Linguistic diversity has long been the norm in schools in the Netherlands, Germany and their neighbouring countries. But the way in which schools deal with different languages – whether they include, ignore or ban them – may differ considerably. This article examines language policies in schools to prepare the ground for a just and equitable approach to all languages.

By Nora von Dewitz

Multilingual student environments

Students’ language usage varies according to context every day, with different languages being spoken in families and taught in language classes. In school, students may develop formal language skills in the language of instruction which differ from the colloquial and youth-oriented varieties used in their free time. The students’ repertoire contains different languages that they might use for hobbies, social media and participation in cultural activities, or when they speak to friends.
Schools have different options to draw on this linguistic diversity, including as a teaching resource (for example, Wakelkamp, no date available, for language instruction). There are, however, still many schools in which a monolingual ethos leads to language rules being enforced or some languages even being explicitly banned.

No policy is also a policy

In its role as an institution in which language plays a central role in many respects and which acts both as a teaching subject and a medium of instruction, a school is a place where mechanisms of linguistic ideology become most visible. These mechanisms often come into effect most strongly in situations where they are not perceived and where linguistic ideological assumptions do not need to be specified. Rather, they are taken for granted. This applies when a school has not reached an agreement on the use of different languages or ways of speaking, and yet it is obvious to everyone involved that only one language – and often only one particular variety of it – is considered legitimate. Such an implied language rule may be rendered explicit at any time, if the teacher communicates instructions such as ‘Please speak in German!’ or bans such as ‘Please don’t speak in Polish here!’, without this being defined in the school or class rules. A school’s monolingual mindset (Gogolin, 1994) becomes evident here, as it forms the basis of the school’s language-related actions. Even if this mindset remains implicit, and almost invisible, it still has consequences. Such implicit mechanisms have also been frequently discussed in relation to formal language skills in the respective language of instruction, which for a long time – in some respects probably still today – were taken for granted and also assessed in schools, without them being taught in class (Feilke, 2012, among others).

Upper secondary school students do indeed refer to strategies and opportunities to use their language abilities for academic purposes, even if teachers do not incorporate them in their classes (Wamhoff, Maahs & von Dewitz, 2022). This depends, however, on a number of factors and cannot therefore be expected to apply equally across all age groups and types of school. Research reveals that students internalise and adopt the school’s language policies and requirements. This may lead to students alerting their classmates to an infringement of the rules if they use a language other than German, and request that they speak in German (Terhart & Dewitz, 2018). As one student put it, they may ‘snitch’ on their fellow students to teachers (Rühlmann, 2021, 451). It is, however, not necessarily the case that only students raised in a monolingual environment insist on the observance of these rules: those originating from a multilingual environment may also draw attention to these internalised school norms. Of course, there may also be resistance and opposition, demonstrated, for example, by students circumventing or failing to observe the policies – behaviour which may in turn be subject to sanctions.

Languages and other languages

Wiese, Tracy & Sennema (2020, 14) refer to it as a ‘sad oddity of our times’ that many schools continue to impose language bans due to their monolingual ethos and also expressly forbid the use of certain languages – even though multilingualism is promoted at the European level and cultural diversity is regarded as a social and economical advantage. The fact that languages and ways of speaking are assessed very differently has been discussed extensively in theory and also proved empirically in different ways. This ranges from differing opinions on certain accents (for example, Rakic & Stößel, 2013) to discrimination based on language, known as (neo-) linguicism (Dirim, 2010, among others). Some researchers (such as Dean, 2020) therefore refer to other languages in the sense that certain languages are devalued, both socially and in relation to their significance for educational processes, and are labelled simply as Other languages. The term is therefore based on the concept of othering (Spivak, 2008), in which the construction of people as ‘others’ is explored (hence the use of capitals and italics). Languages and speakers are generally characterised as other if they have a link to migration (either as an economic migrant or as a refugee), as is sometimes the case, for example, with Turkish or Arabic. This differentiation of languages then serves as an (implicit) basis for language policies and bans.

Justification of language policies and exclusions

The background to language policies can only be understood in the context of the entrenched view that a school’s role is to teach the national language (for a more detailed explanation, please see Dean, 2020, or Gogolin & Krüger-Potratz, 2010). Even today, monolingualism is justified by the historical connection between language and nation, as demonstrated recently by the much quoted example – both in the media and elsewhere – of a girl who was given a detention for speaking Turkish in the playground (Unterberg, 2022). Even though this case was decided in multilingualism’s favour, we can assume that similar lines of reasoning continue to be widespread (Blaschitz, 2024).

Even if language bans and rules involve discriminating policies and structures, the latter are rarely articulated explicitly (see Dewitz & Terhart, 2018, however, for a counterexample). Rather, reasons are given that are not (explicitly) directed at languages or groups of students, but are sometimes even carried out with ‘good intentions’, with such rules supposedly supporting the learners’ education or their acquisition of the German language. Even though input quality is known to be more important than quantity for the language acquisition process, debates often come down on the side of the latter. This misguided assumption can lead to requests for a German-speaking policy in the playground or to parents being advised to use the local language at home, instead of passing on their own other languages (Blaschitz, 2024).

The introduction of language rules and bans also appears to be motivated by the fear of a loss of control linked to the teacher’s inability to understand the languages spoken by the children. Depending on the teacher’s own language level, they may express the wish to understand everything or that everybody should be able to understand one another. This preference is often based on a fear or an insinuation that students speak other languages to use swear words, insult classmates or talk about them behind their backs. Although it is impossible to control entirely what students say, regardless of the language spoken, language is to some extent being used as a scapegoat to address conflicts on other levels – such as disruptions in class (compare Dorostkar, 2014). It goes without saying that a disruption or an insult can occur in any language. Often, however, the problem itself – the fact that it is not right to insult someone – is not addressed, just the language used to express it. Of course, it is also possible that ‘bad intentions’ when using a language are alleged as a matter of principle, even though two students were simply discussing a private matter or a topic from class. For example, it would hardly occur to a teacher to urge children to speak more loudly with the argument that not everybody understands them – this is, however, exactly what may happen to speakers of other languages.

Conclusion

Students are equally aware of the injustice of such unequal treatment (Plöger & Rühlmann, 2022). They often feel excluded, are angry or sad and are even ashamed of their language skills. This is not a good basis for learning. It would be much more beneficial if teachers were aware of their own perceptions and prejudices, so as to be able to deal with all languages and students in a way that takes account of diversity. This would not only enable acceptance of students’ identity, but also allow for the use of the diverse resources and wide-ranging skills to aid learning processes by involving them systematically. Conflicts and disruptions could then be resolved without needing to characterise anyone as ‘different’.