"We only speak Dutch at school"

“We only speak Dutch at school” - I still hear my colleague saying this while responding to two Turkish speaking students in the hallway of the university. The event caught my attention and made me think about ways in which linguistic diversity could be considered beneficial rather than as a threat. A few months later I had the opportunity to visit a secondary school for refugee students in the Netherlands. During this visit I joined a gym class, interviewed an experienced teacher in Dutch as a Second Language, joined an English class, and conducted an interview with the team leader.

The site visit covered several hours and gave me a good first impression about the successes and difficulties that are faced by the workers at this school. One of the key incidents that caught my attention was the school’s language policy: education is provided in Dutch, though s are allowed to talk to each other in their home languages to a certain extent. For example when the teacher explains some new concepts, s are allowed to help each other out in their own language. Nevertheless, none of the teachers speaks one of the most common languages at the refugee center. The way in which this school deals with linguistic diversity triggered me to deepen my knowledge about educational language policies.  This brought me to the following question: What educational language policy supports newcomers best in learning the Dutch language?

Linguistic diversity in education

Multilingual education is a hot topic in the Netherlands: while s are encouraged to learn new languages at school, the multilingualism of newcomers is mainly considered to be an obstacle to success (Sierens & Van Avermaet, 2014). Education for newcomers in the Netherlands has one main goal: teaching them Dutch (Onderwijsinspectie, 2014). What follows is the language immersion principle: using solely Dutch as the language of schooling (Wulftange, 2017). Some schools have even implemented the policy “Only Dutch is allowed at school” (Groothoff, 2016) and ban the use of other languages.

Monolingual education

This monolingual attitude is clearly in line with the dominant monolingual perspective in the Netherlands (Gielen & Işçi, 2015; Hajer & Spee, 2017). The primary reason for the monolingual approach is integration: the use of home languages would obstruct the language learning process of students. Therefore, it is best to immerse children with a migration background in the Dutch language as soon and as often as possible. Within this perspective there is no room for the home language of these children at school.

A second argument is the aspect of ‘time’: whenever children use their home language, they “steal away” time they could use to practice Dutch, so it slows down the development of their second language (Sierens & Van Avermaet, 2014; Van den Branden & Verhelst, 2008). Some even argue that multilingual education results in ‘being zerolingual’, meaning not being proficient in any language (Sierens & Van Avermaet, 2014). Third, the use of only one language prevents exclusion of  and teachers that do not speak other languages (Wulftange, 2017)

Since multilingual education has not been really supported by politics yet, it has not had the chance to prove itself..

Multilingual education

The supporters of bilingual or multilingual education claim that pattention for the home languages of students and using their knowledge of other languages has been shown to have a positive influence on their development. They argue that education in the home language in addition to or in combination with education in the language of schooling is beneficial for the children. It provides a more effective basis for learning the language of schooling than total immersion (Sierens & Van Avermaet, 2014). According to them, learning a new language takes place by building upon knowledge of previously learnt languages. Furthermore, education in the home language supports positive identity construction and is therefore important for the wellbeing and social-emotional development of a child. This in turn has a positive effect on school performance (Sierens & Van Avermaet, 2014; Wulftange, 2017).

Sierra and Veronica Netflix

Room for new talents

Early 2017 a new guideline for all primary schools that deal with newcomers in their classes was released by the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science and the PO-Raad, the sector organization for primary education. The advice was entitled “Room for new talents” (Hajer & Spee, 2017), emphasizing the importance of paying attention to the culture and language of newcomers. The report emphasizes the importance of the multilingual setting in which children grow up, by stating that a fast development of Dutch as a second, additional language and the home language are the starting point for education during integration. In addition, the authors claim that there is a close connection between language and cognitive processes.

A new language is learnt by using the home language. Hence, it is recommended to make use of this already existing knowledge and to maintain the natural learning process instead of abandoning the home language. The report also highlights the language independency of educational skills such as written comprehension, mathematics and drawing conclusions. According to the interdependency theory of language acquisition of educational psychologist Jim Cummins (1979, 2000), these skills prosper best in the most familiar language and are easily transmissible as soon as the child is competent enough in the second language.

Above all, the use of one’s home language is globally protected:  stated by Unesco every child has the right to develop him or herself through his or her own language.  Simultaneously the child must be given the opportunity to follow education in the language of the country of residency (Hajer & Spee, 2017).

