“There is no difference, but the state should pay us more”: Czech Teachers in the Ethnically Diverse Classroom Lucie Jarkovská, Jana Obrovská Masaryk University, Brno Czech Republic Research Questions •What are the policies considering education of ethnic minority pupils in the Czech Republic? •How do the teachers reflect the pedagogical process in ethnically diversified classrooms? Do they consider the official education policies as sufficient? •What role does the ethnicity play in everyday classroom interactions? We are going from macro-discourse level where we focus on the way minority pupils are defined in policy and legislative documents. After that we analyze the meso-discourse level where we focus on the minority pupils in interviews with teachers. And finally we draw on our ethnografic data from classroom observations where we capture ethnicity in classroom interactions. In this paper we focus on the first two questions. Ethnic Diversity in Czech Education System •„Old“ Roma VERSUS „new“ ethnicities migrating into Czech Republic •Roma pupils educated in segregated schools VERSUS new ethnic minorities educated in public elementary schools •How does the czech education system cope with new kind of diversities? Before the Fall of Communism in 1989 the Czech Republic was not a very common destination country for transnational migrants, the most visible ethnic minority were Romas. After 1989 the migrants from Russia and post soviet countries and from Vietnam appeared and created the most visible migrant communities in the Czech Republic. It is important to emphasize that there is huge difference in framing Roma minority in public discourse in comparison to other ethnic minorities, those coming in the past few decades – e.g . Vietnameese, Russian, Ukraine minorities. Roma community is perceived to be highly visible problematic, while the migrant communities are framed as invisible and unproblematic, often both entities are comared and the success of new migrants used as a proof of non rasist attitudes of Czech society “We are not racist, we do not mind about vietnamese whose children have the best results in schools and who run their business. Romas are problematic, it is why we do not like them.” Roma live predominantly in economically deprived and socially excluded localities and their children attend segregated schools. In 2007, European Court for Human Rights declared discrimination in equal access to education for Roma pupils by the Czech Republic. Migrant pupils are more present in public elementary schools, while Roma pupils are still predominantly educated in segregated or special „vocational“ or so called „practical“ schools for mentally handicapped pupils. So we can ask: how does the czech education system cope with new kind of diversities? Ethnicity in Official Documents • 1) Strong emphasis on teacher‘s activity and responsibility in managing ethnic diversity in schools •2) „Messy“ and contested category of socially disadvantaged pupils There are two main characteristics in policy and strategical documents considering education of minority pupils. Firstly we will talk about support of special pedagogical methods in management of ethnically diverse education process in official documents. We want to show how the teacher reflect those documents and their role in ethnicly diverse classroom. Secondly we will problematise the comprehensive definition of socially disadvantaged pupil used in policy documents. This definition covers also migrant children and chlidren from ethnic minorities. We will show that this cathegory does not help to identify vulnerable children in school. 1) Encouraging Teachers in Official Documents • „To meet the needs of children with social disadvantage or from different social and cultural background (including Roma children) and of their parents, primarily the teachers have to create friendly and accepting environment. In pedagogical process it is important to enhance the sense of belonging and mutual respect. Teachers should pay high attention to the processes of social exclusion in classroom collectives and intervene in such a way to prevent them.“ (Methodical Recommendation, Equal Opportunities in Education of Socially Disadvantaged Pupils, 28:1) „Ve vztahu k potřebám dětí je především důležité, aby pedagogičtí pracovníci podporovali vytváření takového sociálního prostředí, které je pro děti se sociálním znevýhodněním či děti z odlišného sociálního a kulturního prostředí, včetně dětí romských, a jejich rodičů či zákonných zástupců, přátelské a přijímající. Při pedagogické práci je třeba posilovat ve všech dětech pocit sounáležitosti a vzájemného respektu. Je důležité, aby pedagogičtí pracovníci věnovali zvýšenou pozornost dětem ohroženým vyloučením z kolektivu a učinili opatření, jež takovému stavu předejdou.“ No Need for Special Teaching Methods „Researcher: If you should summarize the differences in educating ethnically homogenous and heterogeneous classroom what would you mention? Teacher 1: I would not find any difference in my practice. Really not. Except the usage of English language. Teacher 2: If there is any language problem it is ... Teacher 1: …. Completely the same.“ „Researcher: Do you think are there some special requirements for you to teach in ethnically diverse classrooms? Teacher: Ehm, maybe there should be some special requirements in teaching Czech language but I have not noticed yet. Sometimes I explain something to somebody but it is not happening exclusively with Russian pupils. I would not even mention that. (…) So we were not involved in extra-tutoring of Czech language. They learn it somewhere else. They paid for private language tutoring or courses.