Faculty of Arts & Philosophy Sarah Staes Linguistic diversity at school: towards communication of language policy Supervisor: Prof. dr. Geert Jacobs Co-supervisor: Prof. dr. Piet Van Avermaet Master thesis submitted to obtain the degree of Master of Arts in Multilingual Business Communication Academic year 2015-2016
71
Embed
Linguistic diversity at school: towards communication …lib.ugent.be/fulltxt/RUG01/002/304/145/RUG01-002304145_2016_0001... · Linguistic diversity at school: towards communication
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Faculty of Arts & Philosophy
Sarah Staes
Linguistic diversity at school: towards
communication of language policy
Supervisor: Prof. dr. Geert Jacobs
Co-supervisor: Prof. dr. Piet Van Avermaet
Master thesis submitted to obtain the degree of Master of Arts in Multilingual Business
Communication
Academic year 2015-2016
Faculty of Arts & Philosophy
Sarah Staes
Linguistic diversity at school: towards
communication of language policy
Supervisor: Prof. dr. Geert Jacobs
Co-supervisor: Prof. dr. Piet Van Avermaet
Master thesis submitted to obtain the degree of Master of Arts in Multilingual Business
Communication
Academic year 2015-2016
Verklaring i.v.m. auteursrecht
De auteur en de promotor(en) geven de toelating deze studie als geheel voor consultatie
beschikbaar te stellen voor persoonlijk gebruik. Elk ander gebruik valt onder de beperkingen
van het auteursrecht, in het bijzonder met betrekking tot de verplichting de bron uitdrukkelijk
te vermelden bij het aanhalen van gegevens uit deze studie.
Het auteursrecht betreffende de gegevens vermeld in deze studie berust bij de promotor(en).
Het auteursrecht beperkt zich tot de wijze waarop de auteur de problematiek van het
onderwerp heeft benaderd en neergeschreven. De auteur respecteert daarbij het
oorspronkelijke auteursrecht van de individueel geciteerde studies en eventueel bijhorende
documentatie, zoals tabellen en figuren. De auteur en de promotor(en) zijn niet
verantwoordelijk voor de behandelingen en eventuele doseringen die in deze studie geciteerd
en beschreven zijn.
Preface and acknowledgements First of all, I would like to thank the cabinet of the Flemish minister of Education for having me
as an intern. I express my gratitude towards the minister herself, ms. Hilde Crevits. Special
thanks to my supervisor Jasper Delanoy, for guiding me through the complex world of
politics/political communications and the even more complex educational structure in
Flanders. In only two months, he became an important example for me thanks to his analytical
and emotional intelligence. I also thank Katrien Rosseel, Bert De Brabandere and Wouter De
Craen and all the other colleagues for a wonderful internship.
Of course, this thesis would not have been possible without academic guidance. Therefore, I
want to thank my supervisor prof. dr. Geert Jacobs for providing me the freedom I needed, but
also offering me guidance whenever I was in doubt. Thank you, also, for establishing the
cooperation with dr. prof. Piet Van Avermaet. I want to thank my co-supervisor as well, for
introducing me to the interesting subject that multilingualism is.
Thirdly, I express a big “thank you” to my family and friends. It has been an exciting and
demanding master year in which they always supported me. Staesjes, thank you for kindly
coping with me in every stressful moment. Thanks to Evelien for being the most supportive
roommate and talented private cook I could ever wish for. And last but not least, thank you to
all my MTB-colleagues. It was a privilege to meet so many talented and inspiring
twentysomethings and I’m very grateful that in ten months you’ve grown into great friends.
Executive Summary Research questions
The Department of Education received the results of the MARS-research1. This was conducted
by the UGent and the VUB between 2013 and 2015 and promoted by prof. dr. Piet Van
Avermaet. The research investigated the effects of multilingual backgrounds of children on
their school results. The perceptions that pupils and teachers have of multilingualism was also
analysed. The results reveal new insights concerning common ideas about language acquisition
and linguistic diversity in Flanders. Language use of multilingual children results to be complex:
these children constantly use different speech varieties and registers. A strict division between
home language and school language cannot be made. The didactic use of vernacular languages
does not affect school results negatively, but improves the children’s well-being and
motivation. Nevertheless, in many schools, only Dutch is permitted (according to a submersion-
model). Among teachers, there is a lot of fear to lose control if they would allow vernacular
languages. In order to diffuse these findings, the Department, the minister of Education and
Piet Van Avermaet plan a seminar on 19 October 2016, but also asked the following questions:
1. What are the main beliefs about multilingual reality at school? Does this effect the actual
language policies schools adopt?
2. Is there a mismatch between the beliefs of researchers on the one hand and policy makers
on the other? If yes, can this be overcome by communication strategies?
3. Is a framework a good method to communicate policy ideas to the educational field? If yes,
what should it (not) contain? Are there other ways to introduce beliefs?
Research method
To answer these questions, I undertook an exhaustive research, as the field of education implies
many different actors in Flanders (for an overview of these actors, see Appendices). First, the
workings of language policy are explained through a model made by Bernard Spolsky, which is
based on language practices, language beliefs and language management. Of course, language
legislation in Belgium has a big impact on education as well, which is why I also expose it.
The most important part of this thesis concerns quantitative research among involved
stakeholders, in order to investigate their main beliefs about linguistic diversity at school are,
how these are communicated and how a framework could (not) be a solution.
1 MARS: ‘Meertaligheid als realiteit op school’ (Multilingualism as a reality at school). The full report can be consulted online:
2.1. Multilingual reality vs. monolingual nations: the case of Belgium ................................................ 5
2.2. Language policy: a model by B. Spolsky (2004) ............................................................................. 7
2.3. School domain .............................................................................................................................. 8
2.4. Language policy in Belgian education ......................................................................................... 10
2.5. Implementing language policy .................................................................................................... 13
3. Research method ............................................................................................................................... 14
4. Research analysis ............................................................................................................................... 15
4.1. Overview of existing language beliefs & management: panel discussion ................................... 15
4.2. Communication of language beliefs & management between researchers and the general
Reference list ......................................................................................................................................... 39
1. Introduction & Research questions In May I started my internship at the press and communication office of Flemish minister of
Education Hilde Crevits. This office is part of the personal, policy making cabinet of the minister
and works closely together with the administrative, executive Department of Education. The
Department recently received the results of the MARS-research3. This was conducted by the
UGent and the VUB between 2013 and 2015 and promoted by prof. dr. Piet Van Avermaet. The
research, ordered in 2013 by the Department and former minister of Education Pascal Smet,
investigated the effects of multilingual backgrounds of children on their school results. The
perceptions that pupils and teachers have of multilingualism was also analysed. The results
reveal new insights concerning common ideas about language acquisition and linguistic
diversity in Flanders. I insert a brief summary of the results, which of course does not contain
all the details, but the most important findings are summed up:
Language use of multilingual children is complex: there cannot be made a strict division
between language at home (vernacular language) and language at school (Dutch), as these
children constantly use different speech varieties and registers. At home, they get more in
touch with Dutch than is generally assumed: through the media, in communication with
their family, etc. At school, on the other hand, they often speak other languages than Dutch.
Rather than a division, the research suggests the idea of a continuum on which the
multilingual child occupies a different position depending on the context.
Occasional use of other languages at school, for example at the playground, does not have
a negative impact on school results. There are only significant differences between the
results of children who always speak Dutch and those who always speak another language.
