Multilingualism in European Language Education 9781788923316

Citation preview

Multilingualism in European Language Education

BILINGUAL EDUCATION & BILINGUALISM Series Editors: Nancy H. Hornberger (University of Pennsylvania, USA) and Wayne E. Wright (Purdue University, USA) Bilingual Education and Bilingualism is an international, multidisciplinary series publishing research on the philosophy, politics, policy, provision and practice of language planning, Indigenous and minority language education, multilingualism, multiculturalism, biliteracy, bilingualism and bilingual education. The series aims to mirror current debates and discussions. New proposals for single-authored, multiple-authored, or edited books in the series are warmly welcomed, in any of the following categories or others authors may propose: overview or introductory texts; course readers or general reference texts; focus books on particular multilingual education program types; school-based case studies; national case studies; collected cases with a clear programmatic or conceptual theme; and professional education manuals. All books in this series are externally peer-reviewed. Full details of all the books in this series and of all our other publications can be found on http://www.multilingual-matters.com, or by writing to Multilingual Matters, St Nicholas House, 31–34 High Street, Bristol BS1 2AW, UK.

BILINGUAL EDUCATION & BILINGUALISM: 118

Multilingualism in European Language Education Edited by Cecilio Lapresta-Rey and Ángel Huguet

MULTILINGUAL MATTERS Bristol • Blue Ridge Summit

Remembering my father and my mother, … the blacksmith and the hairdresser (Ángel Huguet) DOI https://doi.org/10.21832/LAPRES3309 Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. Names: Lapresta, Cecilio, editor. | Huguet, Ángel, editor. Title: Multilingualism in European Language Education/Edited by Cecilio LaprestaRey and Ángel Huguet. Description: Blue Ridge Summit: Multilingual Matters, [2019] | Series: Bilingual Education & Bilingualism: 118 | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2018055795| ISBN 9781788923309 (hbk : alk. paper) | ISBN 9781788923323 (epub) | ISBN 9781788923330 (kindle) Subjects: LCSH: Multilingual education–Europe. | Multilingualism–Europe. | Education, Bilingual–Europe. | Language and languages–Study and teaching. Classification: LCC P115.2 .M8549 2019 | DDC 306.44094–dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018055795 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue entry for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN-13: 978-1-78892-330-9 (hbk) Multilingual Matters UK: St Nicholas House, 31–34 High Street, Bristol BS1 2AW, UK. USA: NBN, Blue Ridge Summit, PA, USA. Website: www.multilingual-matters.com Twitter: Multi_Ling_Mat Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/multilingualmatters Blog: www.channelviewpublications.wordpress.com Copyright © 2019 Cecilio Lapresta-Rey, Ángel Huguet and the authors of individual chapters. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any form or by any means without permission in writing from the publisher. The policy of Multilingual Matters/Channel View Publications is to use papers that are natural, renewable and recyclable products, made from wood grown in sustainable forests. In the manufacturing process of our books, and to further support our policy, preference is given to printers that have FSC and PEFC Chain of Custody certification. The FSC and/or PEFC logos will appear on those books where full certification has been granted to the printer concerned. Typeset by in Sabon and Futura by R. J. Footring Ltd, Derby, UK Printed and bound in the UK by the CPI Books Group Ltd. Printed and bound in the US by Thomson-Shore, Inc.

Contents

Contributorsvii Acknowledgementsxv Introduction1 Cecilio Lapresta-Rey and Ángel Huguet Contents of the Book 3 1 Catalonia  Montserrat Sendra and F. Xavier Vila Introduction and Contextualization Languages in Education Conclusions

9 9 14 26

2 The Basque Country 33 José-María Madariaga Introduction and Contextualization 33 Languages in Education 38 Conclusions47 3 Principality of Asturias Xosé Antón González-Riaño and Alberto Fernández-Costales Introduction and Contextualization Languages in Education Conclusions

53 53 58 68

4 Principality of Andorra  72 Josep M. Díaz-Torrent and Carolina Bastida Introduction and Contextualization 72 Languages in Education 78 Conclusions83 5 France Juan Jiménez-Salcedo Introduction and Contextualization  Languages in Education Conclusions v

90 90 96 98

vi Contents

6 England  104 Théophile Munyangeyo and Saâdia Gamir Introduction and Contextualization 104 Languages in Education 110 Discussion115 Conclusions123 7 The Netherlands 132 Andreu van Hooft, Frank van Meurs, Ulrike Nederstigt, Berna Hendriks, Brigitte Planken and Sjoerd van den Berg Introduction and Contextualization  132 Languages in Education 135 Conclusions147 8 Romania 156 Adelina Ianos, Clara Sansó and Cristina Petreñas Introduction and Contextualization  156 Languages in Education 160 Conclusions170 9 Latvia Sanita Lazdiņa and Heiko F. Marten Introduction and Contextualization  Languages in Education Conclusions

174 174 181 190

10 Finland 194 John Smeds Introduction and Contextualization 194 Languages in Education 200 Conclusions208 Conclusions210 Cristina Petreñas, Clara Sansó, Judit Janés, Ester Caballé, María Torres and Isabel Sáenz Crossing Europe Through its Multilingual Educational Realities  210 Linguistic Educational Challenges for Social Cohesion in Europe214 Beyond This… 216 Index

219

Contributors

Editors

Cecilio Lapresta-Rey is a Lecturer in the Sociology section of the Department of Geography and Sociology of the University of Lleida (Catalonia, Spain) and a member of the consolidated research group ‘Language and Education’ funded by the Government of Catalonia (funding entity 2017SGR-322). His research is linked to the analysis of the construction of identity in multicultural and multilingual contexts, and also the linguistic attitudes of schoolchildren and their sociolinguistic and socioeducational integration, especially the descendants of migrants. He has published numerous articles in highly prestigious journals in these fields of study, both nationally and inter­nationally and received the National Award in Educational Research from the Ministry of Education of Spain (2007). Ángel Huguet is Professor in the Faculty of Education, Psychology and Social Work at the University of Lleida (Catalonia, Spain). His research interest include: bilingual and multilingual education, second language acquisition, psycholinguistics and sociolinguistics. He is Principal Investi­ gator of the consolidated research group ‘Language and Education’ funded by the Government of Catalonia (funding entity 2017-SGR-322). He has twice received the National Award in Educational Research from the Ministry of Education of Spain (in 2003 and 2007), and his research has been published in many international journals and book series. Authors

Carolina Bastida obtained her PhD on linguistics and electronic communication at Universitat d’Andorra (UdA). Her research work has focused on linguistic behaviour in computer-mediated communication, socio­ linguistics and neologism in Catalan. She has published several articles and has participated in various research projects. She has also taught at UdA and different Catalan universities, where she currently coordinates courses related to sociolinguistics and the psychology of language. She is also the coordinator of the Research Group on Languages at UdA. Ester Caballé is a PhD candidate. She is a member of the consolidated research group ‘Language and Education’ funded by the Government of Catalonia, and she received an FPI Scholarship from the Ministry of vii

viii Contributors

Economy and Competitiveness in a project linked to the group. She has a bachelor’s degree in education with the mention of special education at the Universitat Internacional de Catalunya (2013) and she obtained a master’s degree in psychopedagogy at the University of Lleida (2015). Currently, she is involved in regional, national and European research projects. Alberto Fernández-Costales is a lecturer and researcher at the University of Oviedo (Spain), where he teaches applied linguistics, foreign language teaching and methodology. His research interests lie in bilingual education, teaching English as a foreign language, language attitudes and motivation for language learning. He has been a visiting scholar at Imperial College (London), the Catholic University of Leuven (Belgium) and the University of Regensburg (Germany). Saâdia Gamir is a French and Arabic lecturer at Leeds Beckett University. She has almost a decade of experience teaching English as a foreign language (TEFL) and English for specific purposes (ESP) overseas. She is a member of the British Association of Teachers of Arabic (BATA), the Film in Language Teaching Association (FILTA) and an Advance-HE External Examiner. Her research interests are in classroom processes and materials development to increase learners’ motivation and engagement in learning, in general, with special emphasis on developing their intercultural communication and cross-cultural awareness, using film as the main blended teaching/learning tool in the flipped classroom context. Her current research examines teachers’ use of film to develop learners’ speaking proficiency in second language acquisition. Xosé Antón González-Riaño is Senior Lecturer at the Department of Educational Sciences of the University of Oviedo (Spain). He specializes in pedagogy, sociolinguistics and language teaching. He has published extensively in the fields of Asturian language, language attitudes, language diversity and language teaching. He has been engaged in national and international research projects and referees scientific papers for several international journals. Currently, he is the President of the Asturian Language Academy. Berna Hendriks is Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication and Information Studies and the Centre for Language Studies at Radboud University (Nijmegen, the Netherlands). Her research focuses on aspects of the use of Business English as a lingua franca (BELF), the effects of non-native accentedness, the use of accentedness in advertising and polite­ness. Her work has been published in journals such as Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, Intercultural Pragmatics, Journal of Business Communication, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, International Journal of Applied Linguistics, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development and Multilingua.



Contributors ix

Adelina Ianos holds a PhD from the University of Lleida (Spain). She completed her undergraduate and master studies at the ‘Alexandru Ioan Cuza’ University of Iasi (Romania). A part-time professor at the same university, she researches various topics related to language attitudes, bilingualism and multilingualism, immigration, and implicit measurement of attitudes and cultural identities. She has participated in several research projects, whose results have been reflected in articles published in highimpact journals. Judit Janés is full-time professor in the area of developmental and educational psychology at the Department of Psychology of the University of Lleida (Catalonia, Spain). She is a member of the consolidated research group ‘Language and Education’ funded by the Government of Catalonia. She holds a PhD from the University of Lleida (2006) focused on language attitudes. She has a bachelor’s degree in educational sciences (1997) and a bachelor’s degree in psychopedagogy (1999). She also holds a master’s degree in audition and language (2007). She is participating in many regional, national and European research projects. Juan Jiménez-Salcedo is Associate Professor at the Department of Translation at Pablo de Olavide University (Seville, Spain). He holds a PhD in humanities from François Rabelais University (Tours, France) and a PhD in French language and literature from the Basque Country University (Spain). He has been a postdoctoral researcher at the Centre for Ethnic Studies at the University of Montreal (Canada), a Visiting Scholar at Vrije Universiteit Brussel (Belgium) and a Visiting Professor at the University of Mons (Belgium). His recent research interests are in the field of language policies in France, Canada and Catalan-speaking territories. Sanita Lazdiņa is Professor of Applied Linguistics at Rēzekne Academy of Technologies (Riga, Latvia). Among her fields of research are language and educational policy, multilingualism in the Baltic states, regional and minority languages, the economic value of less-used languages and folk linguistics. Her articles have been published in Sociolinguistica, Current Issues in Language Planning, Journal on Ethnopolitics and Minority Issues in Europe and others. Since 2016 she has been a senior expert in the European Social Fund project ‘A Competence-Based Approach to Learning Processes’ conducted by the National Centre for Education in Latvia. She is co-editor of Multilingualism in the Baltic States (2019, with Heiko F. Marten). Heiko F. Marten works for the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) as Director of the office for the Baltic states in Riga and Rēzekne and a Senior Researcher and Lecturer at the DAAD Information Centre and Rēzekne Academy of Technologies (Riga, Latvia). He holds a PhD from FU Berlin, worked at Tallinn University (Estonia) and now conducts research on language policies, linguistic landscapes, discourses on

x Contributors

­ ultilingualism, minorities and education, and societal roles of German. m His publications include Minority Languages in the Linguistic Landscape (2012, with Durk Gorter and Luk Van Mensel), Cultural and Linguistic Minorities in the Russian Federation and the European Union (2015, with Michael Rießler, Janne Saarikivi and Reetta Toivanen) and Sprach(en) politik. Eine Einführung (2016) and Multilingualism in the Baltic States (2019, as co-editor with Sanita Lazdina). Théophile Munyangeyo is Reader in Applied Linguistics, Learning and Teaching at Leeds Beckett University (UK), where he is the Strategic Lead for Research in the Department of Languages. He is Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Linguists (FCIL) and Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy (SFHEA). He has extensive teaching experience in and outside the UK on research methods and skills; communication theories, models and approaches (written and oral); semantics and pragmatics; multilingualism; and translation and consecutive interpreting (theory and practice) applied to French–English (both ways). He is a member of research committees and editorial boards of international language learning and teaching journals. He examines and supervises MA dissertations and PhD theses in language policies, language learning and teaching. Ulrike Nederstigt is Assistant Professor at the Department of Communication and Information Sciences at the Radboud University (Nijmegen, the Netherlands). Her research interests include second language acquisition and cross-cultural communication. She works on structural differences between different languages and the consequences for these differences in text construction and communication across languages. She has also done research on English as a lingua franca, the effectiveness of foreign language use in advertising and instruction videos, and cross-cultural document design. She also did research on child language acquisition and focus particles. Her work has been published in journals such the Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Applied Psycholinguistics, Information Processing and Management and the Journal of Advertising. José-María Madariaga has conducted research for over 30 years, mainly on the construction of knowledge in multilingual and multicultural educational contexts, especially in the context of the Basque Country (Spain). More specifically, in the last 15 years he has worked in schools with a high proportion of foreign students, focusing on the educational implications of the language and the corresponding attitudes, as well as the social representations, self-concept and identities of this population. As a result, he has produced over 100 publications in Spanish, English, French and Basque. Cristina Petreñas has a PhD in education from the University of Barcelona (Spain). She is a postdoctoral researcher in the field of development and educational psychology at the University of Lleida (Catalonia, Spain)



Contributors xi

through the subprogramme ‘Juan de la Cierva Incorporación’ (IJCI-201628250) funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness. She is a member of the consodilated research group ‘Language and Education’ and member of a seminar on inclusive education research. Her work is concentrated on inclusive education, the cultural identity of youth from an interactionist perspective, the relationship between language and culture, and educational multicultural contexts. Brigitte Planken is Associate Professor of Communication and Information Studies at Radboud University Nijmegen (the Netherlands), where she teaches courses in corporate communications, intercultural communication and business English, and coordinates the English-taught master’s programme International Business Communication. Her research interests include the use of English as a business lingua franca and the effects of multilingual advertising. Her work has been published in journals such as English for Specific Purposes, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Journal of Business Communication and International Journal of Organizational Analysis. Isabel Sáenz is a PhD candidate at the University of Lleida (Catalonia, Spain). She holds a degree in East Asian studies from the Autonomous University of Barcelona (Spain) and a master’s degree in applied linguistics from the University of Barcelona (Spain). In 2018 she received a scholarship from the Catalan Government to begin her PhD. She is currently part of the consolidated research group ‘Language and Education’ at the University of Lleida. Her work focuses on language and identity, heritage language learning and the acculturation processes of descendants of migrants. Clara Sansó is Lecturer at the Department of Psychology at the University of Lleida (Catalonia, Spain) and she is member of the consolidated research group ‘Language and Education’. In 2007 she received the second prize in the National Educational Research Award from the Ministry of Education, Policy and Sports. She also collaborates as a teacher and researcher in other national and international universities and participates in research projects and the research of educational innovation. Her research topics are focused on migrant students, second language acquisition, inclusive education and the analysis of discourse in multilingual and multicultural classrooms. Montserrat Sendra is an adjunct part-time professor of the Catalan Philology and General Linguistics Department at the Universitat de Barcelona (Spain). She has a BA in Catalan philology (Universitat de Barcelona, 2011), an MA in advanced Catalan studies (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona and Universitat de Barcelona, 2012) and an MA in Catalan language and literature teaching (Universitat Rovira i Virgili,

xii Contributors

2017). She has been a visiting researcher at the Centre for Research on Language Contact, Glendon College, York University (Toronto, Canada) and at the Hispanic and Luso-Brazilian Literatures and Languages Depart­ ment at City University of New York (USA). She is currently finishing her PhD in Catalan sociolinguistics. John Smeds graduated with a PhD from the Swedish-speaking university of Åbo Akademi University in Turku (Finland) in 1998. His specialization was in modern English literature and the myth-making of Robert Graves. His other subjects were Russian, education and general linguistics. After some years of teaching languages in adult and vocational education, he transferred to the Finnish-speaking university in Turku, University of Turku, where he picked up a lectureship in the didactics of foreign languages, a post he still holds. As a lecturer, he is mainly responsible for the educational competence of future language teachers in Finnish primary and secondary schools. He has published articles and edited books on language learning. Josep M. Díaz-Torrent obtained his Diploma of Advanced Studies in applied linguistics at Universitat de Lleida (Catalonia, Spain). Apart from the field of English as a foreign language in multilingual settings, where he has published some articles, his research interests also include English-­mediated instruction, as well as the relationship between language attitudes and communicative competence. He has taught at Universitat de Lleida and Universitat d’Andorra, where he was also a member of the Research Group on Languages. He has taught English in secondary education for the last 15 years. María Torres is a PhD candidate with a scholarship from the University of Lleida (Catalonia, Spain). She holds a master’s degree in applied linguistics and a specialist diploma in Aragonese philology (2016). She began her professional career in 2016 as a scholarship recipient of the Teacher Support Programme in Academic Activities in the Faculty of Arts at the University of Lleida. She is currently part of the consolidated research group ‘Language and Education’ at that university. Her work focuses on identity, ideologies, and minority and minoritized languages. Sjoerd van den Berg, MA International Business Communication, works as Communication Advisor at Radboud University (Nijmegen, the Nether­lands). His main task is to facilitate tailored communication between Radboud University and alumni. In addition, he also organizes alumni events in the Netherlands and abroad, participates in the development and implementation of the strategy and vision for alumni relations, and a ‘Blendle-type’ service: Radboud Recharge. Andreu van Hooft is Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication and Information Studies and the Centre for Language Studies at



Contributors xiii

Radboud University (Nijmegen, the Netherlands). His research focuses on aspects related to the effects of language choice in advertising targeting multilingual societies and bilingual individuals, as well as on the relation between visual and verbal style choices in international professional communication and their effects across countries. His work has been published in journals such as Journal of Advertising, Revista Signos, ITL International Journal of Applied Linguistics, International Journal of Inter­cultural Relations, Journal of Global Marketing, Journal of Business Communication and World Englishes. Frank van Meurs is Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication and Information Studies and the Centre for Language Studies at Radboud University (Nijmegen, the Netherlands). His research focuses on the use and effect of English and other foreign languages in Dutch job and product advertising and on the effect of non-native accents. His work has been published in journals such as Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics, English for Specific Purposes, ESP Across Cultures, Journal of Advertising Research, Journal of Business Communication, International Journal of Applied Linguistics, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, Multilingua and World Englishes. F. Xavier Vila is the Head of the Catalan Philology and General Linguistics Department at the Universitat de Barcelona as well as the Director of the Sociolinguistics and Communication Research Centre (CUSC) (Spain). He is also member of the editorial board of Revista de Llengua i Dret/Journal of Language and Law and LSC – Llengua, Societat i Comunicació. He has published numerous articles on sociolinguistics, demolinguistics and language policy, especially in the area of language-in-education policies. Among others, he has edited Language Policy in Higher Education: The Case of Medium-Sized Language Communities (together with Vanessa Bretxa) and Survival and Development of Language Communities: Prospects and Challenges, both published by Multilingual Matters. He is a member of the Catalan Sociolinguists Association, a branch of the Institut d’Estudis Catalans.

Acknowledgements

The objective of this book is to give a deep, clear and rigorous picture of the management of multilingualism in different European educational systems, taking into account the historical, sociolinguistic and political conditionings that have influenced and are influencing the current approach. Our ultimate goal is to offer a piece of work that is useful to a wide range of people, from scholars and professionals to students in the fields of languages and education, interested in the treatment of languages in the different European educational systems (in particular Catalonia, the Basque Country and Asturias, the Principality of Andorra, France, England, the Netherlands, Romania, Latvia within the framework of the Baltic Republics, and Finland). The book will be useful on any course that addresses education and/or bilingualism/multilingualism issues. As with any academic work, this would not have been possible without the cooperation of a great number of specialists and institutions. First of all, we wish to thank all the chapter authors for their work, as, through their meetings, exchanges and great effort, they have given shape to this work and enriched it. Our sincere gratitude goes to Montserrat Sendra, F. Xavier Vila, José-María Madariaga, Xosé Antón GonzálezRiaño, Alberto Fernández-Costales, Josep M. Díaz-Torrent, Carolina Bastida, Juan Jiménez-Salcedo, Théophile Munyangeyo, Saâdia Gamir, Andreu van Hooft, Frank van Meurs, Ulrike Nederstigt, Berna Hendriks, Brigitte Planken, Sjoerd van den Berg, Adelina Ianos, Clara Sansó, Cristina Petreñas, Sanita Lazdiņa, Heiko F. Marten, John Smeds, Judit Janés, Ester Caballé, Maria Torres and Isabel Sáenz. Secondly, we want to thank the Vicerectorate for Cultural Activities and University Outreach of the University of Lleida, the Obra Social La Caixa, the Faculty of Education, Psychology and Social Work of the University of Lleida and the Catalan Government, all of whom gave us the opportunity to organize the Symposium ‘Managing Multilingualism in European Schools’, a seed that has grown to be this book, among other things. Thirdly, this publication has been made possible thanks to the develop­ ment of two broader research studies funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (reference nos EDU2014-54093-R, EDU2017-82479-R and IJCI-2016-28250) and the Catalan Government’s xv

xvi Acknowledgements

Agency for Management of University and Research Grants (AGAUR) (reference nos 2014 SGR 208 and 2017 SGR 322). Finally, we wish to thank Multilingual Matters for accepting and publishing this work, and our special thanks to Laura Longworth for her relentless help throughout the editing process.

Introduction1 Cecilio Lapresta-Rey and Ángel Huguet

In recent decades the European multilingual reality has increased exponentially, as a result of people flowing in and between the nations of Europe and coming from other parts of the planet. Thus, to the more than 50 official languages of Europe and around 60 spoken in certain regions or by specific groups, those contributed by migrants must be added. All this makes Europe a linguistic scenario in constant mutation. This situation has not gone unnoticed by European states in general and the European Union (EU) in particular, to the point where, since the conception of the EU, multilingualism has been regarded as a key value and a principle to be addressed by European policies. Thus, article 3 of the Consolidated Version of the Treaty of EU (2012) states that ‘It shall respect the rich cultural and linguistic diversity, and shall ensure that Europe’s cultural heritage is safeguarded and enhanced’ (Official Journal of the European Union, 2012). This is underlined in the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (Council of Europe, 1992). More recently, European policies have focused on the idea that languages enrich the European cultural heritage, stressing the potential of plurilingualism as a determining factor for economic progress, competitiveness and employability. In fact, two of the strategic axes of the document Multilingualism: An Asset for Europe and a Shared Commitment (Commission of the European Communities, 2008) specifically address the idea that multilingualism (and plurilingualism) must reinforce social cohesion, intercultural dialogue and European construction as well as economic competitiveness, employability and mobility (Cavalli et al., 2009; Council of Europe, 2007; Maalouf et al., 2008). Despite what has been discussed above, the current European reality reports some ambiguity regarding competences in, motivation for and perceptions of multilingualism and plurilingualism. For instance, 46% of European citizens state that they are not able to conduct a conversation in a foreign language. This percentage rises to 54% in the case of Spain and 61% in the UK, and it drops to 25% in Finland and 5% in Latvia. Moreover, 34% of EU citizens report that the most important obstacle when learning a foreign language is motivation: this figure decreases in countries like the UK, to 21%, but increases in Finland and Latvia, to 40%. 1

2  Multilingualism in European Language Education

Finally, although most citizens consider being plurilingual an advantage in job applications, only 10% thinks plurilingualism makes them feel more European (Eurobarometer, 2012). Undoubtedly, one of the most powerful agents to balance these results is the educational system. The EU, as well as other European territories, advocate for a ‘one plus two’ strategy: learning two languages on top of the native tongue (European Centre for Modern Languages, 2016; European Union, 2016).2 Unavoidably, this approach implies taking into account the languages of the territories, those of the majority and/or regional languages, as well as the ones contributed by people from other areas of the world. Additionally, international languages that act as lingua francas are added into the mix (particularly English, although others are rapidly rising as well).3 Even so, it is true that the territories of Europe have historical, socio­ demographic, sociolinguistic and political particularities that determine the implementation of these policies, which should be considered in order to understand the use of languages in schools. While it could be argued that every society is multilingual in nature, and although they may share some common characteristics, their peculiarities make them unique (European Centre for Modern Languages, 2016). Therefore, transferring education models from one context to another is, more often than not, ineffective. How languages are handled in school should be adjusted to the historical, sociolinguistic and political conditioning of each territory. These may allow more attention to some languages than others, depending on the region, creating diverse solutions to common objectives. In this framework, the objective of this book is to offer a deep, clear and accurate depiction of how different European education systems manage multilingualism, considering how they have been influenced by these historical, sociolinguistic and political processes. Of course, it would be an unfeasible task to cover the totality of European territories in one piece of work, so 10 have been selected to reflect diverse situations: Catalonia, the Basque Country, Asturias, Andorra, France, England,4 the Netherlands, Romania, Latvia (contextualized in the Baltic republics) and Finland. Thus, realities from the south, north, east and west of Europe are included, some of which have highly recognized language management in their education, while others are less known, and although most territories are part of the EU (including founding members like France and last admissions like Romania), some cases of non-members are also included (Andorra). All the chapters include a sociolinguistic, historical and legislative/ political linguistic contextualization, to explain how languages are handled in the educational system, stressing the challenges and potentials in each area of study. Therefore, not only a comprehensive vision of each region is offered but also an overall group outlook is presented, allowing comparison and a holistic understanding of multilingualism in European



Introduction 3

education. Having this in mind, this book will be useful to a wide range of readers, from academics and other professionals to students in the area of language and education.5 Contents of the Book

This book includes 10 chapters dedicated to different European territories, organized by geographic location: Catalonia, the Basque Country, Asturias and Andorra (southern Europe), France, England, the Netherlands (western Europe), Romania (eastern Europe) and Latvia and Finland (northern Europe). Catalonia (Chapter 1) is a case in point in the field of language-ineducation policy, for a number of reasons. First, Catalan, which is the largest minoritized language in Europe, has benefitted from remarkable efforts to reverse language shift in the last decades, many of them focusing precisely on schools. Interestingly, these efforts have combined top-down and bottom-up initiatives. Second, contrary to what happens with most minoritized languages, the declared goals of language-in-education policies in Catalonia have been providing bilingualism and biliteracy not only for minority speakers but rather for all students. This goal has been recently enlarged to include proficiency in a third language for all. And third, all of these goals are especially relevant in that Catalonian society has changed dramatically since the beginning of the 20th century, when it was a homogeneous Catalan-speaking society, to the current cosmopolitan and ethnolinguistically mixed society, where 35% of the population were born elsewhere and most of the locals have at least some immigrant parents or grandparents. So, in many respects, lessons from Catalonia are valuable not only for minoritized languages but also for linguistically heterogeneous societies in general. Based on the geographical, legal and sociolinguistic context of the Basque Country, Chapter 2 analyses the evolution through history of language management within the education system. This is a pathway to understanding the process of normalization of the Basque language and the establishment of a bilingual education system during the Spanish political transition. From the first experiences of recovery of Basque in the 1950s, a time characterized by the prohibition of the language, we explain this education experience, subsequently trilingual, together with the effects of the arrival of immigrant students during the first decade of the 21st century. We finish by describing the current sociolinguistic situation, based on the latest survey carried out by the Basque Government. The main results of the research carried out during the last 30 years are also analysed, with the aim of drawing the most relevant conclusions from this process with a view to the future. Two languages coexist in Asturias (Chapter 3), but unlike other regions such as Catalonia or the Basque Country, they do not share official status.

4  Multilingualism in European Language Education

This highly conditions their role in the educational system. This legal context has relegated the Asturian language to a secondary position in the educational system. This affects its sociolinguistic situation, as shown by studies conducted in different areas of the territory, focusing on elements such as students’ linguistic attitudes, the educational and sociocultural benefits of receiving training in Asturian or the opinions that future teachers hold regarding languages. The results lead to the conclusion that there is a need to balance the legal status of Asturian and Castilian as the optimal framework to preserve language diversity in the region. Modern Andorran society is characterized by the coexistence of various languages, among which we must highlight Catalan, Spanish and French (Chapter 4). Furthermore, Andorra is the only state in the world where Catalan is the sole official language. One needs to bear in mind that the demographic evolution in the country over the last five decades has been characterized by a sustained increase in population, tightly linked to immigration rather than to natural growth. According to official figures, citizens of foreign origin come from more than 25 different countries, primarily Spain, Portugal and France. Logically, this diverse cultural backdrop has its correlate in sociolinguistic terms, despite which, beyond the use of Catalan as the language of prestige, Spanish is the actual lingua franca among speakers of the other languages. At the same time, three different educational systems (Andorran, Spanish and French) coexist in the country, each one regulated by its own ministry of education and with its specific vehicular language(s). The presence and use of these languages varies according to each specific curriculum: while in the Andorran model Catalan is the vehicular language, this is the case for Spanish (or Catalan in some schools) and French in the corresponding systems. Additionally, Catalan is also taught in the Spanish and French systems, and all schools in the country incorporate other languages in their curricula. This particular linguistic map in schools logically requires the articulation, in all cases, of measures that cater for the needs of newly arrived pupils who may lack competence in some of the languages. This sets the case of Andorra as an exceptional multilingual and multicultural setting from an educational perspective, as the languages in contact, and their users, do not coexist under the same conditions anywhere else in the world. France (Chapter 5), still influenced by republican ideals, views linguistic diversity as an obstacle for national cohesion, and therefore it has not been greatly acknowledged. However, France is today a multilingual environment, where the languages of immigrants and their descendants must be added to the already existing regional languages. Given this situation, France currently faces two challenges: on the one hand, the revitalization of regional languages; and on the other, the traditional invisibilization of the languages of French citizens who descend from migrants. Thus, one aim is to overcome the divide between a traditional elitist bilingualism



Introduction 5

(involving the major international languages) and minority bilingualism (immigrant bilingualism), among other issues. Based on secondary research data, Chapter 6 aims to examine critically and diachronically the extent to which language education policies in England have been effective in meeting the nation’s pressing needs for foreign language skills. Firstly, it explores the linguistic landscape in England, including heritage and foreign languages, seeking to highlight the significance of linguistic diversity across the country. Secondly, it examines the effectiveness of different initiatives, including language promotion actions that have been taken by both individuals and organizations. These initiatives include the government’s efforts to reform school curricula, as well as all the synergies that aimed to boost the take-up of languages. Secondary research data reveal that while there are many positive developments relating to the provision of languages in education, some initiatives remain a patchwork of incoherent strategies. They ignore the existence and usefulness of heritage languages. They apply a cherry-­ picking approach to identify which language to promote and to teach. They do not inform a clear articulation of a vision for languages. Such inconsistencies have led to a lack of continuity in language learning throughout all key stages and beyond. This study underlines that for languages to thrive in society and in schools in England, where they are often confronted with a hostile climate, their promotion and provision need a holistic approach. The chapter concludes that a collaborative approach to support the language education policy in schools and in society requires the coordination of coherent synergies. It is clear that, moving forward, the language agenda should aim to harness multilingual literacy and plurilingual competence needed to succeed in a global context. As for the Netherlands (Chapter 7), it can be regarded as a multi­ lingual society, in which the majority – and official – language of the Netherlands, Dutch, is used in different everyday contexts alongside immigrant languages such as Arabic and Turkish and foreign languages such as French and German. In the northern province of Fryslân, the regional language, Frisian, which is recognized officially by law, is widely used in society alongside Dutch. Dutch language policy through the years can be seen to be cognizant of the cultural diversity and multilingualism of Dutch society. While English is compulsory as the first foreign language in primary and secondary education, other foreign languages are offered as options. In the province of Fryslân, Frisian as an additional language to English is compulsory at primary school and in the first two years of secondary school, although schools may opt out of the latter obligation if there is an insufficient number of Frisian teachers available. While the initiative to offer minority language education has ceased, the minority languages Turkish and Arabic are offered as optional foreign languages in secondary education. On the whole, this would suggest that Dutch language policy follows Europe’s ‘one plus two’ foreign language policy,

6  Multilingualism in European Language Education

a language policy which also aims to promote intercultural exchange in a multilingual society and multilingual world. In the course of this chapter, we will consider to what extent this European ideal is achieved in educational practice. Chapter 8 describes the sociolinguistic and educational particularities of Romania, a south-eastern European country that hosts more than 20 ethnic groups. Despite its rich cultural and linguistic diversity, multilingual language policies were introduced only relatively recently. After a brief overview of the historical background and legal framework, the chapter explores the management of national minority and foreign languages in the Romanian educational system. Specifically, it shows how several national minority communities (Armenian, Bulgarian, Croatian, Czech, German, Greek, Hungarian, Italian, Lipovenian Russian, Polish, Roma, Serbian, Slovak, Turkish and Ukrainian) have implemented the educational and language policies adopted after the fall of the Communist regime. Recent educational and linguistic laws and policies have gradually granted more rights to national minority languages, which are now protected and promoted. Education in the mother tongue at pre-university levels is provided for 12 of the aforementioned communities, while all national minority languages can be studied as a subject in Romanian-medium schools. However, the implementation of these policies is conditioned by the strength of each community in a specific territory. Furthermore, the presence of foreign languages in the compulsory edu­cational system and the various educational models aimed at promoting bilingualism in international languages are also discussed. Finally, we examine the language policies designed for immigrants in their current incipient form, considering the small influx of migrants into Romania. To conclude, Romania’s progress with regard to the management of multilingualism could be commended, while not overlooking the need to continue these efforts and to improve children’s access to education in their mother tongue, regardless of the national community to which they belong or the area where they live. Chapter 9 provides an overview of patterns of multilingualism in Latvia and how they are dealt with in education. Latvia serves in the context of this volume as an example of linguistic transformation of the three Baltic states (Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania). The chapter first provides an overview of languages in this highly multilingual region. On the one hand, the multi­lingual spheres as well as the discussions about languages and language policies have traditionally been dominated by the antagon­ ism between the national languages (Latvian, Estonian, Lithuanian) and Russian as the main language of the Soviet Union. On the other hand, there are a lot of other varieties which influence language regimes and policies in education and beyond: smaller minority languages, regional languages as well as the increasing role of international languages, in particular English.



Introduction 7

In a second part, the chapter looks in more detail into language policies. Latvian policies – in education and elsewhere – have since the reestablishment of independence in 1991, focused on establishing Latvian as the main language of society. In education, these policies aim at the acquisition of Latvian by the Russian-speaking population in order to ensure their participation in Latvian mainstream society and thereby integration. At the same time, the Soviet tradition of two separate school systems with ‘Latvian’ and ‘Russian’ schools has been maintained until the present day. Since the end of the 1990s, these ‘Russian’ schools have functioned bilingually; during the last decade ‘Latvian’ schools have also been in the process of transformation towards a more heteroglossic ideology, for example by offering subjects in more than one language, introducing the CLIL approach and emphasizing the importance of English. It is therefore possible to state that the largely monolingual habitus of the Latvian state in education has in recent years turned into a more multilingual habitus. This applies to the growing success of acquisition of Latvian by people with other L1s, to the increase of competence in English, but also to policies with regard to the regional language of Latgalian in the region of Latgale in eastern Latvia. The Finnish sociolinguistic context (Chapter 10) is characterized by historical contact with Sweden and other neighbouring countries, es­ pecially the former Soviet Union, but also by having moved from being a sender of migrants to receiving them, especially since the end of the Second World War. Besides being the destination of many refugees from many places in the world, Finland has important Swedish, Russian, Estonian and British communities. All this configures a highly multi­ lingual scenario, where national and regional languages must be added to the languages of migrants and their descendants. Within this framework and background, the management of multi­lingualism within the Finnish educational system is explained, and the new curricula implemented in 2016 are discussed in depth. The book concludes describing the differences and similarities in how different education systems address majority, minority and foreign languages, as well as outlining some of the old and new challenges that Europe currently faces. The recognition (often more ideal than real) of European linguistic diversity, its transfer to the education system, as well as the incorporation of the new cultural and linguistic background of ‘new’ Europeans, will undoubtedly be crucial for the future cohesion of Europe. Notes (1) This publication has been made possible thanks to three larger research projects funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (reference numbers EDU2014-54093-R, EDU2017-82479-R and IJCI-2016-28250) and the Agency for

8  Multilingualism in European Language Education

(2)

(3)

(4) (5)

Management of University and Research Grants (AGAUR) of the Government of Catalonia (reference number 2017 SGR 322). Although this work does not focus on pedagogical and didactic elements, it should be noted that another of the EU recommendations regarding language teaching is the adoption of ‘content and language integrated learning (CLIL) (European Union, 2016). We invite readers interested in European CLIL to study Coyle et al. (2010), Dafouz-Milne (2009) or Mehisto et al. (2008). In this book we have used the names that each author gives to the respective languages, since the legal denomination of each language also varies depending on the territory. For this reason, different terms may have been used as synonyms (for example regional language and vernacular language). Chapter 6 focuses almost exclusively on England and largely excludes the other countries of the United Kingdom (Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales). Other complementary outlooks on this topic, focusing on different aspects, can be found in the work of García (2009), Otwinowska and De Angelis (2014) and AbelloContesse et al. (2013).

References Abello-Contesse, C., Chandler, P.M., López-Jiménez, M.D. and Chacón-Beltrán, R. (eds) (2013) Bilingual and Multicultural Education in the 21st Century: Building on Experience. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Cavalli, M., Coste, D., Crişan A. and Van de Ven, P.H. (2009) Plurilingual and Intercultural Education as a Project. Strasbourg: Council of Europe – Language Policy Division. Commission of the European Communities (2008) Multilingualism: An Asset for Europe and a Shared Commitment, COM (2008) 566. Brussels: European Commission. Council of Europe (1992) European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Council of Europe (2007) From Linguistic Diversity to Plurilingual Education. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Coyle, D., Hood, P. and Marsh, D. (2010) CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge: University Press. Dafouz-Milne, E. (2009) CLIL Across Educational Levels. Madrid: Richmond-Santillana. European Center for Modern Languages of the Council of Europe (2016) Plurilingual education, at https://www.ecml.at/Thematicareas/PlurilingualEducation/tabid/1631/ language/en-GB/Default.aspx (accessed January 2019). Eurobarometer (2012) Europeans and Their Languages, Special Eurobarometer 386, available at http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/archives/ebs/ebs_386_ en.pdf (accessed January 2019). European Union (2016) Multilingualism, at https://europa.eu/european-union/topics/ multilingualism_en (accessed January 2019). García, O. (2009) Bilingual Education in the 21st Century: A Global Perspective. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Maalouf, A., Limbach, J., Pralong, S., Hornby, S.A., Green, D., Lourenço, E., De Decker, J., Sokol, J., Grøndahl, J.C. and Ben Jelloun, T. (2008) A Rewarding Challenge: How the Multiplicity of Languages Could Strengthen Europe. Brussels: European Commission. Mehisto, P., Frigols, M.J. and Marsh, D. (2008) Uncovering CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning and Multilingual Education. Oxford: Macmillan. Official Journal of the European Union (2012) Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union, available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:2bf140bf-a3f84ab2-b506-fd71826e6da6.0023.02/DOC_1&format=PDF (accessed October 2018). Otwinowska, A. and De Angelis, G. (eds) (2014) Teaching and Learning in Multilingual Contexts: Sociolinguistic and Educational Perspectives. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

1 Catalonia1 Montserrat Sendra and F. Xavier Vila

Introduction and Contextualization

Catalan is a medium-sized language (Vila & Bretxa, 2012) native to an area on the western Mediterranean coast which is currently divided into four nation states, and into several sub-state political and administrative entities. Catalan is the autochthonous language: in several Spanish autonomous communities, namely Catalonia, (most of) Valencian Country, the Balearic Islands, the eastern part of Aragon known as la Franja (literally, ‘the strip [of land]’) and a small part of the region of Murcia (El Carxe); in the Department of the Eastern Pyrenees in France (Northern Catalonia); in the Principality of Andorra; and in the city of Alghero, in Sardinia, Italy. In 2013, this area was inhabited by approximately 13.9 million people, of whom 10.1 million (72.5%) could speak Catalan, 12.8 million (91.7%) were able to understand it and 7.3 million (52.6%) could write it (Boix-Fuster & Farràs, 2012; CRUSCAT, 2014; Strubell & Boix-Fuster, 2011). Due to their political and administrative fragmentation, each of these territories has its own language-in-education model, and these models vary enormously as far as the presence of the Catalan language is concerned.2 The chapter starts by elaborating the context, with a brief account of the historical evolution of the languages spoken in Catalonia until the 1970s, when the foundations of the current education system were established, and a description of the evolution of the language policies introduced over the last three decades, including the legal and political framework concerning languages at school. It then goes on to discuss the design of Catalonia’s school linguistic model and its linguistic results, both in the official languages (Catalan, Castilian3 and Aranese Occitan) as well as in foreign languages (English, French, German and Italian). A further section focuses on language policies aimed at migrant children: it outlines the reception policies implemented over the last few years and assesses the current treatment of their heritage languages. Before the concluding, the chapter discusses the controversy surrounding the Catalan conjunction model. 9

10  Multilingualism in European Language Education

Contextualization The sociolinguistic situation until 1975

The Catalan language originates in Northern Catalonia (i.e. the French Department of the Eastern Pyrenees), Catalonia and Andorra as one of the vulgar forms of Latin which evolved into the Romance languages during the early Middle Ages. The first texts written in Catalan date from the 12th century. Standardized in the 13th century, Catalan became the main spoken and written language of the Crown of Aragon; it spread to the Balearic Islands, Valencia and Sardinia, and enjoyed a golden age of literary and scientific use until the emergence of the Spanish Empire at the beginning of the 16th century, when the royal court moved to Castile and cultural activity in Barcelona and Valencia declined significantly. During its own golden age, in the 16th and 17th centuries, Castilian made its mark as a language of literary and international prestige and as the language of the vice-royal courts in the Catalan-speaking territories but Catalan remained firmly established as the only language used in everyday life and the main language of the Catalan institutions.3 The defeat of the Catalans, Valencians and Majorcans during the War of the Spanish Succession (1700–1714) meant the dissolution of their states and institutions, the annexation of these territories to Castile and the beginning of the new assimilationist policies under the new absolute Spanish monarchy. These policies started with the decrees of Nueva Planta (1708–1716) and had several major landmarks, such as the Real Cédula de Aranjuez (1786), which introduced the use of Castilian into Catalonia’s official and public life. Then, in 1857, the Ley Moyano established compulsory education in Castilian and banished Catalan from school. In response to these official policies, a new cultural and literary movement emerged in the mid-19th century, known as the Renaixença (Renaiss­ance), which aimed to restore Catalan as a language of higher culture and literature. Its counterpart in the political sphere was catalanisme, a new movement that sought the restoration of Catalonia’s freedoms and autonomous institutions (McRoberts, 2001). As a consequence of these castilianization policies, Catalans became acquainted with Castilian following a familiar top-down path – from the elites to the urban middle classes and then to the working classes. The process of bilingualization was slow; the majority of Catalans became bilingual only in the first decades of the 20th century, with the introduction of compulsory education for the majority of the population. Mass schooling in Castilian coincided with the first significant wave of immigration of Castilian speakers into Catalonia (in the late 1920s), and the increasing impact of the spoken mass media, broadcast compulsorily in Castilian. The first autonomous government since the 1714 defeat, the Mancomunitat (1914–1925) and the second one elected under the Republic



Catalonia 11

(1931–1939) recovered Catalan’s official status and gave it a new impulse as a formal, academic and literary language. However, this reinstatement was frustrated in the first case by the dictatorship of Primo de Rivera (1923–1930) and in the second by the Franco regime (1939–1975), which prohibited the public and administrative use of the language. Catalan was therefore banned from schools both as a subject and as a vehicle of instruction. Simultaneously, the increasing presence of the state in citizens’ lives and the waves of immigration of people from elsewhere in Spain accelerated the bilingualization of Catalan-speakers (Vila, 2019b). The legal, political and demolinguistic evolution of Catalonia since 1975

After the end of Franco’s dictatorship, the advent of parliamentary democracy in 1978 and the regime of political autonomy ushered in a new atmosphere of political and linguistic pluralism. In Catalonia, a programme was instituted to recover the Catalan language after decades of prohibition. This language normalization programme combined the spread of literacy in Catalan among native speakers with the promotion of proficiency and use of Catalan among the numerous immigrants who had arrived from Spanish-speaking areas between the 1950s and the 1970s. The Spanish constitution of 1978 established Castilian as the sole official language of the state in its third article, but also considered the possibility that the other languages spoken in Spain (Catalan, Basque and Galician) might become official in their respective historical territories. In 1979, the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia declared Catalan official, and a general framework of official bilingualism was introduced by means of laws, decrees and a wealth of language promotion activities (see Madariaga in Chapter 2 of this volume). But the general framework of bilingualism was interpreted in different ways in Catalonia and in Castilian-speaking Spain. To put it simply, for the former, Catalan was considered not only as an additional official language but also as Catalonia’s llengua pròpia (literally, Catalonia’s own language), which accredited it as the pre-eminent language in the government, in the public media and in the education system. For the last, the understanding was that Castilian should retain the position of prominence it had acquired over the course of the 20th century; for instance, proficiency in Catalan was to be regarded as an individual, optional issue, whereas proficiency in Castilian was considered compulsory for all citizens. These contradictory interpretations soon led to a tug of war between Catalonia and Spain’s central powers. The level of tension between the two has fluctuated enormously, depending on the sociopolitical situation of the moment. It goes without saying that neither the Catalan side nor the Spanish side has presented a united front or been 100% consistent. Table 1.1 summarizes the main language legislation in Catalonia. Tensions escalated significantly after 2004/05: in 2006, after a great deal of public debate, the Catalan parliament passed a new Statute of Autonomy stating

12  Multilingualism in European Language Education

Table 1.1  The main legal provisions regarding languages in Catalonia Year

Institution

Legislation passed

1975

Spanish parliament

Decree 1433/1975, regulating the incorporation of native languages in the programmes of pre-school centres and basic general education

1978

Spanish parliament

Spanish constitution

1978

Spanish parliament

Royal Decree 2092/1978, on the incorporation of the Catalan language in the education system in Catalonia

1979

Catalan parliament

Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia

1980

Spanish parliament

Royal Decree 2809/1980, transferring powers regarding education from the state to the Generalitat of Catalonia

1983

Catalan parliament

Law 7/1983, Linguistic Normalization Act (the first language act)

1983

Catalan parliament

Decree 362/1983, on the application of linguistic normalization in the field of non-university education

1985

Spanish parliament

Organic Law 8/1985, on the right to education

1990

Spanish parliament

Organic Law 1/1990, on the general organization of the education system

1992

Catalan parliament

Decree 75/1992, on the general organization of preschool, primary and compulsory secondary education in Catalonia

1998

Catalan parliament

Law 1/1998, Language Policy Act

2006

Catalan parliament

Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia

2010

Spanish Constitutional Court Ruling 31/2010

that Catalan was the pre-eminent institutional language of Catalonia, and that Catalan and Castilian were equal in terms of personal rights and duties. This Statute also established that Aranese Occitan, the historical language of Val d’Aran – a mountainous county in the Pyrenees, with 10,090 inhabitants in 2013 (IDESCAT, 2013) – was Catalonia’s third official language. A modified version of this Statute was eventually ratified by the Spanish parliament – with the support of the Spanish leftist parties then in power – and by a popular referendum in Catalonia in 2006. But the 2006 Statute was taken to the Spanish Constitutional Court by the conservative opposition and by several Spanish institutions. Four years later, the Constitutional Court – in the hands of a Castilian-speaking, conservative majority – ruled that Catalan could not be pre-eminent in Catalonia’s institutions and that while Castilian was to be learnt compulsorily, knowledge of Catalan was to remain optional. This conflict and others led to a massive shift in public opinion and support for independence grew exponentially (L. Castro, 2013). Simultaneously with all these political and legal conflicts, the population in Catalonia experienced a number of significant changes. The hundreds of thousands of Castilian-speaking immigrants who had settled in Catalonia during the 1950s, 1960s and early 1970s did not learn to speak



Catalonia 13

Catalan in great numbers, but their offspring did. Immigration from Spain stopped abruptly in 1975, and it remained almost imperceptible until the late 1990s. But then it started again, thanks to the economic boom of the early 2000s. As a consequence, Catalonia attracted more than 1.4 million immigrants – this time not from the rest of Spain, but from all over the world. By 2013 Catalonia had become a multilingual society of 7,553,650 inhabitants, of whom 63.7% (4,810,810) were born in Catalonia, 18.8% (1,417,177) were born elsewhere in Spain and 17.5% (1,325,663) were born abroad. In fact, during this decade, the proportion of the foreignborn population increased from 2.9% (2000) to 15.34% (2013) (IDESCAT, 2013). All these changes had a decisive impact on the demolinguistic scenario. Catalan remains the main language of the population born in Catalonia because, in spite of bilingualization and repression, there has never been a great language shift towards Castilian in Catalonia (outside the aristocracy and part of the upper middle classes). But the successive waves of immigration from both Spain (in the late 1920s and between 1950 and 1975) and from abroad (2000–2010) have converted Catalonia into a multilingual country (Table 1.2). It is important to stress that the population in Catalonia is not polarized along language lines (McAndrew, 2013). In fact, all social and language policies insist on avoiding the development of autonomous language communities and share an ideology that has been described as integrationist (Vila, 2005). As a consequence, the Catalan population is highly bilingual and can understand, speak, read and write in Catalan and in Castilian. English and French are the two best-known foreign languages among the population aged 15 and over (Figure 1.1). Table 1.2  First language, language of identification and habitual language of the Catalonian population, 2013a

First language

Language of identification

Habitual language

Place of birthb

Catalan

Catalan and Castilian Castilian

Other languages and combinations

Catalonia

51%

3.9%

44.5%

 0.6%

Rest of Spain

 3.2%

0.3%

93.5%

 3%

Foreign-born

 2.5%

0.5%

44.4%

52.6%

Catalonia

57.8%

9.4%

32.2%

 0.6%

Rest of Spain

 8%

4.6%

86%

 1.5%

Foreign-born

 3.8%

2.6%

50.6%

43%

Catalonia

56.6%

8.9%

34%

 0.5%

Rest of Spain

 8.6%

5.5%

85.3%

 0.5%

Foreign-born

 5.6%

2.3%

62.6%

29.5%

Population aged 15 years and over. The figure for those born in Catalonia includes the children of people born outside Catalonia. Source: based on data from Generalitat de Catalunya (2014).

a

b

14  Multilingualism in European Language Education

100

94.3

99.8

99.7

90

97.4 82.4

80.4

80

95.9

70

60.4

60 50 40 30

38.4

34.7

31

23.9

19.2

16.4

20

30.6 12.8

10 0 Understanding

Speaking Catalan

Castilian

Reading English

Writing French

Figure 1.1  Knowledge of languages: Catalan, Castilian, English and French, 2013. Percentage of the population aged 15 years and over. Source: Generalitat de Catalunya (2014)

Languages in Education Catalonia’s school language model: Design and results

Language-in-education policies have been central to policy debates because, among other things, they have spearheaded more general language policies in Catalonia since even before the end of the dictatorship. In 1978, schools incorporated Catalan as a compulsory subject and as an optional language of instruction. Even though the transition from dictatorship to democracy did not imply the immediate dismantlement of the former institutions, the transformation of Francoist schools was never­ theless relatively fast: in the 1978/79 school year, only 1.5% of primary schools reported teaching practically all the instruction in Catalan, but within a decade, by 1990, Catalan had already become the main language of instruction in primary education (Vila, 2004). The change was due to a combination of bottom-up and top-down initiatives: public opinion – especially parents – demanded Catalan to be more used and taught in the schools, and teachers progressively used it more in the classrooms; and the authorities encouraged the process and supported it with courses and educational materials. In 1983, the Linguistic Normalization Act was almost unanimously voted for in the Catalan parliament. This act required all students to be



Catalonia 15

able to use Catalan and Castilian properly by the end of their compulsory education, regardless of whether they had begun their studies in one or the other language. In contrast with other bilingual societies where different vehicular languages are offered to different population groups, language-in-education soon moved away from bilingual parity models and L1 education, towards what is known as the Catalan conjunction model (CCM; see below and see also Arnau & Vila, 2013), a languagein-education model in which Catalan is the predominant language of instruction, all students attend the same class irrespective of their L1, and language immersion techniques were devised as early as 1983/84 to meet the specific needs of Castilian-speaking students. Given Catalonia’s socio­ linguistic composition, this model results in a genuinely heteroglossic model (García, 2008) where both Catalan and Castilian are encountered, learnt and used by virtually all pupils. At the beginning, this model was just one of several options available, but since 1994, when the Constitutional Court (ruling 337/1994) declared it to be constitutional, the model has spread throughout the education system in Catalonia and had become clearly hegemonic by the late 1990s. The model was developed further with new legislation during the following decade (Table 1.3).5 The CCM allows for considerable autonomy of schools regarding language practices, provided that Catalan is retained as the main language of instruction. The Decree on School Autonomy (Decree 102/2010) allows schools to develop their own language project in accordance with their sociolinguistic context and the current language legislation. In their language project, schools determine the general criteria for introducing languages, establish the time distribution of the subjects, describe the subjects in which Catalan is not used as the language of instruction, define the teaching methodology that is going to be used and detail how content and language-integrated learning are to be implemented (through the immersion programme, or through content and language integrated learning, CLIL). It also provides strategies for promoting the use of Catalan in the school environment in order to achieve a greater impact in the educational community. Once drafted, the school’s language project must be approved by the school board. This document informs parents of the specific language policy of each school before they enrol their children. Since its inception, the main objectives of the linguistic conjunction model in Catalonia have been (1) to ensure knowledge of Catalan and Castilian by the end of compulsory education, (2) to promote the use of Catalan and (3) to promote social cohesion (CSASE, 2006). But changes experienced during the last two decades have significantly impacted the model in at least two ways: on the one hand, the 2000–2010 migratory process multiplied exponentially linguistic heterogeneity within Catalan classrooms; on the other, globalization is increasing the need to master foreign languages. Therefore, at the time of writing, three different plans are underway: (1) the Catalan Government Plan 2013–2016 (Generalitat de

16  Multilingualism in European Language Education

Table 1.3  Current legal framework concerning languages in schools in Catalonia Year

Institution

1998

Catalan parliament

Legislation passed Act No. 1, of 7 January 1998, on linguistic policy

2006

Catalan parliament

Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia

2006

Catalan parliament

Decree 282/2006, which regulates the first pre-school cycle and centre requirements

2007

Catalan parliament

Decree 142/2007, which establishes the organization of teaching in primary education

2007

Catalan parliament

Decree 143/2007, which establishes the organization of teaching in secondary education

2008

Catalan parliament

Decree 181/2008, which establishes the organization of the second pre-school cycle

2009

Catalan parliament

Law 12/2009, on education

2010

Catalan parliament

Decree 102/2010, on school autonomy

2010

Spanish Consti­ tutional Court

Ruling 31/2010

2013

Spanish parliament

Organic Law 8/2013, to improve educational quality

Catalunya, 2013b); (2) the ‘offensive’ to promote school success 2012–2018 plan (Departament d’Ensenyament, 2012); and (3) the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy (European Commission, 2012). The Catalan Government Plan, under the heading ‘The Catalan school, a framework for multilingualism’, has three main objectives: (1) to ensure that all students, regardless of their family language, have a full command of Catalan (as a tool of cohesion, identity and coexistence) and Castilian by the end of compulsory education; (2) to guarantee the acquisition of a foreign language (primarily English) and to offer the possibility to learn a second foreign language; and (3) to maintain and promote the heritage languages (see the next section). The second plan, ‘Offensive to promote school success’, aims to reduce the rate of school failure, one of the highest in the European Union, at 22.2% in 2014 (IDESCAT, 2015). Specifically, it aims to improve the competence of primary and secondary students by reducing the proportion of low performers in basic skills (languages and mathematics) to below 15%, and by increasing the proportion of high performers to above 40% in primary school and above 30% in secondary school. These two first schemes place emphasis on acquiring high levels of productive bilingualism and biliteracy in both Catalan and Castilian. While Catalan is the main language of instruction in the majority of schools, Castilian is used as a mean of instruction for some non-linguistic subjects (e.g. music, plastic arts, mathematics and geology) in 459 schools and high schools (Comissió d’Ensenyament i Universitats, 2014) and is learnt as a subject by all Catalan students, who study approximately the same programme as their Castilian L1 peers in the rest of Spain.



Catalonia 17

To evaluate the students’ skills, studies are carried out periodically by the Catalan government (through the Evaluation Council of the Educational System), the Spanish government (through the National Institute for Educational Evaluation) and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (through the Programme for International Student Assessment, PISA). All the studies conducted so far indicate that, in general terms: (1) most Catalan students reach a relatively balanced level of proficiency of Catalan and Castilian, and (2) proficiency in Castilian is similar to the average levels elsewhere in Spain (Alsina et al., 1983; Arnau, 1985, 2004; Arnau et al., 1994; CSASE, 2006, 2008a, 2010, 2012, 2014; INCE, 1999, 2000, 2005; Ministerio de Educación, 2011; OECD, 2001; Ribes, 1993; SEDEC, 1998; Serra, 1997). As an example, for three years, the Evaluation Council of the Education System administered an extensive test to all students in the fourth-year ESO (16-year-olds in the last year of compulsory education) in order to assess their proficiency in basic linguistic and mathematics skills. The results in Catalan and Castilian are practically identical, as can be seen in Figure 1.2. A similar dynamic can be observed in the results of the university entrance examinations (‘proves d’accés a la universitat’, popularly known as selectivity exams) (Figure 1.3). The clue to understanding the high levels of proficiency not only in Catalan, the main language of instruction, but also in Castilian, is that the latter is both the L1 of a large percentage of children and also universally known by the adult population. Castilian is widely present on the streets in both spoken and written forms, it is massively predominant in 100% 90% 80%

72.80%

73.90%

76.60% 76.00%

77.10% 76.40%

70% 60% Catalan

50%

Castilian

40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2011/12

2012/13

2013/14

Figure 1.2  Overall average in all assessed skills, fourth-year ESO. Catalan and Castilian. Source: CSASE (2014)

18  Multilingualism in European Language Education

10 9 8 7 6

6.25

6.55 6.16

5.52

6.62 5.75

6.216.33

6.38 6.12

6.176.23 Catalan

5

Castilian

4 3 2 1 0 2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Figure 1.3  Evolution of the test results in Catalan language and literature and Castilian language and literature in the university entrance examinations (scores 0–10). Source: based on Departament d’Economia i Coneixement (2013)

the socioeconomic area (Spain requires Castilian to be used in virtually all written products to be sold and bought, whereas Catalan is merely optional) and it is also hegemonic in the fields of entertainment and communication (moreover, most television stations in Catalonia broadcast from Madrid, and all foreign materials are dubbed into Castilian) (Direcció General de Politica Lingüística, 2015). Castilian therefore filters into the schools’ lives and turns the conjunction model into a truly heteroglossic school model (García, 2008) which fosters formal and informal learning and the use in schools of both Catalan and Castilian, irrespective of the apparent differences in their status. The situation as far as foreign languages are concerned is rather different. The Europe 2020 strategy (European Commission, 2012) expects that by 2020 at least 50% of 15-year-olds will have a B1 level (CEFR) of a first foreign language (up from 42% today) and that at least 75% will study a second foreign language (61% today). But the current levels of proficiency in foreign languages, especially English, are a matter of concern among both parents and the authorities (CSASE, 2008b; Muñoz, 2005). In an attempt to improve proficiency in English, the age at which the first foreign language is introduced has been brought down several times, to the extent that in the 2012/13 school year 55.81% of the students of state schools, 76.80% of the students at state-assisted schools (privately run schools funded by the state) and 85.16% of the students at private schools were already receiving some sort of foreign language tuition in the second

85.16%

Purely private schools

99.30%

98.70% 99.76%

99.96%

99.87%

8–10

Intermediate cycle

Primary education

99.89%

99.98%

99.84%

10–12

Upper cycle

Primary education

Source: constructed from data from Departament d’Ensenyament (2013a).

76.80%

State assisted schools

99.60%

6–8

3–6

55.81%

Age

State schools

Initial cycle

Second cycle

Cycle

Primary education

Pre-school education

School level

First foreign language

24.93%

1.24%

0.02%

3–6

Second cycle

Pre-school education

28.79%

1.93%

0.02%

6–8

Initial cycle

Primary education

Second foreign language

Table 1.4  Percentage of students receiving instruction in a foreign language in primary school, 2012/13

40.15%

3.78%

0.17%

8–10

Intermediate cycle

Primary education

45.17%

10.92%

1.57%

10–12

Upper cycle

Primary education

 Catalonia 19

20  Multilingualism in European Language Education

Table 1.5  Numbers of secondary school pupils studying foreign languages First foreign language (compulsory)

Second foreign language (non-compulsory)

English French German Italian

English French German Italian

State schools

177,212

1,039

235

–

136

8,462

604

244

State-assisted schools

103,422

602

94

–

430 24,886

5,017

37

Purely private schools

2,529

266

62

–

323

1,342

173

–

283,163

1,907

391

0

889 34,690

5,794

281

Total

Source: constructed from data from the Departament d’Ensenyament (2013a).

cycle of pre-school education (3–6 years old). In the first cycle of primary education (6–8 years old), the percentages of foreign language teaching in state and private schools were similar, and almost 100% of students in all three systems studied a first foreign language; they differed, however, in the upper primary education cycle (10–12 years old) in relation to the second foreign language lessons received (state schools 1.57%, private schools 45.17%) (Table 1.4). English is by far the most common first foreign language taught, but the system also allows it to be French, German or Italian; all of these languages are also available as a second foreign language in secondary education (Table 1.5). Despite the many limitations in the provision for foreign language learning, proficiency in foreign languages, especially English, has been increasing in the last decade, especially among the younger generations (Generalitat de Catalunya, 2018). In 2018, the Catalan government made public that, according to the British Council’s Aptis survey made in Catalonia, more than two-thirds of students in their last year of compulsory education had achieved at least a B1 level in the English language. These results placed Catalonian teenagers beyond the European mean and the EU goals for the current period. It was probably not a coincidence that 62% of Catalan children were also engaged in out-of-class Englishlearning activities (Generalitat de Catalunya, 2018). Policies regarding migrant children Policies for linguistic reception

The language policies concerning migrant children in the education system have changed over the years, and a variety of programmes have been implemented. Here, for reasons of space, we will focus on the most recent integration plan: the Plan for Language and Social Cohesion (Departament d’Educació, 2004). More information on the evolution of the language-in-education policies addressed to migrants can be found in Pujolar (2010) and Pereña (2016).



Catalonia 21

The latest wave of migration had several characteristics that distinguished it from earlier ones (Vila, 2011). The first feature to stress is its scale over a short time (Figure 1.4), with the arrival of students from many different origins (Figure 1.5) and with different first languages. The second

17.48% 17.77% 17.76% 17.15% 15.75% 14.83% 15.07%

11.94%

13.54% 11.99%

16.01% 14.10%

13.66%

12.93% 12.28%

10.78% 9.40% 9,09%

5.90% 5.46%

2.05% 1.38%

1.83% 1.75%

2.37% 2.02%

3.17% 2.44%

7.89% 7.82%

4.37% 3.64%

1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 Primary

Secondary

Figure 1.4  Evolution of the percentage of non-Spanish students in primary and secondary schools (public and private schools). Source: 1997–2003 data, Departament d’Educació (2007); 2003–2013 data, Departament d’Ensenyament (2013b).

