 it was also engaged in the war to unite North and South. Even though there were many good directions in the field, the then bilingual education programs were implemented haphazardly. Teachers of bilingual programs were often soldiers supporting the Northern government and  so taught revolutionary songs in ethnic minority languages in guerilla bases such as the Raglai, Katu, Bru-Van Kieu and Ta-Oi areas or in the Northern border regions of Hmong, Tay, and Nung. The songs were written in minority languages and were transcribed into Latin scripts.  This encouraged the then ethnic people who didn’t know much Vietnamese to support the government in its fight for reunification of the nation.
II. 2. b. After 1981: The real change in the field was apparent right after the Decrees issued by the Secretary of the Central Communist Party Committee in late 1977 that established policies towards southern ethnic minorities, and their languages. In 1978 the Cham Textbooks Compiling Committee (CTCC) in Ninh Thuan province was established by the local government. Some provinces in Mekong Delta also prepared the textbooks and teachers for Khmer language teaching program. The Council of Ministers’ directives require Khmer (1981) and Cham (1982) provinces to strictly follow the policy on teaching ethnic writing together with the national language. To fulfill this brand new task, the officials had to compiled textbooks from grade 1 to grade 5, to train teachers, to set up experimental classes as models then extending in other schools. There were supervision system and updates every year. Then the support from the Ministry of Education and Training (MOET) to teach ethnic minority writing, allows curricula to be drawn up, teaching manuals and textbooks to be published, teachers to be trained, lesson plans and teaching methodologies to be developed for different languages in order to make the programs closer to the practical requirements.
Some collaborative field projects with foreign organizations helped bilingual education in Vietnam to develop at many levels. In January 1996, a workshop was conducted with experts and key teachers from four ethnic minority groups to produce bilingual curriculum materials and accompanying teacher education modules for use in the Multigrade and Bilingual Education Project. This workshop resulted in the production of bilingual, localized literacy materials in the form of Big Books in Bhanar, Khmer, Cham and Hmong as a kind of pilot experiment with the aim at developing an appropriate model for further expansion in the whole country where applicable[5]. Also In 1996, MOET extended the Multigrade and Bilingual Education Project into “Minority Education Project”, with the cooperation of foreign experts from Australia, and sponsorship from UNICEF (The Universal Primary Education for Ethnic Minority Children Project - a UNICEF project) and the World Bank. This project set up 3 Centers for Compiling Minority Textbooks in 3 regions and wrote or rewrote textbooks for Khmer, Cham, Hmong, Ede, Jarai, and Bhanar and experimented with the new textbooks for 5 years. The project was concluded in Summer 2005.
An experimental project on “Researching a new method of teaching for the Thai pupils of the Primary School in Son La province” used Thai language as the first language and was first implemented in 1996. This pilot project was promoted by HEDO (Highland Education Development Organization) and sponsored by the Toyota Foundation.
The project’s implementation included two stages. In the 3 years of the 1st stage, Thai language was taught as the 1st language for the pupils of grade 1, grade 2 and grade 3 of Primary School. In the 2 years of the 2nd stage, the Thai language was taught as a subject[6].
The UNICEF project on Bilingual Education uses the mother tongues of Hmong, Jarai and Khmer from 2008-2015. The result of this project will be the premise for robust and sustainable bilingual education policies and guidelines for a successful bilingual program (UNICEF, 2010).
III. Some typical programs of bilingual education reported by MOET
III. 1. Ede program: It was started in 1995. In the school year 2010-2011, almost all the Ede resident areas had Ede classes. There were 76 elementary schools, 497 classes, 11,052 students, and 97 teachers. In comparison with the beginning year 1995-1996, there were 3 elementary schools, 5 classes, 138 students, and 8 teachers. In high schools (specially, in minority boarding schools), Ede was taught as a subject in 12 schools, 35 classes, with 1,414 students, double in comparison with the school year 2003-2004. Because of a shortage of Ede teachers, each teacher served about 10 classes. There were some classes in continuing education centers for minority and those Vietnamese adults working with minority groups as government agents (Anh, 2012).
III. 2. Chinese program: The Chinese is an ethnic minority received governmental attention beginning in 1995. Chinese students could take the Chinese optional subject in elementary schools in Ho Chi Minh City, Ca Mau, Kien Giang, Soc Trang, Can Thơ, and Hau Giang Provinces. Though class times were from 3 to 5 periods (35 minutes) per week as other programs, they increased up to 8 or 10 periods per week after Decree 82/2010/CP was signed. The secondary Chinese classes were extended to 4 periods per week and used standardized and unified textbooks. The class teachers usually were Chinese subject teachers (Dinh, 2011).