Other factors that are often assumed as important were not confirmed: watching Dutch-
spoken TV-shows, for example, does not lead to better results.
Motivation is an important factor when it comes to school results. If vernacular languages
are approached positively, multilingual pupils’ well-being and self-esteem is stimulated,
increasing their motivation. Nevertheless, in many schools, only Dutch is permitted
(according to a submersion-model). As regards the teachers, there is a lot of fear to lose
control if they would allow functional use of vernacular languages.
3 MARS: ‘Meertaligheid als realiteit op school’ (Multilingualism as a reality at school). The full report can be consulted online: http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/obpwo/rapporten/MARS/MARS_EINDRAPPORT_FINAAL_JAN2016.pdf
2
The language spoken with fathers has more effect on school results than the one spoken
with mothers, while it is generally assumed that the impact of the mother is more
important.
There is a mismatch between the expectations of parents and teachers: schools expect
parents to have an important role in Dutch-acquisition, while parents consider this mainly
to be the school’s responsibility.
As a result of the MARS-research, the Department and the researchers plan a seminar on 19
October 2016 to diffuse the findings among the educational field. The minister also aims to
design a broad framework for active language policies at schools. The question rose how this
framework would be best communicated to reassure an optimal implementation, resulting in
schools approaching multilingualism actively and functionally. After a conversation with Piet
Van Avermaet it became clear that the MARS-researchers felt that some policymakers
themselves were still rather reluctant to stimulate a positive approach of multilingualism. He
wondered how he could optimize his communication towards them. These two different
communication-related questions made it difficult to define a simple research question. For
this reason, this thesis broaches multiple questions:
1. What are the main beliefs about multilingual reality at school? Does this effect the
actual language policies schools adopt?
2. Is there a mismatch between the beliefs of researchers on the one hand and
policymakers on the other? If yes, can this be overcome by communication strategies?
3. Is a framework a good method to communicate policy ideas to the educational field?
If yes, what should it (not) contain? Are there other ways to introduce beliefs?
To answer these questions correctly, I undertook an exhaustive research, which took me from
concept papers over TV-shows to communication strategies of other government-related
initiatives. Often I found myself outside the communications field, broaching other academic
fields as linguistics, sociology, politics/policy, education/pedagogy. The topic of multilingualism
is indispensably related to all of them. Furthermore, educational policy in Flanders is very
complex and involves many different actors. For a correct interpretation of this thesis, a perfect
3
understanding of their roles is essential. Therefore, I decided to add an overview in Dutch (see
Appendices).
In the theoretical framework, I briefly present the position of Belgian language legislation in a
multilingual world. To understand the workings of language policy, I consult Bernard Spolsky’s
book ‘Language policy’ (2004). In a sustained theoretical model based on language practices,
language beliefs and language management, this linguist describes how language policy is
formed and is (not) successfully implemented. I then zoom in on the school as a policy domain.
I conclude this section with reflections on the language framework designed by former minister
of Education Pascal Smet.
I also conducted a quantitative research among involved stakeholders. The applied method is
described in section three, followed by the research itself in section four. In a fifth and last
section, I intend to answer the three research questions and to formulate some concrete
recommendations for both policymakers and researchers.
4
5
2. Theoretical framework
2.1. Multilingual reality vs. monolingual nations: the case of Belgium
According to Rajend Mesthrie (2008), a non-aligned sociolinguist, most human societies have
an essentially multilingual nature. ‘Multilingual’ refers to a community or a society as a whole,
in which a certain number of languages are used (Spolsky 2004a: 4). Globalization and migration
started in the previous century have enforced this multilingual societies. The relationship
between language and society evolves continuously, which implies challenges for every citizen,
and especially for sociolinguists and governments.
As Bernard Spolsky (2008) and Mesthrie (2008) state, many Western countries hold on to the
device of ‘one state, one language’, linked to the period in which these countries arose. In the
case of European countries, this was the 19th century, which was marked by an intense
nationalism, “with accompanying attempts to make national borders co-terminous with
language (and vice versa)” (Mesthrie 2008: 73). Defining a centralized standard language was
crucial in the process of creating national identity. The focus on language status and corpus
planning was repeated at the so called end of colonialism after World War II. These
complications have had effects on education and the choice of language of instruction (Spolsky
2008: 3). Spolsky, citing Jones (2001), notes that about 125 of the world’s constitutions mention
language, and about 100 of them describe one or more official or national languages. These
languages have special privileges of use, decided by the state, or a rather local government
body (Spolsky 2004a: 8). This way, most nations still prefer to emphasize their monolingual
ideologies while in practice, they are multilingual (Baldauf & Minglin 2008: 125). Despite
political borders, most sociolinguists argue that there are almost no countries “where everyone
speaks, or identifies with, one language” (Meshtrie 2008: 74).
In Belgium, the language situation is peculiar and delicate. To give a quick but correct overview,
I consult ‘Taalwetwijzer’4, a document edited by the Flemish Government in 2002 that wraps
up the main language laws. At the emergence of the state in 1830, Belgian constitution was
quite liberal and included language freedom. In private atmospheres Belgian citizens were free
to choose their language. Although the majority of the citizens spoke Dutch, French was the
dominant language in public life. The Flemish, Dutch speaking elite fought for the recognition
4 ‘Taalwetwijzer’ can be downloaded: http://www.taalwetwijzer.be/
6
of Dutch as co-official language in order to participate in public and political life. This was
achieved in 1898 and written down in the ‘Gelijkheidswet’. In the 20th century, legislation
became more specific, focusing on the so called principle of territoriality. In two language laws
(1962 and 1963), territories were demarcated and a language border was officially established.
From then on, the regional administrative language was Dutch in Flanders and French in
Wallonia. The territory of the German speaking Belgians was also determined, together with
the exceptional rules for the region of Brussels, which became bilingual. Thus, despite territorial
unity of the country, there is been a non-violent struggle – sometimes overt, sometimes covert
- between speakers of Germanic dialects (Dutch in Flanders) and Romance dialects (French in
Wallonia). It is important to mention that this struggle is not only for linguistic but also for
economic reasons. Federalism has been the latest compromise, resulting in more authority for
the regions (Flemish, Walloon and Brussels-Capital Regions). The federal state also consists in
Dutch speaking, French speaking and German speaking Communities. The Communities have
their own institutions and are in charge of person-related matters, e.g. culture, welfare,
education and language. Belgian language legislation is a result of long negotiations and
contains, for the mentioned reasons, many subtle and delicate balances.
This way, Belgium is one of the countries with an explicit language policy in its constitution.
Language, nevertheless, is not only influenced by law. Also special interest groups, law courts,
institutions or businesses can decide which languages to use, teach or publish. Spolsky adds
more influencers, such as family members. The author decides, therefore, that whenever
people decide – explicitly or not – how to deal with language diversity, language policy is made
(Spolsky 2004a: 8).
7
2.2. Language policy: a model by B. Spolsky (2004)
To investigate this complex reality of language policies, Spolsky came up with a model in which
he describes three components that define language policy: practices, beliefs and
management. These components are interrelated but independently describable. Language
policy, furthermore, always takes place in a domain (Spolsky 2009: 4).
Language practices
With language practices, the author refers to everyday choices individual speakers make among
the varieties that make up a linguistic repertoire. These are observable and concrete
manifestations of language choice, sometimes consciously and sometimes less consciously
(Spolsky 2004a: 9).