45%

40.99%

40%

35.35%

35% 30%

20% 15%

25.14%

24.35%

25% 14.53% 13.20%

10%

13.04% 12.54% 7.06% 4.26%

4.42% 4.39%

5% 0% European Union

Rest of Europe

Maghreb

0.45% 0.27%

Rest of Africa North America Central and South America

Primary

Asia and Oceania

Secondary

Figure 1.5  Percentage of students by their area of origin with regard to the total of foreign students, 2012/13. Primary school (n = 56,598) and secondary school (n = 45,713). Source: Departament d’Ensenyament (2013b)

22  Multilingualism in European Language Education

point to make concerns the impact it had on the schools: teachers were not trained in the techniques or given the teaching resources needed by the new type of pupil, and the education system was not prepared to deal with the new dynamic of late-arriving students (students joining school at any time of the school year, and at any level, without any knowledge of the language of instruction). Faced with this sudden arrival of thousands of children from very different origins, a strategy was designed based on the principle that linguistic proficiency would be the result of the integration of the students into their class groups, rather than something that should be acquired beforehand to guarantee successful integration. As a consequence, rather than an object of identity, the role of Catalan was that of an instrument for social cohesion. The three main objectives of the Plan for Language and Social Cohesion were: (1) to promote social cohesion, social inclusion and school inclusion; (2) to strengthen Catalan as the backbone of the school multilingual project; and (3) to encourage intercultural education (Departament d’Educació, 2004). These objectives materialized in three areas: reception classrooms (aules d’acollida), reception plans (plans d’acollida) and environment plans (plans d’entorn). The reception classrooms were specific areas created to cater for newly arrived students who do not know the languages of instruction. Pupils (from the third grade of primary school, 9 years old) attend these classrooms (with a maximum of 12 students) for up to 12 hours a week for two years. The remaining hours are spent with their mainstream class in a transition programme that starts with subjects that require less linguistic competence (such as music, arts or physical education) and then goes on to include subjects in which more complex language is used. The number of students in reception classrooms increased during the period 2004–2008; thereafter, however, the arrival of immigrant students began to decline (see Figure 1.6). In the 2012/13 school year, there were 723 reception classrooms throughout Catalonia (Generalitat de Catalunya, 2012). The reception plans were devised to allow each centre to design, according to its own characteristics, the best strategy for incorporating the new students into the school dynamics and to contribute to their educational success. The environment plans also aimed to contribute to cohesion by coordinating the actions of the Catalan Government with local councils and civil associations. In 2012/13, 97 plans were implemented in 79 towns and 884 schools, with a total of 330,768 students (187,058 from primary school and 143,710 from secondary school) (Generalitat de Catalunya, 2013a). Whereas reception classes are generally regarded as a valuable and rather successful scheme, the results of the reception plans and environment have not been entirely satisfactory (Vila, 2011). Resources were invested for the most part in extracurricular activities (e.g. spaces in which to do homework) or workshops for families, but did not manage to



Catalonia 23 25,000 24,505 20,000

22,121

22,457 19,271

15,000

10,000

16,745 12,247

16,243 13,796 11,790

5,000

0

Figure 1.6  Evolution of the number of students in reception classrooms Source: Generalitat de Catalunya (2012)

break down the school boundaries and involve the rest of the education community. Moreover, several studies warned of immigrants’ linguistic segregation in Catalan schools (Aymeric et al., 2011; Benito & González, 2009; Síndic de Greuges, 2008). As a result of social and residential segregation, the distribution of Catalan-speaking, Castilian-speaking and alloglot students is uneven throughout the territory, and leads to situations in which Catalan-speaking pupils are a minority in the classroom. This situation can have negative effects in the field of social cohesion and equal opportunities, as the existence of schools with a low Catalan presence reduces the possi­bilities for immigrant students to acquire this language in contexts of informal use (Huguet et al., 2011a, 2011b). The current treatment of heritage languages

One of the objectives of the Marc per al plurilingüisme (Framework for Multilingualism) (Generalitat de Catalunya, 2013b) is to maintain and disseminate the heritage languages of foreign students as sources of personal and collective wealth. With this aim in mind, the Catalan Department of Education offers the possibility to study a number of languages outside school hours on an optional basis. On these courses, classes are taught by native teachers, in some cases thanks to an agreement with the country of origin. Whereas the offer for heritage language learning is clearly insufficient to serve all potential learners and is often voluntaristic in nature, it is also true that school-organized optional lessons are attended by only a fraction of the potential students (Table 1.6) (Fidalgo & Mayans, 2016). Heritage

24  Multilingualism in European Language Education

Table 1.6  Foreign languages taught outside school hours in Catalonia, 2012/13 Out-of-school activity

Students

Arabic language and Moroccan culture Chinese language and culture Tamazight language and culture

2,145 308 49

Dutch language and culture

162

Romanian language and culture

302

Ukrainian language and culture

35

Bengali language and culture

30

Portuguese language and culture Quechua language and culture Total

330 4 3,365

Source: Rovira (2014).

language courses are also organized by some communities themselves (Chinese, Romanian, Arabic, etc.), often in connection with religious activities. Controversies surrounding the Catalan conjunction model

As is to be expected with any sort of social change, the definition of the linguistic profile of the Catalan conjunction model (the languagein-education model in which Catalan is the predominant language of instruction, all students attend the same class irrespective of their L1, and language immersion techniques are applied) has not proceeded without disagreement: while some social sectors wanted Catalan to become the exclusive language of education, others felt that the amount of Catalan used was excessive, the time devoted to foreign languages was insufficient, or heritage languages were not sufficiently represented. Most of the parents whose preferences did not fit the official model (and who could afford the expense) opted for schools in the private sector, including ‘international’ foreign language schools, as well as some religious centres with a relatively widespread use of Castilian as the language of instruction. In 2013 there were 20 foreign schools in Catalonia: nine English, five French, three German, two Italian and one Japanese (Generalitat de Catalunya, 2013a) catering mainly for children from families of these nationalities or from wealthy local families, but their presence inside the Catalan education system as a whole is minimal. The Constitutional Court’s ruling of 2010 about the 2006 Statute of Autonomy mentioned above altered the parameters of language-ineducation policies in Catalonia, and added significantly to the tension. Following this ruling, some courts in Catalonia declared that Castilian should be more widely used as a vehicle of education if some parents so



Catalonia 25

requested, even if the rest of the parents in the same classroom did not agree (CRUSCAT, 2014). The ruling encountered the opposition not only of the Catalan Ministry of Education (Ibáñez, 2015) but also of many of the schools involved, as well as many other parents (EFE, 2014), and a wide associative movement. In 2013, in another step to reinforce the position of Castilian in Catalonia, the conservative Spanish government passed a new education act (Ley Orgánica 8/2013, para la mejora de la calidad educativa, LOMCE), entitling parents who wanted their children to be educated in Castilian to take them to private schools and be refunded by the authorities if the public system did not offer them adequate Castilianmedium education. However, in 2018, the Spanish Constitutional Court ruled in favour of the government of Catalonia and declared this part of the law unconstitutional because it infringed the autonomic competences (Sentencia Constitucional 14/2018, Tribunal Constitucional). Although widely discussed in the mass media for a period, the practical consequences of all these measures in favour of Castilian-medium education turned out to be very slight: in 2012/13, only 48 students from 32 families out of a total of 1,284,825 students had applied for instruction in Castilian in Catalonia (Generalitat de Catalunya, 2013a). By June 2016, only 20 families were expected to be granted €6000 for this purpose. There are several reasons for these meagre results. First, Catalan and Castilian are closely related, which means that actual problems of intercomprehension are limited, and second language learning is easy, especially when started at early ages. Heteroglossic practices add to the accommodation process of Castilian-speaking children. Second, whereas in Castilian-medium schools children tend to become only receptively bilingual, the Catalan conjunction model guarantees generalized active bilingualism and biliteracy in Catalan and Castilian at no cost in terms of content learning. Given that Catalan is a valuable asset in Catalonia’s labour market (Cappellari & Di Paolo, 2018), it is no surprise that the conjunction model enjoys notable support, not only political but also popular: in 2013, more than 80% of the representatives in the Catalan parliament were in favour of the current model, and according to an article in La Vanguardia (Catalonia’s most widely read newspaper) only 12% of the population in Catalonia expressed reservations about the model (C. Castro, 2013). Finally, it should not be forgotten that CLIL programmes are gaining popularity in Catalonia as well as all over Spain, which is eroding the public legitimacy of demands for mother tongue education. In fact, the low numbers of parents actually applying for the ‘refund’ make evident that, in spite of the fiercest indictments of the Catalan school model by some media and some political parties, especially in Castilian-speaking Spain, social discrepancy about school policies is more important regarding the role of English than that of Castilian (Garvia & Santana, 2018; Vila, 2018). Still in connection with the evaluation of the school model, a different kind of criticism is voiced by those who claim that it does not actually

26  Multilingualism in European Language Education

accomplish its original goals. By spreading proficiency in Catalan among the school population, the conjunction model aspires to encourage a greater use of Catalan among Castilian-speaking students. But the results of the research suggest that the improvement in proficiency has not substantially modified the interpersonal uses the language by the pupils (Galindo & Vila, 2009; Torrijos, 2008; Vila, 1996). This is a matter of concern for many Catalan language supporters, who see the inability of the school to promote the use of Catalan as a premonition of future language shift (Vidal, 2015). In their view, even if on paper Catalan is the main language of instruction, in practice the conjunction school model does not achieve a sufficient level of proficiency in this language and, in the end, does not promote the actual use of Catalan among the new genera­tions. Indeed, research has shown that in schools where a majority of children are not Catalan L1, Castilian is widely used alongside Catalan as a means of interaction between teachers and pupils (Bretxa & Vila, 2014). This may be an additional reason why there is so little opposition to the model – why should one ask for a bilingual model when one already has it? – but may indeed explain why the behaviour of a percentage of children of non-Catalan origin often resembles that of Castilian monolinguals when they reach adolescence. Conclusions

One of the primary objectives of the Catalan education system is that its students should master Catalan and Castilian by the end of the compulsory education (Departament d’Ensenyament, 2018). The research results show that the conjunction model, which does not separate students according to L1 and uses Catalan as its main medium of education in a heteroglossic way, does produce relatively high levels of Catalan/Castilian bilingualism and biliteracy (CSASE, 2017), while reducing the risk of creating separate communities living side by side (Strubell et al., 2011). In this respect, it seems to serve a good deal of its original goals, and enjoys significant popular and political support; the biggest challenge faced by the model right now is that of providing increased access to English, not to Castilian. It goes without saying, the current school model still offers ample room for improvement. First, the Catalan conjunction school model needs to prove that it may provide increased abilities in English, something that probably requires first and foremost reconsidering FL teaching methodologies. Second, levels of proficiency in Catalan and Castilian can and should be improved, especially in connection with formal oral abilities, which have so far not been sufficiently developed. Third, the connection between proficiency and active use should be reconsidered, to see to what extent schools can contribute to spreading the use of Catalan, especially among migrants and their children. Fourth, much more could be done to



Catalonia 27

guarantee access and development to heritage languages for more students. If it manages to combine all these elements – improving competence in English, Catalan and Castilian, promoting the use of Catalan, caring for heritage languages – the conjunction model is likely to retain the support it currently enjoys in Catalonia. Notes (1) This chapter benefited from the financial support of the ‘Configuration of language competences and its evolution in autonompus communities’ project (Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, FFI2016-75416-P), Grup d’Estudi de la Variació (Government of Catalonia, 2017SGR942) and APIF grant (Universitat de Barcelona, 2012). (2) For a deeper analysis of the educational policies of the other Catalan-speaking territories, see Arnau and Vila (2013), Mercator (2013), Vila (2019a). (3) Castilian is the name traditionally given to the Spanish spoken in Spain and is the term used in the Spanish constitution (1978) to describe the official language of the state. (4) The most recently updated synthesis of the history of Catalonia is Fontana (2014), so far only available in Catalan. McRoberts (2001) and Dowling (2013) introduce non-Catalan readers to updated accounts of the history of Catalonia – including the language-related issues – during the last two centuries, while L. Castro (2013) outlines the reasons for the recent emergence of a strong pro-independence movement. (5) More detailed information is given in the volume edited by Milian (2013).

References Alsina, À., Arnau, J., Bel, A., et al. (1983) Quatre anys de català a l’escola: estudi sobre el coneixement del català i del castellà dels alumnes de quart curs d’E.G.B. a Catalunya (1981–1982) [Four Years of Catalan in School: A Study on Catalan and Spanish Knowledge in Students of Fourth Year of E.G.B. in Catalonia (1981–1982)]. Barcelona: Departament d’Ensenyament, Generalitat de Catalunya. Arnau, J. (1985) Cataluña: influencia del contexto sociolingüístico y del modelo de escuela en el dominio y uso de las lenguas. In Actas del 2º Congreso Nacional de Lingüística Aplicada. Las lenguas en España: adquisición, aprendizaje y uso [Catalonia: Influence of the Sociolinguistic Context and the School Model on Language Mastery and Use. From the Records of the 2nd National Congress of Applied Linguistics. Languages in Spain: Aquisition, Learning and Use] (pp. 369–382). Madrid: AESLA. Arnau, J. (2004) Sobre les competències en català i castellà dels escolars de Catalunya: una resposta a la polèmica sobre el decret d’hores de castellà. Llengua, Societat i Comunicació 1, 1–7, available at https://www.raco.cat/index.php/LSC/article/view/40441/40917 (accessed January 2019). Arnau, J. and Vila, F.X. (2013) Language-in-education policies in the Catalan language area. In J. Arnau (ed.) Reviving Catalan at School: Challenges and Instructional Approaches (pp. 1–28). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Arnau, J., Bel, A., Serra, J.M. and Vila, I. (1994) A comparative study of the knowledge of Catalan and Spanish among 8th-grade school children in Catalonia. In C. Laurén (ed.) Evaluating European Immersion Programs: From Catalonia to Finland (pp. 107–127). Vaasa: Vaasan Yliopisto. Aymeric, R., Lluró, J.M. and Roca, E. (2011) Junts a l’aula? Present i futur del model d’educació comprensiva a Catalunya [Together in the Classroom? Present and Future of the Model of Comprehensive Education in Catalonia]. Barcelona: Fundació Jaume Bofill.

28  Multilingualism in European Language Education

Benito, R. and González, I. (2009) The intensity and nature of linguistic segregation in Catalan schools. Noves SL. Revista de Sociolingüística, available at https://www.gencat. cat/llengua/noves/noves/hm09hivern/docs/a_Benito_Isaac.pdf (accessed January 2019). Boix-Fuster, E. and Farràs, J. (2012) Is Catalan a medium-sized language community too? In F.X. Vila (ed.) Survival and Development of Language Communities: Prospects and Challenges (pp. 157–178). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Bretxa, V. and Vila, F.X. (2014) L’evolució dels usos lingüístics dins l’aula des de sisè de primària fins a quart d’ESO. Revista de Llengua i Dret 62, 106–123. Cappellari, L. and Di Paolo, A. (2018) Bilingual schooling and earnings: Evidence from a language-in-education reform. Economics of Education Review 62, 90–101. Castro, C. (2013) El 81% dels catalans dóna suport a la immersió davant l’intent de diluir-la [81% of Catalans support immersion when facing intentions of diluting it], La Vanguardia newspaper, 7 October, at https://www.lavanguardia.com/ encatala/20131007/54390622541/81-catalans-defensa-immersio-linguistica.html (accessed January 2019). Castro, L. (ed.) (2013) What’s Up with Catalonia?: The Causes Which Impel Them to the Separation. Ashfield: Catalonia Press. Comissió d’Ensenyament i Universitats (2014) Sessió ordinària del 6 de febrer de 2014 [Ordinary session 6 February 2014], at http://www.parlament.cat/web/actualitat/ ordre-dia/index.html?p_od0=66310017 (accessed 15 June 2017). CRUSCAT [Coneixements, usos i representacions de la llengua catalana] (2014) VII Report on the Situation of the Catalan Language (2013). Barcelona: Observatori de la Llengua Catalana, available at https://blogs.iec.cat/cruscat/wp-content/uploads/ sites/15/2011/11/REPORT-CATALAN-2013-Xarxa-CRUSCAT.pdf (accessed January 2019). CSASE [Consell Superior d’Avaluació del Sistema Educatiu] (2006) El coneixement de llengües a Catalunya. Tendències [Language Knowledge in Catalonia. Tendencies]. Barcelona: Generalitat de Catalunya. CSASE [Consell Superior d’Avaluació del Sistema Educatiu] (2008a) Estudi sociodemogràfic i lingüístic de l’alumnat de quart d’ESO de Catalunya. Avaluació de l’educació secundària obligatòria 2006 [Sociodemographic and Linguistic Study with Students of Fourth Year of Secondary Education in Catalonia. Assessment of Secondary Education 2006]. Barcelona: Generalitat de Catalunya. CSASE [Consell Superior d’Avaluació del Sistema Educatiu] (2008b) Resultats de llengua anglesa de l’alumnat de quart d’ESO de Catalunya. Avaluació de l’Educació Secundària Obligatòria 2006 [English Language Results of Fourth Year Students of Secondary Education in Catalonia. Assessment of Secondary Education 2006]. Barcelona: Generalitat de Catalunya. CSASE [Consell Superior d’Avaluació del Sistema Educatiu] (2010) Educació Primària 2007 [Primary Education 2007]. Barcelona: Generalitat de Catalunya. CSASE [Consell Superior d’Avaluació del Sistema Educatiu] (2012) Avaluació de l’Educació Secundària Obligatòria: 4t d’ESO [Assessment of Secondary Education: Fourth Year]. Barcelona: Generalitat de Catalunya. CSASE [Consell Superior d’Avaluació del Sistema Educatiu] (2014) L’Avaluació de 4t d’ESO 2013 [Assesment of Fourth Year of secondary education 2013]. Barcelona: Departament d’Ensenyament, Generalitat de Catalunya. http://csda.gencat.cat/ca/ arees_d_actuacio/publicacions/quaderns_avaluacio/quaderns_avaluacio_25/ CSASE [Consell Superior d’Avaluació del Sistema Educatiu] (2017) L’avaluació de 4t d’ESO 2017 [Assessment of Fourth Year of Secondary Education 2017]. Barcleona: Departament d’Ensenyament, Generalitat de Catalunya. Departament d’Economia i Coneixement (2013) Estadístiques Prova d’accés a la universitat (PAU), juny 2013 [Statistics of the university entrance exams (PAU) June 2013], at http://universitatsirecerca.gencat.cat/web/ca/03_ambits_dactuacio/



Catalonia 29

acces_i_admissio_a_la_universitat/.content/acces_i_admissio_a_la_universitat/ proves_d_acces_a_la_universitat__pau/informacio_general/resutats_estadistics/ documents/pau_estadistiques_juny_2013.pdf (accessed 19 June 2017). Departament d’Educació (2004) Pla per a la Llengua i la Cohesió Social [Plan for Language and Social Cohesion]. Barcelona: Generalitat de Catalunya. Departament d’Educació (2007) Estadística de l’Educació. Sèries anuals de règim general 1997–1998 2006–2007 [Education statistics. Yearly series of general regime 1997–1998 2006–2007], at http://ensenyament.gencat.cat/web/.content/home/departament/estadistiques/destacats/series9707.pdf (accessed 19 June 2017). Departament d’Ensenyament (2012) Ofensiva a favor de l’èxit escolar [In Favor of Academic Success]. Barcelona: Generalitat de Catalunya. Departament d’Ensenyament (2013a) Dades d’ensenyament. Alumnat, professorat, centres i grups. Curs 2012–2013 [Education data. Students, teachers, centres and groups. Year 2012–2013], at http://ensenyament.gencat.cat/web/.content/home/departament/ estadistiques/publicacions-sintesi/dades_del_sistema_educatiu_2012-2013.pdf (accessed 19 June 2017). Departament d’Ensenyament (2013b) Estadística de l’Educació. Sèries anuals de règim general 2003–2004 2012–2013 [Education statistics. Yearly series of general regime 2003–2004 2012–2013], at http://ensenyament.gencat.cat/web/.content/home/ departament/estadistiques/series-estadistiques/rg2003-2004a2012-2013.pdf (accessed 19 June 2017). Departament d’Ensenyament (2018) El model lingüístic del sistema educatiu de Catalunya. L’aprenentatge i l’ús de les llengües en un context educatiu multilingüe i multicultural [The Linguistic Model of the Educational System of Catalonia: Language Learning and Use in a Multilingual and Multicultural Context]. Barcelona: Generalitat de Catalunya. Direcció General de Política Lingüística (2015) L’Enquesta d’usos lingüístics de la població 2013. Resum dels factors clau [2013 Survey on the Linguistic Uses of the Population. Summary of Key Factors]. Barcelona: Generalitat de Catalunya, Departament de Cultura, Direcció General de Política Lingüística. Dowling, A. (2013) Catalonia Since the Spanish Civil War: Reconstructing the Nation. Brighton: Sussex Academic Press. EFE (2014) Escuela obligada a impartir 25% en castellano recoge 2.000 firmas en contra [School forced to teach 25% in Spanish collects 2000 signs against this], La Vanguardia webpage, 11 June, available at https://www.lavanguardia.com/ vida/20140611/54409854639/escuela-obligada-a-impartir-25-en-castellano-recoge2-000-firmas-en-contra.html (accessed January 2019). European Commission (2012) Language Competences for Employability, Mobility and Growth, available at https://www.cedefop.europa.eu/files/com669_en.pdf (accessed 15 July 2017). Fidalgo, M. and Mayans, P. (2016) La gestió de la diversitat lingüística i l’escola catalana [Management of lingüístic diversity in the Catalan School]. In M. Pereña (ed.) Ensenyar i aprendre llengües en un model educatiu compartit. Metodologies i estratègies per al desenvolupament de projectes educatius i per a la pràctica docent [Teaching and Learning Languages in a Shared Educational Model. Methodologies and Strategies for the Development of Educational Projects and for Teaching Practice] (pp. 47–67). Barcelona: Horsori. Fontana, J. (2014) La Formació d’una Identitat [The Formation of an Identity]. Vic: Eumo Editorial. Galindo, M. and Vila, F.X. (2009) Factors explaining informal linguistic usage among Catalan schoolchildren: initial language, social networks, competence and vehicular language for teaching. Noves SL. Revista de Sociolingüística, available at https://www. gencat.cat/llengua/noves/noves/hm09hivern/a_galindo_vila8_9.htm (accessed January 2019).

30  Multilingualism in European Language Education

García, O. (2008) Bilingual Education in the 21st Century: A Global Perspective (1st edn). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Garvia, R. and Santana, A. (2018) El consenso de la inmersión lingüística: realidad o mito [Consensus of linguistic immersion: reality or myth], at https://politikon.es/2018/02/06/ el-consenso-de-la-inmersion-linguistica-realidad-o-mito (accessed 20 June 2017). Generalitat de Catalunya (2012) Informe de Política Lingüística, 2012 [Linguistic Policy Report, 2012]. Barcelona: Generalitat de Catalunya. Generalitat de Catalunya (2013a) Informe de Política Lingüística, 2013 [Linguistic Policy Report, 2013]. Barcelona: Generalitat de Catalunya. Generalitat de Catalunya (2013b) Pla de Govern 2013–2016 [Government Plan 2013–2016]. Barcelona: Generalitat de Catalunya. Generalitat de Catalunya (2014) Language Use of the Population of Catalonia, 2013. Barcelona: Generalitat de Catalunya. Generalitat de Catalunya (2018) Els alumnes de 4t d’ESO superen en coneixements d’anglès l’objectiu de la Unió Europea per al 2020 [Fourth Year Students of Secondary Education Exceed the 2020 Objectives of the European Union Regarding English Knowledge], available at http://premsa.gencat.cat/pres_fsvp/AppJava/notapremsavw/305364/ca/ alumnes-4t-deso-superen-coneixements-dangles-lobjectiu-unio-europea-2020.do (accessed 15 July 2018). Huguet, À., Chireac, S., Lapresta, C. and Sansó, C. (2011a) Reflexiones sobre el conocimiento lingüístico declarado por los escolares catalanes al final de la Educación Secundaria Obligatoria. ESE: Estudios Sobre Educación 21, 119–137. Huguet, À., Chireac, S., Lapresta, C. and Sansó, C. (2011b) Tiempo de estancia y aprendizajes lingüísticos. El caso de los escolares inmigrantes en Cataluña. Cultura y Educación 23, 335–370. Ibáñez, M.J. (2015) Primera sanción a la Generalitat por no dar clases en castellano [First sanction for the Generalitat for not offering classes in Spanish], El Periódico newspaper, 20 January, available at https://www.elperiodico.com/es/noticias/sociedad/primerasancion-generalitat-por-dar-clases-castellano-3865525 (accessed January 2019). IDESCAT [Institut d’Estadística de Catalunya] (2013) Anuari estadístic 2013 [Statistical annual 2013], at http://www.idescat.cat/dequavi/?TC=444&V0=15&V1=2&lang=en (accessed 18 July 2017). IDESCAT [Institut d’Estadística de Catalunya] (2015) Abandonament prematur dels estudis [Premature abandonment of studies], at http://www.idescat.cat/economia/ inec?tc=3&id=8508 (accessed 18 July 2017). INCE [Instituto Nacional de Calidad y Evaluación] (1999) Evaluación de la educación primaria [Assessment of Primary Education]. Madrid: Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte. INCE [Instituto Nacional de Calidad y Evaluación] (2000) Evaluación de la educación secundaria [Assessment of Secondary Education]. Madrid: Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte. INECSE [Instituto Nacional de Avaluación y Calidad del Sistema Educativo] (2005) Evaluación de la educación primaria: Datos básicos 2003 [Assessment of Primary Education: Basic Data 2003]. Madrid: Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte. McAndrew, M. (2013) Fragile Majorities and Education: Belgium, Catalonia, Northern Ireland, and Quebec. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s Press-MQUP. McRoberts, K. (2001) Catalonia: Nation Building Without a State. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mercator [European Research Centre on Multilingualism and Language Learning] (2013) Catalan: The Catalan Language in Education in Spain (2nd edn), available at https://www.mercator-research.eu/fileadmin/mercator/documents/regional_dossiers/ catalan_in_spain_2nd.pdf (accessed 2 September 2017). Milian, A. (2013) Els drets lingüístics en el sistema educatiu: els models de Catalunya i les Balears: Seminari, Barcelona 17 d’octubre de 2012 [Linguistic Rights in the



Catalonia 31

Educational System: The Models of Catalonia and the Balearic Islands]. Barcelona: Institut d’Estudis Autonòmics, Generalitat de Catalunya. Ministerio de Educación (2011) Evaluación general de diagnóstico 2010. Educación Secundaria Obligatoria. Segundo curso. Informe de resultados [General Diagnosis assessment 2010: Obligatory Secondary Education. Second Year. Result Report], available at https://www.mecd.gob.es/dctm/ievaluacion/informe-egd-2010.pdf?​ document​Id=0901e72b80d5ad3e (accessed 22 June 2017). Muñoz, C. (2005) Trilingualism in the Catalan educational system. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 171, 75–93. DOI: 10.1515/ijsl.2005.2005.171.75. OECD [Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development] (2001) Regards sur l’éducation 2001: Indicateurs de l’OCDE. Paris: Éditions OCDE. DOI: http://dx.doi. org/10.1787/eag-2001-fr. Pereña, M. (ed.) (2016) Ensenyar i aprendre llengües en un model educatiu compartit. Metodologies i estratègies per al desenvolupament de projectes educatius i per a la pràctica docent [Teaching and Learning Languages in a Shared Educational Model: Methodologies and Strategies for the Development of Educational Projects and for Teaching Practice]. Barcelona: Horsori. Pujolar, J. (2010) Immigration and language education in Catalonia: Between national and social agendas. Linguistics and Education 21, 229–243. Ribes, D. (1993) Els programes d’immersió al Català: Avaluació d’alguns aspectes del rendiment escolar [Catalan immersion programmes. Assessing some aspects of academic achievement]. Unpublished PhD thesis, Universitat de Barcelona. Rovira, M. (2014) El plurilingüisme familiar. Llengua i ús 54, available at https://www.raco. cat/index.php/LlenguaUs/article/view/279223/366948 (accessed January 2019). SEDEC [Servei d’Ensenyament del Català] (1998) Competència lingüística en català i castellà de l’alumnat de sisè de primària, curs 1997–1998 [Linguistic competence in Catalan and Spanish in year-six students in primary education, year 1997–1998]. Unpublished manuscript. Serra, J.M. (1997) Immersió lingüística: Rendiment acadèmic i classe social [Linguistic Immersion: Academic Achievement and Social Class]. Barcelona: Horsori. Síndic de Greuges (2008) La segregació escolar a Catalunya. Barcelona: Generalitat de Catalunya. Strubell, M. and Boix-Fuster, E. (eds) (2011) Democratic Policies for Language Revitalisation: The Case of Catalan. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Strubell, M., Andreu, Ll. and Sintes, E. (coordinators) (2011) Resultats del model lingüístic escolar de Catalunya. L’evidència empírica [Results from the Educational Linguistic Model in Catalonia]. Barcelona: UOC. Torrijos, A. (2008) Sociolinguistic characterisation of young people in Catalonia: Some factors that explain linguistic uses. Noves SL. Revista de sociolingüística, avail­able at https://www.gencat.cat/llengua/noves/noves/hm08hivern/docs/a_torrijos_2.pdf (ac­ cessed January 2019). Vidal, P. (2015) El Bilingüisme Mata. Del Canvi Climàtic al Canvi Idiomàtic [Bilingualism Kills: From Climate Change to Language Change]. Barcelona: Edicions 62. Vila, F.X. (1996) When classes are over. Language choice and language contact in bilingual education in Catalonia. Unpublished Phd thesis, Vrije Universiteit, available at https:// fxvila.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/vila-i-moreno-1996-when-classes-are-over.pdf (ac­ cessed January 2019). Vila, F.X. (2004) Hem guanyat l’escola però hem perdut el pati?. Els usos lingüístics a les escoles catalanes. Llengua, Societat i Comunicació 1, 8–15. Vila, F.X. (2005) Barcelona (Catalonia): Language, education and ideology in an integrationist society. In E. Witte, L. Van Mensel, M. Pierrard, L. Mettewie, A. Housen and R. De Groof (eds) Language, Attitudes and Education in Multilingual Cities (pp. 53–86). Brussels: Contactforum–Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie van België

32  Multilingualism in European Language Education

voor Wetenschappen en Kunsten, available at https://www.academia.edu/11505968/ Barcelona_Catalonia_Language_Education_and_Ideology_in_an_Integrationist_Society (ac­cessed January 2019). Vila, F.X. (2018) Sobre el consenso en torno al modelo lingüístico escolar en Cataluña: reflexiones a partir de una encuesta [On the consensus regarding the educational linguistic model in Catalonia. Reflections from a survey], blog, at https://politikon. es/2018/03/07/sobre-el-consenso-en-torno-al-modelo-linguistico-escolar-en-catalunareflexiones-a-partir-de-una-encuesta (accessed 7 March 2018). Vila, F.X. (2019a) Teaching and learning of Catalan. In J.A. Argenter and J. Lüdtke (eds) Manual of Catalan Linguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter. Vila, F.X. (2019b) Language demography. In J.A. Argenter and J. Lüdtke (eds) Manual of Catalan Linguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter. Vila, F.X. and Bretxa, V. (2012) The analysis of medium-sized language communities. In F.X. Vila (ed.) Survival and Development of Language Communities: Prospects and Challenges (pp. 1–17). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Vila, I. (2011) Balanç de la política lingüística a l’educació escolar dels governs de Catalunya (2004–2011). Societat Catalana, 295–323.

2 The Basque Country José-María Madariaga

Introduction and Contextualization

From a linguistic point of view, the Basque language is unrelated to any other European language. It is one of the most ancient languages, older than the so-called Indo-European languages. Apart from other linguistic and historical considerations, Basque has had a great symbolic and identity value for the Basque people. As a result, it has survived until the present day and has been immersed for several years in a process of normalization and recovery, especially in the Basque Country. The territory where Basque is spoken extends between Spain and France. It is therefore a minority language in those places where French and Spanish are spoken, languages with great social prestige. Within the Spanish territory, Basque is spoken in two Autonomous Communities: the Basque Country and Navarre. As a consequence of the political fragmentation and diversification of the territories where Basque is spoken and historical circumstances, these two territories now have different educational models for the use of Basque. This chapter focuses on the analysis of the Basque Country, one of 17 Autonomous Communities that were constituted in Spain as a consequence of the decentralization process brought about by the 1978 constitution. Both languages, Basque and Spanish, are official in the Basque Country. The Basque Country covers 7235 km², has 2,194,158 inhabitants (National Statistics Institute [INE], 2017) and is located in the north of Spain, on the eastern edge of the Cantabrian Sea. It borders a French territory where Basque is also spoken and is known as the French Basque Country. During the 20th century, industrialization in the Basque Country entailed the arrival of numerous Spanish speakers from other parts of Spain looking for jobs, and hence a greater presence of the Spanish language, to the detriment of Basque. At the same time, having become one of the most economically powerful and industrialized Autonomous Communities in Spain, the Basque Country has invested money in the recovery of the language during the last 40 years. With the death of the dictator Franco in the 1970s, there was also a very favourable attitude towards the recovery of the language. However, having a less developed 33

34  Multilingualism in European Language Education

economy based on agriculture, farming and tourism, and also for political reasons, the French territories are experiencing a further decline of the Basque language. The efforts during the last four decades to stop the decline of the Basque language as a consequence of the persecution suffered during Franco’s dictatorship have had the main objective of reversing this situation to promote the knowledge and use of Basque in all social spheres (Azurmendi & Martínez de Luna, 2006). This chapter focuses on the educational context, and presents the linguistic and educational policies that have been implemented with the aim of recovering Basque (Cenoz, 2008). We start from the legal and social framework of the language policy and give particular attention to the regulations developed to assist the immigrant school population. Then, the different linguistic models that have resulted from these policies are explained in the explanatory framework of the management of multi­ lingualism in the Basque Country, as well as the distribution of the school population across the different models. Subsequently, a synthesis is made on the new sociolinguistic map being developed in the Basque Country as a consequence of schooling in the language models described, based on the results obtained in the Basque Government’s Sixth Sociolinguistic Survey (Basque Government, 2016a) and the results of the research on the role of language attitudes in this educational process. These data have repercussions for the educational approach in the classroom, according to the language models and the origin of the students; hence they are of interest. Those related to the language competence and use of Basque are especially useful. The final discussion is a reflection on the main issues, including possible future lines of research stemming from these reflections. The legal and social framework of the language policy

The treatment of languages within the Basque education system during the last 40 years was in part a response to the aforementioned need to recover the Basque language. For a better understanding of the current situation and its evolution since the establishment of Autonomies in Spain with the 1978 constitution, it is necessary to analyse the previous period in which citizen movements came into being and made the resurgence of Basque possible. Thus, the process of recovery of Basque can be analysed from two different perspectives: (1) the citizen movements previous to the establishment in 1978 of the Autonomies Communities; and (2) the institutional responses to those movements from 1978 onwards. Citizen movements

Among the movements that contributed to the recovery and preservation of Basque, especially during the 1950s and 1980s, ikastolas (Basque schools) are noteworthy. This school movement was clandestine during



The Basque Country  35

the dictatorship and had an important political component, as well as an educational component, during that time. It was fostered by a nationalist anti-Francoist sentiment, and its goal was the recovery and preservation of Basque following the ban that threatened its survival. It emerged as an attempt to preserve Basque in Basque-speaking children during a period with numerous difficulties when there were no Basque teaching materials and hardly any teachers. The political changes after General Franco’s death facilitated a refocus on the educational aspects, and brought about an increase in the number of ikastolas. The massive incorporation of Spanish-speaking children led to a reform of the education system in order to respond to the new situation, set clear criteria for language use in the classroom and to open up to experiences elsewhere, in Catalonia and Canada principally. After their consolidation in the 1980s, most ikastolas disappeared in 1992 and were integrated into the public and private Basque education systems. The second movement that has contributed to the recovery of Basque has been the language unification and standardization carried out by Euskaltzaindia (the Academy of the Basque Language). This process turned Basque into a learned vehicular language that could be used in the education system and had various cultural manifestations. The institutional response

The institutional response has been complex, especially between 1979 and 1983. The process of recovery legally started with the enactment of the Language Normalization Act (1982), based on the Statute of Autonomy (1979), which established the co-official status of both Spanish and Basque within the Autonomous Community. Language training qualifications have been regulated through the corresponding Decrees of Establishment of EGA – Certificate of Knowledge of Basque – (1982) and the Institute HABE of Literacy and Adult Re-Basquization (1983). From an educational perspective, the aim of the Language Normalization Act was to ensure that school pupils achieved a comparable linguistic competence in both languages by the end of compulsory education, which allowed comparable usage. In order to achieve this aim, education was organized into bilingual models according to the use of language within the classroom. This was legislated by the Decree on the Regulation of the Use of Official Languages in Non-university Education: Language Models (1983). However, the trajectory of language normalization has been altered in recent years by the significant arrival of immigrant families, especially during the first decade of the 21st century. Despite the fact that the immigrant population rates are not among the state’s highest, there has been a remarkable relative increase in the immigrant population: from 27,438 in 2001 to 163,461 at its height in 2013 (National Statistics Institute [INE], 2013), which, as a proportion of the region’s total population,

36  Multilingualism in European Language Education

represents an increase of about seven percentage points. The current proportion of the foreign population in the Basque Country is 8.6%; in Spain, 4,418,898 inhabitants out to a total of 46,438,422 are foreign, or 9.5% of the total population (National Statistics Institute [INE], 2016). The main countries of origin of the immigrant population in the Basque Country are: three European countries, Romania (8.2%), Portugal (3.8%) and France (3.2%); eight Latin American countries, Colombia (9.1%), Bolivia (5.8%), Ecuador (4.4%), Nicaragua (3.2%), Brazil (3.2%), Argentina (2.9%), Paraguay (3%) and Peru (2.5%); two African countries, Morocco (10.8%) and Algeria (2.8%); and two Asian countries, China (2.8%) and Pakistan (2.6%) (Ikuspegi, 2016). It can be seen the most numerous groups are Moroccan, Colombian and Romanian. In any event, the tendency has changed in recent years due to the economic crisis that started in 2008, though Spain had shown a slight recovery by 2017. The Basque education system has not been immune to the population changes in recent years and the increase in the number of schoolchildren born in other countries rose from 23,565 in 2007 to 30,405 in 2010 (Basque Government, 2012a). However, from 2012 onwards there was a change towards a slower increase in immigration rates, reaching the figure of 33,785 in 2015-16 (Basque Statistics Institute [EUSTAT], 2016). These figures increase notably if we take into account the students that have obtained Spanish citizenship, indicating that immigration is a structural phenomenon (Basque Government, 2012a). This situation required the elaboration of plans by the education authority to respond to this social phenomenon and facilitate the incorporation of these students into the Basque education system and their full development. The first Programme for the Attention of Immigrant Students was directed principally to developing plans for student reception and integration (Basque Government, 2003). It also sought to respond to each student’s specific linguistic, curriculum and tutoring needs by providing special language training for late-arriving students. While the subsequent Programme for Interculturality and Inclusion of Newly Arrived Students (Basque Government, 2007) envisaged the inclusion and participation of all students, it also sought to incorporate an intercultural perspective in schools and to guarantee that all students learned the official languages. This proposal, together with the Action Plan for the Development of an Inclusive Basque School: Eliminating Barriers to Learning and Participation (Basque Government, 2009), has entailed a substantial change in the approach to interculturality in education, in shifting the focus of attention from the possible disadvantages of the immigrant students to the receiving institution and how it develops its function, without forgetting the specific needs of all the students (Booth & Ainscow, 2005). The Plan for Immigration, Citizenship and Intercultural Coexistence 2011–2013 (Basque Government, 2012a) is based on the two earlier



The Basque Country  37

plans (Basque Government, 2003, 2007) but reaches beyond the reception and welcoming of foreign people that the first two envisaged in placing emphasis on social integration and coexistence. The Plan for Educational Assistance to Immigrant Students Within the Framework of an Inclusive and Intercultural School (Basque Government, 2012b) had the main objectives of improving academic performance and fostering social inclusion from a perspective of diversity. Finally, the II Plan for Educational Assistance to Immigrant Students Within the Framework of an Inclusive and Intercultural School (Basque Government, 2016b) (recently established and valid until 2020) analyses the objectives and the results of former plans. It envisages not only the inclusion of immigrant students into the education system, but also their participation in society (Basque Government, 2016b). Regarding the guidelines for reception plans at schools, the Basque Government published a document entitled Guidelines for the Elaboration of the Immigrant Student Reception Plan (Ortega et al., 2004). This document stated that the main criterion to include a student in a classroom was age, with a view to their socialization. It even indicated that the age difference with the rest of the group should not be more than one year. In primary education and in later years, each student is entitled to two years of language assistance. The experience from all these years has shown the need to improve the multiple and diverse reception plans, which are based on support classes for learning the official languages used in the school, and which are run and to some extent coordinated by the tutors. The need has been identified to include an initial evaluation of the students, training of teachers, a revision of the school policies and the study of specific needs, such as support for learning Basque when the composition of the classroom allows it, and better school planning. Multilingual programmes that include foreign languages have been fostered in recent years (Lasagabaster, 2001). Among them, programmes of early multilingualism with the introduction of a foreign language of high social prestige – mainly English – stand out. Project ELEANITZ is promoted by ikastolas and includes an introduction to English as early as the age of four, Basque the following year and French in secondary education. The voluntary participation of ikastolas in this project involves not only respect for the programme, but also the use of the appropriate material, attending training courses and having the necessary staff to carry out the project. The material is endorsed by European institutions and its curricular content has a European dimension and an intercultural perspective. The Basque Government’s multilingual programme (ANIZPE) of early English learning has a similar approach to that of ELEANITZ. Both experiences are interconnected through exchanges at all levels. Finally, it is worth noting that the process of normalization carried out in the Basque Country has been evaluated in a linguistic area in the

38  Multilingualism in European Language Education

province of Bizkaia during the decade 2000–2010 (Aldekoa, 2012). The aim of this study was to analyse the language situation of the schools and the degree of compliance with the Language Normalization Plan (LNP), including the education community, analysing the flows of normalization and training of teachers. This evaluation is based on the Ulibarri Programme, in which 400 schools have participated voluntarily since 1996/97 in the normalization of Basque in the different areas of the education community. According to the programme, each school has its own LNP, based on its own ecosystem. The results allow us to confirm that the Ulibarri Programme and the LNP in each school have promoted the normalization of the use of Basque. These results have been positive thanks to the honesty of the teachers and the engagement of parents. However, the creation of a formal register of Basque is needed, as well as the sociolinguistic and statistical training of the people involved. The importance of teamwork has also been acknowledged, since this is a long-term exercise that entails a generational replacement and a training trajectory for all the people involved. Languages in Education Educational models

According to the Decree on the Regulation of the Use of Official Languages in Non-university Education: Language Models (1983), models A, B and D were established with the following characteristics: • In model A, Basque is taught as a subject with a weekly allocation of 4–5 hours. • In model B, Spanish and Basque are used to teach different subjects; Spanish is typically used for reading, writing and mathematics, and Basque is used for the remaining curriculum subjects. Spanish and Basque are taught as subjects for 4–5 hours per week. • In model D all subjects, except Spanish, are taught in Basque, while 4–5 hours per week are devoted to teaching Spanish. Model B presents great variability in terms of the use of Basque as vehicle for communication in the different curricular subjects. Model D is typically (though not formally) considered to be the bilingual model because its students become bilingual in practice, even if they are Spanishspeaking. The reason is that Basque is provided by the education system, and Spanish is provided by the social context. Model A is not formally bilingual, nor does it generate bilingual students. At first, implementing the language models was problematic as there were doubts about the methodological approach to language learning and its timing, and about the models’ real efficacy in making students competent in both languages by the end of secondary education. However,



The Basque Country  39

establishing the language models has meant, among other things, that during the last 30 years a significant proportion of the school population received their education in Basque, with a consequent increase in the number of bilingual students (Zalbide & Cenoz, 2008). The various studies carried out indicate that all those doubts were groundless, although it is necessary to take some variables into consideration in order to achieve the desired success. These research studies started in the second half of the 1970s, with the two main subjects under study being academic outcomes and the explanatory variables. Firstly, regarding competence in Spanish by the end of secondary education, there seems to be no significant difference between models (Olaziregi & Sierra, 1986; Sierra & Olaziregi, 1989, 1990, 1991) due to the homogeneity within the Autonomous Community in the variables mentioned. Basque seems to be more influenced by environmental variables. It depends principally on the language model, so that the greater the intensity the better the outcomes (Gabiña et al., 1986; Olaziregi & Sierra, 1986; Sierra & Olaziregi, 1989, 1990, 1991). The most relevant explanatory variables are the use of Basque as the predominant language in the family and its presence in the school curriculum. Regarding school outcomes in other areas, there are no important variations according to the language model in use (Cenoz, 1992; Lukas, 1990). Secondly, the explanatory variables in the effects of the bilingual experience can be categorized in three groups: student variables (language competence, motivation, attitudes, self-concept, etc.); school variables (language model followed, type of school, level of education and teachers’ language competence, methodology used in the classroom); and family variables (language used by the family, knowledge of the languages by parents, attitudes towards the languages, sociocultural and socioeconomic levels). In general terms, the factors with a greater explanatory capacity are associated with the students’ individual characteristics and the socio­cultural conditions in which the experience takes place. Given the importance of using Basque as the language in the family and its presence in the school curriculum, the need has been identified to delve into the role played by these two environments as facilitators of the process (Madariaga et al., 2002). The results can be summarized by stating that the models with a greater presence of Basque are those that allow students to become bilingual. This implies greater social prestige of this language and that the outcomes in Spanish are satisfactory, even when compared with the outcomes in other monolingual Autonomous Communities. The degree of bilingualism depends on variables linked to the language spoken in the family and the methodology applied in the classroom. The different language models were established in an attempt to respond to the different sensitivities existing about Basque at that time and taking into account the availability of staff trained to teach in this

40  Multilingualism in European Language Education

language. Although at first model A was intended for Spanish speakers, model B for those who were familiar with both languages and model D for Basque speakers, parents have tended to demand the models with a greater presence of Basque, regardless of their linguistic background (Basque Statistics Institute [EUSTAT], 2016). This choice caused the vast majority of school registrations to be done in models B and D in infant education, which exceeded all expectations. The progressive arrival of immigrant students into the classrooms, who have mainly opted for models A and X (only Spanish), has altered this tendency, but models B and D still reach a combined total rate of 85.07% (18.64% and 66.43% respectively) of the child and juvenile population, as can be seen in Table 2.1. Table 2.1 shows that model D predominates in infant, primary and secondary (ESO) education (until age 16), alongside a strong presence of model B. The proportion of students enrolled for models A and D is balanced in pre-university, while model B is lower. Model A predominates in vocational training (FP).

Table 2.1  Numbers of schoolchildren enrolled in each language in education model in the Basque Country, 2016/17 Educational model

A

B

D

X

Total

Infant

2,863 (3.09%)

17,101 (18.47%)

72,136 (77.9%)

501 (0.54%)

92,601

Primary

6,102 (4.76%)

29,128 (22.74%)

91,994 (71.82%)

869 (0.68%)

128,093

Secondary

7,484 (9.42%)

20,421 (25.69%)

51,086 (64.27%)

495 (0.62%)

79,486

Baccalaureate

10,711 (35.5%)

758 (2.51%)

18,491 (61.3%)

208 (0.69%)

30,168

10,663 (74.55%)

296 (2.07%)

3,345 (23.38%)

14,304

14,620 (72%)

321 (1.57%)

5,367 (26.43%)

20,308

52,443 (14.36%)

68,025 (18.64%)

242,419 (66.43%)

Middle vocational training Upper vocational training Total

2,073 (0.57%)

364,960

Source: Basque Statistics Institute (EUSTAT, 2017).

Table 2.2  Numbers of schoolchildren in the Basque Country born abroad, by educational model, 2016/17 A

B

D

X

Total

Infant

Educational model

262 (4.0%)

1,103 (16.85%)

5,163 (78.89%)

17 (0.26%)

6,545

Primary

667 (7.8%)

2,137 (25%)

5,667 (66.6%)

51 (0.6%)

8,522

1,607 (29.25%)

1,832 (33.35%)

2,029 (36.93%)

26 (0.47%)

5,494

Secondary

Source: Basque Statistics Institute (EUSTAT, 2017).



The Basque Country  41

However, if we analyse the data for infant, primary and secondary education (ESO) specifically for students born abroad, we can see in Table 2.2 that model D has a higher proportion of demand than the rest, especially in infant (78.89%) and primary education (66.6%). In secondary education there is more balance between models B and D (EUSTAT, 2017): With regard to language models and immigrant students who choose Spanish as the language of communication in the classroom, it is necessary to find formulae to avoid social fragmentation into two different communities and to promote the adaptation of the education system to the new multicultural and multilingual reality (Etxeberria & Elósegi, 2008). For students who choose school models with a predominance of Basque, the challenge is to find formulae to adapt the programmes of language change between home and school when there is great linguistic and cultural diversity. Based on these ideas, the educational approach to the languages of the immigrant students has been confronted by students with many diverse origins, family languages, lengths of stay, family structures, socioeconomic levels and so on. Changes in the sociolinguistic situation

The education policies and language management within the Basque education system described above have resulted in changes in the socio­ linguistic situation in the Basque Country, which the Basque Government has been analysing in successive sociolinguistic surveys every five years since 1991. A summary is given here of the most relevant results of the Sixth Socio­ linguistic Survey (Basque Government, 2016a) with a focus on the four fields covered by the research: language competence, one of the objectives of the education system; the transmission of Basque and the importance of its use within the family; and then its use in wider spheres (home, friends, work and formal environment), as we have seen that language competence without usage does not entail a full process of normalization and recovery; and attitudes to the promotion of the use of Basque (we have already seen that good attitudes are essential to normalization and recovery). Language competence

From the point of view of language competence, the population who are 16 years of age and older are distributed as follows: bilingual 33.9% (631,000); passive bilingual 19.1% (356,000); and monolingual 47% (877,000) (Basque Government, 2016a). We need to take into consideration that the target population of the Sixth Sociolinguistic Survey are those aged 16 years and older. This means excluding around 240,000 people (14% of the total population) (Basque Statistics Institute [EUSTAT], 2016), who include the highest percentage

42  Multilingualism in European Language Education

700,000

600,000

600,000 500,000

493,000

531,000

631,000

558,000

419,000

400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0

1991

1996

2001

2006

2011

2016

Figure 2.1  Evolution of the number of bilingual population. Source: Sixth Sociolinguistic Survey (Basque Government, 2016a)

of bilingual people (81%). It is also important to take into consideration the ageing population (22.6% of the population are over 65) and that the higher percentage of the bilingual population corresponds to the younger, less numerous part of the population. As a consequence, when we analyse the evolution of the bilingual population in the whole of the Basque-speaking territory, it is even more significant that the number of speakers of Basque has increased throughout the six Sociolinguistic Surveys analysed (Figure 2.1). In the case of the Basque Country, the bilingual population shifted from 24.1% in 1991 to 33.9% in 2016, in a constant increase. Similarly, passive Basque speakers increased by nearly 11 percentage points during these 25 years, from 8.5% to 19.2% in 2016. However, it is worth noting that the recovery of Basque in terms of the number of speakers varies according to age. The main increase occurred in the group aged between 16 and 34, although there were increases in all age groups under 65. Thus, Basque speakers aged 16–24 are currently 71.4%, while in 1991 they were only 25%. All in all, the increase in the number of Basque speakers is bigger among younger people, who have benefited from the education policies for the recovery of Basque (Basque Government, 2016a). Monolingual Spanish speakers for their part have decreased by 12 percentage points, from 59.2% in 1991 to 47% nowadays. This decrease is more significant if we take into account the sociodemographic changes explained before, which would also have an effect on these data. We can explain this better if we differentiate age groups, as the process has been different in each of them. Initially, the age group with the most Spanish speakers were the adults, as they had had fewer opportunities to recover



The Basque Country  43

Basque than their younger counterparts and older people had been less affected by the loss of Basque. However, with the passing of time, young Basque speakers have now become incorporated into the adult group, mainly due to the bilingual education and the language policies to recover Basque. Monolingual Spanish speakers have decreased in this age group, as they shifted to the older group. So while the percentage of Basque speakers among young people was growing, the older groups increased their numbers of Spanish monolingual speakers (Basque Government, 2016a). Overall, we can assert that during these 25 years there was a clear recovery of Basque, at least in language competence, mainly among younger people. However, not all Basque speakers can speak Basque with the same fluency; this has given rise to different typologies according to how they became speakers, and these typologies have evolved through time. Thus, 26.8% of Basque speakers can express themselves better in Basque than in Spanish (among these, 44.8% are aged over 65), but 44% of bilinguals express themselves better in Spanish. Moreover, balanced bilinguals (people who have the same fluency in both languages) represent 29.3% of the total number of bilingual speakers (Basque Government, 2016a). Language transmission

In 1991, most bilinguals (79.3%) were Basque speakers who had learned Basque at home; in 2016, still 50% of bilinguals had learnt Basque within their family environment, but 36.8% had learnt it at school or in adult education. Nowadays, almost half of Basque speakers aged under 50 are new Basque speakers, while in 1991 there were only 15% within this age group (Basque Government, 2016a). These results indicate the importance the transmission of Basque is having at school and in adult education, especially if we take into account that, in 2016, 17.5% of the population aged 16 and over spoke Basque only in their household, and 6.0% Basque and Spanish, while the rest (76.4%) had Spanish and other languages (e.g. Romanian, Portuguese, Russian) as their first language (Basque Government, 2016a). However, the language transmission chain of Basque within the family also works, because when both parents are bilingual 83.3% of the children are taught in Basque only, 6.7% in Basque and another language and 10% are not taught in Basque. In addition, the transmission of Basque is greater the lower the age. Even when only one of the parents is a Basque speaker, Spanish has been transmitted in 55.3% of cases as a single language, and Basque and Spanish in 44.7% of cases (Basque Government, 2016a). Use of Basque

In 2016, 30.6% of the population used Basque; of these, 20.5% used Basque as much as Spanish or more and 10.1% used Basque less than

44  Multilingualism in European Language Education

Spanish; the rest (69.4%) always or almost always used Spanish. These results indicate that the proportion of the population using Basque has increased by 5% since 1991 (Basque Government, 2016a). The use of Basque has increased in general since 1991 in all spheres: at home and other informal environments, as well as in the formal environment. The increase has been remarkable within the municipal environment (25.8%) and the health environment (20%), which had proportions of 8.3% and 13.9% respectively in 1991. It is also worth noting that for the first time since 1991, the use in the household, which was stable around 17%, had slightly increased in 2016, to 19%. The reason for this increase could be the increase in the use by all family members and especially by couples (Basque Government, 2016a). Since 2011, the Sociolinguistic Survey has also enquired about the use of internet social networks. In 2016, 72% of participants reported using the social networks, most of whom (61.7%) used it daily, although the social networks were principally used by people aged 16–24 (95.2%). In any event, it is relevant for us to know that the most frequently used language on social networks is Spanish, even among the youngest; however, 17.4% use Basque very frequently. Moreover, among people aged 16–24 (the greatest users, as previously stated), the proportion of those using Basque is 29.5%. On top of Spanish and Basque, participants on social networks also use other languages, mainly English, which had decreased from 4.7% to 2.9% since 2011 (Basque Government, 2016a). These data on the use of Basque show an increase among infants and children, but a decrease among adults and older adults; we could even say that the increase in the street is smaller than that produced in the school. We could talk about the involvement of parents in the education process, but an important reason is the difficulty in transference from the education system into everyday life; therefore, Basque is used more for academic matters, while Spanish is the relational and leisure language. These statements become nuanced according to sociolinguistic situations and associated motivational/attitudinal variables. We can therefore assert that knowledge of Basque and its use have not grown in the same manner, due to the two main factors that influence their use: fluency in the language and social networking. For the majority of people, the family environment and social networking are Spanish-­ speaking, although this situation, as we have stated, is improving. These considerations led to two initiatives, one institutional (Basque Government’s Advisory Council for Basque) and one popular, which included a series of associations (kontseilua). Both entities have carried out studies to analyse the situation and to appraise the positive aspects to be fostered and the negative ones to be improved. Both entities recognize that education is where the greatest qualitative change has taken place in spite of the limitations, resulting in an increase in the number of people competent in Basque, especially among the youngest. Nonetheless, the



The Basque Country  45

need to promote actions to reinforce Basque within Basque society in order to guarantee its future is understood. Attitudes to the promotion of the use of Basque

Attitudes to the promotion of Basque in the different spheres are mainly favourable (65%) and this proportion had increased since 1991 (51%), with only 9.3% showing an unfavourable attitude. The positive attitude to Basque is related to competence: 87.1% of bilingual, 63.4% of passive bilingual and 49.7% of monolingual Spanish speakers support the promotion of the use of Basque. There is no great difference between age groups, as in all cases more than 67% are in favour of this promotion (Basque Government, 2016a). When comparing data from 1991 and 2016, the percentage of those in favour of the promotion of Basque had increased by 14 percentage points, and the percentage of those who are against had decreased by almost 5%. In any event, the attitudes to the promotion of the use of Basque have improved notably since 1991 and get better as competence in the language increases. In fact, these processes seem interrelated as a consequence of the recovery of Basque experienced during the 25 years for which we have data. To complete this information provided by data from the Sixth Socio­ linguistic Survey, a summary follows of the most important outcomes of the research related to attitudes to languages and the influence of the educational experience on these attitudes and their possible impact in the sociolinguistic situation described. In presenting these results, we part from the idea that the educational success in introducing a language depends, among other variables, on the willingness to learn. A positive willingness is a driver of language acquisition, as it manifests the collective awareness of the need to socially consider the language (Madariaga, 2003). Moreover, according to Cummins’ interdependence hypothesis (Cummins, 1979), by which the competence achieved in a second language is conditioned by the level of competence acquired in the first one, such acquisition is linked to factors of an attitudinal/motivational dimension (Cummins, 1981). From an institutional point of view, the Basque Government carried out several studies in the 1980s on education outcomes in the different language models (Olizaregi & Sierra, 1986; Sierra & Olizaregi, 1989, 1990, 1991). The conclusions regarding attitudes are as follows: • the students’ personal characteristics play a significant role in attitudes to the Basque and Spanish languages in all three models, A, B and D; • in model B, the teachers’ attitudes to learning Basque are significant (keep Basque as the relational language, be persuaded that students will learn it and that the methodology used is the right one, etc.) (Sierra & Olizaregi, 1989) • attitudes to Basque and Spanish were significant, in that those showing

46  Multilingualism in European Language Education

more positive attitudes obtained better scores in Basque than those with intermediate attitudes, especially in models B and D. A study by Madariaga (1994) carried out in primary education in the Basque Country showed that the total scores were distributed into three variables in the factor analysis, one of which was psychosocial and included attitudes, in tune with the outcomes in the minority language. Moreover, attitudes to Basque were among the explanatory variables of the outcomes. The influence of attitudes is greater in younger people, when their own attitudes are not formed yet and are a reflection of the environment, especially the parents. In model D, as age increases, attitudes become homogeneous as a consequence of one’s own educational experience and have a smaller impact on the outcomes. However, there has been an evolution since the first studies of the 1970s and 1980s, in which attitudes were linked to education outcomes (Baetens Beardsmore, 1986; Gardner, 1985; Gardner & Lambert, 1972; Gardner & Smythe, 1975; Hamayan et al., 1977). Later works link attitudes to processes of self-categorization and social identity, as attitudes are related to the level of knowledge acquired in these languages and the social groups that use them (Gardner & Clément, 1990; Huguet, 2005; Madariaga, 2003). Knowledge about attitudes has therefore become a basic element in the design of educational interventions and in assessing whether the right conditions are provided to carry out the experience. As a consequence, no matter the reason why one shows interest in learning a language, a positive attitude shows a desire to become part of the language group that uses it, as belonging to this group is seen as something favourable (Baker, 1992). In establishing a connection between attitudes and psychosocial processes related to belonging to a sociolinguistic group, apart from the known variables like presence of the languages in the family environment and the educational system, a relationship has been found between the adolescent’s attitudes to the minority language and its social representation. This relationship, obtained in a research study in the Basque Country and Navarre (Madariaga, 2000) with 655 adolescents is, however, nuanced by the characteristics of the surrounding social context and the predomin­ ant language of use in school (i.e. the language model). There were also significant differences in attitudes according to the language used in the family, so that the greater the presence of the minority language within the family environment, the more positive were the adolescents’ attitudes to that language. Finally, there was a high proportion of adolescents in the sample who did not show clearly defined attitudes (Madariaga, 2000). These results seem to suggest the need to encourage a significant educational intervention in favour of the minority language to compensate for the influence and social prestige of the dominant language in families where the minority language is not present. This educational intervention



The Basque Country  47

should promote a more positive state of opinion within the family and will need to be adapted to the present social context. According to the theory of reasoned action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975), real behaviour is directed by a combination of attitudes and subjective norm, which involves the influence of the environment over the subject. If we resorted to this theory, we need to determine the significant referents that exert this influence. These referents are usually the family, friends, work colleagues and, let us not forget, the role played by the mass media. In the case of multilingual education, this social influence could be associated with the influence exerted by the different sociolinguistic groups involved (Madariaga et al., 2013). Nevertheless, when the languages used at home and at school are different, the respectful treatment of the student’s language is key in avoiding the deterioration of a positive initial attitude. We cannot generate positive attitudes to another language if we do not respect the first one, and these statements are equally valid when we work with a multilingual class. Moreover, the most relevant variables that influence the attitudes of immigrant students (Madariaga et al., 2016) have also been studied in the Basque Country: the length of stay, age on arrival, the place of origin and the language used at home (Rojo et al., 2010). These results require qualitative development at a discourse level, to enable a broader understanding. Conclusions

From the results obtained in the different research studies (Zalbide & Cenoz, 2008) it can be inferred that the approach taken by the Basque Government during the last 40 years is bearing fruit where the recovery of Basque is concerned. This statement is reinforced by the data obtained in the Sociolinguistic Surveys published by the Basque Government, which show a steady and continuous increase in the proportion of knowledge and use of Basque during the last 25 years. This is allowing the regeneration and normalization of a language that was in decline due to the policy of persecution during Franco’s dictatorship. We have seen that this success is due to various efforts and favourable factors; however, the firm desire of Basque citizens based on favourable attitudes is especially relevant. Little would have helped all the enacted legislation had it not responded to the demands of citizen movements favourable to language recovery. This desire has also been seen in the response to the arrival of people from other countries, which has entailed a readjustment of the Basque education system and the creation of regulations specifically designed for these groups, without losing sight of the objective of recovery and normalization of the Basque language. This process has also been able to overcome the sociodemographic changes of an ageing society, where the younger population has had more possibilities to recover the language, even though they are a declining

48  Multilingualism in European Language Education

proportion of the overall population, as the data of the Sixth Socio­ linguistic Survey show (Basque Government, 2016a). The results obtained so far clearly indicate that not only is there still room for improvement, but the future holds new important challenges, as can be inferred from the results obtained in the research and the Socio­ linguistic Surveys. The most important is to avoid a possible downturn from the present situation, especially by thinking that the work is all done. More specifically, with regard to language competence, about half of the population in the Basque Country aged 16 and over are Spanish monolingual; therefore, we are still far from the goal of making everybody in the territory bilingually competent by the end of compulsory education, at the age of 16. This is a long-term goal that should respect the language rights of all actors involved and take into consideration all the socio­ demographic phenomena that are taking place and that we have analysed. In this sense, special attention should be given to the immigrant population, who will need special legislation and assistance, as is already happening. In any event, a characteristic problem in our education system to be solved is the tendency of immigrant children to attend model A schools. As a consequence, we could be facing the creation of a model A ‘ghetto’ for the children of immigrants. This leads to a consideration of a possible adjustment to the organization of the different education models, to adapt them to the current situation. Regarding interculturality, progress also needs to be made in the specific programmes on foreign languages and culture whenever possible, such as the agreement between the Spanish and the Portuguese Governments following European directives. Moreover, it is deemed necessary to reinforce the use of Basque, which is closely related to language competence and the corresponding language attitudes. In this sense, we have seen that the results obtained show a tendency to the recovery of Basque, as long as favourable attitudes become a basic element in the design of educational interventions and in the assessment of whether the right conditions are provided. Therefore, we need to design better programmes of educational intervention that optimize these processes, as there is no direct relation between attitudes and behaviour. To do this, we need to consider the relationship between: belonging to a certain sociolinguistic group; the attitudes to this group’s language as well as the actual use of that particular language; the language used in the family environment; and other social variables. The school becomes a strategic place to change attitudes, especially for students from different countries. Basque education is evolving from a concern for the maintenance of the minority language to respect and promotion of all languages and cultures, including those of immigrants. The difficulty lies in maintaining this throughout the pupils’ entire educational life, without forcing the use of a particular language. These reflections lead us to put forward the following as interesting research lines to be developed in future:



The Basque Country  49

• Bilingual education planning and language models • Rethinking the language models to improve those less intensive in Basque. • Evaluation of the level of Spanish. • Evaluation of social relations between students in different language models within the same school, in order to avoid segregation of immigrant children in model A. • Explanatory factors • Methodology used in the classroom. • School organization and teaching material used in the classroom. • Other lines of research that try to establish relations between being bilingual and certain advantages, or with less known characteristics, such as being more creative or having more musical skills. • Social dimension • Designs for educational intervention in the school and in the family so that the educational experience is not merely language acquisition. • Identify the implications of the educational experience in the language models in relation to the students’ self-categorization and especially regarding their identity, promotion of the social image of the minority language and the psychological processes that make them possible. • Attitudinal dimension • Evolution of the different attitudes within the different models over time. • Educational interventions in schools to improve attitudes to the language. This design requires a parallel study to analyse the methodo­logical implications in the classroom. • Research challenges in Basque education • Evaluation and improvement of multilingual programmes. • Evaluation and improvement of the Basque normalization programmes. • Approach to intercultural education. • Formulae for inclusion of immigrant students in the educational system to foster equal rights. • Further use of the minority language in the social environment. • Analysis of the effect of extra classroom activities in education,f especially those aimed at improving views towards the minority language.

