Trends in national and supranational policies and practices for multilingual education in Europe

(1)

Trends in national and supranational policies and practices for multilingual

education in Europe

Özge Özoğul

S2591545

MA in Multilingualism

Faculty of Liberal Arts

University of Groningen

Supervisors:

Dr. Nanna Haug Hilton

Dr. Alex M. J. Riemersma

(2)

2

Abstract

(5)

5

1. Introduction

Linguistic diversity is a key element of European identity. In 2008, the European Commission (EC) reported that the European Union (EU) had about 500 million citizens, 27 Member States, 3 alphabets, 23 official national languages, around 60 regional and minority (R/M) languages as well as many immigrant languages (European Commission, 2008). As of July 2013, the number of Member States rose to 28 and the number official languages increased to 24 with the accession of Croatia. The Council of Europe (CoE) and EU are two of the major supranational organizations that safeguard linguistic diversity, and actively promote language learning and multilingualism in Europe with official conventions. In several recommendations from the CoE and EU, multilingualism is identified as an asset for Europe. Throughout my thesis, multilingualism will refer to both “a person‟s ability to use several languages and the coexistence of different language communities in one geographical area” (European Commission, 2005:3) as defined by the EU. I will first talk about the CoE‟s approach to multilingualism and linguistic diversity, and then outline the EU‟s approach on the same topic. After that I will move on to explain the challenges over the implementation of multilingualism policies at national level. At the end of the chapter, I will briefly summarize the aim of my thesis, before moving on the following chapter.

1.1 Council of Europe on Multilingualism

The Council of Europe (CoE) aims to promote human rights, the rule of law and democracy (Council of Europe, 1954). It aims to foster the linguistic and cultural diversity of its member states. It produces conventions and recommendations for language policy, reinforcing its mission. CoE accords special importance to promoting multilingualism and multiculturalism among citizens to fight against intolerance by improving communication and mutual understanding between individuals. In order to encourage the adaptation of the stated aims, the CoE has set up a Language Policy Division of Unit of the Directorate of Education, which is its main language policy agency.

The Language Policy Division offers assistance to member States who wish to reflect upon their language education policy. Member States, or their regions and cities, are provided with the opportunity to complete a self-evaluation of their policy via dialogue with Council of Europe experts, with a vision of focusing on possible future policy developments within the country. It is a process of reflection by the national or local authorities and involving civil society, together with the Council of Europe experts who have the function of acting as catalysts in this process. However, since the start of the project, only 16 countries, regions or cities undertook the self-evaluation reports (European Council, 2014).

(6)

6

to support the use of R/M languages in education and the media, and to permit their use in judicial and administrative settings, as well as economic and everyday life. The latter specifies the conditions necessary for persons belonging to national minorities to maintain and develop their culture, and to preserve their religion, language, traditions and cultural heritage. States which have ratified these conventions are monitored with regard to their fulfilment of the commitments they have undertaken.

1.2 European Union on Multilingualism

The European Union (EU) has been supporting multilingualism since 1958, when Regulation 1 confirmed the national languages of Member States the status of ofﬁcial and working languages and this principle of equality is a basis for democracy (Romaine, 2013). The Maastricht Treaty, also known as the Treaty on European Union, signed in 1993, changed the European Community into the European Union it is today. It transformed the Union from being simply economic into a supranational political organisation. Thereafter, democratic issues began to be raised in the EU and multilingualism, linguistic diversity and language policy gained increasing importance and became key areas of discussion within the EU institutions. The EU strategy for multilingualism includes regional and minority (R/M) languages, immigrant languages, dialects, major world languages and sign languages. In this respect, the EU has a unique approach to language diversity.

Article 3 of the Treaty on European Union stresses that “(The Union)… shall respect its rich cultural and linguistic diversity, and shall ensure that Europe‟s cultural heritage is safeguarded and enhanced.” Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (2012), proclaimed in 2000, declares that “the Union shall respect cultural, religious and linguistic diversity.” and Article 21 prohibits discrimination on grounds of language. The EU language policy, thus, and as will be elaborated in the following paragraphs, aims to protect linguistic diversity and promote multilingualism for cultural, economic and social reasons. The Unit for Multilingualism Policy within the Directorate-General of Education and Culture in the European Commission is the major language policy agency in the EU.

Some of the important turning points of the European multilingualism policy are the introduction of European Year of Languages (2001), action plan of 2004-2006 by European commission on Promoting Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity (European Commission, 2003), New Framework Strategy for Multilingualism (European Commission, 2005), Multilingualism: An Asset for Europe (European Commission, 2008). Many action plans, declarations, resolutions and reports dealing with multilingualism can be obtained in the EU databases in electronic form (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

(7)

7

In 2007, The Commission reported on the implementation of action plan of 2004-2006 by European Commission on Promoting Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity (European Commission, 2007). The report expressed that considerable progress had been made in implementing the Action Plan by 2007; however, Member States (MS) were encouraged to attach more political importance to promoting language learning, linguistic diversity and multilingualism. The report also pointed out that more efforts were needed to implement the national reforms from the point of view of the quality of language teaching and teacher training in this field. It added that, emphasis should also be placed on widening the range of languages in education. The Commission‟s support was a foundation to the lifelong learning programme for 2007-2013 which put the emphasis on encouraging language learning and linguistic diversity.

The European Commission Communication on Multilingualism, A New Framework Strategy for Multilingualism (2005) is an important document that complemented the action plan Promoting Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity. The document stated that: “It is this diversity that makes the European Union what it is, not a melting pot in which differences are rendered down, but a common home in which diversity is celebrated, and where our many mother tongues are a source of wealth and a bridge to greater solidarity and mutual understanding” (European Commission, 2005:2).

It adds that citizens should be able to communicate with its institutions and read EU law in their own national language for the Union‟s democratic legitimacy and transparency, and take part in the European project without encountering any language barriers (European Commission, 2005:12–13). The EU thus urges Member States to take actions to „promote multilingualism and foster a society that respects all citizens‟ linguistic diversity (European Commission, 2005:15).

