Transcript vv - Mercator Research Centre

Susanna Pertot
The language transmission goals of the
Slovene minority schools in Italy:
A reality check.
Slovene Research Institute
Trst / Trieste, Italy
ZCZ/ATS
JezikLingua
Grmek / Grimacco (UD), Italy
The study
•This study is a work in progress on the phenomenon
of the increase of pupils with Slovene as L2 or FL in
Slovene minority schools in Italy , linked to the
intergeneration transmission of the Slovene language.
•Fragments of parents’ personal narratives, freely
expressed during discussion groups and workshops, are
used, along with quantitative research findings and
opinions available in the media.
•Reference is made to some critical and
poststructuralist theories (Hall, 1990; Anderson, 1991;
Bourdieu, 1991) and paradigms, which consider
identity as multidimensional, contingent and subject to
negotiation across contexts (Hill, 1999; Lo, 1999;
Blackledge in Pavlenko, 2001; Blackledge, 2004;
Pavlenko, 2004; Kinginger, 2004).
The Slovene community in Italy
•In Friuli-Venezia Giulia, along the border
between Italy and Slovenia and to a lesser extent
between Italy and Austria.
•Entitled to some rights granted by the State of
Italy, among which the right to education in
Slovene language. Nevertheless, such measures
have not yet been completely implemented
(specially regarding the use of Slovene in public
administration and public signs).
•Slovenes bilingual people, they speak Slovene
and Italian.
•Italians, with some rare exceptions, do not know
the Slovene language, not even passively.
The preservation of the
Slovene language
• Considered of primary importance for
the existence of the Slovene
community in Italy.
• The Slovene community in Italy, in its
struggle for a continuing cultural and
linguistic existence and development,
always dedicated great attention to
schools with Slovene as the language of
instruction.
Slovene minority schools
in Italy
• Trst/Trieste and Gorica/Gorizia:
Encompassing system of Slovene primary,
primary medium and secondary schools (not
university).
• Špeter/ S.Pietro al Natisone (Udine):
Bilingual school (Slovene and Italian in
kindergarten and in the primary cycle and
primary medium ).
• 2010/2011 about 3900 pupils and students
attending the Slovene kindergartens and
schools in Italy.
Schools of the majority
• Italian: teaching and learning
language.
• Slovene: not part of the curriculum,
but courses in Slovene language may
be introduced (Law 4 82/1999).
• Learning the neighbouring language
is rather an exception – it is a matter
of personal choice to attend a
language course.
Slovene minority school in
Italy: Population
• In the last decades changes in the
language and the ethnic structure of
the school population.
• Constant increase of pupils coming
from intermarried Slovene–Italian
families and especially from nonSlovene/Italian families.
• The teaching staff qualified to teach
children whose mother tongue is
Slovene and lacks suitable qualification
to teach Slovene as the second or third
language.
KINDERGARTEN (age 3-5)
2010
Ethnic structure of
the population of the
schools with Slovene
as the language of
instruction in Italy:
1997 to 2003 to 2010
(in %)
25
30
32
2003
20
48
1997
42
3
46
2
16
34
2
PRIMARY SCHOOL (age 6-10)
2010
25
29
41
2003
12
58
1997
43
3
44
2
6
34
2
JUNIOR SCHOOL (age 11-13)
2010
32
20
49
2003
8
58
1997
44
4
42
6
2
2
34
SECONDARY SCHOOL (age 14-18)
2010
40
11
47
3
Slovene parents
Italian parents
2003
51
15
74
1997
(Bogarec, 2011)
2
32
"mix" parents
parents of other
ethnicities
“mix” = Slo & Ital; Slo & other ethnicity
2
24
1
L1 ? L2?
• Slovene L1 is defined as the first language or the
language of instruction of the school but not for all its
pupils.
• Italian L2 is defined as the second language of
instruction of the school, whereas for many children
Italian is their first language or one of their first
languages.
• The diffusion of the phenomenon is considered as
causing a linguistic flattening among the pupils.
The results of language test
submitted to the pupils (age
13), confirm the flattering.
Lower communication skills and
linguistic competence in Slovene
language tests
100
90
Objectives not
reached
(0 to 1/3 points)
80
70
60
Objectives partly
reached
(<1/3 to 2/3 points)
50
40
30
Objectives reached
(<2/3 points)
20
10
0
Slovene
Italian
Language/s spoken at home
doesn’t/don’t correlate to test
results.
