Although both students and teachers demonstrated their awareness of the closeness between Galician and Portuguese, dominant language ideologies, where certain languages are more valued than others, continued to be discernable when analysing the responses of interviewees. These ideologies often presented challenges for Cape Verdeans in As Rocas. There were contradictions between the sentiments expressed by teachers in their interviews (where they presented the linguistic proximity between Portuguese and Galician as advantageous and were overall positive about the notion of
‘mixing’ languages), and the focus of their language classes, which continued to take a monolingual approach, or rather ascribed to multilingualism in the way that Heller (1999) describes as ‘parallel monolingualism’. Heller explains ‘parallel monolingualism’ as a way of viewing languages in which “each variety must conform to certain prescriptive norms” (Heller, 1999, p.271). Thus, although the school officially promotes multilingualism, it is a type of multilingualism that sees languages as bounded
units: this in turn could be seen to privilege certain groups and delegitimise the language practices of others (in this case the Cape Verdean students) who, as Jacinta pointed out in the previous example, speak “a bit of everything”. Nonetheless, it is likely that teachers are not intentionally setting out to stigmatise the immigrant community, instead, their views of multilingualism and the separate nature of languages is reflective of deep rooted ideologies about language and a reflection of the institutionalisation of language ideologies whereby institutions such as the school promotes ideologies of linguistic homogeneity. Many of the teachers with whom I spoke showed positive attitudes towards language mixing, and demonstrated an awareness of the language contact experienced by the Cape Verdean community.
However, conversely, despite the positive attitudes they displayed, they also highlighted the necessity for students to gain competence in standard varieties in order to progress through the education system and gain access to the employment market.
When discussing issues of language contact and language mixing in interviews with teachers, a discernable mismatch between the ideologies of the teachers and the parameters of the school curriculum implemented by the regional Galician government came to the fore. In the following example, Maria, a secondary school Galician language teacher, details these incongruities. Maria’s role in the school is primarily teaching the Programa de diversificación curricular (Curricular Diversification Programme) stream, a stream where academic materials are adapted to a lower level and which is made up mostly of immigrant students. (For a discussion of the PDC stream see Chapter 4.7.2). Maria is an advocate of the Galician language, and one of the teachers from IES Primavera who was most involved in setting up the Plan As Rocas.
Maria has two small children with whom she only speaks Galician, as she says that for her, Galician “é a miña vida” (is my life). In the comments below Maria is discussing language contact in the Cape Verdean community.
Example 5.5 Language contact
M: é normal é decir non: en calquera situación de de de contacto entre linguas e:
vai haber vai haber mestura é decir vai haber e: interferencias dunha lingua con outra [...] tampouco tampouco a ver tampouco lle dou máis importancia quero decir a ver si: si están facendo un exame pois claro eles teñen que saber se teñen que escribir en galego ou en castelán […] entre os caboverdianos e os caboverdianos é normal que teñan mestura de linguas porque é decir eles
estudan portugués no no seu sistema educativo o que falan é crioulo [...] despois chegan aquí teñen castelán e galego que son o portugués e: linguas todas romances entón é normal que mesturen
M: It’s normal. In any situation of contact between languages there is going to be some mixing, there is going to be interference between the languages [...]
However, I don’t give it that much importance, but if they’re doing an exam then of course they need to know whether they need to write in Galician or in Spanish […] it’s normal for Cape Verdeans to mix languages because they studied Portuguese in their own education system and they speak Kriolu [...]
then they arrive here and they have Spanish, and Galician which comes from Portuguese and they’re all Romance languages so it’s normal for them to mix
From Maria’s comments, where she reflects on language contact saying “it’s normal for them to mix” (é normal que mesturen), we see how she is both aware and tolerant of the linguistic complexities experienced by the Cape Verdean students in her classes.
Moreover, she personally rejects notions of ‘parallel monolingualism’ by explaining that keeping languages separate is not something she places great importance on in her teaching practice. Maria explains that engaging in code switching or ‘mixing’ practices is ‘normal’ for students who are experiencing situations of language contact. However, Maria’s views (which were similar to those of most of the teaching staff) that demonstrate tolerance, understanding and awareness of the linguistic dynamics of her classroom, stand in stark contrast to the learning objectives of the class which continue to be to differentiate between two individual linguistic codes: Galician and Spanish.
Maria is clear about the importance of these distinctions in exam settings. Maria’s comments are an excellent example of the tensions between the school curriculum, which adheres to what Heller describes as ‘prescriptive norms’ and the language ideologies held by teaching staff, which understand language learning as a more dynamic and ‘fluid’ phenomenon (García, 2014).
Moreover, it is important to this discussion to acknowledge the distinctions between the ideological underpinnings of the Plan As Rocas, namely the promotion of plurilingualism and interculturalism, and the curriculum implemented by the Galician autonomous government, which is more one-directional in its understanding of language and integration. As noted previously in this chapter, official regional policies
have tended to take a position whereby “they” (the immigrants) must adapt to “us” (the hosts). These assimilationist ideals were one of the catalysts for the development of the Plan As Rocas, which aimed at promoting a multidirectional approach to integration and language learning.
Veronica, a teacher who is part of the career guidance department at a secondary school in As Rocas, outlines in example 5.6, a key example of the incongruities between policy at the macro level (the Xunta) and at the micro level with the teaching community in as Rocas.
