Faculty of Arts & Philosophy

Sarah Staes

Linguistic diversity at school: towards

communication of language policy

Supervisor: Prof. dr. Geert Jacobs

Co-supervisor: Prof. dr. Piet Van Avermaet

Master thesis submitted to obtain the degree of Master of Arts in Multilingual Business

Communication

Academic year 2015-2016

Faculty of Arts & Philosophy

Sarah Staes

Linguistic diversity at school: towards

communication of language policy

Supervisor: Prof. dr. Geert Jacobs

Co-supervisor: Prof. dr. Piet Van Avermaet

Master thesis submitted to obtain the degree of Master of Arts in Multilingual Business

Communication

Academic year 2015-2016

Verklaring i.v.m. auteursrecht

De auteur en de promotor(en) geven de toelating deze studie als geheel voor consultatie

beschikbaar te stellen voor persoonlijk gebruik. Elk ander gebruik valt onder de beperkingen

van het auteursrecht, in het bijzonder met betrekking tot de verplichting de bron uitdrukkelijk

te vermelden bij het aanhalen van gegevens uit deze studie.

Het auteursrecht betreffende de gegevens vermeld in deze studie berust bij de promotor(en).

Het auteursrecht beperkt zich tot de wijze waarop de auteur de problematiek van het

onderwerp heeft benaderd en neergeschreven. De auteur respecteert daarbij het

oorspronkelijke auteursrecht van de individueel geciteerde studies en eventueel bijhorende

documentatie, zoals tabellen en figuren. De auteur en de promotor(en) zijn niet

verantwoordelijk voor de behandelingen en eventuele doseringen die in deze studie geciteerd

en beschreven zijn.

Preface and acknowledgements First of all, I would like to thank the cabinet of the Flemish minister of Education for having me

as an intern. I express my gratitude towards the minister herself, ms. Hilde Crevits. Special

thanks to my supervisor Jasper Delanoy, for guiding me through the complex world of

politics/political communications and the even more complex educational structure in

Flanders. In only two months, he became an important example for me thanks to his analytical

and emotional intelligence. I also thank Katrien Rosseel, Bert De Brabandere and Wouter De

Craen and all the other colleagues for a wonderful internship.

Of course, this thesis would not have been possible without academic guidance. Therefore, I

want to thank my supervisor prof. dr. Geert Jacobs for providing me the freedom I needed, but

also offering me guidance whenever I was in doubt. Thank you, also, for establishing the

cooperation with dr. prof. Piet Van Avermaet. I want to thank my co-supervisor as well, for

introducing me to the interesting subject that multilingualism is.

Thirdly, I express a big “thank you” to my family and friends. It has been an exciting and

demanding master year in which they always supported me. Staesjes, thank you for kindly

coping with me in every stressful moment. Thanks to Evelien for being the most supportive

roommate and talented private cook I could ever wish for. And last but not least, thank you to

all my MTB-colleagues. It was a privilege to meet so many talented and inspiring

twentysomethings and I’m very grateful that in ten months you’ve grown into great friends.

Executive Summary Research questions

The Department of Education received the results of the MARS-research1. This was conducted

by the UGent and the VUB between 2013 and 2015 and promoted by prof. dr. Piet Van

Avermaet. The research investigated the effects of multilingual backgrounds of children on

their school results. The perceptions that pupils and teachers have of multilingualism was also

analysed. The results reveal new insights concerning common ideas about language acquisition

and linguistic diversity in Flanders. Language use of multilingual children results to be complex:

these children constantly use different speech varieties and registers. A strict division between

home language and school language cannot be made. The didactic use of vernacular languages

does not affect school results negatively, but improves the children’s well-being and

motivation. Nevertheless, in many schools, only Dutch is permitted (according to a submersion-

model). Among teachers, there is a lot of fear to lose control if they would allow vernacular

languages. In order to diffuse these findings, the Department, the minister of Education and

Piet Van Avermaet plan a seminar on 19 October 2016, but also asked the following questions:

1. What are the main beliefs about multilingual reality at school? Does this effect the actual

language policies schools adopt?

2. Is there a mismatch between the beliefs of researchers on the one hand and policy makers

on the other? If yes, can this be overcome by communication strategies?

3. Is a framework a good method to communicate policy ideas to the educational field? If yes,

what should it (not) contain? Are there other ways to introduce beliefs?

Research method

To answer these questions, I undertook an exhaustive research, as the field of education implies

many different actors in Flanders (for an overview of these actors, see Appendices). First, the

workings of language policy are explained through a model made by Bernard Spolsky, which is

based on language practices, language beliefs and language management. Of course, language

legislation in Belgium has a big impact on education as well, which is why I also expose it.

The most important part of this thesis concerns quantitative research among involved

stakeholders, in order to investigate their main beliefs about linguistic diversity at school are,

how these are communicated and how a framework could (not) be a solution.

1 MARS: ‘Meertaligheid als realiteit op school’ (Multilingualism as a reality at school). The full report can be consulted online:

http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/obpwo/rapporten/MARS/MARS_EINDRAPPORT_FINAAL_JAN2016.pdf

A panel discussion provides insights into the existing language beliefs & management of

researchers, policymakers, the educational field (teachers and school heads) and umbrella

organisations.2

A TV-reportage (‘Koppen’) forms communication of language beliefs & management

between researchers and the general public

A hearing session in the commission of Education, Flemish Parliament constitutes a case-

study of the communication of language beliefs & management between researchers and

policymakers. Interviews with the Aldermen of education of Ghent and Antwerp also provide

insights into this communication.

An interview with a responsible of the Inspectorate, the communication by ‘Klasse’ and

interviews with communication employees of two other initiatives undertaken or supported

by the Flemish government (STEM and Bednet) deliver good practices for communication

between the government, the educational field and the general public.

Conclusions

The different beliefs mentioned in this research confirm the MARS-results: there is a lot of

fear among teachers, but positive attitudes are becoming more common. This is especially

the case in schools that were coached during various projects on multilingualism.

In general, umbrella organisations and policymakers seem supportive about Van Avermaet’s

beliefs and findings. How this results in actual language policies depends on the level on

which the policymakers operate. Local politicians, as the Aldermen of education, have a

significant influence on the policy that schools adopt. Some policymakers seemed more

reluctant. It seems unlikely that communication strategies will solve this mismatch, as

language beliefs cannot be separated from ideology and vision on society as a whole.

A bottom-up approach has unanimous support. None of the involved actors is waiting for a

framework with prescriptions on how to deal with linguistic diversity in a positive way. What

works better, is trying to influence current language beliefs.

Recommendations

Focus on influencing the general public, by diffusing personal testimonies and exchanging

good practices.

In order to do this, optimize a central online platform, that is smartphone-friendly and

includes target group communication, meant for teachers, school heads, umbrella

organisations, but also parents and pupils.

When designing a framework, make sure to emphasize specific goals for schools and

umbrella organisations, without prescribing how these should be reached.

2 Umbrella organisations are OVSG, KOV and GO (See Appendices)

Table of Contents

Preface and acknowledgements .............................................................................................................. 6

Executive Summary.................................................................................................................................. 8

1. Introduction & Research questions ..................................................................................................... 1

2. Theoretical framework ........................................................................................................................ 5

2.1. Multilingual reality vs. monolingual nations: the case of Belgium ................................................ 5

2.2. Language policy: a model by B. Spolsky (2004) ............................................................................. 7

2.3. School domain .............................................................................................................................. 8

2.4. Language policy in Belgian education ......................................................................................... 10

2.5. Implementing language policy .................................................................................................... 13

3. Research method ............................................................................................................................... 14

4. Research analysis ............................................................................................................................... 15

4.1. Overview of existing language beliefs & management: panel discussion ................................... 15

4.2. Communication of language beliefs & management between researchers and the general

public: Koppen ................................................................................................................................... 20

4.3. Communication of language beliefs & management between researchers and policymakers .. 23

4.3.1. Parliament ........................................................................................................................... 23

4.3.2. Local level: Aldermen for education in Ghent and Antwerp ............................................... 25

4.4. Communication of language beliefs & management between the government, the educational

field and the general public ............................................................................................................... 26

4.4.1. Inspectorate ........................................................................................................................ 26

4.4.2. Klasse ................................................................................................................................... 27

4.3.3. Other initiatives ................................................................................................................... 31

4.3.3.1. STEM ................................................................................................................................. 31

4.3.3.2. Bednet .............................................................................................................................. 32

5. Conclusions & recommendations ...................................................................................................... 33

Reference list ......................................................................................................................................... 39

Appendices ............................................................................................................................................ 41

1

1. Introduction & Research questions In May I started my internship at the press and communication office of Flemish minister of

Education Hilde Crevits. This office is part of the personal, policy making cabinet of the minister

and works closely together with the administrative, executive Department of Education. The

Department recently received the results of the MARS-research3. This was conducted by the

UGent and the VUB between 2013 and 2015 and promoted by prof. dr. Piet Van Avermaet. The

research, ordered in 2013 by the Department and former minister of Education Pascal Smet,

investigated the effects of multilingual backgrounds of children on their school results. The

perceptions that pupils and teachers have of multilingualism was also analysed. The results

reveal new insights concerning common ideas about language acquisition and linguistic

diversity in Flanders. I insert a brief summary of the results, which of course does not contain

all the details, but the most important findings are summed up:

Language use of multilingual children is complex: there cannot be made a strict division

between language at home (vernacular language) and language at school (Dutch), as these

children constantly use different speech varieties and registers. At home, they get more in

touch with Dutch than is generally assumed: through the media, in communication with

their family, etc. At school, on the other hand, they often speak other languages than Dutch.

Rather than a division, the research suggests the idea of a continuum on which the

multilingual child occupies a different position depending on the context.

Occasional use of other languages at school, for example at the playground, does not have

a negative impact on school results. There are only significant differences between the

results of children who always speak Dutch and those who always speak another language.

Other factors that are often assumed as important were not confirmed: watching Dutch-

spoken TV-shows, for example, does not lead to better results.

Motivation is an important factor when it comes to school results. If vernacular languages

are approached positively, multilingual pupils’ well-being and self-esteem is stimulated,

increasing their motivation. Nevertheless, in many schools, only Dutch is permitted

(according to a submersion-model). As regards the teachers, there is a lot of fear to lose

control if they would allow functional use of vernacular languages.

3 MARS: ‘Meertaligheid als realiteit op school’ (Multilingualism as a reality at school). The full report can be consulted online: http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/obpwo/rapporten/MARS/MARS_EINDRAPPORT_FINAAL_JAN2016.pdf

2

The language spoken with fathers has more effect on school results than the one spoken

with mothers, while it is generally assumed that the impact of the mother is more

important.

There is a mismatch between the expectations of parents and teachers: schools expect

parents to have an important role in Dutch-acquisition, while parents consider this mainly

to be the school’s responsibility.

As a result of the MARS-research, the Department and the researchers plan a seminar on 19

October 2016 to diffuse the findings among the educational field. The minister also aims to

design a broad framework for active language policies at schools. The question rose how this

framework would be best communicated to reassure an optimal implementation, resulting in

schools approaching multilingualism actively and functionally. After a conversation with Piet

Van Avermaet it became clear that the MARS-researchers felt that some policymakers

themselves were still rather reluctant to stimulate a positive approach of multilingualism. He

wondered how he could optimize his communication towards them. These two different

communication-related questions made it difficult to define a simple research question. For

this reason, this thesis broaches multiple questions:

1. What are the main beliefs about multilingual reality at school? Does this effect the

actual language policies schools adopt?

2. Is there a mismatch between the beliefs of researchers on the one hand and

policymakers on the other? If yes, can this be overcome by communication strategies?

3. Is a framework a good method to communicate policy ideas to the educational field?

If yes, what should it (not) contain? Are there other ways to introduce beliefs?

To answer these questions correctly, I undertook an exhaustive research, which took me from

concept papers over TV-shows to communication strategies of other government-related

initiatives. Often I found myself outside the communications field, broaching other academic

fields as linguistics, sociology, politics/policy, education/pedagogy. The topic of multilingualism

is indispensably related to all of them. Furthermore, educational policy in Flanders is very

complex and involves many different actors. For a correct interpretation of this thesis, a perfect

3

understanding of their roles is essential. Therefore, I decided to add an overview in Dutch (see

Appendices).

In the theoretical framework, I briefly present the position of Belgian language legislation in a

multilingual world. To understand the workings of language policy, I consult Bernard Spolsky’s

book ‘Language policy’ (2004). In a sustained theoretical model based on language practices,

language beliefs and language management, this linguist describes how language policy is

formed and is (not) successfully implemented. I then zoom in on the school as a policy domain.

I conclude this section with reflections on the language framework designed by former minister

of Education Pascal Smet.

I also conducted a quantitative research among involved stakeholders. The applied method is

described in section three, followed by the research itself in section four. In a fifth and last

section, I intend to answer the three research questions and to formulate some concrete

recommendations for both policymakers and researchers.

4

5

2. Theoretical framework

2.1. Multilingual reality vs. monolingual nations: the case of Belgium

According to Rajend Mesthrie (2008), a non-aligned sociolinguist, most human societies have

an essentially multilingual nature. ‘Multilingual’ refers to a community or a society as a whole,

in which a certain number of languages are used (Spolsky 2004a: 4). Globalization and migration

started in the previous century have enforced this multilingual societies. The relationship

between language and society evolves continuously, which implies challenges for every citizen,

and especially for sociolinguists and governments.