Language beliefs
Language beliefs, or language ideology, concern the value or status individuals apply to a
specific language or language varieties. It are beliefs that determine which linguistic varieties
have the highest value and which ones are stigmatized. Language ideology contains all the
beliefs about language and language use, which derive from and influence language practices.
These beliefs are the basis for language management (Spolsky 2004a: 14).
Language management
This third component, finally, also called language planning or language intervention, on it’s
turn can be intended to confirm or modify beliefs. Language management refers to specific
efforts being made to modify or influence language practices or beliefs (Spolsky 2004a: 5), in
the formulation of an explicit, observable plan (Spolsky 2004a: 11). The efforts, made by
someone or some group, claim authority over individuals in a certain domain (Spolsky 2009: 4).
Language domain
With a domain, Spolsky refers to a concept introduced to sociolinguistics by Joshua Fishman
(1972). It designates a social space, such as family/home, school, neighbourhood, workplace,
public media, religious institutions or government. Each of these domains has its own language
policy, “with some features controlled internally and others under the influence or control of
external forces” (Spolsky 2007: 2).
8
A domain has three characteristics: it has participants, a location and a topic. Important to note
is that the participants are not just characterized as individuals, but by their social roles. In the
school domain, for example, participants might have the roles of school head, teacher or pupil
(Spolsky 2007: 2-3). Also, the fact that every individual has different roles in different domains
should be taken into account. Someone is not only a parent, but also a neighbour, an employer
etc., which implies that he’s familiar with language practices and beliefs of different domains.
One of the problems of centralized language management is that “higher” domains try to
influence “lower” domains without taking into account the practices and beliefs of their
participants (Spolsky 2007: 5).
Any form of language management is a manifestation of power coming from authority. It
assumes that the language manager – mostly the government – knows best and is in charge of
educating and cultivating those who do not. This is exactly why, according to Spolsky, it is in
essence patriarchal. From a liberal point of view, free choice of language, as of religion, should
be a basic right as they are a representation of someone’s social, cultural and religious identity.
An important condition is that this choice should not cause harm to others. Furthermore,
acquiring the official language should not be an obligation, but an opportunity to participate in
civic activities and to provide access to economic success. Every citizen should be offered this
opportunity, being assured that he/she is free to grab it or leave it. Spolsky calls this “language
accommodation” (Spolsky 2008: 4). Although it is an interesting matter to question what gives
a language manager the authority to decide for others, that is not the main purpose of this
thesis and therefore I will not discuss it more thoroughly. It is important to note, though, that
most scholars and sociolinguists tend toward activist positions, as their expertise gives them
the responsibility and ability to influence language education (Spolsky 2008: 4).
2.3. School domain
Now the language policy model has been made clear and the definition of a domain has been
given, I can zoom in on the school domain. Language and education have fundamental links.
Not only is language the main medium of education, education also has a profound effect on
language (Hudson 2008: 53). This is why, according to Spolsky, school is by its very nature a
domain committed to language management, but also the most complex of all domains. The
author argues that “major changes in language practices and beliefs are the results of
1984). Besides practical difficulties, there are also other language education models. A popular
one is submersion, “in which all elements of the educational environment are encountered in
a language (largely) unknown to the learner upon entry” (Walter 2008: 131). The main
assumption is that the child will automatically learn the language of education, which is why no
linguistic support is offered (Walter 2008: 131).
Controversy over the educational value of instruction in the vernacular language remains one
of the most basic issues in language education policy (Spolsky 2007:9). The majority of
governments imply only one year of preparation before switching to teaching in the standard
language (Spolsky 2008: 6). By minimizing use of vernacular language in classrooms, Mesthrie
argues, schools have often neglected the value of these languages. Nevertheless, sociolinguists
utter that multilingualism is not a transient phenomenon, which is why most of them are
sympathetic to the recognition and valorisation of society’s languages (Mesthrie 2008: 74).
2.4. Language policy in Belgian education
When it comes to Belgium, the ‘Onderwijstaalwet’ (1963) determines in which language
general classes such as mathematics are ought to be taught in kindergarten, primary and
secondary school. In the Flemish Community, the language of education is Dutch, except for
foreign language teaching. To facilitate the integration of foreign students, some schools –
together with the Flemish government – organise language supportive initiatives, such as
‘OKAN’ (Onthaalonderwijs voor anderstalige nieuwkomers). These classes offer a year of
intensive coursing in Dutch for children and youngsters who recently arrived in Flanders and do
not dominate Dutch sufficiently to participate in normal class (Taalwetwijzer 2002: 22-23).
11
The law does not contain any determinations about the pupils’ use of language in class or at
the playground. Nevertheless, there are schools in the Flemish Community that include a
language clause in their school regulations, determining that inside school only Dutch is
allowed. This clause does not conflict with constitutional language freedom, as a school
regulation can be seen as a contract between school and parents. Parents, when signing it,
agree with the rights and obligations. A language clause is therefore allowed, as long as no
sanctions are attached to the non-compliance.5 This means that, although the language of
education has to be Dutch, schools are free to allow or forbid any degree of integration of
vernacular languages.
Nevertheless, the Flemish government is well aware of the diverse society and has tried to
develop frameworks concerning diversity in our education system. In 2011, former Flemish
minister of Education Pascal Smet (SP.A) wrote a 42 pages concept paper: ‘Samen taalgrenzen
verleggen’6. It was approved by the Flemish Government. In this paper, he acknowledges
diversity among pupils and admits the urge of a clear, visionary approach. Smet wanted to
provide a framework to stimulate an active language policy at school:
De taalheterogeniteit in de samenleving laat zich uiteraard in de klas voelen. (…) De ambitie van deze
nota is dan ook vooral: een kader bieden waarbij we het de schoolteams, directies, leraren mogelijk
maken om, rekening houdend met de achtergrond en de capaciteiten van hun leerlingen, én met hun
leefwereld en die van de school, een talenbeleid te voeren dat het best bij de school aansluit (Smet 2011:
6).
The document is meant for teachers, umbrella organisations and the government itself. If the
current minister wants to come up with a similar framework, it might be useful to take a look
at the reactions to this one. Vlor7 and umbrella organisation OVSG8 did not doubt the good
intentions of Smet, but had some remarks. The used quotes are subtracted from the official
Vlor-response, but the ideas it expresses can also be found in the OVSG-response.
