There is no well-founded evidence to support the assertion that segregating minority language students to teach them English is of benefit to them, writes Karl Kitching
BRIAN HAYES, the Fine Gael spokesman on education, has been supported in his call for separate instruction for immigrant, minority-language students by the largest second-level teachers' union, the ASTI. I wish to voice my own concern at this apparently well-intentioned move, because of its ultimately racialising implications.
There are a number of factors that need to be addressed, but they boil down to one internationally well-worn issue: that of school systems placing the blame for failure on students and families outside the mainstream. The frustrations of teachers and parents are being used in a most harmful way.
The arguments used in support of separate instruction elide the responsibilities of government to increase the professional supports offered to teachers in secondary classrooms. It is tantamount to a velcro approach to education, where minority ethnic students are attached to an unchanging system, in the hope they can adjust. This flies in the face of the Government's own intercultural policy, which suggests both the host and newcomer need to change. There is absolutely no well-founded research evidence to support the assertion that separate instruction is of benefit to students learning English as an additional language. Rather, research has shown that this move, while initially appearing to help students make gains, ultimately results in future failure for many.
The social exclusion that some would inevitably experience, I would hope, is obvious. What is needed is for professional expertise, resourcing and time for planning in schools to be increased. A critical mass of expertise needs to be built up in Irish mainstream classrooms, as well as in language support classrooms.
Worldwide, institutional racism plays a major role in undermining school achievement for minority ethnic students. Language is not the only barrier to achievement for such students.
Additionally, immigrants to Ireland are far from being a homogenous group, neither culturally, linguistically nor economically. This issue has as much to do with family income and access to resources in a fiercely competitive Irish school marketplace as anything else. It is, in other words, a social-class issue as much as it is a language or "race" issue.
Finally, the ASTI has shirked the term "segregation" and suggests that this word is not the appropriate term to describe the proposal. The term "segregation" is, of course, overladen with memories of past and present civil rights struggles. While it may seem common sense to suggest that a liberal society like Ireland's would never intentionally segregate, it is worth remembering that liberalism and freedom are ultimately only useful concepts when inequality has been eradicated. The achievements of middle class, majority ethnic, white Irish students are not and never were under threat - yet this, ultimately, is what is driving this campaign. The apparently commonsense notions which this campaign seeks to use in its cause of separating students should be resisted actively.
Karl Kitching is attached to St Patrick's College, Drumcondra, Dublin, where he is a researcher and lecturer in ethnic and linguistic diversity in primary and post-primary schools