sign in sign up
<<
Home , German language

24 Dossier forum 264

Jean Jacques Weber Rethinking -in-Education Policy in

The Council of report on language-in-education policy points to a real social problem which it seems to me has not been much discussed in public discourse: namely, the fact that the Luxembourgish school system forces large numbers of romanophone students to through a German-language literacy programme which condemns many of them to educational failure. Instead, what has become the focus of public discussion is the of defining ‘competence levels’, a worthwhile and necessary undertaking no doubt, but not which in itself will solve the above- mentioned social problem.

Let me first of all quote some passages lectives, à une hétérogénéité consciente, pro­ It would seem to me that if we believe of the report which deal with this key jetée et assumée. (p. 32-3) in educational equity and social justice, issue concerning educational inequity then we need to do something about and linguistic discrimination (Council Les évolutions démographiques du pays, de this. The authors of Europe, 2005): même que les enjeux de l’internationalisa­ suggest a number of possible solutions tion et de la mondialisation rapides, boule­ including in particular the introduction Il serait dommageable, nous semble-t-il, versent les évidences sur lesquelles reposent of an additional French-language lite- que le trilinguisme, facteur de réussite indi­ racy option (p. 37). viduelle et collective pendant des décen­ nies, ne se transforme progressivement en Considering the presence of Indeed, the demographic changes of the dispositif exclusif, fonctionnant en fait de [an] increasingly large number last four decades (referred to in the last la même façon que le monolinguisme qui a of children speaking some quotation above) have led to a drama- prévalu longtemps (et qui prévaut encore varieties of French, Portuguese tic shift in the role of French: as well as parfois) dans certains pays. (p. 21) the main language of state admi- or Italian in the Luxembourgish nistration and of legislation, it used to Si le trilinguisme, qui repose pourtant sur primary schools during the be the language of culture and prestige un consensus large et avéré de l’ensemble last few decades, the logical widely used – especially in its written de la population, devait continuer à générer form – by the bourgeoisie and upper- injustice et incohérence, la société luxem­ [...] consequence would be the class citizens. While this may still be bourgeoise, dans sa diversité, pourrait rapi­ establishment of a two-track the case to a large extent, French has dement connaître une crise communautaire literacy system. also increasingly become the lingua et identitaire. (p. 23) franca between , immi- La ségrégation des élèves ’origine étran­ grants and cross-border commuters (cf. gère existe déjà. (p. 31) la politique linguistique suivie depuis des Reisdoerfer, 2006). décennies. Celle-ci devient cause d’échec et Il ’agit en somme, grâce à cette valorisation d’exclusion pour une partie importante de The consequences for the educational de la formation plurilingue, de passer d’une la population, mettant en péril à la fois l’in­ system are enormous; while schools homogénéité supposée, dont on a vu qu’elle tégration sociale de tous les habitants et la ne correspond pas à la réalité et qu’elle est compétitivité économique du Grand-Duché. Jean Jacques Weber is professor in the Anglistics facteur de frustrations individuelles et col­ (p. 48) department of the University of Luxembourg. März 2007 Spracherziehung 25

