Placing language at the centre of migrant education
European countries have in place a range of policies and strategies designed to counter extremism and prevent radicalisation. These approaches are often multifaceted and involve numerous sectors of society, from security services and the police through to social services and education. “We don’t really have a clear picture though of how these policies influence adult migrant education,” notes CVELANG project coordinator Kamran Khan from the University of Birmingham in the United Kingdom. In fact, Khan identifies an evolution in language education, from a focus on civic education – know your rights etc. – to an increased focus on security and counter-extremism. While political rhetoric and policy on countering extremism has notably stiffened, he believes that the impact of this on migrant language education has not been fully explored.
Language education, integration and security
The EU-funded CVELANG project enabled Khan to dig deeper into this, and to investigate how migrant language education aligns with governmental security goals. The project was coordinated by the University of Copenhagen in Denmark, and supported by the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions programme. Khan applied his research to two contexts – the United Kingdom, his home country; and Denmark, his host country during the CVELANG project. Both have taken different approaches to integration and security. “Denmark for example introduced a policy in 2018 aimed at identifying socially and, implicitly, linguistically segregated areas,” he says. “Denmark has a strategy whereby every year, vulnerable areas are identified according to certain criteria. One of these criteria is the percentage of non-western residents.” The United Kingdom on the other hand has adopted the Prevent strategy. This requires educators to track and refer those demonstrating signs of radicalisation. “The impact of such policies on migrant communities and language educators is not really known,” adds Khan.
Securitisation of language policy
To address this, Khan examined a wide range of policies and political discourses, to see how these might dovetail with how migrant language education is practised. “I really wanted to examine what was happening on the ground, and to focus on the position of education in all of this,” he says. “I felt that this aspect was missing.” Khan also previously looked at citizenship tests. He noted here how the language used often mirrors key security concerns. “This is the ‘securitisation’ of language policy,” he remarks. “The risk is that you make some people appear more of a security risk than others, without any empirical evidence. It’s a bit like being pulled out of the security line at an airport, because you fit a certain profile.”
Language as an educational and societal asset
A key result of the CVELANG project, Khan believes, has simply been to highlight many of the issues that surround migrant language learning. An objective from the start was to raise awareness of the influence of security policy on education, and how this can impact the job of language providers, as well as migrants themselves. “Language creates possibilities to belong, but it can also be discriminatory,” he adds. “Policymakers also sometimes place pressure on those who have to implement measures, such as teachers.” Moving forward, Khan would like to see policymakers consider language instruction primarily as an educational and societal asset and take more care to avoid stigmatising certain groups.
Keywords
CVELANG, education, migrant, integration, language, security, discriminatory