As Bernard Spolsky (2008) and Mesthrie (2008) state, many Western countries hold on to the

device of ‘one state, one language’, linked to the period in which these countries arose. In the

case of European countries, this was the 19th century, which was marked by an intense

nationalism, “with accompanying attempts to make national borders co-terminous with

language (and vice versa)” (Mesthrie 2008: 73). Defining a centralized standard language was

crucial in the process of creating national identity. The focus on language status and corpus

planning was repeated at the so called end of colonialism after World War II. These

complications have had effects on education and the choice of language of instruction (Spolsky

2008: 3). Spolsky, citing Jones (2001), notes that about 125 of the world’s constitutions mention

language, and about 100 of them describe one or more official or national languages. These

languages have special privileges of use, decided by the state, or a rather local government

body (Spolsky 2004a: 8). This way, most nations still prefer to emphasize their monolingual

ideologies while in practice, they are multilingual (Baldauf & Minglin 2008: 125). Despite

political borders, most sociolinguists argue that there are almost no countries “where everyone

speaks, or identifies with, one language” (Meshtrie 2008: 74).

In Belgium, the language situation is peculiar and delicate. To give a quick but correct overview,

I consult ‘Taalwetwijzer’4, a document edited by the Flemish Government in 2002 that wraps

up the main language laws. At the emergence of the state in 1830, Belgian constitution was

quite liberal and included language freedom. In private atmospheres Belgian citizens were free

to choose their language. Although the majority of the citizens spoke Dutch, French was the

dominant language in public life. The Flemish, Dutch speaking elite fought for the recognition

4 ‘Taalwetwijzer’ can be downloaded: http://www.taalwetwijzer.be/

6

of Dutch as co-official language in order to participate in public and political life. This was

achieved in 1898 and written down in the ‘Gelijkheidswet’. In the 20th century, legislation

became more specific, focusing on the so called principle of territoriality. In two language laws

(1962 and 1963), territories were demarcated and a language border was officially established.

From then on, the regional administrative language was Dutch in Flanders and French in

Wallonia. The territory of the German speaking Belgians was also determined, together with

the exceptional rules for the region of Brussels, which became bilingual. Thus, despite territorial

unity of the country, there is been a non-violent struggle – sometimes overt, sometimes covert

- between speakers of Germanic dialects (Dutch in Flanders) and Romance dialects (French in

Wallonia). It is important to mention that this struggle is not only for linguistic but also for

economic reasons. Federalism has been the latest compromise, resulting in more authority for

the regions (Flemish, Walloon and Brussels-Capital Regions). The federal state also consists in

Dutch speaking, French speaking and German speaking Communities. The Communities have

their own institutions and are in charge of person-related matters, e.g. culture, welfare,

education and language. Belgian language legislation is a result of long negotiations and

contains, for the mentioned reasons, many subtle and delicate balances.

This way, Belgium is one of the countries with an explicit language policy in its constitution.

Language, nevertheless, is not only influenced by law. Also special interest groups, law courts,

institutions or businesses can decide which languages to use, teach or publish. Spolsky adds

more influencers, such as family members. The author decides, therefore, that whenever

people decide – explicitly or not – how to deal with language diversity, language policy is made

(Spolsky 2004a: 8).

7

2.2. Language policy: a model by B. Spolsky (2004)

To investigate this complex reality of language policies, Spolsky came up with a model in which

he describes three components that define language policy: practices, beliefs and

management. These components are interrelated but independently describable. Language

policy, furthermore, always takes place in a domain (Spolsky 2009: 4).

Language practices

With language practices, the author refers to everyday choices individual speakers make among

the varieties that make up a linguistic repertoire. These are observable and concrete

manifestations of language choice, sometimes consciously and sometimes less consciously

(Spolsky 2004a: 9).

Language beliefs

Language beliefs, or language ideology, concern the value or status individuals apply to a

specific language or language varieties. It are beliefs that determine which linguistic varieties

have the highest value and which ones are stigmatized. Language ideology contains all the

beliefs about language and language use, which derive from and influence language practices.

These beliefs are the basis for language management (Spolsky 2004a: 14).

Language management

This third component, finally, also called language planning or language intervention, on it’s

turn can be intended to confirm or modify beliefs. Language management refers to specific

efforts being made to modify or influence language practices or beliefs (Spolsky 2004a: 5), in

the formulation of an explicit, observable plan (Spolsky 2004a: 11). The efforts, made by

someone or some group, claim authority over individuals in a certain domain (Spolsky 2009: 4).

Language domain

With a domain, Spolsky refers to a concept introduced to sociolinguistics by Joshua Fishman

(1972). It designates a social space, such as family/home, school, neighbourhood, workplace,

public media, religious institutions or government. Each of these domains has its own language

policy, “with some features controlled internally and others under the influence or control of

external forces” (Spolsky 2007: 2).

8

A domain has three characteristics: it has participants, a location and a topic. Important to note

is that the participants are not just characterized as individuals, but by their social roles. In the

school domain, for example, participants might have the roles of school head, teacher or pupil

(Spolsky 2007: 2-3). Also, the fact that every individual has different roles in different domains

should be taken into account. Someone is not only a parent, but also a neighbour, an employer

etc., which implies that he’s familiar with language practices and beliefs of different domains.

One of the problems of centralized language management is that “higher” domains try to

influence “lower” domains without taking into account the practices and beliefs of their

participants (Spolsky 2007: 5).

Any form of language management is a manifestation of power coming from authority. It

assumes that the language manager – mostly the government – knows best and is in charge of

educating and cultivating those who do not. This is exactly why, according to Spolsky, it is in

essence patriarchal. From a liberal point of view, free choice of language, as of religion, should

be a basic right as they are a representation of someone’s social, cultural and religious identity.

An important condition is that this choice should not cause harm to others. Furthermore,

acquiring the official language should not be an obligation, but an opportunity to participate in

civic activities and to provide access to economic success. Every citizen should be offered this

opportunity, being assured that he/she is free to grab it or leave it. Spolsky calls this “language

accommodation” (Spolsky 2008: 4). Although it is an interesting matter to question what gives

a language manager the authority to decide for others, that is not the main purpose of this

thesis and therefore I will not discuss it more thoroughly. It is important to note, though, that

most scholars and sociolinguists tend toward activist positions, as their expertise gives them

the responsibility and ability to influence language education (Spolsky 2008: 4).

2.3. School domain

Now the language policy model has been made clear and the definition of a domain has been

given, I can zoom in on the school domain. Language and education have fundamental links.

Not only is language the main medium of education, education also has a profound effect on

language (Hudson 2008: 53). This is why, according to Spolsky, school is by its very nature a

domain committed to language management, but also the most complex of all domains. The

author argues that “major changes in language practices and beliefs are the results of

management activities concerning education” (Spolsky 2008: 3).

9

He distinguishes three participants inside the school domain:

Students

Students vary not only on age, gender, motivation but also in their languages variety (varieties).

Young children have already been introduced to language practices and beliefs in their home

domain, which is why they do not enter school as a ‘tabula rasa’. A first problem might come

across in their communication with the teachers, if these speak a language which their students

do not understand (Spolsky 2007: 7-8).

Teachers

They also vary on criteria as age, gender, experience, social status and language proficiency

(Spolsky 2007: 7-8). They are the ones who decide which language choice is appropriate, which

is an example of language management (Spolsky 2004a: 10).

Other significant participants

Of course, there are other significant participants, such as professional administrators (school

heads etc.) (Spolsky 2007: 8). There might be internal management, when only the school staff

determines their educational and linguistic goals. In most cases, management is (partly)

external, if it is executed by school boards, religious organisations, umbrella organisations, city

councils, provincial governments, central governments. As Spolsky points out, authority is often

divided among the various levels, and conflicts among them are common (2007: 8). According

to him, ideological beliefs often take over linguistic or educational considerations. He argues

that almost every school language policy is driven at least partly by the policy of the national

government (Spolsky 2007: 11).

The choice of which language(s) to use in classrooms in multilingual setting, for this reason, is

not innocent and forms a complex issue that has already been discussed for years. In 1953, a

committee of specialists commissioned by UNESCO published a report on language choice in

educational settings, especially in settings with a high degree of foreign students or students

with foreign roots. In the report, they stressed the importance of using pupils’ mother tongue

in the early years of formal education to achieve a successful development of their self-

expression. The committee also recommended that these pupils, as they are living in areas with

10

an official language different than their mother tongue, need to learn the official one as a

second language, which not necessarily implies using the official language as medium of

instruction (Meshtrie 2008: 79). Other theorists confirm the importance of initial education in

the vernacular language, with gradual transition to (another) standard language. The number

of years has varied, but recent research suggests that six years would be optimal to achieve the

best educational results (Spolsky 2007: 11, citing Heugh 2005 and Walter 2003).

Despite these findings, there are many practical circumstances that complicate functional use

of vernacular languages (“what to do in schools with a high multilingual intake?” “Are their

enough educational resources available?” etc.) (Meshtrie 2008: 79, citing Bull 1964 and Fasold

1984). Besides practical difficulties, there are also other language education models. A popular

one is submersion, “in which all elements of the educational environment are encountered in

a language (largely) unknown to the learner upon entry” (Walter 2008: 131). The main

assumption is that the child will automatically learn the language of education, which is why no

linguistic support is offered (Walter 2008: 131).

Controversy over the educational value of instruction in the vernacular language remains one

of the most basic issues in language education policy (Spolsky 2007:9). The majority of

governments imply only one year of preparation before switching to teaching in the standard

language (Spolsky 2008: 6). By minimizing use of vernacular language in classrooms, Mesthrie

argues, schools have often neglected the value of these languages. Nevertheless, sociolinguists

utter that multilingualism is not a transient phenomenon, which is why most of them are

sympathetic to the recognition and valorisation of society’s languages (Mesthrie 2008: 74).

2.4. Language policy in Belgian education

When it comes to Belgium, the ‘Onderwijstaalwet’ (1963) determines in which language

general classes such as mathematics are ought to be taught in kindergarten, primary and

secondary school. In the Flemish Community, the language of education is Dutch, except for

foreign language teaching. To facilitate the integration of foreign students, some schools –

together with the Flemish government – organise language supportive initiatives, such as

‘OKAN’ (Onthaalonderwijs voor anderstalige nieuwkomers). These classes offer a year of

intensive coursing in Dutch for children and youngsters who recently arrived in Flanders and do

not dominate Dutch sufficiently to participate in normal class (Taalwetwijzer 2002: 22-23).

11

The law does not contain any determinations about the pupils’ use of language in class or at

the playground. Nevertheless, there are schools in the Flemish Community that include a

language clause in their school regulations, determining that inside school only Dutch is

allowed. This clause does not conflict with constitutional language freedom, as a school

regulation can be seen as a contract between school and parents. Parents, when signing it,

agree with the rights and obligations. A language clause is therefore allowed, as long as no

sanctions are attached to the non-compliance.5 This means that, although the language of

education has to be Dutch, schools are free to allow or forbid any degree of integration of

vernacular languages.

Nevertheless, the Flemish government is well aware of the diverse society and has tried to

develop frameworks concerning diversity in our education system. In 2011, former Flemish

minister of Education Pascal Smet (SP.A) wrote a 42 pages concept paper: ‘Samen taalgrenzen

verleggen’6. It was approved by the Flemish Government. In this paper, he acknowledges

diversity among pupils and admits the urge of a clear, visionary approach. Smet wanted to

provide a framework to stimulate an active language policy at school:

De taalheterogeniteit in de samenleving laat zich uiteraard in de klas voelen. (…) De ambitie van deze

nota is dan ook vooral: een kader bieden waarbij we het de schoolteams, directies, leraren mogelijk

maken om, rekening houdend met de achtergrond en de capaciteiten van hun leerlingen, én met hun

leefwereld en die van de school, een talenbeleid te voeren dat het best bij de school aansluit (Smet 2011:

6).

The document is meant for teachers, umbrella organisations and the government itself. If the

current minister wants to come up with a similar framework, it might be useful to take a look

at the reactions to this one. Vlor7 and umbrella organisation OVSG8 did not doubt the good

intentions of Smet, but had some remarks. The used quotes are subtracted from the official

Vlor-response, but the ideas it expresses can also be found in the OVSG-response.

5 Derived from http://www.taalwetwijzer.be/onderwijs/veel_gestelde_vragen.html 6 The full concept paper can be consulted: http://www.coc.be/files/publications/.175/20110722%20talennota%20Smet.pdf 7 The full response can be consulted: http://www.vlor.be/sites/www.vlor.be/files/ar-ar-adv-002.pdf 8 The full response can be consulted: http://www.ovsg.be/standpunten/standpunt-van-ovsg-over-de-conceptnota-samen-taalgrenzen-verleggen

12

First, both responses welcomed the evaluation of vernacular languages as an opportunity

rather than a problem. Nevertheless, Vlor remarked that the note only mentioned the use of

vernacular languages in kindergarten, not in the further curriculum. A quote makes clear that

Vlor supports what Piet Van Avermaet calls “functional multilingual learning”9:

De Vlor betreurt dat de minister deze positieve houding ten opzichte van thuistalen niet altijd consequent

doortrekt. (…) Een goede beheersing van een rijke thuistaal kan echter net een middel zijn om

taalvaardigheden in het Nederlands te verbeteren. (…) De raad vindt dat de thuistaal kan gebruikt worden

in functie van goed onderwijs en als dit gebruik bijdraagt tot een betere kennis van het Nederlands. (Vlor

2011: 6)

Furthermore, Vlor critiqued the fact that the note did not contain enough concrete objectives,

while it obligated some measures, undermining school’s autonomy:

De Vlor verwacht van de overheid dat zij een duidelijk beleidskader uittekent, in overleg

minimumdoelstellingen bepaalt onder de vorm van eindtermen of ontwikkelingsdoelen en de nodige

middelen voorziet om de autonome professionele inbreng van scholen en hun teams en van de

pedagogische begeleidingsdiensten te faciliteren. Scholen en leerkrachten zijn zelf verantwoordelijk voor

de manier waarop zij dit talenbeleid gestalte geven in hun school. (…) De overheid kan niet bepalen hoe

zij die doelen moeten bereiken (…) De minister houdt in deze conceptnota onvoldoende rekening met

deze taakverdeling. (…) Zij bevat geen expliciete doelen, geen beoogde resultaten en geen tijdpad. De

nota laat ook te veel ruimte voor interpretatie, vooral omdat de algemene visie op talenbeleid (…) niet

altijd consequent wordt doorgetrokken. (Vlor 2011: 4-5, my emphasis)

Vlor and OVSG expect the government to determine concrete goals (what should be obtained),

providing freedom for schools/umbrella organisations to decide how to reach these objectives.