continue to teach a highly formal use tion plans to make the of précoce d’origine des enfants étrangers. (Ministère of French (as this used to be the also part of compulsory education. In de l’Education nationale, 2000: 20) social use available for that language in this way, it is hoped that the teaching Luxembourg), they are now faced with and use of Luxembourgish during three In this official policy document, the a major challenge: namely, the presence of pre-school will help migrant ‘Luxembourgish children’ are idealized of a large number of students spea- children to ‘integrate’ and prepare them as being a homogeneous group with one king and contact varieties for the German-language literacy pro- and only one home language – namely of French. Considering the presence of gramme of the primary school: Luxembourgish – thus erasing large this increasingly large number of chil- numbers of children from mixed mar- dren speaking some varieties of French, riages with more than one home lan- Portuguese or Italian in the Luxembour- The new option would build upon guage. The migrant children are simi- gish primary schools during the last few larly homogenized as having ‘another the knowledge of vernacular L1’ (i.. other than Luxembourgish). decades, the logical – and long overdue French of the romanophone – consequence would be the establish­ In this way, Luxembourgish children ment of a two-track literacy system. children, while their learning of are assumed to have Luxembourgish as A choice between German-language Luxembourgish in the préscolaire their L1, otherwise they are categorized literacy and French-language literacy would (still) facilitate their as ‘foreign’. Here again, a whole group of would seem even more obvious as both acquisition of German, but now children are erased in the process: those who have Luxembourgish citizenship German and French are officially reco- as a at a slightly gnized in the 1984 language law. but do not use Luxembourgish as home later stage of primary school. language (this includes for instance a Yet the school-system has failed to res- number of luso-descendants, i.e. second pond to this challenge and the basic or third generation children of trans- structure of primary school education Les groupes d’Education précoce compren­ migrant Portuguese [grand]parents). has remained unchanged for almost a dront des enfants luxembourgeois et des Moreover, all the children are assumed hundred years: German-language lite- enfants qui ont appris une autre première to have one and only one langue d’ori­ racy for everybody, rapidly followed langue. Il est clair que l’objectif de l’Edu­ gine (‘language of inheritance’). But this by the teaching of French. What has cation précoce et préscolaire est de faire focus upon the element of language changed in recent years is that there has acquérir une bonne maîtrise de la langue inheritance again erases all the other been a push for more Luxembourgish luxembourgeoise, cet apprentissage linguistic abilities of many of these chil- within the school system, mostly in est considéré, dans notre système scolaire, dren, in particular, in the case of many the area of pre-school education, which comme un tremplin efficace vers l’appren­ luso-descendants, their knowledge of consists of one optional year of précoce tissage ultérieur de l’allemand, langue de and fluency in vernacular French (for (for children aged three) and two obli- l’alphabétisation à l’école primaire ... Tou­ of these points, see Fehlen gatory years of préscolaire (from age jours est-il que cette priorité ne doit pas et al., 1998). four upwards). The Ministry of Educa- éclipser la prise en compte de la langue Thus the official précoce and présco- laire policy is based upon the essenti- alist assumption that ‘foreign’ children have one and only one -, to which Luxembourgish can then be added at school. In the case of the luso- descendants, they are assumed to have Portuguese as their L1, then they would learn Luxembourgish during their pré- coce and préscolaire years, be taught basic literacy in German in the first year of primary school and study (stan- dard) French as a foreign language from the end of the second year of primary school onwards. Two language ideolo- gies can be seen to be at work here: the mother-tongue ideology and the stan- dard language ideology (cf. Milroy & Milroy, 1999); and between the Scylla of the one and the Charybdis of the other, the vernacular French resources of the luso-descendants and many other romanophone children are lost. The actual language situation of these children is frequently far more com- plex; luso-descendants in particular 26 Dossier forum 264

