University of Amsterdam, 15 March 2016
Report for the Stakeholders Meeting at the Third MIME Consortium meeting[*]
Faro, Portugal , 15 June 2016
The expert meeting on Multilingualism in Primary and Secondary Education in the Netherlands was a joined initiative of the University of Amsterdam and Windesheim, University of Applied Sciences, Zwolle. It was organized by Karijn Helsloot, Windesheim and by Virginie Mamadouh, László Marácz and Federico Gobbo (University of Amsterdam and MIME). The meeting was dedicated to language diversity in the classroom, to national policies about multilingual education and to language learning. The objectives were to contribute to the national debate with a clear call for multilingualism in education, and to reach out to partner organisations and stakeholders at the local and the national level.
Some twenty professionals participated in the meeting, ranging from academics (in linguistics and in social studies) to teacher trainers, school principals, and policy makers at the national and the municipal level.
Two main objectives were identified:
- Sensitization to multilingualism: All pupils with another home language than Dutch (the national school language), are not only allowed but also invited to use their own language knowledge in the learning process at school. Teachers and school staff will welcome the home languages of the children, instead of banning them from school. Regarding the national education policies, the taken for granted monolingual orientation must be replaced by a multilingual one.
- Language learning: All pupils are encouraged to learn from an early age on three languages: 1) the national language Dutch, 2) the European and international lingua franca English, and 3) language X. This language X can be the home language of the pupil if it is different from Dutch or English, but eventually, any language could be chosen. The educational system should provide learning opportunities in these languages as well as appropriate assessments and examinations.
A number of short presentations by academics and practitioners (Nesrin El Ayadi (UvA/MIME), Vittorio dell’Aquila (UNIMB/MIME), Leendert-Jan Veldhuyzen (DENISE), Enoch Aboh (UvA), Karijn Helsloot (Windesheim), Federico Gobbo (UNIMB/MIME)) shed light on various aspects related to these two objectives and were followed by a lively discussion.
The implications of the adoption of the first objective are considerable at the professional level, regarding both the teacher training programmes, the curricula, and the development of teaching materials. The main consequences are:
- Allowing all languages in the classroom as a resource for (language) learning presupposes that teachers have a basic knowledge of linguistics. The focus in teacher training is now on vocabulary building in the national language, and on the primary skills of reading and writing. Grammar and general linguistics receive far less attention nowadays, if any at all, in the undergraduate programmes for primary school teachers. To discover grammatical convergences and divergences between the languages spoken by teacher and/or students, the focus on Sharing Grammars can be useful in the classroom.
- Allowing all languages in the classroom as a resource for (language) learning requires an integrated approach to language education in general. Language education entails both learning the national language and education in the national language and shall expand beyond that. Since English is being taught more and more from an early age onwards, Dutch and English should function as reference points in the larger play of comparing languages, or the sharing grammars mentioned above.
- Allowing all languages in the classroom implies the development of new curricula as well as appropriate learning materials for the initial training and the retraining of teachers and the training on the job of entrants on the educational job market.
- Allowing all languages in the classroom has a considerable impact on social aspects relating to the wellbeing of pupils and teachers, and the fight against discrimination and prejudices. It also strongly relates to other mandatory and optional subjects such as Economics, History, Literature and to many others including Arts. Allowing all languages in the classroom is not restricted to language classes, and should be incorporated in the teaching of other subjects like World orientation, Citizenship, Empowerment, Internationalisation, Cultural awareness or Intercultural communication.
- Allowing all languages in the classroom requires the involvement of the parents and other family members and relatives, since these family nuclei may constitute the sole practice of the home language. The students may be so-called second or third generation immigrants, and as such may never have exposed to a rich and diverse language societal environment in their home language.
- Allowing all languages in the classroom may cause a temporary slowdown in the acquisition of the main school language, but at the end of the school career, the achieved skills are similar, while the wellbeing of the students has gained considerably under this approach, as has been observed in practice by the school principal of the international school DENISE.
- Plan languages, like Esperanto or Europanto, as well as secret languages, can be useful tool to raise the pupils’ awareness of their implicit linguistic knowledge and skills, monolinguals and multilinguals alike. By experiencing ‘language as a bridge’ (within their own group) versus ‘language as a wall’ (keeping non class members outside), these language games strengthen not only the linguistic, but also the social and cognitive abilities of these pupils. It makes them sensitive to inclusion and exclusion processes.