50  Multilingualism in European Language Education

References Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1980) Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Aldekoa, J. (2012) Euskararen normalizazioa Hezkuntzan (2000–2010): Ulibarri Programa. Euskarri teorikoa, metodología eta faktore azalgarriak [Basque normalization in education (2000–2010)]. PhD thesis, University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU. Azurmendi, M.J. and Martínez de Luna, I. (eds) (2006) The case of Basque: From the past towards the future. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 174, 1–105. Baetens Beardsmore, H. (1986) Bilingualism: Basic Principles. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Baker, C. (1992) Attitudes and Language. Clevedon: Multiligual Matters. Basque Government (2003) I Plan Vasco de Inmigración (2003–2005) [First Basque Plan for Immigration (2003–2005)]. Vitoria-Gasteiz: Gobierno Vasco. Basque Government (2007) Programa de interculturalidad y de inclusión del alumnado recién llegado [Programme for Interculturality and Inclusion of Newly Arrived Students]. Vitoria-Gasteiz: Gobierno Vasco. Basque Government (2009) Plan de acción para el desarrollo de una escuela vasca inclusiva. Eliminando barreras al aprendizaje y la participación [Action Plan for the Development of an Inclusive Basque School: Eliminating Barriers to Learning and Participation]. Vitoria-Gasteiz: Gobierno Vasco. Basque Government (2012a) Plan Vasco de Inmigración, Ciudadanía y Convivencia intercultural 2011–2013 [Basque Plan for Immigration, Citizenship and Intercultural Coexistence]. Vitoria-Gasteiz: Gobierno Vasco. Basque Government (2012b) Plan de atención educativa al alumnado inmigrante en el marco de la escuela inclusiva e intercultural [Plan for Educational Assistance to Immigrant Students Within the Framework of an Inclusive and Intercultural School]. Vitoria-Gasteiz: Gobierno Vasco. Basque Government (2016a) VI Encuesta sociolingüística 2016 [Sociolinguistic Survey 2016]. Vitoria-Gasteiz: Gobierno Vasco. Basque Government (2016b) II Plan de atención educativa al alumnado inmigrante en el marco de la escuela inclusiva e intercultural [II Plan for Educational Assistance to Immigrant Students Within the Framework of an Inclusive and Intercultural School]. Vitoria-Gasteiz: Gobierno Vasco. Basque Statistics Institute (EUSTAT) (2016) Population, at http://www.eustat.eus/ estadisticas/tema_159/opt_0/tipo_1/ti_Poblacion/temas.html (accessed 17 July 2018). Basque Statistics Institute (EUSTAT) (2017) Students enrolled in non-university general education in the Basque Country born abroad by centre ownership and education level, according to province and language model, 2015/16, at http://www.eustat.eus/ elementos/ ele0013200/ti (accessed 17 July 2018). Booth, T. and Ainscow, M. (2005) Guía para la Evaluación y Mejora de la Educación Inclusiva. Desarrollando el Aprendizaje y la Participación en las Escuelas [Guide for the Evaluation and Improvement of Inclusive Education: Developing Learning and Participation in Schools]. Vitoria-Gasteiz: Gobierno Vasco. Cenoz, J. (1992) El papel del bilingüismo en la adquisición de una lengua extranjera: el caso del aprendizaje del inglés en Guipúzcoa [The role of bilingualism in foreign language acquisition: The case of English learning in Guipuzcoa]. PhD thesis, University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU. Cenoz, J. (ed.) (2008) Teaching Through Basque: Achievements and Challenges. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Cummins, J. (1979) Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research 49 (2), 222–251. Cummins, J. (1981) The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for language minority students. In California State Department of Education



The Basque Country  51

(ed.) Schooling and Language Minority Students: A Theoretical Framework. Los Angeles, CA: California State University. Etxeberria, F. and Elósegi, K. (2008) Basque, Spanish and immigrant minority languages in Basque schools. In J. Cenoz (ed.) Teaching Through Basque: Achievements and Challenges (pp. 69–84). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975) Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, . Gabiña, J.J., Gorostidi, R., Iruretagoiena, R., Olaziregi, I.E. and Sierra, J. (1986) EIFE. La Enseñanza del Euskera: Influencia de los factores [Teaching of Basque: The Influence of Factors]. Vitoria-Gasteiz: Gobierno Vasco. Gardner, R.C. (1985) Social Psychology and Second Language Learning: The Role of Attitudes and Motivation. London: Edward Arnold. Gardner, R.C. and Clément, R. (1990) Social psychological perspectives on second language acquisition. In H. Giles and W.P. Robinson (eds) Handbook of Language and Social Psychology (pp. 495–517). New York: John Wiley and Sons. Gardner, R.C. and Lambert, W.E. (1972) Attitudes and Motivation in Second Language Learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers. Gardner, R.C. and Smythe, P.C. (1975) Second language acquisition: A social psychological approach. Research Bulletin 332. Hamayan, E., Genesee, F. and Tucker, G.R. (1977) Affective factors and language exposure in second language learning. Language Learning 27, 225–241. Huguet, Á. (2005) Génesis y desarrollo de las actitudes lingüísticas en contextos bilingües. Análisis de algunas variables del ámbito escolar y sociofamiliar [Genesis and development of linguistic attitudes in bilingual contexts. Analysis of some variables in the school and sociofamilial domain]. Revista de Psicología Social 20 (2), 175–191. Ikuspegi (2016) General CAPV, por país de origen y sexo. Año 2016 [General Basque Autonomous Community, by country of origin and gender], at https://www.ikuspegi.eus/ documentos/tablas/castellano/2016prov/CAPV_paisorigen_sexo2016.pdf (accessed 17 July 2018). Lasagabaster, D. (2001) Bilingualism, immersion programmes and language learning in the Basque Country. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 22. Lukas, J.F. (1990) Trebetasun eta errendimendu matematikoa testuinguru elebidunean [Ability and mathematical performance in a bilingual context]. PhD thesis, University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU. Madariaga, J.M. (1994) Actitud y rendimiento en euskera. Una experiencia vasca basada en la aportación canadiense [Attitude and performance in Basque. A Basque experience based in the Canadian contribution]. Comunicación, Lenguaje, Educación 24, 119–127. Madariaga, J.M. (2000) El sistema colectivo de significados del euskera en la educación secundaria [The collective system of meanings of Basque in secondary education]. In J. Perera (ed.) Las Lenguas en la Educación Secundaria (pp. 267–276). Barcelona: ICE/ Horsori. Madariaga, J.M. (2003) El contexto social y la dimensión actitudinal en la educación multi­ lingüe [The social context and the attitudinal domain in multilingual education]. In X.A. González-Riaño (ed.) Nueves llendes na enseñanza d´una llingua minoritaria. Uvieu: Academia de la Llingua Asturiana. Madariaga, J.M., Molero, B. and Huguet, A. (2002) Influencia familiar en la construcción social de la lengua [Family influence in the social construction of language]. Revista Interamericana de Psicología 10 (2), 12–19. Madariaga, J.M., Huguet, A. and Lapresta, C. (2013) Actitud, presión social y educación inclusiva en aulas con diversidad lingüística y cultural [Attitude, social pressure and inclusive education in classrooms with linguistic and cultural diversity]. Educación XX1 16 (1), 305–328.

52  Multilingualism in European Language Education

Madariaga, J.M., Huguet, A. and Janés, J. (2016) Language attitudes in Catalan multilingual classrooms: Educational implications. Language and Intercultural Communication 16 (2), 216–234. National Statistics Institute (INE) (2013) Cifras de poblacion a 1 de enero de 2013 [Population figures at 1 January 2013], at https://www.ine.es/jaxi/ tabla.do?path= /t20/p321/ serie/l0/ &file= 02004. px & type=pcaxis&L=0 (accessed 17 July 2018). National Statistics Institute (INE) (2016) Población residente en España [Resident population in Spain], at http://www.ine.es/inebaseDYN/cp30321/cp_inicio.htm (accessed 17 July 2018). National Statistics Institute (INE) (2017) Población por comunidades y ciudades autónomas [Population by autonomous communities and cities], at http://www.ine.es/dynt3/ inebase/index.htm?padre=523 (accessed 17 July 2018). Olaziregi, M. and Sierra, J. (1986) EIFE 1. Euskararen irakaskuntza: faktoreen eragina [Influence of Factors in the Learning of Basque]. Vitoria-Gasteiz: Eusko Jaurlaritza. Ortega, I., Eguzkiza, M.J. and Ruiz de Garibay, M. (2004) Orientaciones para la e­ laboración del plan de acogida del alumnado inmigrante [Guidelines for the Elaboration of the Immigrant Student Reception Plan]. Vitoria-Gasteiz: Gobierno Vasco. Rojo, V., Madariaga, J.M. and Huguet, A. (2010) Actitudes lingüísticas hacia el euskera y castellano de los estudiantes autóctonos e inmigrantes de la educación secundaria obligatoria [Linguistic attitudes towards Basque and Castillian Spanish in autochthonous and immigrant students in secondary education]. Cultura y Educación 22 (1), 85–97. Sierra, J. and Olaziregi, M. (1989) EIFE 2. Euskararen irakaskuntza: faktoreen eragina [Influence of Factors in the Learning of Basque, 2]. Vitoria-Gasteiz: Eusko Jaurlaritza. Sierra, J. and Olaziregi, M. (1990) EIFE 3. Euskararen irakaskuntza: faktoreen eragina [Influence of Factors in the Learning of Basque, 3]. Vitoria-Gasteiz: Eusko Jaurlaritza. Sierra, J. and Olaziregi, M. (1991) H.I.N.E.: O.H.O. 8. mailaren azterteketa [Level Study]. Vitoria-Gasteiz: Eusko Jaurlaritza. Zalbide, M. and Cenoz, J. (2008) Bilingual education in the Basque Autonomous Community: Achievements and challenges. In J. Cenoz (ed.) Teaching Through Basque: Achievements and Challenges (pp. 5–20). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

3 Principality of Asturias Xosé Antón González-Riaño and Alberto Fernández-Costales

Introduction and Contextualization

This chapter provides an overview of the sociolinguistic reality and the legal framework for language policy in the Autonomous Community of the Principality of Asturias, a territory where two languages coexist: Asturian – the local language of Asturias, which is legally recognized as a protected language but has not been granted the status of an official language – and Castilian Spanish, the national language. The context in which these two languages are present in school will be described and explained. With this aim, we will present a synthetic analysis of recent macro-sociolinguistic data on the social presence of the spoken languages in the area. The conclusions of the study focus on the need to equalize the legal status of Asturian and Castilian as the optimal framework to preserve language diversity in the region. Contextualization The Principality of Asturias

Asturias is an Autonomous Community belonging to the Kingdom of Spain. Its Statute of Autonomy was passed in 1981 (Government of the Principality of Asturias, 1981), a few years after General Franco’s death and at the same time as Spain again became a democracy. The history of this community dates back to the 8th century, since for almost 200 years (718–910) Asturias was an independent kingdom with a clear European vocation. After its inclusion in the Astur-Leonese Kingdom, the old territory of the Astur tribes was named the Principality of Asturias. This happened in the 14th century (1388) and the main promoter was King Juan I of Castile, who aimed to permanently link Asturias to the Crown of Castile (Uría, 2005). Today, the Principality of Asturias is restricted to a small geographical territory located in the north of Spain, and it covers an area of 10,600 square kilometres. The population is just just over 1 million, with a density 53

54  Multilingualism in European Language Education

of around 100 inhabitants per square kilometre. Asturias is bordered to the west by the Autonomous Community of Galicia; to the north lies the Atlantic Ocean; to the east is Cantabria; and to the south is the region of Castile and León. The income per capita of Asturias is €23,000. There are two languages coexisting in Asturias: Castilian Spanish (the official national language in Spain) and Asturian (the traditional language of Asturias), which is not an official language in the territory, although it is regarded as a protected language by the Statute of Autonomy of Asturias and is supported by the Law on the Use of Asturian, passed in 1998 (Government of the Principality of Asturias, 1998). This situation is in contrast with the other bilingual territories in Spain, since Asturian is the only language which does not have co-official status with Castilian (perhaps together with Aragonés in those areas where it is still spoken). Asturian, which is also known as Bable, is a Romance European language evolved from Latin, brought by Roman conquerors in the first century BC and spoken in the medieval kingdoms of Asturias and León. Nowadays, Asturian is an official language in the Portuguese territory of Miranda del Douro. It is also worth mentioning the presence of GalicianAsturian, or Eonaviego, a minority language in the west side, near the border with Galicia, which is spoken by 5% of Asturian inhabitants. The oldest extant normative document written in Asturian is the Fuero de Avilés of 1085 (Cano, 1987). The characterization of Asturian, the study of its variants and the analysis of its evolution have been research topics for linguists and philologists, and have been thoroughly covered by García Arias (1988). In 1981, the Academia de la Llingua Asturiana (the Asturian Language Academy) was created in order to encourage the study, normalization and promotion of Asturian, as well as guaranteeing the linguistic rights of Asturian people. Since its establishment, the Academy has requested official status of the traditional language of Asturias, an objective not yet fulfilled. It can be argued that the situation of Asturian is unique: it could be regarded as a ‘semi-official’ language, since it is legally recognized as the language of Asturias, and the population is allowed to use it to address the regional administration. In addition, as a result of the implementation of the Law on the Use of Asturian of 1998, a certain degree of normalization and invigoration has been produced: good examples of this recovery are to be found in the literary production, the musical creation and the usual presence of the Asturian language in the media (Lefin et al., 2004). Social framework of language policy in Asturias

Sociolinguistic studies focusing on the use of Asturian, language awareness and the expectations of Asturian people are numerous and date back to the Spanish transition to democracy in 1975. The most comprehensive and recent work is Llera (2017). The main findings of this sociolinguistic study are shown in Table 3.1.



Principality of Asturias  55

Table 3.1  Main results from the study by Llera (2017) Survey results Language identity

65% of participants state that the vernacular language of the Asturian people is called Asturian, Bable or the Asturian language 80% think Asturian is a language which is equal to the other recognized regional languages in Spain

Linguistic stigma

90% of respondents agree that speaking Asturian is not speaking incorrectly 77% consider they do not express themselves incorrectly in Castilian Spanish

Language skills and literacy

25% of the population understands, speaks, reads and writes in Asturian 25% of the population understands, speaks and writes in Asturian 24% of the population speaks and understands Asturian 13% of the population speaks, understands and reads Asturian 28% of the population understands Asturian 70% of the population taught to read and write in Asturias regard it as a positive experience

Family language

42% report having Castilian as their family language 20% report having Asturian and Castilian as their family languages 34% report having Asturian as their family language

Attitudes and language demands

34% of respondents consider Asturian and Castilian to be the languages of Asturias 36% think Asturian is the traditional language of Asturias 29% consider Castilian is the only language of Asturias 49% forecast that Asturian and Castilian are the languages of the future in Asturias 28% think Castilian is the language of the future in Asturias 10% state Asturian is the language of the future in Asturian 11% answer that Asturias will be the only language in the region 2% did not answer this question 51% are willing to promote intergenerational transmission of Asturian

Presence of Asturian 45% think there should be newspapers and magazines entirely in in the media Asturian 79% consider there should be regular sections written in Asturian in newspapers and magazines 43% listen/watch Asturian on radio/television 58% consider there should be news in Asturian on the public television service Opinion on the language policy

27% think that institutions do very little or nothing to promote Asturian 57% consider that the generalization and standardization of Asturian are needed

Asturian language in education

90% think Asturian should be taught at school 52% think content subjects should be partially or totally taught through Asturian

Co-official status of Asturian

53% agree with the recognition of Asturian as a co-official language 25% disagree with that 22% did not answer this question

As regards Eonaviego, the language of the western part of the region, the data provided by Llera and San Martín (2003) suggest that the Asturian identity of its speakers is clear and unambiguous (75% of participants agree with this statement). The same study reports that 66% of Asturian citizens living in the area of the Navia-Eo consider their language variety to be a combination of Asturian and Galician, and 72% perceive it as

56  Multilingualism in European Language Education

a language similar to the regional languages spoken in Spain. Regarding language skills, 72% of respondents report that they speak Eonaviego, while 24% read it and 16% write it properly. Arguably, the proposals regarding language normalization and the recovery of Asturian are welcomed by society and foster agreement on the official status of the Asturian language in the whole region (and of Eonaviego in the area where it is spoken). As suggested by previous studies, it is important to underline that Asturian is not socially considered as a dialect but rather as a language on its own, with similar features to other languages in the Iberian Peninsula. In this vein, the language stigma historically affecting Asturian seems to have been overcome, as people today do not consider that speaking Asturian is ‘speaking incorrectly’ but is ‘speaking a language other than Castilian’. In addition, it is worth noting that about 600,000 people are active speakers of Asturian, which makes the language recovery process possible without having to face specific issues derived from the vitality of the language. Regarding education, 90% of the Asturian population supports the study of Asturian at school as a compulsory or optional subject. This figure is particularly relevant, as in the event of a possible extension of this offer at non-university level, the social response would potentially be very positive. According to the aforementioned studies, it can be argued that, broadly speaking, social perspectives are highly positive in relation to language coexistence between Asturian (and Eonaviego) and Castilian in the Principality of Asturias. Legal status of Asturian

Three years after the end of the dictatorship of General Franco, the emerging democracy promoted the Spanish constitution of 1978 (Government of Spain, 1978). The preamble of this document states the popular will to ‘protect all Spaniards and peoples of Spain in the exercise of human rights, their cultures and traditions, languages and institutions’. This entails a fundamental difference with the previous institutional approach established after the end of the democratic regime represented by the Second Republic in Spain: under Franco’s regime, regional languages different from Castilian were pro­hibited, and users were prosecuted, and even humiliated. The constitutional text includes the following provisions in its Preliminary Title (article 3): (1) Castilian is the official Spanish language of the state. All Spaniards have the duty to know it and the right to use it. (2) The other languages of Spain will also be official in the respective Autonomous Communities, in accordance with their Statutes. (3) The richness of the linguistic modalities of Spain is a cultural patri­ mony which will be the object of special respect and protection.



Principality of Asturias  57

According to the Spanish constitution, the Statutes of Autonomy of the bilingual communities of the Spanish state (the Basque Country, Catalonia, Galicia, Valencia and the Balearic Islands) include specific articles on the co-official status of their regional languages together with Castilian. However, due to the lack of an agreement among the political parties in Asturias, the Principality chose an intermediate way to protect and dignify the language. Article 4 of the Statute of Autonomy of Asturias of 1981 states: Bable [as the Asturian language is also termed] will enjoy protection. Its use and dissemination via the mass media and its teaching will be promoted, respecting, in all instances, local variations and the voluntary nature of learning the language.

The Statute does not specify the official status of the local language although the text does allow for the implementation of measures intended to promote the conservation of Asturian, since it authorizes the social use of the language, its presence in the mass media and its teaching at school. This kind of semi-official status was endorsed in 1998 when the Xunta Xeneral del Principáu d’Asturies (the Asturian parliament) passed the Ley de Uso del Asturiano (Law on the Use of Asturian), the first article of which specifies that ‘Asturian is the traditional language of Asturias’, and the protection regime which has been set for Asturian will be also applied to Eonaviego ‘in those areas in which it has a specific language modality’. On the other hand, the Law on the Use of Asturian of 1998 guarantees that all the citizens have the right to use Asturian and express themselves in this language orally and in writing (article 4.1). In addition, the use of Asturian in all oral and written communication between the citizens and the Principality of Asturias must be guaranteed (article 4.2). The use of Asturian is fully recognized and protected by the legal framework as regards the autonomous administration of the regional govern­ment, although it is not the case with the state administration established in Asturias (which can be addressed only in Spanish). The teaching of the local language is regulated by article 9 of the Law on the Use of Asturian, which states that ‘the Principality of Asturias, in the exercise of its competences, will guarantee the teaching of Asturian and will promote its use, in the terms expressed by the Statute of Autonomy of Asturias.’ As for the development of the curriculum, the Law establishes that the Principality of Asturias will guarantee that Asturian is offered at all educational stages as an optional subject integrated in the school syllabus (article 10.1). The choice of Asturian at school cannot be a reason to discriminate, so that students taking Asturian receive the same education and learn the same contents – and in equal conditions – as all other pupils (article 10.3). On the basis of this legal framework, the teaching of Asturian has been progressively settled and has been reinforced at the

58  Multilingualism in European Language Education

curricular and institutional level by means of the Decrees of the Curriculum of Asturias of 2007 and 2014 (Government of the Principality of Asturias, 2007, 2014). After adaptation to the European Higher Education Area, Asturian has become a language of instruction at the University of Oviedo by means of a minor in the Degree of Philology, and specialization tracks in the Degree of Primary Education and in the Master’s Degree in Teacher Training for Secondary Education, Baccalaureate and Vocational Training. The introduction of these specialization modules meets a key target of the Asturian education community: recognizing the training of teachers of Asturian at university level on the same terms as all other teachers in the Asturian education system. In spite of the legal protection of Asturian, Castilian is currently the only official language of the Principality of Asturias. Therefore, Castilian is the compulsory language of instruction at every educational stage and the language used in all classrooms in Asturias. This situation is a consequence of the constitutional text of 1978, the lack of ambition of the Statute of Autonomy of 1981 in relation to the legal framework for Asturian, and also the provisions of the Organic Law on the Improvement of the Quality of Education of 2013 (Ley Orgánica de Mejora de la Calidad Educativa, or LOMCE in Spanish). Languages in Education Educational models: Overview of the teaching of Asturian

According to the Statute of Autonomy of Asturias, and in the absence of any other regulation, the teaching of Asturian started in 1984 by means of a collaboration agreement between the Principality of Asturias and the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation. Among other issues, this agreement established three one-hour sessions per week as the maximum time to be devoted to the teaching of the local language; at the same time, it included a formal requirement to take Asturian in school and specified the conditions regarding teacher training. The regulations also specify that Asturian should be taught within the regular teaching hours and with the same conditions as regards evaluation and promotion for the students as other areas of the curriculum, with the learning results included in the students’ official school reports. As already mentioned, the Law on the Use of Asturian (passed in 1998) established that the Asturian language should be offered as an optional subject by all primary and secondary schools in the region. The current situation, however, departs from the legal framework, since families have to choose between the Asturian language and other subjects; in primary education (6–12 years), pupils have to take either Asturian language or Asturian culture; in secondary education (12–16 years), students have to



Principality of Asturias  59

choose one subject among the following: Asturian language, information and communication technology (ICT), theatre, second foreign language, or other subjects designated by the school. This situation caters for the quantitative differences found in primary and secondary education when it comes to the choice of the Asturian language by the students. In spite of this context, the increase in the number of students taking Asturian has been clearly positive in the last decades: there were 1,385 students of Asturian in 1984, while today the figure reaches 23,000. Recent data regarding the Asturian language at school are presented below. Asturian language in public primary schools

As can be observed in Table 3.2, the Asturian language is offered by almost 95% of public primary schools. In addition, 53% of students attend Asturian lessons. These data have remained steady in recent years for public education. Although Asturian is offered by most public primary schools, its presence could be encouraged if the Asturian administration showed a clear commitment toits monitoring, control and revitalization through the Education Inspection Service. In this sense, the Decree of the Curriculum of Primary Education in Asturias of 2014 – resulting from the application of the Organic Law on the Improvement of the Quality of Education (Government of Spain, 2013) – can be a good means to increase the presence of Asturian in schools, as it clearly specifies that all primary schools must offer Asturian language or Asturian culture in education. Table 3.2  Asturian language in primary public schools Year

Number of schools

Schools offering % the Asturian language

Number of students

Students of the Asturian language

%

2010/11

241

226

93.7%

31,050

17,385

56.0%

2011/12

246

226

91.8%

31,968

17,235

53.9%

2012/13

244

230

94.3%

32,541

17,168

52.8%

2013/14

243

230

94.7%

32,745

17,497

53.4%

Source: Regional Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports of the Principality of Asturias.

Asturian language in public secondary schools

As seen in Table 3.3, Asturian is offered as an optional subject in almost 89% of secondary schools. However, the attendance level is considerably lower than in primary education. The fact that Asturian has to compete with other subjects – something that does not happen in primary education – is likely the main reason for the decrease. Since Asturian is not a compulsory subject – as is indicated in the current legislation – but an ‘optional’ course, students must choose between the local language and a second foreign language (which is typically French).

60  Multilingualism in European Language Education

Table 3.3  Asturian language in public secondary schools Year

Number of Schools offering % schools the Asturian language

Number of students

Students of Asturian language

%

2010/11

87

75

86.2%

19,895

3,445

17.3%

2011/12

87

75

86.2%

20,010

3,174

15.8%

2012/13

87

77

88.5%

20,257

2,908

14.4%

2013/14

87

77

88.5%

20,631

3,003

14.6%

Source: Regional Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports of the Government of the Principality of Asturias

Primary and secondary schools offering Eonaviego

Table 3.4 reports how Eonaviego is offered by nearly 80% of the primary schools in its area, but the number of students attending lessons (37%) is significantly lower than in Asturian. Data are worse in secondary education, as Eonaviego is present in only 57% of schools and only 13% of students participate. Note, however, that the introduction of Eonaviego started sometime after Asturian had been offered in primary and secondary education; in addition, there have been important shortcomings in the availability of resources, with a total absence of course books and reference materials for students. Moreover, we also need to highlight the reluctance of some members of the education community (teachers and parents) to offer Eonaviego. This positioning might be a consequence of the traditional lack of support for Eonaviego on the part of the Asturian authorities.

Table 3.4  Eonaviego in public schools in the Navia-Eo area Year

Number Number of schools offering Eonaviego

%

Number of Students of students Eonaviego

%

2010/11

17

 9

52.9%

1232

262

21.1%

2011/12

19

12

63.2%

1508

304

20.1%

2012/13

19

14

73.7%

1598

376

23.5%

2013/14

19

15

79.0%

1132

415

36.8%

2010/11

7

4

57.1%

 902

136

15.1%

2011/12

7

5

71.4%

 901

144

16.0%

2012/13

7

5

71.4%

 853

137

16.1%

2013/14

7

4

57.1%

 892

118

13.2%

Primary education

Secondary education

Source: Regional Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports of the Government of the Principality of Asturias. There are no private schools in this area.



Principality of Asturias  61

Table 3.5  The presence of the Asturian language in state-financed primary schools, 2006–2014 Year

Asturian students

% Asturian students

Schools

2006/07

 188

1.5%

 3

2007/08

 587

5.2%

 6

2008/09

 458

3.6%

 6

2009/10

 710

5.6%

10

2010/11

 992

8.4%

12

2011/12

 944

7.1%

12

2012/13

1290

9.5%

18

2013/14

1182

8.7%

20

Source: Regional Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports of the Government of the Principality of Asturias.

Data on the presence of the Asturian language in private and statefinanced primary schools

The official data are summarized in Table 3.5. Arguably, the panorama in private schools is quite different from that in the public education system: in the private and state-financed network (that is, private schools supported with public funds in order to meet demands not covered by the public system), the percentage of students taking Asturian barely reaches 9% (while in the case of public schools this figure was 54%). It would seem that, in spite of the Decrees of the Curriculum, the education administration in Asturias has failed to comply with its duty to monitor the teaching of Asturian in private schools. As a result, even nowadays private schools consider that teaching Asturian is not in the scope of their mission and interests. Data on the presence of the Asturian language in private and statefinanced secondary schools

Table 3.6 shows that Asturian has a symbolic presence in private and state-financed secondary schools, as noted above. Asturia’s private and Table 3.6  The presence of the Asturian language in state-financed secondary schools, 2006–2014 Year

Asturian students

% Asturian students

Schools

2006/07

 51

0.5%

2

2007/08

168

1.8%

7

2008/09

171

1.6%

6

2009/10

196

1.9%

5

2010/11

188

1.9%

5

2011/12

175

1.8%

5

2012/3

184

1.8%

6

2013/14

238

2.4%

9

62  Multilingualism in European Language Education

state-financed schools have traditionally shown little interest in the local language. In fact, only recently have local authorities tried to analyse the causes of scant attendance of Asturian language classes in this type of educational establishment. Socio-educational issues and language attitudes of Asturian

It is important to emphasize that the regular presence of Asturian in schools has contributed to create a flow of educational research focused on the achievements, difficulties and expectations related to Asturian (González-Riaño & Fernández-Costales, 2014). In this vein, we need to mention the pioneering study by González-Riaño and San Fabián (1996) on the impact of taking the subject of Asturian language on the academic performance of students. In this work, the performance of sixth-grade primary students who attended Asturian lessons was compared with that of pupils who did not attend Asturian classes. The basic objectives of the research were to assess three sets of relationships: (1) between the teaching of Asturian and the acquisition of basic instrumental learning in Spanish literacy, calculations and problem-solving ability; (2) between the teaching of Asturian and knowledge about the social and cultural environment of the Autonomous Community; (3) between the teaching of Asturian and the acquisition of cultural and metalinguistic learning (positive values towards Asturian language and culture, and language competence in Asturian). In order to meet these objectives, the 322 participating students completed a complex set of psycho-pedagogical tests. From the results, it can be concluded that attendance at Asturian lessons does have a positive impact on the performance of students in curricular subjects, in particular in those related to reading comprehension and orthography in Spanish. In addition, the teaching of Asturian allows students to achieve a higher level of knowledge about the social and natural reality of Asturias. This finding leads us to think that the introduction of Asturian in schools not only promotes the acquisition of language skills and content knowledge, but also works as a tool to bring students closer to the natural, social and cultural environment of Asturias. Furthermore, the students in the study (those taking Asturian and those not) underline the degree of appreciation and awareness of the Asturian language and culture. Finally, students who received Asturian lessons clearly show a good command of Asturian, unlike those who do not take lessons, who – in similar sociolinguistic conditions – cannot maintain their competence in the regional language, or, in the worst cases, are not provided with the opportunity to acquire it. We need to highlight the importance of the previous research, as it contradicted the wrong assumptions of a sector in the Asturian population who were reluctant to have Asturian taught in schools and stated that it might have a negative effect on students’ performance. Opposed



Principality of Asturias  63

to the beliefs of this sector, the teaching of Asturian was deemed to be a social, cultural and pedagogical need: in a nutshell, Asturian can work as a powerful tool to enhance the education system of Asturias. It is also worth mentioning research by Dyzmann (2000), who presented a case study exploring attitudes towards the language contact between Asturian and Castilian among 50 students at a secondary school in a suburb of Gijón, the most populous city of the region. The research relied on a sociolinguistic questionnaire and participant observation. It had the following objectives: (1) to analyse the linguistic and socio­linguistic situation of a particular sample of the Asturian population; (2) to find the structural and extra-linguistic factors that might influence linguistic interference; (3) to study the situation of the teaching of Asturian in secondary education; (4) to identify tendencies and regularities as regards the attitudes of students in relation to the region’s language future. Leaving aside the conclusions relating to the interference between Asturian and Castilian, the following results should be noted: (1) language attitudes (towards Asturian and Castilian) were characterized by the tolerance of the students; (2) the bilingual nature of the Asturian region was clearly recognized and accepted; (3) Asturian was preferentially used in family contexts, whereas Castilian was the language for more formal communicative situations; (4) more than half of the students participating in the study reported having minimal competence in Asturian; (5) most students showed a positive attitude to the presence of Asturian at the school; (6) the preferred language future for Asturias was a situation of balanced bilingualism between Asturian and Castilian. This research is particularly relevant since it clearly underlines that the teaching of Asturian is a topic of interest at an international level and the conclusions of the study are provided from an external point of view – since the author of the study is not Asturian – without any subjective or emotive connotation. Huguet and González-Riaño (2002) relate the language knowledge of Asturian to the academic performance of secondary school students, focusing on Castilian and maths. It is a comprehensive study which covers almost all secondary schools in Asturias offering Asturian. The sample comprised 231 students and the authors were able to confirm the cor­ relation between the teaching of the local language and the command of Castilian; in addition, this work also proves that the teaching of Asturian can favour mathematical reasoning. The attitudes of university students have also been investigated: Armesto (2003) presents a preliminary study that reports the opinions and attitudes of students taking the degree in primary education at the University of Oviedo towards the use and the teaching of Asturian. The sample comprised 97 students and the research tool was a closed question­naire. Some of the conclusions of this research were as follows: (1) approximately a quarter of the students reported having Asturian as their family

64  Multilingualism in European Language Education

language; (2) most of the participants considered Asturian to be the only local language in Asturias and that it was at risk if suitable measures were not taken; (3) the right to study in Asturian was defended almost unanimously and most students agreed with the claim for the official status of Asturian; (4) more than half of the respondents considered that teachers working in Asturias should have specific training in the Asturian language in addition to their original specialization. The attitudes of Asturian citizens towards the four languages present in the education system (Asturian, Castilian, English and French) have received scant attention, with only one investigation published so far: Pascual et al. (2003) examined the attitudes of 100 key informants towards these four languages in a qualitative study which tracked ‘critical incidents’, that is, stages or moments in the life of the individuals that influence – in a conscious way – their opinion or their attitudes towards a particular language. Their research concluded that such incidents can be categorized as follows: family experiences; social and democratic awareness; school and educational experiences; linguistic experiences and the reaction to them; multicultural experiences; response to standardization processes; socio-professional needs and/or experiences; and cultural and leisure experiences. Summarizing, it can be concluded that Asturian is normally associated with family and school experiences, and also with social and democratic awareness; on the other hand, Castilian, and the other foreign languages (English and French), are related to socio-­professional experiences and to cultural and multicultural experiences. This study is particularly interesting because of its contributions to the methodological approach, its originality being the use of a qualitative tool, the ‘critical incident’, which has rarely been used to study language attitudes in sociolinguistic research. Huguet and González-Riaño (2004) investigated the degrees of language use and attitudes towards Asturian and Castilian by students at secondary public schools in the Principality of Asturias. Relying on a sample of 241 subjects and using a sociolinguistic questionnaire, they concluded: (1) active competence in Asturian can be found in the family context; (2) students taking Asturian have more positive attitudes towards both languages (Asturian and Castilian), while students who do not take this option show good attitudes towards Castilian but report significantly worse attitudes towards Asturian; (3) the most balance towards both languages is to be found in bilingual students; (4) attitudinal differences cannot be defined on the basis of the family socio-professional context (that is, the social class of the students). Although these conclusions are globally very positive, it is worth noting that the research also found that a very small proportion of students had negative attitudes towards either Asturian or Castilian. González-Riaño (2005) investigated the use and educational relevance of Asturian and Castilian for future teachers of primary education in



Principality of Asturias  65

Asturias, and can be considered as a continuation of the observations by Armesto (2003). The research had the following objectives: (1) to determine the use levels of both languages; (2) to assess the educational importance awarded to the Asturian language; (3) to analyse the attitudes towards Castilian and Asturian; (4) to identify the variables that might have an influence on the results obtained and consider their pedagogical implications. To meet these objectives, a comprehensive sociolinguistic questionnaire was designed and administered to a sample of 218 students of education at the University of Oviedo. The main conclusions can be summarized as follows: (1) Castilian was regularly used by most of the students, although some participants reported using Asturian in their daily interactions; (2) Castilian was used in all contexts, while Asturian was employed preferably in more informal contexts; (3) there was a clear correlation between the communicative use of Asturian and the fact that those students had taken classes in Asturian during elementary education; (4) the educational value of Asturian was recognized by most participants; (5) the language attitudes of the students was a variable but correlated significantly with their opinions about the educational value conferred by the Asturian language; (6) broadly speaking, language attitudes were positive towards Castilian and Asturian; (7) students born in Asturias had better attitudes towards the local language than students from other communities. According to the results, several implications and education proposals can be established, among others: the degree in primary education should take into account the sociolinguistic situation of Asturian; as a result, the study plan should offer the future teachers systematic information on the reality of the teaching of Asturian (legal provisions, state of the art, organizational and administrative issues, etc.); finally, the degree should allow students to take optional courses in Asturian so they can reach a minimum level of proficiency. It is worth highlighting that some proposals from this study have been put into practice: as already mentioned, the initial training of teachers of Asturian in primary education is structured in the same way as that of teachers in other specializations (English, music, physical education, etc.). However, as we are dealing with a fluctuating population, it seems appropriate to continue with this line of research in order to provide alternatives to improve the language attitudes of future language teachers in Asturias. Louzao and González-Riaño (2009) investigated the intercultural attitudes of Asturian primary students. The key objective of the study was to explore the intercultural and language attitudes of local and immigrant students. The authors present a case study with 119 participants (83 from Asturias and 36 immigrants) from the three cycles of primary education at a school in Asturias. In general, positive intercultural attitudes were shared by local and immigrant students, and the latter showed very positive attitudes towards Asturian (perhaps as a clear signal of their interest in integrating with the host culture). In addition, this research also confirmed

66  Multilingualism in European Language Education

that it is possible to design an operational questionnaire on intercultural attitudes for young participants (aged 6–12 years). The links between language teaching and intercultural education have, in our view, many prospective research lines since there may be an increase in the immigrant population attending Asturian primary schools, and the administrative authorities are concerned to achieve effective social and educational integration of this group of students in the region. So far, we have concentrated on the students of Asturian or teachers who will work in the Autonomous Community; however, it is important to include active teachers as well. González-Riaño and Armesto (2012) analysed the satisfaction levels of teachers of Asturian in primary education. They had two main objectives: (1) to assess the satisfaction of teachers according to several factors (general satisfaction, life at the school, academic issues, professional issues, planning and implementation of activities, and perception of students’ performance); (2) to identify the factors that explain the differences found in the study. One hundred and sixty-two primary and secondary school teachers answered a satisfaction survey. The teachers were moderately satisfied with the commitment to the Asturian culture and language, and with the relations established with the education community and the learning outcomes; on the other hand, there was a perceived lack of recognition by the education authorities and low social prestige of teachers of Asturian. The absence of a suitable legal framework for the Asturian language (that is, its official status) and problems related to the lack of teachers’ specialization in the Asturian language in primary and secondary education were the main issues according to the study’s participants. In addition, other problems were noted, for instance issues regarding professional promotion, few possi­ bilities to participate in the academic management of the school, and difficulties regarding continuous education and training programmes. It seems clear that the situation concerning the satisfaction of teachers of Asturian can be explained by factors intrinsic to this teaching group. However, if we want to analyse the results more deeply, we should compare them to studies of teachers of other languages (Spanish and foreign languages, for instance), as this will provide a more accurate perception of the problems of language teachers, their common issues and their particularities. As such, a research project was launched in 2016 to investigate the satisfaction level of English language teachers in Asturian primary schools; this study is expected to provide results that will allow for comparison between teachers of Asturian and teachers of English as a foreign language in primary education. At this point, it is worth mentioning the study by Hevia and GonzálezRiaño (2014), which analysed the cultural and social value awarded to the teaching of Asturian by school boards. School principals reported having a good command of Asturian and they were able to use it for communicative purposes; in addition, participants conveyed that the



Principality of Asturias  67

teaching of Asturian has an undisputable social and cultural value. Also, the presence of the Asturian language in the curriculum is relevant as regards the achievement of communicative competence in this language but also concerning the relation with other areas of the curriculum of the Principality of Asturias. Finally, it is important to underline that few studies have looked at the school presence of Eonaviego in the western part of Asturias. This region has only about 50,000 citizens, that is, less than 5% of the total population, and, consequently, few school students. In this context, the most relevant and recent research is by González-Riaño et al. (2013), who investigated the language attitudes of students in the last stage of primary education towards Eonaviego and Castilian in the area of the Navia-Eo. The objectives were the following: (1) to describe the language uses of the grade 6 primary students participating in the study; (2) to analyse the language attitudes as regards Eonaviego and Castilian of students attending courses on the traditional language in the area and of those not attending those courses; (3) to provide a suitable rationale for any differences identified in the study. Considering the small total number of students in the last year of primary education in the area (226), it is important to highlight that almost all of them (217, that is, 97% of the total) took part in this study. All the participants answered a sociolinguistic survey that rendered the following results. (1) The students used Castilian as the main language, with a minor use of Galician-Asturian, which was restricted to more informal contexts (this shows a diglossic use which is a common feature in the case of minority languages). (2) The attitudes towards both languages were very positive and there was a similar finding with regard to the importance of their school presence. (3) Regarding the variables that might explain noted differences, neither gender nor the place of birth significantly influenced the results, but the family language seemed to be a determining factor, so students whose family language was Eonaviego used this language more often and had better attitudes towards it. Also, social class seemed to be relevant, as students from wealthy families used the local language less frequently: this is an important feature, since it contradicts the conclusions of previous studies carried out in Asturias (among others, Huguet & González-Riaño, 2004). The primary influence was whether students did or did not take Eonaviego classes: those students attending lessons in the local language had higher levels of use and better language attitudes than those who did not take Eonaviego. According to these data, it can be concluded that there is a reduced use of Eonaviego by primary students, although of sufficient numbers to re-activate its presence in the school, especially given the outstanding language attitudes towards the local language and its social importance. Therefore, it is the duty of the Government of the Principality of Asturias to take the necessary measures to guarantee that this language variety has

68  Multilingualism in European Language Education

the same social and educational opportunities as Asturian as the general traditional language in the Principality. At this point, it should be noted that all the socio-educational studies investigating the relation between students’ academic achievement and the presence of Asturian language in the curriculum report positive results. Having said that, it should be acknowledged that research in the field of students’ achievement needs to be updated and replicated in all educational stages. As regards attitudes towards the teaching Asturian, research has focused on the perceptions of students, parents and teachers (Armesto, 2003; González-Riaño et al., 2013; Hevia & González-Riaño, 2014; Huguet & González-Riaño, 2004). These studies offer good prospects as regards the teaching possibilities of the Asturian language at all educational stages. Such positive attitudes concur with the findings of macro-sociolinguistic studies analysing the general language panorama in Asturias (Llera, 2017; Llera & San Martín, 2003). It can be established that the research on the presence of the Asturian language in the education system parallels the implementation of the teaching of the minority language at the school. Research concurs that the introduction of Asturian has had positive outcomes at all educational stages; in this vein, it has to be noted that students’ language com­ petence (in both Castilian and Asturian) is enhanced, and the attitudes of students, families and education communities are favourable towards both languages. It is worth mentioning that the introduction of Asturian at school has not had any reported negative consequence in terms of students’ academic achievement, language competence or attitudes towards Spanish. Nevertheless, other issues can be identified in relation to the presence of Asturian in the education system: specifically, there are administrative hurdles which are derived from the current legal framework of Asturian, which has not been awarded the status of a co-official language. This is supported by some of the studies cited in this chapter (see, for instance, González-Riaño & Armesto, 2012; Hevia & González-Riaño, 2014; Huguet & González-Riaño, 2004), which emphasize that the current panorama demands the implementation of a political agreement to reconsider the conditions of the official status of the Asturian language and to meet the demands of the sociolinguistic reality of the region; this reality requires a progressive normalization of the use of Asturian. Conclusions

This chapter has presented the sociolinguistic and socio-educational panorama of Asturias, which is not widely known at the Spanish level and is even less visible in the European scenario. The chapter has provided a detailed view of the presence of the Asturian language in the education



Principality of Asturias  69

system and identified the main challenges for the minority language in the school context. Asturian is the traditional language of the Principality of Asturias, where it coexists with Castilian Spanish (the only official language); Asturian originated in the Kingdom of Asturias in the eighth to tenth centuries and has persisted as a minority language, which is today spoken by one-third of the population. Contrary to what happened to other regional languages in Spain – Basque, Catalan and Galician – which became official in the Spanish transition to democracy after the end of General Franco’s dictatorship (1975), Asturian has achieved the administrative status only of ‘protected language’; this status indicates that the language should be protected, but it is not a binding framework, and it is subject to interpretation by the regional government(s). In other words, the Law on the Use of Asturian of 1998 established general guidelines to safeguard the language, but the legal framework for the use of Asturian has not been appropriately developed yet. The Asturian language has been introduced as an optional subject at all stages of education, and it is also the language of instruction of some courses in higher education. The spread of the language in the school context has been steady in the last decades, with an increasing number of students taking Asturian language on a voluntary basis. Arguably, the legal situation of Asturian is not comparable to that of other minority languages in Spain; however, it can be claimed that the panorama of language attitudes is rather similar to the bilingual settings referred to in this chapter (Llera, 2017), as Asturian is openly perceived in a positive way; moreover, research has consistently demonstrated that the presence of Asturian in the education system has had positive outcomes as regards language competence in Asturian and Spanish, language awareness and even academic achievement. Research also underlines that Asturian citizens want and expect a situation of balanced bilingualism (Asturian and Castilian) in the sociocultural and educational arenas, which necessarily requires the declaration of the local language as official. Further research exploring elements of language normalization and revitalization are welcome: for instance, the presence of Asturian in parliament, in legal and administrative areas, and in new technology, and so on. Especially, sociolinguistic qualitative studies should be conducted on the possible reluctance of the political, cultural and social elites of the Principality of Asturias regarding the revitalization of the local language.

References Armesto, X. (2003) Opiniones y actitúes de los estudiantes de maxisteriu, especialidá d’educación primaria: estudiu de campu [Opinions and attitudes of students of primary education: A case study]. Lletres Asturianes 84, 63–81.

70  Multilingualism in European Language Education

Cano, A. (1987) Averamientu a la Hestoria de la Llingua Asturiana [An Approach to the History of Asturian Language]. Oviedo: Principality of Asturias. Dyzmann, N. (2000) Averamientu al contautu de llingües (asturianu-castellán) nel Principáu d’Asturies [An approach to language contact (Asturian-Castilian) in the Principality of Asturias]. Lletres Asturianes 3, 5–19. García Arias, X. (1988) Contribución a la Gramática Histórica de la Lengua Asturiana y a la Caracterización Etimológica de su Léxico [Contribution to the Historical Grammar of the Asturian Language and the Etymological Characterization of Its Lexicon]. Oviedo: Academia de la Llingua Asturiana. González-Riaño, X.A. (2005) Uso e importancia educativa de las lenguas en Asturias. Evaluación de las opiniones de los estudiantes de magisterio de la Universidad de Oviedo [Use and educational relevance of languages in Asturias. Evaluation of the perceptions of students of education in the University of Oviedo]. Cultura y Educación 17 (3), 283–298. González-Riaño, X.A. and Armesto, X. (2012) Enseñanza de la lengua minoritaria y satisfacción del profesorado: el caso de Asturias [Teaching minority languages and teaching satisfaction: The case of Asturias]. Cultura y Educación 24 (2), 219–241. González-Riaño, X.A. and Fernández-Costales, A. (2014) Asturian: The Asturian Language in Education in Spain. Leewarden: Mercator (European Research Centre on Multi­ lingualism and Language Learning). González-Riaño, X.A. and San Fabián, J.L. (1996) La Escolarización de la Lengua Asturiana. Su Incidencia en el Rendimiento Educativo [Asturian Language in Schools: Its Relevance in Academic Achievement]. Mieres: Editora del Norte. González-Riaño, X.A., Hevia Artime, I. and Fernández-Costales, A. (2013) Language attitudes of Asturian students in the area of Navia-Eo (Spain). Language and Inter­ cultural Communication 13 (4), 450–468. Government of the Principality of Asturias (1981) Statute of Autonomy of the Principality of Asturias. BOE (Official State Gazette of Spain) 9, available at https://www.asturias. es/Asturias/descargas/imagen_institucional/estatuto.pdf (accessed January 2019). Government of the Principality of Asturias (1998) Law on the Use and Promotion of Asturian Language. BOPA (Official Gazette of the Principality of Asturias) 73, available at https://www.xuristes.as/version.htm (accessed January 2019). Government of the Principality of Asturias (2007) Curriculum Decree 2007, at https://www. educastur.es/index.php?option=com_content&task=category§ionid=11&id=41 &Itemid=54 (accessed 17 July 2018). Government of the Principality of Asturias (2014) Curriculum Decree 2014, at https:// www.educastur.es/-/curriculo-de-educacion-primaria-en-el-principado-de-asturias (accessed 17 July 2018). Government of Spain (1978) Constitución Española de 1978 [Spanish constitution of 1978]. BOE (Official State Gazette of Spain) 311, available at https://www.boe.es/diario_boe/ txt.php?id=BOE-A-1978-31229 (accessed January 2019). Government of Spain (2013) Ley Orgánica de Mejora de la Calidad Educativa [Organic Law on the Improvement of Education Quality]. BOE (Official State Gazette of Spain) 295, available at https://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-2013-12886 (accessed January 2019). Hevia, I. and González-Riaño, X.A. (2014) Los xestores educativos énte’l valir social, cultural y educativu de la llingua Asturiana. Un estudiu empíricu [The educational agents on the social, cultural, and educational value of the Asturian language. An empirical study]. Lletres Asturianes 111, 151–169. Huguet, A. and González-Riaño, X.A. (2002) Conocimiento lingüístico y rendimiento escolar. Implicaciones en un contexto bilingüe [Language competence and academic performance. Implications in a bilingual context]. Infancia y Aprendizaje 25 (1), 53– 68.



Principality of Asturias  71

Huguet, A. and González-Riaño, X.A. (2004) Actitudes Lingüísticas, Lengua Familiar y Enseñanza de la Lengua Minoritaria [Language Attitudes, Family Language and the Teaching Minority Languages]. Barcelona: Horsori. Lefin, P., Vila, I., Van der Schaaf, A. and Meirinhos, J. (2004) Asturian Language: Report and Recommendations. Liege: International Committee for the Safeguarding of Linguistic Rights in Asturies. Llera, F. (2017) Tercera Encuesta Sociolingüística en Asturias [Third Sociolinguistic Survey of the Principality of Asturias]. Oviedo: Academia de la Llingua Asturiana. Llera, F. and San Martín, P. (2003) Segundo Estudio Sociolingüístico de Asturias [Second Sociolinguistic Study of Asturias]. Oviedo: Academia de la Llingua Asturiana. Louzao, M. and González-Riaño, X.A. (2009) Investigación sobre les actitúes interculturales del alumnáu asturianu d’educación primaria. Un estudiu de casu [Investigation of intercultural attitudes of Asturian students of primary education: A case study]. Lletres Asturianes 100, 107–126. Pascual, J., Mori, M., González-Riaño, X.A., Fueyo, A. and Atienza, J.L. (2003) Interculturalidad y Diversidad Lingüística. Estudio de las Actitudes Lingüísticas en Asturias y sus Implicaciones Didácticas [Interculturality and Language Diversity. Study of Language Attitudes and Their Didactic Implications]. Oviedo: KRK Ediciones. Uría, J. (2005) El Reino de Asturias y otros Estudios Altomedievales [The Kingdom of Asturias and Other Studies on the Early Middle Ages]. Oviedo: KRK-Universidad de Oviedo.

4 Principality of Andorra Josep M. Díaz-Torrent and Carolina Bastida

Introduction and Contextualization

The modern (re)construction of Europe has so far been characterized by the development of a twofold process. On the one hand, the efforts to articulate one common European identity are narrowly intertwined with institutional unification. At the same time, this structural, long-term schedule has been and still is deployed in a highly diverse context, in both cultural and linguistic terms. Well aware of the situation, European institutions have consequently tried to imbue the overall scheme with a bias towards the promotion and respect of sociocultural diversity in all member states. As a result of historical, political and economic processes such as imperialism, colonialism, immigration and globalization (Cenoz & Genesee, 1998; Edwards, 1994; Phillipson, 1992), multilingualism is nowadays quintessential to the continent and is perceived as a necessary asset for any European citizen. Social and institutional interest in multilingualism is clearly reflected in the increasing number of research projects carried out under the auspices of the European Union and, among others, in the ‘one plus two’ formula (mother tongue, regional language and one international language) for multilingualism. At the same time, concern in the academic world about the characteristics and benefits of multi­lingualism (Cenoz & Genesee, 2001), at both societal and individual levels, originates in an extensive tradition of scholarly research on bilingualism, both in Europe and overseas (see, for example, Baetens Beardsmore, 1986; Baker, 1988, 1993; Bialystok, 2011; Cummins, 1979; Genesee & Gandara, 1999; Genesee & Lindholm-Leary, 2007; Paradis et al., 2013; Ramírez, 1992). The value of multilingual competence in European microstates has been addressed in a number of works analysing various dimensions of multi­ lingualism in these contexts, among others in Luxemburg (Redinger, 2010a, 2010b), Malta (Camilleri, 1996; Caruana, 2007; Sciriha, 2001) and the Principality of Andorra (Díaz-Torrent et al., 2014, 2015). The current panorama in these countries derives from complex processes that have resulted in a high degree of cultural and linguistic diversity. Regarding immigration, apart from the size or overall population of a given country, it is necessary to be aware that the arrival of new 72



Principality of Andorra  73

citizens in small states has visibly altered their social ecology. This has led governments to implement new policies in order to cater for the needs of individuals in the host society, at the same trying to promote and protect each country’s individuality. In this sense, bearing in mind that microstates in Europe are intrinsically heterogeneous, one might argue that recent immigration dynamics, together with the migratory patterns already at play before this phenomenon, have not radically altered the configuration of these societies. On the contrary, as Delgado (1998) points out, the arrival of new citizens has simply made a humble contribution to the degree of diversity already characteristic of European states. Among the whole myriad of social forces operating in any country, the school plays a central role when it comes to promoting respect for common values and diversity. In this sense, we should bear in mind that it is necessary to guarantee not only that the pre-existing diversity is accordingly provided for, but also that citizens arriving in the host country later in their lives are also given the necessary opportunities to integrate. With regard to pupils of immigrant origin, good knowledge of the new language and culture, together with equal access to opportunities and the recognition of their own cultural values, will no doubt contribute to social promotion and success (Huguet et al., 2014). Logically, having successful citizens at all levels, be they of immigrant origin or not, constitutes an invaluable asset to any modern society. In the present work, we seek to present the current organization of education in the country, paying special heed to language teaching. In order to do so, first we offer some basic information about the country and its current sociolinguistic map. Next we give a description of the country’s educational systems, specifically focusing on the presence and organization of the different languages, and of the strategies implemented in all systems in order to cater for the needs of newly arrived pupils. Lastly, we try to establish a direct dialogue between everything put forward in this work and the research carried out in the country so far. We understand this is a necessary step to follow if we are to look at the Andorran educational panorama critically, which should eventually contribute to a better approach to, greater understanding of and more promotion of the role played by the different languages and cultures of the country. Contextualization

The Principality of Andorra is a European microstate located in the central Pyrenean region, between Spain and France. The country has an area of 468 square kilometres and an overall population of 80,209 (Govern­ment of Andorra, 2017). Retail and wholesale activities, together with tourism, account for most of Andorra’s economic activity and for the high proportion of guest workers present in the country. This is probably the most relevant factor when it comes to explicating the diversity of the

74  Multilingualism in European Language Education

10.94% 5.23%

45.53% Andorra Spain

12.09%

Portugal France Others

27%

Figure 4.1  Andorran population according to country of origin. Adapted from Government of Andorra (2017)

1.80% 4.27%

3.07%

9.04% Andorran Spanish Portuguese French Others 81.82%

Figure 4.2  Pupils in Andorran schools according to nationality. Adapted from: Government of Andorra (2017)

origins of Andorran citizens and the current sociolinguistic panorama. Demographic evolution over the last 50 years has been tightly linked to immigration flows rather than to natural growth, which has resulted in a rather paradoxical situation: citizens of foreign origin (43,683) outnumber those of Andorran nationality (36,526) (Government of Andorra, 2017). Foreign residents come mainly from Spain (mostly from Catalonia, Andalusia or Galicia), France and Portugal, although many other nationalities are also present in the country (chiefly British, Argentinian, Moroccan and Philippine citizens) (Figure 4.1). This heterogeneous character is also reflected in the number of nationalities present in Andorran schools (Figure 4.2). We should bear in mind that immigration in Andorra is not a recent phenomenon. The arrival of foreign citizens has been a steady process since the 1950s, a time when immigration was still a phenomenon unheard



Principality of Andorra  75

of in Spain. While this has been a progressive process, at some points there have been peaks in population growth, as can be seen in the population data for 1970 (19,545 inhabitants) and 1980 (35,460), representing an increase of about 82% over the course of that decade. When compared with other settings this is not a dramatic increase in absolute figures, but we should not forget that such changes have had a clear qualitative impact on Andorran society. This, again, sets the country apart from larger European countries, such as France or Germany, or from the neighbouring region of Catalonia, where rates of immigration are quantitatively higher but may be qualitatively less influential. Nowadays, most Andorran families have been in the country only for two or three generations, and there is a very low proportion of the population who can be considered ‘native’, regardless of the definition one may want to apply to the term in this particular context. Whatever the case may be, apart from articulating more or less effective integration policies, regulations with regard to work and residence permits, or to the acquisition of Andorran citizenship, have traditionally been rather strict. It is relatively easy to understand that the population in states such as Andorra may have reservations about the massive arrival of foreign citizens; this notwithstanding, one must admit that restrictive policies are becoming gradually more flexible. However, this general stance has so far had obvious consequences when it comes to attracting, for instance, international skilled workers or university students. Sociolinguistic situation

Andorran heterogeneity in demographic terms finds its correlate with regard to language diversity in the country. As Andorra is the only country in the world where Catalan is the sole official language, one has to consider the relative importance of other languages spoken in the country. Spanish is used by those of Spanish or Latin American origin and is the preferred lingua franca in most everyday communicative exchanges. Portuguese, despite having a relatively high percentage of speakers, does not generate positive attitudes in general (Government of Andorra, 2011) or among secondary school pupils (Margarit, 2013; Margarit & Monné, 2010). The social relevance of French, with fewer speakers than the former languages, can be traced back to the historical relationships between Andorra and France and to the impact of French tourism on the country’s economy during the second half of the 20th century. In sum, two realities coexist in Andorra: (1) the Catalan-speaking sphere, where Catalan is used in official contexts, and mostly by the dominant groups in both political and economic terms; and (2) the diverse non-Catalan-speaking world, where Spanish is the lingua franca. As can be observed in Table 4.1, Catalan is the preferred language choice for the majority of the population at home, with friends and at the workplace. At the same time, perhaps paradoxically, informants seem

76  Multilingualism in European Language Education

Table 4.1  Language level and language choice in Andorra (% of overall sample) Level

At home

With friends

At work

Catalan

8.1

 33.9%

 42.6%

 31.8%

Spanish

9.2

Catalan and Spanish

 26.9%

 31.8%

 21.2%

 11.7%

  8.2%

 28.1%   1.3%

French

4.8

  2.3%

  2.5%

Portuguese

2.5

 12.1%

  5.4%

Other

 13.1%

  9.5%

 17.6%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

Adapted from Government of Andorra (2016).

to be more competent in Spanish than in other languages. It is often the case that immigrants to Andorra make the effort to learn Catalan in order to better integrate into the host society, but eventually resort to Spanish when they realize its privileged global status in terms of overall number of speakers around the world. Lastly, there is no scientific evidence that may help us to clarify whether or not language use in Andorra is determined by the social prestige associated with one or another language, and further research would be necessary to shed some light on this issue. Andorra’s education system

As already pointed out when introducing Andorra’s sociolinguistic map, the country’s educational panorama is best understood bearing in mind its historical bonds with France and Spain, but also in the light of its recent political history. After centuries of sovereignty shared by two feudal lords (the Count of Foix, in France, and the Bishop of Urgell, in the Catalan region of Alt Urgell, bordering Andorra on the south) the country became a parliamentary co-principality in 1993, after its constitution was passed. Nowadays the two co-princes are the Archbishop of Urgell and the President of the French Republic. The economy of the country, of a clearly autarkic nature until the end of the 19th century, was primarily based on traditional activities (cattle trade and textile manufactures, among others) and rural industries (mining and metalwork, mostly), which made Andorra strongly dependent on its neighbouring countries for public infrastructure and services. This favoured the creation of the first French and Spanish schools (in 1900/01 and the 1930s, respectively), which was a reflection of the interest in both countries to guarantee their influence on Andorra. As a result, nowadays Andorra’s public education system coexists with the Spanish and French ones within the Principality (see Table 4.2 for a comparison of the three systems in terms of structure). Beyond any specificities of such an organization there is no mechanism that limits pupils’ access to one or



Principality of Andorra  77

Table 4.2 Andorra’s educational systems: General structure Age

Andorran system

Spanish system

French system

Educació maternal (EA) (from 2½ years of age)

Educación infantil

École maternelle

Primera ensenyança (EA)

Educación primaria

Segona ensenyança (EA)

Educación secundaria obligatòria

 2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9

École élémentaire

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Batxillerat (EA)

Formació professional

Bachillerato

Formación profesional

Enseignement secondaire (collège)

Enseigne­ ment secondaire (lycée)

Enseigne­ ment pro­ fessionnel

other education system. Regardless of country of origin, age on arrival or area where they live in the country, among others, parents are allowed to freely choose the school for their children. As a reaction to the need for a national education system, understood as a basic tool for the articulation of any country’s common set of values and national identity, the first levels of Escola Andorrana, the national public education system (running from kindergarten to upper secondary education – EA, henceforth), started in 1982 and was regulated by 1989 (Government of Andorra, 1989). The general structure of the country’s education system was later introduced in the Qualified Law of Education (Government of Andorra, 1993), the Law regulating the Andorran education system (Government of Andorra, 1994) and the different bilateral agreements signed with Portugal, France and Spain (Government of Andorra, 2001, 2004, 2007). Nowadays, what is known as the Andorran education system includes, apart from Formació Andorrana (see next section), the different EA levels, vocational and adult training, and higher education (for further details see Bastida & Nicolau, 2012; Díaz, 2006). In a clear stance for the articulation of an educational model that advocates respect for diversity, the Government of Andorra establishes that all pupils should be active members of the educational community to which they belong, regardless of ideology, religion, gender and ethnic group. The Qualified Law of Education states, in its first article, that one of the most important aims of education in the Principality is ‘the

78  Multilingualism in European Language Education

promotion of integration and of social and civic participation’, together with ‘the need to teach children to be respectful of diversity, fundamental rights and freedoms, in the practice of tolerance and freedom, within the limits of the democratic principles of pluralism and coexistence’. In its turn, the Law regulating the Andorran education system, in its preliminary chapter, establishes that one of the defining traits of Andorra’s education system is ‘the promotion of integration and active social participation’ among its pupils. In consonance with the general approach pervading educational legislation, the curricular map as regards language teaching in the country is a basic tool for the promotion of active plurilingualism and pluriculturalism. Languages in Education Languages in Andorra’s education systems Catalan in Spanish and French Schools – Formació Andorrana

Long before EA was founded, and decades after the establishment of the first foreign schools, the General Council implemented the Programa d’andorranització (Andorranization Programme) (MI Consell General, 1972), with the aim of promoting knowledge of Andorran identity, geography, history and Catalan among pupils in the country. Currently, these disciplines are still taught in the Spanish and French educational systems as part of the Formació Andorrana programme (the evolution of the Andorranization Programme; FA, henceforth), which offers weekly lessons in Catalan language and Andorran geography, history and culture throughout schooling. As far as the Spanish system is concerned, a distinction must be drawn between public and congregational schools, as the latter are owned by a religious order. In both systems, FA encompasses nursery, primary, secondary education and the corresponding post-compulsory levels. In congregational schools Catalan is used as the language of instruction, and FA does not include it as such, but it offers Andorran geography, history and culture (see Tables 4.3–4.5 for more details). Table 4.3  Formació Andorrana in Spanish public schools: Weekly teaching load Sector

Teaching load

Elementary education (ages 4–11)

Four hours of language and Andorran natural environment

Secondary education (ages 12–15) 1st grade – four hours of Catalan and one hour of Andorra’s social and human sciences 2nd, 3rd and 4th grade – three hours of Catalan and one hour of Andorra’s social and human sciences, plus one hour of common social sciences Upper secondary education (ages 16–17)

Three hours of Catalan and one hour of Andorra’s social and human sciences



Principality of Andorra  79

Table 4.4  Formació Andorrana in Spanish congregational schools: Weekly teaching load Sector

Teaching load

Elementary education (ages 4–11)

1st, 2nd and 3rd grade – two hours of Andorran environment 4th, 5th and 6th grade – one hour of Andorran environment (two hours from 2018/19 onwards)

Secondary and upper secondary education (ages 12–15 and 16–17, respectively)

Three hours of Catalan and one hour of Andorra’s social and human sciences (in secondary education, general social sciences are taught by FA staff, so both areas blend)

Table 4.5  Formació Andorrana in French schools: Weekly teaching load Sector

Teaching load

Elementary education (ages 4–10) Three hours of language and Andorran natural environment Secondary education (ages 11–14)

Three hours of Catalan and one hour of Andorra’s social and human sciences

Upper secondary education (ages 15–17)

Lycee général et technologique (three years): three, two and half and two hours of Catalan, respectively, and one hour of Andorra’s social and human sciences every year Other options: three hours of Catalan and one hour of Andorra’s social and human sciences

General language curricula and plurilingualism

Bearing in mind this general picture, it is logical that Andorra’s educational system should try to promote the use of the official languages of the neighbouring countries. Considering that, beyond structural issues, a language is a cultural artefact that contributes to the transmission and modification of the social context where it operates, we may conclude that the inclusion of these languages in the different curricula is a clear investment in the promotion of the cultural values embodied by each language variety. In other words, nobody would argue against the idea that promoting plurilingualism implies doing so as regards pluriculturalism and respect for both. The language curricula in the different models are clearly based on a long tradition of research encouraging the inclusion of more than one vehicular language in schools. This approach to language learning and teaching originates, among others, in the work by Jim Cummins (1979, 1981, 2005) and his linguistic interdependence hypothesis. Even if Cummins’s theoretical scope (of a rather linguistic and cognitive nature) may well need to be broadened with the incorporation of cultural dimensions, in its time it constituted a powerful theoretical construct for the development of subsequent empirical studies. According to the author, ‘to the extent that instruction in Lx is effective in promoting proficiency in Lx, transfer of this proficiency to Ly will occur provided there is adequate exposure to Ly (either in school or

80  Multilingualism in European Language Education

environment) and adequate motivation to learn Ly’ (Cummins, 1981: 29). In its turn, the hypothesis is based on the assumption that there exists a common underlying proficiency common to all languages that, regardless of superficial levels, such as pronunciation and fluency, makes possible the transfer of cognitive and academic skills from one language to another. The validity of the hypothesis has been widely attested (see for example Huguet & Vila, 1997; Huguet et al., 2000). Apart from studies carried out elsewhere, it is interesting to highlight analyses approaching the situation in Catalonia, due to the cultural and linguistic similarities with Andorra, or other bilingual regions in Spain. See, for example, Huguet et al. (2000) on competence in Spanish and Catalan in Aragon’s eastern fringe, or Suïls and Huguet (2002) on communicative competence in Catalan, Spanish and Aranese in the Aran Valley. Both studies show that being schooled in a system where more than one language is taught or used instru­mentally is not detrimental to the pupils’ communicative competence. On the contrary, the research shows that pupils following the bilingual (or trilingual) programmes are generally as competent in Spanish, the majority language, as their peers in the monolingual programmes. Even though Cummins’s hypothesis and similar theoretical approaches, such as Cook’s notion of multicompetence (Cook, 1992, 1999), have proved to be more than useful, nowadays it is necessary to move one step forward, towards the attainment of multicultural competence (see, for instance, Byram, 1998; Cots & Nussbaum, 2008), which is one of EA’s main goals. Following this line of thought, intercultural competence includes the ability to use not only two or more languages at native-speaker level (in the Chomskian sense). Rather, in Byram’s terms, it is the capacity to mediate between two or more cultures thanks to the four savoirs put forward by the author (Byram, 1998: 111–112): • savoir être – the ability to abandon ethnocentric perceptions of, and attitudes to, other cultures; • savoir apprendre – the ability to observe, collect information and analyse how individuals belonging to other languages and cultures perceive and experience their world; • savoir – knowledge of different aspects of one given culture, understood as a referential system, common to all members of a group, that helps them share beliefs, values and meanings; • savoir faire – the ability to focus on the other three savoirs, integrating them in the interaction with individuals belonging to a given language or culture. Although these theoretical bases may be intuitively found in the different curricula present in the country, one of the defining traits of the educational panorama is that each system depends on its corresponding ministry of education (in Andorra, Madrid and Paris) and therefore



Principality of Andorra  81

follows its own curriculum. Beyond the common theoretical core, this inevitably shapes specific linguistic policies, practices and profiles. Languages in EA

In EA, Catalan and French are the vehicular languages in ele­mentary education, while Spanish and English are introduced progressively. One feature worth mentioning is the fact that in the first two cycles of elementary education (ages six to nine) two teachers are always present in the classroom, one of them using French and the other Catalan as the medium of instruction. As a result of current changes in the system, in the third cycle, instead of having two different vehicular languages used in the classroom, at the same time, parallel teaching sequences in Catalan and French are taught. In the near future, this will be the model throughout ele­mentary education. As regards secondary education, Catalan is the main language of instruction, while French is the vehicular language in arts and Spanish in natural science; Spanish, English and French are also present as subjects (see Table 4.6 for more details). At non-compulsory levels (such as upper secondary education, or vocational training) Catalan is still the main vehicular language, but the presence of other languages may vary according to pupils’ educational paths. Language distribution in French and Spanish schools is simpler. While in the former system French is used as the language of instruction (see Table 4.7), Spanish is used as such in public Spanish schools (see Table 4.8). In Spanish congregational schools (Table 4.9), as mentioned in the previous section, Catalan is the vehicular language. Foreign languages (English in both systems, Spanish in the French system and French in the Spanish system) are taught as subjects in the curricula, with Portuguese as an optional subject in French secondary education. As already discussed, Catalan is used as the language of instruction for Formació Andorrana in French and public Spanish schools. Table 4.6  Languages in EA: Weekly teaching load Elementary (ages 4–11)

Secondary (ages 12–15)

Catalan

Vehicular + 2½ hours (ages 6–7) 2 hours (ages 8–9) 1½ hours (ages 10–11)

Vehicular + 1½ to 2 hours

French

Vehicular + 2½ hours (ages 6–7) 2 hours (ages 8–9) 1½ hours (ages 10–11)

Vehicular arts + 1½ to 2 hours

Spanish

1½ hours (ages 10–11)

Vehicular natural science* + 1½ or 2 hours

English

2 hours (ages 8–9) 2½ hours (ages 10–11)

3 or 4 hours

*Sometimes also taught in French.