Multilingual education: a critical analysis

Several countries have experimented with multilingual education far longer than the Netherlands, such as Canada and the United States. Several theories have been developed, such as the previously mentioned interdependency theory of language acquisition (Cummins, 1979, 2000) and the concepts ‘additive’ and ‘substractive’ bilingualism (Lambert, 1974). Additive bilingualism refers to learning a second language without losing the home language, mostly by the acknowledgment and appreciation of the already existing language competence. Subtractive bilingualism is the opposite: the home language is threatened and eventually replaced by the acquisition of the second language, mostly because it is not valued by society. The latter concept applies to many newcomers in monolingual countries such as the Netherlands (Sierens & Van Avermaet, 2014). 

There is a difference between positively encouraging the use of Dutch and the complete ban of home languages.

Despite the fact that many American studies have been published on the subject, US research has not succeeded yet in providing us with a clear direction. A lot of these studies have methodological shortcomings, causing problems with drawing conclusions. Furthermore, it seems difficult to separate all variables that influence the school performance of newcomers. The implication of an educational model is just one of them. To conclude, the choice for either a monolingual or multilingual approach should depend on the context and target group.  European studies have not succeeded in proving good or wrong either. There are too few studies and these deal with similar methodological shortcomings. Since multilingual education has not been really supported by politics yet, it has not had the chance to prove itself (Sierens & Van Avermaet, 2014).

Dealing with linguistic diversity in education

As a consequence of globalization linguistic diversity is on its rise. There are several ways to deal with it in education, from banning home languages to organizing multilingual education. Sierens and Van Avermaet (2014) address three strategies that can serve as guidelines for dealing with linguistic diversity.

Strategy 1: a constructive language policy

The first step is to introduce a constructive and open language policy, in which all the languages of  and their parents are included. The idea behind this policy is separating the language immersion principle from a monolingual school regime. As described earlier, some schools with a Dutch language immersion program implement a ‘Dutch only’ policy, creating room for negatively judging all behavior at school that takes place in another language.  However, scholars on language acquisition have their doubts about the principle ‘the more exposure, the better’, since non-native children learn  everyday Dutch quite easily (Van den Branden & Verhelst, 2008). According to a study by Jaspers (2005), difficulties are mostly experienced with the school or academic language. Academic Dutch, referring to the oral, written, auditory, and visual language proficiency required to learn effectively in schools and academic programs is not practiced outside the classroom, since  use informal language to communicate on the playground. This implies that banning home languages outside the classroom would do no good (Sierens & Van Avermaet, 2014).

Another argument that is used for a ‘Dutch only’ policy in schools is that teachers fear that they would otherwise lose control over the classroom. However, there is a difference between positively encouraging the use of Dutch and the complete ban of home languages. Experience has shown that schools with a linguistically diverse population do not even need to encourage the use of Dutch, since this language is automatically considered as the lingua franca. Prohibitive rules do not seem to improve Dutch proficiency of immigrant children either. Therefore, one might opt for a compromise: allowing the use of home languages on the playground but limit it in the classroom (Sierens & Van Avermaet, 2014).

Strategy 2: language awareness raising

Rampton (1996) emphasizes the importance of interaction between students and teachers in the creation and moulding of attitudes and opinions about language, non-native speakers and multilingualism. This can be reached by implementing a language awareness approach in the classroom, for example by focusing on the home languages of the students. By giving room to these languages in class children develop a positive attitude towards other languages. Besides, newcomers feel more comfortable since they are allowed to express themselves in their home language.  The increased self-esteem of these students has a positive effect on their motivation and school performance (Sierens & Van Avermaet, 2014).

Parents could be addressed similarly: by acknowledging them their self-confidence increases in their communication with the school. Parents can also be encouraged to help children with their homework in their own language (Sierens & Van Avermaet, 2014).

Strategy 3: functional multilingual learning

Functional multilingual learning entails everything between language awareness raising and multilingual education. It refers to deliberately making use of the linguistic repertoires of the children in school, by using the home language as a stepping stone to the second language.  are encouraged to help each other in class in any language, though in the end they will need to interact with the teacher in Dutch. Although functional multilingual learning is a quite new approach, several studies have shown promising results in terms of school performance (for example: Jaffe, 2003; Moodley, 2007; Moschkovich, 2002; Olivares & Lemberger, 2002; Olmedo, 2003; Peterson & Heywood, 2007; Martin-Jones & Saxena, 2001; Verhelst & Verheyden, 2003).

Advantages of this approach are that the curriculum does not have to be changed, whereas this must be done for multilingual education. Also, teachers do not need to master these languages themselves and children feel acknowledged and safe (Sierens & Van Avermaet, 2014).