- Allowing all languages in the classroom presupposes a clear and outspoken support at the national policy level, and requires substantial financial support from that national authorities, i.e. the ministry of education, and from the municipal authorities.
The adoption of the second objective regarding school support for the acquisition of three languages, has similarly important consequences at various levels: both organizational and logistic, professional and financial. The main implications are:
- This objective is an adaptation of the principle formulated by the Council of Europe 25 years ago, and adopted almost 15 years ago by the European Council: all European citizens should acquire three languages. It is known as the 1+2 formula, i.e. mother tongue plus two additional languages. At the time, the three languages were thought to be the national languages of European states. Nowadays, other languages are included in the mix: regional languages, minority languages, migrant languages as well as languages used outside Europe.
- The objective is that all pupils in the Netherlands from early age on are supported to learn three languages, the national language Dutch, the lingua franca English, and a third language X. This language X can be the home language of the pupil, if it is different from Dutch or English, including regional and migrant languages. But in principle it can be whatever language parents/children want to choose.
- Traditionally the Dutch ministry of education has provided baccalaurean exams in three modern languages (French, German and English) in addition to Dutch, and for decades it has provided exams in Frisian, Spanish, Russian, Arabic, Turkish, Italian, and more recently in Chinese too. However, pupils and their parents very often do not know about this opportunity, neither do schools inform them properly, because they fear to have to hire expensive language teachers for just a few students.
- Recently, the Dutch minister of education has commissioned a study for a new “future-proof” curriculum. Three core competencies have been chosen: Dutch, English and Maths. Moreover, only Dutch and English are explicitly mentioned when it comes to compulsory language education; other languages can be offered, but this has to be decided at the school level or by the schools’ association board that manage the schools. German and French are no longer the privileged foreign languages. The study has triggered a lively debate, both because it does not sustain the number of three obligatory foreign languages anymore, nor encourage the learning of German and French that are important for the Dutch economy. From a multilingual perspective, the recommendation allows for more variation, and is therefore attractive.
- Foreign language education, including a third language X, should be sustained within regular school time, and be guided by professionally schooled teachers (unlike earlier practices with mother tongue instruction in the Netherlands in the 1980s and 1990s).
- Blended learning, that is a mixture of online programmes, distance courses and regular classroom encounters, might be the only feasible approach to sustain education in language X. Teachers of language X might teach at a number of schools. Teachers might need to supervise the teaching of other languages than their main topic to provide support on location to pupils working at online and distance courses.
- An early start of foreign languages is advisable. Nowadays, foreign languages are mainly taught in secondary school, with the exception of English which is compulsory from the final two years of primary school onwards, i.e. starting from age 10 onwards. Since 2015, however, primary schools may start right from the beginning, from age 4 onwards with a foreign language. A very few number of primary schools start with early German or French but most schools chose English. The acquisition of a third language X should also start right from the beginning in primary school, especially if language X is the home language of the pupil. Deliberately creating a learning gap of 8 years, between their 4 and 12 years age, would be detrimental. Tailor-made trajectories are necessary as pupils can move and attend a school where a different language mix is offered than in their original school.
- In principle, each pupil may choose her/his own language X, whether this language is her/his home language or not. A monolingual Dutch pupil may choose German or Spanish but also Turkish or Sranantongo. A bilingual pupil Turkish and Dutch may choose Turkish but just as well Spanish or Sranantongo. The levels of language skills may diverge strongly between pupils of the same age, but the same minimum end term should be targeted. Therefore, personalized learning trajectories are required, such that the teacher tailors the learning process to the knowledge and the experience of the learners.
- For practical reasons, teaching support in other languages than English (and French and German that are already firmly established in Dutch education) will be introduced in a stepwise process: first the five most frequently requested languages, than the next five etc., so that the Ministry, the trainers and the publishers can develop proper materials and training programmes. Examination will be formalized in accordance with the terms of the Common European Framework of References (CEFR).
A follow-up meeting in Amsterdam is planned 11 October 2016.
Karijn Helsloot & Virginie Mamadouh – Amsterdam 7 June 2016
[*] NB A Dutch summary of the meeting as well as the presentations are available on http://meertaligamsterdam.socsci.uva.nl/Expertmeeting.html
Date:
Sunday, October 16, 2016