In Latvia, primary education of ethnic minorities has to obtain the same main goals as majority primary education according to model programmes approved by the Ministry of Education and Science (16.5.2001). Furthermore, minority education has two special aims. It is obliged to offer the minority pupils scope for integration in the Latvian society and for keeping their national identity (I. 3.).
These additional aims make it clear that a minority is a group of people which has another national identity than Latvian. And they indicate that it is not taken for granted that minority pupils are integrated in the Latvian society when they start school. Obviously, this must follow from their parents not being integrated. The aims illustrate the state of affairs. The Latvian society is composed by groups having different national identities, and the Latvian government strives for an integration of all minorities. Competence in the Latvian language is seen as a determinant for the integration.
In the objectives for implementation of the minority progamme, language is mentioned but it is not defined as minority or majority language. It is language as a general skill, “skills of the language and mathematics”(II, 4.1.). In the following paragraph the special objectives for minority education stress the two languages, the Latvian and the native. Priority is given to Latvian and the minority language is added. This attitude signalizes 1+1 language, an additional view upon the command of two languages. Neither bilingualism nor Latvian as a second language is mentioned. That gives the impression of another aim than bilingualism.
The focus is on Latvian, the language of the education that follows compulsory primary education,
7
“5.1. to facilitate the integration of the learner into the society of Latvia and to ensure the command of the Latvian language on such a level that would enable the learner to continue to pursue the education in the Latvian language;
5.2. to learn the native language and culture.”
In the paragraphs about the content of minority education (chap.V) it is remarkable that only the Latvian language is mentioned explicitly, minority languages are not:
“14.5. communication aspect: command of the Latvian language; practical experience in the use of the language; ability to communicate (speak, write, read) in several languages;”
(chap.V, 14.5).
The minority languages might be included in the expression “several languages” but it might also mean foreign languages. That is at any rate the content of the words “number of
languages” that is mentioned under Communicative Skills in the “National Standards”
(1998:11).
An analysis of the recommendations regarding choice of model programmes (Chap.V, 18) reaches the same result. In programme 1, 2, and 3, minority languages are not mentioned, although bilingual preschool is referred to in 1. On the other hand, Latvian turns up two to three times in each recommendation, and it looks as if the choice of model has something to do with Latvian. Only in programme 4 the mother tongue is included because it is an explicit model for parents who want primary education in the children’s mother tongue. Consequently it indicates that the parents who choose the other programmes do not care so much about the mother tongue as the Latvian language. Or rather, they are thought to think so by those who have developed the recommendations.
The suggested criteria for the choice of programme are the children’s competence in Latvian combined with the parents’ wish for integration. Obviously integration is measured on the competence in Latvian and the possibilities for usage in everyday life.
There is no reference to integration in programme 1. It is recommended to children with some competence in Latvian and an environment where Latvian is used. Hence they are supposed to be integrated already at the beginning of the first class. The children qualifying for programme 2 do also possess some competence in Latvian but have no environment to
practice the language. They are not integrated beforehand as the “families want the children to be integrated into the society of Latvia;”. So, it is not only the Latvian language but also the environment or the sociolinguistic realities of the community that matters. If they are not Latvian, the integration cannot be expected in spite of some linguistic competence in the official language. Programme 3 is supposed to suit pupils with no competence in Latvian, no Latvian environment, but parents who want integration,
“18.3. Sub-program 3 is recommended for students who have no preliminary knowledge of the Latvian language nor the environment where they could practise the Latvian language, but whose families want the children to be integrated into the society of Latvia;”
A comparison between programme 3 and 4 reveals the attitude to the mother tongue of ethnic minorities. In 3 there is a wish for integration, in 4 there is not. At any rate it is not mentioned in the recommendation. It looks as if mother tongue education is thought to prohibit
integration,
“18.4. Sub-program 4 is recommended for students who have no preliminary knowledge of the Latvian language and whose parents want them to receive the primary education in their mother tongue.”
A complete interpretation of this recommendation and its criteria must be related to the language distribution of the programme. That is also due to the other programmes.
8 Progamme 1
When comparing the criteria in the recommendation for programme 1 with the distribution of languages in its curriculum, the result is contradictory in relation to the development of the minority language. If the children have some competence in Latvian when starting out in school, they are recommended to choose this programme which has bilingual subjects from class one. The attitude seems to be that the children are capable of bilingual education right from the beginning. In itself that would not be contradictory to the development of the minority language. The contradiction lies in the fact that the transition to Latvian as the medium of instruction is beginning after the three first years and is fulfilled from class seven.
The first three years only mathematics and the minority language as subject are taught in the minority language. In class four to six, it is reduced to be minority language and minority literature and one year with health studies but this subject has to be integrated in other subjects. In class seven to nine the minority language is represented in the subjects minority language and literature. Apart from that mathematics is taught bilingually and the rest of the subjects are in Latvian.
The linguistic attitude behind this programme with early transition to Latvian monolingual education is that the minority language is of no worth. It is stressed by being only a subject.