82  Multilingualism in European Language Education

Table 4.7  Languages in the French educational system: Weekly teaching load Elementary

Primary

Secondary

Catalan

3 hours

3 hours

4 hours

French

Vehicular

Vehicular

Vehicular + 3 hours

Spanish

0 or 3 hours

English

45 minutes

Portuguese

3 or 4 hours 3 hours (optional)

Table 4.8  Languages in Spanish public schools: Weekly teaching load Elementary

Primary

Secondary

Catalan

4 hours

2 hours

4 hours

Spanish

Vehicular

Vehicular + 3 hours

Vehicular + 3 hours

2 hours

3 hours

French English

2 or 3 hours 2 or 3 hours

Table 4.9  Languages in Spanish congregational schools: Weekly teaching load Elementary

Primary

Secondary

Catalan

Vehicular

Vehicular

Vehicular + 3 hours

Spanish

2 hours

3 hours

3 or 4 hours

3 hours

3 or 4 hours

2 hours

3 or 4 hours

French English

2 hours

Newly arrived pupils in Andorra’s education systems

In general, in all three educational systems, different variables are taken into account in order to articulate the reception of recently arrived pupils: educational level and time of the year when they arrive, country and educational system of origin, languages of instruction in that system and pupils’ writing system and level of competence in L1, among others (see Sendra & Xavier Vila in Chapter 1 of this volume). As regards pupils’ immediate context, culture of origin and academic records are also taken into consideration. At the same time, academic authorities try to gather information about the degree of integration of the family in the country and about its socioeconomic and socioeducational level, inasmuch as these dimensions clearly influence pupils’ academic trajectory. With regard to EA, the Attention Plan for Recently Arrived Pupils (Pla d’atenció als alumnes d’incorporació tardana) encompasses all compulsory levels. Pupils are considered as late entries if they arrive at age six (when compulsory education starts) or later in their lives, irrespective of the educational system they come from, which may have a different structure as regards vehicular languages. Therefore, Catalan is privileged



Principality of Andorra  83

over other languages of the school, and three different itineraries are devised, according to pupils’ needs: • Group A. Pupils who can speak all four languages (Catalan, Spanish, French and English) are incorporated into the mainstream group and follow the ordinary curriculum. • Group B. Pupils who are competent in some of the vehicular languages receive support in the language(s) in which they show difficulties. • Group C. Pupils who are not competent in Catalan devote 70% of their time in school to strengthening their skills in it. Initially they attend lessons with the mainstream group in only three subjects where oral skills are predominant: physical education, arts and music. Pupils’ competence is regularly evaluated and when they attain the necessary competence in Catalan they are incorporated into group B (if necessary). When dealing with the Spanish educational system, bearing in mind that Spanish is the language of instruction, the number of pupils with difficulties in that language is always relatively low. Globally speaking, both public and congregational schools incorporate pupils into their group of reference when they arrive in the country. In general, all schools try to support pupils through direct immersion and personalized educational plans that include not only linguistic elements, but also specific methodo­ logical measures. In Spanish public schools all pupils incorporated into the system in compulsory or upper secondary education who lack the necessary knowledge of Catalan follow a programme with the same workload as FA, for a maximum of three years. Lastly, as regards the French educational system, after analysing their situation and educational needs, in general newly arrived pupils are incorporated into the mainstream group from the beginning, although individual itineraries may be arranged whenever necessary. If this is the case, pupils work in small groups with a Français Langue Étrangère (FLE) teacher during the first term, once or twice a week. Following the teacher’s evaluation, this support may, if necessary, be extended until January or February. Sometimes, depending on the pupil’s background, they may spend half of their time with the FLE teacher. Conclusions

As a result of their relationship with neighbouring countries, geo­ graphical location, size and population, European microstates are a privileged environment for the study of multilingualism. In the Principality of Andorra the diversity of origins in a relatively small population, together with the corresponding heterogeneous sociolinguistic inventory, surely constitute a unique sociocultural context. In parallel with this, Andorra’s sociolinguistic map is an uncommon one: whereas Catalan is

84  Multilingualism in European Language Education

its sole official language, Spanish is the preferred language for most of the population, followed by Portuguese. Against this highly diverse backdrop, in accordance with the country’s recent history, it is easy to understand the complex (and, at the same time, easily accessible) educational panorama, with three different educational systems, each of them with its own curricula and language policies. The current situation, however, does not guarantee per se the existence or development of societal multilingualism and individual plurilingualism. From a general point of view, the education system of the country is structurally multilingual: the global approach to language policy, a priori, offers various options and the necessary conditions in the three models for plurilingualism to develop. This notwithstanding, it remains to be seen to what extent this situation actually leads to the desired results. In other words, the existence of several structures sets the necessary framework for the potential development of plurilingual and pluricultural profiles, but their actual development and characteristics are yet to be described. At the same time, the degree of competence in one or another language is still to be tested, as are the features and practical implications of the different methodological approaches in each of the educational models. In short, research should be carried out in order to clarify: (1) whether pupils in the different Andorran schools are as plurilingual as they are supposed to be; (2) the characteristics of these plurilingual profiles; and (3) the way the latter are conditioned by methodological approaches and favourable policies. Yet, relatively little research has been done in Andorra, or on Andorra, as regards language and multilingualism. The study of language use and attitudes towards the languages of the country is probably the domain where most research can be documented. Most of the work carried out by governmental bodies (see, for example, Government of Andorra, 2011) has concentrated on language use among the population in general (see Lixfeld, 1983, for a seminal study, and also Badia, 2000; Camp, 1996; Pradilla, 1999; Pujol, 2001; Querol, 2006) and focused on attitudes to Catalan. Bearing in mind the impact attitudes have on language learning (Baker, 1992), more recent work has been carried out in the field of language attitudes in Andorran schools from a more global perspective (Díaz-Torrent et al., 2014). The results show that, far from a homogeneous attitudinal profile that may contribute to the construction of a ‘truly’ plurilingual profile, pupils tend to have more favourable attitudes to Catalan and English, while they are rather indifferent as regards French (even though it is one of the languages of instruction throughout schooling) and even more in relation to other languages. This shows that the current organization in EA does not necessarily guarantee a homogeneous attitudinal profile, which in turn may determine the way pupils develop their communicative competence. The same situation may therefore apply to pupils in the other educational models, but there is no research evidence to date.



Principality of Andorra  85

Apart from official reports on the general population, it is only recently that new analyses of more specific groups have been published, teenagers in particular (Bastida et al., 2013; Boix & Farràs, 1994; Díaz-Torrent et al., 2014, 2015; Margarit, 2013; Margarit & Monné, 2010). Other studies analyse the evolution of Catalan (see Sinner, 2004, for an exhaustive historical account), either in comparison with the country’s other languages (Bastida & Nicolau, 2012) or specifically focusing on lexical aspects (Badia et al., 1992; Ballarín, 2006) and neologisms (Bastida, 2014). Even though EA elementary levels are a privileged scenario for an in-depth analysis of language use and conversational dynamics in coteaching oriented classrooms (Cook & Friend, 1995; Friend & Cook, 1996), no work has been done in this field. It would be interesting to carry out longitudinal studies to clarify to what extent language competence benefits from this particular approach to language learning, as compared with other recent approaches, for example English-mediated instruction, yet to be implemented in the country. Again, it would also be necessary to analyse the way interaction in the classroom is tackled within all systems, as this might also help elucidate whether or not methodological differences lead to distinct profiles. Lastly, much attention has been paid to the position of Catalan in other regions where it has been historically minoritized (Catalonia, Valencia and the Balearic Islands). Curiously enough, perhaps because of the privileged status of Catalan in the country, despite the work by Jiménez-Salcedo (2013, 2015), much still remains to be done on the relation­ship between the official language and the minority languages, on the conceptualization of what a minority language is in Andorra and on its relevance at curricular level. Inevitably, discussing minority languages in the country also takes us to the role and presence (or absence) of heritage languages in the curricula, and to the way the educational system caters for the needs of newly arrived pupils. We have seen that all of Andorra’s educational systems articulate reception measures, but it would be interesting to see to what extent they are effective, as we should not take it for granted that the support provided results in the development of communicative competence. The general structure of Andorra’s educational panorama offers a priori favourable conditions for plurilingual learning regardless of the educational model one chooses. Nonetheless, it is necessary to gain a better understanding of how the different schools work and what their general performance is. The description offered here, despite not offering research results, may constitute a good starting point to continue analysing Andorra’s educational reality in comparison with other European (micro)states. This can no doubt help Andorra benefit from their experience, at the same time that the country, thanks to the analysis of its own idiosyncrasy, may also make its contribution to plurilingual language teaching and learning.

86  Multilingualism in European Language Education

Acknowledgements For their valuable assistance in the preparation of this chapter, we would like to show our gratitude to Francesca Junyent and to all the staff at the School Inspection Service of the Andorran Ministry of Education; Francesc Serra, from Formació Andorrana; Yolanda Varela, Counsellor of Education, and Carmen Gómez, technical consultant, at the Council of Education of the Spanish Embassy in Andorra; and Michel Maginot, head of the Délégation à l’enseignement français en Andorre. Thanks are also due to all school principals for their time and patience. Needless to say, any error or inexactitude in the presentation of this work is exclusively our own.

References Badia, M. (2000) Actituds, coneixements i usos lingüístics a Andorra [Linguistic attitudes, knowledge and uses in Andorra]. Treballs de Sociolingüística Catalana [Papers on Catalan Sociolinguistics] 14/15, 159–164. Badia, M., Canyet, R. and Pérez, S. (1992) Vocabulari d’Andorra [Vocabulary of Andorra]. Andorra: Conselleria d’Educació, Cultura i Joventut. Baetens Beardsmore, H. (1986) Bilingualism: Basic Principles. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Baker, C. (1988) Key Issues in Bilingualism and Bilingual Education. Clevedon: Multi­ lingual Matters. Baker, C. (1992) Attitudes and Language. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Baker, C. (1993) Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Ballarín, J.M. (2006) Identitats culturals i usos lingüístics a Andorra [Cultural identities and linguistic uses in Andorra]. Treballs de sociolingüística Catalana [Papers on Catalan Sociolinguistics] 19, 183–220. Bastida, C. (2014) Manlleus del castellà [Spanish loanwords]. In M.T. Cabré, O. Domènec and R. Estopà (eds) Mots Nous en Català: una Panoràmica Geolectal [New Words in Catalan: A Diatopic View] (pp. 115–131). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bastida, C. and Nicolau, M. (2012) Un projecte de prospectiva sociolingüística: el model sistèmic de l’evolució de l’ús del català a Andorra [A prospective sociolinguistic project: The systemic model of the evolution of Catalan usage in Andorra]. Llengua i Ús [Language and Use] 51, 100–112. Bastida, C., Díaz-Torrent, J.M. and Huguet, A. (2013) Usos i actituds lingüístics dels estudiants de Segona Ensenyança d’Andorra. [Uses and attitudes of the secondary education students in Andorra]. Actes de les II Jornades La recerca sociolingüística en l’àmbit de la llengua catalana [Records from the II Seminar: Sociolinguistic Research in the Domain of Catalan Language]. Barcelona: Xarxa Cruscat, Institut d’Estudis Catalans, available at http://blogs.iec.cat/cruscat/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2013/12/13-jornada-​ xc-publicaci%c3%93-provisional.pdf (accessed 20 April 2018). Bialystok, E. (2011) Reshaping the mind: The benefits of bilingualism. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology 65 (4), 229–235. Boix, E. and Farràs, J. (1994) Les Llengües, les identitats i els joves d’Andorra [Languages, identities and Andorran youth]. Treballs de sociolingüística Catalana [Papers on Catalan Sociolinguistics] 12, 91–106. Byram, M. (1998) Cultural identities in multilingual classrooms. In J. Cenoz and F. Genesee (eds) Beyond Bilingualism (pp. 96–116). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Camilleri, A. (1996) Language values and identities: Code switching in secondary classrooms in Malta. Linguistics and Education 8 (1), 85–103. Camp, F. (1996) Coneixements i usos lingüístics de la població d’Andorra [Knowledge and Linguistic Uses of the Population of Andorra]. Andorra: Government of Andorra, Ministeri d’Afers Socials i Culturals, Servei de Política Lingüística.



Principality of Andorra  87

Caruana, S. (2007) Language use and attitudes in Malta. In A. Huguet and D. Lasagabaster (eds) Multilingualism in European Bilingual Contexts: Language Use and Attitudes (pp. 184–207). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Cenoz, J. and Genesee, F. (eds) (1998) Beyond Bilingualism: Multilingualism and Multi­ lingual Education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Cenoz, J. and Genesee, F. (eds) (2001) Looking Beyond Second Language Acquisition: Studies in Tri- and Multilingualism. Tübingen: Stauffenburg. Cook, L. and Friend, M. (1995) Co-teaching: Guidelines for creating effective practices. Focus on Exceptional Children 28 (3), 1–16. Cook, V.J. (1992) Evidence for multi-competence. Language Learning 42 (4), 557–591. Cook, V.J. (1999) Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly 33 (2), 185–209. Cots, J.M. and Nussbaum, L. (2008) Communicative competence and institutional affilia­tion: Interactional processes of identity construction by immigrant students in Catalonia. International Journal of Multilingualism 5 (1), 17–40. Cummins, J. (1979) Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research 49, 222–251. Cummins, J. (1981) The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for language minority students. In California State Department of Education (ed.) Schooling and Language Minority Students: A Theoretical Framework (pp. 3–49). Los Angeles, CA: National Dissemination and Assessment Center. Cummins, J. (2005) La hipótesis de la interdependencia 25 años después: la investigación actual y su aplicación para la educación bilingüe [The hypothesis of interdependence 25 years later: Current research and its application for bilingual education]. In D. Lasagabaster and J. Sierra (eds) Multilingüismo y multiculturalismo en la escuela [Multilingualism and Multiculturalism in School] (pp. 113–132). Barcelona: Horsori. Delgado, M. (1998) La llengua com a vehicle d’integració social [Language as a vehicle for social integration]. In M. Delgado et al., Immigració, Integració i Llengua [Immigration, Integration and Language] (pp. 17–32). Barcelona: CCOO. Díaz, J.M. (2006) El multilingüismo y el multiculturalismo en la Escola Andorrana [Multilingualism and multiculturalism in Andorran schools]. Cultura y Educación [Culture and Education] 18 (2), 173–183. Díaz-Torrent, J.M., Huguet, A., Ianos, A. and Janés, J. (2014) Un estudio de las actitudes lingüísticas en los escolares del Principado de Andorra [A study on linguistic attitudes in Andorran students]. International Journal of Developmental and Educational Psycology 1 (7), 343–352. Díaz-Torrent, J.M., Bastida C. and Nicolau, M. (2015) Promoting multilingualism at the university level. The case of Andorra. In M.P. Safont Jordà and L. Portolés Falomir (eds) Learning and Using Multiple Languages: Current Findings from Research on Multilingualism (pp. 317–342). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Edwards, J. (1994) Multilingualism. London: Routledge. Friend, M. and Cook, L. (1996) Interactions: Collaboration Skills for School Professionals. White Plains: Longman. Genesee, F. and Gandara, P. (1999) Bilingual education programs: A cross-national perspective. Journal of Social Issues 55, 665–685. Genesee, F. and Lindholm-Leary, K. (2007) Dual language education in Canada and the United States. In J. Cummins and N. Hornberger (eds) Encyclopedia of Language and Education (pp. 253–266). New York: Springer. Government of Andorra (1989) Llei d’escola andorrana [Law of Andorran School]. Andorra: Government of Andorra, available at https://www.bopa.ad/bopa/001009/ Pagines/149C2.aspx (accessed 20 April 2018). Government of Andorra (1993) Llei qualificada d’educació [Qualified Law of Education]. Andorra: Government of Andorra, available at https://www.bopa.ad/bopa/005051/ Pagines/645A.aspx (accessed 20 April 2018).

88  Multilingualism in European Language Education

Government of Andorra (1994) Llei d’ordenament del sistema educatiu [Educational System Law]. Andorra: Government of Andorra, available at https://www.bopa.ad/ bopa/006048/Pagines/3B9A.aspx (accessed 20 April 2018). Government of Andorra (2001) Conveni de cooperació educativa entre el Principat d’Andorra i la República Portuguesa [Cooperation Agreement Between Andorra and Portugal]. Andorra: Government of Andorra. Government of Andorra (2004) Proposta d’aprovació del 14-4-2004 de la ratificació del Conveni entre el Govern del Principat d’Andorra i el Govern de la República Francesa en l’àmbit de l’ensenyament [14-4-2004 Proposal for the Ratification of the Agreement Between Andorra and France on the Domain of Education]. Andorra: Government of Andorra. Government of Andorra (2007) Ratificació del Conveni entre el Govern del Principat d’Andorra i el Govern del Regne d’Espanya en matèria educativa [Ratification of the Agreement Between Andorra and Spain on the Domain of Education]. Andorra: Government of Andorra. Government of Andorra (2011) Coneixements i Usos Lingüístics de la Població d’Andorra. Situació Actual i Evolució (1995–2009) [Linguistic Knowledge and Uses of Andorran Population: Current Situation and Evolution (1995–2009)]. Andorra: Government of Andorra, Servei de Política Lingüística, available at https://www.cultura.ad/images/ stories/llengua/coneixements2011.pdf (accessed 20 April 2018). Government of Andorra (2016) Coneixements i usos lingüístics de la població d’Andorra. Situació actual i evolució (1995–2014) [Linguistic Knowledge and Uses of Andorran Population: Current Situation and Evolution (1995–2014)]. Andorra: Government of Andorra, Servei de Política Lingüística, available at https://www.cultura.ad/images/ stories/Llengua/Documents/Coneixements_i_usos_llengua_2014.pdf (accessed 20 April 2018). Government of Andorra (2017) Anuari d’Estadística [Annual of Statistics]. Andorra: Government of Andorra, available at https://www.estadistica.ad/serveiestudis/ web/banc_dades4.asp?lang=1&codi_tema=2&codi_divisio=8&codi_subtemes=8 (accessed 20 April 2018). Huguet, Á. and Vila, I. (1997) Nuevas aportaciones a la Hipótesis de Interdependencia Lingüística en escolares bilingües [New contributions to the linguistic interdependence hypothesis in bilingual schools]. Infancia y Aprendizaje [Childhood and Learning] 79, 21–34. Huguet, Á., Vila, I. and Llurda, E. (2000) Minority language education in unbalanced bilingual situations: A case for the linguistic interdependence hypothesis. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 29 (3), 313–333. Huguet, Á., Sansó, C., Díaz, J.M. and Navarro, J.L. (2014) Inmigración y escuela en contextos plurilingües. El caso de Catalunya y Andorra [Immigration and school in plurilingual contexts. The case of Catalonia and Andorra]. International Journal of Developmental and Educational Psychology 1 (7), 393–405. Jiménez-Salcedo, J. (2013) Normalisation du catalán et gestión des minorités linguistiques dans la Principauté d’Andorre [Catalan normalization and management of linguistic minorities in Andorra]. In C. Alén (ed.) Gestion des minorités linguistiques dans l’Europe du XXIe siècle [Management of Linguistic Minorities in 21st-Century Europe] (pp. 73–83). Limoges: Éditions Lambert-Lucas. Jiménez-Salcedo, J. (2015) El Principado de Andorra: una política lingüística en un contexto microestatal y multilingüe [Andorra: Linguistic policy in a microstate and multilingual context]. In J. Cagiao and J. Jiménez-Salcedo (eds) Políticas lingüísticas en democracias multilingües, ¿es evitable el conflicto? [Linguistic Policies in Multilingual Democracies: Is Conflict Avoidable?] (pp. 209–225). Madrid: Los Libros de la Catarata. Lixfeld, V. (1983) Alguns resultats d’una enquesta sociolingüística a les valls d’Andorra [Some results from a sociolinguistic survey in the valleys of Andorra]. In Actes del sisè Colloqui Internacional de Llengua i Literatura Catalanes: Roma 28 setembre-2 octubre



Principality of Andorra  89

1982 [Proceedings of the Sixth International Colloquium of Catalan Language and Literature: Rome, 28 September to 2 October 1982]. Barcelona: Publicacions de l’Abadia de Montserrat. Margarit, E. (2013) L’escenari sociolingüístic de la població escolar d’Andorra [The sociolinguistic scene of Andorran students]. Unpublished manuscript available at https:// www.govern.ad/cultura/item/download/136_96635499cb2c91368351c3288f5d2e06 (accessed January 2018). Margarit, E. and Monné, A. (2010) Joves i Llengües a Andorra [Youth and Language in Andorra]. Andorra: Government of Andorra. MI Consell General (1972) Nota informe sobre l’andorranització [Note on Andorranization]. Andorra la Vella: MI Consell General. Paradis, J., Genesee, F. and Crago, M.B. (2013) Dual Language Development and Disorders. London: Paul H. Brookes Publishing. Phillipson, R. (1992) Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pradilla, M.À. (ed.) (1999) La Llengua Catalana al Tombant del Mil·lenni: Aproximació Sociolingüística [Catalan Language Before the New Millenium: Sociolinguistic Aproximation]. Barcelona: Empúries. Pujol, M. (2001) La Llengua catalana al Principat d’Andorra: situació actual i evolució 1995-1999 [Catalan language in Andorra: Current situation and evolution 1995–1999]. Llengua i ús [Language and Use] 22, 66–70. Querol, E. (2006) Qui parla català a Andorra i per què? [Who speaks Catalan in Andorra and why?] Treballs de sociolingüística Catalana [Papers on Catalan Sociolinguistics] 19, 241–267. Ramírez, J.D. (1992) Executive summary. Bilingual Research Journal 16, 1–62. Redinger, D. (2010a) Language attitudes and code-switching behaviour in a multilingual educational context: The case of Luxembourg. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of York, available at https://core.kmi.open.ac.uk/download/pdf/43239.pdf (accessed January 2018). Redinger, D. (2010b) Language planning and policy on linguistic boundaries: The case of Luxembourgish. In R.M. Millar (ed.) Marginal Dialects: Scotland, Ireland and Beyond (pp. 90–106). Aberdeen: Forum for Research on the Languages of Scotland and Ireland. Sciriha, L. (2001) Trilingualism in Malta: Social and educational perspectives. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 4, 23–37. Sinner, C. (2004) Sprachen und Sprachkontakt in Andorra: ein Überblick. Zeitschrift für katalanistik 17, 91–110. Suïls, J. and Huguet, Á. (2002) Aportacions a la teoria de la interdependencia lingüística: anàlisi de tres models d’escolarització plurilingüe a la Vall d’Aran [Contributions to the linguistic interdependence hypothesis: Analysis of three models of plurilingual schooling in the Valley of Aran]. Treballs de Sociolingüística Catalana [Papers on Catalan Sociolinguistics] 16, 261–274.

5 France Juan Jiménez-Salcedo

Introduction and Contextualization

Multilingualism in France has been traditionally managed from a point of view which tends to consider migrant and vernacular languages as disruptive to the internal cohesion of the ‘République’. In that sense, if language planning regarding French could be considered as very active, as has been pointed out by authors such as Spolsky (2004), the same cannot be said for other languages, banished from a French monolingual school in which ethnocultural differences simply do not exist. In such a context of hostility to multiculturalism, reflected in a consequent corpus of educational acts, several schools have tried to give an answer to this issue by different experiences of language awareness, such as those carried out by Christine Hélot in Alsace. This chapter focuses on a double issue: on the one hand, the implementation of particular strategies of planning regarding vernacular languages; and on the other hand, the much more complex issue of the migrants’ languages and their real presence (and legal absence) in French schools. Contextualization

The multilingual problem of France differs very little from what is seen in other European countries. When it comes to classifying languages in France, the literature differentiates between territorial languages – in other words, languages with sociocultural and geographical roots within France – and non-territorial languages – languages brought by ethno­ cultural groups arriving in France within a migratory context (Cerquiglini, 2003; Olivesi, 2000). Territorial languages are those that government structures consider regional languages. One could doubt the scientific quality of this lexical invention, which is generally applied in the field of education (Huck, 1999). The term is particularly ambiguous within the French context because certain so-called regional languages are spoken by people outside its national borders, where there are a greater number of speakers. Thus, referring to these languages as regional can be understood only when a cross-border region is identified. Scientific literature has hijacked the term ‘regional languages’ to include a number 90



France 91

of languages of metropolitan France, including: Alsatian, Basque, Breton, Catalan, Corsican, Flemish and Occitan (Giordan, 1992). Regarding this list – which could also include languages that have all but disappeared, such as Franco-Provençal, and which fails to include numerous languages of French regions overseas – one must point out the various aspects that stress the limited appropriateness of the term regional. Alsatian and Flemish stem from German and Dutch, respectively. Basque and Catalan are languages with much greater cultural and social dynamics from across political borders. Corsican is a polynomic language with obvious ties to linguistic forms found on the Italian peninsula (Chiorboli, 1999) while Occitan is a language that possesses an ancient literary tradition dating back to the Middle Ages. Non-territorialized languages are those that lack a specific territory in France, although communities speaking those languages may be identified in specific migrant regions within the country. For the most part, those communities reside in urban areas. Today, very few newcomers establish their residence in the French countryside and their arrival is linked to seasonal activities such as the grape harvest. In France, there is a large diversity of ethnocultural groups. Deprez (2000) differentiates three main categories based on the migratory wave to which they belong. First of all, ‘economic immigrants’ have arrived in France since the end of the 19th century and their origin is ever more distant from the host country. These include adjacent countries such as Spain and Belgium – without forsaking Italy and Portugal – eastern Europe and the former colonies in northern Africa. By the end of the 20th century and the onset of the 21st century, economic immigration to France comes from faraway lands, such as Southeast Asia. Handling the question of linguistic diversity arises, as it is not a matter of inhabitants from former colonies. A second category is composed of asylum seekers and women living in France through family reunification. In fact, this is the largest immigrant population group, together with that of students. The third group includes EU citizens who live in France not as a consequence of a migratory project but rather within the context of academic mobility (exchange programmes) or work (internships at companies). One of the key questions regarding these migrant communities is the preservation of their native tongue, a phenomenon analysed in the literature. Deprez (2000) shows how her informants did not think in terms of preservation or transmission of the language but rather in terms of circulation between languages. The growing nondescript nature of displacements, together with the fact that a considerable proportion of the ethnocultural population in France is of European or North African origin, means that migration is not perceived in absolute terms. A growing number of families spend their holiday in their country of origin. This, in turn, provides their children with the opportunity to perceive that their native language is as alive and commonplace as French, which is

92  Multilingualism in European Language Education

the omnipresent host language of the educational system. The sample analysed by Deprez at the end of the 1980s (see Deprez, 1990) and 10 years later field work carried out by Tribalat et al. (1996) and her team showed a high rate of native language maintenance in the third generation. This holds true not only in terms of passive comprehension but also in oral expression within ethnocultural groups of Iberian (Spanish and Portuguese) and Moroccan origin. Initially, this linguistic diversity is seen at school, where it must be handled adequately. In this chapter, we will discuss how the educational system circumvents the existence of bilingual students, whether emergent (García & Kleifgen, 2010) or confirmed, who are seen as a problem to be solved by means of compensation strategies instead of favouring the development of their own native language heritage. In such cases, one cannot talk about the survival of linguistic heritage in a society characterized by a significant degree of diversity: the languages of ethnocultural groups in France – at least those analysed in the literature due to their demographic relevance – are not delicate gems that are safeguarded from external influences but, rather, they are live bodies that are perceived as appropriate and productive communication tools. Proof of this is the example of the interaction between sub-Saharan African parents and children (Leconte, 1998) who use both languages – French and their native African language. Once again, classic concepts of migratory sociolinguistics, such as intergenerational linguistic trans­ mission, are hardly productive within contemporary French urban contexts in which the negotiation of significance forces continues circulation between languages. For this purpose, Deprez (2000) underscores how, in her set of audio conversations within families of ethnocultural origin, there are recurring metalinguistic sequences whose main objective is to define or clarify terms or concepts or to correct a grammar mistake. This phenomenon is commonplace when a native language coexists with French, with the latter being the language that the child brings home from school in a dual capacity: as the language used by peers and as the academic language. The legal and social framework of the language policy

We have seen how, in general terms, the French multilingual context differs very little from that of any other major European country. That may be summarized in the coexistence of a national language with a certain number of territorial linguistic minorities and with other active migration languages. However, language policy is conditioned by a political element that differentiates France from adjacent democracies: the question of the indivisibility of the Republic and the concept of citizen­ship that derives from it. If the Republic is the only conceptual space in which citizens exercise their rights, nothing can differentiate citizens beyond their respective nature as individuals in direct relationship with the Republic, without any intermediating bodies or infragovernmental groups that are



France 93

susceptible to interference in the relationship between the nation and its citizens: this is the prerequisite to refuse the recognition of minorities and therefore their language (Bui-Xuan, 2004), whether or not said language is territorial. To analyse the genesis of the Republican concept of citizenship and the role played in the French language falls outside the scope of this chapter. Nonetheless, literature has granted historic relevance to the role played by the Revolution in the configuration of languages in France. One must remember that the centralist tendencies were launched during the Ancien Régime (Daups, 2002) and were maintained whatever government policy may have been (Encrevé, 2002). History maintains the publication of the Villers-Cotterêts ordinance in 1539 as the starting point for the imposition of French as the language of public administration (Frangi, 2003) but the literature suggests that the will of the King was not so much to impose French in the place of regional languages, mainly used at that time, but to remove Latin from judicial administration (Encrevé, 2002). The French Revolution constituted an important ideological vector for the imposition of French as a common language in the place of regional languages as these were con­sidered to be a tool for obfuscation by the Church (Bouton, 1999; Carbasse, 1995). However, the means to attain this were very limited, as proven by the fact that in the mid-19th century a majority of the population still spoke regional languages – even a quarter of the inhabitants spoke no French at all (Encrevé, 2002). It was not until the coming of the Third Republic and its educational plans that French immersion became a reality (Giblin, 2002), to the extent that regional languages became irrelevant in the public education system. That inertia was altered in 1951, when the Deixonne Law was passed. This law was the instrument that authorized the learning of certain regional languages, but overlooked Flemish, Corsican and Alsatian, as they were considered dialects of Dutch, Italian and German, respectively, and therefore foreign languages (Giblin, 2002). The law was modified by decree on 16 January 1974 to include Corsican and on 12 May 1981 to add Tahitian. A decree dated 20 October 1992 expanded the application of the legislation to include four Melanesian languages (Bui-Xuan, 2004). The application of bilingual educational systems to include French and regional languages began to develop once a memorandum by Minister Savary was published (Official Gazette, number 26, 1 July 1982). This proposal advocated the experimental creation of bilingual sections. The actual teaching methods would be detailed and developed in the Bayrou memorandum in 1995 (Official Gazette, number 16, 20 April 1995) (BuiXuan, 2004; Loyer, 2002), which established the presence of regional languages as languages for learning together with French. Simultaneously, the role of French was consolidated with its constitutional declaration as the language of the Republic, which, surprisingly, was not registered as a supreme ruling until 1992. French as the national language was reinforced

94  Multilingualism in European Language Education

constitutionally on 4 August 1994 with the approval of the Toubon law (Bui-Xuan, 2004). In addition to this legislation – a milestone in the composition of regional languages in France – is the controversy regarding the ratification of the Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, approved by the Council of Europe on 5 November 1992 and open to being signed by the member states from 1 February 1995. Above all else, the Charter commits the signatory countries to launch specific actions but with sufficient manoeuvring space to select sections of the text which they are willing to develop at the national level (Loyer, 2002). France signed the Charter on 7 May 1999. However, a few days after the then President of the Republic, Jacques Chirac, in application of a pro­cedure foreseen in article 54 of the French constitution (Mélin-­Soucramanien, 1999), referred the adaptation of the text to the Constitutional Council. It ruled (ruling 99-412 DC of 15 June 1999) that the Charter could not be ratified without reforming article 2 of the constitution (Olivesi, 2000). It is noteworthy that this same article had been modified on 25 June 1992 to include the French language among its fundamental principles (‘the language of the Republic is French’), together with the indivisibility, the laicism and social and democratic nature of the state (Olivesi, 2000). Encrevé (2002) points out that this incorporation of language is nothing less than an artificial way to convert French into an official language. Historically, language was not part of Republican symbols, as established after the Revolution. Moreover, this official procedure contrasts with the use of constitutional rights, which generally declares a language to be official in a specific article. This decision was relatively foreseeable when considering the mandate of 24 September 1996 by which the Council of State established that the obligations instituted in articles 9 and 10 of the Charter enshrined the right of citizens to use regional or minority languages when dealing with public administration and justice. Alternatively, in his government report, constitutionalist Guy Carcassonne (1998) recommended that the ratification should be accompanied by an explanatory statement by the President of the Republic to define what is understood as a group in the specific application of the Charter to French national law (Bui-Xuan, 2004). In the end, this statement was included but the Constitutional Council, along the same line as decided previously by the Council of State, considered it non-binding as it was an interpretive instrument for reference only in the case of litigation, but that did not prevent the Council from assessing the constitutionality of the text (Daups, 2002; Mélin-Soucramanien, 1999). Furthermore, the ruling considered that the Charter’s provisions were contrary to the principles of equality stated in article 1; French policy does not recognize the existence of intermediate bodies between the state and the citizen. Thus, it is contrary to the principle recognizing minorities, which, according to the constitutional judge, enshrined the recognition



France 95

of minority language groups in the public sphere affecting the Charter (Daups, 2002; Mélin-Soucramanien, 1999). The constitutional interpreta­ tion is far from surprising, as it summons the classical weaponry of French constitutionalism, as well as the strength of Republican values (Mélin-Soucramanien, 1999): indivisibility of the Republic – despite the fact that since the 1998 constitutional revision relative to the territory of New Caledonia, France already shares sovereignty with one of its overseas territories and that the ratification of European Union treaties, mainly that of Maastricht, implies some ceding of sovereignty (Bui-Xuan, 2004; Olivesi, 2000) – and the unity of the French people. This follows the same doctrine as the annulment of the Corsica Statute (decision number 91-290 DC, in 1991), in which a reference was made to the Corsican people as part of the French people, even if it was just a doctrinal statement of solely symbolic nature (Mélin-Soucramanien, 1999). Despite the fact that this constitutional decision was expected, the literature seems divided in its analysis. Some authors consider that the Council had no other choice, as it is evident that certain principles announced in the Charter would have consequences for linguistic usage in the civil service, where French is officially the single language (MélinSoucramanien, 1999). The Charter’s promotion (article 7.1) of the public and private use of regional and minority languages by adopting measures for these to be used in the administration, justice, education and culture (Giblin, 2002) is interpreted by the Council as contrary to article 2 of the constitution, as it presumes the capacity to grant the right to use languages other than French before the administration (Mélin-Soucramanien, 1999). A section of the literature (Olivesi, 2000) nonetheless, underlines that the Charter by no means establishes an ethnic concept for linguistic minorities; rather, it refers to languages as cultural heritage that is to be preserved. Although there are references to groups and territories, these are used to explain the actual concept of minority language, given that it designates the group of speakers to have a lesser number than those speaking the majority language and who are located in a specific geographical location. However, in the extensive definitions used in the Charter, the objective of which is to better understand the complexity of languages in Europe, these groups may also lack a specific territory or be settled in linguistic territories that fail to coincide with existing administrative divisions, as is the case of France, where languages vary from Flemish – found only in the municipality of Dunkirk – to Occitan, which covers various regions. Moreover, it must be emphasized that the linguistic rights of ethno­ cultural groups are not recognized by the Charter. This, in turn, could be seen as contradictory to the spirit of the instrument, although it is justified in the fact that languages subject to protection are those making up the country’s national heritage (Giblin, 2002). This idea might be difficult to defend when considering that certain groups have been residing in France for generations.

96  Multilingualism in European Language Education

Languages in Education

Languages within the French education system are subject to an ideological ranking that reflects the aforementioned context: French is the national language; therefore, it enjoys privileges within the scope of linguistic regulation at school. National unity and social cohesion are founded at school (Hélot, 2008), sustained by the French language on the one hand and on the other by failing to recognize groups or minorities. At school, this denotes the absence of students’ ethnocultural native linguistic repertoire, as well as recurrent obstacles suffered by regional languages to even minimal implantation. In the case of students who only recently have joined the French school system, field work has pointed out the negative perception that these students have of their teachers (Varro, 2003). In this case, bilingualism is seen as a problem and well beyond ethnic prejudice; it is due to the opinion that students’ native languages are an obstacle to attaining optimal skill in French as a language. This prejudice was already seen in Third Republic schools with regard to students speaking their native regional language. In this unfavourable multilingual context, regional languages have found a degree of acceptance as taught languages, while prestigious foreign languages are slowly finding a place in bilingual education where French continues to be the main reference. In this sense, one must remember that it is not just any variant of French, but rather its cultured and correct variant, presented as the only possible linguistic opportunity for the educational context (Hélot, 2008). The legislator has pointed out the importance of the French language in each new curriculum; proof of this are the two and a half daily hours of French required since 2002. Further­more, since 1990 the system has granted an important role to early learning of foreign languages. The language catalogue is quite extensive, at least when considering the literal wording of the law (Hélot, 2006). In terms of bilingual education, the first European sections began to operate in France in the early 1990s, after the publication of the Ministry of Education memorandum no. 92-234 on 19 August 1992. The system has been designed for secondary students, as of quatrième (13 years of age), although in practice and despite what was established in the first memorandum from the Ministry, students are eligible in seconde (15 years of age), as in upper secondary, after having passed an accreditation exam (brevet) to denote passage from collège (primary school) to lycée (secondary school). The memorandum foresees language reinforcement in a foreign language during the first two years of incorporation into the system, then to receive certain non-language subjects – or some of them – in the selected language. This could be called bilingual education based essentially on the CLIL (content and language integrated learning) approach (Hélot, 2008). This ‘reinforced’ learning contrasts with the traditional French education model, which is based on a large number of class



France 97

hours (see Ianos et al., Chapter 8 of this volume). The objective behind the ‘reinforcement’ is to improve students’ skills in a foreign language without increasing the number of class hours (Hélot, 2008). Languages proposed, in theory, by the Ministry – although the final list obviously depends on the individual school – include German, English, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese and Russian. There is a similar mechanism for the so-called Oriental languages, available only at general education centres – not in those that offer vocational training – and where the languages include Arabic, Chinese, Japanese and Vietnamese. The term section could be seen to imply that students are members of a separate class at school. However, the reality is that these students are registered in standard groups and only leave that group to attend non-linguistic classes given in a foreign language or to take language reinforcement classes (Hélot, 2006, 2008). According to data from the French Ministry of Education,more than 200,000 students are registered in European or Oriental language sections.1 The public information currently available does not provide a breakdown by sections, but the recent literature points out the marginal character of the Oriental language sections in comparison with European sections (Hélot, 2008: 65). Another category is the international sections. These preceded European sections in terms of implementation dates and are based on bilateral academic agreements, valid both for educational centres in France and for education purposes outside its borders. The uniqueness of the model is that it is not limited to the French curriculum, but also includes the educational programmes of the partner country. In this sense, it is not only a bilingual model, but also a bicultural or binational system, given that the educational authorities of both countries mutually recognize the reciprocal legitimacy of the studies. These sections do not explicitly exclude French-speaking single-language students, but seem more focused on the children of ex-pats or bilingual French nationals, the former being students who settle in a country due to the professional promotion of their parents, for the most part within the scope of public international function or business. Based on data from the French Ministry of Education,2 for the academic year 2016/17, 478 international sections have been foreseen (USA, UK, Arabic, Brazilian, Chinese, Danish, Spanish, Italian, Japanese, Dutch, Norwegian, Polish, Portuguese, Russian and Swedish), in 284 centres, both in France and abroad. Lastly, the bilingual teaching model for regional languages must be discussed. The presence of such languages in the public school system, tolerated since 1951 (Bui-Xuan, 2004), is governed by other parameters than the European or international sections, in terms of both the class hours for a second language (L2)3 – which could be equal – and the age when exposure to that language begins. In this case, it is very early, as it is a mother tongue for some of the pupils (Hélot, 2008). In scientific terms, the proposed model for regional languages would be partial immersion,

98  Multilingualism in European Language Education

as at least 50% of all class hours are taught in French. The objective is for regional languages to become a standard communication tool. Thus, the language is effectively used as a vehicle and works as the first language for students when it comes to managing the classroom, unlike the CLIL model in European or Oriental language sections (Hélot, 2008). Several bilingual teaching models in France take into account the fact that some of these languages are spoken outside the country, as we have pointed out. In that sense, we will see in the following concluding section of this chapter how the specific link between German and Alsatian is still problematic, since the model of bilingual sections in this region establishes a clear-cut distinction between dialect speakers using Alsatian as a language of instruction and monolingual French speakers learning German but not Alsatian. Total immersion in a regional language is applied only in private schools. These schools are not integrated into the public system as they have been deemed unconstitutional on two occasions: they fail to comply with article 2 of the French constitution (Hélot, 2008). Council of State case law follows along this same line, as it had already blocked the integration of Diwan schools – which are full Breton language immersion centres – into the public education system (Loyer, 2002) in a ruling from 30 October 2001. Conclusions

The French model perpetuates the classic distinction established in litera­ture (De Mejia, 2002; Harding & Riley, 1986; Skutnabb-Kangas, 1981) between elitist bilingualism, involving the major international languages, and minority bilingualism (‘folk’ bilingualism), whether ethno­cultural in origin (immigrant bilingualism in the terms of Lüdi & Py, 1986) or related to national minorities. The privileged model is that of added bilingualism, one in which the first language is preserved and a prestigious second language is added. In the case of ethnocultural groups, with a school that continues to consider immigrant bilingualism as problematic, it is evident that the educational model imposes a negative bilingual context for students. As Hélot (2006) pointed out, it is paradoxical that the state invests major effort in students acquiring foreign languages while at the same time scorning the linguistic asset provided by children of immigrant origin to the educational system; in other words, so many resources are being dedicated to make single-language students bilingual while at the same time other resources are being invested in emerging bilingual students – who are bilingual thanks to their linguistic heritage within a migratory context and not because they belong to an elite category of ex-pats – to remove that language to make them single-language speakers (Hélot, 2008). It is eye-catching that learned bilingualism is an opportunity while



France 99

natural bilingualism, attained outside the classroom, is perceived as a problem. This not only implies a major material effort on behalf of the government but, to a lesser degree, it transmits a negative image to the child of immigrant origin, who is straightjacketed at school and is unable to integrate linguistic practices in his or her learning. This, in turn, has evident results in learning productivity while it transmits a stagnant and hardly dynamic image, as that child’s linguistic repertoire is by definition greater than that of a French child speaking a single language. This bilingual child’s background could increase linguistic awareness among her or his peers and within the actual educational centre. Hélot (2006) stated that the European sections are pedagogical instruments that focus solely on single-language French-speaking children who have a good domain of their mother tongue and who voluntarily venture to perfect a second language. Of course, this second language is con­ sidered by the system as an international communication tool. Its written nature is emphasized using a learning model that mimics the method used to learn and perfect the initial language or L1. In this regard, the use of those sections as instruments of elitist bilingualism is more than evident. An elitist destination – although more explicit – is the international sections, given that in many cases students have a foreign language as their initial language. The difference resides in that in this case the native language is appreciated; it is considered to be not only a cultural but also an economic asset, especially in the light of the student’s future pro­ fession. This language not only must be preserved, but it must be shared with peers. If, in the case of ethnocultural languages, the student’s native tongue was a problem as it hindered her or his ability to conveniently acquire an acceptable level of French, the language of ex-pats must be maintained and contribute to enriching the classroom. This is in stark contrast to the perception that immigrant languages must be hidden at school as they represent an element of linguistic distortion. Bilingualism in students pertaining to international sections is recognized, while ethno­ cultural bilingualism is considered to be a problem that must be solved by means of convergence towards the main language of instruction (French) and conditioned by a single-language ideology (Hélot, 2008). Even in the sections for Oriental languages, the target population is French speaking and their conception of learning the language is based on a written language academic model, which is extremely problematic in languages with various dialects such as Arabic. In the case of native student speakers of any of these Oriental languages, the structure of the programme is similar to that in the European sections, which neutralizes any identification with the culture of origin (Hélot, 2008). Therefore, these sections do not seem to be destined to maintain or develop the student’s native tongue. The fact that there is a differentiation between European and Oriental sections is down to an important ideological bias, as pointed out by Hélot (2008), as the terminology used by the educational

100  Multilingualism in European Language Education

administration seems to designate an exotic set of languages entrenched in their respective political boundaries when, in reality, these are languages that are European and being used in a wide range of dialect variants, spoken by ethnocultural groups established on French soil. Bilingualism among children using regional languages is a different case, as their language is, to a certain extent, appreciated by schools and it generates learning. On the other hand, the presence of these languages in parity models for bilingual learning is perceived by neither the academic institutions nor the student’s parents as a threat to learning French. Undoubtedly, this is due to the limited rate of intergenerational transmission of regional languages at this point in time. Having said this, one can think that the government has little interest in the development of French/regional languages parity models, which are not perceived to be comparable to the prestigious bilingual ones (Baker & Prys Jones, 1998). Some elements lead one to think this, chiefly the optional nature of these models, the fact that immersion is only partial at public schools (Hélot, 2006) and the fact that these sections are a minority. As we have pointed out, another question to be considered is whether certain so-called ‘regional’ languages within the context of France are, in fact, international languages. The main example of this is the case of Alsatian. The academic memorandum on regional language and culture in Alsace, in 1982, differentiated two types of German students as of collège: those for whom German was a foreign language and who studied the language following the same methodology and materials as the rest of the country – the so-called normal route (Grasser, 1991) – and those who had a ‘dialect basis’ and therefore learned German faster. It is noteworthy that these students were included in a specific regional route (Grasser, 1991) to perfect their academic German, without forsaking documents related to Alsatian culture. According to Hélot (2006), when introducing bilingual learning in Alsace, the legislator’s intention was not to promote Alsatian teaching/ learning. Rather, the idea was to introduce a model in which the normative reference language is German. According to the author, this does not elevate the status of Alsatian, but rather establishes the language–dialect dichotomy in which the prestigious variant is Hochdeutsch. Likewise, it creates a dynamic in which single-language French-speaking children learn German – not Alsatian – and those speaking the dialect fail to see their language appreciated as a cultured variant and a possible instrument for academic communication. It is true that this learning model should be preceded by language awareness strategies that teach students the value of linguistic variety in the classroom – mainly in the more delicate cases of national minorities like the Alsatian one – but, this being said, one cannot deny the place held by Alsatian within the family of German languages and the existing tradition that considers Hochdeutsch as the cultured variant of reference. This



France 101

would obviously be an indication of the development of dialect families. The definition by Deyon, who was the authority on public education in Alsace, seems to be the most appropriate: the regional language in Alsace stems from Alsatian dialects, with the written expression being German. Thus, German is a regional language in France (Deyon, cited in Huck, 1999). The fact that Alsatian is used as a language name is already the result of a political and cultural under­standing, given that Alsatian is a set of Germanic and French dialects spoken in the region of Alsace (Huck, 1999). It is a convention whose extralinguistic nature is comparable to the term ‘German’. That strategy, although it perpetuates the position of Alsatian as a dialect, at least has the virtue to attract single-language French-speaking students in the bilingual sections and it creates an area for communication and cultural exchange on both sides of the Rhine River. This, in turn, should result in the cultural development of Alsatia as a bilingual region. It is not essentially negative that Hochdeutsch is considered the privileged academic variant. This is precisely what initially allowed the language to be incorporated at the centre of the regional culture programmes at school (Huck, 1999). Whatever the case may be, the possible controversy regarding the denomination of Alsatian or the variant to be taught at school – a controversy seen in other territories outside France, such as Flanders in Belgium or the Valencian community in Spain – proves just how inappropriate the term ‘regional’ may be for languages that have full recognition and that should be considered national languages. In conclusion, it could be stated that the sociolinguistic situation in France differs very little from that in any of its surrounding countries. Yet, this situation has been altered by language policies that are overly influenced by a specific relationship between citizens and the government. In this case, one can see the negative side of the French situation. If foreign languages have been incorporated into the education system thanks to the bilingual sections, these continue, even today, to be minority and elitist, as shown by the mediocre results of French students in foreign languages. On the other hand, the linguistic repertoire of students from immigrant families who retain their mother tongue even to the third generation fail to enjoy any recognition from educational institutions; on the contrary, this repertoire is mostly perceived as a problem that can be solved only by strategies that are highly influenced by a single-language ideology. Regional languages are on the verge of extinction if we consider the limited inter­ generational transmission rate. Such languages are maintained as museum pieces in partial immersion models that are clearly insufficient to correct the situation in which French dominates the public sphere. The main theme described herein is the omnipresence of the French language, considered as the state model in which the legislator and the interpreter of the law overlook the complexity of society to reduce it to a sterile citizenship that has removed even the least recognition of

102  Multilingualism in European Language Education

difference. In that model, the place for minority languages is conditioned by the concomitant presence of French as the sole language of public administration, and therefore the instruction language of reference at school. In the long term, this leads to the death by suffocation of all other languages in the public sphere. The languages of France, whether regional or from ethnocultural groups, need their own space where they can grow and develop. This is the only way to guarantee their survival and harmonic coexistence with the language of the state. Notes (1) See the Ministry’s website at http://www.education.gouv.fr/cid2497/les-sectionseuropeennes-et-de-langues-orientales.html (accessed January 2019). (2) See the Eduscol website at http://eduscol.education.fr/pid23147/sections-internationales. html (accessed January 2019). (3) Although it could be an L1 for the student, here the same name is used as for the European and Oriental language sections to emphasize the similarities between the two. This is especially true when considering the very low rate of intergenerational transmission of regional languages in France, where students perceive this language as an L2.

References Baker, C. and Prys Jones, S. (1998) Encyclopaedia on Bilingualism and Bilingual Education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Bouton, P. (1999) Langue nationale et langues regionales à l’école: le débat politique de 1925. Mots 61, 29–48. Bui-Xuan, O. (2004) Langues regionales et droit public français: état des lieux. Pouvoirs locaux 61 (2), 141–147. Carbasse, J.M. (1995) Langue de la nation et ‘idiomes grossiers’: le pluralisme linguistique sous le niveau Jacobin. In H. Van Goethem, L. Waelkens and K. Breugelmans (eds) Libertés, pluralisme et droit: une approche historique. Brussels: Bruylant. Carcasonne, G. (1998) Étude sur la compatibilité entre la Charte européenne des langues regionales et minoritaires et la Constitution. Paris: La documentation française. Cerquiglini, B. (2003) Les langues de France. Paris: Presses universitaires de France. Chiorboli, J. (1999) La langue corse à la fin du XXe siècle. Officialisation et conflit des normes. In C. Clairis, D. Costaouec and J.B. Coyos (eds) Langues et cultures régionales de France. État des lieux, enseignement, politiques. Paris: L’Harmattan. Daups, T. (2002) Le compromis constitutionnel entre la langue de la République et les langues regionales ou les limites et les potentialités de l’unicité. Les petites afiches 146, 18–22. De Mejia, A.M. (2002) Power, Prestige and Bilingualism: International Perspectives on Elite Bilingual Education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Deprez, C. (1990) Comment est-on bilingue en famille? Éléments de méthodologie. La Linguistique 26 (2), 95–105. Deprez, C. (2000) Le jeu des langues dans les familles bilingües d’origine étrangère. Estudios de sociolingüística 1 (1), 59–74. Encrevé, P. (2002) La langue de la République. Pouvoirs locaux 100, 123–136. Frangi, M. (2003) État, langue et droit en France. Revue du droit public 6, 1607–1632. García, O. and Kleifgen, J. (2010) Educating Emergent Bilinguals: Policies, Programs and Practices for English Language Learners. New York: Teachers College Press.



France 103

Giblin, B. (2002) Langues et territoires: une question géopolitique. Hérodote 105 (2), 3–14. Giordan, H. (1992) Les langues de France: de l’hégémonie républicaine à la démission de l’État. In H. Giordan (ed.) Les minorités en Europe. Droits linguistiques et Droits de l’Homme. Paris: Kimé. Grasser, B. (1991) Le programme Langues et cultures regionales en Alsace (1982–1990). Strasbourg: CRDP. Harding, E. and Riley, P. (1986) The Bilingual Family: A Handbook for Parents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hélot, C. (2006) Bridging the gap between prestigious bilingualism and the bilingualism of minorities: Towards an integrated perspective of multilingualism in the French education context. In M.Ó. Laoirie (eds) Multilingualism in Educational Settings. Berlin: Schneider Verlag. Hélot, C. (2008) ‘Mais d’où est-ce qu’il sort ce bilinguisme?’ La notion de bilinguisme dans l’espace scolaire français. In G. Budach, J. Erfurt and D.M. Kunkel (eds) Écoles plurilingues – multilingual schools: Konzepte, Institutionen und Akteure. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Huck, D. (1999) Quelle ‘langue régionale’ en Alsace? Lidil: Revue de linguistique et de didactique des langues 20, 43–60. Leconte, F. (1998) La famille et les langues. Une étude sociolinguistique de la deuxième génération de l’immigration africaine dans l’agglomération rouennaise. Paris: L’Harmattan. Loyer, B. (2002) Langues nationales et regionales: une relation géopolitique. Hérodote 105 (2), 15–37. Lüdi, G. and Py, B. (1986) Être Bilingue. Bern: Peter Lang. Mélin-Soucramanien, F. (1999) La République contre Babel. À propos de la décision du Conseil constitutionnel n° 99-412 DC du 15 juin 1999, Charte européenne des langues régionales et minoritaires. Revue du droit public et de la science politique en France et à l’étranger 4, 985–1000. Olivesi, C. (2000) Indivisibilité de la Repúblique versus langues regionales. Pouvoirs (93), 209–221. Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1981) Bilingualism or Not? The Education of Minorities. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Spolsky, B. (2004) Language Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tribalat, M., Simon P. and Riandey, B. (1996) De l’immigration à l’assimilation. Enquête sur les populations d’origine étrangère en France. Paris: Éditions La Découverte/INED. Varro, G. (2003) Sociologie de la mixité. De la mixité amoureuse à la mixité sociale et culturelle. Paris: Belin.

6 England Théophile Munyangeyo and Saâdia Gamir

Introduction and Contextualization

In many multicultural societies, multilingual literacy is often the hallmark of the language education policy and can act as an effective societal cohesive device. It is considered an empowerment tool that helps to strengthen intercultural dialogue as well as socio-economic integration and progression. Thus, since the beginning of the last decade, language education policy in Europe has aimed at promoting educational and professional mobility. The European Union wanted to provide citizens with the ability to face the international mobility challenges of the competitive global market. In this chapter, we will look at the extent to which England is a multilingual society, and will analyse the success or failure of policies, practices and actions of promoting plurilingualism. Based on secondary research data, this study aims to examine, critic­ ally and diachronically, the extent to which language education policies in England have been effective in meeting the nation’s pressing needs for foreign language skills. Firstly, it explores the linguistic landscape in England, including heritage and foreign languages, seeking to highlight the significance of linguistic diversity across the country. It is necessary to point out that this chapter does not examine language policies and the heritage languages of other countries within the United Kingdom, namely Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Secondly, it examines the effectiveness of different initiatives, including language promotion actions that have been taken by individuals and organizations. These initiatives include the government’s efforts to reform school curricula, as well as all the synergies that aimed to boost the take-up of languages. First, we will look at the historical and sociolinguistic backgrounds against which the perception of multilingualism has evolved in England. Many literature reviews on the presence of the English language in the world have highlighted the global hegemony of this language. For instance, Demont-Heinrich (2007, 2008) argues that the USA displays a paradox of being a multilingual and a monolingual society at the same time. Due to the rich mosaic of minority languages generated by the USA’s ethnic diversity, many languages are in use and yet very few English native speakers can speak a foreign language. This seems to be the case also in 104



England 105

England, as our literature review has revealed the following multilingual and plurilingual landscape. According to a review by the Migration Observatory (2017), the immigrant population in the UK ‘doubled from 3.8 million to around 8.7 million’ within two decades, from 1993 to 2015, with the highest concentration in London, where the migrant population represented 41% of the total in 2015. Table 6.1 highlights the number of migrants by region in England. This scale of immigration to England over the last two decades has led to an increase in the number of immigrant school-age children. According to Strand et al. (2015: 5), ‘The percentage of pupils in English primary and secondary schools aged 5–16 who are recorded as EAL [English as an additional language] has more than doubled from 7.6% in 1997 to 16.2% in 2013’. According to Tsimpli (2017: 1), ‘Around 1,700,000 primary and secondary school pupils in England speak English as an Additional Language [making] bilingualism and multilingualism … of central concern

Table 6.1  Number of foreign-born persons in England by region, 1995–2015 Region

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

% change, 1995– 2015

Tyne and Wear

24,000

31,000

50,000

61,000

68,000

200

Rest of NorthEast

29,000

33,000

38,000

56,000

87,000

212

166,000

142,000

216,000

294,000

390,000

147

Greater Manchester Merseyside Rest of NorthWest

35,000

30,000

61,000

63,000

94,000

176

103,000

105,000

135,000

167,000

184,000

93

South Yorkshire

49,000

37,000

63,000

87,000

99,000

122

West Yorkshire

140,000

154,000

197,000

216,000

263,000

102

56,000

45,000

64,000

92,000

125,000

181

Rest of Yorkshire & Humberside East Midlands

203,000

194,000

286,000

401,000

497,000

165

West Midlands Metropolitan County

262,000

285,000

326,000

377,000

487,000

96

94,000

86,000

94,000

158,000

200,000

118 165

Rest of West Midlands East of England

309,000

346,000

457,000

565,000

746,000

Inner London

816,000

964,000

1,187,000

1,160,000

1,410,000

88

Outer London

828,000

1,022,000

1,159,000

1,480,000

1,787,000

131 122

South-East

514,000

597,000

721,000

932,000

1,108,000

South-West

210,000

214,000

276,000

348,000

446,000

129

4,129,000

4,625,000

5,735,000

7,026,000

8,679,000

126

Total

106  Multilingualism in European Language Education

[instead of interest!] for local and national government’. According to the 2015 census data, over 300 different languages are spoken by children of immigrant descent in British schools, yet most of these languages are not included in any language teaching initiative. Thus, England has become a more ethnically diverse country with rising numbers of people whose self-identity lies within minority ethnic groups. It is therefore important to highlight the fact that immigrants have enriched England with the linguistic diversity that they have brought with them. It is nevertheless argued that most of their ‘linguistic capital’ (Bourdieu, 1977) has not meshed into the social fabric of multilingual England to ensure the attainment of the ‘intercultural capital’ (Bourdieu, 1986) they potentially offer. This is because they do not seem to be regarded as equally relevant and therefore entitled to equal availability to all. Creating hierarchies within formal provision of languages in England’s education systems by promoting some, such as the main European ones (Spanish, German and French), over those language competencies children may have acquired prior to their schooling, which are usually seen as not relevant or essential, is costly. It not only deprives students particularly and England in general of ‘all the cognitive, cultural and communicative benefits that the learning of a new language brings…’ but, most seriously, such neglect of the available intercultural capital carries ‘profound implications for social and political cohesion’ (Tinsley, 2017b: 2). By neglecting immigrant languages, policy makers in England seem to forget that a child or a young person’s linguistic competence depends not only on developing their literacy in their mother tongue, the language of their schooling or official language of their country, but also on enhancing their languages repertoire so that they grow into world citizens who are able to express their identity with an open-minded understanding and define their role in relation to others in the globalized, digitalized world they live in. This, as demonstrated by research mentioned above, has cognitive benefits for both bilingual/multilingual as well as monolingual pupils and young learners. Across the English regions, London remains the most ethnically diverse area (Office for National Statistics, 2013). But it is worth mentioning here that there is no direct correlation between ethnicity and languages, as many members of ethnic minority groups do not actually speak a language other than English. This is what makes multiculturalism more and more distant vis-à-vis multilingualism. England is thus a multicultural and multilingual society, and McCabe (quoted by Mellor, 2014) believes that, almost 40 years after the UK joined the EU, the world now seems like a much smaller place and the country does business across Europe as well as with emerging economies such as China and India. However, our own view is that the ‘Little Englander’ mentality still exists, as the British make little or no effort to learn foreign languages. It is clear that some language policy choices are driven by political or ideological factors. Blackledge (2002) talks about how a dominant ideology of



England 107

monolingualism in multilingual societies leads to the exclusion of other languages. Bilingual education in Scotland (Hancock, 2014) and Wales (Mercator, 2014) has been successful, but in England little has been done to promote multilingualism. It is worth mentioning that there is an uncertainty surrounding potential impact that the UK leaving the EU (known as Brexit) could have on student mobility schemes between EU member states and the UK. Any effect of Brexit on language education policy in England is still unclear. Interestingly, Tinsley (2017b: 2) highlights the fact that, according to 2012 Eurobarometer data across Europe, those more able ‘to hold a conversation in another language’ are those who tend to be ‘younger, … better educated’ with ‘a higher occupational grade’ and frequent users of ‘the internet’. All of this seems to make them rate themselves higher ‘in terms of social status’. Tinsley (2017b: 2) argues that, intriguingly, most of the above indicators characterize those who voted, in England, to leave the European Union in the 2016 referendum. Such a trend appears to contradict Rampton’s (2006) recommendation for an attitude towards multilingualism ‘which does not view culture exclusively as an elite canon, or as a set of static ethnic essences, or as a simple reflection of economic and political processes’ (Creese & Blackledge, 2010a: 3). Nevertheless, although English is widely used as the main language most of the time in daily life, it is not always the home language for many people in England. The surveys and census data show significant numbers of users of other languages. A 2008 survey of English school children showed that London was: the most linguistically diverse area. The capital city had the highest number of pupils who recorded a language other than English as the language spoken at home with nearly 45% of the primary school population and over 35% in secondary education. The average in England was 15% in primary education and 11% in secondary. Over 40 languages were spoken by more than 1000 pupils in London schools. (British Academy, 2013a: 2)

Quoting the Department of Education, Pendleton (2012: 8) states that ‘Nearly half of secondary school pupils in inner London speak English as an additional language’. Furthermore, to the question ‘What is your main language?’, the 2011 census data on languages spoken named about 100 languages in the city of Manchester alone. The community languages which have the largest number of speakers in Manchester are Urdu, Arabic, Chinese, Bengali, Polish, Panjabi and Somali. Furthermore, ‘Whereas multilingualism was previously an urban phenomenon, there is now a greater presence of minority language speakers in rural areas’ (Edwards, 2011: 28). The 2011 census (Office for National Statistics, 2011) revealed that almost 95% of the population in nearly two-thirds of all local authorities

108  Multilingualism in European Language Education

in England reported speaking English as their main language. In some regions with the least ethnically diverse areas, such as Redcar and Cleveland in the north-east, the proportion of people whose main language was English remained the highest in the country, at 99.3%. Newham borough in London had the lowest proportion of people stating that English was their main language (58.6%). The London borough of Kensington and Chelsea had the highest proportions of people who speak some of the main European languages, including French (4.9%), Spanish (2.7%) and Italian (2.4%). Such a multilingual backdrop highlights the importance or recognizing and actively adopting these languages as part of the educational landscape of England. In Tinsley’s view, ‘linguistic inclusivity’ should not only recognize the advantage of multilingualism but also diversify and expand language provision. There are ‘cognitive cultural and communicative benefits’ in widening access to languages for ‘children and young people’ (Tinsley, 2017b: 2), she adds. Contextualization

Many policy makers in England have acknowledged that learning a new language can inform, enrich and develop communication skills and linguistic competence fit for global citizenship. Thus, the strategies promoted were based on the ‘assumption that the aim of language teaching is to make learners competent and proficient in the language concerned’ (Council of Europe, 2001: 6). It is in this context that, since 2000, different groups in England, including examination boards, community organizations, pressure groups, professional bodies, local education authorities and educational institutions played a significant role in lobbying and supporting the central government for language provision initiatives. Such initiatives started with the Nuffield Language Inquiry (Nuffield Foundation, 2000), which led to Languages for All, Languages for Life: A Strategy for England (Department for Education and Skills, 2002), the National Language Strategy in Higher Education (2005), the Dearing Languages Review (2007), Language Matters (2009), Language Matters More (2011), Born Global: Rethinking Language Policy for 21st Century Britain (2013) and the Languages for the Future (2014) by the British Academy, the Manifesto for Languages by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Modern Languages (2014) and Modern Foreign Languages GCE AS and A Level Subject Content (Department for Education and Skills, 2015). These language education initiatives, though, have regrettably not led to expected outcomes. After the Nuffield Language Inquiry (Nuffield Foundation, 2000), the different initiatives and schemes mentioned briefly above have followed, and others. A New Landscape for Languages by Michael Kelly and Diana Jones (2003) was commissioned, again by the Nuffield Foundation. The National



England 109

Language Strategy for Higher Education by the Department for Education and Skills (2005) was launched. Dearing’s language Review (2007), Routes into Languages project by Higher Education Funding Council for England (2007), the British Academy’s Language Matters (2009), the UK Government’s announcement on making language statutory in primary school (2010), the British Academy’s Language Matters More and More (2011) and Language Trends 2015/16: The state of Language Learning in Primary and Secondary Schools in England by Teresa Tinsley and Kathryn Board (2016) can be added to the list of key players in language promotion and advocacy initiatives. The British Academy’s Speak to the Future campaign (2011) called for a clear change in attitude and policy towards language learning at all stages of education. The campaign sought to build ‘a collaborative action programme, but equally want[ed] to inspire supporters to do their bit for languages, and promote existing projects that can make a difference’ (Luddy, 2012: 8). The National Languages Strategy for England focused policy on the principle of entitlement to language learning, which it defined in the following way: Every child should have the opportunity throughout Key Stage 2 [when the pupils are aged 7–11 years] to study a foreign language and develop their interest in the culture of other nations. (DfES, 2002: 15)

However, it failed to establish in school and to extend beyond school clear opportunities and coherent strategies for language learning from primary education to university and throughout life. The British Academy (2013a) argues that ‘since the removal of compulsory language qualifications at Key Stage 4 [pupils aged 14–16] in England, there has been a steady decline in numbers of students taking a GCSE in a language’. The National Languages Strategy for England has indeed triggered many controversies. For some critics, the decision to give pupils the opportunity to opt out of foreign languages at Key Stage 4 was and abiding weakness, which stemmed from the decision to make languages optional, a decision which was actually taken outside the remit of the National Languages Strategy. Coleman asserted that: Since modern languages were dropped from the core curriculum at Key Stage 4, the number of English state schools with half of pupils studying a language has fallen from 48% in 2005 to 36% in 2010. The proportion of state-school pupils taking a language GCSE fell to 43% in 2010 and, at A level, there has been a decline of 24.6% over the last 15 years. (Coleman, 2011: 16)

Joining the criticism, in her foreword to the latest UK Inbound report (UK Inbound, 2018), Inbound’s chief executive, Deirdre Wells OBE, highlights the continual decline of languages take-up at GCSE, down 30% since the

110  Multilingualism in European Language Education

announcement of an end to the requirement to take a language at that level in 2002, and at A-level there has been a similar rate of steady decline in the last two decades, leading to a major crisis of languages provision that has forced many higher education institutions to merge their depart­ ments with other disciplines. Our Languages Department at Leeds Beckett University (LBU) is one of the institutions severely affected by the consequences of this language teaching crisis. Its languages provision has shrunk from a thriving programme offering 22 languages in 2004 to a predicted 10 languages, with very uncertain numbers of students for the year 2018/19. Languages in Education

This section looks at the management of multilingualism and the educational models employed – how languages are present in education (e.g. compulsory or not compulsory). While competency in one or more foreign languages has been regarded as extremely important by language advocates in England, this has not necessarily been reflected in national curricula and in efforts to promote multilingualism, and many language education policies in England have led to unsatisfactory results. Before 2000, languages were a requirement for secondary school or Key Stages 3 (ages 11–14, or years 7, 8 and 9) and 4 (ages 14–16, or years 10 and 11). Hardie (2001: 11) commented that, at the time: progress remains uncertain and fragile. The ravages brought by the lack of central government support for languages are there for all to see. What is needed now is a consistent cross-phase curriculum and an urgent build-up of teaching capacity.