This is a delicate balance that requires enough dialogue with the field. Summed up, the major

criticism were:

- A lack of financial resources

- A lack of continuity, for example in the positive approach of vernacular languages

- A lack of explicit objectives, formed through a growing path with priorities vs. a lack of

autonomy for the schools and umbrella organisations

9 With “functioneel meertalig leren” Van Avermaet means the use of the child’s multilingual register as didactic material to

improve his/her school results. This way, vernacular languages are actively used to learn school language.

13

2.5. Implementing language policy

A lack of autonomy to adapt policies to local contexts might indeed be detrimental, according

to the consulted scientists. Lewis & Trudell (2008) point out a critical role for the local

community perspective, in contrast to nationally mandated policy. The reason for this is,

according to the authors, that a community’s language use is a very “locally-sited cultural

phenomenon, and so intimately bound into the identity of that community” (Lewis & Trudell

2008: 271). This is why national policymakers have to be very careful to provide enough

freedom for local policymakers, umbrella organisations and schools themselves.

As Burton (2013) argues, a top-down approach is only really successful for policies with low

ambiguity and low conflict that are easy to interpret and do not create resistance. Language

policy, on the other hand, has high ambiguity and high conflict, and requires more involvement

from the field to become sustainable and effective (Burton 2013: 7). According to most linguists

that contributed to ‘The Handbook of Educational Linguistic’ (Spolsky 2008), the emphasis

should therefore be on agency instead of technical planning. The success of language

management depends on its congruity with the language situation (language practices) and the

consensual ideology (language beliefs). Rather than a top-down approach that does not

consider the local context, the top should aim to stimulate the field to take initiatives and

facilitate a good communication between the top and the bottom. Nevertheless, this does not

mean language attitudes are immutable: local perceptions can be influenced by positive

example, such as “personal testimony from those whose opinion is respected” (Lewis & Trudell

2008: 272). This is a good practice that will be taken into account in my communication analysis.

14

3. Research method

In order to investigate what the main beliefs about linguistic diversity at school are, how they

are communicated and how a framework could (not) be a solution, I conducted research on

four aspects10:

Research on the existing language beliefs & management of researchers, policymakers,

the field (teachers and school heads) and umbrella organisations

Analysis of a panel discussion on 20 May 2016

Research on the communication of language beliefs & management between

researchers and the general public

Analysis of a ‘Koppen’-reportage on 25 May 2016

Research on the communication of language beliefs & management between

researchers and policymakers

Analysis of a hearing session in the commission of Education, Flemish Parliament

on 2 June 2016

Interviews with two Aldermen of education (Ghent and Antwerp)

Research on the communication of language beliefs & management between the

government, the educational field and the general public

Interview with a responsible of the Inspectorate

Analysis of the communication by ‘Klasse’ (including qualitative interview with

the responsible editor)

Interviews with communication employees of two other initiatives undertaken

or supported by the Flemish government: STEM and Bednet

Note: I did not interview members of the educational field themselves (teachers and school

heads, but also parents), because the Department and Piet Van Avermaet were worried that

they already participated in many other surveys. Also, their main language beliefs were already

exposed in the MARS-research. Nevertheless, a teacher and a school head were present during

the panel discussion. Of course I do not aim to pretend that they represent the entire field, but

it gave me an idea. As I did not witness language practices of teachers/students in class, the

main focus of my analysis will be on language beliefs and management. It resulted difficult to

separate language beliefs from management beliefs, as they are very related to each other.

10All the qualitative interviews were recorded and can be requested from the author of this thesis.

15

4. Research analysis

4.1. Overview of existing language beliefs & management: panel discussion

An excellent starting point for my research was a panel discussion on 20 May in Brussels. This

panel discussion was organised by the Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Science and Arts

(KVAB), as a result of a ‘Viewpoint’11 published in October 2015. In this ‘Viewpoint’, Piet Van

Avermaet, Stef Slembrouck and Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen, researchers involved in the

MARS-research, treat linguistic diversity in Flemish education. Rather than a research report,

this Viewpoint is a plea for “an educational policy and practice based on a more realistic analysis

and at the same time advocates a more humane approach” (Viewpoint 2015: 38). The editors

plead for a different educational model than the currently dominating one (i.e. exploiting

linguistic diversity as didactic capital rather than the common submersion-model) and for more

open and tolerant perceptions and practices among teachers and politicians. For this reason,

with this ‘Viewpoint’ the editors openly take position in the debate.

Nevertheless, they did not participate in the discussion12. After an introduction from the

president of the KVAB, Van Avermaet, Slembrouck and Simon-Vandenbergen briefly resumed

the main topics of their publication. The following discussion took one hour and fifteen

minutes. Afterwards, there were fifteen minutes more for the public to ask questions. It was a

good opportunity to analyze and summarize the language beliefs, practices and management

of the participants, which were chosen carefully. Almost every body involved in language policy

at schools was represented: researchers (linguists), a teacher, a school head, three main

umbrella organisations and Flemish politicians (members of the commission of Education in the

Flemish Parliament).

11 KVAB publishes at least eight Viewpoints every year, each with the support of some Academy members and some external specialists. In these Viewpoints KVAB provides founded information on developments that affect society in the long term. The one about MARS can be downloaded: http://www.kvab.be/default.aspx?lang=en 12 The panel discussion can be consulted: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gwyAYMgDD4

16

Name Role

Steven De Laet Umbrella organisation OVSG

Christel Martens Umbrella organisation GO!

Iris Philips Umbrella organisation KOV

Kirsten Rosiers UGent-researcher, associated with the Validiv-project13

Luk Van Mensel UNamur-researcher, associated with a project on immersion education

Annelies De Man Kindergarten teacher at VBS De Mozaïek (Ghent)

Benny

Vandevoorde

School head of KTA Groenkouter (Ghent)

Kathleen Helsen Member of commission of Education Flemish Parliament (CD&V)

Koen Daniëls Member of commission of Education Flemish Parliament (NV-A)

As there was not enough time for the participants to largely set out current management

systems, most of them expressed how ideal management would look like. In my analysis, I

group the ideas the different participants expressed. This facilitates a comparison between the

different actors in the process of policy making/implementing.

Researchers

Beliefs o In the process of language acquisition by non-native speaking children, the broader

context and especially socioeconomic status (SES)-characteristics have an important

influence and should, for this reason, be taken into account.

o Acknowledgement and functional use of vernacular languages enforces the pupil’s

well-being and facilitates interaction between pupils among each other or between

pupils and teacher.

o Teachers should not fear segregation or lack of control: with tolerance and good

agreements, positive results are obtained.

Management o With more financial support, teachers could be supported and coached better,

which is necessary.

o Parents should be more involved to motivate their children.

o Attention for every child’s specific situation and school’s setting is better than a

general approach. For this reason, autonomy (and resources!) for schools is

preferable over too strict top-down policies. In Brussels, policies could be loosened

up, as nowadays teachers feel limited by a strict one language policy.

13 Valorising Linguistic Diversity in Multiple Contexts of Primary Education (Validiv) was a cooperation between UGent, KU Leuven and VUBrussel and ran from 2012 until 2015. The main objective was to valorise existing linguistic diversity and linguistic repertoires of pupils (e.g., English, French, immigrant languages) within educational processes in primary education in Flanders. It included fieldwork in Ghent and Brussels. Piet Van Avermaet and Stef Slembrouck were also involved in this project.

17

Despite the fact that the two researchers conduct research in slightly different areas, both of

them were supportive about the ‘Viewpoint’. It was interesting that a critical point that they

mentioned, i.e. teacher’s fear and how good coaching could remedy this, became very obvious

in the representative participants of the field.

Educational field

The kindergarten teacher works at a school that was intensively coached during the

‘Ontwikkelen van schoolse vaardigheden via de thuistaal’-project (2008-2012)14, organised by

the local city council of Ghent. The school head is in charge of a big technical secondary school

with a high degree of students with a multicultural background.

Annelies De Man, kindergarten teacher Benny Vandevoorde, school head

Practi

ces

o Dutch is the operating language, but

vernacular languages are used functionally:

e.g. every morning, the pupils conduct a small

group conversation. If one of them uses a word

that has a different meaning in another language,

the teacher actively asks for this meaning. This

way, they actively discuss different languages.

o Dutch is the operating and only common

language, with an important exception:

in some disciplines, students are in touch with

non-native speakers and are allowed to speak

other languages (e.g. Turkish when doing an

internship in facilities for elderly with Turkish

speaking residents)

Beliefs o (Vernacular) language is part of one’s

identity. We have to accept this with an

inclusive approach, and stimulate our pupils

to develop their identity in the best way

possible.

o The problem is not language use, but the

broader context and socioeconomic status

of the families.

o It is simply impossible to control a school

filled with youngsters and teenagers, if

we allow them to speak their own

language. Or segregation takes place, or

the teacher feels threatened. Dutch

facilitates control.

o The problem is that outside school,

students live in ‘subcommunities’ where

the widespread use of vernacular

languages does not require Dutch.

Mana

geme

nt

o The teacher is a coach during the entire

development process of the child.

o There is no need for more or stricter

policies, but for more flexibility and

(financial) sources to foresee coaching.

o In the first place, the teacher has to be

a good technician, not a language

specialist.

o The “Only Dutch”-policy is clear for

everybody.

14 It focused on acquiring a supportive attitude towards linguistic diversity among teachers and pupils, functional using

vernacular languages and strengthening language skills in these vernacular languages before switching to Dutch. On behalf of the city council, researchers from the KUL (Machteld Verhelst, also head of the KOV-umbrella) and UGent (Piet Van Avermaet)

did an evaluation study, which showed positive results.

18

As participants in the actual field, these two participants of the panel discussion were the only

ones who revealed some of their actual language practices. What is more interesting,

nevertheless, is the difference between their language beliefs, resulting – as Spolsky pointed

out – in different management. While Annelies, most likely thanks to the coaching her school

received, agrees with the ‘Viewpoint’ and the two researchers, Benny is more reluctant and has

a rather practical approach towards his students. He wants them to become good technicians,

with opportunities on the job market (for which he grants, rightly, a lot of importance to Dutch).

It is likely that, as the MARS-research showed, many teachers share his preoccupations. It is

clear that the evidence of positive results when using vernacular languages functionally does

not convince him. This might be because beliefs are partly based on emotional, gut feelings. He

showed interest in the testimony of Annelies, but it was clear it would take actual coaching to

change his management.

Umbrella organisations:

It was remarkable that the representatives of the different umbrella organisations were

unanimous: they were not surprised by the results of the MARS-research and confirm the

determined ‘trends’. They did not go into detail about their practices, but expressed that they

aim to support their teacher teams. Among schools, they determine a great diversity in

approach: some schools have a far developed, inclusive language policy, while others do not

(as shown in the testimonies of the teacher and school head). Summarised, they expressed:

Beliefs o Language management at schools should be visionary: what kind of society would

we like to live in in 30 years? Our society is diverse, and so are our schools. We would

better deal with it positively. Dutch is off course important, but as target language in

the long term.

o The general development of every child’s own identity – of which vernacular

language is a part - is the most important.

o The broader context and SES-characteristics have an important impact on this

development.

Management o We would like to coach our teams better, but there is a lack of resources.

o We would like to see teachers better prepared to cope with diversity, what means a

challenge for teacher education.

o Policy should determine that there is room for diversity, the concrete management

should not be captured, as this is part of school’s (and umbrella organisation’s)

autonomy.

19

As can be deduced, their language beliefs and beliefs about management match with those of

the researchers. These beliefs cannot be detached from their vision on society as a whole. They

understand teachers’ concerns and strive for better coaching, which they consider their job.

Therefore, they argue, rather than a framework, financial resources should be provided.

Policymakers

The two politicians expressed the following beliefs and (beliefs about) management:

Kathleen Helsen (CD&V) Koen Daniëls (NV-A)

Beliefs o The total development of the

child’s identity is the most

important: language is a part of this.

o Therefore, acknowledgment and

functional use of vernacular

languages is crucial.

o Language is important to provide

integration. Widespread allowance of

vernacular languages might cause

segregation, which disturbs integration.

Also parents have a key role in this

integration process.

o Diversity has to be accepted, but

without lowering our educational

standards.

o Besides SES, also IQ has a key role in

language development.

Management o Policymakers have to determine

WHAT goals are to be achieved –

based on scientific research -, not

HOW. This belongs to the

autonomy of schools.

o Policymakers have to constantly

adapt to reality and should

stimulate the field.

o Policymakers have to determine WHAT

goals are to be achieved, not HOW. This

belongs to the autonomy of schools.

o Policymakers have to monitor the

quality of our education system.

The politicians, both members of the Flemish majority-coalition, look at language differently,

i.e. as a part of one’s identity vs. as a tool to optimize integration. Koen Daniëls shares the fear

for segregation that school head Benny Vandevoorde also expressed. It is remarkable that,

despite the fact that both politicians believe in the autonomy of schools, they see their role as

government slightly different. While Helsen focusses on stimulation, Daniëls attaches more

importance to monitoring. Given these different approaches, it is likely that formulating a

framework on which both the parties they represent agree will be a difficult task.