The document continues by defining three basic aims of the Commission‟s multilingualism policy: to promote a multilingual economy, to make sure that all citizens have access to European Union legislation and information in their own languages and to give all citizens opportunities for learning two additional languages and promoting linguistic diversity in society. The document claims that „Responsibility for making further progress mainly rests with Member States, but the Commission will also do all within its remit to reinforce awareness of multilingualism and to improve the consistency of action taken at different levels (European Commission, 2005:3).

The importance of multilingualism to the EC was underlined by the appointment of a special European Commissioner for Multilingualism, Leonard Orban, to manage the portfolio for the very first time in 2007. Orban stressed that the EU recognises that linguistic diversity is a treasure, including regional and minority languages (Orban, 2008). However, two years later the portfolio became a part of the responsibility of the Commissioner for Education, Culture, Multilingualism and Youth.

Multilingualism: An Asset for Europe (European Commission, 2008) outlined recommendations for turning linguistic diversity into an asset for economic prosperity. The two main goals for multilingualism policy were to raise awareness of the value and opportunities of the EU‟s linguistic diversity and encourage the removal of barriers to intercultural dialogue, and to give all citizens real opportunities to learn to communicate in two languages in addition to their mother tongue. The document advises Member States to offer the teaching of wider range of languages from an early age and to give importance and develop further languages acquired outside formal education.

(8)

8

value of the national language for integration and participation is emphasized. It is essential that non-native speakers learn the national language. In 2011 the EC reported back on progress since 2008. The report underlines that language skills are crucial for enhancing employability and mobility, and hence for the implementation of initiatives such as Youth on the Move. More broadly, it is underlined that language skills have the potential to facilitate the practice of free movement and residence of EU citizens in Member States and to stimulate the practice of a broad range of rights deliberated under EU law.

1.3 Challenges over multilingualism practices

While the European Union and Council of Europe provide guidance and point out the value of multilingualism, the national policy and practice might vary in line with the national and local conditions. They play a supportive role in the field of language policy, since the Member States (MS) are responsible for language policy-making in their respective countries. They promote co-operation between the MS and promote the European aspect in national language policies.

Despite the guidance provided by European multilingualism policy, there are six overriding challenges over the national multilingualism practices as identified by Language Rich Europe (2012). 1) the implementation is uneven in MS, 2) policy cooperation between MS is limited, 3) the range of languages learnt is narrow, 4) inadequate resources are allocated to language learning in the context of increased mobility, 5) a greater common effort and knowledge sharing is required to respond to the multilingual challenge, and 6) a lack of awareness of Council of Europe and European Commission recommendations on language policies and practices for promoting language learning and linguistic diversity and the Member States‟ performance against them. Language Rich Europe is a project that evolved to address the multilingual challenges by conducting a comparative analysis of countries‟ performance against European standards and recommendations on multilingualism policy and practices. It is co-financed by the European Commission under its Lifelong Learning Programme. It is initiated and managed by the British Council with supervision from a steering group made up of partner organisations. The research is led by the Babylon Centre for Studies of the Multicultural Society at Tilburg University. Over 30 partners contributed to the project by both funding and expertise.

British Council is the United Kingdom's international organisation for cultural relations and educational opportunities. It aims to spread English language and culture, and has its own strategy in relation to culture. Their objectives include “encourage cultural, scientific, technological and other educational cooperation between the United Kingdom and other countries” and “promote the advancement of education” (British Council, 2014). Although English has no alternative in international communication, British Council might have initiated the project because multilingualism policies can not solely depend on English, in a world where increased migration and mobility forced social inclusion to become a priority in some countries.

1.4 The present study

(9)

9

(10)

10

2. Background

To address the aim of the thesis, which is to find out if there is a pan-European approach to multilingualism, I shall first provide a picture of how EU multilingualism policy was transformed from the 1990s up until today. Secondly, I will elaborate the role of globalization in shaping national and global approaches to multilingualism and linguistic diversity and the emergence of English as a lingua franca. Thirdly, I will contextualize language policy and planning and language planning in the context of education, in addition to curriculum development. Fourthly, I will outline the role of formal education in multilingualism. Fifth and finally, I will provide an analysis of the approaches to EU vs. non-EU languages. Understanding language policy making and current dynamics in multilingualism at societal level is important before moving on to presenting why it is important to see where nations stand in the implementation of EU legislation.

2.1 EU multilingualism policy discourse

I outlined the main Council of Europe (CoE) and European Union (EU) multilingualism policy documents in the previous chapter. By looking at the EU decisions and recommendations, Krzyzanowski and Wodak (2011) distinguish three phases in which the EU‟s policy discourse went through considerable transformation. Their analysis shows that language policy emphasized the EU‟s linguistic diversity and introduced the multilingualism concept between 1997 and 2004 (Krzyzanowski & Wodak, 2011). The period in question was in favour of foreign language skills because the learning of languages would increase employment chances and economic mobility as well as mobility by definition. As a result, European citizens, as multilinguals, would benefit from the single market and EU citizenship.

Later on, the EU appointed a special European Commissioner, Leonard Orban, to manage the Multilingualism portfolio in 2007. He established the High Level Group on Multilingualism which reported recommendations for multilingualism in Member States. This shows that the Union recognized the importance of languages and multilingualism. Between 2005 and 2007, the EU policy documents explicitly mention multilingualism and how to promote multilingualism in Member States. The EU underlines the societal and democratic benefits of multilingualism (Krzyzanowski & Wodak, 2011).

(11)

11

thus, swing between economic values and traditional cultural values of diversity and education. While being critical to national approaches to the management of multilingualism, it is important to take into account the motives for supranational policy change, which then has the power to influence national level policy and actions.