“ In sharp contrast to policies, teachers claim that they do not need any strategies focusing on educating minority pupils because the pedagogical process is very similar to that occuring in majority classrooms. „T: Kdybychom měli shrnout nějaké rozdíly v tom učit třídu etnicky stejnou a jinou, našly by se tam nějaké?D: Já bych žádný rozdíl nenašla, za tu svoji praxi, prostě ne. Vyjma té angličtiny. V: Pokud není jazykový problém, tak je to... D: Úplně stejný.“ „T: Máte pocit, že to na vás klade nějaké specifické nároky, tady ve škole, speciálně ve vaší třídě, kde je hodně cizinců, jako na učitelku? R: No, ehm, možná by to mělo klást nějaké nároky na tu výuku češtiny, ale to jsem zatím nezaznamenala. To že si s někým sednu a něco mu vysvětlím, to jako jednorázově bývá a to se netýká jenom Rusů, to funguje s kýmkoli, takže to bych jako nezmiňovala. Takže nás se zatím doučování češtiny ani netýkalo, oni se to prostě doučili někde jinde, sehnali si nějaký soukromý, nebo jsou kurzy.“ No Need for Special Strategies Researcher: Does your school use some strategy to educate minority pupils? All teachers: Rather not. Teacher 1: I would say everybody has some individual strategy. It depends on the teacher‘s character. How each of us copes with them. Researcher: Do you think it makes sense to have a strategy? Teacher 1: Now I see, we have a common strategy – equal opportunities, right? (…) Teacher2: What a strategy could be? I do not know what to look for. Researcher: Maybe you do not need any. Teacher 2: No, well let‘s talk about what could be a strategy. Teacher 3: No idea. Teacher 2: Some prospect, some goal? What is strategy? Teacher 1: Evident rules and equal access – this is strategy. Furthermore, teachers lack the information about and imagination of strategies possibly used to educate minority children. Although teachers complain about the lack of support „from above“ (from Ministry of Sports and Education, self-government or schools founders) they simultaneously claim that there are not any specialized methods needed. Teachers often suggest extracurricular tutoring as effective supportive method. At the same time they do not know which organizations, or even if the school itself, offer these provisions for minority pupils. We can observe the lack of the need to educate minority pupils in some special way. We presuppose the relation between lack of pedagogical strategies and lack of recognition of this category of pupils. So how we can explain this? M: Má vaše škola nějakou strategii / nějaké strategie, jak pracovat s dětmi z různých etnických skupin (např. děti emigrantů, romské děti apod.)?Všichni: To asi ne. Le: Já bych řekla, že každý má nějakou svou individuální strategii. Ono taky záleží na osobnosti učitele, jak to kdo s nimi umí. Má podle vašeho názoru dodržování nějaké strategie opodstatnění? Má nějaká celoškolní strategie smysl?Le: Teď já si vzpomínám, že máme společnou strategii – rovný přístup, ne? (…) Li: Co by mohla být strategie? Nevím, co mám hledat. Mod: Možná třeba není vůbec žádná potřeba.Li: Ne, dobře, řekněme si, co by mohla být strategie? I: Mě to nenapadá. Li: Nějaký výhled, nějaký cíl? Co je strategie? Le: Jasný pravidla a rovný přístup – to je strategie. Elusive and Invisible Ethnicity - Lack of Recognition •„Teacher: It does not matter if the pupil is Roma, Czech, Vietnamese or whatever.“ •„Teacher: Our children become used to minority pupils as newcomers because it is happening from the first grade. They accept them fully equally – in the same way, they accept our pupils who move from neighboring villages. This is not a problem at all. From the point of view of teachers all children are same and equal, regardless of their ethnicity. According to them, ethnicity does not play any role in classroom interactions. A je úplně jedno, jestli je romské, nebo české, nebo vietnamské, nebo jakékoliv.“ 2) Socially Disadvantaged Pupils as „Messy“ Category •Minority pupils →→→ Pupils with special needs →→→ Socially disadvantaged pupils •Social disadvantage in the Education Act: a) family background with low socio-economic status, b) ordered institutional upbringing, c) asylum-seeker status •Social disadvantage in the Public Note: pupil disadvantaged by insufficient knowledge of instruction language According to legislation the minority pupils are termed as pupils with special needs and fall into the category: socially disadvantaged pupils. In the School Education act states, that social disadvantage is a) family background with low socio-economic status endagered by pathological occurrences, b) ordered institutional upbringing or c) asylum-seekeer status (§ 16 zákona č. 561/2004 Sb., o předškolním, základním, středním, vyšším odborném a jiném vzdělávání (školský zákon) In contrast to that the public note declares that: The socially disadvantaged pupil lacks the support to be properly educated from the family or it could be the pupil disadvantaged by insufficient knowledge of instruction language. It means that above all other factores we can classify as socially disadvantaged all minority pupils with different mother tongue. These pupils represent the majority form the minority pupils whole. To be categorized as socially disadvantaged means the right to be educated with use of special (so called compensatory) pedagogical provisions. It is important to stress that most teachers are little informed about legislative framework and if so they know only the Education Act. So we need to ask how do the teachers relate the category of social disadvantage to minority pupils. Za žáka se sociálním znevýhodněním se pro účely poskytování vyrovnávacích opatření podle odstavce 2 považuje zejména žák z prostředí, kde se mu nedostává potřebné podpory k řádnému průběhu vzdělávání včetně spolupráce zákonných zástupců se školou, a žák znevýhodněný nedostatečnou znalostí vyučovacího jazyka. 