III. 3. Khmer program: It started since 1992, from the kindergarten to grade 12 in the provinces which the Khmer resident such as, Soc Trang, Tra Vinh, Bac Lieu, Ca Mau, Kien Giang, An Giang, Hau Giang, Can Tho, Vinh Long, Đồng Tháp, Long An, Tien Giang, and Ben Tre. There were 4 periods in elementary schools and 2 periods per week in high schools. For short of teachers, each Khmer teacher had to serve 4 to 5 classes. There were some Khmer classes in Khmer Buddhist temples and Continuing education centers. Khmer elementary teachers were trained 3 months in the Teacher College, while higher level teachers are standardized with university program (Dinh, 2011).
III. 4. Cham program: It was implemented rather soon since 1978. Cham classes were laboratory with standard orthography very carefully before expanding to all Cham elementary schools by 1990 in Ninh Thuan and Binh Thuan. Now there were only Cham classes in elementary level with 3 periods per week (35 minutes). Total students in the program in Ninh Thuan in 2011 was 8,265 students, in 341 classes, with 57 teachers among 1051 Cham teachers were trained. For improper teacher assignment was subject teachers, each Cham teacher had to teach 10 classes. This long improper assignment (since 2004) was the main reason why Cham teachers did not want to improve their teaching abilities. For no hope to teach Cham classes, since 2004 to 2012 there were only 53 teacher students, who attended a teacher training class in Qui Nhon University. However, by 2004, there were 3 types of teacher training classes servicing about 100 teachers annually. In recent years, the need for understanding and using Cham language has occurred in security and military officials. CTCC has launched some 2-month courses of Cham language for these people, together with Vietnamese and foreign researchers (Trai, 20012). As a result, five Cham classes for more than hundred students who were government agents and cadres were implemented annually.
IV. Evaluation of the Cham program:
After more than 30 years of implementation of the Cham language teaching program, the SIL classified Cham status is yellow, is being replaced by Vietnamese language. Moreover, with Decree 82/2010/CP and Circular 50/2011/ TTLB-BGDĐT-BNV-BTC stipulate the goals, contents, levels, and institutes in minority language teaching programs in schools and Continuing education centers, many minority programs have developed effectively. Those guidelines also emerged the lagging behind of the Cham program in term of class time and program structure. As per the year-end summation of MOET in October 2010, the big issue of minority language programs was a shortage of teachers. However, the Cham program had more than one thousand trained teachers, but only 57 were assigned to teach Cham classes. 
Stakeholders and professionals noted that Cham secondary students were falling behind compared with their native Vietnamese-speaking peers even after their successful years of elementary schooling. The reasons are BISC (Basic Interpersonal Communicative Skills) and CALP (Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency) proficiencies have not met the age or grade level of their native Vietnamese-speaking peers. UNICEF reported in 2010 that the dropout rate of minority students at elementary level was 30%, at secondary was 75%, while the national rates then were under 10% (UNICEF, 2004, 2010). Cham parents and language teachers mentioned that the MLTP achievement in elementary should have continued to develop during their secondary schooling or up to high school by keeping on providing MLTP classes at secondary and/or high schools.
It was argued that teaching mother-tongue literacy in such languages would confuse the children because of the similarity of the scripts[7]. However, ample research has confirmed that mother tongue promotion in the school helps develop both the mother tongue and children’s abilities in the majority school language (Cummins, 2001; Goldenberg, 2008)
The UNICEF project in 2008 tried to improve and solve the same issues in bilingual education at kindergarten level that minority communities and the Vietnamese government had met and solved 10 or 15 years ago. They have already the guidelines and better policies to revitalize and promote minority languages in Vietnam. Theoretically, the minority language policies in Vietnam can be the model for the world. The UNICEF projects in bilingual education should meet the needs of specific programs and make further improvements to the programs. If not their efforts are a waste of money, time and minority groups’ efforts while those groups need the time and resources to save their dying languages.
V. The achievement and limitation in bilingual education in Vietnam
V. 1. Attitude of the community and the impact of the policy
Those who know the Kinh well and live close to the major provincial cities have 2 directions, bilingual to preserve the language or to focus on the Kinh national language. Those who use their own language in daily life in family and community contexts support the direction of preservation in order to help their children overcome the language barriers. Those who live in underdeveloped areas, far away from the cities, hold attitudes that are not clearly known. Because the bilingual education programs were paid and managed by government, where the program was run well, the local people manifested their strong support. In general, they are proud of their mother tongue and encourage using it at home. They highly appreciated and strongly cooperated with the bilingual education program, because they believe that the program is a good and essential way to preserve their identity and tradition, and that is what their children really need when they first enter schools.