2.2 Multilingualism management

The discussion on multilingualism management shall begin by firstly defining what language is, and the domains in which we use language. Language has both communicative and cultural functions (Edwards, 1985, cited in Gazzola, 2006). It can be seen both as an expression of cohesion and as a mark of differentiation from others (Khubchandani, 2003). Language is spoken in various domains. Fishman (1965, cited in Aronin & Singleton, 2012) defined domain as a social sphere where people come together for a bunch of purposes. He identifies five domains; family, education, employment, friendship, and government and administration, in which language plays a role. Languages are present in almost every aspect of our lives.

Not only languages, but linguistic diversity is also at the centre of our lives. As Ján Figel (European Commission, 2005b), who is the former European Union (EU) Commissioner for Education, Training, Culture, and Multilingualism, pointed out in a press release, “Languages are what makes us human, and Europe‟s linguistic diversity is at the core of its identity”. Specialists such as Beacco (2005) argue that European identity is fundamentally linked to linguistic diversity. Orban (2008) stated that „Europe is a bastion of diversity‟. Therefore, the EU, as a supranational organization, values linguistic diversity.

In addition to linguistic diversity, multilingualism strikes us as a reality of the EU in the age of globalization. The last two decades can be distinguished as the “multilingual beyond bilingual” decades, since they have seen the close analysis of individual and societal multilingualism both in the academic domain and in terms of general interest (Aronin & Singleton, 2012:31). The multilingualism field covers topics such as bi- or multilingual education, migration to new language settings, fairness in social services, and language policies related to multilingualism (Grabe, 2010:39).

Multilingualism has been a reality before too, but the difference today may be that the organization of multiple languages is an „„indispensable feature of the world landscape” (Aronin & Singleton, 2012:31). Ludi (2002:1, cited in Kam & Wong, 2004) highlights that as the world becomes more and more borderless, “even bilingualism must be seen as a minimal form of plurilingualism.” In fact, the majority of the world is multilingual; therefore multilingualism is ought to be regarded as the norm rather than the exception (Hans, 2010:373). Hence, it is crucial to effectively manage the domains where multiple languages are used. Nevertheless, there is often negotiation between different and conflicting views about what multilingualism management means. Multilingualism, thus, has become one of the key elements in discussions on citizenship and identity in EU Member States. The old European states feel increasingly threatened against the outcome of globalization (Mar-Molinero & Stevenson, 2006).

(12)

12

instance, in the sociolinguistic reorganization that results from emerging multilingual and multicultural landscapes associated with migration (Aronin & Singleton, 2012).

The Multilingual Cities Project (Extra & Yağmur, 2004) illustrates the point further. These new societies are the contemporary settings of global mobility, where people find themselves more and more blended with others from different cultures, traditions and civilizations. Blommaert (2010) agrees that globalization has transformed social, cultural and linguistic diversity. English emerged as the preferred language of communication in these multilingual cities.

2.2.1 The role of English as lingua franca

Although the European Union is committed to multilingualism and linguistic diversity, the influence of English as a dominant language and medium of instruction in education has increased in the postcolonial times, due to globalization (Phillipson & Skutnabb-Kangas, 1997). According to Watts (2008), English has become a language of instruction in many countries, sometimes even substituting heritage languages within countries. Romaine (2006) states that English is the world‟s most important language in today‟s world, despite its association as the language of the oppressor when it first emerged.

Some consider English as the language of development and freedom. However, Phillipson (2006) states that English plays a central role in constituting and controlling the current world order. He continues that the power associated with English affects the destiny of other languages that have been used in international communication and relations, in particular French (Phillipson, 2006). He labels the dominating use of English and other colonial languages such as French and Spanish in the last few centuries as linguistic imperialism. Linguistic imperialism involves “unequal communicative rights between people or groups defined in terms of their competence in specific languages” and the current system legitimizes such exploitation (Phillipson, 2006: 348).

It is true that English speakers tend to have more advantages over non-English speakers in both local and global job market. However, due to increased mobility and globalization, we indeed need a common language for communication with speakers of different languages, in academic and business world, as well as in daily life. Many universities in Europe offer courses fully in English, which enables students from all over the world to enrol to these courses. English boosts cultural and economic exchange, which otherwise would not have been made possible.

Even though English facilitates mobility and exchange, Grin (cited in European Union, 2011) points out that one needs at least 12,000 hours of exposure to English to reach to a native speaker level, which is equal to 75 years if exposed to English for 4 hours per week and 40 weeks per year. According to Grin, whose end argument is parallel to Phillipson‟s, this highlights the political inequality due to the use of English, or any other national language alike, as a common EU language. But, not all citizens should reach native speaker proficiency. Multilingual competence in my view entails the ability to communicate in a language in everyday life. Academic or native-like proficiency is not always necessary. However, it is still a solid argument supporting multilingualism, which is seen as a prerequisite of democratic legitimacy.

(13)

13

the equality before the law of all official language versions of EU regulations, and the equal rights of citizens.” (European Union, 2011:6, Appendices).

Many European countries are concerned about the impact of English on national languages. Nonetheless, House (2008) argues that the role of English as lingua franca is not in conflict with other linguistic identities, and therefore, it is not a threat to multilingualism. As can be seen from the dominant presence of English, language policies continue to support the use of English in the postcolonial age. Language policy makers and planners determine the present and future shape of multilingual settings. They ought to take into account many notions in their countries and regions for successful management of multilingualism.

2.3 Language policy and planning

More explicitly, Kaplan and Bauldauf (1997:3) describe language planning as a “body of ideas, laws and regulations, change rules, beliefs, and practices intended to achieve a planned change in the language use in one or more communities.” It involves deliberate, overt or covert, change in language code systems or in a societal context (Rubin & Jernudd, 1971, cited in Kaplan & Baldauf, 1997). Spolsky (2004) theorizes a three-dimensional model of language policy comprising of language practices, language beliefs or ideology and attempts to modify that practice by language planning or management.

Increasing mobility, new political frontiers, and the formation of supranational spaces such as the European Union (EU) increased the challenges for policy-makers at all levels. New circumstances and dynamics regarding multilingualism require effective and fair interventions for different speaker groups in a given space which guarantee the coexistence of languages. Grin (2003) has revealed that language policies need to be effective, cost-effective and democratic.