Conclusion and discussion

Literature has shown us that multilingual education has not had its chance yet to prove its effectiveness. There are several arguments for allowing home languages into the classroom, though teachers and policy makers have reasons to avoid this approach. Nevertheless, fear and misbeliefs should not misguide us and make us believe that the ‘Dutch only’ policy would be best for children with a migration background. The earlier mentioned strategies could be used as a guideline for schools to decide which one would fit best in their context.

The tentative conclusion to draw is that previous studies regarding a multilingual approach in the classroom seem promising and therefore should be given a chance at least. Schools must start to adopt language policies other than being a ‘Dutch only’ school and experience the benefits of linguistic diversity themselves instead of not acknowledging its presence. This opens up opportunities for teachers, newcomers, parents and future research.

References

Cummins, J. (1979) Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research 49, 222–251.

Cummins, J. (2000) Language, Power and Pedagogy: Bilingual Children in the Crossfire. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Gielen, S. & Işçi, A. (2015). Meertaligheid: een troef! Kalmthout: Abimo uitgeverij.

Groothoff, F. (2016). Meer Meertaligheid. Open brief in Onderwijsblad (13).

Hajer, M. & Spee, I. (red.). (2017). Ruimte voor nieuwe talenten. Lectoreninitiatief Professionalisering Taalonderwijs Nieuwkomers.

Jaffe, A. (2003) Talk around text: Literacy practices, cultural identity and authority in a Corsican bilingual classroom. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 6, 202–220.  

Jaspers, J. (2005) Linguistic sabotage in a context of monolingualism and standardization. Language and Communication 25, 279–297.

Lambert, W.E. (1974) Culture and language as factors in learning and education. In F.E. Aboud and R.E. Meade (eds) Bilingualism: Psychological, Social and Educational Implications (pp. 91–   127). Bellingham: Western Washington State College.

Martin-Jones, M. and Saxena, M. (2001) Turn-taking and the positioning of bilingual participants in classroom discourse: Insights from primary schools in Britain. In M. Heller & M. Martin-Jones (eds) Voices of Authority and Linguistic Difference (pp. 117–138). London: Ablex.

Moodley, V. (2007) Codeswitching in the multilingual English first language classroom. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 10, 707–722.

Moschkovich, J. (2002) A situated and sociocultural perspective on bilingual mathematics learners. Mathematical Thinking and Learning 4, 189–212.

Mueller Gathercole, V. C., Thomas, E. M., Jones, L., Viñas Guasch, N., Young, N. & Hughes, E. K. (2010). Cognitive effects of bilingualism: digging deeper for the contributions of language dominance, linguistic knowledge, socio-economic status and cognitive abilities. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 135, 617-664

Olivares, R.A. and Lemberger, N. (2002) Identifying and applying the communicative and the constructivist approaches to facilitate transfer of knowledge in the bilingual classroom.International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 5, 72–83.

Olmedo, I.M. (2003) Language mediation among emergent bilingual children. Linguistics and Education 14, 143–162.

Onderwijsinspectie. (2004). Het Onderwijs Eerste Opvang Anderstaligen. Retrieved from             http://www.lowan.nl/wpcontent/uploads/2014/09/Onderzoeksverslag_onderwi…; 2004.pdf

Peterson, S.S. and Heywood, D. (2007) Contributions of families’ linguistic, social, and cultural capital to minority language children’s literacy: Parents’, teachers’, and principals’ perspectives. The Canadian Modern Language Review 63, 517–538.

Rampton, B. (1996) Crossing: Language and Ethnicity among Adolescents. London: Longman.

Sierens, S., & Van Avermaet, P. (2014). Language diversity in education: Evolving from multilingual education to functional multilingual learning. Managing diversity in education: Languages, policies, pedagogies 204-222.

Verhelst, M.  Verheyden, L. (2003) Eindrapport Pilootproject Circus Kiekeboe. Leuven: K.U. Leuven, Centrum voor Taal & Migratie.

Van den Branden, K.  Verhelst, M. (2008) Naar een volwaardig talenbeleid. Omgaan met meertaligheid in het Vlaams onderwijs. TORB (Tijdschrift voor Onderwijsrecht en Onderwijsbeleid) 2007–2008, 315–332.

Wulftange, L. (2017). Op school spreken wij alle talen! Een case study naar de integratie van thuistalen in het basisonderwijs aan nieuwkomers (Master’s thesis, Utrecht University). Retrieved from https://dspace.library.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/1874/354302/Scriptie%20Le…; e%20definitief.pdf?sequence=1