SOCIALLY DISADVANTAGED LEARNERS AND LANGUAGE(S) OF EDUCATION. Intergovernmental Conference Languages of Schooling: towards a Framework for Europe Strasbourg 16-18 October 2006 SOCIALLY DISADVANTAGED LEARNERS AND LANGUAGE(S) OF EDUCATION. THE CASE OF FLANDERS PIET VAN AVERMAET CENTRE FOR DIVERSITY AND LEARNING UNIVERSITY OF GHENT, BELGIUM piet.vanavermaet@ugent.be

The role of school? One of main tasks of education: provide skills needed to function in society. School is not the only actor, also parents and broader environment. More knowledge, skills and attitudes can be developed in certain social environments than in others. Compensating for this inequality is a specific emancipatory task of education. Education has to try to ensure that the position that someone achieves in society does not depend solely on the opportunities offered by the home context.

Only migrants? ‘Migrant children’ are often seen as a category that has (language) learning problems at school and thus has less chance of school success. Not all migrant children have language and/or learning problems at school, whereas some so-called autochthonous children do have language and/or learning problems at school. Unequal opportunities in education and differences in school success cannot simply be explained in ethnic terms. School success is not simply related to a level of language proficiency, but rather to the way knowledge, skills and attitudes are communicated and conceptualised at school and in different social environments.

Equal opportunities in education? Children with fewer opportunities have major difficulties in using education to catch up. Often during education the gap increases. It cannot be the task of a school to reproduce social inequality. When success or failure in learning is systematic there is a problem. In many European countries the number of children with a low SES is over-represented in the group of low achievers. For some children, the input they get during the stage of primary socialisation is not adapted to the norms, interaction patterns, communication modes and language codes that are taken for granted in schools today. We observe a mismatch. Two options for education. No discussion about norms, modes and codes used at school. ‘Prepare’ children through preschool programmes at home or remedial programmes before entering the mainstream curriculum. Then education is actually giving its basic function back to society. The norms, modes and codes at school are negotiable. School adapts its teaching methods to the observed diversity so that they can compensate for the children’s differences at the outset of their school career.

Does language play a role? Language is an important element in redressing social inequality. Language is one of the basic instruments for societal functioning. The school’s task is to compensate for language arrears, not to delegate its task to society by asking it to provide these children with the necessary language skills before they enter the school. The acquisition of the relevant language skills is inextricably bound up with learning to carry out a set of cognitive actions that a socially disadvantaged child does not have to carry out – and thus does not acquire – in his own social environment. The mismatch between the school context and the home context should not be seen as a deficit or deficiency for the people belonging to that social group. It is simply a difference, one – as has already been stated – that education has to take into account in its attempt to teach the language skills that children need to function in society.

Language at school and at home ‘Migrant children’ and their ‘language deficit’ are seen as one of the main problems in (language) education. The fact that they do not use the ‘target language’ at home is often seen as one of the major causal factors of their ‘language problems’ and their lack of success at school. The discourse is often negative and stigmatising. However, it is clear that there are ‘non-native speakers’ who have no language deficit at school and ‘native speakers’ who do have such a ‘deficit’. Given the fact that it is not just in the case of ‘non-native speakers’ or migrant children that a gap can be observed, the question arises whether we are faced with a problem relating to the children or a problem relating to the school. It is also clear from the above that the so-called ‘language problem’ of ‘migrant children’ is not just a problem of ‘level of language proficiency’. It is the socio-cultural determined differences that often explain school success. Differences in communication/interaction need to be taken into account at school and in the classroom.

To remedy or to deal with diversity? The school needs to ask how it will deal with the diversity of socio-cultural and socio-economic backgrounds so that all children can acquire the school language. Homogenisation can potentially lead to negative effects in terms of equal opportunities for learning. In ‘lower’ classes, there is a more limited academic focus, poor use of instructional time and a reduced opportunity to learn. Dealing with socially disadvantaged learners essentially means being able to deal with diversity and heterogeneity in mainstream classrooms. Putting socially disadvantaged children in “pull-out classes” and providing separate curricula and tests reverts to a purely psychological approach to (language) learning: the individual child who has a language deficit and who will be better of if we treat him separately in a homogeneous group of children with the same “problem”. We then neglect the social cultural differences and cognitive advantages of learning in heterogeneous groups.

Multilingual policy at school One of the topics that occupy the minds of schoolteachers and principals – and society at large – is the multilingual context of the school/class. Many schools seem to struggle with the multicultural and multilingual nature on the one hand, and societal pressure for teaching the standard language of the country on the other. Schools teach foreign languages. Plurilingualism is strongly promoted at most schools. Knowing more than one language is seen as an asset, as something good, as having added value. When it comes to the languages of migrant children at school, however, their plurilingualism is seen as a handicap, sometimes as something bad even. In classrooms we observe a diversity of languages and language varieties. If we restrict ourselves to the standard language only as a medium of communication, or only allow children to use the standard language to solve problems, to fulfil tasks in the classroom, and do not make use of different communication modes and codes, we miss many kinds of opportunities for the development of children’s competencies.