Initiatives of language teaching and learning were supported by the National Centre for Languages and other language national training organizations. But since languages were not a requirement for the curriculum beyond the age of 16, opportunities for continuing language learning were suffering from the lack of a national agenda for languages provision in non-compulsory education systems. Although there were initia­tives for language learning in primary education, these were patchy. Many secondary school language departments did not have full support from educational institutions for language teaching. This led to the dominance of French as the foreign language most commonly taught. Where foreign languages were offered, the provision was unbalanced, as it was almost exclusively of French, German or Spanish. There are obviously historical and traditional factors behind the dominance of French and German. Mclelland (2014) reviews the links between England and the target language countries, including migration factors. But the dominance



England 111

of a few main European languages has widely been explained by their popularity in England, as well as their international influence. According to the British Council (2014), while there have always been good intentions to introduce languages such as Chinese and Arabic into the curriculum, the lack of enthusiasm for lesser-taught language provision has generally been associated with the lack of people qualified to teach them. Recruiting native speakers to teach other foreign languages has been a challenge that policy makers have tried to avoid. Even though the main foreign languages have not significantly suffered from a lack of qualified teachers, they never­theless have not enjoyed the promotion that should be expected. There was no rational framework and no consistent strategies of language learning, from primary schools to sixth-form colleges, higher education and beyond. Confronted with the fact that ‘change to the system of languages education [was] overdue, incoherent, fragmented and increasingly ineffective in meeting national needs’ (Nuffield Foundation, 2000: 62), the government set up the Nuffield Language Inquiry, which produced the report Languages: The Next Generation (Nuffield Foundation, 2000). The overall aim was to look at the UK’s capability in foreign languages competence and report on what should be done at national level to give English children a better early start with languages. It was also to energize them to continue developing language skills throughout their life. The inquiry concluded that: Provision for language learning in the secondary school sector should be uprated in order to provide a wider range of languages, a more flexible menu to cater for different needs, abilities and interests, and more use of information technology. All pupils should leave secondary education equipped with foundation language skills and the skills for further language learning in later life. (Nuffield Foundation, 2000: 90)

The inquiry also sought to build language skills into social, personal and professional fulfilment, through a coherent languages policy in education and a consistent national strategy for language learning beyond classrooms. However, although valuable efforts were made after the Nuffield Foundation review to reverse the fall in take-up of languages among secondary school pupils, many critics do not hesitate to express disappointment. Given the fact that languages are perceived by learners to be difficult subjects that demand extra effort, the inquiry did not really identify and clarify measures that could be introduced to encourage language learning in and beyond the classroom. Furthermore, some key recommendations were not implemented. One key call in this respect did not form the core aim of the language provision in the national curriculum. That was the call for government to ‘declare a long-term commitment to early language learning by setting up a national action programme for languages in primary school education, within the framework of the national strategy

112  Multilingualism in European Language Education

for languages’ (Nuffield Foundation, 2000: 89). This call was related to the recommendation to make language learning in secondary schools the pathway to ‘equip pupils with a basic level of competence on which they can build, and the confidence and skills needed to learn other languages in adult life’ (Nuffield Foundation, 2000: 44). Instead, after Languages: The Next Generation (Nuffield Foundation, 2000), the Department for Education and Skills (2002) launched Languages for All, Languages for Life: A Strategy for England, but this had conflicting and contradictory messages. On the one hand, the government recognized that ‘in the knowledge society of the 21st century, language competence and inter-cultural understanding are not optional extras, they are an essential part of being a citizen. For too long we have lagged behind as a nation in our capability to contribute fully as multi-lingual and culturally aware citizens’ (Department for Education and Skills, 2002: 5). On the other hand, the government’s language learning policy altered the languages provision from compulsory to optional for Key Stage 4. By offering 14-year-olds the possibility to drop foreign languages by 2004, the Nuffield Foundation’s recommendation to make languages ‘a specified component of the 16–19 curriculum, and a requirement for entry to higher education and for designated vocational qualifications, [with] a range of attractive opportunities to learn languages [to be] developed and integrated into existing structures such as the Key Skills package’ (Nuffield Foundation, 2000: 92) did not materialize. The aim of increasing the number of people studying languages through Key Stages and beyond school was not achieved. As a matter of fact, the policy failed to shape its strategies well. To make matters worse, since England was faced with a significant shortage of language teachers for lesser-taught languages, foreign languages provision was mainly limited to working languages of the European Union. In this way, language learning continued to be seen by young learners as a daunting experience, because languages remained perceived as academic subjects rather than an activity that engages in developing lifelong core skills. Thus, one would wonder whether the expected outcomes of this language strategy could really have led to an enhancement of plurilingualism, with its foundation based on ignoring the richness of community languages that England’s linguistic landscape displays. Thereafter, further synergies to harness multilingual literacy for plurilingual competence in England started to emerge. The section above has shown how, on the educational front in England, language promotion proposals have been characterized by a bewildering array of initiatives to promote language learning and to improve school exam grades year on year; language education policies have shown little coherence (Lanvers, 2011). For instance, through the Languages for All, Languages for Life policy published in 2002 – the National Languages Strategy – England sought to improve teaching, learning and assessment of languages, with the core aim of increasing the number of people



England 113

studying languages. It also intended to ensure a wide public recognition of the benefits of language skills. However, as this policy was developed and implemented in tandem with the Common European Framework of Reference’s language learning strategies, the Languages for All focused on professional and educational mobility aims and ignored vocational ones. Language Trends 2015/16: The State of Language Learning in Primary and Secondary Schools in England by Tinsley and Board (2016) presented a gloomy picture. Even more worrying were the questions to the House of Lords put by Baroness Coussins (2018), chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Modern Languages, on the unpreparedness of the government to face the uncertain state of modern foreign languages learning and teaching after Brexit. Recently, under the same brand of ‘Languages for All’, many universities in England started to revisit language-learning needs and they are now providing institution-wide language programmes. In this respect, universities are encouraging students to participate in language learning as added value for a non-language degree. On the basis of a survey carried out in 2017/18, the Association of University Language Centres (AULC) and the University Council of Modern Languages (UCML) suggest that the institution-wide language provision (IWLP) under ‘Languages for All’ continues had shown a trend towards continuous growth from 2012 to 2018 across the surveyed English institutions of higher education (AULC & UCML, in press). This has been the case because, on a social level, some languages have been regarded as less important than others, mainly because they are not directly linked to economic benefits. Boeckmann et al. (2011: 23) argue that: In order to promote plurilingualism, enabling all learners to develop their full range of language and languages, it is crucial to educate all learners to be part of an increasingly multilingual society. Learners need to feel safe and secure in their plurilingualism, and this will be affected by the views of the wider society. If all learners learn to enjoy the diversity of languages in their communities, to develop curiosity about them and, with this, respect and esteem for languages and those who are plurilingual, this will provide an environment in which learners can be proud of their own plurilingualism.

The call for linguistic inclusivity, although very well argued by Tinsley, may face a resistance that comes from the very nature of language as a social and ideological construct. Creese and Blackledge (2010a: 2) highlight the fact that ‘Language ideologies constitute the larger social, economic and political systems which play a role in structuring dominant–­subordinate, majority–minority relations’. However, despite their importance in determin­ing what importance a given language or languages should have, the impact of language ideologies ‘on everyday experience cannot easily

114  Multilingualism in European Language Education

be predicted’ (Rampton, 2006: 19), and this is perhaps what strengthens Tinsley’s call for linguistic inclusivity and diversity. Yet, there is still a strong paradox on the ground. Despite this strong support for multi­ lingualism and language provision diversification, it is puzzling to notice the growing under-representation of minority languages in Languages for All (LFA) and institution-wide language provision (IWLP) programmes of many UK universities. This is happening at the same time as there are 3000–5000 supplementary schools in England providing such languages, according to the statistics published by the National Resource Centre for Supplementary Education, in addition to a more or less steady growth of entries for GCSE and A-level recorded between 2011 and 2017 (see Appendices A and B to this chapter). The supplementary schools are mainly run by community groups in the evenings and weekends to support mainstream education for ethnic minorities. Some of them are funded by local authorities, charities, donations and candidate fees; some operate on a voluntary basis. Many of them offer cultural and language education for lesser-taught languages. From faith schools such as Jewish and Islamic, to cultural and language provisions, these initiatives are not new in England. In some supplementary schools, the good quality of teaching has been documented. As an example, there has been an investigation into the pedagogy of developing multilingual competencies through translanguaging in a madrasah (a private Islamic secondary school) in the inner-city London borough of Tower Hamlets. Ahmed and Hassan (2015) conducted a piece of research that confirmed the positive impacts of multilingual learning in a classroom where teachers deliver the content by alternating between Arabic, Urdu, Sylheti and English. Pupils are asked to recite in turns the verses of the Quran, followed by the translation of the Arabic verses into the language spoken by the target audience, to demonstrate the learner’s understanding of the meaning of the content. This research concluded that ‘translanguaging has a significant role in teaching and learning within the madrasah. The findings demonstrate how multilingual teachers and learners in a madrasah use translanguaging to engage with the core content of the Islamic curriculum’ (Ahmed & Hassan, 2015: 27). The success of translanguaging as a teaching approach in a multilingual context has also been supported by Creese and Blackledge (2010b: 103), who ‘argue for a release from monolingual instructional approaches and advocate teaching bilingual children by means of bilingual instructional strategies, in which two or more languages are used alongside each other’. One researcher in multilingualism argues that complementary schools have been an important socio-political, educational movement in the country for nearly half a century. They have made a major impact on the lives of thousands of children of different ethnic backgrounds, attracted public debates vis-à-vis the government’s involvement in educational



England 115

management, and challenged the dominant ideology of uniculturalism in the country. Yet, they have received relatively little attention from educational researchers. (Wei, 2006: 76)

Even though there have been discussions within the government to link supplementary with mainstream schools, the integrated model has failed. Some critics even describe the marginalization of supplementary schools (Wei, 2006). One wonders why the success of supplementary schools in promoting multilingualism has not been fully acknowledged by policy makers. It is even more puzzling to see no effort to create alliances with such supplementary schools, whose educational principles largely match English universities’ vision of graduate attributes as identified and detailed by Dai Hounsell on the ‘Enhancement themes’ page of the website of the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA).1 Discussion

After over 10 years of language promotion policy and proposals, very little has been achieved. ‘The state of language education in England over the last decade [2000–2010], … has been characterised by a bewildering array of initiatives to promote language learning, year-on-year improved grades of school exams, and language education policies showing little coherence’ (Ursula, 2011: 63). The plethora of initiatives, often called strategies, carried good intentions, but they have led to shallow frameworks because they have never been accompanied by a well defined curriculum agenda for modern foreign languages. Nor have they considered the benefits of heritage languages, also known as community or minority languages (both EU and non-EU), or the resentment over national resources being directed towards the promotion of mother tongues of migrants (felt long before the 2016 EU referendum). Abercrombie (2017: 16) gives an example of how a hostile ‘discourse [of] English monolingualism [towards] immigrant languages’ was present as early as the first decade of the millennium. More detail on how community language teaching has been under attack can be found in a report from the National Association for Language Development In the Curriculum (NALDIC, 2012). However, all is not gloomy in language learning policy and provision in England. There are signs that some clear language policies may be on the horizon. The government announcement in 2010 that it would make foreign languages statutory in primary school is generating great enthusiasm among young learners. Since September 2014, languages have been a requirement of the primary school curriculum throughout Key Stage 2 (ages 7–11). After the government announcement, many primary schools immediately started offering at least one language at Key Stage 2. While decisions regarding the delivery of the entitlement to language learning in primary schools were the head teachers’ responsibility under the

116  Multilingualism in European Language Education

Languages for All strategy (Department for Education and Skills, 2002: 16), reinstating language provision is not just as an ‘entitlement’; as part of the statutory curriculum it will encourage, if not force, less linguistic­ ally ambitious schools to deliver language education. The main challenge is sustaining this enthusiasm through continuity in language learning from primary to the end of secondary education. With schools responding positively to the announcement to make languages a statutory requirement in the primary curriculum, one would hope that future take-up of language studies at GCSE and beyond will gradually improve. However, many critics argue that more is still needed to strengthen the statutory position of languages. A clear strategy and language policy, informed by a vision and widely supported in schools and in society, are still needed to drive the languages agenda. The Modern Foreign Languages Curriculum and Qualifications Reform 2014–2018 that reinstates the statutory requirement of languages in England provides the opportunity to reinstate languages as a core provision in all Key Stages. Ian Bauckham, President of the Association of School and College Leaders, said: ‘Schools cannot solve this problem alone. We are supporting this approach because it includes employers, political parties and universities, all making a commitment to address the issue’ (quoted in Apps, 2014). Many forces are calling on the government to ensure any language policy reflects a sound progression through the Key Stages and beyond schooling. For Baroness Coussins: the next government will need to take clear, urgent and coherent action to upgrade the UK’s foreign-language skills. Otherwise our young people will continue to fall behind their European and global peers in education and employability; our export growth will be stunted; our international reputation will suffer and our security, defence and diplomacy needs will be compromised. (All-Party Parliamentary Group on Modern Languages, 2014).

This call by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Modern Languages is echoed by the British Council’s Languages for the Future (2014). Other dynamic national, regional and local language advocates are actively supporting this call to make languages compulsory in all Key Stages. Key players include Routes into Languages, the British Council, the British Academy, the National Centre for Languages, Links into Languages, the University Council of Modern Languages, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Modern Languages, as well as local education authorities, language centres and departments in higher education institutions and language enthusiasts throughout England. If these synergies are to bring results in reviving languages skills at national level, sustained actions across England need to be put in place. They should be informed by firm initiatives ‘to find possibilities for future engagement, learning lessons from both the successes and the failures of the past’ (King, 2011)



England 117

in relation to language policies and provision. In this respect, making languages a statutory requirement for school curricula remains a key factor for fostering plurilingual competence in England. Moreover, although on the surface it may not be obvious, there are strong grounds for cooperation among all education sectors in England. Table 6.2 shows that the supplementary schools and the Higher Education Institutes (HEIs) share similar 21st-century educational visions and purposes which can easily be connected to facilitate opportunities for common language-promotion opportunities. Looking at Table 6.2, it is very easy to establish connectivity of aims and objectives between supplementary, mainstream and higher education. Supplementary schools focus ‘on the provision of additional support for … [all languages, core curriculum, faith and culture] outside the school day and within the context of a specific ethnic, national, faith or physical community’ (NRCSE, 2018). Because they are generally tied to migrant communities, one of their main aims is to support their EAL pupils to access the core curriculum given entirely in English in mainstream primary and high schools. This is

Table 6.2  Elements of synergy between supplementary schools and institutions of higher education Eight pillars of the supplementary education sector (NRCSE, 2018)

Eight desirable attributes of a university graduate (QAA)

(1) Raising aspirations

(1) Lifelong learning. Equipping students with the ability and interest to continue to enlarge their knowledge, understanding and skills throughout their working lives

(2) Core curriculum teaching

(2) Research, scholarship and enquiry. Providing students with a sound grasp of how new understanding is generated in a given field or subject area through experiment and empirical investigation, and the ability to apply a systematic and critical assessment of complex problems and issues

(3) Learning mothertongue languages

(3) Employability and career development. Developing students’ knowledge, skills and qualities relevant to chosen career paths and to those paths which may open up in the future, enabling each to succeed in a rapidly changing workplace

(4) Cultural engagement

(4) Global citizenship. Encouraging a capacity to thrive in a globalized society and economy, and an awareness of cultures beyond and different to one’s own

(5) Culture of achievement

(5) Communication and information literacy. Cultivating students’ abilities to communicate effectively their knowledge, understanding and skills, in a range of settings, and using a variety of media; and formulating, evaluating and applying evidence-based solutions and arguments

(6) Engaging parents

(6) Ethical, social and professional understanding. Nurturing a reflective awareness of ethical dimensions, and responsibilities to others, in work and everyday life

(7) Peer support

(7) Personal and intellectual autonomy. Developing a capacity to think independently, exercise personal judgement and take initiatives

(8) Partnership with mainstream schools

(8) Collaboration, teamwork and leadership. Cultivate skills for working in teams and groups and leading where appropriate

118  Multilingualism in European Language Education

because lack of command of the English language has been shown by a number of recent studies, such as Strand et al. (2015), to cause the EAL pupils to ‘perform academically less well than their monolingual peers at all Key Stages’ (Tsimpli, 2017: 1), especially in English, maths and science, as shown in Table 6.3. Another area of connectivity between the various educational sectors, is as follows: supplementary schools support mainstream schools in their work of introducing the pupils to new subject areas, widening their knowledge and skills in preparation for further in-depth learning that occurs through research and enquiry at university level (see pillar 2 and attribute 2 in Table 6.2). In providing such valuable support, supplementary schools aim to raise their EAL pupils’ aspirations to succeed by removing learning barriers (linguistic or otherwise) that they may encounter in mainstream schools. Universities, also, work to remove barriers from the path of their students by providing lifelong learning opportunities, thus widening participation to all learners (pillar 1, attribute 1). Table 6.3  Pupils with English as an additional language (EAL) versus those with English as the first language (FLE) and achievement at ages 5, 7, 11 and 16: England 2013 Age

Stage

Domain

Measure

5

EYFSP

Reading

7

KS1

Source

EAL %

Odds ratio

At least SFR 2013-47 73 expected level

63

0.63

Maths

At least expected level

71

62

0.67

Overall

Good level of development (GLD)

54

44

0.67

Reading

Level 2A+

SFR 2013·37 57

48

0.70

53

46

0.76

Maths level 2A+

11

16

KS2

FLE %

Overall

Average Re + Ma (2A+)

55

47

0.73

Reading

Level 4B+ SFR 51 2013

77

69

0.65

Maths

Level 4B+

74

72

0.90

64

59

0.81

(Table 8b)

Overall

Level 4B+ in RWM

KS4

English

GCSE A*–C pass

SFR 2014-05 68.8

64.6

0.83

Maths

GCSE A*–C pass

71.2

71.8

1.03

MFL

GCSE A*–C pass

32.3

47.5

1.90

Overall

5+A*–C incl. En & Ma

60.9

58.3

0.90

Overall

EBacc achieved

22.5

24.4

1.11

Source: Strand et al., (2015: 27) and Tsimpli (2017: 3).



England 119

Learning mother tongue languages is essential in supplementary schools, as highlighted by research. Cummins (1976, 1979) and Leider et al. (2013) have demonstrated earlier literacy development in bilingual children than in monolingual children, one of the advantages of bilingual education (Dosi et al., 2016) through various educational sectors, and leading ultimately to securing employability and career prospects thanks to the skills developed at university, which are compatible with the demands of an ever-changing work environment in the present global world (pillar 3, attribute 3). The core work of supplementary schools in support of curriculum subjects revolves around developing activities that involve ‘languages, history and cultural activities, such as faith, arts and sports’ (NRCSE, 2018). Such work not only raises the EAL pupils’ awareness of their cultural identity but also facilitates intercultural communication among individuals at the mainstream schools who represent various nations of the globe. Institutions of higher education aim to consolidate such work by developing their graduates’ global citizenship so that they are able to function in the multilingual global world they are being trained to operate and live in successfully (pillar 4, attribute 4). As they work in tandem, both supplementary schools and mainstream schools instil in their pupils a culture of achievement, by introducing them to various learning tools and skills and engaging them in activities that develop their sense of observation, analysis, critical thinking and synthesis. This work is done through a blended learning methodology using various means that enable pupils to work both inside the classroom and at home, thus widening their participation in learning and maximizing their opportunities to succeed. Information and communications technology (ICT) has made such work possible. The School ICT Policy was introduced in 1997, by the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, who commissioned the Information and Communications Technology in UK Schools report, known as the British Educational Suppliers Association (BESA) report (see Wesleyan Assurance Society, 2015). By 2005, ‘there were almost 2 million computers in UK schools. Nearly all secondary schools (99.9%) had internet connection, while 80% of primary schools and 99% of secondary schools used interactive whiteboards for teaching’ (Wesleyan Assurance Society, 2015). And despite the austerity measures that have hit the ICT budget in schools following the international financial crisis of 2008, many high schools in England now even include in their budget the provision of iPads for their Key Stage 3 pupils to use at home for their homework and to stay connected with their teachers, who set tasks for them online. Here again we can see how the educational vision of both supplementary schools and mainstream schools converges with that of institutes of higher education, whose objective is to consolidate such ground work by instilling in the youngsters the culture of achievement through blended learning (pillar 5, attribute 5). While engaging with minors, supplementary and mainstream schools comply with their ethical responsibilities towards parents during

120  Multilingualism in European Language Education

the daily work of the schools, through email communications, parent teacher associations (PTAs), parent evenings and school reports. By the time these pupils mature, and reach university, as potential parents and professional partners, they are taught to reflect on the ethical dimensions and implications of their academic and social actions as well as their responsibilities towards others: socially, academically and professionally (pillar 6, attribute 6). Peer support schemes are one of the pillars entrenched in the life of supple­mentary and mainstream schools, and their benefits have been recog­ nized by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC). They offer ‘a safe opportunity for pupils to share concerns and explore their own solutions to a range of difficulties’. They also ‘provide a way for pupils to learn more about themselves, their peers and relationships’. Such ‘peer-support schemes in schools contribute towards strategies to combat bullying and racial harassment, as well as helping children deal with stresses at home and in school’ (Baginsky, 2001). Many studies (e.g. Cowie & Sharp, 1996; Sharp et al., 1994) have highlighted pupils’ desire to offer support to their peers, as a natural act of help, cooperation and friendship. Sharp and Cowie (1998) ‘identified three strands of peer support which address the personal, social and emotional needs of users: peer-counselling, peer-befriending and peer-mediation’, according to Baginsky (2001). These strands are pivotal in bridging the cultural divide, which can be a cause for misunderstanding and bullying between EAL pupils and their monolingual peers, as they interact in the multilingual schools of England. As they work within the peer-group schemes, pupils begin to think for themselves, develop their personal judgement about academic and personal matters, and take initiative in helping and supporting one another, skills that are further honed during their years in higher education (pillar 7, attribute 7). As the main objective of supplementary schools is to support mainstream curriculum delivery and supplement it, their very existence relies on working in close partnership with mainstream schools. This cultivates not only the school leaders and teachers’ collaboration and teamwork skills but indirectly introduces their pupils to a basic understanding of the same skills, as they go through their educational paths. When they reach higher education, their understanding is consolidated as they are prepared, in various contexts, for the complex global world of work (pillar 8, attribute 8). It is worth highlighting here that a key element of collaboration is communication, and one of the main modes of communication is language or languages, an area that universities in England appear to neglect at the moment, for reasons highlighted earlier in this chapter. We also have noticed that the various language schemes still focus on the main European languages and include only a small selection of lesser-taught languages. Many immigrant languages are not yet on the list of the lesser-taught languages that are offered by several higher



England 121

education institutions in England. One would assume that the reason for the non-inclusion of heritage languages in these institution-wide language programmes is probably the continuous attempt to establish a direct link between learning languages and their usefulness in the marketplace, or their economically relevant career benefits. It is therefore fair to assert that the Languages for All, Languages for Life policy did not value languages equally. The heritage and lesserspoken or lesser-taught ones were almost nonexistent in the promotion, the provision and the delivery of the multilingualism agenda. Table 6.4 presents data on non-EU European and non-European languages that are spoken in England and Wales. While the focus of the chapter is England, it is woth noting here that Wales and the UK as a whole reflect the same reality in relation to their multilingual landscapes. Columns 1 and 2 of Table 6.4 present data we have compiled from various official sources published between 2011 and 2018. Column 3 lists the language varieties that may be spoken by immigrants but which are yet to be researched and recorded. These statistics highlight the potential gains from linguistic diversity, in terms of social cohesion and the global market for the UK, if captured and exploited judiciously. This fact is highlighted in the following words from Hooper (2018): It is a fact that millions of British citizens living here speak, for example, Gujarati, Hindi, Bengali, Farsi or Arabic as their first language. In any assessment of modern foreign language teaching, do the Government take this into account and in what ways are they building on that resource?

Since heritage languages have not been given a fair place within the language agenda, our view is that it seems clear that such incoherent

Table 6.4  Linguistic potential of immigrants in the UK Non-EU European and nonEuropean languages

Share of List of language varieties the UK population

South Asian languages

2.4%

Bengali, Gujurati, Hindi, Nepali, Pali, Panjabi, Prakrit, Sanskrit, Sinhala, Tamil, Urdu

East Asian languages

0.7%

Chinese, Korean, Japanese

African languages

0.5%

Afrikaans, Amharic, Hausa, Somali, Swahili, Yorùbá, Zulu

Arabic (various regional dialects)

0.3%

Modern standard Arabic, North African, Levantine, Gulf

West/central Asian languages 0.3%

Farsi, Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Tajiki, Turkmen, Uzbek, Uyghur

Turkish

0.2%

Modern standard Turkish, Rumelice, Kibris Türkçesi, Edirne, Ege

Russian

0.1%

Tatar, Ukranian, Chuvash, Mordvin, Circassian, Chechen

122  Multilingualism in European Language Education

s­trategies, uncoordinated initiatives and under-utilized synergies could not lead to the intended aims and expected outcomes of harnessing multi­ lingual literacy for plurilingual competence in England. There seems to be, however, a glimmer of hope for the expansion of languages provision and recovery because, faced with the dynamic environment and the competitive nature of the global economy, policy makers in England have recently started to show signs of encouraging and energizing synergies on the language education agenda. One of the ways English universities can seek to promote interest in language learning and enhance their language provisions is to create connections with the supplementary schools through the British Academy Schools Language Awards Scheme2 (British Adademy, 2013b). Securing funding through this scheme could help the different education sectors providing language tuition overcome the many challenges they continue to face as a result of termination of funding (Tinsley, 2015) under the National Languages Strategy (2002–2010). This funding had provided several initiatives through local support and specialist language colleges (SLCs) for primary and secondary schools which encouraged the development of and qualification in asset languages found in the communities serviced by those schools. The cuts, unfortunately, have led to a decrease in language uptake in schools, which has since continued to have a knock-on effect on language provision in colleges and universities. There are strong arguments on the grounds of a unified and seamless view of educational progression for the creation of alliances between all the educational sectors, as they feed into each other, and the synergy would be a natural one. The potential for success of collaboration between institutes of higher education and supplementary schools is substantial and worth considering, as it is supported by documented evidence. According to the latest data, there are 17 mother tongues, represented in GCSEs and A Level exam entry (see appendices A and B to this chapter), which could feed into university language departments, provided the latter show a willingness to create alliances with these supplementary schools, which have been very successful in creating partnerships with mainstream schools. Also, from the Languages for the Future call to link language education policies to the manifesto of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Languages, there seems to be a recognition and assumption that there are some languages that are at the forefront of education and job mobility. Baroness Coussins (2018) said, referring to a recent British Council report (2013): ‘the top five languages needed by the UK for our prosperity and influence post Brexit are Spanish, Mandarin, French, Arabic and German’. Thus, the manifesto of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Languages calls for tackling the pressing need for a national language recovery programme. They use, to support their argument, the words of Schools Minister Nick Gibb (2017), who said that there is a firm commitment from the Government to ‘remaining open to the world after we



England 123

leave the EU and to becoming even more global and internationalist in our outlook. Improving the take-up and teaching of modern foreign languages in our schools … is an important part of achieving that goal’, not only because there are ‘business, cultural and educational benefits to learning a language’ but also, as Coussins (2018) points out, because of ‘diplomacy, defence and security’ benefits. Conclusions

It is now time to reflect on the strategies to motivate language learners throughout all Key Stages of schooling and beyond, especially in line with the expected effect and outcomes of the national curriculum for primary and secondary schools that was implemented in 2014. By assessing the impact of the introduction of a policy of compulsory language learning from primary school, the identification of the key challenges for its implementation can support the Framework for National Recovery in Language. Partnerships between all educational stakeholders can stimulate synergies to harness plurilingualism. It is important to remember that, within the current global market, seeking plurilingual competence should be informed by a strategy that helps learners ‘to become sensitive to the languages and culture of others and develops in them sufficient confidence and competence to be able to use their languages, however modestly, in their interactions with other citizens’ (Scottish Executive Education Department, 2005). Due to the richness of the linguistic diversity of England, these campaigns seeking the development of language skills competence through supporting language provisions are, in fact, generating interests in language learning outside school settings. These aspirations from a multilingual England could help in developing a plurilingual approach. This should allow greater flexibility, since not all languages to which the learner is introduced have to be taught for the same reason and purposes, in the same way and to the same level in all skills. In this respect, many universities started to run free of charge institution-wide language schemes, including Languages for All programmes. This language provision is offered as an optional extra or in some cases as a certificated course for which students could obtain credits towards their degree. As the tuition fees are increasing in England, universities are offering language short courses, including the lesser-taught languages, as strategies to attract new students in other academic disciplines. This initiative is thought to enable students to gain an international dimension to their studies. It attaches particular importance on the development of plurilingualism through the lifelong expansion of the individual’s linguistic repertoire that would strengthen their employability prospects. Unfortunately, such initiatives are not all consistent, nor are they always successful. The languages department where we work, for instance,

124  Multilingualism in European Language Education

is housed in a university that boasts a very successful School of Events, Tourism and Hospitality, to which it had been attached until this academic year, when it acquired its own status of ‘Department of Languages’. Such proximity has unfortunately not created any opportunities for solid language provision synergies with the tourism and hospitality course leaders, who appear to see language skills as ‘nice to have rather than a key element of delivering a world-class service’, as Wells puts it (UK Inbound, 2018). More importantly, they have not shown any concerns about the decision taken by the university to terminate, as from the 2018/19 academic year, the Languages for All (Language4ALL) programme, the only route that was open to their students to develop their language skills. This is happening (and our institution is by no means the only one) when the proportion of the workforce in tourism and hospitality from the European Union (30% nationally and up to 90% in London, according to a recent UK Inbound member survey) has been declining since the 2016 EU referendum. This languages skills haemorrhage is a double-edged sword. In the short term, it would be safe to argue that it has left the national economy in a deep languages skills crisis that may jeopardize the £25 billion estimated by the tourism industry to have been contributed to the UK economy in 2017 by international visitors. In the long term, however, the sharp rise in the number of EU citizens leaving the UK and the low numbers of EU immigrants following the referendum may have created an opportunity for a languages provision revival to develop homegrown competent linguists. There is, therefore, urgency for government policy makers and all of the education sectors’ leaders to make language learning mandatory, if we are serious about securing the prosperity of our multilingual communities, which are the backbone of a UK economy that is globally focused and oriented. As stated clearly by the UK Inbound chief executive, to remain globally competitive we need to develop a workforce that is equipped with language skills and is able ‘to provide a warm welcome and excellent customer service for our international visitors and also to negotiate effectively with overseas operators. All of these skills encourage repeat business year on year making our industry the UK’s fastest growing service industry’ (UK Inbound, 2018). At our own university, we believe there is a real possibility of reviving the undergraduate languages programme closed in 2016. According to the UK Inbound 2018 report, there are ‘56 tourism and/or hospitality undergraduate programmes which offer a language (as optional or compulsory)’ (2018). Thus, the LBU Languages Department could look into negotiating with the School of Events, Tourism and Hospitality (SETH) the possibility of including compulsory languages learning in its undergraduate and postgraduate courses. This will ensure that not only the SETH will guarantee its graduates are linguistically capable, but also that the Languages Department has an assured steady flow of language candidates in its languages programme. They both have a strong argument



England 125

in this year’s UK Inbound audit findings collected from ‘a cross-section of universities, including Russell Group, non-Russell Group and Post-92 Universities, using the search criterion 10 of “UK institutions which offer single honours modern language degree programmes”’ (UK Inbound, 2018). These show that 78 institutions offer 196 turism and/or hospitality (single or combined) undergraduate programmes, 20% of which provide one language choice from among Arabic, British Sign Language, French, Gaelic, German, Italian, Japanese, Mandarin or Spanish, while nine of these institutions offer a language as a core module. Such provision offers international opportunities to 43 of these institutions via exchange, Erasmus and Go Global programmes. More encouraging arguments are found in the audit’s results regarding 87 postgraduate tourism and/or hospitality programmes offered by 45 institutes of higher education. Here only ‘6% of the programmes offer a language as an optional module to their students as part of the validated programme’ (UK Inbound, 2018: 19). Despite the lower percentage of language provision at postgraduate level, we see it positively, as it highlights a language skills gap for us to fill, in other words an opportunity to widen the language provision scope of the language departments in England and to strengthen graduates’ employability in the face of the gap left by EU nationals leaving following the 2016 EU referendum. This is particularly important for many institutions, when we consider that the audit found that 10 of these 45 institutes provide their postgraduates overseas opportunities through programmes such as International Live Project Management, Go Global exchange, international field trips and research/work placement abroad exchange programmes. The various language campaigns outlined above for a multilingual England could help to develop a positive plurilingual approach that should allow greater flexibility. It is our view that it is only by matching the linguistic landscape and the language for future needs with language education policy that a genuine plurilingual competence can be achieved. Allow us to reinforce, emphasize and repeat the idea that all languages to which the learner is introduced do not have to be taught for the same purposes, in the same way and to the same level in all skills. Plurilingualism should foster individuals’ linguistic competence for a lifelong self-fulfilment and self-actualization. Critics (McColl, 2000, 2002) agree that we should therefore be prepared to move from multilingual understanding to plurilingual competence. Clear language policies in schools could also energize adult learners in thinking about the benefits of language skills. Language learners might not aspire merely to passing benchmarked standards, but to a linguistic repertoire that enables them to use linguistic variety to feel and enjoy to the fullness their identity in a multilingual world. It is in this respect that we argue that language skills are a key competence that should be a privilege for all, not just a few, and at all education levels (Tinsley, 2017b). Three main factors seem to

126  Multilingualism in European Language Education

compete against inclusive language provision at school in England, for fear of bringing a school down in the league tables. One of these factors is the process of disapplication, applied by state schools, whereby lowachieving Key Stage 3 pupils are made to relinquish their statutory right to language learning (Board & Tinsley, 2014; Tinsley, 2015) ‘in order to free them for additional tuition in literacy or numeracy’ (Gamir, 2017: 298). Also, many a time ‘maths and science are prioritised [by these schools] to avoid performance measure pressures’ (Gamir, 2017: 298). It is worth noting that such practices ‘are rarely seen in the independent sector’ (Board & Tinsley, 2014: 6). This renders the acquisition of language skills an elitist privilege ‘when it is in reality [a] statutory [right] for all Key Stage 3 pupils’ (Gamir, 2017: 299) and an entitlement at Key Stage 4. Furthermore, a good linguistic repertoire is a prerequisite to thrive in the multilingual global world we live in. In conclusion, we would borrow McColl’s words (2018): ‘in doing this we need to be prepared to go beyond considerations of communicative competence in the target language, and accept that not all of the benefits will be linguistic ones’. It is by moving beyond mainstream languages to learn less widely taught languages in schools and beyond school settings that England will nurture and benefit from its rich multilingual literacy for a meaningful plurilingual competence. Notes (1) See Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA), available at https:// www.enhancementthemes.ac.uk/enhancement-themes/guide-to-the-outcomes-of-thethemes/moving-on-from-there/graduate-attributes (accessed 7 June 2018). GCSE is the General Certificate of Secondary Education, a qualification in a specific subject taken by school pupils aged 14–16, and A-level is the Advanced level examination, a subject-based qualification conferred as part of the General Certificate of Education (GCE), as well as a school-leaving qualification offered by the educational bodies in the post-compulsory education sector. (2) British Academy Schools Language Awards Scheme, available at https://www.britac. ac.uk/british-academy-schools-language-awards (accessed 7 June 2018).

References Abercrombie, A. (2017) Brexit: A Risk Assessment for Language Provision in Manchester, available at http://mlm.humanities.manchester.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/​2017/09/ Brexit-and-language-provision.pdf (accessed 7 June 2018). Ahmed, K. and Hassan, N. (2015) Exploring translanguaging: A case study of a madrasah in Tower Hamlets. Research in Teacher Education 5 (2), 23–28. All-Party Parliamentary Group on Modern Languages (2014) Manifesto for languages, blog, at http://blog.britishcouncil.org/appgmodernlanguages/files/2014/07/APPG​Manifesto​ forLangs-EmbargoTo14July-b4.pdf (accessed 15 July 2017). Apps, P. (2014) Lack of foreign-language skills threatens the UK economy, Independent, 14 July 2014, available at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/



England 127

lack-of-foreignlanguage-skills-threatens-the-uk-economy-9603642.html (accessed 15 July 2017). AULC-UCML (in press) AULC-UCML Survey of Institution-Wide Language Provision in Universities in the UK (2017–2018). Baginsky, M. (2001) Peer support: What schools expect and what schemes can deliver. NSPCC Child Protection Research Group. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the British Educational Research Association, University of Leeds, 13–15 September, available at http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00001832.htm (accessed 10 June 2018). Blackledge, A. (2002) The discursive construction of national identity in multilingual Britain. Journal of Language, Identity and Education 1 (1), 67–87. Board, K. and Tinsley, T. (2014) Language Trends 2013/14: The State of Language Learning in Primary and Secondary Schools in England. London: CfBT and British Council, available at http://cdn.cfbt.com/~/media/cfbtcorporate/files/research/2015/r-languagetrends-summary-2015.pdf (accessed 5 June 2018). Boeckmann, K.B., et al. (2011) Promoting Plurilingualism Majority Language in Multi­ lingual Settings. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Bourdieu, P. (1986) The forms of capital. In J.G. Richardson (ed.) Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (pp. 241–258). New York: Greenwood. Bourdieu, P. (1997) The forms of capital. In A.H. Halsey, H. Lauder, P. Brown and A.S. Wells (eds) Education, Culture, Economy, and Society. New York: Oxford University Press. British Academy (2011) Language matters more and more, available at http://www.britac. ac.uk/news/bulletin/Language_matters11.pdf (accessed 15 July 2017). British Academy (209) Language Matters, available at https://www.thebritishacademy. ac.uk/sites/default/files/LanguageMatters2_0.pdf (accessed 15 July 2017). British Academy (2013a) Multilingual Britain. London: Cumberland Lodge. British Academy (2013b) Born global: Rethinking language policy for 21st century Britain, available at http://www.ucml.ac.uk/sites/default/files/pages/6/An%20Introduction%20 to%20Born%20Global%20-%20Rethinking%20Langauge%20Policy%20for%20 21st%20Century%20Britain.pdf (accessed 15 July 2017). British Council (2013) Report shows deficit in the languages the UK needs most, available at http://www.britishcouncil.org/organisation/press/report-shows-deficit-languagesuk-needs-most (accessed 15 July 2017). British Council (2014) Languages for the Future: Which Languages the UK Needs Most and Why. London: British Council. Coleman, J. (2011) Enough is enough: The challenges facing university language departments, and what the University Council of Modern Languages is doing to mediate them. The Linguist, 50 (5), 16–17. Council of Europe (2001) A Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching and Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Coussins, J.E. (2018) Education: Modern foreign languages. House of Lords Hansard, volume 788, available at https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2018-01-18/debates/ E4CB3BC2-13A6-4681-B371-4413FCC3DEB7/EducationModernForeignLanguages (accessed 7 June 2018). Cowie, H. and Sharp, S. (1996) Peer Counselling in School: A Time to Listen. London: David Fulton. Creese, A. and Blackledge, A. (2010a) Separate and flexible bilingualism in complementary schools: Multiple language practices in interrelationship. Journal of Pragmatics 43 (5), 1196–1208. Creese, A. and Blackledge, A. (2010b) Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy for learning and teaching? Modern Language Journal 94, 103–115. Cummins, J. (1976) The influence of bilingualism on cognitive growth: A synthesis of research findings and explanatory hypotheses. Working Papers on Bilingualism 9, 1–43.

128  Multilingualism in European Language Education

Cummins, J. (1979) Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research 49, 222–251. Dearing, R. (2007) Languages Review. London: Department for Education and Skills Demont-Heinrich, C. (2007) Globalisation, language and the tongue-tied American: A textual analysis of American discourse on the hegemony of English. Journal of Communication Inquiry 31, 98–117. Demont-Heinrich, C. (2008) American ‘prestige press’ representations of the global hegemony of English. World Englishes 27 (2), 161–180. Department for Education and Skills (2002) Languages for All, Languages for Life: A Strategy for England, available at http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130401151715/ http://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/DfESLanguagesStrategy.pdf (accessed 15 July 2017). Department for Education and Skills (2005) The National Languages Strategy in Higher Education, available at https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130323033440/ https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/RR625.pdf (accessed 15 July 2017). Department for Education and Skills (2015) Modern Foreign Languages GCE AS and A Level Subject Content, available at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/ uploads/attachment_data/file/485569/GCE_A_AS_level_subject_content_modern_ foreign_langs.pdf (accessed 15 July 2017). Dosi, I., Papadopoulou, D. and Tsimpli, I.M. (2016) Linguistic and cognitive factors in elicited imitation tasks: A study with mono- and biliterate Greek–Albanian bilingual children. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Edwards, V. (2011) Globalization and multilingualism: The case of the UK. Intercultural Communication Studies 10 (1), 27–35. Gamir, S. (2017) Realities of and perspectives for languages in the globalised world: Can language teaching survive the inadequacies of policies implemented today at Leeds Beckett University? Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 7 (2), 295–315. Gibb, N. (2017) Schools Minister: Official Report, available at http://webarchive. nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160108061028/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/rereference-tables.html?edition=tcm%3A77-405714 (accessed 25 June 2018). Hancock, A. (2014) Language education policy in multilingual Scotland: Opportunities, imbalances and debates. Language Problems and Language Planning 38 (2), 167–191. Hardie, R. (2011) Business of education: Speak to the Future campaign. The language needs of international business and improvement to MFL teaching in East London. The Linguist 50 (3). Hooper (2018) Education: modern foreign languages, available at https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2018-01-18/debates/E4CB3BC2-13A6-4681-B371-4413FCC3DEB7/ EducationModernForeignLanguages (accessed 20 January 2018). Kelly, M. and Jones, D. (2003) A new landscape for languages. Higher, The CILT Bulletin for Language Teaching and Research in Higher Education 6. King, L. (2011) Overview of the National Strategy for Languages 2003–2011: The Languages Company, available at http://www.languagescompany.com/images/stories/docs/news/ national_language_strategy.pdf (accessed 15 July 2017). Lanvers, U. (2011) Language education policy in England. Is English the elephant in the room? Apples – Journal of Applied Language Studies 5 (3), 63–78. Leider, C.M., Proctor, C.P., Silverman, R.D. and Harring, J.R. (2013) Examining the role of vocabulary depth, cross-linguistic transfer, and types of reading measure on the reading comprehension of Latino bilinguals in elementary school. Reading and Writing 26, 1459–1585. Luddy, D. (2012) The work ahead in our new feature on Speak to the Future. The Linguist 51 (2).



England 129

Mclelland, N. (2014) French and German in British schools (1850–1945). Documents pour l’histoire du français langue étrangère ou seconde, available at https://journals.openedition.org/dhfles/4089 (accessed 24 September 2018). McColl, H. (2000) Modern Languages for All. London: David Fulton. McColl, H. (2002) Modern languages for all – or for the few? Scottish Languages Review, 5, available at http://www.languageswithoutlimits.co.uk/resources/SLR_AllorFewarticle. pdf (accessed 15 March 2018). McColl, H. (2018) L is for learning, for languages, and for life, available at http://www. strath.ac.uk/media/faculties/hass/scilt/slr/issues/12/SLR12_H_McColl.pdf (accessed 15 March 2018). Mellor, J. (2014) Little Englander mentality still exists. The London Economic, 14 July, available at http://www.thelondoneconomic.com/2014/07/14/little englander-mentalitystill-exists (accessed 15 March 2018). Mercator (European Research Centre on Multilingualism and Language Learning) (2014) The Welsh language in education in the UK, available at https://www.mercatorresearch.eu/fileadmin/mercator/documents/regional_dossiers/welsh_in_the_uk_2nd. pdf (accessed 4 October 2018). Migration Observatory (2017) Migrants in the UK: An Overview, available at http://www. migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/migrants-in-the-uk-an-overview (accessed 7 June 2018). NALDIC (2012) Community Language Teaching Under Attack, available at https://www. naldic.org.uk/eal-advocacy/eal-news-summary/160412.html (accessed 7 June 2018). NRCSE (2018) Web page at https://www.supplementaryeducation.org.uk/supplementaryeducation-the-nrc (accessed 07 June 2018). Nuffield Foundation (2000) Languages: The Next Generation. The Final Report and Recommendations of the Nuffield Language Inquiry, available at http://www. nuffieldfoundation.org/sites/default/files/languages_finalreport.pdf (accessed 15 July 2017). Office for National Statistics (2011) Language in England and Wales, at https://www.ons. gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/language/articles/languageinenglandandwales/2013-03-04 (accessed 15 July 2017). Office for National Statistics (2018) Overseas-born population in the United Kingdom, excluding some residents in communal establishments, by sex, by country of birth, January 2017 to December 2017, at https://www.ons.gov.uk/ peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/ methodologies/populationbycountryofbirthandnationalityqmi (accessed 10 June 2018). Pendleton, C. (2012) Upward trends: The findings of the new Language Trends survey. The Linguist 51 (3). Rampton, B. (2006) Language in Late Modernity: Interaction in an Urban School. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sharp, S. and Cowie, H. (1998) Counselling and Supporting Children in Distress. London: Sage Publications. Sharp, S., Cowie, H. and Smith, P.K. (1994) How to respond to bullying behaviour. In S. Sharp and P.K. Smith (eds) Tackling Bullying in Your School: A Practical Handbook for Teachers. London: Routledge. Scottish Executive Education Department (2005) Citizens of a Multilingual World, available at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library3/education/cmlw.pdf (accessed 15 July 2017). Strand, S., Malmberg, L. and Hall, J. (2015) English as an Additional Language (EAL) and Educational Achievement in England: An Analysis of the National Pupil Database. Oxford: University of Oxford. Tinsley, T. (2015) The teaching of Arabic language and culture in UK schools. Alcantara Communications, at https://www.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/arabic_report_​ 2015.pdf (accessed 2 April 2018).

130  Multilingualism in European Language Education

Tinsley, T. (2017a) What are those ‘other languages?, blog, at http://www.alcantaracoms. com/what-are-those-other-languages (accessed 29 March 2018). Tinsley, T. (2017b) The cost of linguistic exclusion: Language skills as a key competence for all. Discussion Paper for the European Commission’s Fourth Thematic Panel on Languages and Literacy: ‘Rethinking foreign language teaching and learning’, 23–24 January. Tinsley, T. and Board, K. (2016) Language Trends 2015/16: The State of Language Learning in Primary and Secondary Schools in England, available at https://www.britishcouncil. org/sites/default/files/language_trends_survey_2016_0.pdf (accessed 15 July 2017). Tsimpli, I.M. (2017) Multilingual education for multilingual speakers, at http://www.meits. org/policy-papers/paper/multilingual-education-for-multilingual-speakers (accessed 15 July 2017). UK Inbound (2018) The Voice of Inbound Tourism. Breaking the Language Barrier: Equipping Our Tourism Workforce for the UK’s Future – Full Report, available at https://www.ukinbound.org/resources/breaking-the-language-barrier-full-report (accessed 25 June 2018). Ursula, L. (2011) Language education policy in England. Is English the elephant in the room? Apples – Journal of Applied Language Studies 5 (3), 63–78. Wei, L. (2006) Complementary schools, past, present and future. Language and Education 20 (1), 76–83. Wesleyan Assurance Society (2015) ICT Usage in Schools – A History, available at https:// www.wesleyan.co.uk/news-and-insight/ict-usage-in-schools-a-history (accessed 10 June 2018).

Appendix A  GCSE entries 2011–2017 Language

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Polish

3369

4128

3933

4498

5018

4988

4699

Italian

4343

5023

5136

4929

4824

4943

4929

Arabic

2639

3236

3607

3641

3780

4211

4294

Chinese

2104

2541

3042

3132

3710

4044

4104

Urdu

3960

4307

4519

3976

4253

3871

3841

Portuguese

1397

1721

1955

2197

2392

2341

2314

Russian

1899

1982

2274

2400

2270

2243

2061

Turkish

1293

1379

1409

1642

1630

1681

1478

Panjabi

885

967

951

886

836

982

940

1119

1139

1080

1019

998

924

919

996

1092

1111

963

776

791

766

Gujarati

565

586

542

625

563

651

517

Modern Hebrew

445

458

443

500

558

545

559

Modern Greek

418

386

510

516

528

534

589

Dutch

431

434

421

406

462

451

419

Persian

394

464

435

535

445

439

439

Japanese Bengali

Source: Tinsley (2017a).



England 131

Appendix B  A level entries 2011–2017 Language

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Chinese

3237

3425

3326

3113

3099

2849

3070

Russian

871

1008

1079

1147

1321

1232

1122

Polish

844

923

900

963

1090

1082

1115

Italian

895

871

816

814

823

868

927

Arabic

561

604

643

645

652

749

782

Turkish

366

355

419

466

535

577

514

Portuguese

340

312

360

370

446

444

448

Urdu

739

650

566

460

479

436

428

Japanese

265

280

261

260

222

236

226

Persian

182

154

164

190

192

190

195

Panjabi

196

184

189

167

157

164

166

Modern Greek

113

111

122

150

127

133

134

Dutch

178

140

127

149

127

128

127

Modern Hebrew

50

46

46

52

46

56

59

Bengali

83

54

56

42

43

46

54

Gujarati

33

19

13

19

16

19

19

Source: Tinsley (2017a).

7 The Netherlands Andreu van Hooft, Frank van Meurs, Ulrike Nederstigt, Berna Hendriks, Brigitte Planken and Sjoerd van den Berg

Introduction and Contextualization

Multilingual education can take various shapes: the main medium of instruction may be the country’s first language, with foreign languages being taught on separate courses, with instruction in that foreign language or not. Another option is to provide bilingual education with, for instance, English, the modern lingua franca, as the medium of instruction next to the country’s first language. Furthermore, a country’s education system may provide for education in minority languages, either regional minority languages or migrant minority languages (Baker, 2006; Cummins, 2006; Leung, 2005; Romaine, 2006). This chapter will discuss multilingualism in the education system in the Netherlands. Against the backdrop of the makeup of the Dutch population and the languages used in Dutch society, we first consider language policy regarding regional minority languages in primary and secondary education. Next, we discuss language policy with respect to migrant minority languages in education. Thirdly, we consider policy regarding foreign languages in primary and secondary school. Contextualization

The Kingdom of the Netherlands consists of four countries: the Nether­ lands, situated in western Europe, three autonomous overseas countries in the Caribbean, the islands of Aruba, Curaçao, St Maarten, and three Caribbean municipalities, the islands of Bonaire, St Eustatius and Saba (see Figure 7.1). In this chapter, we will focus on multilingualism and how it has been managed in The Netherlands, the Kingdom’s main constituent country, since the focus of the book is on multilingualism (national, regional and migrant languages) in European countries and regions. The Netherlands is a small and densely populated country, with over 17 million inhabitants and a surface area of only 41,500 square k ­ ilometres (CBS, 2015a). According to the Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (CBS, 132



The Netherlands  133

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

Figure 7.1 Kingdom of the Netherlands (TUBS, 2011). The large ellipse at the bottom on the right (1) shows the location of the various parts of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in the world. The small square at the bottom on the left (2) shows the location of the Caribbean parts (2). The large square in the middle (a zoom image of the small square) shows the location of the Caribbean islands of Aruba, Curaçao and Bonaire (3) and of St Maarten, Saba and St Eustatius (4). The small circle at the top on the right shows the Netherlands, located in western Europe (5)

the Dutch Statistical Bureau), in January 2014 the large majority of people living in the Netherlands – 15,700,000 people, 92.35% of the population – had the Dutch nationality, while 1,300,000 (7.65%) had dual nationality or a nationality other than Dutch. Of the group with a dual nationality, 25% had a Moroccan passport and another 25% had a Turkish passport, in addition to a Dutch passport. The other 50% were citizens with a dual nationality other than a combination of Turkish or Moroccan and Dutch. This last group (650,000 residents) included a wide variety of nationalities (CBS, 2015b). The economy of the Netherlands is the sixth largest in the European Union, with a gross domestic product (GDP) of US$869.51 million in 2015 (Trading Economics, 2016). The country plays an important role in transportation of goods and passengers in Europe; Rotterdam has the largest port in Europe and Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam is a major European cargo and passenger hub. In 2013, the Netherlands exported goods worth a total of €500 billion, making the country the second largest exporting country in the EU (Jaarsma & Lemmers, 2014). The official language in the Netherlands is Dutch, which is spoken by the majority of the people (Rijksoverheid, n.d.-b). In addition, Frisian is a second official language in Fryslân, one of provinces in the north of the country (Overheid, 2013). There are currently around 450,000 speakers of Frisian (Streektaal, 2016a). Gorter et al. (2008) suggest the number of

134  Multilingualism in European Language Education

Figure 7.2  Areas in the Netherlands where Frisian (line shading) and the regional languages Low Saxon (darker grey shading) and Limburgish (black shading) are spoken. Source: adapted from Silver Spoon (2011)

mother tongue speakers of Frisian may be lower, at 325,000. The Nether­ lands also has two recognized regional languages (Council of Europe, 1998; Rijksoverheid, n.d.-b): Low Saxon, which encompasses several dialects, such as Twents and Drents, spoken in the east of the Netherlands, and Limburgish, which is mainly spoken in the south-eastern province of Limburg (see Figure 7.2). Yiddish and Sinte Romani are recognized as so-called ‘non-territorial languages’ (Hamans, 2008; Rijksoverheid, n.d.-b) (see also Smeds, Chapter 10 of this volume). Multilingualism in the Netherlands

The Netherlands can be characterized as a multilingual society. In addition to the official national and regional languages, a large number of different minority languages are spoken in the Netherlands, such as Turkish and Arabic, as a result of immigration (Extra & de Ruiter, 2001; Extra et al., 2002). Although Nortier (2009) has noted that there are no official figures on the number of languages spoken in the Netherlands, it has been estimated that more than 200 languages are spoken as mother tongues or as home languages (Onderwijsraad, 2008). A survey conducted among approximately 139,000 primary and secondary schools pupils between 1997 and 2000 revealed that 96 different languages were spoken at home (Extra et al., 2002). In education, foreign languages are a compulsory part of the curriculum, mainly English, French and German. In business, foreign languages, especially English and German but also, to



The Netherlands  135

a lesser extent, French are used for communication with foreign trading partners (Hagen, 1993; van Onna & Jansen, 2002; Vandermeeren, 1999). In the media, foreign languages, especially English, are widely used in television programmes and films (usually subtitled), music and advertising (Edwards, 2016; Gerritsen et al., 2016). In addition, English, French and German television channels are widely available. Eurobarometer findings indicate that 95% of the Dutch people surveyed in the study regarded English as the language that is the most useful for their personal development (in addition to their mother tongue, Dutch); in comparison, 44% regarded German, 13% French, 18% Spanish, 7% Chinese and 1% Italian and Russian as most useful, next to Dutch (European Commission, 2012). Languages in Education Majority and regional minority languages

Dutch is the official language of the Netherlands, although its status is not incorporated in the Dutch constitution (Nederlandse Grondwet, n.d.). In 2010, the Dutch government proposed a legislative amendment for Dutch to be included in the constitution as the official language of the Netherlands (Rijksoverheid, 2010). The amendment was withdrawn by the government on 19 February 2018, since it was felt that it did not suf­ ficiently take into account the other official languages used in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, such as Papiamento and English. The government also felt that there was not sufficient societal need for the amendment (Nederlandse Grondwet, 2018). In the province of Fryslân, the status of Frisian was strengthened by law in 2014, when Frisians were given the right to use Frisian in com­muni­ ca­tion with the government, for instance in legal matters. The law also stipulates that there must be a Frisian language council, which is supposed to stimulate the use of the Frisian language and culture in education and the media (Hamans, 2016; Overheid, 2013). Oosterloo and Paus (2005) and Mercator (2007) describe the history and development of Frisian in education in the province of Fryslân and indicate that as early as 1907 the provincial government began to subsidize Frisian being taught outside of class hours. In 1937, primary schools were allowed to include the Frisian language as an optional subject in their curriculum. In 1955, a provision was made by law that, in situations where the Frisian or another regional language was in use in the community served by the school, these languages could be included in the curriculum as the language of instruction, but only up to year 3 of primary education. Almost two decades later, in 1974, an additional provision was made by law to allow Frisian as the language of instruction in higher years of primary education. Despite these provisions, in practice few schools opted to use Frisian; in most schools, the language of instruction was Dutch. In 1980, Frisian became a compulsory subject in

136  Multilingualism in European Language Education

primary education in the province of Fryslân, although the use of Frisian as a language of instruction is optional. On average, half an hour a week is spent on teaching Frisian (Mercator, 2007), while the use of Frisian as the language of instruction in subjects other than Frisian language is very limited. Since 1993, Frisian has been a compulsory subject in secondary education in Fryslân. Pupils usually receive one hour of Frisian a week in the first grade and second grade. If students choose Frisian for their final exams, they receive two to four hours of Frisian per week (Inspectie van het Onderwijs, 2006). According to figures provided by CITO (the Dutch central examining board), the number of pupils who choose to do Frisian for their final exams is very small, at fewer than 100 pupils a year in 2014 and 2015 (Alberts & Erens, 2015, 2016). The figures relating to Frisian at secondary school would seem to confirm Gorter et al.’s (2008: 201) conclusion that ‘the position of Frisian in secondary education is marginal, especially as a medium of instruction’. The two official regional languages in the Netherlands, Low Saxon (1,798,000 speakers) and Limburgish (825,000 speakers) (Streektaal, 2016b), were recognized as regional languages by the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages in 1996 and 1997, respectively (Council of Europe, 1998). This official status means that local governments are encouraged to stimulate these languages and cultures, for instance by subsidizing local cultural organizations and regional broadcasting organiz­ ations. The status of Low Saxon was further underlined in a covenant signed in 2018 by the central Dutch government and regional authorities in which they agree to maintain and stimulate Low Saxon as a regional language (Rijksoverheid, n.d.-h). Like Frisian, Limburgish and Low Saxon as regional languages may by law be used as a language of instruction in primary education (Wet op het Primair Onderwijs, 1998). The covenant signed in 2018 indicates that Low Saxon can also be taught at secondary schools as an elective subject (Rijksoverheid, n.d.-h). In practice, there is no formal curriculum for teaching Limburgish, and only a number of small-scale projects have been initiated to develop teaching materials in Limburgish (Streektaal, 2016c). As for Low Saxon, projects have been initiated only incidentally in primary education; in two municipalities only, Stellingwerfs, a Low Saxon variety, is taught as part of the primary school curriculum (Streektaal, 2016d). There are no data on the extent to which Limburgish and Low Saxon are used as languages of instruction in primary education, nor about the number of secondary-school pupils taking Low Saxon as an elective subject. Overall, it may be concluded that although Low Saxon and Limburgish are officially recognized and provisions by law have been made to allow their use in primary schools, in practice it would seem that the use of these regional languages is very limited in education. With respect to Frisian, which is a compulsory language by law at both primary and secondary school, again it would seem that its use in education is limited.