Example 5.6 - Exemption from Galician
V: la ley permite que tengan exención de gallego lo fantástico sería que pudieran tener exención de castellano porque puestos a: a tener exención el gallego es muchísimo más próximo […] pero la ley permite eso y entonces tienen exención de gallego la exención solo sirve para e: no tener una nota que contabilice […]
pero van a clase igual hacen exámenes igual y: no solo eso sino que se le evalúa igual aunque la nota digamos a efectos académicos no cuente
V: the law allows them [Cape Verdeans] to be exempt from Galician. What would be wonderful is if they could be exempt from Spanish because Galician in much more similar [to Portuguese and Kriolu] […] but the law allows that, so they have an exemption from Galician and the exemption is only so that their grade won’t count […] but they go to classes and do exams like the others and not only that, they’re assessed in the same way although the grade, in academic terms, doesn’t count
Veronica explains how, in line with current educational policies outlined by the Xunta, it is possible for Cape Verdean students to have their grades in Galician exams exempt from their overall grade average. These exemptions are granted on a case by case basis to students who are having academic difficulties. Students who receive an exemption are still required to attend Galician language classes, and even sit Galician exams.
However, there is no academic requirement for them to pass, as their grade will not count towards their overall average. Conversely, all students must attend Spanish classes and sit Spanish exams, without the possibility for having their grade exempt. In
her comments, Veronica contests this practice, stating that an exemption from Spanish, rather than Galician, would be more beneficial for students from Cape Verde, who as noted above, often achieve better results in Galician than in Spanish. Veronica, in line with many of the other teachers in As Rocas, believes that the proximity between Galician and Portuguese would be advantageous to Cape Verdean students who are struggling to adapt in the education system.
What is interesting about Veronica’s comments is that as a career guidance teacher, she is advocating an exemption from Spanish, which continues to be more economically powerful than Galician on the international linguistic market as it is the main language of communication across the Spanish state as well as in many Latin American countries.
Over several decades as a teacher in As Rocas, Veronica has been witness to the low academic outcomes of the Cape Verdean community. These low outcomes were evident throughout my time in both schools, reflected by the ‘pyramidal’ distribution of Cape Verdeans in the school. The highest number of Cape Verdeans was in the lower, obligatory education cycles (years 1 to 4 of secondary education). However, in years 3 and 4 of secondary education the pupils are streamed into mainstream classes and PDC and PCPI adapted streams (see Chapter 4.7). At these stages, the number of Cape Verdeans in mainstream classes decreases, as most opt for either PDC or PCPI streams.
The last two years of secondary school (years 5 and 6), which prepare students for entry to university and further education, were attended by a very small number of Cape Verdean students, with most of them having opted to leave school on completion of the obligatory cycles of education. Consistently, Cape Verdean students receive lower overall grades than their Galician counterparts. In her role as a guidance teacher, Veronica’s primary objective is to facilitate the incorporation of Cape Verdean students into the school system. Thus, although Spanish may present more economic opportunities, the possibility for Cape Verdean students to become proficient in Galician with more ease than they would in Spanish, makes Galician the preferable medium of instruction for teaching Cape Verdean students, according to Veronica.
In example 5.6 above we see how the rigid parameters of the school curriculum can introduce immigrant students to the beliefs, ideologies and social practices of their new community. By allowing students to be exempt from Galician, but not from Spanish, the school curriculum indicates to immigrant students that Spanish is the dominant and top language in the hierarchy, and that within this system, Spanish holds more value than
Galician. It is through comments made by teachers like Veronica that we see how the official curriculum is being challenged and contested: Veronica calls for a system that acknowledges the linguistic realities of the Cape Verdean community, and allows for them to be exempt from Spanish and ‘capitalise’ on their knowledge of Portuguese through Galician medium classes. However, Veronica’s view that Galician is preferable for teaching Cape Verdean students in some ways holds internal contradictions.
Veronica’s role, as a guidance teacher, is to help students adapt to the school. One of the school’s roles, however, is to prepare students for the labour market. Thus, although Veronica states that Galician is the most appropriate medium of instruction for Cape Verdean students, orienting them towards leaning Galician instead of learning Spanish could have implications for their employment opportunities going forward as Spanish is a language that holds economic capital internationally.
The official curriculum devised by the regional government, the Plan As Rocas, and the remarks made by teachers like Veronica, ascribe to ideologies where languages are seen as bounded units: this is seen in the policy of Plan As Rocas which outlines the languages taught in the school and their individual value to the community. Their arguments continue to be framed and underpinned by notions of ‘parallel monolingualism’, and do not highlight the potential pedagogical benefits of promoting translanguaging and fluid use of language. (See Chapter 2.4.4 for a discussion of the pedagogical applications of translanguaging and how they relate to the situation in As Rocas). The benefits of translanguaging have been advocated by scholars in recent years (Wei, 2014; García, 2009; Creese and Blackledge, 2010), who argue for students to be allowed to draw on all the languages in their linguistic repertoire in order to improve their academic learning experience. It could be posited that allowing students to draw on their multilingual repertoires in a fluid way, and engage in ‘translanguaging’, bringing together the use of immigrant minority languages and official languages of the school, could foster inclusivity in the classroom and increase cultural awareness and integration: as García and Wei (2014) note, the incorporation of translanguaging in classrooms “incorporates difference, pluralities and the languaging of everyday to produce and legitimize learning.” (García and Wei, 2014). While ‘translanguaging’
pedagogy was not part of the official curriculum or the Plan As Rocas, I saw evidence of teachers drawing on multiple language repertoires to enhance the learning experience in the classroom. Frequent examples included teachers asking Cape Verdean students to use Kriolu words when they were struggling to express themselves. Moreover, the Plan
As Rocas included initiatives that promoted the Kriolu language and encouraged Cape Verdean students to draw on their multilingual repertoire in classroom contexts.