20

4.2. Communication of language beliefs & management between researchers and the

general public: Koppen

On Wednesday 25 May 2016, the current affairs show ‘Koppen’ dedicated a reportage to the

subject, zooming in on the Sint-Salvatorschool in Ghent15. This school was also involved in the

‘Ontwikkelen van schoolse vaardigheden via de thuistaal’-project (2008-2012), organised by

the local city council of Ghent. Their approach is similar to the one of VBS De Mozaïek, which

was represented by teacher Annelies De Man in the panel discussion. They allow vernacular

languages and use them actively in the process of learning Dutch. The reportage alternated

shots capturing the playground and classrooms with four testimonies: 6th grade teacher Bart,

kindergarten teacher Els, assistent teacher Gülsa and researcher Piet Van Avermaet.

Bart and Els tell how the school’s population, at the beginning of the 20th century, evolved to

100% migrant’s children. They did not know how to cope with this reality and implemented an

“only-Dutch”-policy. Since eight years, the school allows the use of vernacular language at the

playground. They also actively use these languages in class, for example when reading books,

singing songs or helping newly arrived children. Both teachers testify that at the beginning, they

were afraid to lose control if their pupils would only speak vernacular languages. Though it

costed time and effort, they are happy with and proud of their current approach. They are

convinced of the positive effects on the well-being of the children, but also on learning Dutch.

When Gülsa was young, she spoke Turkish at home. Her school punished her if she spoke it

with friends at school. According to her, actively using vernacular languages optimizes the

communication between students and teachers, but also between school and parents. Parents

feel more involved, which has great effects on the results of the children too. Gülsa underlines

the importance of good agreements. At the playground, pupils have to switch to Dutch as soon

as not all the playmates understand the common language.

Piet Van Avermaet explains that he regrets that many people still believe submersion is the only

way to learn Dutch. He adds that no scientific research confirms this. On the contrary, he

continues, vernacular languages can be a stepping stone towards learning Dutch. He also

underlines the importance of the motivation and self-esteem of the children. Education would

benefit if we could get over this discussion, he says. He states that “multiculturalism, including

15 The full reportage can be consulted: http://www.een.be/programmas/koppen/hoe-zeg-je-dat-in-het-turks

21

language, benefits all of us” (Van Avermaet, my translation). This is, of course, a rather

ideological statement, confirming again athat the approach of vernacular language cannot be

disconnected from ideology. With this statement, Van Avermaet expressed a vision on society,

which he also exposed in the already mentioned ‘Viewpoint’.

The reportage deserves rewards for showing this testimony, without using a didactic approach

or defining the approach of Sint-Salvator as the only correct one. As a critical note, I would say

that they did not zoom in on how the school altered their language policy, which concrete

practices were implemented, how they manage practical issues, etc. However, the main

purpose - drawing attention to the matter - was accomplished. On the Facebookpage of the

program, two announcements about the reportage were made. One was published 24 May

2016 and was shared 177 times. On the day the reportage was broadcasted, May 25, the

announcement was shared 99 times. As a comparison: during the month May, announcements

about reportages (on various topics) were averagely shared 42 times. This leads to the

conclusion that the reportage on the Sint-Salvatorschool provoked interest. Although privacy

matters do not allow to see the identity of all sharers, some are public. It turns out that besides

individuals, many local non-governmental organisations with multicultural interests shared the

announcement, as well as Higher Education Institutions in charge of teacher education (Karel

De Grote – Antwerp, HoGent - Gent and Odissee - Brussels). All these ‘shares’ were

accompanied by positive, recommending messages, which shows that the teacher education-

institutions too have an encouraging attitude towards a positive approach of multilingualism.

Interesting as well was the share of Elke Decruynaere, Alderman for education at the city

council of Ghent. Her supportive attitude will become more explicit in the next section. The

announcements also counted on about 20 reactions each, mostly teachers recommending the

reportage to each other. Nevertheless, there were a few negative ones too, focussing of the

bad side-effects of multiculturalism in general.

On Twitter, the hashtags #koppen and #meertaligheid give 19 results. Most of the tweets came

from teachers or researchers (involved in Validiv). Two tweets were negative comments about

multiculturalism, indicating again that it is a delicate subject. One of the positive tweets was

made by Machteld Verhelst, head of the KOV-umbrella, confirming their encouraging attitude.

22

The reportage, thus, surely reached a broad audience. Measuring how this will effect school’s

policies is difficult, but it became clear that many teachers and institutes show interest in the

discusses approach. Nevertheless, the reactions also show that beliefs about language cannot

be separated from ideology and opinions about multiculturalism, which are difficult to

influence.

23

4.3. Communication of language beliefs & management between researchers and

policymakers

4.3.1. Parliament

On 2 June 2016, the MARS-researchers presented the results officially in the commission of

Education in the Flemish Parliament (for an overview of all the members, see Appendices A). In

19 slides, they exposed the purpose, questions, method and results of the research. They also

added recommendations. Important for this public of politicians was the plea for a more

delicate screening system. Nowadays, when parents enrol their children in schools, they have

to indicate which language is spoken at home. The researchers pointed out that social

desirability has an impact on the parents’ answer, and for this reason, the filled in forms are

not always in line with reality. Also, the current screening system is still rather binary: a child

speaks Dutch at home, or he/she does not. Depending on this home language, schools get

financial resources from the government to improve language education. The research

revealed that this binary distinction turns out to be more complex, which is why the subsidy

system as well should be reconsidered. The researchers also underlined the importance of a

switch in mindset, that should encourage teachers, school heads and schools to consider

multilingualism as an added value. What they asked from the policymakers is to elaborate a

framework that allows a more diverse and efficient use of (financial) resources,

professionalization of schools and more attention for diversity during teacher education.

Afterwards, the present members of the commission were given time to ask their questions.

Based on the questions they asked, a difference of attitudes between certain parties could be

noticed (which was also the case during the panel discussion). On the one hand, Ann Brusseel

(Open VLD), Jo De Ro (Open VLD) and Caroline Gennez (SP.A) did not challenge the outcomes

of the investigation. They shared the same, rather practical questions about the research and

other insecurities regarding a better language policy. It was remarkable as well that none of

them tackled the financial resources-issue. This seems to be rather difficult. On the other hand,

Koen Daniëls (NV-A) and Katleen Krekels (NV-A) also shared some practical questions similar to

the ones made by other members, but disposed a more restrained, critical attitude towards

the outcomes. Summarized, the main questions/remarks are shown in the following table. If

the answers of the researchers were valuable for this thesis, they are also included.

24

Category Made by different members Made by only one member

Regarding

the research

o How does language development take

place in one parent families? (Brusseel,

Gennez, Daniëls, my translation)

o Are you planning to do more research?

(De Ro, Krekels, my translation)

o How did you investigate the attitude

of teachers and school heads?

(Krekels, my translation)

o Did you investigate the language use

of parents? (Daniëls, my translation)

Regarding

management

o Do you have an idea of how schools are

currently doing with language policy?

(Brusseel, Gennez, De Ro, my

translation)

Response: It depends very much, there is a big difference between schools. (my translation) o How is teacher education doing?

(Brusseel, De Ro, my translation)

Response: There has been improvement, but we’ve got a long way to go, instead of implementing a ‘diversity module’, we would better implement a general approach towards diversity. (my translation) o How can we practically organise a more

adequate screening? (Brusseel,

Gennez, De Ro, Daniëls, my translation)

o As the results show, children speak

more Dutch than we would expect,

which is good. I’m a speech

therapist, and I’ve learned that

children need to know clearly who to

speak which language with. This

means, there has to be a clear

distinction: Dutch at school, and

vernacular language at home. Of

course I do not support

punishments, but I do believe in a

distinction. (Krekels, my translation)

o A lot of resources meant to improve

Dutch nowadays are not used

correctly. (Daniëls, my translation)

o Shouldn’t we take into account IQ as

well? (Daniëls, my translation)

Krekels’ quote about school vs. home language reproduced exactly the dichotomy that the

researchers aim to overcome. This is a great example of different language beliefs that

automatically result in different language management. Her colleague Daniëls focussed on the

topics he also mentioned during the panel discussion. Again he launched the idea of a relation

between IQ and school results. This time, the researchers contested this assumption, by saying

that previous research taught that more than IQ, SES-characteristics have an important impact

on the results of multilingual children.

No decisions or conclusions were made during this session, but once again it was shown that

different beliefs among politicians would not make policy making easier. Regardless research

results or communication campaigns, these seem ideological differences difficult to overcome.

25

4.3.2. Local level: Aldermen for education in Ghent and Antwerp

Local governments, more specific: Aldermen for education, are also highly involved in language

policy at schools, especially for schools belonging to the OVSG-umbrella. From the projects that

have been mentioned, it already became clear that the city of Ghent is supportive about

functional multilingual learning. Another big Flemish city with a high degree of immigrants is

Antwerp. To understand the vision and functioning of the Aldermen of education of these two

cities, I interviewed cabinet members of both, representing the vision of the Aldermen.

City Alderman for education Cabinet member

Ghent Elke Decruynaere (Groen) Sarah Steenkiste

Antwerp Claude Marinower (Open VLD) Kurt Vleeminckx

It is noteworthy that both Aldermen, despite the fact that they belong to different political

parties, shared quite similar beliefs, practices and management. Both of them are very familiar

with Piet Van Avermaet and have worked together with him on various projects. They are very

convinced of the positive results. I summarize the interviews again in a comparative table:

Beliefs From a gut feeling people tend to think “The more Dutch, the better”. Nevertheless,

research results show this is not true and that banning vernacular languages is not a

good idea, as this is part of children’s identity.

Management o Both believe in a bottom-down approach rather than in a top-down policy, with strict implications.

o Both undertake initiatives to stimulate functional multilingual learning. They work together with other umbrella organisations, organize seminars, etc.

: Antwerp: working on a more intensive plan.

Ghent: approach already anchored in internal agreements.

Tools : Antwerp: still notice difficulties among teachers and school heads, while there are

plenty of tools to help them, such as Metrotaal

Ghent: still notice difficulties, which is why more tools could be provided

Communication o Lately, there has been a changing trend: there is more attention for multilingualism and a more positive attitude among the field, the press and the public, also in the communication of minister Crevits.

o Nevertheless, there is still need for more sensitisation and sharing of good practices, seminars, testimonies, … (rather than a framework).

o Ghent: what would definitely work, is more target group communication.

26

4.4. Communication of language beliefs & management between the government, the

educational field and the general public

4.4.1. Inspectorate

The Inspectorate of Education is an institution allied to the Department of Education and is

responsible for the review of schools and educational institutions. The Inspectorate strives to

not have a merely controlling or evaluating role. They are working on the implementation of a

new way of screening, starting in September 2017. With this “Inspectorate 2.0”, as they call it,

they desires to actively stimulate schools and educational institutions to maintain and improve

the quality of their education. Therefore, the Inspectorate considers it crucial to integrate

attention for diversity as well. For this reason they requested a collaboration with Piet Van

Avermaet during the seminar of 19 October 2016. The Inspectorate carries out the vision of the

Flemish government and enters the educational field frequently, which is why they are an

important communication channel between these two actors. For this reason, I considered it

interesting to clarify their vision and interviewed inspector Ann Schelfhout. The following

conclusions can be made:

The Inspectorate is bound by two frameworks (CIPO & M-decree). These do not mention

explicit language policy. Both put diversification and inclusion forward, as they aim for an

approach tailored to the specific personality and needs of every individual child.

Therefore, the Inspectorate aims to be better informed about diversity and multilingualism,

and to sensitise their inspectors.

The Inspectorate notices a big diversity in how schools approach multilingualism.

The Inspectorate notices a thin line between controlling and stimulating, but prefers positive

stimulation. To achieve this, all participants are important (Inspectorate, the field, parents’

associations, students’ associations, especially school heads and umbrella organisations).

They are aware of the fact that it is a delicate subject linked to ideological beliefs. As they do

not want to force the field to implement a certain approach, they advocate a continuous

sensitisation.

Ann – on her own behalf – underlines the importance of positive examples and

testimonies. Reportages such as the one ‘Koppen’ made, are an excellent method to

make schools question their current language policies.

27

4.4.2. Klasse

One of the main communication channels between the government, the educational field

(teachers, school heads and educational supervisors) and parents (part of the general public) is

‘Klasse’. This magazine first appeared in 1989. Due to savings, the editorial staff came up with

another approach. Since September 2015, Klasse is a multimedia communication platform

rather than a magazine16. This includes:

Website with free articles about different topics related to education

Very active profile on Twitter, Pinterest, Youtube, LinkedIn, Facebook (with almost 20.000

followers)

Free newsletter for teachers, school heads, …

In-depth magazine that appears every 3 months, meant for teachers and educational

supervisors, dedicated to specific topics (e.g. ‘differentiation’).

The editors’ starting point is: “what necessities do the educational field and parents have?”

Beyond merely informing, Klasse wants to be a platform where their main public can

interconnect, support and inspire each other. Through positive journalism, Klasse strives to

increase participation of teachers, school heads, parents and pupils’ The editorial staff works

independently, but its publisher is the Department of Education. Klasse belongs to the

Communication section of the Department. Therefore, their vision cannot be separated from

the government’s one. One of their 9 values is that they “consider diversity as powerful”

(Klasse, my translation). This is reflected in the articles on their website dedicated to

multiculturalism/multilingualism. From November 2015 until now (August 2016), Klasse

published 8 articles on its website related in some way to the subject:17

16 All information about Klasse can be consulted on https://www.klasse.be/wat-is-klasse/ 17 All the articles can be consulted on https://www.klasse.be

28

Date & Title Form Key messages

25/11/2015

‘Meertalig

voorlezen

versterkt de

band met je

leerlingen’

Testimony

Tips

The Sint-Salvatorschool (Ghent)18 changed its language policy and now

actively integrates children’s mother tongue, still focusing on the acquisition

of Dutch. This offers safety, a better contact, more respect and a better

general language development.

