As already mentioned, the Islamic religious field in Cardiff consists mainly of the agents who form the migration field of various generations of Muslim immigrants in Cardiff (see 6.1.2). Thus, religious practices and supplementary schools are legitimate internally, but not necessarily externally to this religious field. Taking this into consideration, the present sub-section looks into the relationship between supplementary schools and mainstream education, mainly from the perspective of the provision of qualifications for Arabic at GCSE283 and A level284 in mainstream education.
Amira provides a nuanced view of the relationship between Arabic supplementary schools and mainstream education in terms of their symbolic power and the effects it has had on her linguistic habitus:
in America the education system is a bit different, you have to collect credits to get into uni … a lot of friends I have they take English and Arabic classes whereas we have to do that in our own time, find somewhere else to do it … the school doesn't offer it (Amira, 24)
Drawing on a comparison between her understanding of the American school system and her own experience, Amira underlines that second-generation agents in Wales do not have the opportunity to study Arabic in the formal setting of state schools. Section 5.2.2.1 argued that within the linguistic market of the school linguistic practices with English were imposed as legitimate in contrast with the illegitimacy of linguistic practices with non-autochthonous minority languages, such as Arabic. In turn, this led to the linguistic habitus of the participants adjusting not only to the rules and laws of
283 GCSE = General Certificate of Secondary Education
284 A levels = General Certificate of Education Advanced Level (based on which university admission offers are
price formation of the linguistic market of the school and the submarket of the home, but also to the unbalanced power relation between the two markets. The existence of Arabic supplementary schools adds a new dimension to this discussion.
Although the participants did not have the opportunity to attend Arabic classes as part of the official curriculum of mainstream education, all of them took the GCSE and some of them the A levels in Arabic. These are two types of qualifications provided by and recognised at the level of British education system and labour market. Nevertheless, it was mainly through Arabic supplementary schools that the interviewees acquired the necessary linguistic competence required for these types of qualifications:
[at the supplementary school] they taught us grammar and … when I was in Year 7 the four of us took our Arabic GCSEs … then they were like come back for AS so then we went back for AS … but that was two years later so we did that and then in Year 10 or Year 11 they were like do your A2s so then we got our A2s in Arabic as well (Amira, 24)
I've got a GCSE in Arabic now because my mum made me go to school … and at the end I had a GCSE in it, it was good, I actually thanked her for making me go (Nadeen, 16)
[at the supplementary school] it was mostly the read and write, the religious side of Islam was taught there as well and they obviously get you prepared for your GCSE [with] past papers (Amman, 18)
Obtaining this qualification relies on the linguistic habitus of the second-generation agents having developed according to the rules and laws of price formation imposed within the linguistic markets constructed by supplementary schools. As seen above (section 6.1.3.3), the existence of these schools is usually legitimised by the relationship between Islam and Arabic. As section 6.1.3.3 shows, these schools focus mainly on equipping students with competence in Arabic literacy, which means competence in MSA (see 6.1.3.1). Of course, as section 6.1.3.3 argues, these supplementary schools are usually attended by pupils whose linguistic habitus is already partially adapted to a linguistic submarket of the home where linguistic practices with an Arabic ammiyya are recognised as valid. Competence in Arabic ammiyyas and, crucially, MSA, is then evaluated by British standards of education and thus is recognised as linguistic capital that is converted into educational capital:
MM: and do you think it helps you having this certification, it's like a certification, right? Amman: yeah it does quite help cuz I applied to unis this year and I got it on to my personal statement so that might be taken into a bit of consideration, I don't know, I hope it did (Amman, 18)
As Amman explains, the student receives an extra GCSE or A level, which may be relevant for UCAS points. In turn UCAS points are fundamental for accessing higher education. Nevertheless, this does not mean that actual linguistic practices with Arabic are recognised as legitimate within the linguistic market of the English-medium schools attended by the interviewees. On the contrary, within this
linguistic market, the same contrast in terms of symbolic value between English and Arabic outlined in section 5.2.2.1 prevails. Schools recognise as valid only the linguistic competence per se when it can be converted into educational capital, but not linguistic practices with Arabic. Arguably, the fundamental condition which leads the educational system to recognise this type of linguistic competence as linguistic capital refers to the opportunity schools have to evidence a potential higher percentage of pupils achieving a higher number of qualifications. This is important in terms of local and national school rankings, which may affect the level of funding, and ultimately the symbolic power of a particular school. It could be suggested that this type of additional qualifications comes at a very low cost for the schools, given that it relies on the adaptation of pupils’ linguistic habitus to the rules and laws of price formation of the submarkets of the home and those of supplementary schools.
While linguistic practices with Arabic are not recognised as valid within the linguistic market of the school even in light of linguistic competence being recognised as linguistic and educational capital by the same institution, it may be argued that this institutional recognition does have an effect on the reproduction of linguistic practices with Arabic. First, it reinforces the symbolic power of Arabic supplementary schools, given that they provide the main means of acquisition of literacy skills (see 6.1.3.3), a linguistic capital convertible into educational capital in mainstream education. Second, given that Arabic supplementary schools build upon the level of adaptation of a pupil’s linguistic habitus to the internal rules and laws of price formation of a linguistic submarket of the home (6.1.3.3), the institutional recognition of such linguistic competence as valuable may also reinforce the conditions of such submarkets as valid.
So far has been argued that religion plays a fundamental role in the development of the linguistic habitus of the second-generation participants with an Arab background; it leads to particular conditions of reproduction of linguistic practices with Arabic which complement the power relations within the linguistic submarkets of the home imposing these practices as legitimate (see Chapter 5). The interplay between the symbolic value ascribed to Qur’anic Arabic in general, the institutionalised provision of Arabic literacy in Cardiff and the mainstream education provision of qualifications functions as an interconnected mechanism which may reproduce the symbolic value of linguistic practices with certain types of Arabic on certain linguistic submarkets. It is now important to understand if religion has any impact on the reproduction of linguistic practices with non- autochthonous minority languages other than Arabic in the context of Cardiff.