(Pertot, 2009)
Increase the level of exposition to improve Slo. L!
• Recommended that the parents involve their children into
different activities outside school which take place in Slovene
language (non-formal education). Parents can chose from a wide
range of activities.
• For youngest: laboratories, gymnastics lessons, children choirs,
storytelling hours, psychomotor activities, play groups etc. … For
older: different types of sports and all kinds of associations and
laboratories (e.g. theatre, chess, art etc.), scout groups, summer
campsites, organized holidays in Slovenia etc. …
• Slovene associations, parents’ associations, kindergartens,
schools, private subjects ... offer a wide range of activities.
Children’s languages outside the school
• No data about the extent to which being involved in different
after-school activities is efficacious for learning and improving
Slo. L.
• The above research results (in%) show that the Slo. L is not used
by Italian children outside the school.
children of non- 3
Slovene parents
21
children of "mix"
parents
27
children of Slovene
parents
76
47
84
26
14
2
Slovene language
Slovene & Italian
other languages
“mix” = Slo & Ita; Slo & other ethincity
(Bogatec, 2011)
Attention to parents
2003 -2005, Considering the Council Resolution of 16 December 1997 advice to
increase awareness among parents on the benefits of teaching languages at an
early age, SLORI (Slovene Research Institute) organized discussion groups (called
workshops) on the generic topic The Bilingual Child, dedicated to the parents and
coordinated by a psychologist. Considered a type of parent education.
2004-2005, SLORI booklet for parents with the title The Bilingual Child was
published and distributed for free to the parents.
2006-2007, from time to time meetings on the same topic organized by various
subjects.
2008 -2010, Libero and Zora Polojaz Foundation discussion groups for parents on
the generic topic For the well-being of our children. Coordinated by two
psychologists.
2011-2012, Project JezikLingua, discussion groups for parents on children’s
bilingualism and cultural awareness. Coordinated by two psychologists.
Meetings recorded.
Italian parents’ motivation for
the Slovene minority school
Older but still valid motivation
( Bufon & Bogatec, 1997;
New motivation
Colja, 2000; Pertot, 2004)
(Pertot & Lokar, 2011)
•Commodity (ex. vicinity to the school),
•quality of the education activities,
•less crowded classrooms,
•willing to revitalise the Slovene origins,
•offer to the child one more chance (not
specific) for the future life,
•two languages are better than one,
•no clear ideas.
•1) Due to economic reasons, connected to
the fall of the border between Italy and
Slovenia:
•a) knowing the language (Slovene) of the
neighbour interlocutor, and not only English,
allows a successful communication in local
economy;
•b) the economic crisis requires mobility, if the
child learns Slovene, he/she will have more
job chances also in Slovenia;
•c) in Slovenia, the prices of real estate and the
housing expenses are much lower, therefore
an increasing number of Italians is moving to
the border areas in Slovenia; thus, the child
must be prepared for changing residence
(already done, planned or hypothetical); etc.
•2) Due to cultural awareness:
•a) the child will understand very early that
different realities exist and he/she will not
fear them;
•b) the child will grow in a dynamic
environment, in which a plurality of ethnical
identities coexist at the same time; etc
The same school VS two imagined schools
Slovene parents
Italian parents
•The school with Slovene as language of
instruction is our school, it is the “Slovene
minority school”, in the past as well as today
and tomorrow, it should take care of the
inter-generational transmission of the
Slovene language and identity, allowing the
Slovenes in Italy to continue existing as a
community and avoiding their assimilation.
•The school with Slovene as language of
instruction is an Italian bilingual school,
which, along with lessons of the Italian
language, offers lessons of the neighbouring
language, Slovene. In parents’ opinion:
•Up to the 70s, it wasn’t possible [to enroll
Italian children into Slovene minority schools],
but now there are no more Slovenes, so it has
become possible.
•Slovenes in Italy are at risk of extinction.
•The teachers here [in this Slovene minority
kindergarten] are willing to speak in Italian.
•Obviously, before the kindergarten began, I
feared a stronger impact, of the type “either
you speak Slovene or you die”, but it is
fortunately not like this.
•Children use only Italian among them.
•Even Slovenes speak Italian among them, the
Slovene language is only spoken at school and
in Slovene organizations
•The Slovenes who live here [and not in
Slovenia] speak a diluted Slovene.
•So, where have the Slovenes disappeared?
•I feel it is important to me that I transmit the
Slovene language to my daughters and the
school will also provide for it.
