Contextual variables

Demographic patterns and status of the languages involved: The out-of-school environment in which a child evolves is as significant as the in-school situation for determining language usage and learning, or any other scholastic activity for that matter (Baetens Beardsmore 1995, Diaz, Moll & Mehan 1986). Of primary concern for reflection here are the demographic patterns and the relative statuses of the languages in the wider context, with consequences for extra-scholastic language contact and pupils' attitudinal and motivational dispositions for language learning. Is the region in which a bilingual program operates relatively homogeneous or is it linguistically and culturally heterogeneous, and how does bilingual education complement the linguistic and cultural characteristics of the community? Answering these questions with regard to the Republic of Latvia is complicated by the country's complex, multilingual and multi-ethnic population structure, which derives from pre-Soviet and even pre-Empirial times (Melvin 1995). The linguistic and ethnic complexity of Latvia, however, is in no way exceptional or necessarily an impediment for successful bilingual education. This is compellingly illustrated by, for instance, the experience in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the

7

European Schools, which cater for equally or even more linguistically and ethno-culturally diverse populations.

Status of the languages: The status of the various languages in Latvia is a moot point.

As a result of its legal status as state language, the number of its speakers and its use in official and prestigious domains (administration, law, parliament), the Latvian language can be considered the majority language in Latvia. In principle at least, this provides favourable attitudinal dispositions towards its use in the bilingual programs and a powerful motivational factor. All other languages spoken in Latvia are referred to as '(ethnic) minority languages'. Clearly, the labels minority and majority have little to do with absolute numbers or demography. As Haberland (1991, pp. 182-3) pointed out, the primary issue is relative power – the minority languages ultimately derive their status in relation to what is considered to be the national language. Terminological issues aside, it is clear that Russian occupies a special position in Latvia. Russian is more firmly established in Latvian society than the other minority languages and it even forms the numerical majority language in several parts of the country. This state of affairs has consequences for the outcomes of bilingual education. The situation of Russian-speaking children in bilingual schools in predominantly Russian-speaking areas is reminiscent of that of, for example, French-speaking children learning L2-English in the European Schools in the predominantly French-speaking city of Brussels. From what is known about the role of contextual variables in determining outcomes in the European Schools system (Housen 2002a) we speculate that the Russian-speaking pupils may perceive the learning of Latvian as less pertinent to their communicative, professional or social needs than the other ethnic minority children and therefore the Russian-speaking pupils may be less strongly motivated to learn and use Latvian. This is the more likely in schools where Latvian is not prevalent in the wider community for regular, spontaneous interaction.

Population targeted: Bilingual education in Latvia is a case of one-way bilingual education because it is provided to one group in society only. Only ethnic minority children are required to learn Latvian and study through Latvian whereas mainstream Latvian children are exempted from making similar stringent language-acquisition efforts.

8

This stands in contrast to other countries of a similar size with bi- or multilingual education, such as the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, Brunei or Singapore, where the entire population is targeted for bilingual education, where there is no selection and where all children, regardless of linguistic background, are put through the same constraints where language and academic learning are concerned. Linguistic equality is also striven for in the European Schools and in the Two-Way Immersion programs in the United States (Montone & Loeb 2000), where both the language minority and majority children in the school have to learn a second language and have to learn and communicate through their weaker second language.

An educational system where only minority children are expected to make the effort towards bilingualism (often meaning transition to the majority language) while the mainstream population is not required to make any stringent language-acquisition efforts amounts to "in-built linguistic discrimination" (Baetens Beardsmore 1995: 11) which, unintentional though it may be, cannot fail to be perceived by all children involved, with possible detrimental consequences for their linguistic and personal development.

Composition of the school population. The pupil population of bilingual schools in Latvia tends to be fairly homogeneous, with most pupils sharing the same home language and ethnic background. However, some bilingual schools (especially in the urban areas) are confronted with a more heterogeneous population. Russian-Latvian schools (i.e. the former Russian-medium schools) are not only attended by Russian-speakers but also by most of the Ukrainian and Belarussian children, a large proportion of Poles, Jews and other non-Latvian children, children from linguistically mixed backgrounds and even some children from Latvian-speaking backgrounds (UNDP 1997, p. 62). It is inevitable therefore, that the pupil population in at least some bilingual Russian-Latvian schools shows a wide range of different home language backgrounds as well as a range of L1 and L2 skills, with some children from ethnically mixed or non-Russian families being educated in a third language. The extent of the variation in language proficiency in the classrooms is still unclear, as are its educational implications. But again, this is not a unique Latvian phenomenon. L2 classrooms in the European Schools, for example, also display considerable differences in L2 proficiency in the early years of schooling but these are gradually levelled out as the children proceed through the system. This indicates

9

that differences in language proficiency upon entry need not pose a major pedagogical problem, given appropriate teaching strategies and time.

Linguistic distance between the L1 and L2 may also contribute to variation in the rate of L2 learning and final L2 achievement in mixed populations. Pupils from a Germanic language background learning English or German as their L2 in the European Schools have been found to have a considerable initial diminishing L2 learning advantage over their non-Germanic peers (Housen 2002a,b). The Luxembourg experience in trilingual education suggests that typological proximity between the L1 and L2 in bilingual education can facilitate the introduction of an L2 in bilingual education. The experience with Greek pupils in the European School system has shown that allowances may have to be made for the presence of two different spelling systems rather than one in bilingual education. These experiences are also relevant for the Latvian context. Several of the ethnic minority languages in Latvian bilingual education (e.g. Russian, Lithuanian, Polish, Belarussian) are genetically related to the designated second language Latvian though some use a different spelling system (e.g. Russian). Other ethnic minority language are typologically more remote (e.g. Estonian) and may in addition use an entirely different alphabet (e.g. Yiddish). Children belonging to these language groups may need more time and pedagogical attention to acquire criterion levels of literacy in their respective L1 and L2.

Teachers: Ideally, teachers in bilingual programs should be native speakers, since they provide the pupils with genuine linguistic role models and rich, varied, accurate and appropriate input for language learning. Native speaker teachers also serve an important function as role models in the development of the pupil's cultural identity. In addition, L2 teachers should also be bilingual, or have at least sufficient knowledge of their pupils' L1 to accommodate to their communicative needs in the early stages of L2 development.

While there should be no shortage of eligible native speaker teacher candidates in Latvia in theory, recruitment is made difficult because of extremely low pay (UNDP 1998, p.

68).

Shortage of qualified teachers, particularly teachers trained in teaching Latvian as a second language (LAT2) can impede the successful implementation of the bilingual education policy. Again, this situation is not very different from what goes on many other

10

parts of the world where bilingual situation is being introduced, as witnessed by the Council of Europe workshops devoted to this problem (Council of Europe 1997). It seems inevitable that pedagogical insecurity may prevail among Latvian teachers who are trying to apply bilingual policy and program guidelines without much preparatory training and without having themselves gone through the program they are passing on.

Although these constraints are currently being addressed by the Latvian authorities (cf.

the National Program for Latvian Language Training; UNDP 1996, pp. 73-5), and should be eliminated with time, it is difficult to envisage how this can be achieved in the short time span allowed by the Latvian Education Act (i.e. by 2004).