5 Derived from http://www.taalwetwijzer.be/onderwijs/veel_gestelde_vragen.html 6 The full concept paper can be consulted: http://www.coc.be/files/publications/.175/20110722%20talennota%20Smet.pdf 7 The full response can be consulted: http://www.vlor.be/sites/www.vlor.be/files/ar-ar-adv-002.pdf 8 The full response can be consulted: http://www.ovsg.be/standpunten/standpunt-van-ovsg-over-de-conceptnota-samen-taalgrenzen-verleggen
12
First, both responses welcomed the evaluation of vernacular languages as an opportunity
rather than a problem. Nevertheless, Vlor remarked that the note only mentioned the use of
vernacular languages in kindergarten, not in the further curriculum. A quote makes clear that
Vlor supports what Piet Van Avermaet calls “functional multilingual learning”9:
De Vlor betreurt dat de minister deze positieve houding ten opzichte van thuistalen niet altijd consequent
doortrekt. (…) Een goede beheersing van een rijke thuistaal kan echter net een middel zijn om
taalvaardigheden in het Nederlands te verbeteren. (…) De raad vindt dat de thuistaal kan gebruikt worden
in functie van goed onderwijs en als dit gebruik bijdraagt tot een betere kennis van het Nederlands. (Vlor
2011: 6)
Furthermore, Vlor critiqued the fact that the note did not contain enough concrete objectives,
while it obligated some measures, undermining school’s autonomy:
De Vlor verwacht van de overheid dat zij een duidelijk beleidskader uittekent, in overleg
minimumdoelstellingen bepaalt onder de vorm van eindtermen of ontwikkelingsdoelen en de nodige
middelen voorziet om de autonome professionele inbreng van scholen en hun teams en van de
pedagogische begeleidingsdiensten te faciliteren. Scholen en leerkrachten zijn zelf verantwoordelijk voor
de manier waarop zij dit talenbeleid gestalte geven in hun school. (…) De overheid kan niet bepalen hoe
zij die doelen moeten bereiken (…) De minister houdt in deze conceptnota onvoldoende rekening met
deze taakverdeling. (…) Zij bevat geen expliciete doelen, geen beoogde resultaten en geen tijdpad. De
nota laat ook te veel ruimte voor interpretatie, vooral omdat de algemene visie op talenbeleid (…) niet
altijd consequent wordt doorgetrokken. (Vlor 2011: 4-5, my emphasis)
Vlor and OVSG expect the government to determine concrete goals (what should be obtained),
providing freedom for schools/umbrella organisations to decide how to reach these objectives.
This is a delicate balance that requires enough dialogue with the field. Summed up, the major
criticism were:
- A lack of financial resources
- A lack of continuity, for example in the positive approach of vernacular languages
- A lack of explicit objectives, formed through a growing path with priorities vs. a lack of
autonomy for the schools and umbrella organisations
9 With “functioneel meertalig leren” Van Avermaet means the use of the child’s multilingual register as didactic material to
improve his/her school results. This way, vernacular languages are actively used to learn school language.
13
2.5. Implementing language policy
A lack of autonomy to adapt policies to local contexts might indeed be detrimental, according
to the consulted scientists. Lewis & Trudell (2008) point out a critical role for the local
community perspective, in contrast to nationally mandated policy. The reason for this is,
according to the authors, that a community’s language use is a very “locally-sited cultural
phenomenon, and so intimately bound into the identity of that community” (Lewis & Trudell
2008: 271). This is why national policymakers have to be very careful to provide enough
freedom for local policymakers, umbrella organisations and schools themselves.
As Burton (2013) argues, a top-down approach is only really successful for policies with low
ambiguity and low conflict that are easy to interpret and do not create resistance. Language
policy, on the other hand, has high ambiguity and high conflict, and requires more involvement
from the field to become sustainable and effective (Burton 2013: 7). According to most linguists
that contributed to ‘The Handbook of Educational Linguistic’ (Spolsky 2008), the emphasis
should therefore be on agency instead of technical planning. The success of language
management depends on its congruity with the language situation (language practices) and the
consensual ideology (language beliefs). Rather than a top-down approach that does not
consider the local context, the top should aim to stimulate the field to take initiatives and
facilitate a good communication between the top and the bottom. Nevertheless, this does not
mean language attitudes are immutable: local perceptions can be influenced by positive
example, such as “personal testimony from those whose opinion is respected” (Lewis & Trudell
2008: 272). This is a good practice that will be taken into account in my communication analysis.
14
3. Research method
In order to investigate what the main beliefs about linguistic diversity at school are, how they
are communicated and how a framework could (not) be a solution, I conducted research on
four aspects10:
Research on the existing language beliefs & management of researchers, policymakers,
the field (teachers and school heads) and umbrella organisations
Analysis of a panel discussion on 20 May 2016
Research on the communication of language beliefs & management between
researchers and the general public
Analysis of a ‘Koppen’-reportage on 25 May 2016
Research on the communication of language beliefs & management between
researchers and policymakers
Analysis of a hearing session in the commission of Education, Flemish Parliament
on 2 June 2016
Interviews with two Aldermen of education (Ghent and Antwerp)
Research on the communication of language beliefs & management between the
government, the educational field and the general public
Interview with a responsible of the Inspectorate
Analysis of the communication by ‘Klasse’ (including qualitative interview with
the responsible editor)
Interviews with communication employees of two other initiatives undertaken
or supported by the Flemish government: STEM and Bednet
Note: I did not interview members of the educational field themselves (teachers and school
heads, but also parents), because the Department and Piet Van Avermaet were worried that
they already participated in many other surveys. Also, their main language beliefs were already
exposed in the MARS-research. Nevertheless, a teacher and a school head were present during
the panel discussion. Of course I do not aim to pretend that they represent the entire field, but
it gave me an idea. As I did not witness language practices of teachers/students in class, the
main focus of my analysis will be on language beliefs and management. It resulted difficult to
separate language beliefs from management beliefs, as they are very related to each other.
10All the qualitative interviews were recorded and can be requested from the author of this thesis.
15
4. Research analysis
4.1. Overview of existing language beliefs & management: panel discussion
An excellent starting point for my research was a panel discussion on 20 May in Brussels. This
panel discussion was organised by the Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Science and Arts
(KVAB), as a result of a ‘Viewpoint’11 published in October 2015. In this ‘Viewpoint’, Piet Van
Avermaet, Stef Slembrouck and Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen, researchers involved in the
MARS-research, treat linguistic diversity in Flemish education. Rather than a research report,
this Viewpoint is a plea for “an educational policy and practice based on a more realistic analysis
and at the same time advocates a more humane approach” (Viewpoint 2015: 38). The editors
plead for a different educational model than the currently dominating one (i.e. exploiting
linguistic diversity as didactic capital rather than the common submersion-model) and for more
open and tolerant perceptions and practices among teachers and politicians. For this reason,
with this ‘Viewpoint’ the editors openly take position in the debate.
Nevertheless, they did not participate in the discussion12. After an introduction from the
president of the KVAB, Van Avermaet, Slembrouck and Simon-Vandenbergen briefly resumed
the main topics of their publication. The following discussion took one hour and fifteen
minutes. Afterwards, there were fifteen minutes more for the public to ask questions. It was a
good opportunity to analyze and summarize the language beliefs, practices and management
of the participants, which were chosen carefully. Almost every body involved in language policy
at schools was represented: researchers (linguists), a teacher, a school head, three main
umbrella organisations and Flemish politicians (members of the commission of Education in the
Flemish Parliament).
11 KVAB publishes at least eight Viewpoints every year, each with the support of some Academy members and some external specialists. In these Viewpoints KVAB provides founded information on developments that affect society in the long term. The one about MARS can be downloaded: http://www.kvab.be/default.aspx?lang=en 12 The panel discussion can be consulted: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gwyAYMgDD4
16
Name Role
Steven De Laet Umbrella organisation OVSG
Christel Martens Umbrella organisation GO!
Iris Philips Umbrella organisation KOV
Kirsten Rosiers UGent-researcher, associated with the Validiv-project13
Luk Van Mensel UNamur-researcher, associated with a project on immersion education
Annelies De Man Kindergarten teacher at VBS De Mozaïek (Ghent)
Benny
Vandevoorde
School head of KTA Groenkouter (Ghent)
Kathleen Helsen Member of commission of Education Flemish Parliament (CD&V)
Koen Daniëls Member of commission of Education Flemish Parliament (NV-A)
As there was not enough time for the participants to largely set out current management
systems, most of them expressed how ideal management would look like. In my analysis, I
group the ideas the different participants expressed. This facilitates a comparison between the
different actors in the process of policy making/implementing.