Policy in Flanders Act on Equal Education Opportunities (GOK) since 2003 Target population: migrant children AND autochthonous socially disadvantaged children Aims: counteract arrears and exclusion of these children Provide maximal learning and development opportunities of ALL children

Act on Equal Education Opportunities (GOK) Three major lines of action: The right to enrol your child in a school of your choice. The creation of local consultative bodies which help implement the GOK policy locally. An integrated support provision.

An integrated support provision Inter-university centre GOK (research, development of teaching material, in-service teacher training) Pedagogical counselling GOK Local consultative bodies (LOP) School internal support structures and targeted strategies

An integrated approach Schools adopt an integrated and comprehensive approach and a long term and targeted strategy to address educational disadvantages: Pull-out classes have been abolished and have made way for additional pupil support within the mainstream classroom, cooperative learning in mixed ability groups and contextualized language learning. Schools get extra funding for monitoring and support (priority groups): Barge skipper, fairground worker, circus artist, circus manager or caravan dweller Mother does not obtain diploma or certificate of secondary education Child is living temporary or permanently living outside the family Family lives on a replacement income Language you speak with your family at home is not Dutch

An integrated approach Schools are autonomous in developing an equal education opportunity plan. Plans are developed for a cycle of 3 years. Extra funding is provided for a school GOK plan for recruitment of e.g. additional staff to be used in a comprehensive approach and not for pull-out classes for individual remedy programmes for migrant children. Second year of cycle schools are obliged to organise self-evaluation. At end of cycle external (government) inspection. When assessment is positive and school still meets criteria imposed, it can apply for a new 3 year cycle and writes a new or updated plan.

Six themes A GOK plan and aims can be developed on the basis of 6 themes: Prevention and remedial programmes Language proficiency Intercultural education and dealing with diversity Socio-emotional development Moving up and school orientation Pupil and parent participation

FINAL OBJECTIVES No separate curricula for migrant and non-migrant children. Final objectives for language(s) of education are minimum goals in relation to knowledge, skills and attitudes. Minimum here means that what minimally is needed (i.e. essential) and for which a societal consensus exists, to guarantee participation in school and society. No meritocratic approach. Final objectives need to be contextualised (content, (inter)cultural,…) into curriculum that is relevant for local situation. Both on the basis of interaction amongst all actors.

A two way approach Second or third generation immigrant children Regular curriculum from the start (in Flanders from 2,5 years) and same objectives as non migrants. ‘Newcomers’ ‘Adapted’ objectives, curriculum and teaching programme. One year in separate class. Newcomers get as far as they can depending different factors (heterogeneous groups). ‘Developmental goals’ instead of ‘final objectives’. After one year ‘targeted’ language programme they go to the regular classroom: still extra scaffolding is given for those classes or schools (not separating newcomers from the rest of the classroom at certain moments in time) where these newcomers are then integrated: learning in functional situations and through interaction.

‘Newcomers’ Developmental goals based on real needs of learner: situations in which he needs the language. Distinction between primary and secondary. 15 general objectives Made concrete in 4 relevant contexts: Participating at school Learning at school Informal contacts in and outside school Societal participation

Concluding suggestions (part 1) Encourage school policies that opt for an inclusive approach instead of policies of separate homogeneous groups. Encourage schools to develop a policy where diversity is seen as an advantage/surplus for learning. Encourage schools to acknowledge social-cultural differences as a source for learning which is reflected in their didactical approaches. In principle avoid pull-out classes and separate curricula for different groups of learners as much as possible. Only for ‘newcomer migrants’ and on a temporary basis. The gap between home language and school language; language and learning arrears are not ethnically determined. SES and social-cultural background often explain better school success.

Concluding suggestions (part 2) Encourage schools to develop a coherent language policy in which the whole school team takes its responsibility. Languages are best learned in context, functionally and in heterogeneous groups. Encourage schools not to delegate its task to society or home/family to compensate for language arrears before entering the school. ‘Every teacher acting as a language teacher’ is of major importance for socially disadvantaged students. Avoid the implicit message to children that there is ‘good’ and ‘bad’ plurilingualism. Make use of the plurilingual repertoires of children as an asset for learning.

SOCIALLY DISADVANTAGED LEARNERS AND LANGUAGE(S) OF EDUCATION. Intergovernmental Conference Languages of Schooling: towards a Framework for Europe Strasbourg 16-18 October 2006 SOCIALLY DISADVANTAGED LEARNERS AND LANGUAGE(S) OF EDUCATION. THE CASE OF FLANDERS PIET VAN AVERMAET CENTRE FOR DIVERSITY AND LEARNING UNIVERSITY OF GHENT, BELGIUM piet.vanavermaet@ugent.be

NEWCOMERS Example General aim: The students understand a question or instruction formulated oral or written in order to (re)act adequately (i.e. Being able to answer the question or to act according to the instruction).

NEWCOMERS Example concrete: Participating at school Learning at school The students understand an oral question or instruction from another student, teacher or coach in relation to class- or school organisation. Learning at school The students understand an oral question or instruction from another student or a teacher in relation to a topic of a teaching-leaning activity. Informal contacts in and outside school The students understand an oral or written informal question or instruction from a peergroup member or a known adult. Societal participation The students understand an oral or written informal question or instruction from a civil servant, an instructor, ... (-) The students understand safety instructions, ... (+)