15/6/2015 ‘10

tips om

moedertaal te

integreren in

je klas’

Tips Short tips based on the book ‘Meertaligheid: een troef!‘ by Ayse Isci and Sara

Gielen.

20/6/2015 ‘8

meertalige

spelletjes’

Tips Not only meant for immigrant’s children, but focused on language learning in

general: language sensitisation works.

2/7/2015

‘Gebruik de

thuistaal van je

kleuters’

Tips Dedicated to a young teacher who won the Klasse Scriptionprice 2014 for her

thesis on the positive effect of implementing vernacular languages in

kindergartens.

2/8/2015 ‘We

halen de

thuistaal in de

klas’

Testimony In kindergarten De Bijtjes (Antwerp) they have 6 special teachers with special

attention for language development. The school allows the pupils to speak

their mother tongue among each other.

2/8/2015

‘Moet ik

Nederlands

spreken met

mijn kind?’

Tips A message to parents: communicate with your child in the language you feel

most comfortable with. It is okay if this is not Dutch.

25/8/2015 ‘5

misverstanden

over meertalig

opvoeden’

Tips A message to parents, similar to the previous article.

17/4/2016

‘Meertaligheid

als talent, niet

als probleem’

Evidence Conclusions of the MARS-investigation.

18 The same school that was mentioned in ‘Koppen’

29

On their Facebookpage as well posts related to the topic have been published. The three posts

always focus on testimony and best practices, as the following pictures indicate:

A) B) (link to the 1st article mentioned in table)

C) (link to the reportage of ‘Koppen’)

30

Thirdly, their YouTube-channel includes a lecture of sociologist Dirk Geldhof about diversity in

our society and education system19. One of the topics is multilingualism. Geldhof, although he

was not involved in MARS, corresponds to the MARS-researcher’s conclusions by striving for a

functional approach of vernacular languages, in order to learn Dutch.

An analysis of the articles, Facebookposts, YouTubepost and an interview with the editor of

most of the articles (Leen Leemans) leads to the following conclusions:

Klasse is not politically engaged, but clearly cares for diversity and linguistic diversity in

schools. In line with its mission, it tries to create a platform for debate and the exchange of

good practices. The editors’ tone is positive and stimulating, as can be derived from the

frequently used ‘tips’.

The editors notice that communication through images and testimonies works best.

Klasse plans to announce the seminar of 19 October, as well as an article dedicated to it.

The language beliefs of Klasse seem to match with the ones of the Inspectorate. Both bodies

belong to the Department of Education and, although they work independently, the mission

and vision they carry out has to count on the support of the Department. For this reason, and

because of the organisation of a seminar in October, it can be concluded that the Department

supports the approach of the researchers and the vision on language policy that the three main

umbrella organisations have. Nevertheless, both the Department and the umbrella

organisations, rather than determining a strict but positive framework, seem to aim for a lot of

autonomy for the educational field. They do not want to impose rules that do not stroke with

language beliefs present in the field. They would like to open the debate to exchange different

approaches towards vernacular languages, hoping for positive effects. This means, they prefer

to work bottom-up than bottom-down. This asks for fluent communication and an easy

exchange of testimonies and practices. To make recommendations on how to improve is, it

might be interesting to briefly have a look at other governmental initiatives.

19 The full video can be consulted: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TSYVSpFbyE. For the ‘Multilingualism’ chapter: 10:31-13:57.

31

4.3.3. Other initiatives

4.3.3.1. STEM20

STEM stands for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics. STEM aims to make young

people enthusiastic about these fields. The Flemish government (Department of Education,

together with the Department of Economic and the Department of Culture) developed a

framework called “STEM Action Plan”. This lead to a STEM platform, which is an advisory group

of experts. They created a STEM Academy, a network of extracurricular initiatives for children

and young people. This structure only became clear to me during my interview with Katrien De

Schrijver, employee of the STEM platform. The rather unclear structure of STEM-related

initiatives is one of her biggest frustrations. Katrien started to make STEM-profiles on social

media on her own initiative, as no resources for communication were provided. When

searching on Google, many different websites related to STEM are suggested, such as

Richtingmorgen, Kiezenvoorstem, KlasCement, STEMopschool, STEMacademie. The best

practices/lessons that might be useful for the communication on multilingual reality/a

framework are:

Design a very clear framework, which will benefit communication

Design a platform-site that serves each target group

Make sure this platform, as a bottom-down tool, offers the possibility for the field to

react and exchange (bottom-up)

Use social media, they are an ideal method for interaction and creating communities:

o Provide practical, hands-on messages

o Publish results of reports, research, …: evidence-based communication works

o Publish inspiring examples, testimonies, …

20 For more information: http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/STEM/Wat/Default.htm

32

4.3.3.2. Bednet21

Bednet connects Flemish children (6-18 years old) with a long-term or chronic illness with their

class via Internet. This way, they are able to follow lessons during their absence and to stay in

touch with their teachers and classmates. Bednet is a non-profit organisation that was

recognized by the government in 2014 and anchored in a decree. This means that long-term or

chronically ill children are entitled to synchronous internet education. Another result is the fact

that the expenses for staff and daily operations are fully funded by the Flemish government.

This way, the funding Bednet receives from other partners could be (partly) spent on visibility

and communication. One of these staff employees (Sophie Reyntens), with whom I had an

interview, works fulltime on communication. In contrast to STEM, Bednet counted on the

support of a professional communication office to establish communication campaigns. Sophie

explained that they came up with direct (parents, teachers, school heads) and indirect (doctors,

nurses, social workers, …) mailing to make advertisement. They also created a very clear, good

working website and established partnerships with radio stations. It is rather unlikely that this

will be possible for the multilingual reality-topic too, but nevertheless, there are some good

practices that could be useful:

Make sure the platform-website is smartphone-friendly

Target group communication works

A field visit of the minister of Education draws the attention of the press

If possible, recruit consultants/coaches that can do actual fieldwork, i.e. visit schools,

give lectures, offer assistance, …: networking and word of mouth work well in a small

area as Flanders.

21 For more information: http://www.bednet.be/bednet-english

33

5. Conclusions & recommendations Globalization, migration, multiculturalism and linguistic diversity cause great challenges for

societies as a whole, and, as a consequence, for education systems. Both the government and

the educational field have to decide how they want to approach linguistic diversity among

pupils. To have an idea of the impact of current approaches and the impact of multilingualism

on school results, scientists in Flanders conducted various researches. One of them was MARS,

that exposed the complexity of linguistic diversity. The results showed, among others, that

there cannot be made a strict distinction between home language and school language (in

Flanders: Dutch), as multilingual children occupy different positions on a continuum, switching

between varieties depending on the context. The research also revealed that many participants

in the educational field are quite insecure about language diversity. They are afraid that they

will lose control if they would allow other languages than Dutch at school. Nevertheless,

acknowledge and functional use of vernacular languages stimulates multilingual children’s self-

esteem and motivation, leading to better school results. Many schools still obtain an “only-

Dutch”-policy, while didactic use of vernacular languages does not impede the acquisition of

Dutch.

As was made clear in the theoretical framework, Spolsky (2004) describes language policy as a

complex process in which language beliefs have a key role, as they concern the value or status

individuals apply to a specific language or language varieties. Various participants active in the

process of language policy might have different language beliefs, complicating efficient

language management. While legislations made by policymakers often determine a nation’s

language(s), sociolinguists tend to be sympathetic to the recognition and valorisation of all the

languages used in these nations. This was confirmed in my research, as Piet Van Avermaet, in

‘Viewpoint’ and the ‘Koppen’-reportage openly pleads for an inclusive, multicultural society,

which reflects in a tolerant attitude towards linguistic diversity too. His concern was how he

could spread this message and diffuse consciousness among policymakers. One of these

policymakers, the minister of Education, wanted to know how a framework at its turn could

influence the educational field. This lead to three research questions, which will be answered

separately based on the theoretical framework and research among stakeholders. If possible, I

attach recommendations to the answers as well.

34

1. What are the main beliefs about multilingual reality at school? Does this effect the actual

language policies schools adopt?

As became clear, schools in Flanders have a lot of autonomy. Language management, for this

reason, depends a lot on the language beliefs of the head master. The different beliefs

mentioned in this research confirmed the MARS-results: there is a lot of fear to lose control or

to cause segregation when allowing/using vernacular languages at school. Nevertheless,

positive attitudes are becoming more common. This is especially the case in schools that were

coached during various projects on multilingualism. As Piet Van Avermaet is aware of the fact

that coaching every school in Flanders is rather impossible, he hoped policymakers would

encourage schools to take the initiative and adopt a more open attitude. Nevertheless, he felt

some restraint among policy makers, which leads to the following research question.

2. Is there a mismatch between the beliefs of researchers on the one hand and

policymakers on the other? If yes, can this be overcome by communication strategies?

This question is rather delicate to answer, as not all policymakers share the same language

beliefs. In general, what might be surprising, policymakers seem supportive about Van

Avermaet’s beliefs. The panel discussion, the hearing session in the Flemish Parliament and the

interview with the Alderman of education of Ghent and Antwerp showed that most politicians

put forward the total development of each child’s identity. Inclusion and diversification are key

words, resulting in approaches that encourage functional multilingual learning. How these

approaches result in actual language policies depends on the level on which the policymakers

operate.

Local politicians, as the Aldermen of education, have a significant influence on the policy that

schools belonging to the OVSG-umbrella adopt. Furthermore, they aim to collaborate with the

other umbrella organisations, which are intermediates between policymakers and the

educational field. During the panel discussion it became clear that these umbrella organisations

share the same values and beliefs. It is very likely that they would support similar policies, but

it is not very clear how directive these organisations are towards schools. As the Aldermen

govern in multicultural cities, they are confronted with linguistic diversity far more than

politicians in smaller villages with a lower presence of immigrants. They have also collaborated

intensively with Van Avermaet and other researchers in various projects, and noticed the

35

positive effects. For this reason, I would conclude they carry out the same vision as Van

Avermaet, which results in specific policies adapted to the local context.

On a national level, i.e. the members of the commission of Education, different beliefs were

noticed. On the one hand, some members subscribe the functional approach of Van Avermaet,

as they believe strongly in the fact that vernacular languages are inseparable from children’s

identity. They are also convinced of the fact that SES-characteristics have an important

influence on the school results in general. Nevertheless, it was not yet clear how they would

link the results of the MARS-research to a more differentiated subsidy system. On the other

hand, some members seemed more reluctant. It would be mistaken to claim that for them, the

development of children’s identity is not essential, but nevertheless, they seemed to focus

more on Dutch, in order to optimize these children’s integration in Flanders. In their

communication, they mention fear of segregation and the importance of integration. This way,

they seem to suggest that vernacular languages would impede integration, although this was

never said explicitly. One of them openly questioned the proposed continuum, as she believes

in a clear distinction between home language and school language. This way, her beliefs run

counter to the beliefs of Van Avermaet. Nevertheless, it seems unlikely that communication

strategies will solve this mismatch, as language beliefs do not only concern language, but

multiculturalism in general. No matter how neutral scientific evidence-based communication

is, ideology is difficult to change. Rather than focussing on these policymakers, I would suggest

that Van Avermaet & co-researchers focus on diffusing their message among the general

public. This way, they might influence the signals that are sent bottom-up.

36

3. Is a framework a good method to communicate policy ideas to the educational

field? If yes, what should it (not) contain? Are there other ways to introduce beliefs?

This bottom-up approach resulted to have unanimous support, from policymakers over

umbrella organisations to employees of other organisations (STEM, Bednet). The ultimate

conclusion of this research paper could be that none of the involved actors is waiting for a

framework with prescriptions on how to deal with linguistic diversity, but that continuous

sensitisation is extremely important. All of them seem to believe in the current general

approach of the Flemish government: respect the autonomy of schools and umbrella

organisations. Implementing language beliefs, as Spolsky already argued, will not lead to the

desired results. What works better, is trying to influence current language beliefs. Good ways

of doing so are personal testimonies and the exchange of good practices.

It has to be acknowledged that the Department already aimed to do this, which can be derived

from the Klasse-analysis and the new approach of the Inspectorate. The Department also tries

to centralize tools to help teachers and schools in the website ‘De Lat Hoog voor Talen’, which

was already mentioned in the concept note of former minister Smet:

In december 2008 werd de talenwebsite ‘De Lat Hoog voor Talen’ online geplaatst. KlasCement

ontwikkelde deze website om leraren in hun talenonderwijs te ondersteunen. De talenwebsite is als een

informatie- en communicatiekanaal voor en door onderwijsbetrokkenen opgevat. (…) Het aangeleverde

materiaal bestaat uit nieuwsaankondigingen, documenten, links naar websites, artikels, software,

leermiddelen, (…) De talenwebsite is een gebruiksvriendelijke en laagdrempelige tool om uitwisselingen

tussen leraren, schooldirecties en begeleiders mogelijk te maken. We hebben in deze talennota een

aantal voorstellen voor verbreding en verdieping van de site gedaan. (Smet 2011: 34)

Nevertheless, the communication does not seem to be that fluent yet. The language

coordinator from KlasCement, belonging to the Department and in charge of ‘De Lat Hoog voor

Talen’, told me she was not that familiar with the topic of linguistic diversity and referred me

to staff-employee Sien Van den Hoof, who previously referred me to KlasCement. The website

itself is not that clear eather. Besides that, is focusses on the educational field, while the general

as well might have interest in linguistic diversity. Also, there are various other websites about

multilingualism, such as www.metrotaal.be, www.meertaligheid.be, etc. I would recommend

to join these on a central platform, as all the participants of my research suggested. This way,

schools can more easily find tools they need, exchange practices etc. To optimize this platform,

I repeat the recommendations made in previous sections:

37

Make sure this platform, as a bottom-down tool, offers the possibility for the field to

react and exchange (bottom-up)

Make sure the platform-website is smartphone-friendly

Make sure it includes target group communication: teachers, school heads, umbrella

organisations, parents, pupils

Focus on social media such as Facebook as well

Content does not have to be didactic only: reportages such as ‘Koppen’ and testimonials as in

Klasse have a big impact on the beliefs of the general public and stakeholders.

