Professional Documents
Culture Documents
and the fall of the Berlin Wall marked a major turning point in the history of Germany
both politically and economically. The former Soviet occupied East Germany was
impoverished after 45 years of communism and the economically prosperous West
German government took on the responsibility of bringing the East out from behind the
iron curtain and back up to Western standards. This created a severe financial strain on
the country.
As result of the reunification, Germans economy crashed, leading to serious
unemployment problems. The unemployment rate was close to 25% in the former East
and about 12% overall at its worst, in 2003 (Federal Statistics Office Germany, 2007).
With the number of available positions sinking rapidly, Germans and immigrants found
themselves competing for the same jobs; jobs that would likely be considered
substandard or blue-collar jobs by many Germans. This gave rise to animosity and
discrimination between Germans and Turks, eventually developing into racism and
xenophobia on both sides.
This process of anti-immigrant sentiment evolving out of a countrys economic
instability has been observed in other contexts (Dicker, 2000) in which a nations
working class feels threatened by a minority group. The tendency in such cases is for an
increasingly negative perspective of foreigners to develop as well as movements that
promote language restrictionism.
Although one might expect that the Germans would show more tolerance and
acceptance toward minorities, considering the countrys history of genocide and extreme
forms of xenophobia, this isnt necessarily the case. It could, however, be argued that
Germanys Nazi past does feed into the negative discourses about Turkish people in
Germany. Many Germans feel that the government, having already paid billions of euros
in reparations to the Jews, expresses too much regret and apology for the past, and that
this is actually preventing German people from moving away from its xenophobic
mentality. They feel that as long as the government continues to subordinate to the
Israeli Jews, Germans will continue to be confronted with shame and remorse over
something that most of them (i.e. those who were not alive at the time) had no
involvement in. In the meantime, German taxpayers money goes toward funding the
Israeli-Arab conflict. Even though most Germans deeply disagree with the ideology of
this war, they cannot openly undermine Jewish involvement in it in any way. Therefore,
unable to adequately deal with Germanys Nazi past and move on as a nation, German
society seems to project its anger and frustration over the situation onto other foreigners
and minority groups. In a sense, the Turks end up as the scapegoats in this regrettable
situation, which might help to explain why today there are nearly two million Turks
living in Germany yet no real attempt to integrate them into society.
Turkish integration
When the results of the first Program for International Student Assessment (PISA)
were released in 2000, the blow to Germany was colossal. The PISA study measures the
reading, math and science literacies of 15-year olds in industrialized nations around the
world. In this international comparison, Germany achieved a score in the bottom third in
each area tested. Most alarming for the land of poets and thinkers were the exposed
deficits in reading: one in five eight-grade students (22.6%) demonstrated only
elementary-level reading abilities (Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD), 2007). This prompted German officials, educators and parents to
look for answers to the question: Why are German pupils test scores so low? The
undisputed explanation was that the immigrant pupils and their insufficient language
proficiencies were dragging the test scores down. This assertion ignited sentiments about
a major social issue in Germany: Turkish integration into society.
The low track entails a five- or six-year, quasi-academic, general education leading to
vocational training. The middle track involves a six-year, intermediate academic
education leading to technical or specialized training. And the university-track requires a
6
nine-year, highly academic education that prepares pupils for university studies (Fhr,
1997).
Exceptions to this cut and dried categorization of primary school students are
possible, such as the so-called orientation phase in grades five and six that allows
students to switch schools in the seventh grade, as well as the alternative education
path of attending remedial evening classes in order to move up to a higher school.
However, the German system is considerably rigid, so once a path has been determined,
it is more the exception than the rule that a student changes to a school of higher level.
The German school system dates back to the 19th century, when its function was to sort
out potential scholars and begin university preparation as soon as possible (Fhr, 1997).
Its underlying purpose was also to ensure that societys upper class could maintain a
dominant role in the social class system. In fact, the latter objective is still carried out
today.
One of the biggest criticisms of the German school separation process is that the
bottom-tier, low-track schools become collection points for students with learning and
behavioral difficulties, under-achievers, and, most disconcerting, immigrant children.
Due to developing German language proficiencies, students who speak a language other
than German as their first language (L1), or language minority (LM) students, are often
automatically sent to low-track schools.
The misinterpretation that LM students linguistic deficits are indicative of low
academic potential or even mental retardation is not limited to the context of Germany.
Davis et al (2005), for example, reported on the civil rights violations of LM students in
the United States who were disproportionately placed in special education programs.
Statistics show that in Germany, 60% of the students in the bottom-tier are LM
students, only 12% of Turkish immigrant children end up in the top-tier schools, and an
alarming low 3.3% of LM students who are educated in the German school system make
it to the university (Young, 2006). Needless to say, this system presents a major obstacle
for students from immigrant families. It establishes socially cohesive communities of
Turkish-speaking children who are generally isolated from German-speaking
environments. This could very well affect their acquisition of German, a clear
disadvantage in a German-only school system. The short-term, quick fix decision of
school choice made on their behalves in the fourth grade can pose very long-term, farreaching consequences for Turkish immigrant children in terms of educational path,
social development, future qualifications, career possibilities and potential income, as
well as integration into German society. Moreover, these consequences carry over into
future generations, further perpetuating inequality of opportunity.
extent non-standardized language varieties are actually used by students, teachers, and
school administrators.