•I want my son to be a Slovene and I expect the
Slovene minority school to transmit the
language and the culture.
Examples quoted in Pertot & Lokar, 2011
Town VS surroundings nestles
Italian parents
Slovene auto-segregation ?
• In their opinion Slovenes are a
community present in the
surroundings of the town but not
in town.
• Ex: “Maybe the Slovenes from the
Karst speak Slovene among
themselves, but surely not in
town.”; . “In the town, I have never
heard any Slovene speaking the
Slovene language”
• [The Karst is an upland area that
nestles against Trieste and
occupies the eastern extremity of
Friuli Venezia Giulia, extending
over the previous border into
Slovenian territory. Sometimes by
Italians it was/is “jokingly” called
“the Indian reservation” (!) and
perceived as such.]
• In the last years, Slovenes (in
Trieste and Gorizia) are indeed
moving from the town to the
surrounding villages, as these are
mainly inhabited by Slovenes and
the quality of life is higher (it is not
possible to consider the question
in depth here).
• Many Slovene parents (even those
with an Italian partner) who live in
town take their children to Slovene
minority schools in the
surrounding villages. They are
convinced that:
• 1. in town, the Slovene minority
schools are developing a linguistic
underclass.
• 2. in the schools of the surrounding
villages, where there are less
Italian children, the pupils learn
Slovene better and develop a more
stable “sense of belonging to the
Slovene people”
Examples quoted in Pertot & Lokar, 2011
Town VS surroundings nestles:
Changes in the language and the ethnic structure of the school population (in %)
town
2010
16
37
2003
38
1995
38
40
11
7
50
13
2
45
4
surrounding villages
2010
2003
1995
36
18
50
44
8
65
1
41
6
Slovene parents
Italian parents
“mix” = Slo & Ital; Slo & other ethnicity
"mix" parents
parents of other ethnicities
1
28
(Bogatec, 2011)
1
Some of the mentioned questions
appeared in the media
•Debates among members of Slovene organizations,
among Slovenes of the left-winged parties coalition;
in public meetings; in published letters by readers ...
based on the data about the increase of the number
of pupils from non Slovene speaking families.
•Contents:
- Explicit swinging between two different opinions: 1)
the new situation represents an enrichment for the
local community; 2) there is the doubt about whether
the Slovene language is being gradually replaced by
Italian and weather the school provides sufficiently
for the trans-generation transmission of the Slovene
language.
- Implicit swinging between 1) the idealized image of
one identity, one culture, one language linked to the
individual and group sense of identity; 2) considering
these realities as much more complex.
What next?
Research and media proposals and suggestions:
grouped from ethnocentric to more intercultural oriented strategies
Differentiate:
Slovene
apart from
bilingual
Slovene as a
subject in
Italian schools
Special
approaches
and parental
support
Promotion of
cultural
diversity &
intercultural
dialog
1) Differentiate: Slovene apart from
bilingual
• Formally, it has to be accepted that there are more
types of kindergartens and elementary schools (it
depends on the number of non-Slovene speaking
pupils) . These need to be differentiated.
• The schools with Slovene as the language of
instruction should be granted a higher level of
autonomy and should have the possibility to take
decisions independently; moreover they should
offer a wide and diversified educational
program.
2) Slovene as a subject in
Italian schools
• The Slovene language should be introduced in Italian
schools as a neighbouring language subject.
• If Italian parents could choose this subject in Ita. schools,
they would not enrol their children in Slo. schools.
• This would have two consequences: a negative one – the
number of pupils in Slovene minority schools would fall,
and a positive one – children who do not speak Slovene
would not slow down the learning in schools where
teaching is performed in Slovene.
• This would make it easier for schools with Slovene as the
language of instruction to carry out their mission of
inter-generational transmission of the Slovene language
and identity.
3) Special approaches and parental
support
•Special approaches are needed
•Training teachers in new language teaching
methodologies is essential.
•Revise and complement the existing curricula as well
as textbooks.
•Consider EU resolutions, reports and advice on
multilingualism and language learning.
•Parents must be educated, it is necessary to offer
and promote:
•Courses of Slovene language for parents.
•Formal and non-formal education for intercultural
awareness of those who choose a minority school for
their children.
•Consider EU resolutions, reports and advice on
promotion of cultural diversity and intercultural
dialog.
4) Promotion of cultural diversity and
intercultural dialog
• Help children to form their “national profile” in
accordance with the linguistic, national and cultural
characteristics of their families; help them to
integrate and consolidate such “profile” through the
confrontation with people belonging to other
linguistic and cultural communities.