Romaine (2013) argues that language policies are political projects. Baker (2010:294), too, claims that “politics is rarely absent from debates about bilingual education.” Language policies are representations of different language ideologies, i.e. beliefs and visions of the role of certain languages held by certain actors. Competing ideologies transport language policy in differing and sometimes conflicting directions both at national and supranational level as seen in action plans, declarations and reports (Berthoud & Lüdi, 2011).

According to Haarmann (1990:123, cited in Kaplan & Baldauf, 1997), it is difficult to reach a stage where the relations would be in compromise. In language planning, there are usually multiple goals in mind; ranging from language maintenance, language purification, revival, reform, standardisation, to language spread, modernisation, and unification, and most of the time there is a conflict of interest.

The framework for language planning identified by Cooper (1989:89, cited in Kaplan & Baldauf, 1997) has eight components: what actors, attempt to influence what behaviours, of which people, for what ends, under what conditions, by what means, through what decision making process, and with what effect. The language planning process involves government and education agencies, nongovernmental organizations and other organizations, such as companies.

(14)

14

social peace, a multilingual and multicultural approach should be incorporated in national laws and legislation and social life (Çoban, 2005). For that reason, this thesis aims to find out the European Union Member States‟ approach to multilingualism in education.

Fishman (1991, cited in Romaine, 2006) claims that one of the most prominent activist errors is attempting to sustain a language from the top rather than strengthening it from bottom-up. Kaplan (1989, cited in Kaplan & Baldauf, 1997) argues that people who hold power make language related decisions often with little or no consultation with the language learners and users. Who the planners are is potentially an important variable in the language planning situation (Baldauf, 1982, cited in Kaplan & Baldauf, 1997) because the status and prestige of languages are determined by language policy makers.

2.3.1 Status planning, corpus planning and prestige planning

The domains of language planning are status planning and corpus planning as outlined by Kaplan and Baldauf (1997). According to Haugen‟s revised language planning model (1983, cited in Kaplan & Baldauf, 1997), status planning involves language selection, i.e. decision procedures such as identification of problems, and norm allocation, and language implementation. Selected languages show which ones to have status within society. Status planning is challenging because selection involves a choice among competing languages (Kaplan & Baldauf, 1997:31). Later, the decisions or policies need to be implemented, often through the education system.

Although it is important to develop policies and strategies to change or improve a particular language situation, it is not enough on its own. Monitoring and evaluation of the strategies and progress shown toward implementation is equally important (Kaplan & Baldauf, 1997). To be able to correct the implementation strategy, feedback and evaluation phase plays a critical role. This thesis looks at national implementation of European pleas to multilingualism, but further evaluation of the implementation strategy is necessary to assess whether practiced policies meet the needs of the institutions.

Corpus planning is to do with the aspects of language planning which are primarily linguistic and hence internal to language. Some examples are orthographic innovation, pronunciation, vocabulary expansion, style and language material development (Bamgbose, 1989, cited in Kaplan & Baldauf, 1997). Corpus planning can best be elaborated in a paper that deals with the linguistic aspects of language planning.

Prestige planning is put forward as the third domain of language planning, which complements status and corpus planning activities (Haarmann, 1990, cited in Kaplan & Baldauf, 1997). The latter two are productive activities, but prestige planning is receptive and it influences how status and corpus planning are acted upon by actors and received by people. According to Haarmann (1990, cited in Kaplan & Baldauf, 1997), planning occurs at different levels for a range of purposes. These levels (i.e. government, agency, group or individual activities) represent a differential prestige and this may affect the success of the language plan.

2.3.2 The impact of language policies at macro vs. micro -level

(15)

15

mainly occurs at the macro level. However this perception might be a result of lack of documentation of micro-level planning in the literature (Kaplan & Baldauf, 1997).

Micro-level planning can be observed, for instance, in the performance of students. The planned curriculum is present in official documents on language policies in education; however, the implemented curriculum is a lot of the times left unreported (Kam & Wong, 2004), which means that the impact of language education planning are left out. If specific educational outcomes are aimed to be achieved, then the implementation of language education planning in classrooms should influence the realization of national level planning.

Policies on multilingualism might be present in national policy documents as part of aligning with the European Union acquis communautaire (the EU acquis), which refers to the collective body of European Community laws. However, they might not be present in actual educational practices, as, for example, in the case of new Member States. Practice, or implementation, is, thus, as important as having the right policies. That is why Language Rich Europe, whose data I will critically analyse in my thesis, examined the practices in national level against supranational pleas to multilingualism. Close scrutiny of the implementation of existing laws and regulations in classrooms, i.e. at micro level will greatly benefit the countries and regions as a whole, and will bring Member States closer to Europe. Understanding language policies in education is quintessential to my thesis, which looks at language practices at pre-primary, primary and secondary education.

2.4 Language policies in education

So far I discussed what language planning involves, the importance of language planning actors, the domains of language planning and the impact of language policies at macro vs. micro level, which are all important to understanding the trends in multilingualism practices. Language in education planning is considerably different from language planning (Kaplan and Baldauf, 1997). The latter involves many sectors of society. On the other hand, language in education planning affects the education sector of the society.

Kaplan and Baldauf (1997) identify six main goals and stages of language policies in education. It has to identify and determine 1) the target group in the school and the selected languages, 2) teacher supply and the type of education and training they will receive, 3) syllabus, taking into consideration time constraints and the values of the school system, 4) methods and materials, 5) resources, spaces and funding to support language education, and 6) assessment, i.e. the measurement of students‟ achievement at various intervals and evaluation, i.e. the measurement of the success of the programme and teachers. The Language Rich Europe benchmarks, whose findings I will critically review, also cover the above points in their questionnaires on pre-primary, primary and secondary education.