Concerning the framework, I would suggest the minister pays attention to the responses Vlor

and OVSG gave to the concept note of Pascal Smet. As she first wants a new advice from Vlor,

which is foreseen for October, I assume she will definitely take this into account. Het strategy

paper as well points out she does not aim to implement rules, but wants to stimulate the

schools’ autonomy. Nevertheless, if she aims to set objectives, it is important that these will be

specific enough. In order to draw attention to the matter, she could visit one of the schools

that already implement a language policy including functional use of vernacular languages. This

could be combined with the launching of a central platform.

Frequently mentioned during this research was the need of more financial support to optimize

coaching. Given the current savings the government is implementing, unfortunately it seems

unlikely that this will be provided soon. For this reason, a clear, functioning central platform is

even more important.

38

39

Reference list

Baldauf, R. and Minglin, L. (2008). ‘Review of B. Spolsky, Language policy (2004)’. In: Language

in Society 37, 123-128.

Bednet vzw (n.d.). www.bednet.be, last consulted on 11/08/2016.

Hudson, R. (2008). ‘Linguistic theorie.’ In: Spolsky, B. and F. Hult (2008). The Handbook of

Educational Linguistics, 53-66. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Klasse (21/10/2015). ‘Vlaamse klassen worden superdivers’. On: Klasse YouTube Channel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TSYVSpFbyE, last consulted on 11/08/2016.

Koppen (25/5/2016). ‘Hoe zeg je dat in het Turks?’. In: Koppen.

http://www.een.be/programmas/koppen/hoe-zeg-je-dat-in-het-turks, last consulted on

11/08/2016.

Lewis, M. and B. Trudell (2008). ‘Language cultivation in contexts of multiple community

languages.’ In: Spolsky, B. and F. Hult (2008). The Handbook of Educational Linguistics, 266-280.

Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

McKinney, C. and B. Norton (2008). ‘Identity in language and literacy education.’ In: Spolsky, B.

and F. Hult (2008). The Handbook of Educational Linguistics, 192-206. Oxford: Blackwell

Publishing.

Mesthrie, R. (2008). ‘Sociolinguistics and Sociology of Language.’ In: Spolsky, B. and F. Hult

(2008). The Handbook of Educational Linguistics, 66-83. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Nekvapil, J. (2008). ‘Language Cultivation in Developed Contexts.’ In: Spolsky, B. and F. Hult

(2008). The Handbook of Educational Linguistics,251-266. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

OVSG (27/11/2015). Standpunt van OVSG over de conceptnota 'Samen taalgrenzen verleggen'.

http://www.ovsg.be/standpunten/standpunt-van-ovsg-over-de-conceptnota-samen-

taalgrenzen-verleggen, last consulted on 11/08/2016.

Smet, P. (22/7/2011). Conceptnota ‘Samen taalgrenzen verleggen’.

http://www.coc.be/files/publications/.175/20110722%20talennota%20Smet.pdf, last

consulted on 11/08/2016.

Spolsky, B. (2004a). Language policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Spolsky, B. (2004b). ‘Language policy failures: why won’t they listen?’ In: LAUD Linguistic

Agency, University of Duisburg-Essen, 1-20.

Spolsky, B. (2007). ‘Towards a Theory of Language Policy’. In: Working Papers in Educational

Linguistics 22/1. 1-14.

40

Spolsky, B. (2008). ‘Introduction’. In: Spolsky, B. and F. Hult (2008). The Handbook of

Educational Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Spolsky, B. (2009). Language management. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Van Avermaet, P., S. Slembrouck & A-M Simon-Vandenberge (2015). Talige diversiteit in het

Vlaams onderwijs: Problematiek en Oplossingen. Standpunt 30. Brussel: Koninklijke Vlaamse

Academie van België voor Wetenschappen en Kunsten. Can be downloaded online:

http://www.kvab.be/standpunten.aspx, last consulted on 11/08/2016.

Vlaams Ministerie van Onderwijs en Vorming (n.d.). Klasse. www.klasse.be, last consulted on

11/08/2016.

Vlaams Ministerie van Onderwijs en Vorming (n.d.). Wat is STEM?

http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/STEM/Wat/Default.htm, last consulted on 11/08/2016.

Vlaamse Overheid (n.d.). Taalwetwijzer. www.taalwetwijzer.be, last consulted on 11/08/2016.

VLOR (27/10/2011). Advies over de conceptnota ‘Samen taalgrenzen verleggen’.

http://www.vlor.be/sites/www.vlor.be/files/ar-ar-adv-002.pdf, last consulted on 11/08/2016.

Walter, S. (2008). ‘The Language of Instruction Issue’. In: Spolsky, B. and F. Hult (2008). The

Handbook of Educational Linguistics, 129-147. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

41

Appendices In dit overzicht probeer ik beknopt maar volledig weer te geven wie er allemaal betrokken is bij

het opzet en de communicatie rond MARS en het onderwijsbeleid in Vlaanderen. Cursief staat

telkens vermeld op welke manier deze actoren al dan niet betrokken werden bij deze thesis.

MARS (Meertaligheid Als een Realiteit op School) was een onderzoek in opdracht van het

Vlaams ministerie van Onderwijs en Vorming. Het werd uitgevoerd door de Universiteit Gent

en de Vrije Universiteit Brussel en liep van juli 2013 tot juni 2015.

1. Onderzoekers

Promotor: Prof. dr. Piet Van Avermaet (Steunpunt Diversiteit & Leren - Universiteit Gent)

Co-promotoren: Prof. dr. Orhan Agirdag (KU Leuven & Universiteit van Amsterdam), Prof. dr.

Stef Slembrouck (Universiteit Gent), Prof. dr. Esli Struys (Vrije Universiteit Brussel), Prof. dr. Piet

Van de Craen (Vrije Universiteit Brussel), Prof. dr. Mieke Van Houtte (Universiteit Gent)

Projectmedewerkers: Fauve De Backer (Universiteit Gent), Audrey De Smet (Vrije Universiteit

Brussel), Celine Mertens (Universiteit Gent), Lilith Van Biesen (Vrije Universiteit Brussel),

Evelien Van Hulle (Universiteit Gent)

2. Beleid

De beleidscyclus ziet er schematisch uit als volgt22:

De Vlaams minister van Onderwijs staat in voor de aansturing, voortgangsbewaking en

evaluatie van het Vlaams onderwijsbeleid. Op haar kabinet werken verschillende raadgevers

rond vaste thema’s. Zij werken nauw samen met het departement Onderwijs en Vorming. Het

is ook dat departement dat het meest vertrouwd is met MARS.

22 Afbeelding via VLOR: http://www.vlor.be/wat-de-vlor

Alle info in dit overzicht is afkomstig van: 1) Departement Onderwijs en Vorming: http://onderwijs.vlaanderen.be/ 2) VLOR: http://www.vlor.be/ 3) Vlaams Parlement: https://www.vlaamsparlement.be/

42

2.1. Departement Onderwijs en Vorming

Binnen het departement houden 2 diensten verband met MARS, 1 qua inhoud en 1 qua

communicatie (specifiek via 2 platformen).

Horizontaal beleid: verzorgt de beleidsvoorbereiding, de beleidsevaluatie en de

regelgeving van niveau-overschrijdende beleidsthema’s zoals:

o De kwaliteit van het onderwijs

o Gelijke kansen en diversiteit

o Talenbeleid

o …

Stafmedewerkers: Sien Van den Hoof, Katrijn Ballet

Beide dames staan ook in voor de organisatie van de studiedag die rond

MARS georganiseerd wordt op 19 oktober 2016. Voor de praktische

organisatie daarvan zat ik enkele keren met hen samen. Naar hun visie

rond het onderzoek/communicatie werd niet gepeild.

Informatie en Communicatie

o KlasCement: Op KlasCement inspireren en ondersteunen leerkrachten

elkaar door hun lesmateriaal en praktijkervaring met elkaar te delen.

Door de interactie rond de leermiddelen ontstaat een actief

professioneel netwerk. Ook materiaal en evenementen van organisaties

vinden via het leermiddelennetwerk hun weg naar de leraar.

Vanuit Klascement vond men communicatie rond meertaligheid niet

meteen hun bevoegdheid en verwees men mij terug door naar Sien Van

den Hoof. Er vond dan ook geen interview plaats.

o Klasse: Multimediaal communicatieplatform dat

onderwijsprofessionals, ouders en leerlingen versterkt en verbindt.

Leraren zijn de focusdoelgroep. Werkt redactioneel autonoom.

Klasse publiceerde de afgelopen twee jaar enkele artikels over

meertaligheid binnen onderwijs. Aangezien het blad een belangrijk

communicatiemiddel is naar scholen toe, werden deze artikels

opgenomen binnen dit onderzoek. Ook vond een kort interview plaats

met de redactrice van deze artikels, Leen Leemans.

2.2. VLOR – Vlaamse Onderwijsraad

De Vlor is de strategische adviesraad voor het beleidsdomein Onderwijs en Vorming. Ze bestaat

uit vertegenwoordigers uit het hele onderwijslandschap en uit sociaal-economische en sociaal-

culturele organisaties. Na overleg geeft de Vlor adviezen aan het Vlaams Parlement en de

Vlaams minister van Onderwijs. Dit advies kan zowel op eigen initiatief komen, als op vraag.

Op 12 mei 2016 diende de minister van Onderwijs zo’n vraag in naar aanleiding van het MARS-

onderzoek. De Vlor werkt tegen eind oktober 2016 aan een “Advies over een talenbeleid waarin

taalcompetenties en diverse vormen van meertaligheid een plaats krijgen”. Wat de minister

met dit advies zal doen, is nog niet duidelijk.

43

Ik nam contact op met de VLOR om een gesprek te hebben rond dit advies. De verantwoordelijke

dossierbeheerder, Marleen Colpin, begint haar loopbaan op de VLOR echter pas vanaf 1

september 2016. Een gesprek was dus jammer genoeg niet mogelijk. Hun invloed op een kader

zal echter heel groot zijn.

2.3. Vlaams Parlement - Commissie Onderwijs

Binnen het Vlaams Parlement buigen commissies bevoegd voor verschillende beleidsthema’s

zich over ontwerpen van decreet (vanuit de fuVlaamse Regering) en voorstellen van decreet

(van Vlaamse volksvertegenwoordigers). Pas als die in de bevoegde commissies worden

goedgekeurd, gaan die decreetvoorstellen door naar de plenaire vergadering waarin alle

Vlaamse parlementsleden hun stem kunnen uitbrengen en op die manier over de aanname of

verwerping van nieuwe decreten beslissen. Ook vinden er hoorzittingen plaats, waar

onafhankelijke deskundigen hun mening over de relevante thema’s uiteen zetten. Als

commissieleden over een bepaald decreetontwerp of – voorstel willen stemmen, is het soms

immers noodzakelijk dat ze meer achtergrondinformatie opdoen.

Op 2 juni 2016 vond zo’n hoorzitting over MARS plaats in de commissie Onderwijs. Piet Van

Avermaet (Directeur Steunpunt Diversiteit en Leren), Stef Slembrouck (prof. dr. Vakgroep

Taalkunde UGent) en Lilith Van Biesen (onderzoeker VUB) zetten er de resultaten uiteen. Van

de commissie waren volgende politici aan- of afwezig:

Aanwezig Afwezig

Ann Brusseel (Open VLD) Vera Celis (N-VA)

Jo De Ro (Open VLD) Ingeborg De Meulemeester (N-VA)

Koen Daniëls (N-VA) Kris Van Dijck (N-VA)

Kathleen Krekels (N-VA) Miranda Van Eetvelde (N-VA)

Tine Soens (sp.a) Jos De Meyer (CD&V)

Caroline Gennez (sp.a) Kathleen Helsen (CD&V)

Elisabeth Meuleman (Groen) Jenne De Potter (CD&V)

Jan Durnez (CD&V)

Deze hoorzitting werd eveneens opgenomen in dit thesisonderzoek.

2.3 Onderwijsnetten

Het Vlaamse onderwijslandschap is behoorlijk complex. Binnen Vlaanderen zijn er 3

onderwijsnetten, die verschillen qua inrichtende macht en subsidietoekenning. Binnen elk net

zijn er 1 of meerdere koepels, die schoolbesturen ondersteunen en vertegenwoordigen. Elke

koepel beschikt ook over eigen pedagogische begeleidingsdiensten. Die werken initiatieven uit

om scholen en leraren te ondersteunen en te versterken.

44

Officieel onderwijs: 2 netten

1) Gemeenschapsonderwijs (GO), georganiseerd door de Vlaamse Gemeenschap in opdracht

van de Vlaamse Overheid

2) Gesubsidieerd Officieel onderwijs (OGO), georganiseerd door de lokale besturen

(gemeenten+steden, provincies), verenigd in 2 koepels:

gemeentelijk onderwijs, verenigd in de koepel Onderwijssecretariaat van de

Steden en Gemeenten van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap (OVSG)

provinciaal onderwijs Vlaanderen (POV)

Vrij onderwijs: 1 net

Vrij gesubsidieerd onderwijs (VGO), georganiseerd door privé-initiatief, verenigd in koepels:

Katholiek Onderwijs Vlaanderen (VSKO)

Overleg Kleine Onderwijsverstrekkers (OKO): Steinerscholen, ...