The Netherlands  137

Minority immigrant languages in the Dutch education system

According to the Dutch Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS), in 2016, immigrants made up 22.1% (3,752,291) of the total population of the Netherlands (16,979,120) (CBS, 2017a). The CBS classifies immigrants (defined by the CBS as a person having at least one parent born in a country other than the Netherlands) as either having Western or non-Western origins. In 2016, 2,096,592 immigrants were originally from non-Western countries (according to the CBS these are countries in Africa, Latin America and Asia – except Indonesia and Japan – and Turkey), while 1,655,699 had a Western country origin (defined by the CBS as countries in Europe – except Turkey – and North America and Oceania, or Indonesia and Japan). Table 7.1 provides an overview of the CBS figures for nonWestern immigrants (numbers of immigrants per Western country are not made available by the CBS). It was not until the mid-1980s that the Dutch government began actively to formulate policy to facilitate education for minority immigrant groups in the language (and culture) of their country of origin, with so-called OET (Onderwijs in Eigen Taal; Education in Own Language) and OETC (Onderwijs in Eigen Taal en Cultuur; Education in Own Language and Culture). Before then, any education of this type was organized incidentally, on immigrants’ own initiative, and financed by governments in the immigrants’ country of origin, rather than by the Dutch government (LIZE, 1995). In the 1960s, for example, education in own language and culture was self-organized by Spanish and Italian immigrants, and financed by the governments in those countries (Extra et al., 2002). It was only in the 1970s that the Dutch government began to recognize its responsibility in financing OETC for immigrant target groups (for example from Spain, Italy, Portugal, Morocco and Turkey). However, it did not take responsibility for the content and organization of such education, which remained with the groups that organized OETC initiatives, such as Dutch local government (LIZE, 1995). In 1985, the Dutch government formalized the provision of OETC by including it in the law on primary Table 7.1  Number of non-Western and Western immigrants (first and second generation), by country of origin Country of origin

First generation

Second generation

Total

Western countries

722,428

883,271

1,605,699

Morocco

168,336

217,425

385,761

82,462

68,519

150,981 349,022

Dutch Antilles and Aruba Suriname

177,720

171,302

Turkey

190,621

206,850

397,471

Other countries

529,310

284,047

813,357

Source: CBS (2017b).

138  Multilingualism in European Language Education

education, in accordance with European guidelines. Minority immigrant languages were taught incidentally, both in school and outside of school, if enough parents demanded such provision in a given municipality (LIZE, 1995). In 1987, there were 1822 locations that provided OETC, serving 49,133 pupils, 67% of the total number of non-Dutch-speaking children aged 4–12 in the Netherlands. By 1991, this percentage of participating children had decreased to 53% (66,205 pupils) (LIZE, 1995). In 1998, OETC was replaced by OALT (Onderwijs in Allochtone Levende Talen; Law on Education in Allochtonous Languages) (Extra et al., 2002). This new law obliged municipalities to formulate their own policy as to what language education they should offer to immigrant groups, based on the local demand of parents. The law stated that minority immigrant languages could be used to give pupils instruction in the Dutch language, as part of the core curriculum, or it could be used to teach pupils about their original culture and language, in an extracurricular setting. In practice, OALT was mainly manifested in the use of immigrant minority languages to support instruction in the Dutch language for nonDutch-speaking pupils and to thus improve their performance in other core curriculum subjects (taught in Dutch) as well. Experiences with OALT were mixed; it worked well in some schools to improve pupils’ performance, but less so in others (Handelingen Eerste Kamer, 2004). Furthermore, findings from studies of the effect of OETC, OALT’s precursor, had not shown the added value of using immigrant minority languages as a language of instruction for teaching Dutch (e.g. Driessen et al., 1989). Therefore, in 2004, as part of larger austerity measures implemented by the Dutch government, OALT was abolished and no new policy or law was formulated. Immigrant minority languages such as Turkish and Arabic did not disappear from the curriculum, however: they were still offered at secondary school as optional second languages alongside foreign languages such as French, German and English (see below). For immigrants aged between 18 and pension age from outside the European Economic Area (European Union countries and Liechtenstein, Norway and Iceland), Switzerland and Turkey, learning Dutch is compulsory (Rijksoverheid, n.d.-f). Immigrants are expected to prepare for language exams themselves, for instance through self-study or following language courses. The Dutch government provides loans to finance the costs of such courses and of taking the exams (Rijksoverheid, n.d.-g). Foreign languages in education A brief history of foreign language education

An education act of 1806 (Reglement voor het Lager Schoolwezen en Onderwijs binnen de Bataafsche Republiek; Regulations for Primary Education within the Batavian Republic) offered schools in the Netherlands



The Netherlands  139

the opportunity to include French and other modern languages as subjects in the school curriculum (Voogel, 2018; Wilhelm, 2005; for more information about the history of language teaching in the Netherlands, see Hulshof et al., 2015; Levende Talen, 2016). It was not until the educational reform of 1863 introduced by the Minister of Internal Affairs J.R. Thorbecke that French, English and German became compulsory subjects in secondary schools (Hulshof et al., 2015; Wilhelm, 2005). According to Wilhelm (2005) and Voogel (2018), French was in most cases the more important foreign language taught at secondary schools, until English took over its position after a major educational reform in 1968 (the so-called Mammoetwet, ‘Mammoth Act’). The position of English as the dominant foreign language in education was strengthened in 1986, when English was made a compulsory subject in primary schools (Hulshof et al., 2015). After French, English and German were made mandatory subjects in the curriculum in 1863, foreign language education in the Netherlands largely used the grammar translation method, with a strong emphasis on grammatical rules, translation from the foreign language and reading proficiency (Hulshof et al., 2015; Kwakernaak, 2014). The grammar translation method continued to be used in some schools until the 1980s (Hulshof et al., 2015). Following the developments in the USA during the Second World War (Fasoglio et al., 2015), the audio-lingual method was introduced in the foreign language classroom in the Netherlands in the 1960s, which involved pupils repeating orally presented materials such as grammatical structures, so-called pattern drills (Hulshof et al., 2015). In the 1980s and 1990s, foreign language teaching gradually adopted a communicative approach, which focused on the social and functional aspects of communication, such as exchanging information, giving directions or participating in a conversation (Hulshof et al., 2015). In contrast to the communicative focus of foreign languages teaching, it has been remarked that the Netherlands lags behind other European countries in the use of foreign languages as the language of instruction in the classroom (Kordes & Gille, 2012). The limited use of foreign languages in the classroom is illustrated by Haijma (2013). She observed 21 foreign language classes in English, French, German and Spanish at one school in 2011, and found that teachers mainly used the foreign language for opening and closing the class, for announcements regarding organizational matters and for compliments, and that English was used more often as a language of instruction than the other foreign languages. Furthermore, a survey Haijma (2013) conducted among 131 pupils showed that 60% hardly or never used French, German or Spanish in the classroom. With the introduction of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) in 2001, foreign language teaching was standardized in that the CEFR framework defined communicative goals

140  Multilingualism in European Language Education

for all four skills (writing, reading, listening and speaking) (Hulshof et al., 2015). Teachers can choose from a variety of CEFR-based (series of) course books published by Dutch educational publishers such as Malmberg, Noordhoff and ThiemeMeulenhoff, as well as international publishers. These publishers also offer online and print-medium practice materials (sample exams) to help pupils prepare for the national final exams, which focus on reading skills, that is, text comprehension (Fasoglio et al., 2015). Levels of education and foreign languages

The Dutch education system consists of eight years of primary education, four, five or six years of secondary education (depending on the type of school) and two to six years of higher education (depending on the type of education and the specialization) (see Figure 7.3).

Figure 7.3  Dutch education system. Source: EP-Nuffic (2015a: 3)



The Netherlands  141

Primary education starts at the age of four years (year 1) and ends at age 12 (year 8). English is a compulsory subject in primary school, but schools can choose in which year to introduce it. Most schools (66%) start in year 7 or 8, with a small minority (17%) starting as early as years 1–4 (Thijs et al., 2011). Since January 2016, primary schools have been allowed to teach 15% of their lessons in a foreign language (Rijksoverheid, n.d.-c). However, the time spent on learning English is usually around 45 minutes per week in each of the two final years (around 60 hours in total) (Thijs et al., 2011). In contrast, the schools that provide early foreign language teaching (VVTO) offer 60–200 minutes of foreign language teaching a week. Most schools (90%) teach English; other foreign languages taught are Frisian, German, Spanish, French and Chinese (EP-Nuffic, 2016a). The purpose of learning English at primary school is to provide pupils with a first basis for communicating with speakers of English in out-of-school contexts (Thijs et al., 2011). Secondary education starts at age 12 and is compulsory until the age of 16. Depending on the education level, secondary education ends at age 16, 17 or 18. There are three levels of secondary education: the lowest level is preparatory secondary vocational education (VMBO), the middle level is senior general secondary education (HAVO) and the highest level is university preparatory education (VWO). At VMBO pupils can choose different so-called learning routes (e.g. a technical or a general theoretical route), while at HAVO and VWO they choose a so-called profile (e.g. Culture and Society, or Nature and Health). English is compulsory for all levels and all years of secondary education (Rijksoverheid, n.d.-d, n.d.-e). From the 2012/13 school year, the importance of English was further strengthened, because, along with Dutch and mathematics, it was made a core subject (kernvak) at the first two years of VMBO and for the whole curriculum at HAVO and VWO level. In the final exams for HAVO and VWO, pupils must obtain pass marks for at least two of these subjects and not score a mark lower than 5, on a scale from 0 to 10 (College voor Toetsen en Examens, 2018; SLO, 2017). At VMBO level, pupils must take one foreign language in addition to English: German, French, Spanish, Arabic or Turkish. However, in practice, a second foreign language in addition to compulsory English is too taxing for some pupils at VMBO level, which is why the Ministry of Education allows schools to decide for themselves whether individual VMBO pupils should take a second foreign language in addition to English (Onderwijsraad, 2008). This means that in individual cases, the one-plus-two European guideline is not reached at VMBO level. The majority of schools offer German or French (Rijksoverheid, n.d.-c). In total, VMBO pupils receive between 400 and 480 hours of instruction in English and between 240 and 440 hours of instruction in the additional foreign language (Edelenbos et al., 2004). In the first three years of HAVO and VWO, pupils must take two foreign languages in addition to English, usually German and French,

142  Multilingualism in European Language Education

but schools may opt to replace one of these two languages with Spanish, Russian, Italian, Arabic or Turkish (Rijksoverheid, n.d.-e). University preparatory schools may also offer Chinese (Rijksoverheid, n.d.-a) but this language was offered only in a limited number of schools and will not be tested in the centrally administered final exams until 2018 (and then only at VWO level) (College voor Toetsen en Examens, 2017). In the first three years of HAVO and VWO, pupils receive 280 hours of instruction in English and 240 hours of instruction in each of the two additional foreign languages (Edelenbos et al., 2004). In the final two years of HAVO, pupils must take English and, when they choose a culture and society profile, a second foreign language (Rijksoverheid, n.d.-e). Pupils receive 360 hours of instruction in English and between 160 and 360 hours in their second foreign language, depending on the profile they choose (Edelenbos et al., 2004). In the final three years of VWO, pupils must take English and one additional foreign language, unless they attend a so-called Gymnasium school, a school that offers Latin and Greek as compulsory subjects, at least one of which is a mandatory exam subject (Rijksoverheid, n.d.-d). The additional foreign languages which pupils can take at HAVO and VWO in their final two or three years are the same as those in the first two years (Rijksoverheid, n.d.-d). During their time at VWO, pupils receive 400 hours of instruction in English and 160 hours of instruction in both German and French. Depending on their profile and choice of foreign language, they take an extra 320 hours of German or French, or 480 hours of Spanish, Russian, Italian, Arabic, Turkish or Chinese (Edelenbos et al., 2004). The hours for the second foreign language at the three levels of secondary schools are comparable to those for Frisian. At HAVO and VWO level, an increasing number of schools offer exam preparation for Cambridge English Proficiency Certificates (CAE or CPE), which means pupils receive one extra hour of English per week, with English as the medium of instruction (e.g. De Nieuwe School, n.d.). Tables 7.2 and 7.3 show the number of pupils who took the final central exams, administered by CITO, for each of the foreign languages offered in Dutch schools between 2008 and 2016 (Alberts, 2009; Alberts & Erens, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016). The figures reflect the popu­larity of the languages that pupils can opt for next to compulsory English at secondary school (VMBO, HAVO and VWO). Tables 7.2 and 7.3 show that there was an overall increase in the number of pupils who were registered for the final central exam in French and German and Spanish as an additional foreign language over the period 2008–2016. The numbers of pupils taking English went down between 2008 and 2016, with temporary increases in 2010, 2013 and 2015 (see Tables 7.2 and 7.3). Finally, with respect to Arabic, Turkish and Russian as additional languages to English, the number of pupils who were registered for the final exam in these languages was significantly lower in the period 2008 to



The Netherlands  143

Table 7.2 Numbers of pupils taking final exams in foreign languages between 2008 and 2013 (for VMBO, HAVO and VWO levels combined). 2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

English

204,164

204,167

207,098

203,051

202,623

201,987

German

55,054

56,144

70,483

67,732

65,629

65,401

French

27,481

29,338

36,165

35,849

35,935

34,706

1904

2026

2542

2644

2975

3056

Arabic

121

127

129

146

66

57

Turkish

121

96

98

122

97

89

Russian

29

18

9

18

11

15

Spanish

Source: Adapted from Alberts (2009) and Alberts and Erens (2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014).

Table 7.3 Numbers of pupils at VMBO, HAVO and VWO taking final exams in foreign languages between 2014 and 2016 2014

2015

2016

English

VMBO HAVO VWO Total

109,066 57,691 38,330 205,087

111,893 59,006 39,137 210,036

94,542 61,452 39,518 195,512

German

VMBO HAVO VWO Total

29,161 18,295 19,785 67,241

27,921 18,943 20,717 67,581

28,224 19,433 20,852 68,509

French

VMBO HAVO VWO Total

6,627 11,528 15,450 33,650

6,712 11,736 15,208 33,656

6,859 12,007 14,680 33,546

Spanish

VMBO HAVO VWO Total

557 1,082 1,762 3,401

710 1,237 1,867 3,814

765 1,357 2,098 4,220

Arabic

VMBO HAVO VWO Total

31 30 7 68

10 18 4 32

16 22 11 49

Turkish

VMBO HAVO VWO Total

97 12 30 148

33 66 14 113

34 55 18 107

Russian

VMBO HAVO VWO Total

– 7 11 18

– 7 17 24

– 6 12 18

Source: Alberts and Erens (2015, 2016).

2016, at between 9 and 149 pupils per language per year, than for German, French and Spanish (Alberts, 2009; Alberts & Erens, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016). This would suggest that although immigrant languages such as Arabic, Italian and Turkish are offered at secondary schools, the number of pupils who choose these languages is very small and has, to date, not shown an increase. The figures are comparable to

144  Multilingualism in European Language Education

those found for Frisian (see earlier). No figures for Chinese are included in Tables 7.2 and 7.3, as Chinese is not yet tested centrally. The Ministry of Education has only recently decided that Chinese will be tested as part of the central final VWO exams from 2018 onwards (College voor Toetsen en Examens, 2017). Goals for foreign languages in CEFR terms

For all foreign languages at all levels of education (VMBO, HAVO and VWO), the skills are tested in terms of the European Common Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). Table 7.4 shows the CEFR levels for the three levels of education, for all foreign languages offered in each and for the four skills (reading, listening, writing and speaking). The highest CEFR levels for the passive skills are C2 for listening in German (VWO), C1 for listening in English (HAVO, VWO) and German (HAVO), and C1 for reading in English (HAVO, VWO), German and Turkish (VWO). For the active skills, the highest level achieved is B2 for writing in English and Turkish and speaking in English, German and Turkish, all at VWO level (Fasoglio et al., 2015).

Table 7.4  CEFR levels for the four language skills in various foreign languages English

German French/ Spanish

Arabic

Turkish

Russian

Italian

Chinese

Reading VMBO

B1–B2

B1

A2–B1

A2–B1

A2–B1

–

–

–

HAVO

C1

B2

B1

A2–B2

B2

A2–B1

B1

–

VWO

C1

C1

B2

B1–B2

C1

A2–B2

B2

A2–B1

Listening VMBO

B1–B2

B1–B2

A2

A2

A2

–

–

–

HAVO

C1

C1

B1

B1

B1

A2

B1

–

VWO

C1

C2

B2

B2

B2

A2

B2

A2

Writing VMBO

A1–B1

A1–A2

A1–A2

–

A1–A2

–

–

–

HAVO

B1

A2

A2

A2

B1

A2

A2

–

VWO

B2

B1

B1

B1

B2

A2

B1

A2

Speaking VMBO

A2

A2

A2

A2

A2

–

–

–

HAVO

B1

B1

B1

B1

B1

A2

B1

–

VWO

B2

B2

B1

B1

B2

A2

B1

A2

At HAVO/VWO level, reading skills are tested in a centrally graded final, national exam. The remaining skills are tested by the schools themselves (College voor Toetsen en Examens, 2014). At VMBO level, both reading and writing skills are tested in a centrally graded national exam and again, the other skills are tested by the schools themselves (College van Toetsen en Examens, 2015). For these school exams, all school types can make use of exam materials developed centrally by the same institution that administers the final, national exams (Cito, n.d.). Source: Adapted from Fasaglio et al. (2015: 7–19).



The Netherlands  145

Although the levels achieved in foreign language exams vary greatly depending on school type and type of skill, Eurobarometer findings suggest that the majority of Dutch people (91%) regard themselves as sufficiently proficient to have a conversation in English, against an average of 38% for the population of the 27 European Union (EU) countries that were investigated (European Commission, 2012). With respect to German, the percentage is 71% (EU average: 11%) and with respect to French 29% (EU average: 12%) (European Commission, 2012). According to the Education First English Proficiency Index calculated in 2017 (EF English Proficiency Index, 2017a), the Netherlands is the most proficient country in English of 72 countries tested. However, as EF itself points out, the samples used in the study may not be representative of the populations of these countries as a whole (EF English Proficiency Index, 2017b). Management of multilingualism: Educational models

The majority of schools in the Netherlands provide monolingual education in the sense that Dutch is the primary medium of instruction, while the use of foreign languages is confined to dedicated foreign language classes. Indications that this is the case are provided by the results of a large-scale survey in 2016 of 3003 Dutch people, which found that 93.7% of parents of children at primary school and 88.4% of parents of children at secondary school thought that their children always communicated with their teachers in Dutch (Rys et al., 2017). However, there are three types of multilingual education: trilingual primary and secondary schools that use Dutch, Frisian and English as the medium of instruction; bilingual primary schools where both Dutch and English are the medium of instruction; and bilingual secondary schools that offer subjects taught in Dutch and English, or, in a few cases, Dutch and German. In addition, there are international schools, where the language of instruction is usually English (and sometimes another foreign language). In the province of Fryslân, 72 (16%) of the 450 primary schools offer trilingual education (NOG Nationale Onderwijsgids, 2017). In these schools, pupils are taught in Frisian half of the time and half of the time in Dutch in the first six grades. In grades 7 and 8, English is added as medium of instruction and is used 20% of the time, while Dutch and Frisian are each used 40% of the time (Klinkenberg & van der Meer, 2014). At six secondary schools, Dutch, Frisian and English are used as medium of instruction (NOG Nationale Onderwijsgids, 2017; Provinsje Fryslân, n.d.). Across the Netherlands, a five-year pilot project was started in 2014 introducing bilingual education at 18 primary schools. Although schools were free to choose any foreign language for this pilot, all of them chose English. In these schools, 30–50% of all lessons starting at grade 1 are taught in English, but in the majority of these schools pupils do not receive formal teaching in English. In other words, English is not taught

146  Multilingualism in European Language Education

as a subject but is the language of instruction. The schools taking part in the pilot, like all other schools, follow the Dutch curriculum and meet the final qualifications set for primary education (EP-Nuffic, 2016b). In the Netherlands as a whole, about one in five secondary schools (about 130 schools in total) offer bilingual education in Dutch and English (EP-Nuffic, 2015c). Bilingual education is offered at the highest level of education (VWO; 120 schools), at the second highest level (HAVO; 51 schools) and at the lowest level (VMBO; 32 schools). Two schools, both located in the border region between the Netherlands and Germany, offer Dutch and German as medium of instruction. In bilingual schools at HAVO/VWO level, at least 50% of education in the first three years, but only around 25% of education in the final two or three years, is in English, since final exams have to be taken in Dutch (EP-Nuffic, 2015b). At bilingual VMBO schools, at least 30% of education is in English in all four years (EP-Nuffic, 2015d). There are four types of international school, aimed at children with a foreign passport who are temporarily in the Netherlands and at children with a Dutch passport who have recently returned from abroad or will shortly go abroad: schools funded by the Dutch government that have an internationally oriented education department; private international schools, which are fully independent of the Dutch government; foreign national schools, which follow the national curriculum of a country other than the Netherlands; and schools linked to foreign embassies (Van der Wel et al., 2016). According to Rys et al. (2017), there are 40 international schools in the Netherlands, the majority of which provide both primary and secondary education. At 36 of these international schools, English is used as the language of instruction, sometimes in combination with other languages (Dutch at five schools, French at three, German at two, and Japanese and Spanish both at one school each). At single schools, French, German, Indonesian and Japanese are the sole languages of instruction (Rys et al., 2017). Research on bilingual education in the Netherlands would seem to show that it is effective. For example, in an extensive five-year study, Huibregtse (2001) monitored and evaluated the achievements, over time, of pupils in bilingual secondary schools versus monolingual secondary schools (also reported in Admiraal et al., 2006). She compared the performance of 584 pupils at five schools offering Dutch–English bilingual education (BE) with the performance of 720 pupils at one regular (non-bilingual) school (control group, CG), all at VWO level. Data were generated for English language proficiency and for two content courses, geography and history. English language proficiency was measured with three tests: receptive word knowledge was examined with the English as Foreign Language Vocabulary Test, in which pupils indicated whether or not they knew the meaning of a series of words and pseudo-words; reading comprehension was tested with the official CITO final central exams, consisting of English



The Netherlands  147

texts with 50 multiple-choice questions; oral proficiency and pronunciation were evaluated with the CITO Oral Proficiency Test for English, in which pupils are asked to respond to audio cues and text and pictures as stimuli. Pupils’ performance in geography and history was measured with their scores in the official final exams for these two subjects. Results showed that the bilingual group outperformed the control group for vocabu­lary, reading comprehension (BE mean = 77.2; CG mean = 55.1), oral pro­ficiency (BE mean = 78; CG mean = 54.6), pronunciation (BE mean = 76.4; CG mean = 62.3) and grades for their final national exams for geography and history (BE mean = 81.3; CG mean = 67.6). Similarly, a more recent study found that bilingual VWO pupils generally outperformed regular VWO and Gymnasium pupils in English language proficiency when tested in their first and third year at secondary school (Verspoor et al., 2015). The Gymnasium pupils were included as controls with similarly high scholastic aptitude as the bilingual VWO pupils. The study was conducted at four different secondary schools in the Netherlands, starting in September/October 2007. In the first year, 83 bilingual VWO pupils (bilinguals), 84 regular monolingual VWO pupils (regulars) and 49 monolingual Gymnasium pupils (controls) were tested, while in the third year the numbers tested were slightly lower, with 74 VWO pupils (bilinguals), 68 regular monolingual VWO pupils (regulars) and 41 monolingual Gymnasium pupils (controls). English language proficiency was measured with two tests: the same receptive vocabulary test that was used by Huibregtse (2001) and a productive informal writing task on personal topics, scored holistically by eight experienced EFL teachers. The scores on the two tests were combined. There were three measurements per year, in September/October, January and June. In the first year, the bilinguals and controls had higher scores for English language proficiency than the regulars at the first measurement, and at the second and third measurement the bilinguals had higher proficiency scores than the regulars and controls. In the third year, the bilinguals had higher English language proficiency scores than the regulars at the first measurement, and at the second and third measurement the bilinguals had higher proficiency scores than the regulars and controls. Conclusions

The Netherlands can, to some extent, be characterized as a multi­ lingual society, with two official languages, Dutch and Frisian (the latter only in the province of Fryslân), as well as two officially recognized regional languages, Low Saxon and Limburgish (meaning that local governments are encouraged to promote their use). In addition, minority immigrant languages such as Turkish and Arabic are used in both family and social contexts. The official languages are used as languages of instruction in education, but the regional and minority languages are not. Both in

148  Multilingualism in European Language Education

education and in society at large, the dominant foreign language is English. In foreign language teaching, the Netherlands lags behind other European countries when it comes to using the target language for instruction in the classroom (Kordes & Gille, 2012). Overwhelmingly, Dutch is the language of instruction in the majority of primary and secondary schools. Although regional languages are recognized, they are hardly taught in the Dutch education system, with the exception of some Low Saxon courses in primary schools. Some immigrant minority languages (Arabic, Italian, Spanish and Turkish) are taught in secondary school curricula as elective languages. Thus, it seems that Dutch language policy is an example of moderate recognition of the linguistic and ethnocultural diversity of Dutch society. However, in view of fact that there were more provisions for teaching immigrant languages in the past (OET and OELT), some authors conclude that ‘there has been a shift away from a pluralistic approach to assimilation in the Netherlands’ (Bezcioglu-Goktolga & Yagmur, 2017; see also Driessen & Merry, 2011; Kroon & Spotti, 2011; Vasta 2007). Foreign language teaching in the different types of primary and secondary school in the Netherlands is governed by a clear framework with regard to final qualifications, usually specified in CEFR terms, but also with respect to the number of hours taught and the final, national exams. At the same time, schools and teachers are relatively free to decide how and what to teach in foreign language courses, with respect to materials, approaches and methods. This creates a degree of flexibility that allows individual schools (and even teachers) the freedom to gear their teaching to the needs of society, and even individual pupils. It would be interesting to investigate to what extent schools and teachers take advantage of this relative freedom and how this impacts on foreign language teaching outcomes. The level reached at the end of secondary school ranges from A1/A2 to C1, depending on school type and type of language skill. Pupils at higher school types achieve higher levels than pupils at lower school types; for all school types, achievement in passive language skills is higher than in active language skills. While other foreign languages, such as French, German, Spanish, Arabic and Turkish, are also taught, English seems to be regarded as the most important foreign language, and this is increasingly so (see also Extra et al., 2002; van Oostendorp, 2012; Voogel, 2018). English is the only foreign language that is compulsory at all secondary school types and the only foreign language that is taught at primary school. The figures with respect to the foreign languages chosen for final exams at secondary school, next to compulsory English, suggest that the numbers of pupils who opt for immigrant languages such as Arabic, Turkish or Italian (and for the regional language Frisian) are negligible. This may be because these languages are not seen as a useful enough asset to pupils, in the sense that they may not contribute to pupils’ future professional and social advancement in the way English, and to some extent the other foreign languages, are thought to contribute.



The Netherlands  149

The description of foreign and minority immigrant language education in this chapter is mainly based on information about the general framework by which language education in the Netherlands is regulated, in terms of both hours taught and levels attained and tested in the different school types in secondary education, and to some extent in primary education. However, there is little information available about what actually takes place in the foreign language classroom, and with respect to the different languages, in terms of activities, relative time spent on the various (sub)skills and language of instruction (for the latter, see Haijma, 2013). System­atic research could attempt to chart this and also to investigate best practices. While language policy in the Netherlands in recent decades would seem to have recognized language diversity and multi­lingualism in society, and has generally striven to facilitate the inclusion of immigrant and minority languages in the secondary school curriculum as a result, in practice the uptake among the immigrant population has been surprisingly low. Indeed, given the relatively small number of pupils who opt to take and sit final exams in immigrant languages such as Arabic, Italian and Turkish in secondary schools, research might also be conducted to determine why this is so. Although bilingual education would seem to be on the increase in recent years, mostly at the highest levels of secondary school (HAVO and VWO), the number of bilingual (versus monolingual) schools is still low, and bilingual education almost exclusively involves Dutch and English, with some exceptions involving Dutch and German. The important position of English in education seems to reflect generally positive attitudes to English in Dutch society (e.g. European Commission, 2012); again, this seems to be driven by the assumption that English is useful, in that it can contribute to pupils’ future social and professional advancement. In an advisory report written at the request of the second chamber of the Dutch parliament, the Education Council of the Netherlands, an independent advisory council, addressed the question of how to ‘ensure that education in foreign languages is such that more Dutch people master more languages at a higher level’ (Onderwijsraad, 2008: 11). One problem with the current situation identified by the Education Council is that, while at least two-thirds of the Dutch population has been taught two foreign languages at school, only half at the most master these languages at B1 level (Onderwijsraad, 2008). One of the reasons for this is that foreign languages are not compulsory in secondary vocational education, a type of education that pupils can opt for after they finish secondary education. This educational level is attained by 30% of the Dutch population (Onderwijsraad, 2008). Therefore, the Educational Council recommends that one foreign language should also be made compulsory in secondary vocational education (Onderwijsraad, 2008), as is already the case for other types and levels of education in the Netherlands. With respect to primary education, the report recommends that pupils should start

150  Multilingualism in European Language Education

learning a foreign language earlier (as early as grade 1, that is, at age five), as their motivation at a very early age is generally high (Onderwijsraad, 2008). Implementing these recommendations can help achieve the goal of the European Council’s language policy that citizens should master one mother tongue plus two foreign languages (Eur-lex, 2011; Onderwijsraad, 2008). In a more recent report, the Education Council of the Netherlands stresses the need for foreign language education in primary and secondary education in order to improve international competence, in line with the more general societal trend towards internationalization (Onderwijsraad, 2016). References Admiraal, W., Westhoff, G. and de Bot, K. (2006) Evaluation of bilingual secondary education in the Netherlands: Students’ language proficiency in English. Educational Research and Evaluation 12 (1), 75–93. Alberts, R.V.J. (2009) Verslag van de examencampagne 2008 voortgezet onderwijs [Report of the 2008 Secondary Education Exam Campaign]. Arnhem: Cito. Alberts, R.V.J. and Erens, B.J.M. (2010) Verslag van de examencampagne 2009 voortgezet onderwijs [Report of the 2009 Secondary Education Exam Campaign]. Arnhem: Cito. Alberts, R.V.J. and Erens, B.J.M. (2011) Verslag van de examencampagne 2010 voortgezet onderwijs [Report of the 2010 Secondary Education Exam Campaign]. Arnhem: Cito. Alberts, R.V.J. and Erens, B.J.M. (2012) Verslag van de examencampagne 2011 voortgezet onderwijs [Report of the 2011 Secondary Education Exam Campaign]. Arnhem: Cito. Alberts, R.V.J. and Erens, B.J.M. (2013) Verslag van de examencampagne 2012 voortgezet onderwijs [Report of the 2012 Secondary Education Exam Campaign]. Arnhem: Cito. Alberts, R.V.J. and Erens, B.J.M. (2014) Verslag van de examencampagne 2013 voortgezet onderwijs [Report of the 2013 Secondary Education Exam Campaign]. Arnhem: Cito. Alberts, R.V.J. and Erens, B.J.M. (2015) Verslag van de examencampagne 2014 voortgezet onderwijs [Report of the 2014 Secondary Education Exam Campaign]. Arnhem: Cito. Alberts, R.V.J. and Erens, B.J.M. (2016) Verslag van de examencampagne 2015 voortgezet onderwijs [Report of the 2015 Secondary Education Exam Campaign]. Arnhem: Cito. Baker, C. (2006) Bilingual education. In K. Brown (ed.) Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (pp. 773–781). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Bezcioglu-Goktolga, I. and Yagmur, K. (2017) Home language policy of second-generation Turkish families in the Netherlands. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Develop­ment. DOI: 10.1080/01434632.2017.1310216. CBS (2015a) Population; key figures. November 2015, at http://statline.cbs.nl/Statweb/pu blication/?DM=SLEN&PA=37296eng&D1=0-51,56-68&D2=0,10,20,30,40,50,%28l1%29-l&LA=EN&VW=T (accessed July 2017). CBS (2015b) 1.3 million people in the Netherlands hold dual citizenship, at https://www.cbs. nl/en-gb/news/2015/32/1-3-million-people-in-the-netherlands-hold-dual-citizenship (accessed 12 February 2017). CBS (2017a) Hoeveel allochtonen wonen er in Nederland? [How many immigrants live in the Netherlands?], at https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/faq/specifiek/hoeveel-allochtonenwonen-er-in-nederland (accessed 17 July 2017). CBS (2017b) Bevolking naar migratieachtergrond [Population according to migrant back­ ground], at https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/achtergrond/2016/47/bevolking-naar-migratie​ achter​grond (accessed 17 July 2017). Cito (n.d.) Schoolexamens [School exams], available at http://www.cito.nl/onderwijs/ voortgezet%20onderwijs/over_kijk_luister/schoolexamens (accessed 17 July 2017).



The Netherlands  151

College voor Toetsen en Examens (2014) Moderne Vreemde Talen VWO. Arabisch, Duits, Engels, Frans, Russisch, Spaans, Turks. Syllabus Centraal Examen, 2016 [Modern Foreign Languages VWO. Arabic, German, English, French, Russian, Spanish, Turkish. Syllabus National Exam 2016]. Utrecht: College voor Toetsen en Examens, available at https://www.examenblad.nl/examenstof/syllabus-2016-moderne-vreemde-3/2016/vwo/ f=/mvt_vwo_2_versie_2016_nader_vastgesteld.pdf (accessed January 2019). College voor Toetsen en Examens (2015) Moderne Vreemde Talen VMBO.Syllabus Centraal Examen 2016. Nader Vastgesteld. [Modern Foreign Languages VMBO. Syllabus National Exam, 2016. Further Specified]. Utrecht: College voor Toetsen en Examens, available at https://www.examenblad.nl/examenstof/syllabus-2016-moderne-vreemde-2/2016/f=/ syllabus_moderne_vreemde_talen_vmbo_2016_2_versie_nader_vastgesteld_versie_611-2015.pdf (accessed January 2019). College voor Toetsen en Examens (2017) Chinese taal en cultuur in 2017 [Chinese language and culture in 2017], at https://www.examenblad.nl/vak/chinese-taal-en-cultuur/2017/ vwo (accessed 17 July 2017). College voor Toetsen en Examens (2018) Wat houdt de kernvakkenregel voor havo en vwo precies in? [What exactly does the core subject rule for HAVO and VWO entail?], at https://www.examenblad.nl/veel-gevraagd/wat-houdt-de-kernvakkenregel-voor/2018 (accessed 16 May 2018). Council of Europe (1998) European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, available at http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/Commun/QueVoulezVous.asp?NT=​148&CM=​ 1&​CL=ENG (accessed 10 February 2017). Cummins, J. (2006) Education in a multilingual society. In K. Brown (ed.) Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (pp. 64–65). Amsterdam: Elsevier. De Nieuwe School (n.d.) Cambridge English, available at https://www.denieuweschool. amsterdam/onderwijs/cambridge (accessed 17 July 2017). Driessen, G. and Merry, M.S. (2011) The effects of integration and generation of immigrants on language and numeracy achievement. Educational Studies 37 (5), 581–592. Driessen, G., De Bot, K. and Jungbluth, P. (1989) De effectiviteit van het onderwijs in eigen taal en cultuur: prestaties van Marokkaanse, Spaanse en Turkse leerlingen [The Efectiveness of Education in Own Language and Culture: Performance of Moroccan, Spanish and Turkish students]. Nijmegen: Instituut voor Toegepaste Sociale Wetenschappen Instituut voor Toegepaste Taalkunde, available at https://www.slideshare. net/gdries/geert-driessen-kees-de-bot-paul-jungbluth-1989-de-effectiviteit-van-hetonderwijs-in-eigen-taal-en-cultuur (accessed January 2019). Edelenbos, P., De Jong, J.H.A.L. and Westhoff, G.J. (2004) Vreemdetalenonderwijs in Nederland: Een Situatieschets [Foreign Language Education in the Netherlands: A Situation Sketch]. Enschede: NaB-MVT, available at http://www.gerardwesthoff. nl/downloads/nabmvt-Vreemdetalenonderwijs%20in%20Nederland.pdf (accessed January 2019). Edwards, A. (2016) English in the Netherlands: Functions, Forms and Attitudes. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. EF English Proficiency Index (2017a) The world’s largest ranking of countries by English skills, at http://www.ef.nl/epi (accessed 15 June 2017). EF English Proficiency Index (2017b) About EPI sixth edition, at http://www.ef.nl/epi/ about-epi (accessed 17 July 2017). EP-Nuffic (2015a) Education System The Netherlands: The Dutch Education System Described, available at https://www.nuffic.nl/en/publications/education-systemnetherlands (accessed 8 January 2019). EP-Nuffic (2015b) HAVO-VWO, at https://www.epnuffic.nl/voortgezet-onderwijs/ tweetalig-onderwijs/wat-is-tto/havo-vwo (accessed 15 June 2017). EP-Nuffic (2015c) Tto-scholen [Bilingual education schools], at https://www.epnuffic.nl/ voortgezet-onderwijs/tweetalig-onderwijs/tto-scholen (accessed 15 June 2017).

152  Multilingualism in European Language Education

EP-Nuffic (2015d) VMBO, at https://www.epnuffic.nl/voortgezet-onderwijs/tweetaligonderwijs/wat-is-tto/vmbo (accessed 15 June 2017). EP-Nuffic (2016a) Locaties vvto-scholen [Locations bilingual education schools], at https:// www.epnuffic.nl/primair-onderwijs/talenonderwijs/vroeg-vreem​detalenonderwijsvvto/locaties-vvto-scholen (accessed 15 June 2017). EP-Nuffic (2016b) Tweetalig primair onderwijs (tpo) [Bilingual primary education], at https://www.epnuffic.nl/primair-onderwijs/talenonderwijs/tweetalig-primaironderwijs-tpo (accessed 15 June 2017). Eur-lex (2011) Action plan on language learning and linguistic diversity, at http://eur-lex. europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:c11068 (accessed 15 June 2017). European Commission (2012) Special Eurobarometer 386: Europeans and Their Languages, available at http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_386_en.pdf (accessed 15 June 2017). Extra, G. and de Ruiter, J.J. (eds) (2001) Babylon aan de Noordzee: Nieuwe Talen in Nederland [Babylon by the North Sea: New Languages in the Netherlands]. Amsterdam: Bulaaq. Extra, G., Aarts, R., van der Avoird, T., Broeder, P. and Yagmur, K. (2002) De Andere Talen van Nederland Thuis en op School [The Other Languages of the Netherlands at Home and at School]. Muiderberg: Coutinho. Fasoglio, D., de Jong, K., Pennewaard, L., Trimbos, B. and Tuin, D. (2015) Moderne Vreemde Talen. Vakspecifieke Trendanalyse 2015 [Modern Foreign Languages. Subject-Specific Trend Analysis 2015], available at http://downloads.slo.nl/Repository/ moderne-vreemde-talen-vakspecifieketrendanalyse-2015.pdf (accessed 15 June 2017). Gerritsen, M., van Meurs, F., Planken, B. and Korzilius, H. (2016) A reconsideration of the status of English in the Netherlands within the Kachruvian Three Circles model. World Englishes 35 (3), 457–474. DOI: 10.1111/weng.12206. Gorter, D., van der Meer, C. and Riemersma, A. (2008) Frisian in the Netherlands. In G. Extra and D. Gorter (eds) Multilingual Europe: Facts and Policies (pp. 185–206). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Hagen, S. (1993) Languages in European Business: A Regional Survey of Small and Medium-Sized Companies. London: City Technology Colleges (CILT). Haijma, A. (2013) Duiken in een taalbad: onderzoek naar het gebruik van doeltaal als voertaal [Diving in a language pool: Research into the use of target language as language of instruction]. Levende Talen Tijdschrift 14 (3), 27–40. Hamans, C. (2008) The minority language debate – The case of Yiddish in the Dutch language landscape. In S. Puppel (ed.) Scripta Neophilologica Posnaniensia (vol. 9, pp. 131–155). Poznań: Wydział Neofilologii, UAM. Hamans, C. (2016) Language policy in the Netherlands. In S. Puppel (ed.) Scripta Neophilologica Posnaniensia (vol. 16, pp. 41–61). Poznań: Wydział Neofilologii, UAM. Handelingen Eerste Kamer (2004) Behandeling van het wetsvoorstel Wijziging van de Wet op het primair onderwijs, de Wet op de expertisecentra en de Wet op het voortgezet onderwijs, onder meer in verband met de beëindiging van de bekostiging van het onderwijs in allochtone levende talen (29019) [Discussion of the bill Amendment of the Primary Education Act, the Act on Centres of Expertise and the Secondary Schools Act, inter alia in connection with the termination of funding of education in foreign languages (29019)], at https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/dossier/29019/h-ek20032004-1512-1518?resultIndex=4&sorttype=1&sortorder=4 (accessed 15 June 2017). Huibregtse, W. P. (2001) Effecten en didactiek van tweetalig voortgezet onderwijs in Nederland [Effects and didactics of bilingual secondary education in the Netherlands]. PhD thesis, University of Utrecht. Hulshof, H., Kwakernaak, E. and Wilhelm, F. (2015) Geschiedenis van het Talenonderwijs in Nederland: Onderwijs in de Moderne Talen van 1500 tot Heden [History of



The Netherlands  153

Language Education in the Netherlands: Education in Modern Languages from 1500 to the Present]. Groningen: Passage. Inspectie van het Onderwijs (2006) Fries op School: De kwaliteit van het vak Fries in het primair en voortgezet onderwijs in Fryslân [Frisian at School: The Quality of the Subject Frisian in Primary and Secondary Education in Frisia], available at http://www. onderwijsinspectie.nl/binaries/content/assets/publicaties/2006/fries-op-school-fryskop-skoalle.pdf (accessed 15 June 2017). Jaarsma, M. and Lemmers, O. (2014) Nederland tweede exportland van Europa [The Netherlands second exporting country in Europe], at https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/achter​ grond/2014/17/nederland-tweede-exportland-van-europa (accessed 15 June 2017). Klinkenberg, E. and van der Meer, C. (2014) Drietalig onderwijs in Friesland/Trijetalig ûnderwiis yn Fryslân [Trilingual education in Frisia], at http://www.anv.nl/wp-content/ uploads/2014/08/2014-2-Drietalig_onderwijs_in_Friesland.pdf (accessed 15 June 2017). Kordes, J. and Gille, E. (2012) Vaardigheden Engels en Duits van Nederlandse leerlingen in Europees perspectief [English and German skills of Dutch students in European perspective]. Arnhem: Cito, available at http://www.kernvakengels.nl/engels-duitsondezoek-europ.pdf (accessed January 2019). Kroon, S. and Spotti, M. (2011) Immigrant minority language teaching policies and practices in The Netherlands: Policing dangerous multilingualism. In V. Domovic, S. Gehrmann, M. Krüger-Potratz and A. Petrovic (eds) Europäische Bildung: Konzepte und Perspektiven aus fünf Ländern (pp. 87–103). Münster: Waxmann. Kwakernaak, E. (2014) Vreemdetalenonderwijs. Van grammatica en literatuur naar communicatie [Foreign language education. From grammar and literature to communication]. Levende Talen Magazine 101 (7), 26–30. Leung, C. (2005) Language and content in bilingual education. Linguistics and Education 16 (2), 238–252. Levende Talen (2016) Talenexpo [Language Expo], at http://www.talenexpo.nl (accessed 15 June 2017). LIZE (Landelijk Inspraakorgaan Zuid-Europeanen) (1995) Thuistaal op school. Onderwijs in eigen taal en cultuur aan Zuideuropese basisschoolleerlingen [Home Language at School. Education in Native Language and Culture to Southern European Primary School Pupils]. Utrecht: LIZE, available at http://www.lize.nl/wp-content/ uploads/2013/10/Thuistaal.pdf (accessed January 2019). Mercator (European Research Centre on Multilingualism and Language Learning) (2007) Frisian: The Frisian Language in Education in the Netherlands (4th edn). Ljouwert/ Leeuwarden: Mercator, available at https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED535412 (ac­cessed January 2019). Nederlandse Grondwet (2018) Nederlandse taal in de Grondwet [The Dutch language in the constitution], at https://www.denederlandsegrondwet.nl/id/viivckl8ibxx/nederlandse_ taal_in_de_grondwet (accessed 14 May 2018). Nederlandse Grondwet (n.d.) Nederlandse taal in de Grondwet [The Dutch language in the constitution], at https://www.denederlandsegrondwet.nl/9353000/1/j9vvihlf299q0sr/ viivckl8ibxx (accessed 17 July 2017). NOG Nationale Onderwijsgids (2017) Drietalige scholen in Friesland moeten gestimuleerd worden [Trilingual schools in Frisia must be stimulated], at https://www. nationaleonderwijsgids.nl/hbo/nieuws/37584-drietalige-scholen-in-friesland-moetengestimuleerd-worden.html (accessed 17 July 2017). Nortier, J. (2009) Nederland Meertalenland: Feiten, Perspectieven en Meningen over Meertaligheid [The Netherlands Multilingual Country: Facts, Perspectives and Opinions about Multilingualism]. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Onderwijsraad (2008) Vreemde Talen in het Onderwijs: Advies [Foreign Languages in Education: Recommendations], available at https://www.onderwijsraad.nl/upload/ documents/publicaties/volledig/vreemde_talen_in_het_onderwijs.pdf (accessed 15 June 2017).

154  Multilingualism in European Language Education

Onderwijsraad (2016) Internationaliseren met Ambitie [Internationalisation with Ambition], available at https://www.onderwijsraad.nl/publicaties/2016/ internationaliseren-met-ambitie/volledig/item7414 (accessed 15 June 2017). Oosterloo, A. and Paus, H. (2005) Taal aan bod. Leerplan Fries voor het Primair Onderwijs. [Language on offer. Curriculum Frisian for Primary Education]. Enschede: SLO, available at http://www.slo.nl/nl/downloads/archief/Fries_20aan_20bod.pdf (accessed January 2019). Overheid (2013) Wet gebruik Friese Taal [Law use of Frisian language], available at http:// wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0034047/2014-01-01/0 (accessed 15 June 2017). Provinsje Fryslân (n.d.) Onderwijs [Education], at https://www.fryslan.frl/over-deprovincie/onderwijs_41999 (accessed 15 June 2017). Rijksoverheid (2010) Dutch language enshrined in the constitution, available at https://www. government.nl/latest/news/2010/02/12/dutch-language-enshrined-in-the-constitution (accessed 15 June 2017). Rijksoverheid (n.d.-a) Welke vreemde talen krijg ik in de onderbouw van het voortgezet onderwijs? [What foreign languages do i get in the first phase of secondary education?], at https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/voortgezet-onderwijs/vraag-en-antwoord/ welke-vreemde-talen-krijg-ik-in-de-onderbouw-van-het-voortgezet-onderwijs (accessed 15 June 2017). Rijksoverheid (n.d.-b) Welke erkende talen heeft Nederland? [What languages have official status in the Netherlands?], at https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/erkendetalen/vraag-en-antwoord/erkende-talen-nederland (accessed 15 June 2017). Rijksoverheid (n.d.-c) Wat houdt de proef tweetalig primair onderwijs (tpo) in? [What does the experiment bilingual primary education involve?], at https://www.rijksoverheid. nl/onderwerpen/basisonderwijs/vraag-en-antwoord/wat-houdt-de-pilot-tweetaligprimair-onderwijs-tpo-in (accessed 15 June 2017). Rijksoverheid (n.d.-d) Welke vreemde talen krijg ik in de bovenbouw havo-en-vwo? [What foreign languages do I get in the second phase of HAVO and VWO?], at https:// www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/voortgezet-onderwijs/vraag-en-antwoord/welkevreemde-talen-krijg-ik-in-de-2e-fase-havo-en-vwo (accessed 15 June 2017). Rijksoverheid (n.d.-e) Welke vreemde talen krijg ik in de onderbouw van het voortgezet onderwijs? [What foreign languages do I get in the first phase of secondary education?], at https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/voortgezet-onderwijs/vraag-en-antwoord/ welke-vreemde-talen-krijg-ik-in-de-onderbouw-van-het-voortgezet-onderwijs (accessed 15 June 2017). Rijksoverheid (n.d.-f) Inburgering en integratie van nieuwkomers [Integration of newcomers], at https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/nieuw-in-nederland/ inburgering-en-integratie-van-nieuwkomers (accessed 15 June 2017). Rijksoverheid (n.d.-g) Hoe kan ik de Nederlandse taal leren? [How Can I Learn the Dutch Language], at https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/nieuw-in-nederland/vraagen-antwoord/hoe-kan-ik-de-nederlandse-taal-leren (accessed 15 June 2017). Rijksoverheid (n.d.-h) Nedersaksische taal erkend [Low Saxon language recognized], webpage at https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/actueel/nieuws/2018/10/10/nedersaksischetaal-erkend (accessed 17 October 2018). Romaine (2006) Language policy in multilingual educational contexts. In K. Brown (ed.) Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (pp. 584–598). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Rys, K., van der Meulen, M.S., Hinskens, F., Gucht, F., Caluwe, J., Heeringa, W. and Peet, M. (2017) Staat van het Nederlands: Over de taalkeuzes van Nederlanders en Vlamingen in het dagelijks leven. Onderzoeksrapport [State of Dutch: About Dutch and Flemish People’s Language Choices in Daily Life. Research Report], available at http://taalunieversum.org/sites/tuv/files/downloads/Staat_van_het_Nederlands_-_ Onderzoeksrapport_2017.pdf (accessed 16 May 2018). Silver Spoon (2011) File: Nederland Laag-Saksisch.svg [File: The Netherlands Low Saxon.



The Netherlands  155

svg], available at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nederland_Laag-Saksisch. svg (accessed 15 June 2017). SLO (2017) Positie van het vak Engels in het vmbo [Position of English as a subject at VMBO], at http://handreikingschoolexamen.slo.nl/engels-vmbo/algemene-informatie/ positie-vak-engels-vmbo (accessed 16 May 2018). Streektaal (2016a) Fries [Frisian], at http://taal.phileon.nl/fries.php (accessed 15 June 2017). Streektaal (2016b) Welkom! [Welcome!], at http://taal.phileon.nl/index.php (accessed 15 June 2017). Streektaal (2016c) Limburgs [Limburgish], at http://taal.phileon.nl/lim_intro.php (accessed 15 June 2017). Streektaal (2016d) Nedersaksisch [Low Saxon], at http://taal.phileon.nl/nedersaksisch.php (accessed 17 July 2017). Thijs, A., Trimbos, B., Tuin, D., Bodde, M. and de Graaff, R. (2011) Engels in het Basisonderwijs: Vakdossier [English in Primary Education: Subject Portfolio], avail­ able at http://www.slo.nl/downloads/2011/engels-in-het-basisonderwijs-vakdossier. pdf (accessed 15 June 2017). Trading Economics (2016) Netherlands GDP growth rate, at http://www.tradingeconomics. com/netherlands/gdp-growth (accessed 15 June 2017). TUBS (2011) File: The Netherlands (incl. BES) in the Kingdom of the Netherlands.svg, at https://vls.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ofbeeldienge:The_Netherlands_%28incl._BES%29_ in_the_Kingdom_of_the_Netherlands.svg (accessed 15 June 2017). Vandermeeren, S. (1999) English as a lingua franca in written corporate communication: Findings from a European survey. In F. Bargiela Chiappini and C. Nickerson (eds) Writing Business: Genres, Media and Discourses (pp. 273–292). Harlow: Longman. Van der Wel, J., Bertling, L. and Renooy, P. (2016) Internationaal Onderwijs in Nederland [International Education in the Netherlands]. Amsterdam: Regioplan. Van Onna, B. and Jansen, C. (2002) Talen in Nederlandse organisaties. Een enquête [Languages in Dutch organizations. A survey]. In C. van den Brandt and M. van Mulken (eds) Bedrijfscommunicatie II. Een Bundel voor Dick Springorum bij Gelegenheid van zijn Afscheid [Business Communication II. A Volume for Dick Springorum on the Occasion of his Retirement] (pp. 175–187). Nijmegen: Nijmegen University Press. Van Oostendorp, M. (2012) Bilingualism versus multilingualism in the Netherlands. Language Problems and Language Planning, 36 (3), 252–272. Vasta, E. (2007) From ethnic minorities to ethnic majority policy: Multiculturalism and the shift to assimilationism in the Netherlands. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30 (5), 713–740. Verspoor, M., de Bot, K. and Xu, X. (2015) The effects of English bilingual education in the Netherlands. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education 3 (1), 4–27. Voogel, M. (2018) Bon Ton of Boring? De Ontwikkeling van het Frans in Onderwijs en Uitgeverij in Nederland [Bon Ton or Boring? The Evolution of French in Education and Publishing in the Netherlands]. Amsterdam: AUP. Wet op het Primair Onderwijs (1998) Artikel 9, lid 8 [Law on Primary Education (1998) article 9, section 8], available at http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0003420/2017-07-01 (accessed 15 June 2017). Wilhelm, F.A. (2005) English in the Netherlands: A History of Foreign Language Teach­ing 1800–1920: With a Bibliography of Textbooks. Utrecht: Gopher Publishers, avail­able at http://repository.ubn.ru.nl/bitstream/handle/2066/27045/27045.pdf?sequence=1 (ac­ cessed January 2019).

8 Romania Adelina Ianos, Clara Sansó and Cristina Petreñas

Introduction and Contextualization

This chapter describes the sociolinguistic and educational particu­ larities of Romania, a south-eastern European country that hosts more than 20 ethnic groups. Despite its rich cultural and linguistic diversity, the introduction of multilingual language policies has been relatively recent. After a brief overview of the historical background and legal framework, the chapter explores the management of national minority and foreign languages in the Romanian education system. Specifically, it describes how several national minority communities (Armenian, Bulgarian, Croatian, Czech, German, Greek, Hungarian, Italian, Lipovenian Russian, Polish, Roma, Serbian, Slovak, Turkish and Ukrainian) have implemented the educational and language policies adopted after the fall of the Communist regime. Recent educational and linguistic laws and policies have gradually granted more rights to national minority languages, which are now protected and promoted. Education in the mother tongue at pre-university levels is provided for 12 of the aforementioned communities, while all national minority languages can be studied as a subject in ­Romanian-medium schools. However, the implementation of these policies is conditioned by the strength of each community in a specific territory. The presence of foreign languages in the compulsory education system and the various educational models aimed at promoting bilingualism in international languages are also discussed. Finally, we examine the language policies designed for immigrants in their current incipient form, considering the small influx of migrants into Romania. Contextualization

Romania, a country of 20.1 million inhabitants, has a centuries-long history of multilingualism and multiculturalism, and there have been important variations in how multilingualism has been managed by the various political parties leading the country. The only official language of the country is Romanian, a Romance language, which is not surprising considering that the majority of the population (83.46%) is ethnic Romanian. However, there are over 20 other communities that have been 156



Romania 157

Table 8.1 Ethnic structure of Romania’s population Ethnic group

Number

Percentage

Romanians

1,679,868

83.46%

Croats

5,408

0.03%

Hungarians

1,227,623

6.10%

Greeks

3,668

0.02%

Roma

Ethnic group

Number

Percentage

621,573

3.09%

Italians

3,203

0.02%

Ukrainians

50,920

0.25%

Jews

3,271

0.02%

Germans

36,042

0.18%

Czechs

2,477

0.01%

Turks

27,698

0.14%

Poles

2,543

0.01%

Lipovenian Russians

23,487

0.12%

Chinese

2,017

0.01%

Tatars

20,282

0.10%

Csangos

1,536

0.01%

Serbs

18,076

0.09%

Armenian

1,361

0.01%

Slovaks

13,654

0.07%

Macedonians

7,336

0.04%

Others

Bulgarians

1,264

0.01%

18,524

0.09%

Source: National Institute of Statistics (2011).

living in the same territory for several centuries. The main minorities are represented by the Hungarians, accounting for 6.1%, and the Roma, who represent 3.09% of the total population, according to the latest census (National Institute of Statistics, 2011). Other important communities are those of Ukrainian, German, Turkish, Russian, Tatar, Serbian, Slovak, Bulgarian and Croatian ethnicity (Table 8.1). Historical background

A brief overview of the history of the Romanian language and state is needed to understand the current linguistic context and the intricate dynamics between the various ethnic groups and their languages. The roots of the Romanian language can be traced back to 106 ad, when the Romans conquered Dacia, an area largely coinciding with the modern state of Romania. Following 170 years of colonization, the Dacians adopted a regional variety of Popular Latin. Subsequently, a series of migratory populations seized the territory, further contributing to the development of the language spoken in the area. Among these, the Slavic people, who arrived at the beginning of the 7th century, had a major influence. As a result, approximately 20% of the Romanian lexicon is of Slavic origin (Firica, 2010; Iatcu, 2000). Another significant event was the arrival of the Hungarians during the 10th century. By the 13th century, they ruled the Romanian population living in Transylvania, the North-Western and Central Provinces. However, the continuous presence of the Romanians in Transylvania is disputed. The debate is fuelled by territorial claims and political objectives (Schulte, 2009). During the following centuries, Transylvania was under Ottoman suzerainty (1541–1688), Hapsburg rule (1691–1867) and Austro–Hungarian rule (1868–1918). The 19th century was marked by

158  Multilingualism in European Language Education

Hungarization, a process of acculturation according to which Hungarian became the sole language of government, education and public life. The Romanian language, songs, societies and national colours were prohibited. Moreover, people were also urged to change their surnames to Hungarian ones (McClure & McClure, 1988). At the end of the First World War, in 1918, Transylvania was united with the Romanian United Principalities, created in 1859 through the union of Moldavia and Wallachia, the other two Romanian provinces located in the north-east and south, respectively. As a consequence, the mostly ethnically homogeneous state of Romania inherited a considerable minority population (Horváth & Scacco, 2001). This entailed a reversal of the power dynamic between Romanians and Hungarians. Subsequently, the Romanian authorities adopted a nationalistic discourse, especially pervasive during the interwar years. Thus, a ‘true’ Romanian was defined as ethnically Romanian, natively Romanian-speaking and Orthodox Christian (Korkut, 2006). The Communist regime started out by being more accommodating to the historically established minorities. In this sense, the first two decades brought formal administrative autonomy for the Hungarian minority and education in Hungarian at all levels, including a Hungarian university. Other minorities also had cultural autonomy, albeit limited. However, the German community received more severe treatment, as it was blamed for the Romanian collaboration with the Nazis. As a consequence, many Germans were either forced to emigrate or deported to labour camps in the Soviet Union (Horváth, 2002; Horváth & Scacco, 2001). The 1970s saw a return to strongly nationalistic rhetoric as the Ceaușescu regime implemented a series of assimilationist policies. Accordingly, the use of Hungarian was restricted and Hungarian institutions were merged with their Romanian counterparts, as in the case of the Hungarian Bolyai University and the Romanian Babeș University, which were joined to create the Babeș-Bolyai University (Korkut, 2006). The nationalistic legacy continued after the fall of the Communist regime for approximately six years. During this period, the Romanian language was valued as a symbol of national unity and the use of minority languages was restricted. The claims of the Hungarian minority to more rights were usually interpreted in a frame of ethno-nationalism and seen as a threat to the integrity of the Romanian state. Nonetheless, language policies started to focus on restoring minority rights after the change of government in 1996, when the Democratic Alliance of Hungarians in Romania became part of the coalition government. The national minority languages started to be increasingly used in education, public life, administrative functions and court proceedings (Horváth, 2009). The Hungarian group, as the largest and most vocal minority in Romania, has been the main target of the language and education policies



Romania 159

involved. In this regard, Kettley noticed that ‘the dynamics of the relationship between the ethnic Hungarian and the Romanian political elites have set the tone of the ethnic discourse’ (Kettley, 2003: 245), which reflects the tension and mistrust between Romanians and Hungarians created by the history of shifting boundaries and mutual oppression. Legal framework

The constitution of Romania, ratified in 1991, states in article 1 that ‘Romania is a sovereign, independent, unitary and indivisible National State’ (see https://www.constitutiaromaniei.ro). It also establishes that the official language is Romanian (article 13). Furthermore, it recognizes and guarantees the ‘rights of persons belonging to national minorities to the preservation, development and expression of their ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious identity’ (article 6). National minorities are also guaranteed representation in the Parliament (article 62) (see Smeds, Chapter 10 of this volume). Some of the provisions of the constitution, especially the proclamation of Romania as a national state and its monolingualism, were disputed by the Hungarian political elites (Dragoman, 2008). Additionally, a series of specific laws on public administration and education adopted in the early 1990s received severe criticism. One example is the Local Administration Act, ratified in 1991, which established the exclusive use of the Romanian language in public institutions. However, gradually, the national minorities have been granted more rights. The modification of the constitution in 2003 has been considered a breakthrough in this sense. Thus, a new paragraph of article 120 states that: in the territorial – administrative units where citizens belonging to a national minority have a significant weight, provision shall be made for the oral and written use of that national minority’s language in relation to the local public administration authorities and the decentralized public services, under the terms stipulated by the organic law.

Thus, the use of minority languages for legal and public administrative purposes is currently guaranteed in any administrative unit where the minority population accounts for at least 20% of the total. According to data collected by the Romanian Institute for Research on National Minorities regarding the Hungarian minority (Horváth, 2010), these requirements have been achieved only partially. More specifically, communication in Hungarian was not possible in the case of 15% of the local councils. Meanwhile, oral communication was possible in 85% of these administrative units and written communication was guaranteed in 40% of them. Horváth concluded that the degree of implementation of the policies concerning minority language use had been directly proportional

160  Multilingualism in European Language Education

to the size of the minority group living in a particular administrative unit. Additionally, these regulations did not receive the support of the majority population, as two-thirds of the Romanians reject the use of minority languages in public administration, while only 27% support a multi­ lingual policy. Languages in Education

The aforementioned historical antecedents and the social and legal framework have been reflected in the education system. Thus, the Romanian constitution guarantees access to free education (article 32). Moreover, the Law of National Education, ratified in January 2011, stipulates that education is a national priority and all citizens have equal rights of access to all levels and forms of education, without any form of discrimination (article 2). The Romanian pre-university education system has three levels: (1) early education, for children aged 0–6 years, which consists of ante-preschool education (0–3 years) and pre-school education (3–6 years) and is optional; (2) primary education, which includes the preparatory grade and grades 1–4; (3) secondary education, which consists of lower secondary or middle education (grades 5–9) and upper secondary education or high school (grades 10–12/13). Upper secondary education can follow a theoretical, vocational or technological programme. A vocational education, lasting between six months and two years, can be chosen as an alternative to high school. The law also establishes that there are 10 years of compulsory education, which includes primary and lower secondary education (article 42). After graduating from secondary education, students can choose between tertiary non-university education, which consists of post-high school education (article 23), and higher education. Higher education has been organized according to the three-cycle degree system of the Bologna model. Hence, it consists of (1) bachelor degrees, which require 180–240 ECTS (European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System) credits and are completed in three or four years; (2) master’s programmes, which require 90–120 ECTS credits and take two years to complete; and (3) PhD programmes, which have a general workload of three years. The laws also stipulate that education may be carried out in Romanian, a foreign language of international use, or a national minority language. Nonetheless, it is compulsory to learn the Romanian language, as the official state language (Law of National Education, article 10). National minority languages in the Romanian education system

Persons belonging to national minorities are guaranteed the right to study and receive instruction in their mother tongue at all levels of education. Groups, classes or educational institutions are organized at



Romania 161

the request of parents or legal guardians and depending on local needs. Students who do not have the possibility to study in their mother tongue at their place of residence are provided with transport to the nearest school where education in the mother tongue is available. If the respective school is too far for daily commute, the costs of accommodation and food are covered for the student. Further, the 2011 Law of National Education states in article 42 that:   (1) In pre-university education in minority languages, all subjects are studied in the mother tongue, except for Romanian language and literature.   (2) Romanian language and literature is taught throughout the preuniversity education using curricula and textbooks developed specifically for the respective minority.   (3) […] if requested, the instruction of the Romanian language and literature can follow the textbooks used in the educational institutions where instruction is in Romanian. […]   (7) Students belonging to national minorities who attend schools with teaching in Romanian or in a language other than their mother tongue are provided with, on request, and under the law, the mother tongue and literature, and history and traditions of the respective national minority, as subjects part of the core curriculum. Programmes and manuals of the history and traditions of national minorities are approved by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports.   (8) In primary, secondary and upper secondary education in minority languages, the subjects History and Geography of Romania are taught in these languages, following identical syllabi and textbooks as the classes taught in Romanian, with the requirement of transcribing and learning the proper names and toponymy in Romanian.   (9) In secondary education in minority languages, the History and traditions of the respective national minority are introduced as a subject and taught in the mother tongue. Curricula and textbooks for these subjects are approved by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports. (10) The programmes and history books will reflect the history and traditions of national minorities in Romania. (11) In upper secondary and vocational education, where teaching of subjects or modules of specialized training is in the mother tongue, the specialized terminology is also studied in Romanian. (12) In pre-university education, admission tests and graduation exams can be taken in the language in which those subjects were taught, according to the law.