2.4.1 Curriculum development

(16)

16

Participants involved in curriculum development, as defined by Medgyes and Nikolov (2010) are assigned five main types of roles: policymakers who take the key decisions such as politicians, ministry officials, and heads of departments, specialists who provide the necessary resources such as curriculum and syllabus designers, teacher trainers, teachers who deliver the services and students who receive the services. Any participant may start action in theory, but not in practice. Neither teachers nor students have the power to initiate action beyond their schools (Kaplan, 1992). Hence, the multilingualism practices in classroom that will be outlined in the results and discussion chapter will be a reflection of national political ideologies of Member States. However, examples of good practices of multilingualism at schools can serve as an example to other schools, and may extend to the region and/or country. I believe that change may begin at grassroots level.

2.4.2 Schools and multilingualism

Schools are institutions that play a fundamental role in capacity building, social development, normalization and social mobility, production and dissemination of knowledge through educational practices (Martín Rojo, 2011). Education has become the main agency of language reproduction, replacing family‟s role, especially in the case of regional and minority languages. Please refer to the case of Irish, as a well-known example of language revitalization in Europe. Education is also a decisive factor in integration in society. Using a language solely in the home domain does not lead to the expansion of the domains in which a particular language is used. If all languages, regardless of being foreign, regional or minority or immigrant languages, in addition to the national language(s) were to be given equal status in education, languages could achieve equal status in society, gain more recognition and be used in further domains. That is why language provision in education is important.

Sociolinguistic studies show that, in the opposite case, when minorities have a weak status in the social structure and have to overcome obstacles for their social and economic accomplishment, linguistic and cultural differences have a negative effect on them (Martín Rojo, 2011). The construction of the other as deficient takes place via the unfair valuation of the languages spoken by students in multilingual and multicultural schools (Heller, 2007). In addition, monolingualism at school limits the possibilities of academic success of the most vulnerable groups in most of the world (Skutnabb-Kangas, 2008). It leads to the marginalization and assimilation of immigrant students (Exteberria & Elosegi, 2010). It also is in contradiction with the Article 2 of the UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions (2005) which states that “the protection and promotion of the diversity of cultural expressions presuppose the recognition of equal dignity of and respect for all cultures, including the cultures of persons belonging to minorities and indigenous peoples.”

(17)

17

The European Commission‟s 2005 and 2008 documents promote the development of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) and recommend the need to promote and maintain the EU linguistic diversity. CLIL is a competence-based approach to teaching which teach both the language and the subject (British Council, 2014). It aims to develop skills that are in demand by today‟s employers such as interpersonal skills, cultural sensitivity, and communication and language abilities. CLIL programmes began to be adopted in Europe as a part of foreign language teaching. Although the aim of CLIL is to promote language learning and linguistic diversity, the most common foreign languages are English, followed by French and German in the countries in which CLIL programs implemented (EURYDICE, 2006:18). Furthermore, a large part of Europeans is not enjoying the benefits of multilingualism.

The first European survey on language competitiveness (2012) initiated by the European Commission tested 50,000 14-15 year-old students in 14 MS to support the development of language learning policies in Europe. It assessed students‟ proficiency in reading, writing and listening. Test results were related to the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR). CEFR has six levels of language proficiency: A1 and A2, B1 and B2, C1 and C2 (Council of Europe, 2014). It divides competences into two: individual and general competences and communicative competence (Francis, 2007). According to survey results, 42% are competitive (B1 or B2 level) in their first foreign language, and only 25% in their second, as defined by the CEFR. Schools will need to do more to ensure that students learn through the medium of more than one language rather than study a foreign language as a subject for one or two hours per week.

My thesis focus is on the education sector, because it is where languages are commonly taught and learnt. Member States are analysed with respect to their language provision in pre-primary, primary and secondary education. The European Commission supports early language learning (ELL) in formal education. Programmes such as the 2002 Resolution to promote linguistic diversity, the 2005 Language Action Plan, and the 2005 Strategy for Multilingualism have contributed to awareness-raising regarding the benefits of ELL. Bessie Dendrinos from European Federation of National Institutions of Language (EFNIL) (European Union, 2011) suggests that research findings provide solid evidence suggesting that children who use more than one language have several advantages over monolingual children in terms of their cognitive and social development. Although there are discussions so as to when ELL should begin, pre-primary education (3-4 years of age) can be taken as a starting point.

Primary education is the beginning of literacy education for all children and it is a crucial stage in the schooling career of pupils. Various international agencies such as UNESCO, the European Union and Council of Europe highlight the importance of mother tongue education. Secondary education is also important to analyse, because multilingual education practices tend to change significantly in secondary education. I am looking at schools in this thesis.

2.5 European vs. non-European languages

(18)

18

societal aspects of multilingualism. Thus, there is an ever-increasing tension between many languages being used in member states (MS), waiting to be resolved. This notion is linked to what was previously discussed in the “English as lingua franca” sub-chapter, which is linked to linguistic imperialism. Furthermore, the principle of subsidiarity does not entitle the European Commission (EC) to interfere with how the MS organize their respective societies (Darquennes, 2011). The communications clearly state that language policy decisions are to be made at national level. However, according to Darquennes (2011), the EC makes funding available for areas of action in education systems and practices such as better teacher training, early language learning and innovative teaching methods such as CLIL.

European legislation exposes the different values attributed to languages, and how language policies are traversed by nationalist ideologies (Martin Rojo, 2011). Different connotations are attributed to national, foreign, regional or minority and immigrant languages (Gazzola, 2006). The predominant connotation of national identity with national or official languages obfuscates the presence of the many minority languages spoken in the EU (Extra & Gorter eds., 2008).

As overviewed in Chapter 1, in March 2002, Barcelona European Council has put forward the „mother tongue plus two‟ policy goal. „Mother tongue plus two‟ presupposes that mother tongue is the national language. However, if we take a child in Catalonia as an example, his/her mother tongue will likely be Catalan, plus s/he would speak Spanish and he would most likely learn to speak English as a foreign language. Or if we take an immigrant child in Friesland, the Netherlands and assume he has Kurdish speaking parents, he would learn to speak Frisian, and Dutch like his mother tongue, which would already make up to three languages. Plus two additional languages would mean five languages for him. This means that many citizens know their mother tongue plus two from an early age and use them in their everyday lives.