Sommige scholen zijn niet aangesloten bij een koepel

De visie op MARS van de vertegenwoordigers van de grootste netten (OVSG, GO en VSKO) werd

duidelijk tijdens de paneldiscussie en is opgenomen in dit thesisonderzoek. Ik verwijs naar hen

met de term ‘umbrella organisations’.

Belangrijk om weten is dat binnen steden en gemeenten, OVSG-scholen nauw samenwerken

met de bevoegde lokale schepen van Onderwijs. De visie van de schepenen weegt dus er zeker

door, eventueel ook in lokale scholen behorend tot andere netten (aangezien er op lokaal

niveau veel overleg tussen de verschillende scholen plaatsvindt).

Daarom werd ook de visie van 2 onderwijsschepenen van belangrijke, Vlaamse steden met een

hoge migratiegraad opgenomen binnen dit onderzoek. Aangezien zij zelf een enorm drukke

agenda hebben, verwezen ze me vriendelijk door naar bevoegde kabinetsmedewerkers voor een

interview.

2.4. Scholen

Uiteraard hebben scholen zelf een belangrijke rol binnen het de implementatie van beleid. In

Vlaanderen hebben scholen veel vrijheid en ruimte om hun eigen visie op onderwijs in de

praktijk om te zetten. In welke mate een van hogerhand opgelegd kader op de klasvloer wordt

toegepast, is moeilijk te controleren.

In het kader van dit thesisonderzoek werd beslist geen directies, leerkrachten of ouders te

bevragen. Hun visie komt immers al uitgebreid aan bod binnen MARS zelf. Ook vreesden zowel

de verantwoordelijken van het departement Onderwijs als Piet Van Avermaet

overbevraging/bevragingsmoeheid bij het veld.

45

2.5. Inspectie

De Vlaamse onderwijsinspectie is bevoegd voor de controle op de kwaliteit van het Vlaamse

onderwijs. Ze houdt toezicht op de eindtermen en ontwikkelingsdoelen, de leerplannen, de

financierings- en subsidiëringsvoorwaarden.

Vanuit de inspectie is er ook veel interesse in het thema diversiteit en bijhorende meertalige

realiteit. Ze was vragende partij voor een infosessie door Piet Van Avermaet voor haar

inspecteurs. In overleg met Piet en de verantwoordelijken van het departement Onderwijs

besloten ze die infosessie te koppelen aan de MARS-studiedag die doorgaat op 19 oktober

2016.

Omdat ze ook een belangrijke rol spelen binnen het onderwijsbeleid, werd ook de visie van de

Inspectie opgenomen in dit onderzoek. Concreet interviewde ik Ann Schelfhout.

46

47

Faculteit Letteren & Wijsbegeerte

Sarah Staes

Stageverslag

Academiejaar 2015-2016

48

49

1. Omschrijving stageplek

Twee maanden lang heb ik stage gelopen bij de krachten achter Vlaams minister Hilde Crevits.

De minister heeft twee bevoegdheden en dus ook twee kabinetten: viceminister-president en

onderwijs. De twee zijn echter nauw verweven waardoor ook de medewerkers intens

samenwerken. Het hele team bestaat uit een 50-tal medewerkers, gaande van

onthaalpersoneel over chauffeurs tot raadgevers hoger onderwijs, lerarenopleiding, …

Zelf vervoegde ik de pers- en communicatiecel. Elke minister bepaalt zelf de grootte van

zijn/haar communicatieteam. In sommige gevallen is er één woordvoerder, maar in het geval

van minister Crevits verzorgen vier mensen de communicatie rond haar politieke activiteiten.

Katrien Rosseel is de vaste woordvoerster en hoofd van het team. Zij is het eerste

aanspreekpunt voor de media en staat hen vaak telefonisch te woord als er vragen zijn omtrent

een bepaalde regeringsmaatregel etc. Daarnaast adviseert zij de minister over tv-optredens,

kranteninterviews, … Ook persberichten komen vaak van haar hand. Elke week gaan er

gemiddeld zo’n twee à drie persberichten de deur uit. Daarin worden nieuwe

decreetvoorstellen, resultaten van onderzoeken of evenementen waar de minister haar

opwachting maakt toegelicht. Op dat vlak wordt ze bijgestaan door Jasper Delanoy, mijn

stagebegeleider, die eveneens speechen schrijft. Wouter Decraen buigt zich daar drie dagen

per week mee over, de andere twee werkdagen geeft hij vol passie Latijn en Politiek in een

middelbare school. Tot slot is er een verantwoordelijke voor de social media (Facebook en

Twitter), videoboodschappen (die de minister vaak uitstuurt als ze ergens niet aanwezig kan

zijn) en iets luchtigere mediaoptredens: Bert de Brabandere.

Dit kwartet werkt heel organisch samen: hoewel ze allemaal eigen eindverantwoordelijkheden

hebben, vullen ze mekaar sterk aan en kunnen ze perfect mekaars taken (tijdelijk) overnemen

als het even te druk is. Dit is ook nodig: als een persbericht wordt uitgestuurd, moet het ook op

social media verschijnen. Of omgekeerd: als er online veel reactie komt op een bepaald thema,

kan er beslist worden hierop formeel te reageren via de pers. Ik had dan ook geen concrete

functie of taak binnen deze cel en werd er “ingesmeten”. Door mijn interesse in onderwijs, heb

ik wel specifiek op dat thema gewerkt.

2. Taakomschrijving

Wat ik vooral heb gedaan was hulp bij administratieve taken & vooronderzoek, persberichten

opstellen en videoboodschappen schrijven. De communicatie verliep vrijwel volledig in het

Nederlands. Slechts twee keer heb ik beroep gedaan op het Engels; één keer bij het nalezen

van een speech, één keer bij een videoboodschap voor een internationaal publiek. Het continu

opvolgen van de actualiteit was dagelijkse kost. Om het schrijfwerk correct te kunnen doen,

heb ik ook veel tijd gestoken in het inlezen van dossiers, die niet altijd meteen duidelijk waren

voor deze politieke leek. Daarnaast kon ik terugvallen op een vast sjabloon en een groot aantal

voorbeelden. Mijn collega’s probeerden me ook thema’s te geven die niet enorm veel

dossierkennis vereisten of niet dringend behandeld moesten worden, waardoor ik de nodige

50

tijd kreeg om de teksten correct op te stellen en ik steeds kon terugvallen op feedback van

Jasper of Katrien. Het gebeurde ook dat zij me een bericht van hun hand doorgaven en ik mijn

opmerkingen mocht geven (al bleven die vaak beperkt). Bij veel lopende zaken werd ik

betrokken – wat ik zelf zeer fijn vond. Zo mocht ik zeer regelmatig vergaderingen bijwonen,

reeds voorbereidde persberichten nalezen, meedenken over tweets, … Op die manier kwam ik

met veel verschillende onderwerpen en heel uiteenlopende zaken in contact.

3. Takenpakket

Vooronderzoek & opvolging: voldoende achtergrondinformatie voorzien bij geplande

bezoeken (i.s.m. Jasper)

o UNESCO-conferentie in Parijs tegen seksueel geweld en homofobie binnen het

onderwijs

Inlezen UNESCO-rapport

Bespreken welke topics de minister in haar speech behandelt

Nalezen speech

o Schoolbezoek sportschool KA Redingenhof Leuven met minister Jo Vandeurzen

Mee opstellen programma

Verzamelen info school (werking rond gezondheid en bannen van frisdrank op

school)

Schrijven persbericht

Inhoud persbericht aftoetsen met school & woordvoerders minister Jo

Vandeurzen

Op de school: contact met de verantwoordelijke, contact met de pers

o Schoolbezoek Brugge (OKAN-werking) met koningin van Jordanië

Inlezen OKAN

Verzamelen info Jordaanse koningshuis

o Aanwezigheid vrouwenvereniging Femma, Meulebeke

Insteek voor speech: verzamelen info feminisme

o …

Persberichten (i.s.m. Jasper, Katrien)

o Kieskeurig: Frisdrankloze school

o Actieplan Ondernemend Onderwijs

o Examencommissie

o CLIL-aanbod

o Ondertekening Damesakkoord

o Toelatingsexamen arts & tandarts

o Peilingsresultaten naar eindtermen Natuurwetenschappen

o Convenant met Logistieke sector

o Keuze levensbeschouwelijke vakken

o Voltijds engagement DBSO

o Studiekostenmonitor

o …

51

Videoboodschappen (i.s.m. Bert)

o Natuurwetenschappenolympiade

o Fun-Athlon

o ICT-praktijkdag

o Uitreiking Leraar van het Jaar

o Opening nieuw schoolgebouw Sint-Godelievecollege

o Huwelijk leerkracht

o STEM & Geothermie, VITO Mol

o Pensioen leerkracht

o Pensioen directeur

o UDLL Congres (English)

o …

Informele radio-optredens (i.s.m. Bert)

o Moederdag (Q-music): quotes rond moeder maken + nummerkeuze

o Aftrap Marathonradio (MNM): quotes rond studeren maken + nummerkeuze

Hervorming secundair onderwijs (i.s.m. hele kabinet)

Redelijk plots werd beslist de hervorming van het secundair onderwijs definitief goed te keuren.

Op slechts enkele uren tijd werd op het kabinet toen een communicatielijn uitgeschreven.

Inhoudelijk heb ik weinig bijgedragen, maar een kleine duit in het zakje heb ik toch gedaan:

o Korte slagzin die de hele operatie zou samenvatten: eén van mijn voorstellen was

“verkennen, verdiepen en versterken”, wat het uiteindelijk gehaald heeft. Uiteraard stelt

dit eigenlijk niet veel voor, maar op de persvoorstelling, op Twitter en tijdens het

eerstvolgende televisieoptreden van de minister (De Zevende Dag) is die slogan toch een

paar keer aangehaald.

o Keuze foto’s infobrochure die naar alle scholen werd opgestuurd

Thesisonderzoek (i.s.m. Jasper, Sien, Katrijn)

Jasper bezorgde me de visie en (beperkte) communicatielijn die het kabinet had ontwikkeld op

de resultaten van het MARS-onderzoek, geleid door Piet Van Avermaet. Die resultaten zouden

op volgende manier worden behandeld:

Voorstelling door de onderzoekers in de commissie Onderwijs (juni 2016)

Studiedag voor leerkrachten en directies georganiseerd door de onderzoekers en het

departement Onderwijs & Vorming (19 oktober 2016)

Opname in adviesnota van de Vlaamse Onderwijsraad (VLOR), gepland voor oktober 2016

52

Eerst en vooral ging ik op 20 mei 2016 ’s namiddags naar een panel discussie waar verscheidene

parlementsleden, afgevaardigden van onderwijskoepels, onderzoekers en leerkrachten hun

visie op de resultaten het MARS-onderzoek gaven. Ook zat ik enkele keren samen met de

verantwoordelijken van het departement Onderwijs & Vorming, Sien Van den Hoof en Katrijn

Ballet. Zij staan in voor de organisatie van de studiedag en zijn al enige tijd vertrouwd met het

onderwerp. De planning van de dag – bestaande uit verschillende workshops – hadden zij

samen met de onderzoekers al opgesteld. Tijdens één van onze overlegmomenten stelden we

een save the date-mail op, die werd uitgestuurd naar de pedagogische begeleidingsdiensten

van de verschillende onderwijsnetten. Daarnaast zaten we ook samen met de

onderwijsinspectie, die eveneens belangstelling toont voor het thema en graag aanwezig zou

zijn op de studiedag. Met hen werd beslist dat er een aangepaste sessie voor hen zal worden

ingericht. Ook trok ik op 2 juni 2016 naar het Vlaams parlement om de toelichting van de

onderzoeksresultaten in de commissie Onderwijs bij te wonen.

Vergaderingen, besprekingen, …

o Persconferentie van de Vlaamse regering, waar pas genomen beslissingen worden

toegelicht aan een aantal journalisten

o Vergadering schoolbezoek KA Redingenhof

o Schoolbezoek KA Redingenhof

o Vergaderingen communicatielijn hervorming secundair onderwijs

o Vergadering eindtermenpeiling Natuurwetenschappen

o Woordvoerdersoverleg, waar alle woordvoerders van CD&V aanwezig zijn en er wordt

toegelicht welke afgevaardigde waarover gaat communiceren die week.

o Vergaderingen onderwijsnetwerk Islamexperten tegendiscours, voorgezeten door

Khalid Benhaddou, over hoe radicalisering binnen de schoolmuren wordt aangepakt.

o …

4. Evaluatie

Ik besef dat boeiend een clichéwoord is, maar het is toch hét label dat ik op mijn stage zou

kleven. Want wat heb ik er veel geleerd. In de eerste plaats ben ik onder de indruk van de

enorme collectiviteit die heerst op een kabinet. Hoewel iedereen zijn eigen specialisatie heeft,

staan alle kabinetsmedewerkers continu met mekaar in contact en vinden er voortdurend

kruisbestuivingen van informatie en communicatie plaats. Communicatie naar de buitenwereld

toe vertrok dan wel vanuit onze cel; aan de inhoud droegen telkens verschillende raadgevers

bij. Zij zijn immers elk specialisten in hun vakgebied en verzekerden ons ervan dat elk detail

klopte. De communicatiecel bewaakt dan weer de “begrijpbaarheid” en zorgt ervoor dat de

inhoud ook voor “leken” duidelijk is. Ook nadat ze het kantoor in Brussel verlaten hadden werd

er van thuis uit lustig over en weer gemaild, getweet, ge-sms’t.

Zeker de vierkoppige pers- en communicatiecel kent een -voor mij- ongeziene toewijding; zij

stoppen praktisch nooit met werken. Daarnaast is hun werkdag ook onvoorspelbaar: op

sommige dagen was het onverwacht rustig, kwamen er geen persvragen, … terwijl op andere

momenten de telefoon roodgloeiend stond en er nog een resem persberichten klaarstonden.

