There are at least four unique factors in the Latvian context that are common to the experiences of many parts of the former Soviet Union, but unique with respect to other parts of the world: 1) Latvian language and culture recently and suddenly became dominant in Latvia, with the
language and culture of the previous power structure now in a subordinate position; 2) most Russian-speaking Latvians, as well as those whose mother tongues are Lithuanian, Polish, Estonian, German, and Roma, are long-term residents of Latvia; 3) a rich legacy of native Latvian speakers have an excellent command of Russian; and 4) the Latvian and Russian languages use different alphabets. This latter difference is not an insurmountable problem—
there are tens of thousands of children from Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Arabic countries, and, indeed, Russia, who are enrolled in programmes of bilingual education in the United States and who transition from one alphabet to another.
In a process funded by the United National Development Programme (UNDP) and the
Delegation of the European Commission in Latvia, The Naturalisation Board of The Republic of Latvia (1999) prepared The integration of society in Latvia: A framework document, edited by E.
Vebers. Chapter 3, entitled Education, Language, and Culture, was dedicated to a careful examination of the interplay among these three issues in Latvia. Several aims from the document that impact on the issue of bilingual education are summarized below:
• To focus education on the learning of Latvian language at a level that permits young people to “use it freely as a means of communication,” while promoting the “preservation of identity among minorities and their integration into Latvian society”
• To establish a stable society that shares a common official language, Latvian, while supporting the cultivation of minority languages
• To ensure the development of Latvian cultural values, even while the values of other cultures are developed and protected
Several problems and difficulties in implementing educational reform processes were also identified in the document, including insufficient remuneration for teachers, a conservative orientation in schools that focuses on the reproduction of knowledge instead of creative and critical thinking, financial difficulties related to maintaining schools, especially with regard to heating, shortages of nationally-produced textbooks and instructional materials in both Latvian and minority languages, and continuing problems in moving away from the old system toward an orientation befitting an rapidly developing democracy.
Section 9 of the Education Law of Latvia (1999, 2000, 2000) addresses ethnic minority children and allows for instruction in “another language.” Section 41 of the same law provides for ethnic minority children to acquire “relevant ethnic culture and for integration of ethnic minorities in Latvia.” An amendment to an earlier code requires that at least two subjects at the primary school level and three at the secondary level will be taught in the state language (Circular of the Ministry of Education No. 1-14-2, 1996). These provisions reflect the commitment of the Ministry of Education and Science to allowing children to maintain the mother tongue and the culture that accompanies it, even as children add or strengthen Latvian language or culture. The methodology for teaching Latvian-as-a-second language is not described, but, based on other references to difficulties in moving away from traditional methods in other subject areas, it may be assumed that the approach is traditional and heavily focused on the teaching of grammar in
most cases. The approach to teaching Latvian is described as communicative in the programme desciptions of the Partial Primary Education Program of Agenskalns (German language) and of the ABECE school in Riga.
In Order No. 286 (1999), the Ministry of Education adopted a model programme of bilingual education with four sub-programmes. The four models provide for children to learn Latvian language and culture and also “to learn the native language and culture.” All of the models include instruction “bilingually,” although the methodology for accomplishing this bilingual instruction is not described. In the programme descriptions of Riga Technical Lyceum No. 1 and of the primary education program of the Liepa primary school, it is implied that bilingual
instruction is conducted in two languages, Latvian and Russian.
Instruction in Latvian language and culture is provided for in two to four lessons each week in grades one to three, and four in grades four through nine, a number of lessons that seems quite minimal if the children are to learn Latvian. Mother tongue academic instruction is provided for in the ethnic minority language and in mathematics and natural sciences in some models, but not all. Mother tongue instruction is provided for in music, visual art, handicrafts, and sport at some levels, although these are areas in which instruction in Latvian could probably be provided much earlier. Parent choice is implied in the descriptions of the four models, but it is not clear how this might be accomplished if individual parents in schools did not agree as to the model to be used in the school of their children’s attendance.
Finally, the Association in Support to the Russian Language Schools (LASOR) has proposed a policy that would extend the four primary models into the secondary level, where the law provides for education of all students in Latvian language.
In the subsequent Instruction No. 8 (2001), the Ministry of Education provided for education programmes to prepare teachers for work in bilingual education programs, but the content of such programs is not described. The programme description of Riga Secondary School No. 17 identifies the need to improve the Latvian language skills of teachers.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following generic recommendations for consideration reflect the Latvian context for bilingual education, experiences of educators in other countries, and theory and research supported by investigations. They are organized into the categories of educational policy, curriculum and methods, and teacher training.