frequently grow up with two (or more) social cohesion is misplaced, especially throughout the primary school system, : usually Portuguese, some­ considering that a two-track system in one of which German is the lan- times Luxembourgish, and very often already exists at secondary school level guage of literacy and French is taught also a vernacular French that they (namely, the split between lycée clas- as a foreign language, and in the other, acquire in or around the home. This sique and lycée technique). On the French is the language of literacy and vernacular French is ignored in the other hand, the advantages would be German is taught as a foreign lan- Ministry document, so that by implica- numerous: apart from the all-important guage (see also Georges Erasme Muller, tion French is only seen in its standard one of no longer psychologically and « Ouvrir une filière francophone ? » in form as a school taught in pri- socially damaging whole generations Le Jeudi, 1er février 2007, p. 42 for a mary school. of romanophone children, they include similar proposal). at least an economic and a pedagogical Hence what is needed is a new lan- advantage. Concerning the former, Grin This is a short version of a much guage-in-education policy which would (2003: 54) argues that when students longer paper which is due to appear in capitalize on all the students’ home the journal Language and Education in resources and, more particularly, would 2008. resolve the contradiction between many students’ home resources and their The widespread fear that such in-school practice by adding a French- a two-track system might language literacy option. Such a policy undermine social cohesion is References change would be desirable both in terms misplaced, especially considering of educational efficiency and social jus- Council of Europe (2005): Rapport du that a two-track system already groupe d’experts: Grand-Duché de Luxem­ tice: the new option would build upon exists at secondary school level. the knowledge of vernacular French bourg. Profil des politiques linguistiques of the romanophone children, while éducatives. : Division des their learning of Luxembourgish in the Politiques linguistiques. get their education ‘in a language that préscolaire would (still) facilitate their Fehlen, F., Piroth, I., Schmit, . acquisition of German, but now as a they understand well, instead of a lan- guage that they understand poorly’, this and Legrand, M. (1998): Le sondage foreign language at a slightly later stage BALEINE: Une étude sociologique sur of primary school. Under the present has as an effect ‘a decline in the dropout rate’ and ‘a decline in the repetition rate les trajectoires migratoires, les langues et system, on the other hand, the potential la vie associative au Luxembourg, Hors literacy bridge between vernacular and (children taking the same class twice because of failing grades), which entails Série 1. Luxembourg: Recherche Etude standard French is being denied to luso- Documentation. descendant and other romanophone a reduction in costs’. In the case of students. Luxembourg this should be a substantial Grin, F. (2003): “ and reduction, as for instance in the lycées economics.” Current Issues in Language The existence of parallel streams would techniques the repetition rate is as high Planning 4 (1), 1-66. bring official policy in line with actual as 62.6% (Council of Europe, 2005: 17). language use, whereas now it is being As for the pedagogical advantage, Lin Lin, A. (1996): “Bilingualism or linguis- based upon an essentializing link with (1996: 61) suggests that such a change tic segregation? Symbolic domination, language inheritance. Hence also, it would lead to an elimination of ‘the resistance and code switching in Hong would not necessarily lead to a split rote-learning syndrome arising from the Kong schools.” and Education between ethnic and non-ethnic Luxem- use of an unfamiliar foreign language as 8 (1), 49-84. bourgers since some ‘Luxembourgish’ the ’. Though Lin Milroy, . and Milroy, L. (1999): Autho­ children (e.g. those with one franco- is concerned with the use of English in rity in Language: Investigating Language phone parent) might well choose the Hong Kong schools, the same applies to Prescription and Standardisation. Lon- French-language literacy program, and the Luxembourgish educational system, don: Routledge. some ‘foreign’ children (e.g. those from where many migrant children have dif- the countries of the former Yugoslavia, as ficulty in understanding German – the Ministère de l’Education nationale, well as other Central and Eastern Euro- main language of instruction in primary de la Formation professionnelle et des pean countries) might opt for the Ger- school – and many Luxembourgish- Sports (2000): L’Education précoce: Plan- man-language one. Both systems could origin children have difficulty with cadre. Luxembourg: MENFPS. exist alongside each other within the French once it takes over as the medium same schools, and they would give each of instruction in secondary school. In Reisdoerfer, J. (2006): « Les fonctions student a better chance of educational this way, both ‘foreign’ and ‘Luxembour- du français au Grand-Duché de Luxem- as well as later social success. Moreover, gish’ children may have something to bourg. » Lëtzebuerger , 20 January students from the two streams could gain from a structure that would allow 2006, p. 12-14. be brought together in mixed language them to learn one of the languages as a groups to allow for peer teaching and foreign language. learning, so that the resources of all the students would be valorized. In conclusion, what is suggested here is not a revival of the old ‘classes fran- Thus, the widespread fear that such a cophones’ but the full implementation two-track system might undermine of parallel (and interconnected) streams