• Help pupils of different linguistic, national and
cultural origins to develop the ability to coexist and
interact; stimulate the search for motivations for an
intercultural dialogue.
• Training teachers in new didactics for a multilingual
and intercultural education is essential.
• Consider EU resolutions, reports and advice on
multilingualism and language learning and on
promotion of cultural diversity and intercultural
dialog.
Chances of success ?
•The abovementioned proposals do not necessarily all
exclude one another, some of them can even be integrated
with one another.
•Nevertheless, in the teachers’ opinions:
•Sometimes, schools don't even have enough money for
buying toilet paper, which pupils are required to bring from
home; the school reform carried out by the government has
cut the funds to such an extent that it is difficult to imagine
an inflow of money which could allow a specific, additional
education for teachers and the introduction of new
methodologies, particular approaches etc. Between saying
and doing there is the sea [Italian proverb].
•We brought in everyone, but we lost control.
•Parents decide, for each single case, to choose what they
think is best for their children; in this, they are not
influenced by the discussion going on in the so-called “civil
society”, which, in the end, is composed of professionals:
theorists of pedagogy, researchers, linguists, politicians etc.
(Teachers’ discussion group, 3 May 2011, recorded by Pertot)
What is said
What is not said
Who benefits
• Considered reactions> The
increased interest of the
Italian parents for the Slovene
minority schools is a result of
the entrance of Slovenia into
the EU; moreover, it is a result
of the changes in the political
situation, which is now much
more open and collaborative
between the Slovene minority
group and the Italian
dominant group.
•The Slovenes, in a non
explicit way, have promoted
the Slovene minority schools
among Italians as, in some
areas, these schools would
have registered a strong fall in
the number of pupils enrolled
and some of them would have
probably already closed (ex.:
one school centre in the city of
Trieste had 70 pupils in 2001
and today it has 180 pupils).
•As a consequence, also the
number of teachers and
employees in these schools
would have decreased. Parents
talk about this ( “Without the
Italian children, the Slovene
minority schools would not exist
anymore”). Schools and the job
posts are “saved”, the status
quo is maintained (but this has
never been clearly discussed in
public).
• Due to the increase of the
number of pupils from nonSlovene families, a series of
activities related to this
phenomenon has been
reinforced or even newly
developed (a very wide offer
of non-formal language
education activities, help in
doing the homework in
Slovene, projects, researches,
articles ...). This is considered
as an ability to adapt to
changes but it can be seen
also as a business.
• Teachers and a high number of
Slovene people benefit of the
presence of Italians in Slo.
minority schools, they would
otherwise need to look for a
job in the majority
environment or elsewhere in
the world.
• Paranoid reactions> Italians
have appropriated the Slovene
minority school and are
plundering the Slovene
minority, anti-predatory
strategies are needed.
An observation
The case of the school with Slovene as the
language of instruction in Italy can be considered
as an example of how the inter-generational
transmission of a minority language in formal
and informal education can not necessarily be
always threatened only by obsolete power
dynamics (that the minority perceives as
persecutory) between the minority and the
majority. On the contrary, it can be closely linked
to on going historical and cultural changes and to
new negotiations on the social level, as also, if
not mainly, to economic interests of some
subgroups of the minority itself, which act to
maintain a certain status quo.
Provisional findings regarding the Slo. scholl’s identity
•In the last decade, the school with Slovene as the teaching language has been
presented as an agent of imagined Slovene ethnicity (in Anderson's sense, 1983)
•During this period, apparently without the will of the Slovene minority, a new
representation has been produced: the Slovene minority school is an agent of bilingual
Slovene–Italian education, without links to the Slovene ethnicity.
•This representation is much more tangible in parents’ narrations than in the so called
civil society, made ​up of professionals that reveal the changes only after they have
occurred and not in real time.
•At a social level, the abovementioned two concepts of the identity of the school with
Slovene as the language of instruction in Italy actually collide, resulting in a power
struggle as to which of the two will prevail.
•A new representation of the school with Slovene as the language of instruction in Italy,
considered as a “borderland” experience where hybridity (“diverse” and not Slovene vs.
Italian) dominates, is starting to emerge.
•A transformation is taking place, although alternative options (e.g. a school built on
hybridity?), new conceptual representations or new constructions are not clearly defined
yet (or at least I am not able to see them).
Work in progress