Autochthonous, or heritage, minority languages are seen as valuable part of the cultural and linguistic heritage of the EU (Darquennes, 2011). In the EU, languages from EU member States such as German, English and French are symbols of modernity, urbanity and have high social status. The current strength of these languages together with Spanish and Portuguese reflects the policies that have entrenched use of these languages in colonial territories (Phillipson, 2006). While they are increasingly valued and introduced into the curricula, resources are not provided, nor are steps taken to promote the learning and development of migrant languages. It was not until the late 1990s that the teaching of migrant languages started to be seen as a bridge between cultures.

Although the mother tongue of the majority of Europeans is one of the state languages of their country, at least 40–50 million EU citizens speak a language other than the ofﬁcial languages of the state, excluding immigrant languages. These languages often do not have the same rights and status as those given to the ofﬁcial languages (European, Union, 2011).

(19)

19

Until recently, the EU has made little or no compromises related to immigrant languages (Romaine, 2013). It acknowledged that „„it is not helpful to have a hierarchy of „European‟ versus „non-European‟, or „indigenous‟ versus „immigrant‟ languages‟‟ (European Union, 2011:5) and added that such terminology is potentially exclusive. The European Civil Society Platform on Multilingualism (European Union, 2011) has five priorities: To promote multilingualism for social cohesion and intercultural dialogue; to provide opportunities for migrants to learn the language of the host country and to develop their own native language at the same time; to make use of the media which have the potential to open means and ways for cross-cultural dialogue; to improve multilingualism policy to guarantee the rights of all European languages (official, regional, minority, and migrant languages); and to secure lifelong language learning (LLL) opportunities for all citizens. The platform recommends including „„all languages (not only minority and lesser-widely used languages) and all aspects of language planning and policy including language status planning, corpus planning and language education planning.‟‟ (European Union, 2011:3). It advocates that „„autochthonous European languages be protected and reinforced, as should the languages of recent economic immigrants, such as Turkish, Arabic, Berber‟‟ (European Union, 2011:4).

The Platform aims to create a framework for multilingual policy as part of a larger political agenda for „„strengthening a pan-European identity in harmony with national and regional identities‟‟ (European Union, 2011:5). The Platform‟s recognition that EU multilingualism is comprised of not only of EU languages, but also of languages from non-EU countries is a significant step to address a crucial gap in policy and practice (Romaine, 2013). It points out the need for clear and just language policies for immigrant languages “so that immigrants are helped to integrate by learning the languages of their host societies, and that they are also able to transmit their mother tongues within the family should they wish to do so” (ibid:22). However, the Platform does not advocate the teaching of all migrant languages in schools, since it is clearly impossible considering the number of such languages present in larger European cities, such as London, Paris and Barcelona.

Teaching of all languages would be ideal, but hard to achieve. However, if there is a will, there is a way and funding could be partially or fully provided by the immigrants‟ country of origins to ensure immigrants learn to read and write in their home languages. Romaine (2013) also argues that many more languages like Turkish, as the most frequently spoken second language in Bulgaria, Denmark and Austria, will need to be offered. She adds that language learning, teaching and testing practices need to be adjusted to achieve the Platform‟s demand for providing opportunities for developing multilingual competence and linguistic repertoire.

Some might still argue that languages have different status. The mentioned hierarchy of languages also affects the relationship between official national languages, such as Dutch and Frisian in the case of the Netherlands. In a world with language hierarchies, the gap between the pleas to equality in policy and inequality in practice is inevitable. Tonkin (2006:8, cited in Romaine, 2013) regards equality as „„one of the driving myths of language policy‟‟, which is „„seldom a reality under any language regime‟‟.

2.6 Research Questions and Rationale

(20)

Mar-20

Molinero and Stevenson (2006), the European discourse on integration ignores multilingual repertoires that result from the transnational mobility of people. Therefore, this leads to the escalation of tension between the national policies and the actual practices and the micro-level language use. Integration is helping to make the nation-state argument of one language, one state, one people outdated (Wright, 2000). Therefore, the need to review and rethink the EU language policy is inevitable (Mar-Molinero & Stevenson, 2006).

As discussed above, there are a lack of a coherent framework for all languages in the EU, a tension between official multilingualism and the dominance of an emerging lingua franca (English) and increasing demands from minority, and non-official linguistic communities. Both the Council of Europe and the EU clearly support multilingualism. Nonetheless, the implementation of the policies is largely left to the nation-states due to the principle of subsidiarity. It is, therefore, why European language policy is developing at different speeds and even in different directions. Bridging the gap between the two is the challenge of language policy makers in present-day Europe.

Franceschini (2009, cited in Darquennes, 2011) underlines the need for mapping multilingualism to visualize the actual multilingualism behaviour in the EU that meets the language needs. He urges policy makers to discuss and make changes. The guiding light should be to create a language environment that leads to social justice, keeping minority cultures in mind. Language Rich Europe (LRE) is a contributor to such discussions.

In order to identify the policies to implement, we must have an explicit picture of where we stand and a vision for the future (McDonnell and Elmore, 1987). That is where my thesis will contribute to the discussion: I will use unpublished data from the LRE project to rank countries and regions based on their multilingual education practices across three policy areas; pre-primary, primary and secondary education. I will then critically review the results and, based on the results, propose recommendations for Member States. More specifically, this thesis aims to explore the following research questions:

1. What are the patterns of multilingual education in Member States of the European Union, and relevant regions and cities?

2. Which are the most relevant differences between the school levels pre-primary, primary and secondary education with regard to multilingual education?

3. What is the situation for immigrant languages in Europecompared to regional or minority languages in the Member States, relevant regions and cities?

4. Is there a pan-European language policy and approach in practice towards bilingual or multilingual education in the Member States of the EU?

