SUPER DIVERSITY, GLOCALISATION AND MULTILINGUALISM Piet Van Avermaet

1. Poliglotti4.EU 1-2 December 2011 Madrid SUPER DIVERSITY, GLOCALISATIONAND MULTILINGUALISMPiet Van Avermaet

2. Outline • Changing societies, changing policies? • Social impact of current language policies promoting integration and active citizenship • How to deal with multilingual resources in society and in systems of education and develop L2 proficiency? • Challenges for languages and language education in super diverse urban contexts

3. Change • End of previous century: • Globalisation • Increased migration flows • Mobility • Change in discourse: • Need to know, learn and use languages • Need to share common norms and values • Need to become an ‘active citizen’

4. “Facilitate process of integration” • “Strengthen social cohesion and social • participation” • “Increase access to labour market/further • education” • “lever to become a (virtual) citizen of the nation: • ‘inburgering’” (moral citizenship) Why?

5. However? • Do pre-entry language tests serve an integration • objective? • will ignoring the multilingual realities of • immigrants and their plurilingual repertoires • contribute to processes of social participation • and cohesion? • Do ‘language for integration tests’ contribute to • processes of social participation and cohesion?

6. Evidence? • Official impact studies: • focus on • number of attendances • participants in language programmes • participant passing an exam • hardly any on social impact: trying to answer the • questions I just raised

7. Social impact of currentlanguagepolicies promoting integration and activecitizenship

8. INTEC report: • Integration and Naturalisation Tests: the new way to European Citizenship (Faculty of Law: Nijmegen. European Integration Fund. 2010) • A Comparative study in nine Member States on the national policies concerning integration and naturalisation tests and their effects on integration • National reports: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Netherlands, UK INTEC

9. “This research, however, did not find any reason to promote the connection of the integration requirements with the granting of a certain legal status (admission, permanent residence or citizenship). This connection is not necessary to motivate migrants, and it inevitably leads to the exclusion of certain groups from a secure legal status. The effects of this exclusion will hamper their integration, rather than promoting it. With regard to the integration requirement for admission, the exclusion also results in affecting family life and violating the right to family reunification, as laid down in the Directive on the right to Family Reunification. In most Member States, this connection between the level of integration and the granting of certain residence rights has been made relatively soon after the introduction of a language education infrastructure. Although the added value of this connection has not been proven, most respondents emphasized its positive effect on integration of the migrants should not be overestimated. As the negative side effects of this connection are already clear, it is recommended that this policy is reconsidered…”

10. “…Furthermore, the respondents demonstrated a broad consensus about the limited effect of language and integration policy on the actual integration of migrants. Other factors, such as a receptive society, an effective combat of discrimination and equal opportunities on the labour market, are just as or even more crucial.To be effective, integration policies should pay attention to these elements.” (INTEC report, 2010)

11. Social impact study in Flanders • Small scale social impact study with different stakeholders in Flanders (Belgium) • 40 semi-structured interviews with teachers, employers, employment agencies, ...

12. Employers • Most of the employers do not ask for a certificate Dutch nor do they officially test language proficiency of candidates. An integration certificate has hardly any value. The impact of the integration policy is extremely limited. • Do not “test” immigrants who apply for a job. A conversation with the applicants is seen as sufficient to form a clear opinion/picture of their language proficiency. “I have a conversationwith the people and on the basis of that I canseewhethertheirproficiency Dutch is low, average or high.”

13. Employment agencies • Also for employment agencies a certificate of an integration course or proof of another Dutch language course has only limited value. “They don’t have to proof that they took a course of Dutch or an integration course.”

14. Functionality • Different repertoires and registers “Often on the shop floor a specific jargon is used and a mixture of standard Dutch and dialect. When the dialect is more functional and we can understand it, there is no problem.” • More tailor made courses

15. Economics govern language “In the cleaning industry employers often do not have linguistic demands. Also, most of the families speak English or French” “Because there is high need for electricians, most companies say “we give it a try, even if they don’t master the language for 100%” “The most important is a diploma and practical skills. There is a shortage of welders. Polish immigrants can fill that need. Language is not a problem in that case.”