Researchers
Beliefs o In the process of language acquisition by non-native speaking children, the broader
context and especially socioeconomic status (SES)-characteristics have an important
influence and should, for this reason, be taken into account.
o Acknowledgement and functional use of vernacular languages enforces the pupil’s
well-being and facilitates interaction between pupils among each other or between
pupils and teacher.
o Teachers should not fear segregation or lack of control: with tolerance and good
agreements, positive results are obtained.
Management o With more financial support, teachers could be supported and coached better,
which is necessary.
o Parents should be more involved to motivate their children.
o Attention for every child’s specific situation and school’s setting is better than a
general approach. For this reason, autonomy (and resources!) for schools is
preferable over too strict top-down policies. In Brussels, policies could be loosened
up, as nowadays teachers feel limited by a strict one language policy.
13 Valorising Linguistic Diversity in Multiple Contexts of Primary Education (Validiv) was a cooperation between UGent, KU Leuven and VUBrussel and ran from 2012 until 2015. The main objective was to valorise existing linguistic diversity and linguistic repertoires of pupils (e.g., English, French, immigrant languages) within educational processes in primary education in Flanders. It included fieldwork in Ghent and Brussels. Piet Van Avermaet and Stef Slembrouck were also involved in this project.
17
Despite the fact that the two researchers conduct research in slightly different areas, both of
them were supportive about the ‘Viewpoint’. It was interesting that a critical point that they
mentioned, i.e. teacher’s fear and how good coaching could remedy this, became very obvious
in the representative participants of the field.
Educational field
The kindergarten teacher works at a school that was intensively coached during the
‘Ontwikkelen van schoolse vaardigheden via de thuistaal’-project (2008-2012)14, organised by
the local city council of Ghent. The school head is in charge of a big technical secondary school
with a high degree of students with a multicultural background.
Annelies De Man, kindergarten teacher Benny Vandevoorde, school head
Practi
ces
o Dutch is the operating language, but
vernacular languages are used functionally:
e.g. every morning, the pupils conduct a small
group conversation. If one of them uses a word
that has a different meaning in another language,
the teacher actively asks for this meaning. This
way, they actively discuss different languages.
o Dutch is the operating and only common
language, with an important exception:
in some disciplines, students are in touch with
non-native speakers and are allowed to speak
other languages (e.g. Turkish when doing an
internship in facilities for elderly with Turkish
speaking residents)
Beliefs o (Vernacular) language is part of one’s
identity. We have to accept this with an
inclusive approach, and stimulate our pupils
to develop their identity in the best way
possible.
o The problem is not language use, but the
broader context and socioeconomic status
of the families.
o It is simply impossible to control a school
filled with youngsters and teenagers, if
we allow them to speak their own
language. Or segregation takes place, or
the teacher feels threatened. Dutch
facilitates control.
o The problem is that outside school,
students live in ‘subcommunities’ where
the widespread use of vernacular
languages does not require Dutch.
Mana
geme
nt
o The teacher is a coach during the entire
development process of the child.
o There is no need for more or stricter
policies, but for more flexibility and
(financial) sources to foresee coaching.
o In the first place, the teacher has to be
a good technician, not a language
specialist.
o The “Only Dutch”-policy is clear for
everybody.
14 It focused on acquiring a supportive attitude towards linguistic diversity among teachers and pupils, functional using
vernacular languages and strengthening language skills in these vernacular languages before switching to Dutch. On behalf of the city council, researchers from the KUL (Machteld Verhelst, also head of the KOV-umbrella) and UGent (Piet Van Avermaet)
did an evaluation study, which showed positive results.
18
As participants in the actual field, these two participants of the panel discussion were the only
ones who revealed some of their actual language practices. What is more interesting,
nevertheless, is the difference between their language beliefs, resulting – as Spolsky pointed
out – in different management. While Annelies, most likely thanks to the coaching her school
received, agrees with the ‘Viewpoint’ and the two researchers, Benny is more reluctant and has
a rather practical approach towards his students. He wants them to become good technicians,
with opportunities on the job market (for which he grants, rightly, a lot of importance to Dutch).
It is likely that, as the MARS-research showed, many teachers share his preoccupations. It is
clear that the evidence of positive results when using vernacular languages functionally does
not convince him. This might be because beliefs are partly based on emotional, gut feelings. He
showed interest in the testimony of Annelies, but it was clear it would take actual coaching to
change his management.
Umbrella organisations:
It was remarkable that the representatives of the different umbrella organisations were
unanimous: they were not surprised by the results of the MARS-research and confirm the
determined ‘trends’. They did not go into detail about their practices, but expressed that they
aim to support their teacher teams. Among schools, they determine a great diversity in
approach: some schools have a far developed, inclusive language policy, while others do not
(as shown in the testimonies of the teacher and school head). Summarised, they expressed:
Beliefs o Language management at schools should be visionary: what kind of society would
we like to live in in 30 years? Our society is diverse, and so are our schools. We would
better deal with it positively. Dutch is off course important, but as target language in
the long term.
o The general development of every child’s own identity – of which vernacular
language is a part - is the most important.
o The broader context and SES-characteristics have an important impact on this
development.
Management o We would like to coach our teams better, but there is a lack of resources.
o We would like to see teachers better prepared to cope with diversity, what means a
challenge for teacher education.
o Policy should determine that there is room for diversity, the concrete management
should not be captured, as this is part of school’s (and umbrella organisation’s)
autonomy.
19
As can be deduced, their language beliefs and beliefs about management match with those of
the researchers. These beliefs cannot be detached from their vision on society as a whole. They
understand teachers’ concerns and strive for better coaching, which they consider their job.
Therefore, they argue, rather than a framework, financial resources should be provided.
Policymakers
The two politicians expressed the following beliefs and (beliefs about) management:
Kathleen Helsen (CD&V) Koen Daniëls (NV-A)
Beliefs o The total development of the
child’s identity is the most
important: language is a part of this.
o Therefore, acknowledgment and
functional use of vernacular
languages is crucial.
o Language is important to provide
integration. Widespread allowance of
vernacular languages might cause
segregation, which disturbs integration.
Also parents have a key role in this
integration process.
o Diversity has to be accepted, but
without lowering our educational
standards.
o Besides SES, also IQ has a key role in
language development.
Management o Policymakers have to determine
WHAT goals are to be achieved –
based on scientific research -, not
HOW. This belongs to the
autonomy of schools.
o Policymakers have to constantly
adapt to reality and should
stimulate the field.
o Policymakers have to determine WHAT
goals are to be achieved, not HOW. This
belongs to the autonomy of schools.
o Policymakers have to monitor the
quality of our education system.
The politicians, both members of the Flemish majority-coalition, look at language differently,
i.e. as a part of one’s identity vs. as a tool to optimize integration. Koen Daniëls shares the fear
for segregation that school head Benny Vandevoorde also expressed. It is remarkable that,
despite the fact that both politicians believe in the autonomy of schools, they see their role as
government slightly different. While Helsen focusses on stimulation, Daniëls attaches more
importance to monitoring. Given these different approaches, it is likely that formulating a
framework on which both the parties they represent agree will be a difficult task.
