47 VI. CONCLUSIONS
mechanical reproduction of previous measures (predominantly increasing the scope and efficiency of Latvian language acquisition in minority schools).
In order to achieve a greater degree of “practical” integration, implying greater social and political inclusion and positive orientation towards the members of other (than one’s own) ethnic and linguistic groups living in Latvia, it is neces-sary to adopt a set of policy guidelines or a strategy leading to the mainstream-ing of diversity in the Latvian school system. Such strategy should be a result of broad consensus among the school system stakeholders (parents, teachers, stu-dents, school administrations, local education authorities, government and policy planners), and should be adapted after extensive consultations with the stakeholders. It should by no means be based on “hard” measures such as rapid reduction of the number of “Russian” schools or further increase of the propor-tion of hours to be taught in Latvian in minority educapropor-tion programmes. On the contrary, a gradual “liberalisation” of the regulations concerning the micro-man-agement of the teaching and learning process at school, providing the opportu-nity of choice between different models – from completely integrated to rela-tively segregated – is a necessary pre-requisite for successfully overcoming the inherited ethnic separation.
The diversity mainstreaming policies could include (but not be limited to) the following sets of measures:
1. Research and data gathering in order to identify diversity-related needs and problem areas in the current school system:
1) a study on the inclusion of ethnic/linguistic minority children in Lat-vian-language schools(identifying factors that have positive and negative influence on the development of inclusive education environment), to be sup-plemented by a study on the situation of students with linguistically/culturally different background in Russian-language schools;
2) a national survey of teachers’ intercultural education skills is necessary in order to see where additional in-service training resources are needed;
3) creating a national database of teachers who have acquired LSL (LL22) teach-ing skills(this would enable policy planners, in the short term, to see which schools have need of more teachers with LSL skills, and in the long term, to plan the LSL teacher training courses according to the actual needs of schools in each region);
4) establishing a system of data gathering that would make possible the analysis of disaggregated statisticson the performance of different ethnic/linguistic groups in the national school system (while observing the laws and regula-tions on individual data protection);
5) case studies of the situation in education of groups with special needs, or groups suffering from “equality gap” (after disaggregated statistics analysis).
48 THE CASE FOR DIVERSITY MAINSTREAMING IN THE NATIONAL SCHOOL SYSTEM
Such case studies could be more useful if conducted within specific com-munities (by a local education authority in consultation with schools and parent associations);
6) MOES-conducted surveys of best practice in intercultural education (projects, teacher training seminars, etc.) with the aim of disseminating and multiplying successful models.
2. Adjusting the MOES agencies’ and local education authorities’ struc-ture and organisational culstruc-ture to the needs of a culturally and linguisti-cally diverse society:
1) the newly created General Education Quality Agency should include, among its functions, the collection and analysis of data on the performance of dif-ferent ethnic/linguistic groups in the national school system (while observing the laws and regulations on individual data protection);
2) in-service seminars on intercultural communication and on inclusive education for school inspectors and representatives of local education author-ities would provide greater awareness of the needs and values of inclusion and equality in diverse society;
3) a unit responsible for the inclusion of the children of families recently settled in the country in the Latvian education system should be established at the MOES in the near future, reflecting the slowly but surely growing need for providing education to children whose native language is neither Latvian nor one of the traditional minority languages in Latvia. The responsibilities of such unit would include the assessment of the current situation in view of Latvia’s membership in the EU and future perspectives of labour market and migra-tion, and development of adequate measures to meet the emerging needs – such as intensive Latvian language courses for students entering the national education system from outside the country.
3. Adding new priorities to teacher training agenda (both teaching qual-ification and in-service training):
1) LSL teaching methodsshould be included among obligatory (A part) courses for teaching qualification in all professional teachers’ education programmes.
This would enable all subject teachers to teach linguistic minority students – a situation most teachers are eventually going to face as classes become more mixed;
49 VI. CONCLUSIONS
2) intercultural education methods should be increasingly included in the curricula of teacher training institutions, both in BA programmes leading to teaching qualification and in in-service training courses. For this purpose, special government funding should be made available to universi-ties and organisers of training courses;
3) in view of the proposal to introduce bilingual education in languages other than Latvian and Russian, it is necessary to provide adequate methodolo-gical and linguistic training for future teachers in these programmes. As this requires considerable funding and identification of available teaching re-sources, a special policy document outlining the principles of planning, implementation and funding for this priority is necessary.