The Law, adopted in 2011, marks a series of significant improvements from previous laws, especially concerning national minorities.

162  Multilingualism in European Language Education

For instance, according to the Law on Education adopted in 1995, the subjects geography of Romania and history of Romanians were taught in Romanian. This was disputed, due to concerns that the reasons behind the selection of these two subjects were not pedagogical but ideological and political. It was argued that minority students were subjected to an identity discourse with ethno-nationalistic undertones with which they could not identify (Horváth, 2002). The curriculum and textbooks used to teach the Romanian language were also debated. Issues arose around the linguistic register taught, which focused on the literary norms and the dialectical and stylistic richness of the language, while paying little attention to the commonly used language. Horváth (2008) was one of the authors who underlined the necessity of including specific registers and emphasizing the everyday life contexts in which the user will have to communicate. Regarding the children of national minorities, it has been argued that teaching them Romanian using the curriculum and textbooks designed for Romanian native speakers has led to under-achievement at national tests as well as negative attitudes. This disregard of the linguistic needs of the minority populations that came from teaching them Romanian as a first language seems to have led to the development of an asymmetric bilingualism, with dominant linguistic competence in the mother tongue, or to monolingualism, especially in those areas where Hungarians are the majority population and there are reduced possibilities to practise Romanian in everyday life (Kiss, 2011). The aforementioned policies had repercussions at wider levels, affecting the inter-ethnic climate. Data gathered by the Romanian government (Department of Inter-ethnic Relationships of the Romanian Government, 2006) showed that 40% of the Hungarian population reported negative feelings regarding their reduced ability to communicate adequately in Romanian. Additionally, 54.7% of the respondents agreed that Romanians tend to be hostile to those who do not speak Romanian properly. Additionally, 72.5% of the Romanians believed that many ­Hungarians avoid using the official language, even if they know it. Therefore, aiming to facilitate the learning of Romanian and, im­plicitly, ameliorate the aforementioned issues, the Law of National Education of 2011 stipulates that the history and geography of Romania will be studied in the mother tongue and the Romanian language and literature will be taught using alternative curriculums and textbooks designed for national minorities. Hopefully, adopting Romanian-as-a-second-language method­ ologies has been improving national minorities students’ competences in the state language and, thus, leading to a more balanced bilingualism. Another change concerns vocational education, which is now available in the minority languages, whereas previously it was provided only in Romanian with the possibility of also learning the technical terminology in the mother tongue.



Romania 163

Table 8.2 provides a closer look at the current educational situation of several national minorities. The information presented was compiled from national reports regarding the student population provided by the National Institute of Statistics (2017), the latest census (National Institute of Statistics, 2011), the country report written by Buja et al. (2010) as part of the project MERIDIUM, and the report provided by the Cabinet of the Secretary of State for Education in the Languages of National Minorities (2013). As can be readily seen by comparison with Table 8.1, for each national minority, the numbers of those who speak the language as their mother tongue are less than the numbers of those who identify themselves with the respective ethnic group. In this sense, the degrees of overlap between the ethnic and linguistic memberships vary in general between 70% and 85%. The case of the Armenian community is particularly striking, as only around half of its members consider the Armenian language their mother tongue. There seem to be many cases of subtractive bilingualism and/or language shift among the national minorities, possibly determined by ethnically mixed marriages, the low prestige of the minority languages and the enrolment of children to Romanian-medium schools – either because there are no classes available in the mother tongue or because parents do not consider it important to teach their language to their children (Kiss, 2011). These patterns raise important concerns about the future of these communities and the maintenance of their languages and cultures, concerns that have just started to be addressed at policy level. In this regard, the 2011 Law of National Education represents a first steps towards better treatment of minority languages. Consequently, education in the mother tongue at pre-university levels is provided for 12 minorities: Armenian, Bulgarian, Croatian, Czech, German, Greek, Hungarian, Roma, Serbian, Slovak, Turkish and Ukrainian. Children attending Romanian-medium schools can also study their mother tongue as a curricular subject for three to four hours per week, as well as the history and culture of the respective minority. Furthermore, all minorities have at least one department of language and culture at a state university where they can study the language. However, the most represented ones are Hungarian and German, incidentally the communities with the highest numbers of students attending a language maintenance programme. Additionally, there are several higher education programmes in these languages. Specifically, various specializations are taught in German at the Polytechnic University of Bucharest, the Academy of Economic Studies and the University of Bucharest, the Babeș-Bolyai University and the Technical University of Cluj-Napoca, the ‘Lucian Blaga’ University of Sibiu, the West University and the Polytechnic University of Timișoara, the Transilvania University of Brașov, and the ‘Alexandru Ioan Cuza’ University of Iași. Similarly, higher education programmes in Hungarian are available at the ‘Babeș-Bolyai’ University of Cluj-Napoca, the University of Medicine

2,164 South-West (Caraș-Severin, Mehedinți)

Czech

Hungarian

Greek

1,259,914 Central and Northwest (Harghita, Covasna, Mureș, Satu Mare, Bihor, Sălaj, Cluj)

2,561 South (Prahova and Bucharest)

26,557 Across de country (Alba, Arad, Bihor, Bistrița-Năsăud, Brașov, Caraș-Severin, Cluj, Hunedoara, Maramureș, Mureș, Satu-Mare, Sălaj, Sibiu, Suceava, Timiș, Bucharest)

5,167 South-West (Caraș-Severin, Timiș)

Croatian

German

6,518 West (Arad, Timiș, Bucharest)

Bulgarian

Area (counties)

739 South and East (Constanța, Iași, Bucharest)

No. of speakers (language is mother tongue)

Armenian

National minority community

34,482

–

5,559

8

39

28

–

93,222

266

14,458

11

35

–

281

33,1421

–

3459

34

–

–

Early Primary Secondary education education education

160,846

266

23,490

19

108

28

281

Total

3,957

160

204

85

466

538

70

Babeș-Bolyai University (Cluj-Napoca) University of Medicine and Pharmacy (Târgu-Mureș) University of Arts of Târgu-Mureș University of Oradea University of Bucharest

University of Bucharest

Polytechnic University of Bucharest, Academy of Economic Studies (Bucharest) University of Bucharest Babeș-Bolyai University (Cluj-Napoca) Technical University of Cluj-Napoca ‘Lucian Blaga’ University of Sibiu West University (Timișoara) Polytechnic University (Timișoara) Transilvania University (Brașov) ’Alexandru Ioan Cuza’ University (Iași)

University of Bucharest

University of Bucharest

University of Bucharest

University of Bucharest

Universities that have a department of the national minority language

No. of students whose national minority language is the medium of instruction

No. study­ing language in Romanianmedium schools

University education

Pre-university education

Table 8.2  National minority languages in the Romanian educational system

164  Multilingualism in European Language Education

12,802 West (Arad, Bihor, Sălaj, Timiș)

25,302 South-East (Constanța, Tulcea)

48,910 North and West (Arad, Botoșani, Caraș – Severin, Maramureș, Satu Mare, Suceava, Timiș, Tulcea)

Slovak

Turkish

Ukrainian 331

–

225

196

282

–

–

179

374

393

284

350

–

–

–

–

160

96

–

–

–

745

374

778

576

632

–

–

8205

4583

100

898

32,158

573

1383

University of Bucharest ‘Ștefan cel Mare’ University of Suceava ‘Babeș-Bolyai’ University (Cluj-Napoca)

University of Bucharest Ovidius University (Constanța)

University of Bucharest

University of Bucharest West University (Timișoara)

University of Bucharest

University of Bucharest ‘Alexandru Ioan Cuza’ University (Iași) ‘Babeş-Bolyai’ University of Cluj-Napoca

University of Bucharest ‘Dimitrie Cantemir’ University of Bucharest University of Craiova, West University (Timișoara) ‘Alexandru Ioan Cuza’ University (Iași)

2

Although the 2011 census counted 621,573 people identified as Roma, various sources estimate the size of this community at 1,500,000–2,300,000 (Cabinet of the Secretary of State for Education in the Languages of National Minorities, 2013). Furthermore, the Roma ethnicity does not necessarily imply identification with a particular language. Consequently, the degree of overlap between ethnicity and language is reduced. More precisely, less than 40% of the Roma people consider that their mother tongue is the Romani language.

1 Among the 33,142 Hungarian students enrolled in Hungarian-medium secondary education, there are 27,121 high school students and 6,021 who are following a vocational education itinerary.

18,076 West (Arad, Caraș Severin, Mehedinți, Timiș)

Unknown2 Across the country

2,079 North-East (Suceava)

18,946 East (Tulcea, Constanța, Iași, Suceava, Brăila)

Serbian

Roma

Polish

Lipovenian Russian

 Romania 165

166  Multilingualism in European Language Education

and Pharmacy and the University of Arts of Târgu-Mureș, and the University of Oradea. Nonetheless, Hungarian political representatives have been requesting an independent Hungarian-language state university. So far, the Romanian authorities have considered the multicultural universities a satisfactory solution and they have refused to re-open the Bolyai University in Hungarian. In addition to state-funded education, it is important to note that many minority communities have been actively working for the protection and maintenance of their culture and language. Thus, before the implementation of the recent laws and policies that protect the rights of minorities, there have been cultural associations and unions that organize various cultural events, publish magazines and periodicals in their languages, and offer language courses. For example, the Armenian Union of Romania organizes a Sunday school in Bucharest, where around 120 students study the Armenian language and culture, and which has been developing an online course in order to allow children from other cities to participate. The Hellenic Union of Romania has also been organizing courses of Greek, attended by around 2000 persons each year. Many of the national minorities also receive support from their cor­responding states. For instance, the Turkish Ministry of National Education helped fund two high schools where Turkish is studied, while the Embassy of the Republic of Poland collaborated with the County School Inspectorate of Suceava to develop the project ‘Children of Bucovina’, which aims to improve the conditions of education in Polish. Due to collaboration between the governments of Romania and Croatia, teachers of Croatian are offered training courses at the University of Zagreb. Moreover, an agreement between the government of Romania and the Federal Republic of Germany established several bilingual programmes in Bucharest and Timișoara that allow students to sustain a German– Romanian baccalaureate exam, which grants them access to both the Romanian and German higher education systems. Financial help is available for those who want to study in Germany, including scholarships for undergraduate students, through the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD), training courses for teachers from Central Educational Work Abroad (ZFA) or Pedagogical Exchange Service (PAD), Humboldt fellowships for researchers, fellowships provided by the German Research Society (DFG), and so on. Foreign languages in the Romanian education system

Foreign language learning has become increasingly important in the Romanian education system. Hence, article 68 of the 2011 Law of National Education stipulates that in both elementary and secondary education the aim is to develop students’ communication competence in Romanian, the mother tongue in the case of national minorities, and



Romania 167

foreign languages. Thus, in order to pass the national baccalaureate exam marking graduation from upper secondary education and to have access to higher education, students are required to demonstrate competency in an international language. The evaluation is made according to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. This goes in line with the language policies of the European Commission (2011), which advocate multilingualism, the promotion of favourable attitudes to languages and multilingualism and the encouragement of EU citizens to become competent in their mother tongue and at least two other European languages. Accordingly, in 2012, Romania was one of the European states whose inhabitants were most likely to have started learning a new language in the last two years (Eurostat, 2012). Furthermore, most students study at least two foreign languages during pre-university education, usually English, French or German. In 2012, for instance, 98.7% of secondary education students were studying English, while 85.7% were learning French and 9.8% German. Table 8.3 presents the modern languages studied in pre-university education. The first foreign language is introduced in the third year of primary education and it is taught for two to three hours per week. The second foreign language is introduced in the first year of secondary education (grade 5) and is also studied for two to three hours per week. Many high schools offer bilingual programmes, where a modern international language is used as medium of instruction for some of the core subjects. In addition, an increasing number of kindergartens have been implementing programmes of foreign language education.

Table 8.3  Students enrolled in pre-university education by foreign language studied First foreign language

Second foreign language

English

2,063,165

328,001

French

432,486

1,039,064

German

45,664

140,398

Spanish

5,336

7,170

Italian

2,511

7,647

Turkish

326

185

Russian

277

2,371

Japanese

211

43

Greek

179

–

Portuguese

170

–

61

66

2,550,386

1,524,945

Chinese Total

Source: National Institute of Statistics (2017).

168  Multilingualism in European Language Education

Romanian language education for the migrant population

During the last century, the pattern of Romanian migration was primarily of emigration. More than 3.5 million Romanians are working abroad (International Organization for Migration, 2013). The immigration level has been relatively modest. According to the International Organization for Migration, in 2013 the number of officially registered migrants in Romania was 97,395. More than 60% of the legal foreign residents are third-country nationals, mainly from Moldova (41.6%), Turkey (10.02%), Syrian Arab Republic (6%), China (3.64%) and Nigeria (2.81%). They are unevenly distributed across the Romanian territory, as many are concentrated in Bucharest. However, the immigrants from Moldova reside mainly in the eastern counties, such as Iași, Botoșani and Galaţi (OECD, 2014). Legislative work in the field of migration is needed to implement the Schengen regulations and to coordinate the national law with the EU legal framework, especially concerning controlled immigration policy, irregular migration, asylum policy and the social integration of foreigners. In connection with the last point, the Romanian state provides courses in the Romanian language and the history, culture, civilization and legal system in Romania (Government of Romania, 2002: article 70). The courses are organized by county school inspectorates and universities. Three categories of beneficiaries can be distinguished: (1) children entering the Romanian pre-university education system, (2) higher education students, and (3) adults. • Children entering the Romanian pre-university education system. According to Order 5925/2009 concerning the methodology for organizing and conducting introductory courses in Romanian language and education for the children of foreigners (Ministry of National Education, 2009), a child enters the Romanian education system after finishing an initiation course in Romanian. A committee consisting of the principal of the respective school, two Romanian language teachers, a psycho-pedagogue, an elementary education teacher, if necessary, and two teachers of mathematics evaluates the linguistic and academic level of each child. Depending on the results of the Romanian language and mathematics tests, the committee also recommends in which grade the child should be enrolled. However, parents and legal tutors can reject the recommendation. In case of academic failure, the child could be moved to an inferior grade or enrolled on language courses. Unfortunately, the Romanian Ministry of National Education does not collect data about immigrant students. Matei (2014a) contacted the 42 county school inspectorates and asked for more information regarding the number of immigrant children and the educational and linguistic policies implemented. Using the data from the 17 counties that responded, the number of immigrant



Romania 169

schoolchildren registered during the 2013/14 academic year was estimated to be 290. Moreover, interviews showed that the education system is not adapted to immigrant students. In this sense, children are often enrolled in Romanian schools without any previous knowledge of the official language or they attend Romanian language classes in parallel. A representative of the Ministry of National Education even declared that ‘the public system is not currently preoccupied with these children. There are not many and the system is overwhelmed with its goals for the internal target group’ (Matei, 2014a: 68). • Higher education students. The universities receiving foreign students are required to organize courses in the Romanian language. The courses are supposed to be tuition free. However, some universities cover a small tax for enrolment. Matei (2014b) estimates that, in the 2013/14 academic year, 300 foreign undergraduates attended the Romanian language courses provided by their host universities. Considering that 4639 study visas were issued the same year, it is clear that only a small proportion of foreign students learn the language of the country. • Adults. Courses for adult learners of Romanian are provided by county school inspectorates and various non-governmental organizations. The inspectorates organize only one course per year, during the school months. As a result, many foreigners are not able to start Romanian as soon as they arrive. As Matei (2014b) shows that, in practice, there seem to be late enrolments, but these prove to be problematic because there are no compensatory measures to help the new learners recover the lost time. Moreover, usually only one group is formed, regardless of the linguistic competences of the learners. The quality of the courses is also affected by the lack of funds and resources. Furthermore, the available information regarding these courses is limited. Consequently, many foreigners do not know that they have the possibility to attend free language courses. They are additionally discouraged by the rigid schedules, since many classes take place during working hours. Finally, the county school inspectorates grant only certificates of attendance, and do not certify the linguistic competence level of the person graduating the Romanian language course. Considering that Romania is mostly a sending country in terms of migration, there is considerable interest to promote and maintain the Romanian language and civilization among the diaspora. For this purpose, the Romanian Ministry of Education has established partnerships with the educational authorities of other EU states, namely Italy, Spain, Belgium, Ireland and Portugal, to organize a course in Romanian language, culture and civilization. The project aims to cultivate the Romanian language, maintain the heritage cultural identity of Romanian youth living abroad, promote the principles of multilingualism and foster

170  Multilingualism in European Language Education

intercultural openness. Additionally, the course is expected to facili­tate the reintegration of Romanian children and teenagers who have studied abroad. It is also hoped that the children will become ambassadors of the Romanian culture and language in their host communities. The course consists of two hours per week and is taught by qualified teachers selected and remunerated by the Romanian Ministry of Education. Conclusions

Romania is a country with a long and intricate history of multi­ lingualism and multiculturalism. The last decade could be characterized as a period of change with regard to language policy and the state of multilingualism. Firstly, significant improvements regarding the rights of national minorities and the treatment of minority languages have been made. The linguistic policy of Romania has shifted from having mono­lingualism as the objective to the protection of linguistic minorities. As Siguán (1995) explained, states that protect their linguistic minorities have one official language – Romanian in this case – while adopting various policies and measures designed to protect and promote the use of the minority languages. The laws implemented in Romania have been gradually granting more rights to the national minority communities and improving the way education in minority languages is organized. In this regard, the educational authorities have agreed to the use of specially designed curricula and textbooks to teach Romanian to children with other mother tongues. This was a request frequently made by scholars and representatives of national minorities, who argued that using the same curricula and textbooks as for Romanian children proves detrimental but, until recently, the perspective of teaching Romanian as a second language had been received mostly with indignation (Kiss, 2011). The new approach is expected to increase the competence in Romanian of children educated in a minority language and to lead to additive bilingualism. However, the existence of a policy does not guarantee the success of its implementation or that it will even be universally put in practice (Spolsky, 2004). As Shoshami (2006) argues, people’s linguistic ideologies and attitudes might interfere with how official policies are carried out. Thus, it has to be acknowledged that, at individual level, there still is resentment and conflict based on the complicated history of the ethnic groups living on Romanian territory. Studies will be needed to assess how the law has been implemented and whether it has achieved its intended objectives. While commending the steps made so far, it seems further progress is possible and necessary. As Hockley (2008) and Horváth (2008) argue, the linguistic context should play a decisive part in the selection and implementation of an educational bilingual programme and in the adaptation of the educational and linguistic strategies, objectives and expectations.



Romania 171

Depending on the ethno-demographic particularities of each area, the degree of exposure to the official and minority languages varies. More than 40% of the Hungarian population resides in administrative units where they represent the majority. Approximately 25% live in ethnically homo­geneous Hungarian villages and cities. Further, 39.7% of Hungarians use predominantly Hungarian in their private life and media, while Romanian is rarely used in public situations (Horváth, 2008). Additionally, other national minorities live in ethnically homogenous communities, where Romanian is rarely used outside school in everyday interactions. For instance, 44% of the Croatians inhabit administrative units where they are the numerical majority population. In these contexts of reduced contact with the official state language, education in the mother tongue, where the Romanian language is studied as a subject, is not successful in creating bilingual individuals. Hence, dual-language programmes could prove to produce better results. To create a bilingual environment, subjects would be taught in the minority and the official language, and both Romanian and national minority children would be encouraged to attend these bilingual educational programmes. Secondly, the strong dominance of English as a foreign language follows a European trend (Eurostat, 2012) and marks a distinctive change in Romanians’ linguistic preferences. The century-long interest in French, maintained even during the Communist period, when, under the Soviet Union’s influence, learning Russian was compulsory, seems to have dwindled as English has become the international lingua franca. Finally, the Romanian authorities appear to be severely under-prepared to respond to the challenges created by immigration. On the other hand, with respect to emigration, the interest shown for the protection and maintenance of the Romanian language and culture among the communities living abroad looks promising. The movement towards a truly multilingual Romania, marked by the recent surge in positive changes in educational laws, will hopefully be accompanied by similar changes among the population’s language ideologies, attitudes and behaviours, which would facilitate the adoption of further policies and measures and their adequate implementation. References Buja, E., Coposescu, L., Cusen, G., Meseșan Schmitz, L., Chiribușcă, D., Neagu, A. and Pah, I. (2010) MERIDIUM (Multilingualism in Europe as a Resource for Immigration. Dialogue Initiative Among the Universities of the Mediterranean). Country Report – Romania, available at http://meridium.unistrapg.it/sites/meridium.unistrapg.internal/ files/Country_report_RO_90_pagini_1_aprilie_2010_final.pdf (accessed 18 July 2017). Cabinet of the Secretary of State for Education in the Languages of National Minorities (2013) Parametri importanti ai invatamantului cu predare in limbile minoritatilor din Romania [Important Parameters of Teaching in the Minority Languages of Romania]. Bucharest: Ministry of National Education.

172  Multilingualism in European Language Education

Department of Inter-ethnic Relationships of the Romanian Government (2006) Climat interetnic în România în pragul integrării europene [Interethnic Climate in Romania on the Threshold of European Integration], available at http://www.edrc.ro/docs/docs/ cercetari/Materialul_pentru_presa.pdf (accessed 20 July 2017). Dragoman, D. (2008) National identity and Europeanization in post-communist Romania. The meaning of citizenship in Sibiu: European Capital of Culture 2007. Communist and Post-Communist Studies 41 (1), 63–78. DOI:10.1016/j.postcomstud.2007.12.004. European Commission (2011) Civil society platform on multilingualism: Policy recommendations for the promotion of multilingualism in the European Union, at http:// ec.europa.eu/ languages/ pdf/ doc5088_en.pdf (accessed 15 July 2017). Eurostat (2012) Special Eurobarometer 386: Europeans and Their Languages, available at http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_386_en.pdf (accessed 17 July). Firică, C. (2010) Slav influence upon the Romanian language – Direct references to Croatian. Društvena istraživanja 19 (3), 511–523. Government of Romania (2002) Ordonanţa de Urgenţă 194/2002 privind regimul străinilor în România [Emergency Ordinance 194/2002 on the legal status of aliens in Romania], available at http://www.mae.ro/sites/default/files/file/userfiles/file/pdf/servicii-consulare/2012.07.30_oug_194_2002.pdf (accessed 17 July 2017). Hockley, A. (2008) Perspective globale în educaţia bilingvă [Global perspectives on bilingual education]. In I. Horváth and E.M. Tódor (eds) O evaluare a politicilor de producere a bilingvismului [An Evaluation of Policies for Developing Bilingualism]. Cluj-Napoca: Limes – ISPMN. Horváth, I. (2002) Facilitating Conflict Transformation: Implementation of the Recommendations of the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities to Romania, 1993–2001. Hamburg: Centre for OSCE Research. Horváth, I. (2008) O evaluare a politicilor de producere a bilingvismului minoritar din Romania. Către o nouă problematizare [An evaluation of production policies of bilingualism minority in Romania. Towards a new problematization]. In I. Horváth and E.M. Tódor (eds) O evaluare a politicilor de producere a bilingvismului [An Evaluation of Policies for Developing Bilingualism]. Cluj-Napoca: Limes – ISPMN. Horváth, I. (2009) Politici lingvistice faţă de minorităţile naţionale din România 1990–2008 [Language policy regarding national minorities in Romania 1990–2008]. Sphere of Politics 138, 29–33. Horváth, I. (2010) Drepturile lingvistice ale minorităţilor și utilizarea limbilor minoritare în România [Language rights of minorities and the use of minority languages in Romania]. In A. Gidó, I. Horváth and J. Pál (eds) 140 de ani de legislaţie minoritară în Europa Centrală şi de Est [140 Years of Minority Legislation in Central and Eastern Europe] (pp. 317–332). Cluj-Napoca: ISPMN. Horváth, I. and Scacco, A. (2001) From the unitary to the pluralistic: Fine-tuning minority policy in Romania. In A.M. Biro and P. Kovacs (eds) Diversity in Action: Local Public Management of Multi-ethnic Communities in Central and Eastern Europe (pp. 241–272). Budapest: Local Government and Public Service Reform Initiative, Open Society Institute. Iatcu, T. (2000) Teaching English as a third language to Hungarian–Romanian bilinguals. In J. Cenoz and U. Jessner (eds) English in Europe: The Acquisition of a Third Language (pp. 236–245). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. International Organization for Migration (2013) IOM Romania Annual Report, available at http://oim.ro/attachments/article/295/2013%20Annual%20Report%20IOM%20 Romania.pdf (accessed 22 July 2017). Kettley, C. (2003) Ethnicity, language and transitional politics in Romania: The Hungarian minority in context. In F. Daftary and F. Grin (eds) Ethnicity and Language Politics in Transition Countries (pp. 243–266). Budapest: European Center for Minority Issues, Flensburg and Open Society Institute.



Romania 173

Kiss, Z.E. (2011) Language policy and language ideologies in Szekler Land (Rumania): A promotion of bilingualism? Multilingua 30, 221–264. Korkut, U. (2006) Nationalism versus internationalism: The roles of political and cultural elites in interwar and communist Romania. Nationalities Papers 34 (2), 131–155. Law of National Education no. 1 (2011) Monitorul Oficial 18 (10 January), available at http://www.edu.ro/index.php/legaldocs/14847 (accessed 16 July 2017). Matei, M. (2014a) Limba și cultura ţării gazdă [The language and culture of the host country]. In B. Floarea (ed.) Barometrul integrarii imigrantilor. Raport final de cercetare [Barometer of Immigrants’ Integration. Final Research Report] (pp. 49–59). Bucharest: Centru de cercetare i documentare în domeniul integrării imigranţilor. Matei, M. (2014b) Educatie [Education]. In B. Floarea (ed.) Barometrul integrarii imigrantilor. Raport final de cercetare [Barometer of Immigrants’ Integration. Final Research Report] (pp. 60–70). Bucharest: Centru de cercetare si documentare in domeniul integrarii imigrantilor. McClure, E. and McClure, M. (1988) Macro- and micro-sociolinguistic dimensions of code-switching in Vingard (Romania). In M. Heller (ed.) Codeswitching: Anthropological and Sociolinguistic Perspectives (pp. 25–52). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Ministry of National Education (2009) Order no. 5925/12.11.2009 approving the methodology for organizing and conducting introductory courses in Romanian language and for the education of children of foreigners, and the procedures related to the preparation, approval, and distribution of programs and textbooks for the introductory courses in Romanian language for children of foreigners who have acquired a form of protection or a right to stay in Romania, as well as for citizens of Member States of the European Union and of the European Economic Area, available at http://www.edu.ro/index.php/ articles/13043 (accessed 17 July 2017). National Institute of Statistics (2011) Census of population and housing, available at http:// www.recensamantromania.ro (accessed 18 July 2017). National Institute of Statistics (2017) TEMPO database – Education, available at http:// statistici.insse.ro/shop/?page=tempo2andlang=roandcontext=25 (accessed 19 July 2017). OECD (2014) International Migration Outlook 2014. OECD Publishing, available at https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/social-issues-migration-health/international-migrationoutlook-2014/romania_migr_outlook-2014-35-en (access January 2019). Schulte, K. (2009) Loanwords in Romanian. In M. Haspelmath and E. Tadmor (eds) Loanwords in the World’s Languages: A Comparative Handbook (pp. 230–259). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Shohamy, E. (2006) Language Policy: Hidden Agendas and New Approaches. London: Routledge. Siguán, M. (1995) L’Europa de les llengües [The Europe of Languages]. Barcelona: Edicions 62. Spolsky, B. (2004) Language Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

9 Latvia Sanita Lazdiņa and Heiko F. Marten

Introduction and Contextualization

This chapter deals with current issues in bilingual education in the framework of language and educational policies in Latvia, and also outlines similarities or common tendencies in the two other Baltic states, Estonia and Lithuania. As commonly understood in the 21st century, the term ‘bilingual education’ includes ‘multilingual education, as the umbrella term to cover a wide spectrum of practice and policy’ (García, 2009: 9). Multilingualism in the Baltic states, as in many other European countries, is observable best in linguistic practices (in formal oral com­ muni­cation, in situations of informal language use, in public written texts, etc.). This contemporary diversity of codes and registers is increasingly reflected also in formalized educational contexts. Unlike the traditional way in which the instruction of languages and of subjects took place largely separately (monoglossic ideology), multilingual and multi­ disciplinary instruction has become more frequent. This approach may be labelled ‘heteroglossic ideology’ (Blackledge & Creese, 2010; De Korne, 2012; García, 2009); in recent years it has also been described as part of translanguaging (Adamson & Fujimoto-Adamson, 2012; Blackledge & Creese, 2010; García, 2009). The disadvantages of monoglossic ideology are evidenced in its lack of consideration of social reality, in that it ignores the diverse multilingual practices observable in society: the use of multiple languages or dialects, code-switching within a single speech act, and so on. Speakers as participants of speech acts possess plurilingual repertoires, which they vary in different contexts depending on the situation. The monoglossic ideology in current bilingualism research, in this sense, is contrasted with views ‘based on Bakhtin’s (1981) use of heteroglossic as multiple voices. A hetero­glossic ideology of bilingualism considers multiple language practices in interrelationship’ (García, 2009: 7). At present, the heteroglossic ideology is reflected in the educational sphere through the expression of alternative, non-traditional views (­ideologies) in the planning and implementation (language management) of language instruction. This can be seen as a deconstruction of boundaries 174



Latvia 175

between languages, areas of study and even social roles (teacher as student and student as teacher). As such, the heteroglossic ideology is also in sharp contrast to traditions of a monolingual habitus which through discursive practices create a linguistic environment in which the use of one major language of society is considered the norm. In particular, in states whose identity is rooted in the 19th-century concept of the nation, the state, its educational system and society at large interact in postulating and maintaining the dominance of monolingual practices (see for example Ellis et al., 2010; Gogolin, 2008; Gogolin & Kroon, 2000). Replacing the monolingual by a more multilingual habitus in education is, at the same time, difficult, as it is essential for shaping more respect for the coexistence of different codes as well as their interaction in globalized realities. The process known as translanguaging is present in education as the transition from one language to another in a given speech situation, for instance through code-switching (also called ‘flexible bilingualism’), in multilingual group works, translations, text syntheses in multiple languages, and so on. Translanguaging is described also as a process in which code-switching is seen as a tool in pedagogical approaches through which meanings in classroom settings are negotiated, in particular multilingual ones (Adamson & Fujimoto-Adamson, 2012). In this chapter, we will first give an overview of the current socio­ linguistic situation of Latvia and provide relevant background information in order to provide a context for the recent developments in multiform models of bilingualism (for an overview of patterns and practices of multilingualism in the Baltic states, see Lazdiņa & Marten, 2019). The chapter deals with languages at schools as subjects and as instruction tools and it highlights recent important changes in these, including new ideologies, approaches and models (e.g. heteroglossic versus monoglossic ideology, and the CLIL approach). The chapter then turns to the interplay between less used languages and international languages (particularly English), their prestige and functionality in the educational domain and future challenges. From an economic perspective (Grin, 2003), regional languages with a small number of speakers (e.g. Latgalian in Latvia) are the most endangered languages, but also for less used national languages such as Estonian, Latvian or Lithuanian it is necessary to define their roles in the globalized world of the 21st century, including in education. For that reason, it is very important to identify motivation and utilitarian reasons for maintaining and learning regional or less used national languages and to create an attractive, student-friendly learning environment using digital tools and multilingual approaches. Positive attitudes towards linguistic diversity among students, parents and other social actors are crucial for the development of language or educational policies for the protection and promotion of multilingualism. In this sense, this chapter discusses current issues in educational policies and acquisition planning with regard

176  Multilingualism in European Language Education

to regional, minority, official and international languages of Latvia in the context of the Baltic states; acquisition is seen here as a continuation and aetiological result of sociolinguistic processes. The linguistic environment of Latvia in the context of Baltic states

With a population of 1,986,096 in 2015,1 the Republic of Latvia is the second largest of the three Baltic states (Lithuania2 has a popu­lation of 2,957,532 and Estonia3 of 1,313,271). The dominant language of Latvia nowadays is Latvian. It is the only official (state) language and the first language of around 60% of the population. The 2011 population census revealed that Latvian is the main everyday home language of 62.1% of the population (Latvijas Republikas Centrālā statistikas pārvalde, 2013). Russian is the biggest minority language, spoken as a first language by around one-third of the population (37.2% of the population claim it to be their first home language). All three Baltic states are post-Soviet transformation societies, with complex patterns of multilingualism. In short, the degree of multilingualism in terms of the proportion of the population for whom a language other than the titular language of the country is the dominant language gives a ranking of Latvia > Estonia > Lithuania; that is, Latvia has the highest proportion of minorities, Lithuania the smallest. Latvian and Russian

Most Russian L1-speakers (or their ancestors) came to Latvian territory during Soviet times. In 1989, less than 10% of the Russian-­ speaking population were traditional Russian-speakers (e.g. Russians who had come to the territory as part of an administrative elite in Tsarist times, but also ‘Old Believers’ who settled in the area of contemporary Latvia in the 17th century, after being expelled from Russia for religious reasons) and their descendants (Apine & Volkovs, 2007). In the perception of the ethnic Latvian population, there is a large gap between these ‘old’ Russians, who are referred to as ‘our’ Russians, and Soviet-era migrants (Lazdiņa et al., 2011); while the former are seen as traditional locals, the latter are largely perceived as immigrants. Whereas Russian was the dominant language in all domains of higher prestige during Soviet times, Latvian has replaced Russian as the language of administration and the state since the re-establishment of Latvian independence in 1991. Data from 2008 from the longitudinal ‘Language’ research study (conducted since 1996) show that in situations where the use of language is regulated by official rules, such as the Language law, for instance at workplaces, the speaking of Latvian during the period 1998–2008 increased rapidly and dominates today. In contrast, in situations where language use is more a matter of individual choice (e.g. on the street, in shops, in communication with friends) Russian is spoken



Latvia 177

more often (Baltic Institute of Social Sciences, 2008). In many domains, however, Latvian society functions fully bilingually – there are schools with Latvian and Russian as languages of instruction, media in both languages and there are no restrictions on everyday practices. This reflects the aim of official Latvian language policy since 1991, which has been to develop Latvian as the ‘integrating language’ of Latvian society, that is, to create sufficient competence in Latvian among non-L1 speakers of Latvian and to promote its use in different domains. Russian, on the other hand, continues to play an important role in society not only as the L1 of about one-third of the population but also as a widespread second language and lingua franca for international purposes. As a language of inter-ethnic communication within Latvia (between ethnic Latvians, ethnic Russians and persons who migrated to Latvia from other Soviet Republics), Russian is still of importance among the population which grew up during Soviet times, whereas in the younger generation communication is more balanced between Latvian and Russian. Similarly, Estonian census data from 2012 reveal that 68.7% of the population of Estonia defined themselves as Estonians and 24.8% as Russians (Statistical Office of Estonia, 2012), and similar proportions used the respective language at home. In Lithuania, the ethnic composition is more dominated by the titular Lithuanians (84.2% in 2011, with 6.6% Poles and 5.8% Russians) (Statistics Lithuania, 2011). In the census, almost all (99.2%) ethnic Lithuanians claimed Lithuanian as their mother tongue, while ethnic Poles (77.1%) and Russians (87.2%) displayed slightly lower percentages of equivalence of ethnicity and mother tongue, whereas smaller minorities showed much lower maintenance of the language of their ethnicity (Belarusians 18.4%, Ukrainians 31.9%). Consequently, 0.6% of the population claimed two mother tongues (usually Lithuanian and Russian or Lithuanian and Polish) (Statistics Lithuania, 2011). Lesser-used varieties

The only two languages besides Latvian which are mentioned in the Latvian constitution are Livonian and Latgalian. Livonian is an autochthon­ous Finno-Ugric micro-language which does not have any traditional mother tongue speakers anymore, but continues to be used as a language acquired in a formal environment as part of a small revival movement of enthusiasts by a handful of ‘new speakers’, that is, ‘individuals with little or no home or community exposure to a minority language but who instead acquire it through immersion or bilingual educational programs, revitalization projects or as adult language learners’ (O’Rourke et al., 2015: 1). Latgalian, on the other hand, is a Baltic variety closely related to Latvian. The Latvian state officially recognizes Latgalian as a ‘historical variant of Latvian’. From a perspective of European languages it may be classified as a regional language and relates to Latvian in similar ways

178  Multilingualism in European Language Education

as, say, Kashubian to Polish, Scots to Scottish English or Low German to Standard High German. In linguistic terms, Latgalian has a number of structural features (Abstand) and a separate historical development, including a tradition of a written standard (Ausbau), which allows for a classification as a language in its own right. The debate on the perception of Latgalian was fought somewhat fiercely in academic and political circles, but the view offered by the ISO classification as one of two varieties alongside Standard Latvian under the umbrella of the Latvian language (similar to Bokmål and Nynorsk in Norway, for example) seems to be a feasible compromise (SIL International, 2017). In cultural and historic terms, Latgalian is connected to the region of Latgale, the eastern-most of the four Latvian regions, which borders Russia and Belarus in the east and south-east, and according to some views extends towards the border with Lithuania in the south. In the 2011 Latvian census, 8.8% of the population (165,000 individuals) reported that they use Latgalian on an everyday basis, and in the region of Latgale 35.5% answered that they used Latgalian regularly. In the context of the Baltic states, the sociolinguistic situation of Latgalian is comparable to that of the Võro language, the language of the central part of south Estonia. Two hundred years ago this variety was represented in its written form by the Tartu dialect and its popular name was the Tartu language (‘tarto kiil’) but today the gravity of action for their own language has carried to Võromaa. Metaphorically, in the 11th hour the Võro people have come to see that the local language/ dialect has value and the undergoing language shift should somehow be reversed. Contemporary South Estonian is for its users primarily an emotionally close language of the home and local landscape, which cannot be forced upon other South Estonians. (Saar, n.d.)

There are fewer users of Võro than of Latgalian – approximately 70,000 active and passive users of this language all around the world (Saar, n.d.). In Lithuania, there is no such strong tradition regarding regional languages and their use in education or other public domains. However, similar to the situation in Latvia and Estonia, in addition to standard Lithuanian there are dialects somewhat corresponding to ethnographic regions. The Samogitian dialect is unique and is sometimes called a language and is used on some local signs (Žemaitis, 2015). Minority languages

Other languages of Latvia are traditional minority languages such as Polish or Lithuanian. Like Russian, these are not recognized by law as official languages, but they enjoy financial and institutional support in certain areas such as education or culture. However, in the 2011 population census only 0.1% of the population stated that they use Ukrainian in everyday communication, and this is also the case for Polish and



Latvia 179

Lithuanian. Similar minority languages exist in Estonia and Lithuania. In comparison with both other Baltic countries, however, Lithuania is ethnic­ally more homogeneous (see above). It has to be added that many non-Russian minorities during Soviet times did not speak the language of the ethnic group they claimed to be part of, resulting in a Russification of formerly non-Russian speakers (e.g. ethnic Belarusians or Poles). This is one of the reasons why Russian has remained the lingua franca among ethnic minorities even after the Baltic states regained independence in 1991. The Russification of non-Russian minorities was also visible in the educational domain: in the Soviet period, the division of schools was based on the language of instruction (i.e. schools with Russian as the main language of instruction and schools mainly operating in Latvian, Estonian or Lithuanian). The Soviet education system and the dominant position of the Russian language in the public sphere had a severe impact on the skills of ethnic minorities in the titular languages. According to the 1989 census of the Soviet Union, only 15% of Russians in Estonia and 22% of Russians in Latvia were fluent in Estonian and Latvian, respectively (Pavlenko, 2008). International languages

The most common foreign language in Latvia today is English, albeit with a lower level of competence than in many western European countries. As a lingua franca, English has been on the rise in recent years, but Russian still continues to play an important role as a language of communication with other former Soviet states. German has largely lost the importance which it had in the territories of today’s Latvia and Estonia before the independence of the Baltic states in 1918 and the repatriation of most ethnic Germans to Germany in 1939. German as a traditional strong foreign language in the region is in decline (only around 8% of the inhabi­ tants of Latvia have knowledge of German). Other foreign languages are rare. In Lithuania, the situation is similar: competence in Russian and English correlates with the age group, as becomes apparent from the results of the census 2011. As shown in Figure 9.1, English and Russian remain the most popular languages among young people in Lithuania. In 2011, almost half of those with a command of English were aged 15–29. Persons having a command of Russian mostly were older than 30. Similar tendencies regarding the correlation between a command of English or Russian and age are seen in Estonia. Soler-Carbonell argues: Younger Russian speakers, for their part, are learning more Estonian (as well as English) than the older generations, who tended to be more monolingual in Russian. Among younger speakers, English becomes a viable option in case Estonian (or a mixture of Estonian and Russian) is not enough to get by and communicate effectively. (Soler-Carbonell, 2015: 9–10)

180  Multilingualism in European Language Education

Figure 9.1  Population by command of languages and age group Source: Lietuvos Statistikos Departamentas/Statistics Lithuania (2012: 33)

In summary, we can conclude that all three Baltic states are PostSoviet transformation societies with strong official language laws which declare the titular languages (Latvian, Estonian, Lithuanian) as only state languages, but also with a high proportion of ethnic and linguistic minorities – in particular Russians in Latvia and Estonia. In spite of expanding the functions of the titular languages after the Soviet period, Russian today continues to play an important role in society as a native language and a widespread second language and lingua franca. The most common foreign language in all three Baltic States today is English. As a lingua franca, English has been on the rise in recent years, but Russian continues to play an important role as a language of communication with other countries of the former Soviet Union. Lesser used varieties such as Latgalian in Latvia and Võro in Estonia realize functions of regional languages and can be observed in oral or written use, including in school. In Lithuania, there is no such strong tradition regarding regional languages and their use in education or other public domains. However, the Samogitian dialect is sometimes called a language and is used on some local public signs. Languages in Education

As mentioned above, two school systems (Russian and Latvian) existed in Latvia until the mid-1990s as a legacy of the Soviet period, each with its own curriculum. Ethnic Latvians mostly went to schools



Latvia 181

with Latvian as the language of instruction, while ethnic Russians and other minorities overwhelmingly attended schools with Russian language instruction. After the re-establishment of Latvian independence, other minorities (Poles, Ukrainians, Belarusians, Lithuanians, Estonians, Jews and Roma) restored the educational and cultural infrastructure which had been destroyed during Soviet times. Schools or classes were supported by municipal governments and the Latvian Ministry of Education; some support was also given from outside Latvia. In these schools, schooling in Latvian was accompanied by instruction in the native language and culture (Muiznieks, 2004). A new law on education was adopted in 1998, and since 1999 minority schools in Latvia (in practice, mostly Russian-medium schools) have been providing bilingual education, first in primary schools, followed by secondary schools in 2004. According to Muiznieks (2004), ‘in early 2003 minority secondary schools already had a curriculum in which about 52 percent of all instruction took place in Latvian/bilingually, and 48 percent took place in minority languages’. Since 2004, secondary schools have been entitled to determine which subjects are taught in Latvian, but the total proportion should amount to at least 60% of all subjects (that is, 40% can be taught in minority languages or bilingually). Since 2018, new reforms regarding the schools of ethnic minorities have been under dis­ cussion and partly implemented. Already in pre-schools, starting from the age of five, new education guidelines will be introduced in the school year 2019/20, providing a bigger role for the Latvian language in the learning process. A new bilingual education model will be introduced in grades 1–6 ensuring that at least 50% of the subjects are taught in Latvian, and in grades 7–9 ensuring that at least 80% of the study content in 2019/20 will be in Latvian. The final exams at the end of grade 9 will be held entirely in Latvian. Starting from the school year 2021/22, all subjects of general education in high school (grades 10–12) will be taught only in Latvian, while children of ethnic minorities will continue to learn their native language as L1; literature and other subjects related to culture and history will be taught in the respective minority language. In all Latvian schools the first foreign language (English) is taught from grade 1, the second foreign language (usually German or Russian) from grade 6. Changes in bilingual education policies in Latvia and in instruction in Latvian as a second language since the 1990s

More than 20 years have passed since the Latvian government first started to offer four models for organizing bilingual education in minority schools (i.e. mostly schools with a Russian focus). In all four models there is a fixed number of hours to be spent on language and literature in both Latvian and the minority languages. Subjects are taught in Latvian,

182  Multilingualism in European Language Education

Russian or bilingually. In the beginning it was difficult to determine how teachers interpreted the term ‘bilingually’: interpretations included, among others, speaking in Russian but using key terms in Latvian and Russian (i.e. speaking in two languages during lessons) to communication in Latvian but providing texts for reading at home in Russian. The difference between the models is mainly quantitative: how many subjects are taught in which language – and how quickly is Latvian introduced as a language of instruction. The choice of model depends, on the one hand, on the ideologies of the school principals, who are forced to react to parents’ demands to adopt a Russian-dominant or a more balanced bilingual path, not least in times of demographically decreasing numbers of children, which threaten schools with the possibility of closure if they cannot attract enough parents and hence pupils. On the other hand, the model chosen often simply depends on the proficiency in Latvian of the teachers in these schools, most of whom are L1-speakers of Russian. The following is a short overview of all four models applied in primary schools, that is, from grade 1 to grade 9 (in all cases, the minority language and its literature are additionally taught in the minority language, and Latvian language and literature are taught in Latvian): (1) In model 1, the only subject taught in the mother tongue (in most cases Russian) is mathematics in grades 1–4 (and health in grade 5). Other subjects, such as sciences and arts, are taught bilingually (in total around five subjects). (2) In model 2, the only subjects taught in the pupils’ L1 are computer science (one hour in grade 7) and physics/chemistry (four to five hours in grades 8 and 9). In this model more subjects are taught bilingually (typically 10 subjects). (3) In model 3, during the first school years more subjects are taught in the L1 and the number of subjects taught in Latvian gradually increases every year. In grade 9, almost all subjects are taught in Latvian or bilingually. (4) In model 4, mathematics, the sciences, sports and arts are taught in the L1 until grade 3, and from grade 4 these subjects and others (in total around seven subjects) are taught in Latvian or bilingually. All four models have in common that they aim to guarantee a sufficient command of Latvian for successful participation in Latvian society. In Choumak’s terms, models 1 and 2 are ‘hard transitional’, and models 3 and 4 ‘soft transitional’ (Batelaan et al., 2002). The most popular model in terms of how often they were chosen by schools was model 3 – that is, a gradual transition to Latvian as a language of instruction. In 1999/2000 it was chosen by about half of the 244 minority schools (LVA, n.d.). In addition to these four standard models recommended by the Latvian Ministry of Education and Science,



Latvia 183

however, minority schools are given the opportunity to develop their own models. As in Latvia, educational reforms in the 1990s were also carried out in Estonia, A bilingual education reform was implemented in the form of an immersion programme for Russian-speaking students, similar in its overall goals to Canadian French immersion programmes. In spite of the low competence in Latvian among parts of the Russianspeaking population in Latvia, the implementation of bilingual education in Latvia repeatedly met with protests from Russian-speakers who argued in favour of more protection of their mother tongue. Even though com­ petence in Russian among ethnic Russians in Latvia was (and is) not under threat and the regular use of Russian in most domains of society continues, these protests received much attention in the media. The results of the reforms were, however, largely positive: during the first 10 years, Latvian language skills among youth increased dramatically. In 2009, the Latvian Language Agency conducted a survey in which one of the questions addressed Latvian language skills. Among people with a language other than Latvian as L1, 64% of the respondents in the age group 17–25 years answered that they knew Latvian well, 30% claimed moderate skills and 6% answered ‘difficult to say’ (LVA, 2012). This shows that, in comparison with the period before the educational reform, knowledge of Latvian as a second language has improved con­sider­ably. It was not only the bilingual education reform in itself that had an impact on competence in Latvian as a second language. It was a syner­ gistic process in which sweeping changes took place also in the teaching of Latvian as a second language. An analysis of textbooks (Lazdiņa, 2007) showed that the focus of these books until the middle of the 1990s was on the development of competence in reading and writing Latvian. There was no integrated attempt to acquire all four main language skills (i.e. also speaking and listening). Since the middle of the 1990s, however, major changes have taken place in the selection of the texts. Earlier textbooks predominantly included fictional texts; special attention was given to analysing descriptions of wartime events as well as of Soviet life. Since the middle of the 1990s, however, the stylistic diversity of the texts has grown enormously, with much greater consideration being given to the typical interests of pupils in different age groups. Also with regard to grammar, major changes occurred. For a long time, there was a focus on structures in the acquisition of Latvian, and a dominance of form over semantic and pragmatic aspects of language. This was accompanied by rote memoriz­ation of isolated, context-unrelated forms. The cardinal changes in the middle of the 1990s introduced functional-pragmatic methods of language acquisition, with topics relating to everyday life, including different types of business correspondence, work with authentic texts and acquisition of communicative units which are used to express everyday needs in authentic contexts.

184  Multilingualism in European Language Education

Classroom observation research from 2007, led to the conclusion that teachers of Latvian as a second language during their lessons often did not allow unplanned discussions initiated by pupils (Lazdiņa, 2007). In this sense, the inflexible, prescriptive approach to grammar or vocabulary tasks which did not allow for an extension of discussions among teachers and pupils about alternative lexical items or grammatical forms meant a continuation of old methods: pupils’ individual thinking and the develop­ ment of a ‘feeling’ for the language and the skills to use words or forms most appropriate in a given context were discouraged, even if the teaching materials had been improved. During classroom observations, it was also possible to notice that language acquisition was more successful and pupils were more active if the status-oriented (teachers versus students) communication was sometimes alternated with personality-oriented communication which allowed for respect between each other as equal partners. It was concluded that classroom discourse which was more similar to communication outside the teaching/learning environment, with different participants guiding the communication, was more likely to provide successful acquisition of Latvian as a second language. The teacher’s role has recently changed even more due to access to contemporary educational resources. For instance, open educational resources in the internet have promoted new teaching styles in which planning and conducting lessons are shared among pupils and teachers , which allows for more interaction among them and active participation. Through these reforms, the Latvian school system has moved from a strict monolingual habitus based on a monolingual ideology of keeping languages separate (Latvian versus Russian schools), except for dedicated lessons in which foreign languages were taught, towards a more multilingual habitus in which the use of more than one language has become more common. This applies in particular to minority schools and reflects language practices in society. Whereas societal practices in Latvia include frequent translanguaging, with elements of Latvian, Russian and other varieties (Nau, 2003), more research needs to be carried out to see whether the more multilingual ideology has led to more multilingual practices in the classroom, or whether parallel monolingualism (i.e. only one language is used in a specific lesson) dominates. A small survey conducted by one of the authors of this chapter among teachers of German in Latvia in 2017 indicates that teachers of foreign languages are mixed in their attitudes and practices. Out of 40 respondents, 25 answered that they switch between German and Latvian and/or Russian, while the other 15 answered that they use mostly or only German; no teacher claimed to use – besides the teaching materials in German – mostly or only Latvian or Russian. In addition, 35 respondents answered that they frequently or occasionally use examples from other languages (e.g. English), while only five claimed that they rarely or never do so. Regarding code-switching or code-mixing, only four out of the 40 teachers answered that they considered such practices in



Latvia 185

communication with their students outside the classroom very or rather negative and 16 rather or very positive (20 respondents were neutral about this; the mean scrore was 3.38 on a scale from 1 = very negative to 5 = very positive); 16 respondents were very or rather negative about such practices during lessons (while 14 were very or rather positive and 10 neutral; mean score 3.03; in comparison, the means for code-switching or code-mixing with friends and family were 3.53, in informal situations in public 3.48 and in formal situations e.g. with authorities 2.70). In total, these results imply that a ‘heteroglossic turn’ towards a more multilingual habitus is seen as a reality and as desirable by some of the teaching community, whereas others are more reluctant to adopt such practices – and that teachers are considerably more critical about the use of more than one language in formal contexts than in more informal ones. CLIL as a continuum of bilingual education

At the turn of the century, a bit later than the bilingual education reform in minority schools, the CLIL approach (content and language integrated learning), denoting the use a foreign or additional language for the teaching of curricular content, started to spread across Latvia. In order to improve pupils’ skills in English, teachers of different subjects from Latvian, Russian and other minority schools were invited to consider CLIL from different perspectives: to integrate the teaching of language and subject, to learn to use the Moodle platform, and to develop information literacy in general, including diverse digital tools. These activities have continued; in 2011–2014, for instance, the Latvian Language Agency organized eight courses which aimed to familiarize about 100 teachers with CLIL methods (Lapinska, 2015). It was predictable that teachers from bilingual schools would be more active than teachers from schools with Latvian as the sole language of instruction: the former have experiences in bilingual (Latvian–Russian) teaching and would likely be more open to expand the principles that they have worked with to an additional language – English. For Latvian schools, on the other hand, a move from a monolingual habitus to a bilingual (Latvian-English) one or to multi­ lingual models of teaching is seen as revolutionary. Currently, there are more than 10 schools in Latvia which use the CLIL approach for teaching history, management, geography, physics and other subjects. In most cases, English is used as an additional language of instruction for children with Latvian or Russian as a mother tongue, but there are some initiatives regarding the languages of Latvia’s neighbouring countries (Lithuanian, Estonian) which could be learnt at schools using CLIL methods. A model with Latvian/Russian and English for teaching different subjects would be appropriate also for families who return to Latvia from other European countries (often the UK and Ireland) (Lapinska, 2015).

186  Multilingualism in European Language Education

Regional languages in education

Another topic which has raised attention in parts of the education system of Latvia is the teaching of Latgalian. Data suggest that Lat­ galians consider it to be advantageous to know Latgalian in addition to other languages. Research from 2009 which analysed attitudes towards Latgalian showed that its speakers are generally quite positive about it. When responding to the question ‘What role, in your opinion, should the Latgalian language have at school’, only 23% of the more than 9000 respondents answered that they did not wish Latgalian to be used at school in Latgale at all, while the other 77% of the respondents did: 8.3% preferred Latgalian-medium education, 10.5% wished to see Latgalian as a compulsory second language and 58.2% wanted it to be offered as an optional subject (Šuplinska & Lazdiņa, 2009). These answers indicate that the population in Latgale is in favour of Latgalian education at school, albeit mostly on a voluntary basis. When in the early 1990s Latgalian activists, after decades of prohibition, launched a number of Latgalian-related events in the educational sector, such as competitions for school children and Latgalian summer camps, their activism succeeded in establishing afternoon classes in Latgalian (about Latgalian culture, literature, but also language lessons) in several schools, culminating in academic programmes which include courses in Latgalian language and literature. For the 20 or so year up until 2011, however, this was based only on individual teachers’ initiatives, without an official curriculum created at the national level for all schools of Latgale. Neither was particular information specified for integration into the curricula of Latvian language and literature for pupils of other regions (even the simple fact that two written traditions have been coexisting in Latvia has been widely ignored). Recently, however, the situation has slightly changed. In September 2013, ‘regional studies’ (Novadmācība) as a school subject has been introduced in the town of Rēzekne, the regional centre. It started as an initiative by Rēzekne Academy of Technologies and has been supported financially by Rēzekne municipality. This optional subject may be chosen by pupils in the schools of Rēzekne in order to familiarize them with the history of Latgale, the Latgalian language, culture and literature (currently this subject is introduced also in another schools of Latgale and partly supported by Ministry of Education and Science). The main idea of the course is to develop literacy in Latgalian and to create a local identity, a feeling of belonging to the region. One of the aims is that young people, after studying in Riga or abroad, come back to the region of Latgale and employ their skills for the benefit of the region. The main language of the course is Latgalian but, as teachers have reported,4 pupils do a lot of translanguaging between Latvian, Latgalian and sometimes Polish (in the Polish secondary school in Rēzekne). This



Latvia 187

was a reason to start a debate with teachers about flexible models of bilingualism not only in informal situations, but also using translanguaging as a pedagogical tool (reading texts in one language, discussing them in another and reporting in a third language). In this way, pupils can make use of their wider linguistic repertoires – according to the needs of specific contents, or for the benefit of language acquisition. Teachers report that the regional studies course is popular not only among pupils whose families and friends use the Latgalian language but also with pupils who are less connected to Latgalian culture and language, implying that there is an interest in the subject beyond core circles of activists and the speech community. The biggest problems are with studying and teaching the written standard, largely because of the lack of tradition of writing Latgalian since the 1930s, which has even rendered many regular users of Latgalian illiterate in this variety. Another major challenge for teachers is how to work without any fixed curriculum and with a lack of adequate teaching materials. Teachers of Latgalian have reported: ‘We are a group of enthusiasts which was created predominantly among teachers of Latvian. And we ourselves have made a syllabus. Let us see how it will develop, how this syllabus will be accepted’ (LRT, 2014). A conclusion drawn from the teacher training courses is that teachers have been familiarized with the concept of societal multilingualism in theory – but they do not know how to apply it to the classroom or to create multilingual teaching materials. In general, they are not against trans­ languaging or against using different languages for teaching purposes, but they are not convinced about how to do it. The situation is similar with regard to the regional language of Võro in Estonia. Brown and Koreinik (2019) report that in 2015 the language was taught on a voluntary basis once per week in 16 primary and secondary schools, which amounts to about 40% of the schools in the traditionally Võro-speaking area. Instruction in Võro usually begins in third or fourth grade and continues until the sixth or seventh grades with ‘home studies’, a class comparable to regional studies in Latgale. Since 2011, Võro has also been promoted through language ‘nests’ in public kindergartens. Here, teachers use Võro as the main language for a whole day or even two per week (Brown & Koreinik, 2019). Regional languages: Their economic value and education

In many situations, economic reasons for learning or not learning a regional or minority language are more relevant for individuals than a societal ideology which aims at the protection and promotion of the language, advocated by language policy makers or activists (Lazdiņa, 2013). Many people want to understand how they can benefit from skills in a specific language. Latgalian is not an exception to this: the perception of the economic effect of the use of Latgalian and the instrumental motivation of its users (i.e. the usage of Latgalian in order to benefit from

188  Multilingualism in European Language Education

it) is stronger than the integrative motivation to protect and promote Latgalian as a regional language (Lazdiņa, 2013). The non-market value of a small language, for instance relating to opportunities to access a culture or to integrate into a community through knowing a language, may play a role but where economic benefits of its use are perceived it is far easier to develop language and educational policies for the protection and promotion of a language than where no economic value is evident. Grin (2008: 2) emphasizes how important it is for regional or minority languages to be perceived as having at least some kind of positive economic impact: ‘It may help to win over to the cause of RMLs [regional or minority languages] some social actors (including media people and politicians) who may be a priori opposed to such policies’. Using economic arguments such as its usage value therefore provides the opportunity to convince people who look at language mostly from a utilitarian perspective. For policy makers it is usually rather complicated to prove the need to create language maintenance efforts purely on the grounds of cultural heritage. This point is made explicitly by Grin (2003: 24): If economics can make useful contributions to the analysis of language policy, it is not so much because it brings linguistic and economic variables in relation with each other (with causal links flowing in either direction), but rather because it helps to look at different choices about language in terms of advantages and drawbacks.

It is remarkable to note that the spread of Latgalian to a wider range of domains (tourism, culture industry, etc.) and the more explicit perception of the economic value of Latgalian seem to have an impact on current issues in language-in-education planning (for more about this process from the perspective of holistic educational policy planning see Lazdiņa, 2013). In the ideological reactions to perceived needs of languages for economic purposes, there is therefore a remarkable interplay between attempts to achieve more openness towards international languages and the increased value which is assigned to regional languages. On the one hand, it is possible to observe the increasing role of English, as expressed in the adoption of lessons using the CLIL approach with English as the medium of instruction in schools in Latvia or as shown in linguistic landscape research on Latvia (Marten, 2010, 2012; Marten et al., 2012; Pošeiko, 2015). On the other hand, there is also an increased concern for local, small languages (e.g. Latgalian or Võro). The educational situation in the Baltic states is also influenced by international policies, such as European educational projects which reflect this tendency. The LangOER (Language Open Educational Resources) project which was conducted between 2014 and 2016 addressed questions such as: How can less used languages, including Regional and Minority languages, benefit from Open Educational Practices (OEP)? How can Open



Latvia 189

Educational Resources (OER) be shaped to foster linguistic and cultural diversity in Europe? (LangOER, n.d.)

This project has also taken place at the Rēzekne Academy of Technologies in Latgale, where researchers, teachers, students and stakeholders have worked together to create interesting online-based methodologies for learning both Latvian and Latgalian – in line with the development of modern, learner-oriented tools which pay tribute to existing patterns of multilingual repertoires in a region. The project has been based on the observation that less-used languages face the risk of linguistic/cultural depend­ence in the fast-evolving OER/OEP educational landscape currently dominated by English in many European countries. In this sense, all stakeholders in this project who are working on bridging the gap between regional, national and international levels as part of a hetero­ glossic European ideology contribute to creating a multilingual environment at school. The aim is to reflect the authentic linguistic landscape not only inside school but also outside formal learning environments (as reflected in public signs, media, cultural events, business communication and other domains). Language teaching thereby has the task to create competent language users who, depending on individual situations, can code-switch from one variety to another, for example from Latgalian to Latvian and English or vice versa. In addition, the research conducted as part of the LangOER project as well as the work with students and teachers has revealed that there is not enough transparency in curricula and teaching aids. Teachers are trained in how to create multilingual competence, how to take into account different cultural and linguistic backgrounds of learners, or in technical opportunities to teach a subject and at the same time integrate the existing language skills of pupils. The great challenge, which was addressed in the teachers’ course, was therefore to learn how to apply various digital tools for this purpose. Successful instruments and teaching strategies included, for instance, the creation of subtitles in Latvian, Russian or Latgalian for short video lectures in English taken from the internet. In this way, globalized contexts are localized and recontextualized in local teaching situations. A new challenge in education will be to bring together the multi­lingual competence of pupils and their digital 21st-century citizenship. At the same time, they will need skills such as the ability to move from deep reading to scanning a text for its main ideas. Arguably, these features of new learners are similar internationally; therefore it seems useful to do research on them in international teams. Conclusions

In the globalized world of the 21st century, there are arguably no countries with entirely monolingual societies. Yet, a monolingual habitus

190  Multilingualism in European Language Education

is still present in the education systems of many countries and long-term processes are often needed to replace the underlying monolingual ideologies by more multilingual approaches. Summarizing the current situation of languages of education in the Baltic states, we thus find several tendencies. On the one hand, the shift from Russian to Latvian, Estonian and Lithuanian as the main languages of Baltic societies has, since the 1990s, generated new practices in education. Different models of bilingual education have been developed and these have replaced the previously largely monolingual educational ideologies. This also applies to improving skills in the titular languages among members of the minorities, in particular L1-speakers of Russian. These changes in educational language policies have not only created a new generation of bilinguals, they also reflect a gradual transition from an ideology of parallel mono­lingualism (separate Russian and Latvian, Lithuanian or Estonian schools, with other languages being taught as foreign languages in specific lessons) to a more multilingual ideology. This applies in particular to practices in the minority schools – the schools targeted at the majority population have kept their monolingual habitus to a greater degree. On the other hand, the reaction to both global necessities and the activism for the recognition of regional cultures and languages have diversified the presence of languages and language practices at school. Recent developments have strengthened less-used regional languages in education and opened the education systems to the presence of international languages, in particular English, which is being taught from early ages. Bilingual or multilingual dimensions of the education systems are no longer perceived as a separate field of the humanities in the same way as language is not seen only as a tool of communication; rather, it is a tool for constructing social meaning. Languages and content cannot be kept in separate drawers, as, in society at large, people are regularly translanguaging and code-switching when reading, listening, watching tele­vision or engaging in online or face-to-face communication. Therefore, the integration of content (i.e. other subjects) with language learning using interdisciplinary approaches and translanguaging habits has become a topic of discussion among teachers and researchers. Observations and reports indicate that the use of individual linguistic repertoires is also appreciated by at least parts of the teaching community. Yet, even if monoglossic ideologies have, de facto, in many situations been questioned by more heteroglossic ideologies, and the monolingual habitus in the form of a strict separation of varieties in educational settings has in many places been replaced by a more multilingual habitus, the question remains over how to expand awareness of the multilingual realities among educational practitioners as well as political stakeholders. Which didactical, technical, digital and linguistic tools are most appropriate in which teaching processes? What can we learn from each other in different multilingual and multicultural contexts – and how can we create



Latvia 191

a unified academic capacity and in the same time remain diverse? In this chapter, we hope to have provided some insights into processes and discussions which may help to create educational environments adjusted to 21st-century multilingual realities – even though more research is needed to understand the long-term effects of changing language-in-education policies in interaction with general developments in the societies of the Baltic states. Notes (1) Statistic from Centrālās statistikas pārvaldas datubāzes, at http://data.csb. gov.lv/pxweb/lv/Sociala/Sociala__ikgad__iedz__iedzskaits/IS0032.px/table/ tableViewLayout1/?rxid=09cbdccf-2334-4466-bdf7-0051bad1decd. (2) Statistic from http://countrymeters.info/en/Lithuania. (3) Statistic from http://www.stat.ee/en. (4) In spring 2015, 49 teachers participated in teacher training courses organized by the Rēzekne Academy of Technologies with the aim of enhancing the use of less-used languages in school during learning about new digital tools. Questionnaires (open questions after the course) but also observations and notes during training courses collected useful data for understanding urgent issues and generating further dis­cussion.