The children might feel the majority language imposed on them as the only thing of value.
That might result in refusal, conscious or unconsciously. The transition ignores the diversity in the society and the children’s bilingualism. The message communicated to the children is that the minority language does not belong to the school. It is a private matter. They have no chances of developing all the concepts from the educational world in their first language. To a high degree they are reserved for the second language, the Latvian language.
It is a mystery, why pupils who have a minority mother tongue and qualifications in Latvian right from class one and an environment with usage of Latvian, are recommended to choose an early transitional programme. A bilingual programme would give them literacy and subject matter knowledge in the mother tongue without damaging the development of the second language Latvian. It would have permitted a transfer between the two languages. Educational research proves this in connection with well-implemented bilingual programmes all over the world. Add to that several additional advantages as described above.
The recommendation and the language distribution of the programme give better chances for assimilation than integration. Assimilation understood as giving up the minority language and culture and taking on the majority language and way of life.
Programme 2
This programme is characterized by bilingual instruction. Only the subjects Latvian and the minority language and literature are separate in language throughout all classes. In the last three years computer science, chemistry and geography are taught in the minority language.
The reason why these subjects are not taught bilingually is not described. Therefore, it is impossible to comprehend.
The programme considers bilingual development and maintenance of the mother tongue, and the curriculum does justice to both minority and majority cultural and social competence. It implies that he pupils learn to use the two languages as languages of experience and language of knowledge. When you use the language for referring to “things” which you have a first hand knowledge of, personal experiences, feelings between an “I” and a “you” and that which happens here and now, it is language of experience. The language of knowledge, on the other hand, is the language usage in connection with phenomenons and relations detached from every concrete and personal context, but brought to your knowledge on second or third
9 hand.
When both types of usage are considered in both languages, there is a transfer across the two languages. The children will get a possibility for differentiation and generalization of their own experiences in the two languages and for concept learning and academic skills. If the bilingual programme is well-implemented, it gives a good chance for integration.
Programme 3
The distribution of languages in programme 3 considers both the minority language and Latvian, but there is one subject that is taught bilingually only. That is natural science in class one to four. Furthermore, one year out of four in geography has bilingual instruction.
Compared to educational programmes for minorities in many places, it is striking that the creative subjects as sports, home economics, arts, music, etc. are taught in Latvian apart from the first years. They are not maintenance elements of minority language and culture. These subjects include a language usage that is close to the language of experience. In fact that is what the children need in their second language acquisition as they have acquired that type of usage in their first language in everyday life at home.
The distribution of languages for the other subjects does not stand to reason. It looks as if it is a half-and-half distribution, but with a predominance of Latvian in the last year of compulsory education. Although a change does only take place in mathematics, history, and social
sciences, the complete picture is that of transition. There are only three or four subjects left in the minority language in the last year, i.e. minority language and literature and physics and chemistry.
When the subjects have not been taught bilingually, the transition from one to another language after eight and four years of learning and for one year only, is a great task. It would be more reasonable to change to bilingual teaching instead. If it is in order to acquire new labels for the skills learnt in one language, the bilingual way will be the most appropriate under all circumstances.
The organization of this curriculum gives possibilities for the development of both the minority and the majority language. The advantages lie in the maintenance of the minority language and in its usage as both language of experience and knowledge. The disadvantages lie in dominance of the majority language and the fact that the linguistic competence might be tied to the subjects. It can be prevented by interdisciplinary work across the curriculum that includes both languages.
Though some impediments in connection with the development of the two languages have been mentioned, there is no doubt that the pupils’ bilingualism will be a sufficient tool in an integration process.
Programme 4
In the recommendations for choice of programme the fourth was presented as a minority maintenance programme. It was intended to be a programme for parents who wished primary education in the mother tongue. Following, the instruction in the mother tongue needs to be retained throughout primary education. That is not the case in programme 4. There is an early transition from the minority language to Latvian after class three. Actually the instruction in class four to six does only take place in Latvian, even the ethnic minority language and literature. It is to hope that it is a misprint! In class seven to nine it is given in the minority language, and that is the only subject where it is solely the minority language. The rest of the subject plan is a mixture of bilingual and monolingual Latvian instruction that is held
throughout the three years.
10
As the minority’s mother tongue is left out for three years, the programme can hardly be characterized as a minority educational programme. Although the three first years in the mother tongue might strengthen the native language and give it a status in school, there is a heavy risk for a loss of the ability to use the mother tongue in the learning process during the transition phase. Children lose their communicative skills quickly if they are not used and if they are regarded of no value for a period. And that is what happens in this programme.
Though the minority language appears again in class six, the transition to Latvian might be fulfilled already.
The opportunities for the pupils to develop bilingualism and maintain their national identity is not a continuing process in this programme. There are ups and downs for the minority status.
On the face of it the advantages are not to be seen. In relation to integration it looks as if it is on expense of the minority status.