Educational Policy
Recommendation: Consider defining with greater precision instruction presented
“bilingually,” as the term is used with respect to the four models.
Rationale: There are many approaches to bilingual instruction, ranging from concurrent method to dual language, and many others; some are very effective, and some not; bilingual instruction does not consist of teaching in the mother tongue and the second language, but rather instruction in the mother tongue while they children learn Latvian-as-a-second language.
Recommendation: Consider the integration of fluent Latvian speakers and minority language speakers for at least a part of the school day, even in the bilingual education program.
Rationale: Minority language children, even at the first grade level when they are learning academic subjects in the minority language, will learn Latvian
much more rapidly if they are in lessons with native Latvian speakers in such areas as sport, music, arts, visual art, and handicraft; this can be accomplished in the Eastman design described above.
Curriculum and Instruction
Recommendation: Consider emphasizing communication through the natural approach in programmes of Latvian as a second language, rather than grammar.
Rationale: Learning the second language is similar to learning the mother tongue;
formal knowledge of grammar is not a significant factor until students reach at least an intermediate level of proficiency in oral language. Traditional grammar-translation and audiolingual approaches are not effective in teaching children to understand and speak another language.
Recommendation: Consider teaching in Latvian, according to provisions of Section ???, the very concrete areas of art, music, physical education; proceeding to the
semi-concrete areas of mathematics and science; finally transitioning to the more abstract social sciences.
Rationale: These concrete and less academic areas of the curriculum can be taught very effectively in Latvian using sheltered strategies beginning during the first grade.
Teacher Training
Recommendation: Consider adding strategies for teaching second language to the teacher training curriculum for all teachers at all levels and in all disciplines,
including sheltered instruction in academic curriculum areas; similar staff development for inservice teachers would also be needed.
Rationale: Even non-bilingual teachers have an important role in supporting the development of Latvian language proficiency as they teach minority
language children who have transitioned into Latvian language instruction.
Recommendation: Consider augmenting the salaries of teachers who demonstrate proficiency in Latvian language and culture and a second language and culture.
Rationale: This recognizes the value of being bilingual and bicultural, and it encourages teachers to develop second language and cultural skills.
Recommendation: Consider the creation of a career ladder to bilingual teacher by
establishing the position of bilingual paraprofessional, who would provide mother tongue instruction or support in the mother tongue in the
classrooms of monolingual Latvian teachers under their supervision.
Rationale: Paraprofessionals can provide mother tongue instructional support where a bilingual teacher is not available; they are also encouraged to complete training and become bilingual teachers themselves.
In addition, recommendations for consideration of changes in the four models proposed by the Ministry of Education are offered:
Recommendation: Consider increasing the number of Latvian as-a-second-language lessons to five each week at all grade levels in all four models.
Rationale: Even as children receive mother tongue instruction in the academic areas, they need daily instruction in Latvian language with a communicative approach.
Recommendation: Consider teaching mathematics and the natural sciences in the mother tongue in grade levels one and two in all four models.
Rationale: Mathematics and the natural sciences are academic subjects that will be difficult for children to understand in Latvian while they are still early in the process of learning Latvian-as-a-second language.
Recommendation: Consider having teachers use sheltered strategies to maintain
understanding as they teach children transitioned from mother tongue to Latvian language, a language that is still developing.
Rationale: Even after students are ready for Latvian language instruction in the
academic areas, their language is not as strong as native speakers; they need support.
REFERENCES
Chastain, K. (1975). Developing second language skills: From theory to practice. Chicago:
Rand McNally College Publishing Company.
Circular of the Ministry of Education No. 1-14-2 (1996).
Collier, V. P. (1987). Age and rate of acquisition of second language for academic purposes.
TESOL Quarterly, 21, 617-641.
Crawford, A. N. (1995). Language policy, second language learning, and literacy. In A. N.
Crawford (Ed.), A Practical Guidebook for Adult Literacy Programmes in Developing Nations (pp. 9-16). Paris: UNESCO.
Crawford, A. N. (1986). Communicative approaches to second language: A bridge to reading comprehension. In M. P. Douglass (Ed.), Claremont Reading Conference Yearbook (pp.
292-305). Claremont, CA: Claremont Reading Conference.