2) Social Disadvantage from the Teacher‘s Perspective Researcher: Why do you think that minority pupils are socially disadvantaged? Why should we consider them as disadvantaged? Teacher: I would not take it like that. According to me they are not more disadvantaged by a language barrier. I do not treat them differently I do not think that if they speak Czech somebody look at them differently or that they are disadvantaged. On the contrary some pupils want to be their friends because it is interesting for them. I do not know how it is in the ordinary life but in the education system if they speak Czech there is no problem in pupils relations. (…) Researcher: Does it make sense to talk about social disadvatage considering minority pupils? What do you imagine under this term? Teacher: I would not see the connection. Researcher: Do you think it does not necessarily relate to each other? Teacher: No, it is not like that. I do not think it is connected. But maybe it is a question of attitude. The next picture shows us some quotations ilustrating the neglect of this category. From the teacher‘s perspective minority pupils tend to be perceived in this way. T: Proč si myslíte, že jsou děti cizinců sociálně znevýhodněné? Proč bychom je měli považovat za znevýhodněné? R: Já bych to tak nebrala. Podle mě jsou opravdu znevýhodněny jedině kvůli jazykové bariéře. Já je jinak nevidím a nemyslím si, že pokud mluví česky, tak na ně někdo kouká jinak, nebo že jsou znevýhodněny. Naopak někteří lidé je vyhledávají jako kamarády, protože je to pro ně zajímavé. Nevím, jak v běžném životě, ale ve školství, pokud se domluví, tak mezi dětmi problém není. Samozřejmě v učení jo, pokud nemají slovní zásobu. T: Dává Vám to smysl ve vztahu k těm dětem cizincům mluvit o tom sociálním znevýhodnění. Nebo co si vlastně pod tím představujete? R: Já bych to nespojovala dohromady. T: Přijde Vám to jako že to není nutně věc, která se musí doplňovat? R: Ne, není to nutně tak. Nemyslím si, že by spolu toto souviselo. Ale to je asi zase věc přístupu. 2) Socially Disadvantaged Pupils as a „Messy“ Category •Ambivalent nature of this category – it stigmatizes Roma pupils and at the same time it makes other minority pupils invisible •The category of social disadvantage is especially intended to cover socially and economically deprived conditions in which most of Roma children are raised •Schools refuse to use this category to register vulnerable groups of pupils As a result schools refuse to use the category of social disadvantage to register vulnerable groups of children. In our project we have evidence of this tendency as we pleased the schools directors in one choosen city to inform us about the numbers of such pupils. Most of the schools registered no socially disadvantaged children although we know that minority pupils attend these schools. This is important fact if we realize that it is the only way to gain some extra financial resources. We can explain that by ambivalent nature of this category. We have to realize what was said at the beginning of this presentation – there are Roma pupils and the rest of the minority children. The legislative and political documents homogenize these differences by constructing one category and clasiffying all of these pupils in the same way. On the one hand it makes the ethnic specificities of minority children invisible on the other hand it stigmatizes the Roma children as it makes the automatic and often stereotyping association between Roma child and it‘s low socio-economic background. Moreover many teachers think that Roma families abuse social benefits and do not want to (by their words) advantage them further. Summary •Ethnicity – invisible but support needed •Invisible migrant ethicity x reified Roma ethnicity •Paralel with perception of gender in the classroom - humanist philosophy accent on individual • • The starting point of our analysis are the interviews with teachers. They show that on one hand teachers consider the support of the state and government as insufficient, on the other hand they state that the process of teaching in ethnically diverse classroom does not differ from ethnically homogeneous group. Ethnicity is for them invisible and elusive. They are able to grasp it only as a language difficulty and they call for financing the Czech language tutorials for foreigners as a main policy tool. They consider ethnicity (migrant background) only in terms of school performance. At the same time they perceive the school performance as the result of individual decisions, individual will and talent. The discourse of invisible ethnicity rapidly changes when they shift to the topic of Roma kids in the educational system. Those are understood as different. As ethnicity is in the case of migrants made invisible and individual, in the case of Romas it is reified and seen as essential obstacle for integration and improvement of their disadvantaged position. We see the parallel between gender and ethnicity in educational policies. As in the case of gender equality policies, on the official governmental level, the integration and multiciltural principles are declared as a governmental priority, but in everyday life of the school they are are either misinterpreted or neglected. In both cases (ethnicity and gender) teachers frame their attitudes using the humanist philosophy accent on individual (we do not care if the child is Russion or Czech, boy or a girl, we treat everyone the same). At the same time, when they admit difference, they frame it as natural (boys will be boys and Romas will be Romas, they are all like that).