53

Sommige topics die door de perscel als relevant werden beschouwd werden door de pers

amper opgepikt; andere, zogenaamde ‘kleinere’ topics kregen dan weer veel aandacht. Ik was

ook verrast door de dubbelzinnige band tussen journalisten en politici: ze hebben mekaar nodig

om hun ideeën te verkopen, maar die ideeën zijn niet altijd hetzelfde. Katrien moet zo

permanent de kalmte bewaren en diplomatiek kunnen handelen als een journalist een

voorpublicatie doorstuurde en de minister toch andere woorden in de mond legde dan hetgeen

ze werkelijk gezegd had. Daarnaast heeft de communicatiecel ook de intelligentie nodig om

alle decreten, rapporten, … waarover ze communiceren zelf volledig te doorgronden.

Voor mezelf merkte ik dat hier het schoentje wrong: de goede werksfeer, het blinde

vertrouwen in mekaar en ook het schrijfwerk lagen me zeer sterk, maar de inhoudelijke

doortastendheid en kennis ontbraken me. Ondanks mijn basisinteresse in politiek en onderwijs

merkte ik immers al snel dat de techniciteit van wetgeving en de complexe structuur van het

Vlaamse onderwijslandschap mijn petje te boven gingen. Daardoor misten mijn berichten soms

precisie of duurde het heel lang vooraleer ik met een dossier “mee” was. Ik vond dit met

momenten zeer frustrerend, omdat ik het gevoel had niet veel nuttigs te kunnen bijdragen. Ik

heb dan ook ervaren dat een job in de politieke communicatie is niet voor mij weggelegd. Me

verbinden aan één bepaalde partij zou ik sowieso al moeilijk vinden. Ook de complexe politieke

verhoudingen vond ik soms moeilijk om te begrijpen.

Doordat het takenpakket niet zo gevarieerd was, heb ik niet heel veel communicatietechnieken

in de vingers gekregen. Dit vind ik achteraf gezien best jammer. Doordat er weinig echte

projecten waren, was het niet zo makkelijk een thesisonderzoek af te bakenen. Ik kwam continu

in andere vaarwaters dan communicatie terecht: het ging snel eerder over politiek gekleurde

standpunten i.v.m. diversiteit en taal. Wel wil ik mijn stagebegeleider Jasper Delanoy nog eens

uitgebreid bedanken, omdat hij zo actief meedacht hoe ik de moeilijke thematiek kon omzetten

in concrete communicatieve aanbevelingen.

Voor mezelf denk ik dat ik best wat creatieve uitdaging, groepswerk en beweging nodig heb om

scherp te blijven. De dagen die ik achter de computer doorbracht om van moeilijke dossiers

persberichten te schrijven kwamen mijn productiviteit, werkkwaliteit en persoonlijk geluk niet

ten goede. Een brainstormvergadering op een ander kantoor in het Brusselse – inclusief de

daaraan gekoppelde verplaatsing – deden me “opleven”. Ik heb dus wel degelijk veel interactie

en input nodig om samen tot goede resultaten te komen.

Ondanks het feit dat mijn toekomst dus zeker niet bij een kabinet ligt, ben ik wel zeer dankbaar

dat ik dit “aan den lijve” heb mogen ondervinden. Op twee maanden tijd heb ik heb enorm veel

opgestoken, zowel qua sociale vaardigen als qua algemene kennis (gaande van de hervorming

van de lerarenopleiding over de interesses van de Jordaanse koningin tot de

deradicaliseringsmissie binnen het onderwijs).

BIJLAGEN

Ter illustratie voeg ik nog een persbericht (A) en videoboodschap (B) van mijn hand toe.

54

BIJLAGE A PERSMEDEDELING

Woensdag 18 mei 2016

KABINET VAN DE VICEMINISTER-PRESIDENT VAN DE VLAAMSE REGERING,

VLAAMSE MINISTER VAN ONDERWIJS HILDE CREVITS

Al 60 scholen bieden vanaf 1 september vakken aan in andere taal

Net zoals vorig schooljaar kunnen 18 nieuwe scholen vanaf 1

september 2016 een aantal vakken aanbieden in het Frans, Engels of

Duits. Dit brengt het totaal aantal scholen dat Content and

Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) kan inrichten op 60. Vlaams

minister van Onderwijs Hilde Crevits omarmt deze uitbreiding in het

kader van meertalig onderwijs.

Sinds twee jaar kunnen scholen een aantal vakken zoals economie,

chemie en wiskunde aanbieden in een andere taal. Op 1 september 2014

sprongen zo 24 scholen op de kar van CLIL, Content and Language

Integrated Learning. Via CLIL slaan leerlingen twee vliegen in één

klap: terwijl ze een niet-taalvak leren, verbeteren ze tegelijk hun

taalvaardigheid in een vreemde taal. De onderwijsdoelstellingen van

het niet-taalvak veranderen niet binnen een CLIL-traject.

Net als vorig jaar dienden 18 scholen een aanvraag in voor het

aanbieden van zo’n traject voor volgend schooljaar (1 september

2016). De Vlaamse adviescommissie CLIL kende hen allemaal een

positief advies toe, waardoor ze vanaf september effectief kunnen

starten met lessen in het Engels, Frans of Duits. Vooral in Oost- en

West-Vlaanderen wordt het aanbod sterk uitgebreid, met

respectievelijk 8 en 7 nieuwe CLIL-scholen.

De scholen die CLIL al sinds 2014 of 2015 aanbieden zullen dit ook

volgend schooljaar blijven doen. 16 van hen vroegen een wijziging of

uitbreiding van hun traject aan. Die aanvragen werden eveneens

goedgekeurd.

In totaal zullen er vanaf september 60 scholen zijn die bijvoorbeeld

de Franse Revolutie daadwerkelijk en français mogen onderrichten of

die de wereldkaart in het Engels onder de loep nemen. Geschiedenis

en aardrijkskunde bleken immers de populairste vakken in de

aanvragen.

Vlaams minister van Onderwijs Hilde Crevits : “Een vlotte

talenkennis is enorm belangrijk in onze geglobaliseerde

maatschappij. Als jongeren verder studeren of als ze zich op de

arbeidsmarkt begeven, versterkt een goede taalvaardigheid hun

positie. Vakken in andere talen geven draagt hier zeker toe bij. Het

is dan ook positief dat het aantal scholen met een CLIL-traject

groeit en er meer kwaliteitsvol meertalig onderwijs aangeboden

wordt.”

In bijlage de lijst van de 18 scholen en de vakken die in een andere

taal zullen worden gegeven.

55

Persinfo:

Katrien Rosseel

Woordvoerder Vlaams minister van Onderwijs Hilde Crevits

0475 44 58 32

persdienst.kabinetcrevits@vlaanderen.be

SCHOOL VORM GRAAD TAAL VAKKEN

Het College (Vilvoorde) 1 Engels Aardrijkskunde

Sint-Ursula-Instituut

(Lier)

TSO, BSO 2, 3 Engels,

Frans

Retail, Secretariaat

WICO Campus Sit.-Jozef

(Lommel)

ASO 3 Duits Seminarie actua

Hotel- en

Toerismeschool

Spermalie (Brugge)

TSO 2 Engels Communicatietechnieken

Spes Nostra Instituut

(Kuurne)

ASO 1, 2,

3

Engels Geschiedenis,

Aardrijkskunde, Informatica,

Esthetica

Sint-Aloysiuscollege

(Diksmuide)

ASO 2, 3 Engels Geschiedenis, Godsdienst,

Wiskunde

Da Vinci Atheneum

(Koekelare)

1 Frans Wiskunde

De Bron (Tielt) ASO 1, 2,

3

Engels Natuurwetenschappen,

Aardrijkskunde, Godsdienst,

Project Toegepaste

Wetenschappen, Project

Economische Actualiteit,

Geschiedenis

College/Lyceum (Ieper) ASO 2, 3 Engels Economie, Latijn, Biologie,

Gedragswetenschappen

Sint-Pietersinstituut

(Gent)

ASO 3 Engels,

Frans

Geschiedenis

Sint-Lievenscollege

(Gent)

ASO 1, 2,

3

Engels Wetenschappelijk Werk,

Aardrijkskunde, Biologie

TechniGO (Aalst) TSO 2, 3 Frans Bio-esthetiek,

Schoonheidsverzorging

Stella-Matutinacollege

(Lede)

ASO 3 Engels Economie, Aardrijkskunde,

Chemie

56

Sint-Paulusinstituut

(Herzele)

ASO 1, 2 Engels Lichamelijke Opvoeding

Emmaüs@2 (Aalter) ASO, TSO 2 Engels,

Frans

Geschiedenis, Biologie,

Chemie

College OLV Ten Doorn

(Eeklo)

ASO, TSO 1, 2,

3

Engels,

Frans

Geschiedenis, Lichamelijke

Opvoeding, Chemie,

Bedrijfseconomie,

Secretariaat

Instituut Zusters

Maricolen (Maldegem)

ASO 2, 3 Engels,

Frans

Geschiedenis, Aardrijkskunde

Sint-Jan-

Berchmanscollege

(Avelgem)

ASO, TSO 2 Engels Godsdienst, Economie

57

BIJLAGE B

Videoboodschap Toonmoment STEM Geothermie en academische zitting ‘STEM & Geothermie’ , VITO Mol

Achtergrond: Geothermische proefboring Mol Balmatt-site: aardwarmte als energieleverancier -3 educatieve projecten - samenwerking met VOKA Kempen, GoodPlanet Belgium, InnEd etc. - 17 scholen uit Antwerpse en Limburgse Kempen schooljaar lang werken aan STEM-projecten over geothermie -> projecten: schaalmodel van Kempische ondergrond, visualisatie van warmtenet met LED-strips op plattegrond van Mol en Geel, educatief videogome, maquettes van een boortoren, geothermische elektriciteitscentrale, serre op aardwarmte etc. Sprekers: Dirk Fransaer, gedelegeerd bestuurder VITO, Swa De Schutter, coördinator VITO project STEM Geothermie, Ludwig Caluwé, gedeputeerde economie van de provincie Antwerpen. L Danny Van der Veken, Coördinerend directeur KOGEKA (Katholiek Onderwijs Geel – Kasterlee) Invalshoek minister: STEM & Geothermie vanuit de Vlaamse overheid (“Als u dat nu allemaal ziet, wat vindt u dan hiervan? Is dit waar u zelf ook naartoe wil met het STEM onderwijs ? Kan u hier iets mee doen in uw beleid? Hoe ver staat het met de modernisering van het Secundair Onderwijs?”)

Beste bezielers van het STEM Geothermie-project,

Beste directeurs, leerkrachten,

Beste leerlingen,

Ik vind het zeer jammer dat ik niet live kan bewonderen wat voor uiteenlopende, innovatieve

projecten er ontsproten zijn uit de warme Kempische bodem.

Via deze weg wil ik jullie een virtuele pluim geven. Voor de initiatiefnemers: jullie zijn

vertrokken vanuit een zeer lokaal gegeven, wat de Kempische grond toch wel is, met een

innovatieve, ruime visie voor ogen. In welke mate kan aardwarmte als energieleverancier

gebruikt worden? De medewerking van tal van organisaties en van de Vlaamse overheid wijst

op het geloof in het project. Daarnaast hebben jullie nog eens 17 scholen en meer dan 1000

leerlingen de kans gegeven betrokken te raken bij het proces: ze kregen inzicht in de concrete

invulling van een abstract begrip als “geothermie” én in de maatschappelijke relevantie ervan.

En laat dat nu net zijn wat we met STEM voor ogen hebben: dankzij technologische en

wetenschappelijke vernieuwingen onze wereld en onze samenleving duurzaam beter maken.

Daarvoor hebben we heel wat getalenteerde jonge mensen zoals jullie nodig die de passie en

motivatie in STEM delen, erover willen leren en er later misschien wel hun job van willen

maken.

Door te vertrekken vanuit reële problemen en herkenbare vraagstukken goesting krijgen voor

wetenschappen, techniek, technologie, …. Door samen op zoek te gaan naar oplossingen over

de verschillende vakken heen leren jullie tegelijkertijd belangrijke vaardigheden zoals:

communiceren, samenwerken, creatief denken, innoveren, … . Lessen die je later ook van pas

zullen komen in je job. Lessen voor het leven.

58

En STEM werkt. Techniekacademies schieten als paddenstoelen uit de grond. Basisscholen

besteden meer en meer aandacht aan wetenschap en techniek door de opsplitsing van het

leergebied WO, door de introductie van techniekcoaches, door samenwerking met technische

scholen. Meer en meer jongeren kiezen ook in het secundair en het hoger onderwijs voor een

STEM-opleiding. En gelukkig, want onze arbeidsmarkt en onze samenleving schreeuwt om

sterke leerlingen met een STEM-profiel.

Die sterke leerlingen zijn ook meisjes, of leerlingen uit het TSO/BSO. We hebben vorige week

met de Vlaamse Regering dan ook beslist ons voor de volgende periode op die 2 groepen te

focussen, zodat ook zij de weg naar STEM vinden. Om die doelgroepen te bereiken willen we

volop inzetten op de maatschappelijke relevantie van STEM door de klemtoon te leggen op

projecten zoals dat van jullie.

Daarnaast is STEM een belangrijk domein binnen het gemoderniseerd secundair onderwijs dat

we voor ogen hebben. Of het nu van abstract tot heel toegepast gaat: we willen via STEM

leerlingen laten meedenken- en werken aan de wereld van morgen. Ik ben blij dat jullie dat in

de Antwerpse en Limburgse Kempen al zo actief doen!

Nogmaals een dikke proficiat daarvoor!

59

60