References Adamson, J. and Fujimoto-Adamson, N. (2012) Translanguaging in self-access language advising: Informing language policy. SiSAL Journal. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal 3 (1), 59–73, available at http://sisaljournal.org/archives/march12/adamson_fujimoto-adamson (accessed 9 September 2015). Apine, I. and Volkovs, V. (2007) Latvijas krievu identitāte: vēsturisks un socioloģisks apcerējums [Identity of Russians of Latvia: Historical and Sociological Survey]. Rīga: LU Filozofijas un socioloģijas institūts. Baltic Institute of Social Sciences (2008) Valoda: atskaite [Language: Report], available at http://www.valoda.lv/downloadDoc_435/mid_510 (accessed 18 July 2018). Batelaan, P., Choumak, L.N., Crawford, A., Grin, F., Housen, A., Pedersen, K.M. and ­Protassova, E. (2002) Bilingual Education in Latvia: International Expertise. Latvia: Soros Foundation, available at http://providus.lv/article_files/1026/original/Bilingv2002en.pdf?1326878842 (accessed January 2019). Blackledge, A. and Creese, A. (2010) Multilingualism. A Critical Perspective. London: Continuum. Brown, K.D. and Koreinik, K. (2019) Societal discourses in understanding the Võru language ability as a resource: Public, semi-public, and professional. In S. Lazdiņa and H.F. Marten (eds) Multilingualism in the Baltic States: Societal Discourses and Contact Phenomena (pp. 89–121). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Centrālā statistikas pārvalde (2013) At home Latvian is spoken by 62% of Latvian population; the majority – in Vidzeme and Lubāna county, at https://www.csb.gov.lv/en/ statistics/statistics-by-theme/population/census/search-in-theme/1442-home-latvianspoken-62-latvian-population. De Korne, H. (2012) Towards new ideologies and pedagogies of multilingualism: Innovations in interdisciplinary language education in Luxembourg. Language and Education 26 (6), 479–500. Ellis, E., Gogolin, I. and Clyne, M. (2010) The Janus face of monolingualism: A comparison of German and Australian language education policies. Current Issues in Language Planning 11 (4), 439–460, DOI: 10.1080/14664208.2010.550544.

192  Multilingualism in European Language Education

García, O. (2009) Bilingual Education in the 21st Century: A Global Perspective. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Gogolin, I. (2008) Der monolinguale Habitus der multilingualen Schule. Münster: Waxmann. Gogolin I. and Kroon, S. (2000) Einsprachige Schule, mehrsprachige Kinder. Untersuchungen aus einem international-vergleichenden Projekt über Unterricht in der Sprache der Majorität. In I. Gogolin and S. Kroon (eds) Man schreibt, wie man spricht. Ergebnisse einer internaional vergleichenden Fallstudie über Unterricht in vielsprachigen Klassen. Münster: Waxmann. Grin, F. (2003) Language planning and economics. Current Issues in Language Planning 4 (1), 1–66. Grin, F. (2008) Applying economics to language: What are the relevant questions to ask? Summary of presentation. Department of Celtic and Scottish Studies, University of Edinburgh. LangOER (n.d.) European network homepage, at http://langoer.eun.org/home (accessed 18 July 2018). Lapinska, I. (2015) CLIL Latviešu valodas aģentūras darbības kontekstā. In L. Sanita (ed.) CLIL jeb mācību satura un valodas integrēta apguve: izglītības paradigmas maiņa (pp. 38–83). Rīga: Latviešu valodas aģentūra. Lazdiņa, S. (2007) Correlation between teaching aids texts and predominant approaches in acquisition of Latvian a second language, unpublished document. Lazdiņa, S. (2013) A transition from spontaneity to planning? Economic values and educational policies in the process of revitalizing the regional language of Latgalian (Latvia). Current Issues in Language Planning 14 (3–4), 382–402. Lazdiņa, S. and Marten, H.F. (2019) Multilingualism in the Baltic States: Societal Discourses and Contact Phenomena. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Lazdiņa, S., Šuplinska, I., Iannaccaro, G. and Dell’Aquila, V. (2011) Language, religion and ethnic identity: A case-study from eastern Latvia. In U. Ammon, J. Darquennes and S. Wright (eds) Sociolinguistica. Band 25: Language and Religion (pp. 94–111). Berlin: De Gruyter. Lietuvos Statistikos Departamentas/Statistics Lithuania (2012) 2011 metais. 2011 m. gyventojų surašymo rezultatai [Lithuanian 2011 Population Census in Brief], available at https://osp.stat.gov.lt/documents/10180/217110/Lietuvos_gyventojai_2011.pdf. LRT (Latgales Reģionālā Televīzija) (2014) Rēzeknē skolēni apgūst novadu mācību, at http://www.lsm.lv/lv/raksts/latvija/zinas/rezekne-skoleni-apgust-novadu-maciibu. a82416/. 10.10.2014 (accessed 18 July 2018). LVA (2012) Language Situation in Latvia: 2004-2010. Rīga: Latviešu valodas aģentūra. LVA (n.d.) Latviešu valodas prasme un lietojums augstākās izglītības iestādēs. Izglītības reformas rezultāti, at http://www.valoda.lv/downloadDoc_216/mid_510 (accessed 18 July 2018). Marten, H.F. (2010) LL in under strict state language policy: Reversing the Soviet legacy in a regional centre in Latvia. In E. Goldberg Shohamy, E. Ben-Rafael and M. Barni (eds) Linguistic Landscape in the City (pp. 115–132). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Marten, H.F. (2012) ‘Latgalian is not a language’: Linguistic landscapes in eastern Latvia and how they reflect centralist attitudes. In D. Gorter, H.F. Marten and L. Van Mensel (eds) Minority Languages in the Linguistic Landscape (pp. 19–35). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. Marten, H.F., Lazdiņa, S., Pošeiko, S. and Murinska, S. (2012) Between old and new killer languages? Linguistic transformation, lingua francas and languages of tourism in the Baltic state. In C. Hélot, M. Barni, R. Janssens and C. Bagna (eds) Linguistic Landscapes, Multilingualism and Social Change: Diversité des approaches (pp. 289–308). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Muiznieks, N. (2004) Minority education in Latvia: From segregation to integration, at



Latvia 193

http://www.mfa.gov.lv/en/policy/society-integration/integration/minority-educationin-latvia-from-segregation-to-integration (accessed 18 July 2018). Nau, N. (2003) Forms of bilingual talk in present-day Riga. Paper read at the 5th Conference on Baltic Studies in Europe, ‘The Baltic World as a Multicultural Space’, Turku, 5–7 June 2003, available at http://www.staff.amu.edu.pl/~naunicol/NNresearch/ BilingualRiga.pdf (accessed January 2019). O’Rourke, B., Pujolar, J. and Ramallo, F. (2015) New speakers of minority languages: The challenging opportunity – Foreword. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 231, 1–20. DOI: 10.1515/ijsl-2014-0029. Pavlenko, A. (2008) Multilingualism in post-Soviet countries: Language revival, language removal, and sociolinguistic theory. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 11 (3–4), 275–314. Pošeiko, S. (2015) Valodas un to funkcionalitāte pilsētu publiskāja telpā: Baltijas valstu lingvistiskā ainava. PhD Thesis, University of Latvia. Saar, E (n.d.) Võro language, at http://www.wi.ee/index.php/voro-langu (accessed 18 July 2018). SIL International (2017) Latgalian, at http://www-01.sil.org/iso639-3/documentation. asp?id=ltg (accessed 18 July 2018). Soler-Carbonell, J. (2015) English in Estonia: The country’s future lingua franca, blog, at http://blog.ut.ee/english-in-estonia-the-countrys-future-lingua-franca (accessed 18 July 2018). Statistical Office of Estonia (2012) Population and housing census 2012, at http://estonia. eu/about-estonia/country/population-census-2011.html (accessed 18 July 2018). Statistics Lithuania (2011) Ethnicity, mother tongue, at http://statistics.bookdesign.lt/ esu_04.htm?lang=en (accessed 18 July 2018). Statistics Lithuania (2013) Population and social statistics, at http://osp.stat.gov.lt/en/web/ guest/informaciniai-pranesimai?articleId=223122 (accessed 18 July 2018). Statistics Lithuania (n.d.) Population by command of languages and age group, at http:// statistics.bookdesign.lt/esu_05.htm?lang=en (accessed 18 July 2018). Šuplinska, I. and Lazdiņa, S. (eds) (2009) Valodas Austrumlatvijā: pētījuma dati un rezultāti [Languages in Eastern Latvia: Data and Results of Survey]. Rēzekne: Rēzeknes Augstskola. Žemaitis, A. (2015) Languages in Lithuania, at http://www.truelithuania.com/topics/ culture-of-lithuania/languages-in-lithuania (accessed 15 June 2017).

10 Finland John Smeds

Introduction and Contextualization

This chapter presents Finnish language policy and language education policy. It gives an introduction to the Finnish sociolinguistic background first and then picks up language education policy as the main focus. Unlike some of the chapters in the present volume, but in accord with the chapters on England, the Netherlands and Romania, this chapter emphasizes foreign language education in contexts where the language acquired is not a part of the autochtonous linguistic setting. Thus, managing multi­ lingualism in Finland is not only about managing languages spoken by people as native languages, but to a high degree about managing language acquisition in formal settings in schools. Most of what goes under the heading of language education policy in Finnish education are explicitly the measures undertaken by government and education authorities to promote knowledge of languages in the spirit of the second annual spring meeting of the European Council in Barcelona on 15 and 16 March 2002 on the economic, social and environmental situation in the European Union: ‘to improve the mastery of basic skills, in particular by teaching at least two foreign languages from a very early age’ (European Council, 2002). There is a bias in language acquisition in formal settings. In European schools, the term ‘language’ typically implies to a European language of a country with ‘an army and a navy’. So the predominant languages, as we shall see, studied in Finnish schools are Finnish, Swedish, English, German, French, Spanish, Italian, Russian and Latin. Many of the other languages mentioned in this volume, such as Catalan, Asturian, Latvian and Romanian, are absent from the foreign language curriculum in Finnish schools. In this respect, Finnish schools are no different from schools all over the world. At present English dominates foreign language teaching in schools and evening classes all over the world, making English typically one of the two foreign languages mentioned by the Barcelona meeting 2002. The big European languages compete for the position of ‘second foreign language’, with German as the former lingua franca in central Europe before the Second World War and French as the 19th-century lingua franca occupying strong positions. In addition, in Finnish schools 194



Finland 195

Spanish and Italian are very strong candidates for the position of second foreign language, whereas Russian has lost much of the prestige it used to have in the Soviet era and has declined to the status of a less widely used, less taught language in the European foreign language classrooms, including those of Finland, of course (and similarly in the Baltic states – see Lazdiņa and Marten in Chapter 9 of the present volume). But the bias I mentioned earlier does not have so much to do with ‘global English’ and the domination of strong national languages as with the fact that of the 60 languages spoken in the European Union, only a handful are taught in foreign language classrooms in schools. Where are the classrooms in which you can study Estonian or Latvian? Where do you go if you want to learn Inari Sáme? Which publisher invests in foreign language textbooks of Aragonese for, say, Dutch students? It is easy to dismiss these questions as utopian arguments but multilingualism in formal educational settings will not become a reality unless language education tackles the problems related to the bias in foreign language teaching. L1s and L2s are not as equal as the technical formula of letter plus number implies. Behind the formulas are living people using languages in everyday settings and as long as languages do not have equal status, language teaching is also not about teaching languages with the same methods and with the same expectations for all languages. There are enormous differences in the resources and prestige of lingua francas and those of all but extinct languages, dead languages and languages without written forms. For some languages there are didactic textbooks and dictionaries, while other languages do not have a canon of literature nor publishing houses. Finnish language education policy is not much different from that in the rest of Europe, but the Finnish constitution, with its stipulation of equality between the national languages, Finnish and Swedish, ensures that at least the not so big national languages, Finnish for Finland Swedes and Swedish for Finns, get a lot of attention. In this chapter, language education policy will be approached through a presentation of work carried out in drafting the new national core curriculum for the primary school and lower level of secondary school, including grades 1–9 in Finland; in other words, for schoolchildren aged 7–16 years (Finnish children start school when they are seven). Language education policy as a concept must be distinguished from language policy, on the one hand, and language planning, on the other. Language policy refers to legislative measures by which a government regulates the relation­ ship between different languages spoken within a territory. It defines whether the country has none, one or several official languages, and what languages are used in administration, courts and in official announcements. Language planning is related to language policy, but focuses more on proactive measures undertaken with the aim of reaching an outcome. Language education policy comprises measures related to languages in schools, as well as in tertiary, vocational and adult education. It deals with

196  Multilingualism in European Language Education

the language of instruction in a given situation, the teaching of domestic, second and foreign languages, and the language used for assessment, such as Latin in European universities a few centuries ago (Sajavaara et al., 2007). The legal and social framework of the language policy

In terms of size of population, Finland is a comparatively small country within the European Union. Only about 1% of the whole population of the EU, or 5,474,094, lives in Finland and speaks Finnish or Swedish. Within the EU, furthermore, Finland stands out as a country with Finno-Ugric languages. The Finno-Ugric languages are, together with Basque, among a small number of non-Indo-European languages in Europe. Finland is actually home to four Finno-Ugric languages. Three of them have existed in Finland since prehistoric times: Finnish, Sámi and Karelian. The fourth, Estonian, is a more recent arrival. A third Finno-Ugric EU state language (in addition to Finnish and Estonian) is Hungarian, but that is hardly spoken at all in Finland. Sámi is actually not one language but nine, out of which three – Inari Sámi, Northern Sámi and Skolt Sámi – are spoken in Finland, giving a total of seven Finno-Ugric languages. Karelian and the Sámi languages are not yet standardized (for a description of standardization, see for example Haugen, 1997). Finland is according to its constitution a bilingual country with two national languages, Finnish and Swedish. The linguistic rights of the speakers of the national languages are guaranteed in the constitution and also in a special set of language laws guaranteeing the linguistic minority, Finland-Swedish, a uniquely strong defence against discrimination (Ministry of Justice, 2015). Although the Swedish minority numbers only about 300,000 or 6% of the whole population, at a national level all official government documents are required by law to be available in both languages, and notices from the authorities to citizens must be in the language registered as the speaker’s native language, or both languages. At a local level, municipalities may be either monolingual or bilingual. If the minority is accounts for more than 6% of the local population, the municipality is defined as bilingual, and all official documents must be in both languages, as much street signs and any other public notices. So, for instance, of major cities or towns, Helsinki (Helsingfors), Turku (Åbo), Vaasa (Vasa), ­Pietarsaari (Jakobstad), Kokkola (Karleby) and Porvoo (Borgå) are bilingual. There is a Swedish school in Tampere, but the Swedish minority there accounts for less than 6% of the population. Similarly, the capital of the Åland islands, Mariehamn (Maarianhamina), has a Finnish population, but not more than 6%, so Mariehamn is monolingually Swedish. Most bilingual municipalities are Finnish–Swedish bilingual, but four communities in the far north, next to Norway, are Finnish–Sámi bilingual: the Sámi Language Act of 2003 made Sámi an



Finland 197

official language in Enontekiö, Inari, Sodankylä and Utsjoki municipalities. The Swedish language has a strong position in the country for ­historical reasons. Christianity, and with Christianity literacy, reached Finland through Sweden in the Middle Ages. After the Viking era, Finland had gradually become a part of the Swedish kingdom. In the Middle Ages the main written language was Latin, but after the Reformation Swedish grew in importance. The New Testament was translated into Finnish in 1548, but Finnish still remained by and large a spoken language until 1863, when, as a result of national awakening and active language policy, it gained official status alongside Swedish. Thus the Swedish language as the ancient language of education, ecclesiastic matters and administra­tion still has a strong position in Finland. There are 11 Swedish newspapers, a couple of national radio channels and a Swedish television studio, with some programmes on national television broadcast in Swedish. Helsinki, Turku and Vaasa have Swedish theatre stages and Turku houses the Finland-Swedish University, Åbo Akademi University. Affluent Swedishspeakers have by tradition had a strong grip on the Finnish economy and still the economic influence is felt in major Swedish foundations (Stiftelsen för Åbo Akademi, Svenska Kulturfonden, Konstsamfundet) giving grants to cultural activities and owning property in the centre of Helsinki and Turku. The nucleus of Swedish-speaking political life is found in the Swedish People’s Party of Finland, which polls about 4% support in parliamentary elections but, nevertheless, has traditionally had representation in the Finnish Government (although it was left out of the coalition formed after the 2015 parliamentary elections). To sum up the linguistic status of Finland-Swedish, Skutnabb-Kangas provides a larger perspective: For a few national minorities (e.g. Swedish speakers in Finland, English and Afrikaans speakers in South Africa), the right to exist, to define in­dependently who they are (to endocategorize), and to reproduce themselves as minorities and, accordingly, to have mother-tongue-medium education, have been more or less self-evident. (Skutnabb-Kangas, 1999; see also Vikør, 1993)

Finland-Swedish is a variant of Swedish. It uses the same written standard as the Swedish spoken in Sweden, and is monitored by the Swedish Academy. The Swedish Academy approves of Finland-Swedish forms of words on an equal level with standard Swedish in the dictionary produced by the Swedish Academy. In the spoken language, however, there are considerable differences in pronunciation and intonation (see e.g. Vikør, 2000). Thus, standard Swedish is a tonal language whereas FinlandSwedish is not. The intonation of Finland-Swedish resembles Finnish to some extent. Many phonemes are pronounced differently in Finland and there are lexical differences.

198  Multilingualism in European Language Education

To give an example, in Swedish in Sweden the sentence ‘If you want to buy four ounces of minced pork you have to go to the first floor’ would be: • Om ni vill köpa ett hekto fläskfärs måste ni gå en trappa upp. In Finland-Swedish the same sentence would be: • Om ni vill köpa hundra gram malet griskött måste ni gå till andra våningen. But the differences notwithstanding, the two variants are mutually intelligible on a similar level as UK and US English or German in Germany and German in Austria. In addition to the two national languages, Finnish and Swedish, there are also five indigenous minority languages. Sámi has been mentioned above. The second indigenous minority language is Romani (Vikør, 1993). The legislation on Romani and Sámi has given both languages more rights in the past two or three decades, including the right to receive education in the minority language. The improved judicial situation shows itself as more influence for the both minorities in social life, but there is still some way to go to reach equality with the national languages in social services and education. The third minority language is Karelian, the fourth is Finnish sign language and the fifth is Finland-Swedish sign language (on sign languages, see Baker, 1999). So, the old languages in Finland are Finnish, Swedish, Sámi, Roma, Karelian and Finnish and Finland-Swedish sign languages. Thus we arrive at the ‘new’ languages. In the past three decades, the number of immigrants to Finland has increased. Finland has, like most EU Mediterranean countries, for geographical and economic reasons always been a country of emigration rather than immigration (see e.g. Huguet et al., 2012; Ianos, 2013), with solid Finnish populations in the Americas (even in Brazil), Australia and particularly Sweden, to where about 620,000 Finns emigrated in the 1950s and 1960s (Heikkilä, 2014; Romaine, 1995). The reason for emigration was usually under-employment. Today, however, migration between Finland and Sweden has changed direction; more people move from Sweden to Finland than the other way round. The fact that Finland has mainly been a country of emigration, however, does not mean that it would not have received immigrants in the past. When it was part of the Russian empire (1809–1917), Finland received not only Russians but Tatars and Jews from elsewhere in the empire. With growing industrialization, quite a number of English and Scottish industrialists settled in Finland and founded important industrial plants (Crichton-Vulcan and Finlayson). Russians founded breweries (Sinebrychoff) and Swedes and Germans have always had business in Finland, as in the rest of the Baltic. But there is no reason to gloss over the fact that the newly independent Finland, in 1918, with a grim civil war recently ended, may not have been attractive to immigrants, as also was true for the post-Second World War period, with



Finland 199

the Cold War breaking out and Finland having 1300 kilometres of the Iron Curtain. The economically more successful Sweden filtered out migrants and few people on the move continued to Turku or Helsinki once they had reached Stockholm. And why should they? The flow of migration went in the other direction. So, the first groups of immigrants in the post-war era were the Chilean refugees after Pinochet’s military coup. The second major wave of refugees was the Vietnamese so-called boat people. Since then there have been more refugees: from Bosnia, Iraq, Iran, Kurdistan, Myanmar, Afghanistan and Syria. But not all recent immigrants have been refugees. After the fall of the Soviet Union, getting visas and foreign passports for Soviet citizens became easier. The Finnish President in 1990, Mauno Koivisto, felt Finland could have done more to support the Ingrians – Ingrian is a Finnish dialect – in the Saint Petersburg region, so a law was passed that granted anybody with Finnish ancestry in the Saint Petersburg region a right to immigrate into Finland. Many people used this opportunity in the chaos of the post-Soviet years. Also, many Estonians from the recently independent Estonia moved to Finland. So these Russians and Estonians for the moment constitute the biggest immigrant groups: 39,653 Russians and 15,336 Estonians (Finnäs, 2007). The ethnic identity of this group of immigrants can sometimes be complex. Many of the Russians with Finnish ancestry spoke no Finnish and had very vague ideas about Finnish lifestyle. Some of the Estonians were actually Russians from Estonia, and to make the matter more complicated some of the Estonian Russians had Finnish ancestry. So the degree of ‘foreignness’ and ‘Finnishness’ among Russian and Estonian immigrants varies greatly. Estonian is fairly close to Finnish and many Estonians of the older generation, in particular those from the north of Estonia, speak excellent Finnish, learned by watching Finnish television in the Soviet days. The third biggest immigrant language group is, perhaps surprisingly, English, with 8593 immigrants in 2005 (Finnäs, 2007). The English immigrants usually work for big companies or in education. Most are fairly highly educated. They, nevertheless, unfortunately, they are less successful at learning Finnish since, according to them, everybody speaks English. But if, instead of looking at language, we look at citizenship or country of birth, the third largest group is migrants from Sweden (in 2015 there were 8412 Swedish citizens and 31,601 migrants born in Sweden; Väestöliitto, 2015). The large-scale migration from Sweden to Finland is not because many Swedes want to move to Finland but Swedes with Finnish ancestry either move back to the country where they were born or their children move to their parents’ home country. So the three biggest immigrant groups, Russians, Estonians and Swedes, actually contain a large percentage of people with Finnish ancestry repatriating. After the English-speakers and the Swedish group, the next largest number migrants are those from Somalia, a refugee group. Other immigrant

200  Multilingualism in European Language Education

linguistic groups are people speaking Arabic, Albanian (Kosovo), Kurdish and Vietnamese. Then the following group by size is 4114 Germans, in 2005 (Finnäs, 2007). The Germans are similar to the English-speakers as far as social background goes. Next are Chinese, Turkish, Spanish and Thai. These are seldom refugees, but people looking for better opportunities or working in international trade. Some of the Spanish-speakers are likely to be Chilean refugees from Pinochet’s dictatorship. After the Thai, we find the French. They are similar to English and Germans in terms of provenance. Only after the French (2071 in 2005) do we find the Sámi. According to Finnäs, the number of speakers is only 1752 whereas Aikio-Puoskari estimates the number of Sámi in Finland to be 7,000–10,000 (Aikio-Puoskari, 1998). No reliable statistics are available because there is a controversy regarding who has the right to call themselves a Sámi and who has not. The majority of speakers speak Northern Sámi, but about 400 speakers speak Inarin Sámi and about the same number speak Skolt Sámi. Other languages with small numbers of speakers in Finland include Persian, Polish and Serbo-Croat (the native language of refugees from the Balkan wars). The situation in Finland changed considerably in 2015 with the arrival of 40,000 refugees from Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. This wave of immigration followed the Syrian civil war and catastrophic conditions for refugees in Turkey and Greece. As a result, Arabic is now more widely spoken than Estonian and Somalian, with about 22,000 speakers. (The final numbers are so far not known since all applications for refugee status will probably not be approved.) Demographically the situation for Finland today is the same as all over Europe. The original population is not growing in size, only in age. Therefore a decline in the number of the population is to be expected unless either birth rate goes up or the number of immigrants becomes bigger. Soon the baby-boomers will reach pension age and there is a real danger that there may not be enough tax payers to support the pensions and health care of the large number of pensioners expected. So, in official rhetoric, immigration is highly welcome. In practice, the reaction is mixed. The expected shortage of labour has not become a reality, and with the current economic crisis unemployment has risen and is approaching 10%. But the population decline is still a threat and a key part of a successful immigration policy is language teaching. The teaching of Finnish as a second language has sometimes been criticized for being too dependent on academic philological grammar studies, not suitable for immigrants of low educational achievement. Languages in Education

This section of the chapter begins with background information on the Finnish education system, and then briefly describes language education



Finland 201

in schools, before giving a more detailed exposition of the new national core curriculum for grades 1–9 in Finnish schools. The Finnish education system has its origin in a school operated by Dominican monks in the 13th century in association with the cathedral in Turku. The purpose of the school was to provide staff for the church in the country, where people had recently started being baptized. The languages used for instruction were Latin and Swedish. Swedish as a language of instruction has held a strong position since the Middle Ages, so Swedish schools sometimes have long traditions. Finnish schools were founded in the 19th century, starting with the Finnish Popular School (kansakoulu), which gradually brought with it free compulsory basic education for all in the native language. In that way, a linguistically segregated education system has emerged, with schools being monolingually Finnish or Swedish, but without bilingual education. The two language groups share the same curriculum. Schools giving instruction in Sámi have emerged only in recent decades. In Utsjoki and Enontekiö primary schools have two parallel classes: one for Finns and one for Sámi. The theoretical model is that the Finns go to Finnish schools and the Swedes go to Swedish schools. However, in practice the picture is more complex. Many families are bilingual, with one parent Finnish and the other parent Swedish. In such cases, the native language of the child is not predetermined but subject to negotiation between parents (for a discussion of bilingual families, see Finnäs, 2000). Studies by Kovero and Londen (2009) of school classes in the Helsinki region reveal a complex pattern of language use that partly debunks the myth of a segregated educational system as soon as we go to language use beyond formal instruction and administration. The result of the segregated system is that Finnish as a second language for immigrants as well as Finnish for Finland-Swedes in Finland-Swedish schools, and Swedish in Finnish schools, have been taught with methods resembling those used for teaching English, German and French instead of paying more attention to the dominant language in the community. All of this has changed as language teachers have adopted communicative language teaching methods and the traditional philological approach to learning languages has given way to task-based teaching in accordance with the new curriculum, as we shall see below. According to the constitutional bilingualism, most pupils learn in school the other national language: Finnish for Swedes and Swedish for Finns. In addition, 99.5% of pupils learn English, which normally is chosen as the first foreign language, with Swedish coming second. In addition to these three (mother tongue and two EU languages – see European Council, 2002) students may choose French, German, Spanish, Italian, Russian or Latin in different combinations. Unfortunately, the availability of lessons in the less-taught languages is limited and they are usually offered only in the big cities. There is a tendency at present for their availability to become even more

202  Multilingualism in European Language Education

limited and for English and Swedish to dominate too much the teaching of languages in school. Education of course must not be seen only as primary and secondary education. Adult education plays a great role in language learning, with often a broader supply of courses in less-taught languages. The universities have language teaching programmes in their language centres and there are private courses selling their services to companies. In this chapter, the term ‘foreign language teaching’ is taken to mean the teaching of languages not spoken within an autochtonous community setting. Foreign language teaching must, in the Finnish context, be separated from second language teaching, which refers to languages spoken within the community. Such second language teaching in Finland refers to the teaching of Finnish or Swedish for foreigners and the teaching of Swedish for Finns and Finnish for Finland-Swedes. Foreign language teaching and second language teaching have always, beginning with the teaching of Latin in the Middle Ages, had a high priority in the Finnish educational system. For a country with about five and a half million speakers, knowledge of foreign languages is a condition for international cooperation and foreign trade. Language teaching has many priorities. First of all, knowledge of English, as a lingua franca, ensures language skills in a globalized world. Knowledge of Swedish for Finns contributes to national unity and identification with Scandinavia, while knowledge of Finnish for Finland-Swedes is a necessity for identification with the majority of the population, not to mention all the simple everyday life situations demanding knowledge of the majority language. The remaining languages taught in school are additional advantages in international contacts and foreign trade. The Finnish education system in general has been rated highly in international comparisons such as the PISA evaluation. The same may be said about language education. According to the EF English Proficiency Index of 2014, Finland ranked fourth in the world (after Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden) in the learning of English as a foreign language.1 This position for Finland is a great achievement, since very high proficiency in English has not always been the case. The most commonly taught and learned language in Finnish secondary schools before the Second World War was German. With the fall of the Third Reich, language teaching policy changed swiftly and English became the most widely taught language. Because language teaching had been dominated by German it was not easy to find competent English teachers. Even university English departments employed former secondary school teachers to teach basic English to future English teachers. So the proficiency then, at a national level, was low and the starting level in 1945 was not much above zero. From that level the proficiency has steadily risen, albeit slowly up to the 1970s. The big change started in the 1980s and 1990s. More research is required on what caused the changes. Did better teaching methods lead to



Finland 203

better results? Was the change caused by factors outside schools, such as popular culture and media? The Federation of Foreign Language Teachers in Finland attributes a part of the present success to the fact that films in the English language always are subtitled and viewers thus read dialogues while simultaneously listening (Sukol, 2018). Leppänen and a group of scholars at the Centre for Applied Linguistics in Jyväskylä describe English as the third domestic language in Finland (Leppänen et al., 2008). The present fourth position in English proficiency is an achievement viewed with gratitude by the Finnish language education system. It is all the more remarkable against the background that the first three (Danish, Dutch and Swedish) are linguistically very close to English. They are Germanic languages with a common origin with English (the separation having occurred about 1500 years ago). Finnish, however, has no common origin with any Indo-European language and so Finnish-speaking schoolchildren have to work much harder to reach the same level in English as Danish-, Dutch- or Swedish-speaking children. By way of example, Table 10.1 shows the numbers 1–10 in English, Swedish and Finnish: So far this section has largely dealt with the learning of English in Finnish schools. In actual fact, several of languages are taught as foreign and second languages in Finnish schools. Table 10.2 gives statistics on the language choices made in Finnish secondary schools (children aged 16–18) in 2006 (Pöyhönen & Luukka, 2007). As the table shows, 99.5% of all students study English in secondary school. The number of students studying Swedish is also high. Swedish is a compulsory language for people holding government posts and also a requirement in a great number of professions, so Swedish is effectively semi-compulsory for Finns. Some choose Swedish as their first foreign language (A-language) but most choose it as a second foreign language (B-language). Swedish-speaking students in Swedish schools study Finnish as their first foreign language, which accounts for the figure of 1,986 students studying Finnish. Of the

Table 10.1  Comparison of English, Swedish and Finnish: Numbers 1–10 English

Swedish

Finnish

One

En

Yksi

Two

Två

Kaksi

Three

Tre

Kolme

Four

Fyra

Neljä

Five

Fem

Viisi

Six

Sex

Kuusi

Seven

Sju

Seitsemän

Eight

Åtta

Kahdeksan

Nine

Nio

Yhdeksän

Ten

Tio

Kymmenen

204  Multilingualism in European Language Education

Table 10.2  Language choices in Finnish secondary schools Language

Compulsory languages A

English

Optional languages

B

Total

B2

B3

Brief course

19

9

12

31,551

% share of all students

31,477

34

Swedish

2,431

26,764

2

2

116

29,315

92.5%

German

2,828

57

2,901

2,349

3,082

11,217

35.4%

French

99.5%

740

31

1,492

1,700

2277

6,240

19.7%

Spanish

3

-

41

1,272

1935

3,251

10.3%

Finnish

1,986

-

-

35

3

2,024

6.4%

Russian

206

-

80

564

915

1,765

5.6%

Italian

1

-

1

318

1,028

1,348

4.3%

Latin

-

-

33

156

1,000

1,189

3.8%

Other

-

-

-

12

368

380

1.2%

Sámi

1

-

5

7

3

16

0.1%

The total number of students in secondary school in 2006 was 31,709.

genuinely foreign languages after English, German is most popular. It is studied at all levels, from first foreign to brief courses. After German comes French and here, too, some students (740) choose French as a first foreign language. Spanish, Italian and Latin are usually studied as third or fourth languages. Some schools offer Russian as a first foreign language but the total number of students of Russian is only 1,765, or 5.6%. From this overview of the general features of Finnish language education policy we shall now move to a characterization of the teaching that Finnish schools offer, by taking a closer look at the national core curriculum for grades 1–9 introduced in the autumn term 2016. The new curriculum 2016

The Finnish National Board of Education has renewed its curriculum. The old curriculum, which had been in force until spring 2015, was approved in 2004. The present reform concerns primary school, meaning grades 1–9, and the new curriculum came into force in autumn 2016. The new curriculum is based on Decree 422/2012, on national objectives and the distribution of teaching hours in basic education, issued by the Govern­ment in June 2012. New local curricula which are based on this core curriculum had to be prepared by the beginning of school year 2016/17. The secondary school curriculum reform is still in preparation. Preparation of the new curriculum was carried out by working groups which focused on structure and objectives, conceptions of learning,



Finland 205

support for learning and the different subjects taught in basic education. Each working group consisted of education officials, researchers and teachers. The preparation of the curriculum was interactive. All education providers could follow the preparation and give feedback at the different phases. They were also encouraged to involve pupils and parents. The aim of the reform was to build on the current strengths of basic education and pre-primary education but to develop them in relation to changing needs. Further aims were to define educational values and principles so that they would be directed at supporting the versatile growth of pupils, strengthening their identities and utilizing interactive methods to promote sustainable development. The work on the new curriculum also defined objectives based on future needs for competences, strengthening the cooperation between different subjects and structuring the educational content in order to focus on the essential. It is expected that the new curriculum will support local pedagogic development and encourage education providers to combine curricular work with strategic development, thus creating a flexible web-based curriculum tool for schools and education providers. The new curriculum as a whole text in English is now available in translation from the Finnish Board of Education’s online store. The text below relies on a translation done earlier by the present author. The new curriculum defines the concept of learning in Finnish primary schools as follows: The curriculum has been designed on the basis of a concept of learning according to which the student is an active agent. He/she learns to set up objectives and to solve problems individually as well as in collaboration with others.… Language, body and different senses are crucial to thinking and learning. Along with new knowledge and skills, the student learns to reflect upon learning, experience and emotions. Positive sentiments, the joy of learning and activities creating novelty support learning and create an enthusiasm to develop the student’s own skills. (Opetushallitus, 2014)

Most educationalists will detect in this definition familiar ideas from socio-constructivism with some additions of holistic views emphasizing the role of the affective aspect in learning. Although the curriculum sets general objectives for learning and schools, the sections which deal with language are of relevance here. These cover general reflections on the relationship between language, learning and schools, and specific problems relating to the teaching of languages. The general objectives for language in education are described in sections dealing with cultural diversity and language awareness: As a community of learning, the school is a part of a culturally adaptive and multiform society where the local and the global are intertwined. Different identities, languages, religions and ideologies live side by side

206  Multilingualism in European Language Education

and interact with each other. A community of learning utilizes the cultural heritage of the country. (Opetushallitus, 2014)

The sections dealing with language awareness as an expression of metacognitive skills in language learning are a novelty for the curriculum and many teachers feel insecurity about how to deal with this new, for curricula, concept. One expression of cultural multiplicity is multilingualism. Each com­ munity and member of a community is multilingual. A community of learning discusses languages and attitudes related to linguistic communities, understands the central role of language in learning, interaction and in communities, together with the construction of identities and socialization into society. The use of different languages in parallel in the everyday life in school will be regarded as natural and languages will be appreciated.… In a linguistically aware school, each adult is a model for linguistic behaviour and a teacher of the language of his or her subject. (Opetushallitus, 2014)

Thus the use of many languages in a school environment is regarded as beneficial, particularly as regards the metacognitive aspects of language learning. The learning of languages is not just cramming of rules and vocabulary but a holistic growth into a person with a multilingual identity. Instead of language teaching, we talk about language education: The student’s language proficiency begins in early childhood and continues as lifelong learning. The multilingual competence develops at home, in school and in leisure time. It consists of the mother tongue and other languages as well as their dialects at different levels of proficiency. It fortifies the language awareness of the student and parallel use of different languages.… The student uses his or her skill in different languages in order to support all learning.… The student receives supervision in order to become aware of the multi-layered nature his or her own language and other linguistic identities. The significance of minority languages and languages threatened by extinction will be emphasized in the teaching. The teaching supports the student’s multilingualism by making use of all languages, including the ones used by students in their free time.… Language education presupposes cooperation between different language subjects. (Opetushallitus, 2014)

Finally, a few words must be said about the concept of learning foreign languages in the new curriculum. The curriculum looks upon the learning of foreign languages in the spirit of enlightenment and humanism, not as an instrumentalist mastering of limited skills which enable the completion of narrowly specified tasks. Languages are for thinking and lifelong development: Language is the prerequisite for learning and thinking. Language plays a role in all school activities and every teacher is a language teacher. The



Finland 207

study of languages promotes cognitive skills. It provides ingredients for a multilingual and multicultural identity, its creation and appreciation. (Opetushallitus, 2014)

In addition to the goals for learning foreign languages specifically, the curriculum defines additional objectives. It sets standards for assessments in all foreign languages taught in school as well as the second domestic languages, minority languages, sign language and immigrant languages. The present curriculum reform concerns primary school but there will be new curricula for all levels and teaching situations, including adult education, where the same basic standards and principles will be implemented as for primary school. Up to this point, the chapter has dealt with general principles for the teaching of all languages in schools. The new curriculum also has detailed and specific principles for specific teaching situations, such as minority languages, home language teaching for immigrants, the teaching of Swedish and Finnish as a second domestic language and content-based language teaching. For the teaching of Sámi, the curriculum indicates that the general goal is to support students’ development as speakers of Sáme in the Sáme community and to give them an opportunity to internalize Sáme cultural heritage. In localities where Sáme is the dominant language, the language of instruction is Sáme. The teaching of Romani language to Roma-speakers sets as its goal strengthening the development of Roma identity and awareness of the history and culture of the Roma population. Wherever possible, instruction in the Romani language will be provided. Sign-language instruction likewise takes as its goal the strengthening of the identity of sign-language users. They have a right to receive instruction in sign language. Immigrants are also encouraged to use any language they master in a versatile manner, as well in the classroom as in other school activities. The curriculum points out that the constitution guarantees the right of any person living in Finland to keep up skills in their own language and to practise their own culture. To achieve this goal, home language instruction is provided wherever possible. No matter of what the native language of the students, they participate on an equal basis in the studies of other languages, such as English, Finnish and Swedish. Bilingual education has expanded in importance in Finnish schools in the last decades. Bilingual education mostly means the teaching of school subjects using English as a language of instruction in Finnish schools but the curriculum does not exclude other language combinations. Immersion classes are also a possibility treated by the curriculum text. Typically, immersion teaching is a specialty in bilingual communities where Swedish is the language used for immersion.

208  Multilingualism in European Language Education

Conclusions

This chapter has presented the languages spoken and taught in Finland from a static point of view in terms of the near present, giving statistics wherever such have been available for the different language groups and their proportions. But more important than the present situation is the dynamic picture of change. Each member of a society grows older and learns new languages and new skills, and what has been true for society 10 years ago is no longer true today. One key element in societal change is education, because it shapes the future members of society. The Finnish society will change. It is likely that there will be more immigration and, with more immigrants, more languages will be introduced. It is also likely that English, with increased globalization, will continue to have a strong on influence on the Finnish linguistic landscape. As far as the minority languages go, we can only hope that an education respecting the rights of minorities will support the learning of minority languages in the future. The multilingualism of schools will become more prominent than at present. The role of English will be enforced by content-language integrated learning at the same time as the role of non-formal learning of English will continue to grow. But, internationally, a decline in the influence of English may have started, with a lessening of the international influence of English-speaking countries as the US and UK Governments grow more isolationist. In such a case there may be changes in language teaching of a similar kind as Finnish schools experienced after the Second World War, when, within a matter of a few years, German was dropped, to be replaced by English. German and French may become more important alongside other European languages. Of course, a more versatile and multilingual curriculum would be in everybody’s interest. The Finnish core curriculum introduces new concepts such as multiple literacies and language awareness. The expectations for language learning are high, but small countries need active interaction with the international community, for both economic and cultural purposes. Note (1) The EF English Proficiency Index report may be downloaded from https://media. ef.com/__/~/media/centralefcom/epi/v4/downloads/full-reports/ef-epi-2014-english. pdf (accessed January 2019).

References Aikio-Puoskari, U. (1998) Sámi Language in Finnish Schools, available at http://www. siberianstudies.org/publications/PDF/beaikio.pdf (accessed 7 July 2017). Baker, C. (1999) Sign language and the deaf community. In J. Fishman (ed.) Handbook of Language and Ethnic Identity (pp. 122–139). Oxford: Oxford University Press.



Finland 209

European Council (2002) Presidency conclusions, available at http://www.consilium. europa.eu/media/20939/71025.pdf (accessed 17 July 2018). Finnäs, F. (2000) Tvåspråkiga familjer i statistikens ljus. Vasa: Institutet för finlandssvensk samhällsforskning. Finnäs, F. (2007) Finlandssvenskarna 2005-en statistisk rapport. Helsingfors: Folktinget. Fishman, J. (ed.) (1999) Handbook of Language and Ethnic Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Haugen, E. (1997) Language standardization. In N. Coupland and A. Jaworski (eds) Sociolinguistics (pp. 341–352). Basingstoke: Palgrave. Heikkilä, E. (2014) Siirtolaisuus Suomesta Ruotsiin 1960-luvulla ja tämän päivän maastamuuton kuva – mitä olemme oppineet, mitä opittavaa vielä olisi?, available at http:// www.migrationinstitute.fi/files/pdf/presentation/Elli_Heikkila_PohjolaNorden_2804 2014.pdf (accessed 10 February 2017). Huguet, Á., Chireac, S.M., Ianos, A., Janés, J., Lapresta, C., Navarro, J.L. and Sanso, C. (2012) Language, immigration and school in bilingual societies – Studies and reflections for educational practice. In A. Koskensalo, J. Smeds, R. de Cillia and A. Huguet (eds) Language: Competence – Change – Contact. Berlin: LIT-Verlag. Ianos, M.A. (2013) Language Attitudes in a Multilingual and Multicultural Context: The Case of Autochthonous and Immigrant Students in Catalonia. Lleida: University of Lleida. Kovero, C. and Londen, M. (2009) Språk, identitet och skola. Helsingfors: Nordica. Ministry of Justice (2015) Language Act 2015, available at http://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/ kaannokset/2003/en20030423.pdf (accessed 10 July 2017). Leppänen, S., Nikula, T. and Kääntä, L. (2008) Kolmas kotimainen: Lähikuvia englannin käytöstä Suomessa. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Opetushallitus (2014) Perusopetuksen opetussuunnitelman perusteet: luvut 1-12, avail­able at http://www.oph.fi/download/160358_opsluonnos_perusopetus_luvut_1_12_19092014. pdf (accessed January 2019). Romaine, S. (1995) Bilingualism. Malden: Blackwell. Sajavaara, K., Luukka, M.R. and Pöyhönen, S. (2007) Kielikoulutuspolitiikka Suomessa: Lähtökohtia, ongelmia ja tulevaisuuden haasteita. In S. Pöyhönenand and M.R Luukka (eds) Kohti tulevaisuuden kielikoulutusta: Kielikoulutuspoliittisen projektin loppuraportti (pp. 13–42). Jyväskylä: Soveltavan kielentutkimuksen keskus. Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1999) Education of minorities. In J. Fishman (ed.) Handbook of Language and Ethnic Identity (pp. 42–59). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sukol (2018) Vuoden kieliteko -palkinnon historiaa, at https://www.sukol.fi/ajankohtaista/ vuoden_kieliteko_-palkinnon_historiaa.1707.news (accessed 4 February 2019). Väestöliitto (2015) Suomen ulkomaalaisväestö, at http://www.vaestoliitto.fi/@Bin/3034711/ m%C3%A4%C3%A4r%C3%A4tlaatikoissa.gif (accessed 10 July 2017). Vikør, L. (1993) The Nordic Languages: Their Status and Interrelations. Oslo: Novus. Vikør, L. (2000) Northern Europe: Languages as prime markers of ethnic and national identity. In S. Barbour and C. Carmichael (eds) Language and Nationalism in Europe (pp. 105–129). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Conclusions Cristina Petreñas, Clara Sansó, Judit Janés, Ester Caballé, María Torres and Isabel Sáenz

The chapters in this book show how the management of multilingualism within European education systems is diverse and impossible to understand without taking into consideration the historical, sociolinguistic and political determinants. Nevertheless, a common denominator is that the guiding principles of educational and linguistic policies involve fostering the construction of a Europe in which multilingualism is a source of social and cultural cohesion; plurilingualism conveys these values and is a motor of economic progress and employability (European Commission, 2006, 2008). Regarding language complexity, as we mentioned in the Introduction, analysing different countries has allowed us to gather input around three key aspects: (1) the management of the guarantee of the rights of regional language minorities; (2) the incorporation of the language background inherited by immigrants living in Europe (whether they are European citizens or not); and (3) the need to promote the learning of international languages. Crossing Europe Through its Multilingual Educational Realities The management of linguistic diversity in European territories through education systems

The previous chapters have provided a holistic vision on how territorial and minority languages are considered politically, and how said consider­ ation is reflected in the education systems of the countries presented in the book. The first consideration relates to the conceptual diversity that different countries present, marked by the historical, political and social trajectories of each context, including terms such as national languages, regional languages, territorial languages, non-territorial languages and minority languages. This portrays a complex reality with national and supranational challenges. Moreover, some territories politically recognize their minority languages as official while other countries – while they do 210



Conclusions 211

not recognize them as such – do recognize their rights. There is also a third option, represented by countries that do not prioritize the official status or recognition of regional and minority languages. Among the countries that do recognize the official status of their regional languages we find cases such as Spain. Although a visible majority shield themselves behind a unifying and centralized political discourse, the social reality is clearly multilingual and multicultural. For example, Catalonia – currently in the spotlight due to its national and territorial aspirations – displays a particular sensitivity for sociolinguistic matters, reflected in the linguistic policies developed in the last 40 years. In this sense, in the year 2006 it transformed from a bilingual territory (Catalan and Spanish) into having three official languages, with the inclusion of Aranese. Similarly, Spanish and Basque are co-official in the Basque Country. On the other hand, in Asturias, Asturian is not recognized as an official language, although it is acknowledged as a territorial language. This diversity clearly reflects how the visibility of territorial languages depends on the initiatives of the local territories, but not on state policy in the case of Spain. The Netherlands is another country that shows a tendency to recog­ nize linguistic diversity in its territory. It has Dutch and Frisian as official languages and acknowledges the rights of regional languages and the languages of immigration such as Turkish and Arabic. Having said that, only the official languages are taught in school. Finland also has two official languages, namely Finnish and Swedish, and recognizes the rights of minority languages such as Sami, Romani, Karelian, as well as Swedish and Finnish sign languages. Similarly, even though Romania considers only Romanian to be its official language, it does acknowledge and ensure the rights of its 20 regional minorities. Two of them enjoy higher representation: the Hungarians and the Romani. Although there is an intention to give them visibility and presence, the initiatives are not equal in practice. Thus, the Hungarian community has been able to achieve more when it comes to the preservation of its rights, due to its higher social recognition. It is important to note that the countries that have suffered a process of territorial and sociopolitical reconfiguration show a concept of citizen­ship and multilingualism that is closer to the one that Europe overall pursues. On the other hand, traditional states that have been marked by a history of tending to preserve their language and culture present a more rooted differentiation between the territory’s own languages and the threat that incorporating new cultural and linguistic backgrounds may pose, like those of immigration. In this sense we find two options: the French and the English one, where being a national citizen comes above everything else, and more plural realities, such as Spain, even with the discourse of a monolingual state. Closely linked to how linguistic diversity is conceived and represented in policies is the way in which it is conceptualized in the

212  Multilingualism in European Language Education

education system. In this sense, the way in which minority languages are considered in different states is highly heterogeneous. We find: (1) countries that establish different models inside their own system, (2) countries that present different education systems, depending on the language of instruction, (3) countries where minority languages are not visible and their inclusion is not valued; and (4) countries with immersion models, with a manifest affirmative action in favour of minority languages. As for the first format, based on models depending on the language of instruction, we find different examples, such as the Basque Country, Finland and Latvia. The common denominator in these territories in order to establish models is related to the presence and balance of the languages involved in each context. The results of this approach are diverse. Not all chapters explicitly show the effectiveness of these models, but we could consider the Basque Country as a starting point. Its results show that while model B (balanced learning of Basque and Spanish) and D (Basque immersion) reflect its bilingualism, model A promotes monolingualism. That said, the current tendency is to prioritize model D, thanks to the revalorization of Basque in the public sphere, and because immigration has resulted in an over-representation of immigrants in model A. On the other hand, the Netherlands does not use models, but typologies of school. Most of them are monolingual, some are bilingual, and there are also primary and secondary schools that are trilingual (Dutch, Frisian and English). Secondly, through these chapters we have seen how some countries, like Latvia and Andorra, are under the influence of bordering states. In the case of Latvia, a certain Russian influence is still present, since even though it advocates for Latvian as the only official language, a sector of the population still speaks Russian, which is reflected in its education system. Concerning Andorra, a largely heterogeneous society when it comes to diversity of origins, Spain and France have enormous political influence. Accordingly, this context includes different education systems, not models: a Spanish school that depends on the Spanish Government, and the equivalent French school that depends on the French one, as well as the Andorran school, which is promoted from this territory and encompasses the three most common languages. Thirdly, the book showcases the case of France, which distinguishes between territorial and non-territorial languages (referring to those of immigrants). The idea of French citizenship comes first, which entails not recognizing minorities or their languages. This is a clear case of advocating for monolingualism, where the bilingualism that is valued is the one that introduces a foreign language, while the one that encompasses regional or immigrant languages is perceived as a hindrance to learning French properly. Additionally, we have observed how in territories where minority languages have been in a vulnerable position, the way to overcome the



Conclusions 213

sociopolitical and historical barriers has been by promoting affirmative action in favour of the language. Examples of this are Catalonia and the Basque Country with their Language Normalization Act, and the Adorranization programme of Andorra, among others. These are clear indicators of the need to encourage affirmative action for the revitalization of minority languages, not just regarding their use but also regarding linguistic policies and education systems. In relation to this, it is valuable to include the contributions of the Catalan conjunction model, where Catalan predominates as a language of instruction and all students attend the same class, regardless of their L1. Opposition to this programme exists but, unlike the model systems, it has avoided discrimination of students on the basis of their language. Moreover, it has allowed Catalan to be placed in a public context of use, by promoting actual bilingualism for every person residing in Catalonia who attends the education system. Finally, the case of the Romani people should be noted. This situation is complex, as they are a minority present in all European countries. Nevertheless, only the chapters on Romania, Finland and the Netherlands refer to this group, which reflects the complexity constructed surround this supranational minority. In this regard, Romania is one of the countries that most promotes the visibility of the Romani language, as its rights have been recognized by law. However, unlike Hungarians, the other biggest minority, Romani people do not have a school model where their language is the language of instruction – as the implementation of the language and education policies is highly conditioned by the possibilities of each community. The attention given to the linguistic and cultural background of migrants

The languages of immigration are valued differently by each country. Thus, their models differ greatly, contributing to the construction of hetero­geneous acculturation profiles. In the first place, multilingual realities must be considered and accepted in order to transfer them to specific policies. The countries that consider the cultural background of the immigrant population coincide in having specific measures for receiving and accompanying them in the acquisition of linguistic abilities. Among the experiences presented in this book are the Netherlands, Romania, Andorra and Spain (Catalonia and the Basque Country). However, despite the efforts made for the educational, linguistic and social inclusion of these groups, the results of some of these initiatives show a tendency to assimilation. On the other hand, those initia­tives where students are not incorporated into mainstream classrooms but instead receive special measures risk their segregation. Thus, there are often contradictions between discourse and actual practice, that are

214  Multilingualism in European Language Education

influenced by factors related to history and attitudes, but also pedagogical factors, among others. Finally, it should be noted that the promotion of immigrant students’ L1 is less defined in the various proposals for greater recog­nition of the cultural and linguistic background of migrants. Still, Romania, with a large number of expatriates in other European countries, promotes agreements so that Romanian students receive Romanian culture and language classes as an extracurricular activity. This can also be seen in the case of Spain. Foreign languages in the spotlight

The third topic introduced in the chapters of this book is foreign language learning. All the countries analysed advocate the use of the model of mother tongue and two foreign languages, following the parameters set by the European Union. Additionally, the language of choice for the first foreign language is the same in all of them: English. Regarding English learning, there is not a common discourse for its introduction, but we do see an important tendency to the CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) method in countries like France, Spain, the Netherlands, Latvia and Romania. On the other hand, there is not as much unanimity when it comes to choosing the second foreign language, as some countries choose existing languages in their territory, or those of bordering countries that are still influential in their population, as in the cases of Latvia, Romania and Finland; or the languages of immigrant people, as in Andorra and France. In any case, advocating for foreign languages inside the education system is evident and indispensable in a European Union that pursues mobility and cohesion for its citizens. Linguistic Educational Challenges for Social Cohesion in Europe Revitalizing linguistic minorities in Europe

In 1992, the Council of Europe drafted the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (Council of Europe, 1992). The Charter highlights the value of these languages in the construction of a Europe based on democratic values and cultural diversity. Furthermore, several educational considerations are made, with the aim of guaranteeing that any citizen living in a region with more than one language has access to learning the local vernacular languages. The first challenge is thus linked to the preservation and invigoration of regional languages. An example of this desire is the increasing number of official languages in the Union (from 4 to 24) parallel to the incorpora­ tion of countries; on top of that, regional languages such as Catalan



Conclusions 215

and Welsh are acknowledged as ‘languages for communication with the citizens by the main European Union institutions and bodies’ (European Commission, 2016b). It is also desirable that in the relationship between two member countries, their official languages be used, and not a third lingua franca. This implies reducing the role of English as the lingua franca in bilateral communications between countries (European Commission, 2008). However, it is possible to differentiate between states with a greater or a lesser tradition in regional language revitalization, although with exceptions, as we have seen. Moreover, if we analyse the different contexts we have presented, actions are varied, and the different historical, political and sociolinguistic conditions that promote them become clear. In this sense, throughout the different chapters we have seen examples of the diverse language policies and educational approaches to regional languages throughout the European regions (Williams, 2005), the risk being in those situations where the revitalization and preservation of linguistic minorities are more rhetorical than real. It is in these cases that we are at risk of pushing speakers into processes of language and cultural assimilation (Huguet & Madariaga, 2005). Therefore, the work towards a multilingual Europe should be mindful of those languages and cultures with fewer institutional, educational and social possibilities, to avoid the mistake of favouring major languages only. Another challenge is added: only 10% of Europeans think that speaking more than one language makes them feel more European (Eurobarometer, 2012). This is obviously a handicap in constructing a Europe with multilingualism as a defining feature of a multilingual, multicultural European identity. Capitalizing on the L1 of migrant people

There is a second aspect about which there is common concern in Europe, which is the incorporation of the heritage language of people of immigrant origin (whether or not they are European citizens). With regard to this, again the language and educational policies implemented depend largely on the context, as there are countries with a greater or lesser number of immigrants and with a greater or lesser tradition of receiving immigrants. Language and educational policies are tightly tied to accommodating policies in regions with a higher number of immigrants (Spain, France, England, The Netherlands, etc.). Such policies are fundamental to promote social cohesion. However, it is common to find multilingual and multicultural societies carrying out practices which are far from multi­lingual and multicultural friendly. This leads immigrant collectives to restrict the use of their own languages and, in more dramatic cases, to replace them (Evans, 1987).

216  Multilingualism in European Language Education

Internationalization through the learning of foreign languages

Economic growth, social mobility, globalization and the opening of borders have unveiled the need for learning languages (Cavalli et al., 2009). In this regard, one of the objectives of the European Union is that every person is competent in two languages on top of their mother tongue (L1), responding thus to the Europe 2020 strategy for growth and employment (European Commission, EACEA & Eurydice, 2017). Whether we refer to a bilingual or a monolingual region (officially or de facto), this objective looms in all the educational policies and systems. However, the praxis reveals that the learning of a second language is generally promoted (mainly English, although others are gaining strength, such as Chinese and Spanish), but less so a third language. Although this is a strategic objective, results so far are not as desired. Only 25% of the European population are able to have a fluent conversation in three languages (L1 plus two), except for in the Netherlands, where the percentage rises to 77%, and Latvia, reaching 57% (Euro­barometer, 2012). Furthermore, the level of language skills in English is highly unequal throughout the different countries. According to data from the EF EPI (2016), the Netherlands ranked number 2 in the world in 2015, while Finland ranked 5, Romania 16, Latvia 22, Spain 23 and France 36. When it comes to explaining the reasons for the differences in the effectiveness of English language and third language learning, motivational, attitudinal, methodological and usage processes become important. In this respect, the literature points at several hypotheses about the effectiveness of teaching and learning a second or third language: (1) the innovation of foreign language teaching/learning methodologies to develop all communication skills (Eurydice, 2012), adopting for example content and language integrated learning (CLIL) (a strategy that is already adopted in many of the countries analysed in this book) or computer-assisted language learning (CALL) (European Commission, 2016a); (2) teacher training, so teachers can meet European guidelines (Wiley, 2008); and (3) knowledge about the real motivation of learners and their attitudes to languages (Wiley, 2008). Finally, there is a task to be done to raise the value of plurilingualism starting in the early stages of education, incorporating a European (and world) dimension into the curriculum. The starting conditions are not bad: 98% of Europeans consider that mastering foreign languages is beneficial for their children; 88% think that being able to speak different languages is very useful; 72% agree with the idea that everyone should speak at least two foreign languages; and 77% think that improving language skills should be a political priority (Eurobarometer, 2012).



Conclusions 217

Beyond This…

Beyond the three dimensions already presented, the depiction portrayed by the different chapters of the multilingual and multicultural reality of Europe outlines the need to delve deeper into various areas. On the one hand, in order to revitalize and maintain regional languages, it is necessary to promote linguistic policies of normalization, as their effectiveness has been proved by the experiences here narrated. However, the bilingual and multilingual nature of societies must be acknowledged first, since progress can only be made starting from the recognition of bilingualism and multilingualism as a personal and collective asset. Along these lines, as has been noted in various chapters, it is vital to consider variables such as linguistic attitudes, language uses, social and individual language legitimization and linguistic ideologies, among others. For linguistic policies to be transferred to the education system, the context must be taken into account, as it influences the type of system that can favour the inclusion of all people and communities, and their respective languages and cultures. Since a unitary system or model for all Europe does not exist, the elements that ensure the effectiveness of the system must be considered. Among these, teachers are a fundamental part of these processes. Therefore, time and effort must be invested not only in revising educational and linguistic policies, but also in promoting the sensitization and formation of these key agents, such as teachers, particularly their attitudes towards linguistic and cultural diversity. Besides, a new view of immigrants should be incorporated in order to recognize their linguistic and cultural background. As previously seen, the educational measures that are supported by some education systems promote language learning in their immigrant students but are not as effective in terms of inclusion. In fact, the experiences narrated in these chapters showcase the need not only to work on the linguistic domain, but also to address the identity domain, and to pay attention to the acculturation processes that they present, which shape them as citizens in the host society. Moreover, the forgotten minority in most European states should be mentioned: Romani people. While their presence in these chapters has been limited, the reality of the situation is different and controversial. This poses unavoidable challenges when promoting social cohesion. Finally, a new approach is fundamental, since a linguistic and cultural non-incorporation entails an internal fracture of the European process and adds a risk to its consolidation. Europe is today a constantly changing linguistic and cultural scenario, in which people from a multitude of backgrounds coexist. Acknowledging and managing language diversity are related to better coexistence within the super-diversity (Vertovec, 2007), promoting a sense of belonging essential for a common, shared European project. Again, education systems are key drivers in the construction of cohesive societies (European Commission, 2006), as key actors in the

218  Multilingualism in European Language Education

opening to and incorporation of cultural and language diversity (Cavalli et al., 2009). References Cavalli, M., Coste, D., Crisan, A. and Van de Ven, P.H. (2009) Plurilingual and Intercutltural Education as a Project. Brussels: Language Policy Division of Council of Europe. Council of Europe (1992) European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages, available at https://www.coe.int/t/dg4/education/minlang/textcharter/Charter/Charter_es.pdf (accessed 17 July 2017). EF EPI (2016) English Proficiency Index 2015, at http://www.ef.com.es/epi (accessed 18 July 2017). Eurobarometer (2012) Europeans and Their Languages. Brussels: European Commission. European Commission (2006) Communication from the Commission to the Council and to the European Parliament: Efficiency and equity in Europe education and training systems. Brussels: European Commission. European Commission (2008) A rewarding challenge. How the multiplicity of languages could strengthen Europe. Brussels: Proposals from the Group of Intellectuals for Intercultural Dialogue set up at the initiative of the European Commission. European Commission (2016a) Languages: Support for language learning and linguistic diversity, at http://ec.europa.eu/languages/policy/linguistic-diversity/official-languageseu_es.htm (accessed 16 July 2017). European Commission (2016b) Multilingualism, at https://europa.eu/european-union/ topics/multilingualism_en (accessed 15 July 2017). European Commission, EACEA and Eurydice (2017) Citizenship Education at School in Europe – 2017. Eurydice Report. Luxemburg: Publications Office of the European Union. Eurydice (2012) Key data on education in Europe 2012. Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, at http://doi.org/10.2797/77414 (accessed 15 July 2017). Evans, M. (1987) Linguistic accommodation in a bilingual family: One perspective on the language acquisition of a bilingual child being raised in a monolingual community. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 8, 231–235. Huguet, A. and Madariaga, J.M. (2005) Fundamentos de la Educación Bilingüe [Foundations of Bilingual Education]. Bilbao: Universidad del País Vasco. Vertovec, S. (2007) Super-diversity and its implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies 30 (6), 1024–1054. Wiley, T.G. (2008) Language policy and teacher education. In S. May and N. Hornberger (eds) Encyclopedia of Language and Education: Language Policy and Political Issues in Education (Vol. 1). New York: Springer. Williams, G. (2005) Sustaining Language Diversity in Europe: Evidence from the Euromosaic Project. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

Index

national, cultural, ethnic, religious, 16, 22, 46, 49, 55, 77–78, 106, 119, 125, 159, 162, 169, 175, 186, 199, 205–207 Ideology, 13, 77, 93, 96, 99, 106, 115, 162, 182, 184, 187, 190, 205 heteroglossic ideology, 7, 174–175, 189–190 linguistic ideology, language ideology, 99, 101, 113, 170–171, 188, 217 monoglossic ideology, 174–175, 190 Ikastola, 34–35, 37 Immersion (conjunction school model), 15, 24, 83, 93, 97–98, 100, 101, 177, 183, 207, 212

Attitudes language attitudes, multilingualism attitudes, 4, 33, 34, 39, 41, 45–49, 55, 62–69, 75, 84, 109, 149, 162, 167, 170–171, 184, 186, 206, 214, 216–217 multicultural attitudes, 80 Baker, Colin, 46, 72, 84, 100, 132, 198 Bourdieu, Pierre, 106 Brexit, 107, 113, 122, CLIL approach, 7, 15, 25, 96, 98, 175, 185, 188, 214, 216, Cummins, Jim, 45, 72, 79, 80, 119, 132 Curricula (curricular), 4–5, 7, 37–38, 58, 62, 78, 79–81, 84–85, 104, 110, 117, 148, 161, 163, 170, 185–186, 189, 204–207, 214

Normalization (standardization), 3, 10–12, 14, 33, 35, 37–38, 41, 47, 49, 54–56, 64, 68–69, 121, 125, 139, 178, 187, 196–197, 213, 217 PISA, 17, 202 Plus (L1 plus two) (one plus two), 2, 5, 72, 141, 150, 216 Policy (language policy, education policy, reception policy), 1–3, 5–7, 9–10, 12–16, 20–24, 25, 27, 34, 37, 41–43, 47, 53, 54–58, 73, 75, 81, 84, 92–95, 101, 104, 106–113, 115–117, 119, 121–125, 132, 137–138, 148–150, 156, 158–160, 162–163, 166–168, 170–171, 174–175, 177, 181–185, 187–188, 190–191, 194–195, 196–200, 202, 204, 210–211, 213, 215–217

Diversity cultural, sociodemographic, ethnic, 5, 37, 72–73, 77–78, 83, 91, 104, 148, 156, 189, 205, 214, 217–218 linguistic, 1, 4–7, 41, 53, 72, 75, 91–92, 104, 106, 113–114, 121, 123, 148–149, 156, 174–175, 183, 189, 210–213, 217–218 European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, 1, 94, 136, 214 García, Ofelia, 15, 18, 92, 174

Romaine, Suzanne, 132, 198

Identity European identity, 72, 215, 217 language identity, 55, 159, 206–207

Translanguaging, 114, 174–175, 184, 186–187, 190 219