The diversity of curricula and patterns for language distribution in public and private schools should be a guarantee for the development of a minority education that fits different needs and points of views. The question is whether the choice among several programmes is a necessity. Another solution could be freedom to create and develop an individual curriculum without ties. They might be felt as restrictions rather than inspiring possibilities. Naturally the curricula should be under the responsibility of fulfilling the “National Standards” and
development of bilingualism which includes the Latvian language. Such a freedom would also make it possible for the schools to structure a curriculum which starts from and makes use of the experiences, the knowledge, and the abilities the children already possess.
14
The diversity of curricula, which are presented for the evaluation, is more or less adapted to the model programmes. This adaption shows the wish for freedom of creating an individual curriculum. It is also an indication that the schools have already realized the individual solutions. This development must be supported, and it will be of benefit to democracy and voluntary integration.
The comments on the language distribution in the programmes have included some remarks about the possibilities for integration. This is estimated on behalf of theory only and points at that which the minority community might offer. However, integration is a two-sided process and the attitude of the majority community is crucial. If the minority feels oppressed, their bilingualism will be of no use. Without mutual acceptance, equal opportunities and a dialogue about social conditions there will be no integration characteristic of a democracy.
Assimilation
Though the model programmes for primary education of ethnic minorities are existing and put into practice in different ways, it is still a question whether the parents and the pupils
belonging to an ethnic minority or said to do so, feel that they have a real choice within public education. As long as there is no public secondary education in their minority language nor a bilingual secondary education that includes their minority language, they may doubt whether bilingualism is the correct choice. Especially, when generally bilingualism is only promoted in the Latvian-English combination. The parents might think that the children do only obtain a proficiency in the state language at the same level as monolingual majority children with Latvian as their first language if they forget about their mother tongue in education. Such a belief contradicts research results within bilingualism but might be a consequence of a negative attitude to a bilingualism that include a language that does not have a high status in the society.
A change in the parents’ choice of school for their children indicates an insecurity in minority education or rather an insecurity in the reaction of the society to this type of education. It might be influenced by the fact that at present public secondary and higher education are in Latvian. In “The Integration of Society in Latvia. A Framework Document” it is mentioned that “Parents of non-Latvian and mixed families are choosing Latvian language schools because they are thinking about educational opportunities for their children and their
competitiveness in the future.” (Chapter Three, Education, Language, and Culture” p. 5). That is a clear indication that the parents think that the majority Latvian primary school is giving the optimal basis for secondary and further education, and the ethnic minority education as giving a poor chance. Not necessarily because of the standard of the minority education but they might feel a rejection of their minority status. Such a development is a sign of an assimilationistic policy in education or an assimilationistic attitude in society. That is not a sign of integration in society.
Plurilingualism - A vision
The process of shaping a national identity in Latvia is parallel to the processes which have taken place in many European nation states during the last two centuries. But diversity due to autochthanomous minorities and minority groups as a result of migration have changed this picture. In EU the goal is unity in diversity. And the Council of Europe is not only concerned with the protection of language rights of minority groups. It also promotes plurilingualism so that a more effective international communication can lead to mutual understanding and respect for diversity within identities and culture.
Instead of taking a step backwards in education in order to establish a nation state like the
15
traditional West-European (EUropean ) type, why not take a step ahead and create a
multilingual curriculum where plurilingualism is the goal? This was the goal of the European Language year 2001. It focussed on the opportunities that might be reached by having more than one foreign language, but did not suggest models that included a language with minority status and a foreign language, i.e. a plurilingualism consisting of the official language, a minority language and a foreign language for majority as well as minority pupils. It would not break down the nation state as the common communicative mean is the official language. It is just the unity language-culture-identity that are changed into diversity instead. It might be characterized as diversity in unity.
In such a plurilingual model, Latvian could be combined with English as a foreign language and Russian, Polish or German that are acknowledged as minority languages but at the same time are the official languages of neighbouring or almost neighbouring states. In the design of the curriculum pupils having one of the three big minority languages as their mother tongue are going to have Latvian and English as their second languages during primary and
secondary education. Those having Latvian as their mother tongue are going to have English and one of the minority languages as their second languages during primary and secondary education. By this policy the country will gain a population that is able to communicate with the neighbouring states and the rest of the world.
The country would be characterized by a complex communicative competence. And Latvia will make use of the pupils’ resources, i.e. the knowledge, the skills and the experience they have got at home and in their environment. It will also make use of the resources among the teachers speaking the different languages as their native languages. However, they are not going to teach it only as a native language but also as a second language. What is needed is teacher training in second language teaching and learning in general and following it has to be specified in Latvian as a second language, Russian as a second language, Polish as a second language, German as a second language, and English as a second language.
In other words, didactics for the development of plurilingualism have to be developed. It should be the educational programmes for all children with no regard to national or cultural identity and they would have to go together in a district school. A plurilingual curriculum that is open for maintenance of the diversity in national and cultural identities would be a good guarantee for integration in society. Furthermore it must be in the self-interest of the state to make the most of the human and linguistic resources of society. According to the needs in a globalized world, pluralingualism might not only contribute to intercultural understanding but it would also be a resource in international politics and trade. In the long run it might be an economic strength.
Free schools
If nation-building according to a national ideology is preventing the development of plurilingualism as a common aim across national identities for majority and minority, the ethnic minorities might take the matter in their own hand. They have a potential for bilingualism and could be given a free hand to develop plurilingualism. The model programmes do not give it. As the analysis of the four programmes shows, the ethnic
minorities have restrictions - more or less - in developing bilingualism and cultural diversity.
The schools could develop their own curricula like the “free” schools in Denmark. They are obliged to teach the national language and reach adequate standards comparable with those of the public schools, but they are free to do it in the way they want. This freedom of choice has been a leading principle in Danish education for 150 years. Today, various kinds of “free” or independent schools exist, all of them receiving government subsidies by up to 85% of their
16
operational expenditure. Subject to certain conditions, loans on favourable terms can be obtained for the establishment of new schools.
The principle behind these large subsidies is that, although Denmark has an efficient
education system providing educational opportunities for all, it should be possible for people to choose an alternative kind of education for their children should they wish so, whether their reasons for this are ideological, political, educational, or religious. The schools of the national German minority in Denmark are run according to these principles. They are “free” schools and are described after the following introduction to the Danish-German border region where they are situated.