V. 2. Achievement
According the evaluation of Donald Archibald, the programs of Cham and Khmer teaching are successful. Thanks to the good policies, the communities’ involvement, UNICEF’s effective assistance, and MOET’s ceaseless efforts, the number of ethnic teachers taking part in the program has grown larger and larger. Annually over eleven thousand Cham students and nearly one hundred thousand Khmer students receive good bilingual education with about five hundred Cham teachers, and over six hundred Khmer teachers[8]. This leads to a noticeable education improvement and socio-economical development in these areas. This not only helps to maintain social bilingualism but also extends the ethnic language learning to institutions outside native-speaker community.
V. 3. Limitation
However, the bilingual education program only applied to those specific groups who requested such programs, in which cases the policies worked well and were successful. Sadly among 53 minority groups, just two of 11 languages are taught effectively and consistently in schools. In comparison with the practical requirements for maintaining bilingual status, 9 other languages need to have good textbooks, skillful teachers and relevant management to make them better and more effective. Additionally, with other language groups that just have writing systems, it takes a lot of time to start bilingual education because many prerequisites have to be met first such as, (1) Language planning; (2) textbook compiling; (3) teacher training and assignment; and (4) curriculum development. These are difficult tasks because the languages’ communicative function is narrow and the number of speakers is small. The challenge is much bigger with oral-only form languages.
The linguists and Research Institutes have to take part in the process to describe the writing system as a pre-condition to develop bilingual education. Or at least the languages facing extinction need to be preserved before their complete replacement by the more dominant languages, usually Kinh or English (Cummins, 2001; Fishman, 1994). This means that 42 other languages are facing high risk of extinction. Even though the policies are sound, the government and involved persons seem not to know how to implement them to preserve these other languages.
Moreover, with recent innovations in elementary education in Vietnam, English is now added to the curriculum and time for bilingual teaching becomes further limited to only 2 periods a week instead of 4 periods a week as in the official school requirements. This practice is lowering the achievement of bilingual students, which because of long-term efforts was previously higher. This reduction in bilingual teaching time urgently needs to be reconsidered by authorities in order to maintain the previous outcome of the programs. No matter how good policies are at the national level, the present trend to reduce the effectiveness of good programs, the tolerance of bad programs and the non-existent programs for many minority languages, will do little to cut back the death rate of endangered languages.
V. 4. Necessary adjustment
In order to slow down the death rate of endangered languages effectively, action is required, not simply academic meetings at which much is said but which results in little change. First all nations need sound policies, and second effective implementation that creates strong support for minority language classes. If both these actions are not taken, nothing will change and minority languages will continue to become extinct.
Who is most directly affected? Speakers of endangered languages are often unaware of the imminent loss of their languages. So it is these people who must become the direct focus of action by the research community and governments.
Here are some brief and feasible recommendations to begin this task of informing and supporting speakers of endangered languages:
V. 4. a. For Vietnam: Field researchers should thoroughly classify those existing languages most often used in family and community by working with minority speakers who are chosen for their wish to maintain their languages, because when native speakers do not want to use their mother tongues that language cannot survive.
Vietnam has developed robust language policies. So in Vietnam it is implementation that needs to be the focus. Vietnam needs to train linguists, and recruit language teachers from those minority language speakers who understand that there is a serious threat to the survival of their language. In turn, these speakers must be willing to actively improve and implement their mother tongue as supported by the policies. A professional approach to training and providing community support for language maintenance will require the provision of structures for language planning, teacher training and assigning, and textbook compiling. A joint effort from government and both research and minority communities is essential if languages are to survive.
V. 4. b. For Asia and the Pacific: Governments should update minority language policies with the clear aim of promoting multilingual education and multilingualism, because as members of UNESCO and the United Nations, they need to respect and advocate the language and education rights of all minorities. 
Local government and education authorities must implement multilingual policy in education so as to maintain and develop multilingualism, diversity in language and community development.
A clear system should be developed that recruits leaders who are speakers of endangered languages train them to become administrators, linguists and language teachers at the level of their communities. It is these leaders of minority speakers who should be directly involved in their language planning, teacher training, textbook compiling, and program structure design for each community.
In order to create an effective minority language teaching program a team consisting of members of government, scholars, and community people should:
Identify the existence of minority languages
Determine if members of the community are aware of the threat to the survival of their language
Promote minority language transmission within families and among community members.
Develop a plan to train teachers of the minority language, write texts and curriculum, organize details of time to be spent in school on the language at elementary and secondary levels in order for language to be maintained
Create a structure to handle the possible events within the community related to the continuing revitalization of its language, for example the use of mass media, folk music, dance, magazine, and local newspaper.
VI. Concluding remarks
To slow down the language loss, the death rate of endangered languages effectively, it is necessary to build models of successful minority language maintenance.
To revitalize endangered languages, one needs to understand the language situation, to co-operate with the right persons, and to start at the right levels.