20
4.2. Communication of language beliefs & management between researchers and the
general public: Koppen
On Wednesday 25 May 2016, the current affairs show ‘Koppen’ dedicated a reportage to the
subject, zooming in on the Sint-Salvatorschool in Ghent15. This school was also involved in the
‘Ontwikkelen van schoolse vaardigheden via de thuistaal’-project (2008-2012), organised by
the local city council of Ghent. Their approach is similar to the one of VBS De Mozaïek, which
was represented by teacher Annelies De Man in the panel discussion. They allow vernacular
languages and use them actively in the process of learning Dutch. The reportage alternated
shots capturing the playground and classrooms with four testimonies: 6th grade teacher Bart,
kindergarten teacher Els, assistent teacher Gülsa and researcher Piet Van Avermaet.
Bart and Els tell how the school’s population, at the beginning of the 20th century, evolved to
100% migrant’s children. They did not know how to cope with this reality and implemented an
“only-Dutch”-policy. Since eight years, the school allows the use of vernacular language at the
playground. They also actively use these languages in class, for example when reading books,
singing songs or helping newly arrived children. Both teachers testify that at the beginning, they
were afraid to lose control if their pupils would only speak vernacular languages. Though it
costed time and effort, they are happy with and proud of their current approach. They are
convinced of the positive effects on the well-being of the children, but also on learning Dutch.
When Gülsa was young, she spoke Turkish at home. Her school punished her if she spoke it
with friends at school. According to her, actively using vernacular languages optimizes the
communication between students and teachers, but also between school and parents. Parents
feel more involved, which has great effects on the results of the children too. Gülsa underlines
the importance of good agreements. At the playground, pupils have to switch to Dutch as soon
as not all the playmates understand the common language.
Piet Van Avermaet explains that he regrets that many people still believe submersion is the only
way to learn Dutch. He adds that no scientific research confirms this. On the contrary, he
continues, vernacular languages can be a stepping stone towards learning Dutch. He also
underlines the importance of the motivation and self-esteem of the children. Education would
benefit if we could get over this discussion, he says. He states that “multiculturalism, including
15 The full reportage can be consulted: http://www.een.be/programmas/koppen/hoe-zeg-je-dat-in-het-turks
21
language, benefits all of us” (Van Avermaet, my translation). This is, of course, a rather
ideological statement, confirming again athat the approach of vernacular language cannot be
disconnected from ideology. With this statement, Van Avermaet expressed a vision on society,
which he also exposed in the already mentioned ‘Viewpoint’.
The reportage deserves rewards for showing this testimony, without using a didactic approach
or defining the approach of Sint-Salvator as the only correct one. As a critical note, I would say
that they did not zoom in on how the school altered their language policy, which concrete
practices were implemented, how they manage practical issues, etc. However, the main
purpose - drawing attention to the matter - was accomplished. On the Facebookpage of the
program, two announcements about the reportage were made. One was published 24 May
2016 and was shared 177 times. On the day the reportage was broadcasted, May 25, the
announcement was shared 99 times. As a comparison: during the month May, announcements
about reportages (on various topics) were averagely shared 42 times. This leads to the
conclusion that the reportage on the Sint-Salvatorschool provoked interest. Although privacy
matters do not allow to see the identity of all sharers, some are public. It turns out that besides
individuals, many local non-governmental organisations with multicultural interests shared the
announcement, as well as Higher Education Institutions in charge of teacher education (Karel
De Grote – Antwerp, HoGent - Gent and Odissee - Brussels). All these ‘shares’ were
accompanied by positive, recommending messages, which shows that the teacher education-
institutions too have an encouraging attitude towards a positive approach of multilingualism.
Interesting as well was the share of Elke Decruynaere, Alderman for education at the city
council of Ghent. Her supportive attitude will become more explicit in the next section. The
announcements also counted on about 20 reactions each, mostly teachers recommending the
reportage to each other. Nevertheless, there were a few negative ones too, focussing of the
bad side-effects of multiculturalism in general.
On Twitter, the hashtags #koppen and #meertaligheid give 19 results. Most of the tweets came
from teachers or researchers (involved in Validiv). Two tweets were negative comments about
multiculturalism, indicating again that it is a delicate subject. One of the positive tweets was
made by Machteld Verhelst, head of the KOV-umbrella, confirming their encouraging attitude.
22
The reportage, thus, surely reached a broad audience. Measuring how this will effect school’s
policies is difficult, but it became clear that many teachers and institutes show interest in the
discusses approach. Nevertheless, the reactions also show that beliefs about language cannot
be separated from ideology and opinions about multiculturalism, which are difficult to
influence.
23
4.3. Communication of language beliefs & management between researchers and
policymakers
4.3.1. Parliament
On 2 June 2016, the MARS-researchers presented the results officially in the commission of
Education in the Flemish Parliament (for an overview of all the members, see Appendices A). In
19 slides, they exposed the purpose, questions, method and results of the research. They also
added recommendations. Important for this public of politicians was the plea for a more
delicate screening system. Nowadays, when parents enrol their children in schools, they have
to indicate which language is spoken at home. The researchers pointed out that social
desirability has an impact on the parents’ answer, and for this reason, the filled in forms are
not always in line with reality. Also, the current screening system is still rather binary: a child
speaks Dutch at home, or he/she does not. Depending on this home language, schools get
financial resources from the government to improve language education. The research
revealed that this binary distinction turns out to be more complex, which is why the subsidy
system as well should be reconsidered. The researchers also underlined the importance of a
switch in mindset, that should encourage teachers, school heads and schools to consider
multilingualism as an added value. What they asked from the policymakers is to elaborate a
framework that allows a more diverse and efficient use of (financial) resources,
professionalization of schools and more attention for diversity during teacher education.
Afterwards, the present members of the commission were given time to ask their questions.
Based on the questions they asked, a difference of attitudes between certain parties could be
noticed (which was also the case during the panel discussion). On the one hand, Ann Brusseel
(Open VLD), Jo De Ro (Open VLD) and Caroline Gennez (SP.A) did not challenge the outcomes
of the investigation. They shared the same, rather practical questions about the research and
other insecurities regarding a better language policy. It was remarkable as well that none of
them tackled the financial resources-issue. This seems to be rather difficult. On the other hand,
Koen Daniëls (NV-A) and Katleen Krekels (NV-A) also shared some practical questions similar to
the ones made by other members, but disposed a more restrained, critical attitude towards
the outcomes. Summarized, the main questions/remarks are shown in the following table. If
the answers of the researchers were valuable for this thesis, they are also included.
24
Category Made by different members Made by only one member
Regarding
the research
o How does language development take
place in one parent families? (Brusseel,
Gennez, Daniëls, my translation)
o Are you planning to do more research?
(De Ro, Krekels, my translation)
o How did you investigate the attitude
of teachers and school heads?
(Krekels, my translation)
o Did you investigate the language use
of parents? (Daniëls, my translation)
Regarding
management
o Do you have an idea of how schools are
currently doing with language policy?
(Brusseel, Gennez, De Ro, my
translation)
Response: It depends very much, there is a big difference between schools. (my translation) o How is teacher education doing?