4. A series of “soft” measures aimed at the step-by-step practical deseg-regation of the school system.These could include (but not be limited to):
1) information campaignsto address new target audiences and attract poten-tial students from ethnic/linguistic groups that were not traditionally served by respective school. Schools could be encouraged to engage in such cam-paigns by special funding provided via local education authorities. The need for such measures would be greater in Riga and Daugavpils (and possibly Ventspils and Liepåja), where the segregated school system is more in evi-dence than in the smaller towns and rural regions of Latvia;
2) in-service seminars on inclusive education environment are necessary to pro-vide the background for a change of institutional cultures in schools that previously viewed themselves as monoethnic, but which now have a mixed target audience of students from different ethnic and linguistic back-grounds. Such seminars could be funded by local education authorities, and organized by education NGOs such as the Centre for Education Development (Izglîtîbas attîstîbas centrs);
4) regulations concerning the exact proportion of languages of instruction in minority schools, already made more relative and needs-based by the ruling of the Constitutional Court, should be further relaxed in the long term, par-allel to the measures to attract minority students to schools teaching in Latvian;
5) the proposal to introduce more bilingual classes, also in Latvian-lan-guage schools, and in lanLatvian-lan-guages other than Russian, should be pursued as a concrete policy planning goal with funding attached to it. The new amend-ments to the General Education Law make it possible to implement such changes in schools, but without methodological backup and special support, and in view of very limited human resources, the proposal will remain only a good intention. As a first step towards providing analytical tools for this
50 THE CASE FOR DIVERSITY MAINSTREAMING IN THE NATIONAL SCHOOL SYSTEM
policy, a database of subject teachers with foreign language skills suf-ficient for teaching should be created;
6) approval of new textbooks should not become more centralized, but rather include more criteria ensuring that textbooks reflect the diversity of society in positive terms, while not disregarding the problems and chal-lenges some groups are facing or were facing historically.
References
1. Amir, Y., and S. Sharan (eds.) (1984) School Desegregation: Cross-cultural Per-spectives, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale.
2. Batelaan, Pieter (ed.) (1998) Towards an Equitable Classroom, IAIE.
3. Batelaan, Pieter, and Fons Coomans (1999) The International Basis for Inter-cultural Education, IAIE, UNESCO and the Council of Europe.
4. Booth, Christine (2001) Mainstreaming Diversity in the Planning Process.
University of Exeter. http://www.planningsummerschool.org/papers/year2001/
2001M1E02.htm
5. Castles (1992) Australian Multiculturalism: Social Policy and Identity in a Changing Society, pp. 184–201. In: Freeman, G., & J. Jupp. (eds.) Nations of Immigrants: Australia, The United States and International Migration. Melbourne:
Oxford University Press.
6. Fermin, Alfons (2000) Burgerschap en integratiebeleid, Report for the Ministry of Interior, the Netherlands.
7. Hirßa, Dzintra (1996) Kad atnåks latvießiem tie laiki?[When will the time come for Latvians?], Neatkarîgå Rîta Avîze, March 8, p. 3.
8. Kriszan, Andrea (ed.) (2000) Ethnic Monitoring and Data Protection, CPS Books, CEU Press.
9. Mackay, Fiona, and Kate Bilton (2003) Learning from Experience: Lessons in Mainstreaming Equal Opportunities, Research Findings No 4/2003, Social Justice Research Programme, Scottish Executive. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/cru/resfinds/
sjf4-00.asp
10. Ministry of Education and Science of Latvia (2004) Answer to the Saeima (Parliament) Deputies Pliners, Sokolovskis, Kabanovs, Aleksejevs, Tolmaçovs and Buzajevs, Concerning Competitiveness of the Pupils of Ethnic Minority Schools Entering Higher Education, 29.12.2004.
11. Ministry of Education and Science of Estonia (2004), National Action Plan Education for All.