Access to the educational institutions of communities whose language is fragile: a Canadian perspective
Notes de la rédaction
This is the press release related to the article from Marie McAndrew, published on Januari 25, 2016. Read the article.
In April 2014, the Flemish Parliament adopted a decree which significantly increased parents’ required level of knowledge of Dutch in order for their children to be able to attend a Flemish secondary school in Brussels. The decree is a very contentious issue in Flemish society, especially in Brussels, and was aimed at responding to the ongoing concerns of educational stakeholders and parents with respect to the growing population of non Dutch speakers in Flemish schools. It involves reinforcing the status of Dutch in the daily life of these schools. Its opponents claim that the decree excludes immigrant populations from the Flemish education system, while it represents an important means of social mobility for their children.
The question of how the access to the different education systems is controlled in a bilingual context is not specific to Brussels. In Canada the question is raised as well in two cases: on the one hand with respect to the minority language communities (often French speaking) in the English-speaking part of the country, and, on the other hand, in Quebec, with respect to the French-speaking majority whose language is in a fragile situation at national level. The context is of course partially different and it is not possible to propose solutions which may be transferred directly to Brussels. But in a perspective of comparative politics, an examination of the situation in Canada allows us to step back a little from the community debate in Belgium.
Issue number 95 of Brussels Studies presents the approaches to linguistic control in Canada, and was written by Marie McAndrew, professor in the Department of Administration and Educational Foundations of the Faculty of Education at Université de Montréal, and director of Groupe de recherche Immigration, équité et scolarisation (GRIÉS). In 2010, her work entitled Les majorités fragiles et l’éducation : Belgique, Catalogne, Irlande du Nord, Québec earned her a place on the shortlist for the Governor General’s Award, which is one of the most prestigious awards in Canada. Without proposing a direct comparison with Belgium, she nevertheless identifies several elements which may shed light on the debates regarding education in Brussels.
The contrasting choices made by the French-speaking minority in Canada as regards the control of access to education for the past forty years are part of two different approaches. The first is that of the protection of a fragile minority by limiting access to the educational institutions it controls to people who have a historical or special connection to the language. This protection ensures a place for French-speaking children where the English-language system dominates. It is aimed in particular at ensuring that French-language education is not used for linguistic immersion purposes by English speakers, in a context where the English-language system (public or religious according to the context) is considered most of the time to achieve better results than the French-language system.
The second approach is that of the use of schooling in an objective to transform linguistic relationships. This is the prevailing situation in Quebec, which has made French the normal language of schooling for the entire school population, with a series of exceptions aimed at preserving the rights of the historically English-speaking community. The logic behind this is to guarantee the use of French for public uses, and not to protect the homogeneity of the community which is associated historically with the French language. It involves increasing the importance of French at national and provincial level, by making French the language of Quebeckers from an immigrant background.
Both approaches have some relevance. However, the first is clearly defensive and, according to the author, should be limited to groups whose vulnerability – which is not historical yet nevertheless present – is still recognised. The second has many more advantages and testifies to a dynamic definition of belonging and culture.
With all due caution regarding the contextual elements and in particular the presence or absence of a locally dominant character of the language, readers from Brussels are bound to draw a parallel with the visions of access to Dutch-language education in Brussels, which fluctuates between linguistic facility for a minority community and tool for bringing Flemish (back) to Brussels through linguistic acculturation.
The article by Marie McAndrew therefore has the advantage of allowing Belgian readers to step back from their own society, through the analysis of a situation which is different yet relevant in terms of problems. It will also be the subject of many papers presented at the Brussels Studies Institute conference “Grasping Global Cities’ Societal Challenges: comparative perspectives from Brussels and Montreal”, to be held on 4-5 February in Brussels.
References
McAndrew, Marie, “Access to the educational institutions of communities whose language is fragile: a Canadian perspective”, Brussels Studies [Online], General collection, No 95, 25 January 2016. URL: https://journals.openedition.org/brussels/1323
Contact
Benjamin Wayens, Senior Editor: bwayens[at]brusselsstudies.be