Mapping the multilingual education patterns across a broad range of countries will shed light on the national and regional trends. Countries will be able to identify their strengths and weaknesses. Assessing different educational levels will give us insights on how multilingualism is dealt with across differing levels. Tracking the situation of immigrant languages will benefit the society at large if Member States take inclusive measures to improve their language situation. A pan-European approach leads to societies that embrace linguistic and cultural diversity, and would bring citizens closer to Europe. It would mean greater respect for democracy and human rights.

(21)

21

3. Method

As identified in the previous chapter, there is a need for mapping the existing multilingualism practices in the Member States of the European Union to visualise the actual multilingualism behaviour in order to be able to make policy that meets the language needs. This thesis focuses on the evaluation of multilingual practices in three policy areas: pre-primary education, primary education and secondary education derived from Language Rich Europe, to find out if there is a pan-European approach to multilingual education in the European Union.

Language Rich Europe (LRE) has the following aims: (1) facilitating the exchange of good practice in promoting intercultural dialogue via the teaching and learning of languages; (2) promoting European co-operation in developing language policies and practices in the education sector and society at large, and (3) increasing awareness in Member States of the European Union and Council of Europe recommendations on policies and practices for promoting language learning and linguistic diversity (Extra & Yağmur, eds.,2012).

LRE formed an expert and partner network of over 1200 decision makers from 15 EU Member States and 3 non-member states representing government, education, business, public services and spaces, the media. Through the network, they conducted an analysis of language policies and practices in Europe and compared them against selected European Union and Council of Europe recommendations.

The readers can read country profiles and key recommendations published in the official project report, Trends in Policies and Practices for Multilingualism in Europe, edited by Guus Extra and Kutlay Yağmur, in both book form (2012) and as part of an interactive website:

http://www.language-rich.eu/materials-media.

In this chapter, I would like to summarize the initial project methodology, taken from Extra and Yağmur‟s (2011) report and to explain my contribution through this thesis.

3.1 Subjects

The Language Rich Europe‟s national experts worked in both European Union Member and non-member States. The countries and regions that this paper reviews are 15 EU Member States only: Austria, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, the Netherlands (plus Friesland), Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain (plus the Basque Country and Catalonia) and the United Kingdom (England, Scotland and Wales respectively, excluding Ireland). I chose to exclude Bosnia and Herzegovina, Switzerland, and Ukraine from my thesis, for they are non-EU member states, and Northern Ireland and Germany, for there were lack of country-specific data regarding their practices. They did not provide enough detailed information regarding their practices.

3.2 Materials of Language Rich Europe

(22)

22

strands relevant to my thesis; languages in pre-primary education, languages in primary education, and languages in secondary education.

LRE originally contains 24 countries and regions. Investigation of multilingual practices in such a large number of countries is not an easy task. Every country has its own historical and societal features. Developing a common yardstick to measure multilingualism in 24 different countries and regions had been a challenge, since it had not been done before (Yağmur, personal communication, February 2014). The editors needed the same point of reference in all the national contexts.

Since the project aims to improve language education structures in schools, HE and adult learning, the LRE editors took European documents on multilingualism as their point of reference. In various language use domains, they identified the benchmarks as highlighted in the European recommendations. To achieve equal standards in multilingual education, LRE created a list of 148 indicators which are the highest European standards for multilingual education policy, drawn from Council of Europe Conventions or European Union Directives. Legal frameworks to promote multilingualism in Europe are mentioned in the introduction part of this paper. By using the indicators, LRE conducted a comparative analysis of countries‟ performance. The questionnaire covers four language types in the above domains: national languages, foreign languages, regional or minority (R/M) languages and immigrant languages. The questions dealt with criteria set by European benchmarks are concerned with issues such as the level of acknowledgment in the learning and teaching of national, foreign, R/M and immigrant languages in schools in pre-primary, primary and secondary education. The specific questions targeted whether the multilingual repertoire of children and multilingualism in society at large is recognized by educational institutions. In addition, whether the teachers are trained or encouraged to valorise and make use of the multilingual repertoire of children in their classrooms.

34 questions were designed for languages in pre-primary education, a total of 58 for primary education and 60 questions for secondary education (See, Table 1, taken from Extra and Yağmur, 2011). On the basis of the accumulated scores for the answers to the questions and the resulting proportional scores, LRE created an index for each sub-strand and subsequently also for each strand per country.

Table 1. Weighing of the sub-strands in absolute and proportional scores

Nr STRANDS No. of questions Max. score Proportion %

1A Languages in pre-primary education 34 96 20

2B Languages in primary education – Organisation 33 99 40

2B Languages in primary education – Teachers 15 58 39 40

3A Languages in secondary education – Organisation 35 60 99 40

3B Languages in secondary education – Teachers 15 39 40

Total 152

(23)

23

 The answers to most commonly triple choice questions were assigned a three-point scale,

decreasing for the boxes from left to right, going from /3/ to /2/ to /1/ (or sometimes to /0/).

To illustrate the point, below is the question 2 of the questionnaire assessing the multilingual practices in primary education (Extra & Yağmur, eds., 2012): “Are the existing plurilingual repertoire of children and multilingualism in society at large acknowledged in the learning and teaching of national/ foreign/regional/ minority/ immigrant languages in primary education?” 3 points was given if “there is a coherent integrated approach to the language curriculum in dealing with plurilingualism in the classroom and with multilingualism in society at large.” 2 points was given if “plurilingualism in the classroom and multilingualism in society at large are dealt with informally in primary education, depending on the situation or teacher.” And 1 point was given if “plurilingualism in the classroom and multilingualism in society at large are not dealt with.”

 the answers to open were assigned a three-point scale: /1/ points in the case of 1 or 2 languages; /2/ points in the case of 2-5 languages; /3/ points in the case of 6 or more languages See the question 10 below, also taken from the questionnaire assessing primary education, as an example: “Which foreign languages are offered in primary education as compulsory, which as optional? For each language specify how many hours per week.” Language(s), whether they were compulsory/optional and totatl hours per week was given scores.

The project methodology turns policies into numbers, using national experts to report the multilingualism practices. The aim of the project was to reach an equally representative score measured against the same benchmark. The same criteria and procedures should lead to a representative score for each country and region.