A relatively new policy introduced in 2006 made English as a foreign language
(EFL) instruction obligatory for all pupils starting in the first grade. This is a prime
example of the effect of globalization and the English as an international language (EIL)
paradigm on school foreign language learning policy. Out of 38,000 schools in Germany,
about 200 schools offer bilingual education programs (Msch, 1993). However, the
majority of these programs are German-English or German-French bilingual programs
created to serve political agendas. Msch (1993) describes the rational behind the
German Model of bilingual education that was pioneered after the Second World War in
an effort to foster better relations with France. He explains that the spirit behind [the
German-French bilingual streams] was based on the desire for post-war reconciliation
and better understanding via linguistic comprehension (Msch, 1993, p. 303). Thus,
there is a noticeable mismatch between the current language policy, which supports
bilingual education for political gain, and the language needs of the country: bilingual
education programs that back minority and heritage language learning and teaching.
10
United States who are placed in lower classes under similar circumstances (Delpit, 2003).
Further research should be carried out that looks at the language actually used by children
of immigrant families in Germany to see if those being held back and essentially denied
academic achievement opportunities are true second language learners who lack
proficiency in German, i.e. LM students, or if they are actually bilinguals and heritage
language learners who speak a non-standardized variety of German and are, therefore,
falsely assessed as lacking the linguistic competence necessary for academic
achievement.
An extreme example of a hegemonic school language policy in Germany that
received national attention came out of the Herbert Hoover low-track secondary school in
a predominantly Turkish area of Berlin. In this school, where 90% of the students have
immigrant parents and a mother tongue other than German, a ban on Turkish and other
languages was implemented, earning them the German National Prize and $94,000 by the
National German Foundation. The schools director, Jutta Steinkamp, explained that
this ban [has been introduced] to enable our students to take part in German society
through speaking and understanding the language properly, and that knowing the
language is a precondition for successful integration (Hessler, p. 1). The fact that when
they register their children for school, parents must sign papers that forbid their children
to speak their own language involves powerful notions of linguistic imperialism and the
disciplining of discourses (Higgins, 2007).
11
12
groups, they also concede that education reform is an ideological minefield in Germany
(Young, 2006, p. 1). Changing the system to rectify the situation for the disadvantaged
would undoubtedly be met with resistance from the advantaged groups who prosper from
the current system. Nonetheless, schools with diverse student populations in which LM
students native languages and cultures are embraced and treated as a resources rather
than problems would be a huge step in the right direction in terms of learning outcomes,
social development and integration into German society.
Working toward the goal of embracing diversity in German schools could be
achieved by bringing students first language and first culture into academic contexts
within the school system. For example, Davis et al (2005) used the critical participatory
approach to examine issues associated with language, identity and academic development
in specialized courses for Filipino and Samoan minority high school students in Hawaii:
This exploration not only aids students in considering a
possible hybrid cultural and language identity, but can also help
parents and teachers value students ability to draw on a
repertoire of cultural and linguistic knowledge for appropriate
language use in particular interactional situations. Through
community explorations, students begin to develop
metalinguistic and metacognitive awareness about how language
is structured and used that they then can transfer to
understanding school communities of practice. (p. 7)
Following a similar approach in the Turkish-German context could be a valuable and
effective way to help students draw from their language and cultural backgrounds to
employ counter-discourses that challenge oppressive classroom practices that treat LM
students as illegitimate members of society.
In his study of Turkish returnees from Germany, Daller (1999) found that
compared to the control group of foreign language learners of German in Turkey,
13
14
15
Conclusion
Germanys shortcomings in integrating a continuously growing population of
Turkish immigrants start desperately early in school systems that systematically disregard
these and other disadvantaged children. The countrys history of immigration and the
remnants of its national socialist past have had a direct affect on the disintegration of LM
students not only in German-only classrooms, but also within the segregating school
system and later as illegitimate members of society. Current language and teacher
education policies seem to maintain inequality of opportunity for this underserved
community. It is my hope that teachers, educational administrators, and parents in
Germany gradually begin to improve the situation for LM students by working together
toward raising the profile of minority languages and cultures, acknowledging the
potential of GSL instruction and bilingual education, and, ultimately, fostering tolerance
toward diverse races, religions and languages within a heterogeneous society.
References:
Auslndische Bevlkerung nach Geburtsland (2006, December 31). Statistisches
Bundesamt Deutschland. Retrieved April 28, 2007 from:
http://www.destatis.de/themem/d/thn_bevoelk.php.
Clermont, R. (2006, August 23). Integration in theory, alienation in practice. Spiegel
Online. Retrieved April, 11, 2007, from
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,druck-433006,00.html.
Cummins, J. (1984). Wanted: A theoretical framework for relating language proficiency
to academic achievement among bilingual students. In C. Rivera (Ed.) Language
proficiency and academic achievement (pp. 2-19). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Cummins, J. (1991). Conversational and academic language proficiency in bilingual
contexts. AILA Review, 8, 75-89.
16
17
18