(Brusseel, De Ro, my translation)
Response: There has been improvement, but we’ve got a long way to go, instead of implementing a ‘diversity module’, we would better implement a general approach towards diversity. (my translation) o How can we practically organise a more
adequate screening? (Brusseel,
Gennez, De Ro, Daniëls, my translation)
o As the results show, children speak
more Dutch than we would expect,
which is good. I’m a speech
therapist, and I’ve learned that
children need to know clearly who to
speak which language with. This
means, there has to be a clear
distinction: Dutch at school, and
vernacular language at home. Of
course I do not support
punishments, but I do believe in a
distinction. (Krekels, my translation)
o A lot of resources meant to improve
Dutch nowadays are not used
correctly. (Daniëls, my translation)
o Shouldn’t we take into account IQ as
well? (Daniëls, my translation)
Krekels’ quote about school vs. home language reproduced exactly the dichotomy that the
researchers aim to overcome. This is a great example of different language beliefs that
automatically result in different language management. Her colleague Daniëls focussed on the
topics he also mentioned during the panel discussion. Again he launched the idea of a relation
between IQ and school results. This time, the researchers contested this assumption, by saying
that previous research taught that more than IQ, SES-characteristics have an important impact
on the results of multilingual children.
No decisions or conclusions were made during this session, but once again it was shown that
different beliefs among politicians would not make policy making easier. Regardless research
results or communication campaigns, these seem ideological differences difficult to overcome.
25
4.3.2. Local level: Aldermen for education in Ghent and Antwerp
Local governments, more specific: Aldermen for education, are also highly involved in language
policy at schools, especially for schools belonging to the OVSG-umbrella. From the projects that
have been mentioned, it already became clear that the city of Ghent is supportive about
functional multilingual learning. Another big Flemish city with a high degree of immigrants is
Antwerp. To understand the vision and functioning of the Aldermen of education of these two
cities, I interviewed cabinet members of both, representing the vision of the Aldermen.
City Alderman for education Cabinet member
Ghent Elke Decruynaere (Groen) Sarah Steenkiste
Antwerp Claude Marinower (Open VLD) Kurt Vleeminckx
It is noteworthy that both Aldermen, despite the fact that they belong to different political
parties, shared quite similar beliefs, practices and management. Both of them are very familiar
with Piet Van Avermaet and have worked together with him on various projects. They are very
convinced of the positive results. I summarize the interviews again in a comparative table:
Beliefs From a gut feeling people tend to think “The more Dutch, the better”. Nevertheless,
research results show this is not true and that banning vernacular languages is not a
good idea, as this is part of children’s identity.
Management o Both believe in a bottom-down approach rather than in a top-down policy, with strict implications.
o Both undertake initiatives to stimulate functional multilingual learning. They work together with other umbrella organisations, organize seminars, etc.
: Antwerp: working on a more intensive plan.
Ghent: approach already anchored in internal agreements.
Tools : Antwerp: still notice difficulties among teachers and school heads, while there are
plenty of tools to help them, such as Metrotaal
Ghent: still notice difficulties, which is why more tools could be provided
Communication o Lately, there has been a changing trend: there is more attention for multilingualism and a more positive attitude among the field, the press and the public, also in the communication of minister Crevits.
o Nevertheless, there is still need for more sensitisation and sharing of good practices, seminars, testimonies, … (rather than a framework).
o Ghent: what would definitely work, is more target group communication.
26
4.4. Communication of language beliefs & management between the government, the
educational field and the general public
4.4.1. Inspectorate
The Inspectorate of Education is an institution allied to the Department of Education and is
responsible for the review of schools and educational institutions. The Inspectorate strives to
not have a merely controlling or evaluating role. They are working on the implementation of a
new way of screening, starting in September 2017. With this “Inspectorate 2.0”, as they call it,
they desires to actively stimulate schools and educational institutions to maintain and improve
the quality of their education. Therefore, the Inspectorate considers it crucial to integrate
attention for diversity as well. For this reason they requested a collaboration with Piet Van
Avermaet during the seminar of 19 October 2016. The Inspectorate carries out the vision of the
Flemish government and enters the educational field frequently, which is why they are an
important communication channel between these two actors. For this reason, I considered it
interesting to clarify their vision and interviewed inspector Ann Schelfhout. The following
conclusions can be made:
The Inspectorate is bound by two frameworks (CIPO & M-decree). These do not mention
explicit language policy. Both put diversification and inclusion forward, as they aim for an
approach tailored to the specific personality and needs of every individual child.
Therefore, the Inspectorate aims to be better informed about diversity and multilingualism,
and to sensitise their inspectors.
The Inspectorate notices a big diversity in how schools approach multilingualism.
The Inspectorate notices a thin line between controlling and stimulating, but prefers positive
stimulation. To achieve this, all participants are important (Inspectorate, the field, parents’
associations, students’ associations, especially school heads and umbrella organisations).
They are aware of the fact that it is a delicate subject linked to ideological beliefs. As they do
not want to force the field to implement a certain approach, they advocate a continuous
sensitisation.
Ann – on her own behalf – underlines the importance of positive examples and
testimonies. Reportages such as the one ‘Koppen’ made, are an excellent method to
make schools question their current language policies.
27
4.4.2. Klasse
One of the main communication channels between the government, the educational field
(teachers, school heads and educational supervisors) and parents (part of the general public) is
‘Klasse’. This magazine first appeared in 1989. Due to savings, the editorial staff came up with
another approach. Since September 2015, Klasse is a multimedia communication platform
rather than a magazine16. This includes:
Website with free articles about different topics related to education
Very active profile on Twitter, Pinterest, Youtube, LinkedIn, Facebook (with almost 20.000
followers)
Free newsletter for teachers, school heads, …
In-depth magazine that appears every 3 months, meant for teachers and educational
supervisors, dedicated to specific topics (e.g. ‘differentiation’).
The editors’ starting point is: “what necessities do the educational field and parents have?”
Beyond merely informing, Klasse wants to be a platform where their main public can
interconnect, support and inspire each other. Through positive journalism, Klasse strives to
increase participation of teachers, school heads, parents and pupils’ The editorial staff works
independently, but its publisher is the Department of Education. Klasse belongs to the
Communication section of the Department. Therefore, their vision cannot be separated from
the government’s one. One of their 9 values is that they “consider diversity as powerful”
(Klasse, my translation). This is reflected in the articles on their website dedicated to
multiculturalism/multilingualism. From November 2015 until now (August 2016), Klasse
published 8 articles on its website related in some way to the subject:17
16 All information about Klasse can be consulted on https://www.klasse.be/wat-is-klasse/ 17 All the articles can be consulted on https://www.klasse.be
28
Date & Title Form Key messages
25/11/2015
‘Meertalig
voorlezen
versterkt de
band met je
leerlingen’
Testimony
Tips
The Sint-Salvatorschool (Ghent)18 changed its language policy and now
actively integrates children’s mother tongue, still focusing on the acquisition
of Dutch. This offers safety, a better contact, more respect and a better
general language development.
15/6/2015 ‘10
tips om
moedertaal te
integreren in
je klas’
Tips Short tips based on the book ‘Meertaligheid: een troef!‘ by Ayse Isci and Sara
Gielen.
20/6/2015 ‘8
meertalige
spelletjes’
Tips Not only meant for immigrant’s children, but focused on language learning in
general: language sensitisation works.
2/7/2015
‘Gebruik de
thuistaal van je
kleuters’
Tips Dedicated to a young teacher who won the Klasse Scriptionprice 2014 for her
thesis on the positive effect of implementing vernacular languages in
kindergartens.
2/8/2015 ‘We
halen de
thuistaal in de
klas’
Testimony In kindergarten De Bijtjes (Antwerp) they have 6 special teachers with special
attention for language development. The school allows the pupils to speak
their mother tongue among each other.
2/8/2015
‘Moet ik
Nederlands
spreken met
mijn kind?’
Tips A message to parents: communicate with your child in the language you feel
most comfortable with. It is okay if this is not Dutch.