3.3 Procedures of the project and my contribution

The questionnaire had been distributed to relevant bodies in the education sector by the Language Rich Europe research team. National authorities had filled in the questionnaires for their respective countries or regions regarding multilingualism practices. The questionnaires were completed by the national experts and double-checked by peer reviewers. The finalised data was analysed by the LRE team. LRE‟s central research coordinators checked both the experts‟ and peer reviewers‟ responses to guarantee that they answered the questions in a consistent manner. The findings reported in this thesis analyse the strengths and weaknesses for 15 European Union Member States, the best and worst practices, as well as the major trends.

Although I did not take part in the above procedures, I was provided with the questionnaire returns and results by Kutlay Yağmur. I gathered together the data and analysed the results (See Appendix B for country-specific findings), and ranked the countries in a descending order of the scores they received. I created the figures and tables in the results and discussion chapter to present the findings in an efficient way.

(24)

24

4. Results and Discussion

The Language Rich Europe (LRE) project researched the provision of four language domains in pre-primary, primary and secondary education: foreign, regional or minority and immigrant languages. In this chapter I will individually address the research questions below using country-specific questionnaire returns driven from the LRE database. Then I will make recommendations for concrete actions at Member State and school level. Please refer to Appendix D for detailed country-specific profiles.

4.1 Research Question I: What are the patterns of multilingual education in Member States of the EU, relevant regions and cities ?

Considering the linguistic diversity in many European schools, mother tongue education is not always easy to arrange for children from different backgrounds. According to the project results, in many cases, education is provided only in the national language, whereas foreign, regional or minority (R/M), and immigrant languages receive little attention. However, many countries provide opportunities for children from diverse linguistic backgrounds, and try their best to prepare their young generations for a multilingual Europe in line with the European Union and Council of Europe pleas for multilingualism.

Language classes are mainly offered in a number of „popular‟ foreign languages such as English, French, German, and Spanish. Most countries also organize classes in R/M languages. Immigrant languages are offered only in a limited number of countries.

Table 2 Overall scores for linguistic diversity in pre-primary (PPE), primary (PE) and secondary education (SE) (in %)

Country/Region PPE PE SE Average

(25)

25

Figure 1 Average score for linguistic diversity in pre-primary, primary and secondary education (in %)

68 58 ₅₇ ₅₆ ₅₆ ₅₆ ₅₆ ₅₆ 54 54 ₅₂ ₅₁ 50 ₄₈ ₄₇ 46 45 39 ₃₈ ₃₆ 30 ₂₉

Average scores for linguistic diversity in pre-primary, primary and

secondary education (in %)

(26)

26

Based on their evaluation of the organization of languages and teacher training, countries and regions are presented in Table 2 in a descending order of their average total scores for pre-primary, primary and secondary education. Figure 1 presents an overview of the average scores for various aspects of linguistic diversity in pre-primary, primary- and secondary-schools. In line with the relevant indicators identified for organizing language education and teacher related factors, countries and regions obtained scores in which variables such as a coherent curriculum, standardised tests, diagnostic language proficiency assessment tools or practice of teaching the national language as a second language for newcomers are covered.

Basque Country, Austria and Spain emerge as the top countries and/or regions regarding the measures taken to facilitate linguistic diversity in various types of schools. They are followed closely by Denmark, Lithuania, the Netherlands, and Romania. Countries like Italy, Estonia, Poland and Greece emerge as the countries providing the least support for linguistic diversity.

All countries except for Italy provide support in learning the national language at primary level. All countries and regions, except for Wales, provide foreign language education at primary level. Foreign languages are optional in England and Scotland. Overall, English, French and German are the foreign languages that are most commonly taught. Italian, Spanish and Russian are other top foreign languages offered (Refer to Appendix B for languages offered in each country or region). The results confirm Watts‟ (2008) argument that English is used in many different countries as part of education.

In France, the Netherlands, and England, immigrant languages are offered as foreign languages to all pupils. Offering a large variety of languages to all students is promising for the future of multilingualism in Europe. Foreign language provision is by far the most supported, showing that countries give importance to the „mother tongue plus two‟ policy advice.

4.2 Research Question II: Which are the most relevant differences betw een the school levels pre-primary, primary and secondary education with regard to multilingual education?

Figure 2 visualises the differences in school levels. The figure shows overall results obtained by Member States and regions for the provision of languages in pre-primary education and the organisation of multilingual education (curriculum, goals or targets, teaching methods and materials) and teachers (qualification and training) in primary and secondary education. The European Union and Council of Europe emphasize the importance of early language learning. Early language learning (ELL) supported by the EU is not at desired levels.

Spain has the strongest multilingual profile for pre-primary education (68%). At the level of language types, very high scores are obtained for the national and foreign languages (See Appendix B14.1). Spain is followed by the Basque Country (67%) and Denmark (54%). Weakest multilingual profiles for pre-primary education are France (7%), Greece (5%) and Poland (3%) (See Appendix B for details).

(27)

27

teachers. The Netherlands is followed by Catalonia (74%) and the Basque Country (71%) in the domain of secondary education.

The Netherlands dedicate the most time to provide additional state-funded support in the national language for all pre-primary school children (See Appendix B10.1). 10 out of 20 countries and regions (15 MS + 5 regions) that are given part in this thesis do so in pre-primary education.

Primary education and secondary education are the two domains where countries are most in compliance with European recommendations to promote multilingualism. Certain areas, such as teacher qualifications, pre and in-service training for teachers need improvement.

In comparison to national language support, primary schools have a more solid foundation with regards to curriculum, testing, diagnostic proficiency tests and teacher qualifications. In most countries immigrant language provision is not available.

On the whole, multilingual education is more structured and organized at secondary education level, with the option of more variety of languages than at the primary level. Language teachers are required to have higher qualifications at secondary education institutions than the requirements of primary schools.

Figure 2 Scores for linguistic diversity in pre-primary, primary and secondary education (in %)

Trends in national and supranational policies and practices for multilingual education in Europe