Crawford, A. N. (1994). Communicative approaches to second language acquisition: From oral language development into the core curriculum and L2 literacy. In C. F. Leyba (Ed.), Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework (2nd ed., pp. 79-121).
Los Angeles: Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center, California State University, Los Angeles.
Crawford, J. (2000). At war with diversity: U.S. language policy in an age of anxiety. Clevedon, U.K.: Multilingual Matters.
Cummins, J. (1989). Empowering minority students. Sacramento: California Association for Bilingual Education.
Cummins, J. (1986) Empowering minority students: A framework for intervention.Harvard Educational Review, 56, 18-36.
Cummins, J. (1994). Primary language instruction and the education of language minority students. In C. F. Leyba (Ed.), Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework (2nd ed., pp. 3-46). Los Angeles: Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center, California State University, Los Angeles.
Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for language minority students. In California State Department of Education (Ed.), Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework (pp. 3-49). Los
Angeles: Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center, California State University, Los Angeles.
Holdaway, D. (1979). The foundations of literacy. Sydney: Ashton Scholastic.
Krashen, S. D. (1985). Inquiries and insights: Second language teaching, immersion & bilingual education, literacy. Hayward, CA: Alemany Press.
Krashen, S. (1982). Theory versus practice in language training. In R. W. Blair (Ed.),
Innovative approaches to language teaching (pp. 15-30). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Krashen, S., & Biber, D. (1988). On course: Bilingual education's success in California.
Sacramento, CA: California Association for Bilingual Education.
Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, T. D. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. New York: Pergamon/Alemany.
Lambert, W. E. (1975). Culture and language as factors in learning and education. In A.
Wolfgang (Ed.), Education of immigrant students. Toronto: O.I.S.E.
Lessow-Hurley, J. (1996). The Foundations of Dual Language Instruction. White Plains, NY:
Longman.
Ministry of Education and Science (1996). Circular No. 1-14-2: On procedure for
implementation of the amendments to the Education Law. Riga: Ministry of Education and Science.
Ministry of Education and Science (1999, 2000, 2001). Education Law. Riga: Ministry of Education and Science.
Ministry of Education and Science (2001). Instruction No. 8: On education requirements for teachers implementing the General Education Programme. Riga: Ministry of Education and Science.
Modiano, N. (1968). Bilingual education for children of linguistic minorities. American indígena, 28, 405-414.
Reutzel, D. R., & Cooter, Jr., R. B. (2000). Teaching children to read. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Merrill.
Richard-Amato, P. & Snow, M. A. (1992). The multicultural classroom: Readings for content area teachers. New York: Longman.
Saville, M. R., & Troike, R. C. (1971). A handbook of bilingual education. Washington, D. C.:
Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.
Selinker, L. (1992). Rediscovering interlanguage. Harlow, Essex: Longman.
Selinker, L. , Swain, M., & Dumas, G. (1975). The interlanguage hypothesis extended to children. Language Learning, 25, 129-152.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T., & Toukomaa, T. (1976). Teaching migrant children’s mother tongue and learning the language of the host country in the context of the sociocultural situation of the migrant family. Helsinki: The Finnish National Commission for UNESCO.
Terrell, T. D. (1982). The natural approach to language teaching: An update. Modern Language Journal, 66, 121-122.
Terrell, T. D. (1977). A natural approach to second language acquisition and learning. Modern Language Journal, 6, 325-337.
Terrell, T. D. (1981). The natural approach in bilingual education. In California State Department of Education (Ed.), School and language minority students: A theoretical framework (pp. 117-146). Los Angeles: Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center, California State University, Los Angeles.
Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. (1997). School effectiveness for language minority students.
Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.
UNESCO (1953). The use of vernacular languages in education. Paris: UNESCO.
Vebers, E. (Ed.) (1999). The integration of society in Latvia: A framework document. Riga: The Naturalisation Board of The Republic of Latvia.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
1
A Search to Merge Karen Margrethe Pedersen (Denmark)
Foreword
The title might be interpreted in many ways. In this connection it refers to integration and assimilation processes resulting from language policies and the curricula of the schools.
Under this heading the essay describes and discusses bilingual education and the educational policies within compulsory primary education in Latvia, with special regard to education of ethnic minorities. The aim is to determine whether educational opportunities resulting from four models support the integration of the minorities in the society of Latvia. Furthermore, the essay includes recommendations to minority education in future and experiences within minority education and transboundary majority education in the Danish-German border region. The idea is to inspire to prospects for the schools in Latvia.