25/8/2015 ‘5
misverstanden
over meertalig
opvoeden’
Tips A message to parents, similar to the previous article.
17/4/2016
‘Meertaligheid
als talent, niet
als probleem’
Evidence Conclusions of the MARS-investigation.
18 The same school that was mentioned in ‘Koppen’
29
On their Facebookpage as well posts related to the topic have been published. The three posts
always focus on testimony and best practices, as the following pictures indicate:
A) B) (link to the 1st article mentioned in table)
C) (link to the reportage of ‘Koppen’)
30
Thirdly, their YouTube-channel includes a lecture of sociologist Dirk Geldhof about diversity in
our society and education system19. One of the topics is multilingualism. Geldhof, although he
was not involved in MARS, corresponds to the MARS-researcher’s conclusions by striving for a
functional approach of vernacular languages, in order to learn Dutch.
An analysis of the articles, Facebookposts, YouTubepost and an interview with the editor of
most of the articles (Leen Leemans) leads to the following conclusions:
Klasse is not politically engaged, but clearly cares for diversity and linguistic diversity in
schools. In line with its mission, it tries to create a platform for debate and the exchange of
good practices. The editors’ tone is positive and stimulating, as can be derived from the
frequently used ‘tips’.
The editors notice that communication through images and testimonies works best.
Klasse plans to announce the seminar of 19 October, as well as an article dedicated to it.
The language beliefs of Klasse seem to match with the ones of the Inspectorate. Both bodies
belong to the Department of Education and, although they work independently, the mission
and vision they carry out has to count on the support of the Department. For this reason, and
because of the organisation of a seminar in October, it can be concluded that the Department
supports the approach of the researchers and the vision on language policy that the three main
umbrella organisations have. Nevertheless, both the Department and the umbrella
organisations, rather than determining a strict but positive framework, seem to aim for a lot of
autonomy for the educational field. They do not want to impose rules that do not stroke with
language beliefs present in the field. They would like to open the debate to exchange different
approaches towards vernacular languages, hoping for positive effects. This means, they prefer
to work bottom-up than bottom-down. This asks for fluent communication and an easy
exchange of testimonies and practices. To make recommendations on how to improve is, it
might be interesting to briefly have a look at other governmental initiatives.
19 The full video can be consulted: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TSYVSpFbyE. For the ‘Multilingualism’ chapter: 10:31-13:57.
De beleidscyclus ziet er schematisch uit als volgt22:
De Vlaams minister van Onderwijs staat in voor de aansturing, voortgangsbewaking en
evaluatie van het Vlaams onderwijsbeleid. Op haar kabinet werken verschillende raadgevers
rond vaste thema’s. Zij werken nauw samen met het departement Onderwijs en Vorming. Het
is ook dat departement dat het meest vertrouwd is met MARS.
22 Afbeelding via VLOR: http://www.vlor.be/wat-de-vlor
Alle info in dit overzicht is afkomstig van: 1) Departement Onderwijs en Vorming: http://onderwijs.vlaanderen.be/ 2) VLOR: http://www.vlor.be/ 3) Vlaams Parlement: https://www.vlaamsparlement.be/
Achtergrond: Geothermische proefboring Mol Balmatt-site: aardwarmte als energieleverancier -3 educatieve projecten - samenwerking met VOKA Kempen, GoodPlanet Belgium, InnEd etc. - 17 scholen uit Antwerpse en Limburgse Kempen schooljaar lang werken aan STEM-projecten over geothermie -> projecten: schaalmodel van Kempische ondergrond, visualisatie van warmtenet met LED-strips op plattegrond van Mol en Geel, educatief videogome, maquettes van een boortoren, geothermische elektriciteitscentrale, serre op aardwarmte etc. Sprekers: Dirk Fransaer, gedelegeerd bestuurder VITO, Swa De Schutter, coördinator VITO project STEM Geothermie, Ludwig Caluwé, gedeputeerde economie van de provincie Antwerpen. L Danny Van der Veken, Coördinerend directeur KOGEKA (Katholiek Onderwijs Geel – Kasterlee) Invalshoek minister: STEM & Geothermie vanuit de Vlaamse overheid (“Als u dat nu allemaal ziet, wat vindt u dan hiervan? Is dit waar u zelf ook naartoe wil met het STEM onderwijs ? Kan u hier iets mee doen in uw beleid? Hoe ver staat het met de modernisering van het Secundair Onderwijs?”)
Beste bezielers van het STEM Geothermie-project,
Beste directeurs, leerkrachten,
Beste leerlingen,
Ik vind het zeer jammer dat ik niet live kan bewonderen wat voor uiteenlopende, innovatieve
projecten er ontsproten zijn uit de warme Kempische bodem.
Via deze weg wil ik jullie een virtuele pluim geven. Voor de initiatiefnemers: jullie zijn
vertrokken vanuit een zeer lokaal gegeven, wat de Kempische grond toch wel is, met een
innovatieve, ruime visie voor ogen. In welke mate kan aardwarmte als energieleverancier
gebruikt worden? De medewerking van tal van organisaties en van de Vlaamse overheid wijst
op het geloof in het project. Daarnaast hebben jullie nog eens 17 scholen en meer dan 1000
leerlingen de kans gegeven betrokken te raken bij het proces: ze kregen inzicht in de concrete
invulling van een abstract begrip als “geothermie” én in de maatschappelijke relevantie ervan.
En laat dat nu net zijn wat we met STEM voor ogen hebben: dankzij technologische en
wetenschappelijke vernieuwingen onze wereld en onze samenleving duurzaam beter maken.
Daarvoor hebben we heel wat getalenteerde jonge mensen zoals jullie nodig die de passie en
motivatie in STEM delen, erover willen leren en er later misschien wel hun job van willen
maken.
Door te vertrekken vanuit reële problemen en herkenbare vraagstukken goesting krijgen voor
wetenschappen, techniek, technologie, …. Door samen op zoek te gaan naar oplossingen over
de verschillende vakken heen leren jullie tegelijkertijd belangrijke vaardigheden zoals:
communiceren, samenwerken, creatief denken, innoveren, … . Lessen die je later ook van pas
zullen komen in je job. Lessen voor het leven.
58
En STEM werkt. Techniekacademies schieten als paddenstoelen uit de grond. Basisscholen
besteden meer en meer aandacht aan wetenschap en techniek door de opsplitsing van het
leergebied WO, door de introductie van techniekcoaches, door samenwerking met technische
scholen. Meer en meer jongeren kiezen ook in het secundair en het hoger onderwijs voor een
STEM-opleiding. En gelukkig, want onze arbeidsmarkt en onze samenleving schreeuwt om
sterke leerlingen met een STEM-profiel.
Die sterke leerlingen zijn ook meisjes, of leerlingen uit het TSO/BSO. We hebben vorige week
met de Vlaamse Regering dan ook beslist ons voor de volgende periode op die 2 groepen te
focussen, zodat ook zij de weg naar STEM vinden. Om die doelgroepen te bereiken willen we
volop inzetten op de maatschappelijke relevantie van STEM door de klemtoon te leggen op
projecten zoals dat van jullie.
Daarnaast is STEM een belangrijk domein binnen het gemoderniseerd secundair onderwijs dat
we voor ogen hebben. Of het nu van abstract tot heel toegepast gaat: we willen via STEM
leerlingen laten meedenken- en werken aan de wereld van morgen. Ik ben blij dat jullie dat in
de Antwerpse en Limburgse Kempen al zo actief doen!