16. Discrimination • language and job interview to exclude “Sometimes immigrant employees are send back because they cannot communicate on the shop floor. I have the impression that this is often a false argument for covert discrimination of immigrant employees”

17. Change (the sequel) • Globalisation • Localisation • Migration • Mobility • Super diverse ‘glocalised’ societies • Communities/neighbourhoods • Schools • Classrooms

18. Within a context where ‘super diversity’ is becoming the norm it is important to reflect on the boundaries of the current recipes that are being used in systems of (language) educationto promote and strengthen social inclusion and civic activity.Given the fact that societies have become super diverse, are current integration policies still feasible?

19. Frames of reference • How do we define concepts in super diverse ‘glocalised’ contexts? • Citizenship: moral, active, shared norms and values or dynamic • Integration: unidirectional or reciprocal • Diversity: group or individual; static or dynamic • Super diversity in urban areas • Migration: static or dynamic, transitorily • Language policy: monolingual or multilingual • Multilingualism: linguistic or functional • Language proficiency: condition or outcome • Learning and education: formal or informal; instructivist or constructivist; plurilingual repertoires as obstacle or asset for learning

20. How to deal withmultilingual resources in society and in systems of education and at the same time develop L2 proficiency?

21. Theoreticalframework: multilingualeducation vs. L2 submersion • Central question: which language education model is more effective for L2 acquisition? • Clash of the Titans • L2 submersion (L2-only) • (Bi)-Multilingual education (compensatory)

22. Multilingual education Customarybilingualeducation Separation arrangement: Spatial: separate, homogeneous Temporal: separatelessons/moments Segregated groups of learners Compartmentalizedlanguages: two solitudes assumption (Cummins, 2008) Multilingualism = parallelmonolingualisms (Creese & Blackledge, 2010)

23. Multilingual education: towards a new approach?

24. Functional plurilingual learning Super diverse neighbourhoods, schools and classrooms plurilingualrepertoires as didactical capital for learning: functional use of home languages in multilingual, L2-dominant environments ‘Scaffolding’-model: L1 as a tool forlearning Empirical research: casestudies on L1-using mediationstrategies in L2-teaching Translanguaging: using different modi: A reality in neighbourhoods anassetinstead of problem, lack of proficiency

25. Challenges • As concepts like language, citizenship, learning, ... are social constructs we have to consider reconstructing them, given the new social contexts • Change the discourse: • From language problems, language arrears, language poverty TO • Plurilingual richness and opportunities in the localities OR • Language differences in high status languages not interpreted as a deficit, a language problem, an integration problem. But often as ‘cute’ • Language differences in low status languages (ethnic groups): language deficit, integration problem: conditions, tests.

26. Challenges • Strive for change in policy: • development of policies that work at local level (high identity, functional, contextualised) instead of only at national level (low identity, feel discriminated, racism) • From a conditional (sanctions: counter productive) to a facilitating policy (motivating)

27. Challenges • Paradigm shift in language learning and language assessment from languageS as discrete units to functioning in diverse contexts with diverse modi • More constructivist, functional, task based, ... • Integrate formal and informal learning processes • More tailored to needs, less uniform curricula and courses (drop out) • Provision of free language courses • CEFR not as prescriptive tool but as source for local curriculum design

28. Challenges • Continuous (informal) assessment tools: • Focus on what people can instead on what they cannot. • No indication of one (CEFR) level but a profile of people’s plurilingual performances (including multi literacy's) • Assess plurilingual proficiency

29. Challenges • Development of examples of alternative assessment tools, open frameworks, tools for linking tailor made courses to frameworks • Invest in awareness raising, information of and communication between different stakeholders • Integrate language courses in other courses or programs + involve other stakeholders • Create platforms for stakeholders for exchange of experiences, materials, … • Support in building social networks

30. THANK YOUpiet.vanavermaet@ugent.be