Skip to content

As part of the writ­ten hea­ring con­duc­ted by the Com­mit­tee on Schools and Edu­ca­tion and the Com­mit­tee on Family, Child­ren, and Youth of the North Rhine-West­pha­lia State Par­lia­ment, Dr. Sey­ran Bos­tancı, Dr. Anna Alek­san­dra Wojciech­o­wicz, and Bene­dikt Wirth sub­mit­ted an aca­de­mic opi­nion on the motion filed by the FDP par­lia­men­tary group (Docu­ment No. 18/18111). In it, the aut­hors examine the pro­po­sed mea­su­res from a per­spec­tive that ana­ly­zes early child­hood edu­ca­tion within the con­text of a society shaped by migra­tion and cri­ti­cally asses­ses them in terms of their poten­tial impact on edu­ca­tio­nal inequalities.

Spe­ci­fi­cally, the fol­lo­wing mea­su­res are being pro­po­sed: a man­da­tory lan­guage assess­ment for all child­ren aged four, as well as a pre­pa­ra­tory year for ele­men­tary school (ABC clas­ses). The goal is to iden­tify child­ren with lan­guage deve­lo­p­ment needs at an early stage and to prepare them spe­ci­fi­cally for start­ing school.

Howe­ver, the state­ment con­cludes that neither mea­sure is par­ti­cu­larly effec­tive in redu­cing edu­ca­tio­nal ine­qua­li­ties. Ins­tead, there is a risk of fur­ther exa­cer­ba­ting exis­ting ine­qua­li­ties. In par­ti­cu­lar, the aut­hors cri­ti­cize the fact that the pro­po­sal views lin­gu­i­stic edu­ca­tio­nal ine­qua­li­ties pri­ma­rily as an indi­vi­dual pro­blem affec­ting child­ren and fami­lies, while struc­tu­ral cau­ses are lar­gely ignored.

One major point of cri­ti­cism con­cerns the plan­ned lan­guage pro­fi­ci­ency assess­ments. Bos­tancı, Wojciech­o­wicz, and Wirth point out that lan­guage scree­nings of this kind are pri­ma­rily stan­dar­di­zed for child­ren who grow up mono­lin­gually. Their useful­ness in asses­sing mul­ti­l­in­gual deve­lo­p­ment is the­r­e­fore limi­ted. This crea­tes the risk of sys­te­ma­tic mis­judgments, in which mul­ti­l­in­gual child­ren are hastily clas­si­fied as nee­ding lan­guage sup­port, even though their lan­guage deve­lo­p­ment is pro­cee­ding at an age-appro­priate level. Fur­ther­more, dia­gno­stic pro­ce­du­res can­not be viewed in iso­la­tion from insti­tu­tio­nal assess­ment pat­terns, which expose migrant child­ren to an increased risk of being disadvantaged.

The state­ment also takes a cri­ti­cal view of the plan­ned pre­pa­ra­tory year for school, or the “ABC” clas­ses. The aut­hors point out that, to date, there is no con­vin­cing sci­en­ti­fic evi­dence of the effec­ti­ve­ness of addi­tive and sepa­rate lan­guage sup­port mea­su­res. At the same time, such models carry the risk of sepa­ra­ting child­ren from one ano­ther even before they start school, stig­ma­tiz­ing them at an early age, and fur­ther exa­cer­ba­ting exis­ting edu­ca­tio­nal ine­qua­li­ties. Rese­arch fin­dings, on the other hand, sup­port inclu­sive edu­ca­tio­nal set­tings in which child­ren learn tog­e­ther and acquire lan­guage through ever­y­day experiences.

Ano­ther key focus of the state­ment is on the struc­tu­ral cau­ses of edu­ca­tio­nal ine­qua­li­ties rela­ted to lan­guage. Many child­ren face une­qual start­ing con­di­ti­ons even before they start school because they have no or only limi­ted access to high-qua­lity early child­hood edu­ca­tion. The plan­ned lan­guage assess­ments the­r­e­fore do not begin until a point in time when edu­ca­tio­nal ine­qua­li­ties have, in many cases, alre­ady emer­ged. As long as bar­riers to early edu­ca­tion remain, there is a risk that struc­tu­rally roo­ted dis­ad­van­ta­ges will be inter­pre­ted as indi­vi­dual short­co­mings on the part of the children.

Ins­tead of intro­du­cing addi­tio­nal sel­ec­tion tools, bar­riers to access must be remo­ved to ensure that all child­ren have access to high-qua­lity early child­hood edu­ca­tion. As an alter­na­tive, the aut­hors advo­cate for a con­sis­tent streng­thening of inclu­sive edu­ca­tio­nal struc­tures: lan­guage edu­ca­tion inte­gra­ted into daily life and sen­si­tive to mul­ti­l­in­gua­lism in day­care set­tings, bet­ter resour­ces and (fur­ther) pro­fes­sio­nal deve­lo­p­ment for day­care staff, as well as man­da­tory coope­ra­tion bet­ween day­care cen­ters and ele­men­tary schools. It is not the child­ren who should have to adapt to a sys­tem desi­gned with their needs in mind; rather, edu­ca­tio­nal insti­tu­ti­ons must be “child-fri­endly” and accom­mo­date the diver­sity of a society of immi­grants from day one.

The detailed state­ment by Dr. Bos­tancı, Dr. Wojciech­o­wicz, and Wirth can be read here: