Lost in interpretation? Multilingualism and school-based language policies in primary education

Educational innovation is omnipresent. Schools and teachers are frequently faced with new policies and projects that aim to set the bar high and close the gap between low and high achievers. How are these educational innovations interpreted and translated to local school contexts by various stakeholders? This question is central to this research, which looks into the educational innovation project “Validiv” (Valorising Linguistic Diversity). The Validiv project encouraged Flemish primary schools to see linguistic diversity as an opportunity, aiming to close the achievement gap between students with native Dutch and students with other native languages, and to increase the multilingual awareness and well-being of all students. In addition, Validiv wanted to support schools in implementing an effective language policy and in developing teacher competences to use multilingualism as didactic capital.

The central question of this research is what happens when “only Dutch” schools are encouraged to transform a “only Dutch” policy into a multilingual language policy. This central question is approached from two research traditions, i.e., language policy research and educational innovation research. Previous educational research within these traditions points to the importance of interpretation and negotiation in shaping language policies at school and in implementing educational innovations. Firstly, interpretation plays a role, whereby different stakeholders (e.g., teachers, pupils, parents, board members, school counselors) assign meaning to new policies and to educational innovations in various contexts. Secondly, negotiations are taking place about who is allowed to formulate the new policy and thus determine what is good education and what is not, and which means are suitable for achieving educational goals.

Given the role of interpretative negotiation processes in policy making and educational innovation, this doctoral research investigates which interpretations and negotiations on multilingualism and language policy – two central concepts of the Validiv project – are present in schools. The extent to which schools adopt a multilingual policy is influenced by previous experiences, attitudes and beliefs about multilingualism. To this end, Study 1 maps these processes of meaning making. A second factor that can influence the implementation of the project is the language policy at school at the start of the Validiv project. This language policy and the place that multilingualism is given is the focus of Study 2. Study 3 examines the relationship between the pupil population of the school and tolerance towards multilingualism. Studies 1, 2 and 3 map out the meaning of multilingualism and language policy prior to the Validiv project. In other words, these studies indicate in which context or initial situation Validiv ends up. Study 4, on the other hand, starts from a longitudinal, dynamic perspective, analyzing interpretative negotiation processes over two school years. Study 4 contains an exploratory case study on these processes that drive the decisions of school team members during the implementation of Validiv. The focus is on “realizing voice”; how do different people try to make their mark on the implementation of Validiv?, how do they interpret the project and convince others of their interpretation?

This research uses both qualitative research methods (Studies 1 and 2) and mixed method approaches (Studies 3 and 4). The qualitative studies are based on different types of data collected in nine primary schools in the Limburg mining communities with a multilingual student population, including policy documents, field notes, audio recordings of Validiv consultation moments, interviews with teachers, language coaches, care coordinators and directors. The quantitative approaches also used questionnaires administered in 67 primary schools in Ghent, Brussels and the Limburg mining communities.

The results of studies 1 and 2 show that both multilingualism and language policy are layered concepts with different interpretations coexisting and intermixed, even within the same person. School team members interpret and negotiate the meaning they assign to multilingualism and language policy, adapting their interpretations flexibly to the situation, place, language, language function and language user they are dealing with. This leads to inconsistencies and even contradictions in perceptions within the same individual, and in a de facto language policy that may differ from the officially communicated language policy of the school. Positive and negative interpretations of multilingualism and both monolingual and multilingual forms of language policy are present in the participating schools. Yet negative perceptions and a “only Dutch” policy are the norm. The place of multilingualism within the language policy of schools is very limited, often purely formal and non-functional. Study 3, on the other hand, shows that the position of multilingualism is partly determined by and dependent on the linguistic composition of the student population. The highest tolerance levels for multilingualism are found in schools where the student population is mixed (high proportion of multilingual students with a high linguistic diversity). Lower tolerance levels were registered in schools with low linguistic diversity, in combination with a large (“minority dominant”) and a small (“majority dominant”) proportion of multilingual students. Study 3 thus attests to situations in which multilingualism is tolerated, from both positive and negative motivations.

Finally, Study 4 follows the implementation trajectory in a single school from a longitudinal, dynamic perspective. The study exposes interpretative negotiation processes in which various stakeholders try to make their mark on the implementation of Validiv. Throughout the implementation there is a continuous reinterpretation of the project, in which various stakeholders try to shape the project from the different organisational, personal and socio-professional interests at play. Stakeholders try to increase the legitimacy of the project and of their interpretations in order to encourage colleagues to participate actively in the project. To increase legitimacy, reference is mainly made to external bodies (e.g., official curricula, educational inspection board), rather than to the possible intrinsic added value of Validiv for the school and its students. Due to changes in social positions in the management team, the communication style and interpretations of the project also change. The changes are moving from direct, coercive language to communication that is more open to the input of others. New interpretations and implementation strategies are being introduced or are becoming more popular, with policy-oriented strategies gaining the upper hand at the expense of classroom-oriented strategies. The case thus shows that implementation processes of educational innovation projects are subject to reinterpretations, in which different interests of different stakeholders play a role. A new policy is not straightforwardly implemented, but takes on a life of its own in a specific context.

The four studies provide a number of important insights for policy and practice. Firstly, “bridge persons” appear to be crucial to arrive at integrated implementation strategies, and to bridge the gap between the management team and the teacher staff of a school. Second, this research demonstrates the importance of skillful interpretation and negotiation in discussions about educational innovations and possible implementation strategies. In addition, in an educational innovation such as Validiv, it is crucial to gain in-depth insight into how different stakeholders give meaning to concepts such as multilingualism and language policy, and how those meanings change depending on the context, language users, languages, language functions and situations. The research shows how processes of interpretation and negotiation determine the ultimate implementation practices. This is also where the social value of this research lies: a clear insight into these processes helps educational innovators and pedagogical counselors of schools to guide and steer the implementation of innovations. This insight can lead to a more efficient use of government resources that are invested in all kinds of education projects, the implementation of which can be more or less successful.