To adopt a mechanism that slows down language loss in a specific case there are four important factors:
1.    language status
2.    Language transmission in families and communities
3.    How the language was taught and transferred to younger generation
4.    How the national language policies were applied to the language
The actions that are needed to revitalize a threatened language must be based on the particular situation. These actions are:
1.    Adjustment of the language policies with the government (and community)
2.    Development of language teacher training
3.    Language planning and textbook compiling
4.    Implementation of bilingual/ multilingual education. Pilot project and teaching and learning activities for extending the program to 12 grade and university level.
WHO can revitalize endangered languages? Native language speakers must take a decisive role, and must be willing to follow their well-trained leaders in bilingual education with strong links and the support of proper language policies, governments and applied language institutes. The policy and micro-management of language revitalization requires the involvement of national governments and worldwide language institutes such as UNESCO, UNICEF, and SIL.


Bui, T.N.D., & Dao, N.S. (2000). Report of Research Center for Ethnic Minority Education at the HEDO Seminar on 28th March 2000.
Can, Q.D. (1999). Textbook of Cham Language in Pedagogy College, Department of Education and Training of NinhThuan province.
Cummins, J. (2001, February). Tosprogede borns modersmal: Hvad er vigtigt I deres uddannelse? (Bilingual children's mother tongue: Why is it important for education?). Sprogforum, (Denmark). Also published in English and French versions of the special issue of the journal focusing on Multilingual Denmark and Le Danemark plurilingue.
Communist Magazine, (2003). Mission of ethnic and religion in Khmer areas in South Eastern in innovation by Ho, T.H., & Hoang T.L. Retrieved November 24, 2003, from http://www.cpv.org.vn/details.asp?topic=8&subtopic=30&id=BT24110367142
Donald, A. (1998-2003). An Evaluation of the Multigrade and Bilingual Education Project in Vietnam, Human Rights Education in Asian Schools. Vol.5.
Goldenberg, C. (2008). Teaching English language learners: What the research does – and does not – say. American education, pp. 8-44. AFT publications and reports.
Hoang, N. (1996). The Vietnamese Homeland in the Vietnamese Nation, published in Vietnam News Agency, Vietnam Image of the Community of 54 Ethnic Groups, The Ethnic Cultures Publishing House, Hanoi, from http://www.undp.org.vn/projects/vie96010/cemma/54eg/noidung.htm
Join Circular 50/2011/TTLT- BGDDT-BNV-BTC. (2008). Guiding the implementation of Decree 82/2010/CP on teaching Mother Tongue in Schools and Center for continuous education.
Learn about Vietnam, Culture of ethnic groups, from http://www.vietnamembassy-usa.org/learn/cul-ethnic.php3
Marilyn, W., & Paul, M. (1996). Teacher education partnerships in Vietnam, Australian Teacher Education Association Conference, University of Melbourne.
The Circular 1/GD-DT, 3rd February 1997, The Guide of Teaching-Learning Language of Ethnic Minority Groups, Ministry Of Education and Training.
The Socialist Republic of Vietnam, The Constitution 1992, Chapter I, Article 5.
Ty, N.V. (1998). Report at The 20th Anniversary of CTCC foundation, photocopy.
Vietnam News Agency. (2004, Febuary). The Efforts for Phong Nha- Ke Bang become place attractive to tourists. From http://www.vietstock.com.vn/news/tvn/979_2004_02/news877.asp
UNICEF. 2010. Program Brief: Action research on Mother Tongue-Based Bilingual Education creating learning opportunities for ethnic minority children. From http://www.unicef.org/vietnam/Tomtatchuongtrinh_Engl-final.pdf

[1]* E-mail: cquang@hawaii.edu or quang_can@yahoo.com. Quang Can Dai is a recent graduate of the University of Hawaii, where he held an International Ford fellowship Program. He is an East-West Center alumnus.
[2] Learn about Vietnam, Culture of ethnic groups, from http://www.vietnamembassy-usa.org/learn/cul-ethnic.php3
[3] Donald, A. (1998-2003). An Evaluation of the Multigrade and Bilingual Education Project in Vietnam, Human Rights Education in Asian Schools. Vol.5.
[4] The Socialist Republic of Vietnam, The Constitution 1992, Chapter I, Article 5.
[5] The Circular 1/GD-DT, 3rd February 1997, The Guide of Teaching-Learning Language of Ethnic Minority Groups, Ministry Of Education and Training.
[6] Marilyn, W., & Paul, M. (1996). Teacher education partnerships in Vietnam, Australian Teacher Education Association Conference, University of Melbourne.
[7] Bui, T.N.D., & Dao, N.S. (2000). Report of Research Center for Ethnic Minority Education at the HEDO Seminar on 28th March 2000.
[8] Donald A. An Evaluation of the Multigrade and Bilingual Education Project in Vietnam.