What is the problem represented to be? Applying poststructural policy analysis to examine Austrian German language support legislation

Abstract

The Austrian education policy employs a segregated model of language support, ostensibly to provide equitable opportunities for language learners. Prior research has demonstrated that this model has not fully achieved its objective of equalizing opportunities, as students persistently confront many academic and socio-emotional challenges. To gain a more profound comprehension of the intricate nuances associated with equity and opportunity, this article deploys the “What’s the Problem Represented to be?” approach developed by Bacchi (2009). Serving as a valuable tool for researchers, policymakers, and advocates working towards social change, the article delves into the role of governments in the construction of policy problems and the legitimations associated with segregated language support in Austria. The research thus seeks to challenge the idea that policies are designed to address existing problems. Conversely, it argues that policies are themselves responsible for creating the very problems they are designed to address. The findings indicate the presence of deeply entrenched assumptions and presuppositions that are fundamentally shaped by nationalist ideologies, which persist as a persistent legacy of colonialist and racist attitudes. The discussion calls for a radical transformation of the prevailing approach to policy-making, challenging the status quo and exploring alternative avenues for addressing societal responsibilities.

Keywords

Language policy equality of opportunity poststructural policy analysis WPR approach construction of policy problems

Introduction

Linguistic diversity has been a reality in schools around the world for many years due to continuous labor migration, family reunification and refugee movements (UNESCO, 2018a). According to a global monitoring report on education (UNESCO, 2018b), the number of school-age children with a migration biography or refugee experience has increased by 26% since 2000. Consequently, the provision of inclusive and equitable education for newly arrived students who do not speak the language of instruction (LoI) at home has been identified as an important goal of education policy and practice (Calaycay, 2023; European Commission/Eacea/Eurydice, 2019). As educational policy decisions about the choice of LoI and the management of linguistic diversity in schools are deeply embedded in aspects of identity, nationality and power, the experiences of newly arrived multilingual students are dependent on the prevailing ideologies and narratives about language in a region (Flores and García, 2020).

In Austria, as in several other countries (see e.g., European Commission/Eacea/Eurydice, 2019), ideologies and narratives about language use in schools are permeated by a monolingual paradigm (Busch, 2021). Consequently, a significant challenge in education systems worldwide is the tension between nationalist policies that promote a single dominant language as a symbol of national unity and the reality of linguistic diversity in schools (Tollefson et al., 2014). This discord is manifest in various contexts, including Catalonia, where disputes have emerged concerning the utilization of Catalan as the primary language of instruction in public schools (González-Riaño et al., 2019). Certain political actors contend that this practice infringes upon the rights of students seeking to be educated in Castilian. A similar tension can be observed in Turkey regarding the use of the Kurdish language in education, which has resulted in challenges for Kurdish-speaking students (Turgut and Çelik, 2024).

In Austria, proficiency in the LoI is considered a criterion for school readiness, language support, in particular helping students to learn the LoI (i.e., German), is seen as an essential part of school education (Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Research (BMBWF), no date). Against this backdrop, the implementation of a novel segregated model of German language support commenced during the 2018/9 academic period. This initiative, introduced by the BMBWF (2021), was presented as a means to reduce the academic achievement gap between students who have German as their first language and those who have not, thereby promoting equitable opportunities for all learners.

Previous and current national education reports and empirical studies have consistently demonstrated that students with non-German first languages face significant academic and socio-emotional disadvantages (e.g., Gitschthaler et al., 2024; Neubacher and Wimmer, 2021; Suchań et al., 2019). Despite the extensive criticism levied against the myriad adverse consequences for students in segregated language learning environments (e.g., Erling et al., 2022), no research has yet undertaken a comprehensive examination of the legislative foundation underlying these initiatives in Austria. In light of the aforementioned considerations, the present article endeavors to conduct a comprehensive investigation into the role of governments in the legitimations of segregated German language support measures and potential problems through the application of poststructural policy analysis (PPA) (Bacchi, 2009, 2015, 2020; Bacchi and Goodwin, 2016). The following chapters will present a detailed analysis of Austria’s approach to fostering the LoI, accompanied by a comprehensive examination of the theoretical concept of equitable opportunity. This analysis will be contextualized within the broader methodological approach guiding this work.

Austria’s approach to multilingualism in schools

Austrian education policymakers introduced a new model of language support for learners of the LoI at the beginning of the 2018/19 school year (BMBWF, 2019). As part of the language support program, students who do not pass a language screening are designated as “irregular students” and are required to attend segregated language support, which occurs concurrently with their participation in mainstream lessons. In particular, students who are categorized as having “inadequate” skills in the language of instruction are taught in segregated German language support courses (GLSCO) for 6 hours per week. “Irregular” students who are classified as having “insufficient” German language skills are pulled out of mainstream classes for up to 15-20 hours per week to be taught in separate German language support classes (GLSC). It should be noted, however, that according to legal guidelines, GLSC must be implemented in schools with a minimum of eight “irregular” students with “insufficient” German language competencies. If there are fewer than eight students to whom this characteristic applies, the learners are to be taught in the mainstream classes and receive German lessons for 6 hours per week in the separate GLSCO. In addition, students can only participate in these programs for a maximum of 2 years, after which they do not receive any further language support.

Although GLSC and GLSCO have been introduced in schools throughout Austria, current empirical findings indicate that there are difficulties at the structural and organizational level, as well as a wide range of compliance with the actual implementation of the measures with the legal requirements (Resch et al., 2023; Schwab et al., 2024). Accordingly, school personnel have reported that spatial and personnel resources varied greatly among school sites, at times necessitating that school principals refrain from implementing the GLSC following legal requirements (e.g., due to the unavailability of separate rooms) (Resch et al., 2023). In addition to the practical difficulties inherent in implementing such programs, educational researchers and practitioners have identified a heightened risk of social exclusion among students enrolled in these segregated language learning programs (Schweiger and Müller, 2022). In this context, GLSC and GLSCO have been met with criticism from experts in various fields due to concerns about social participation and potential negative effects on academic development in other subjects (e.g., Erling et al., 2022; Gitschthaler et al., 2024; Herzog-Punzenberger et al., 2017).

In general, the educational policy on GLSC and GLSCO is not based on evidence-based principles of language learning. Rather, it is shaped by an “ideology of exclusive nationalism” (Gruber and Rosenberger, 2021: 155), which is characterized by deficit-focused conceptualizations of migration biographies as well as restrictive and assimilationist perspectives with regard to settled immigrants.

Notwithstanding the pervasive criticism of the potential negative socio-emotional and academic outcomes for students, the implementation of GLSC and GLSCO has been endorsed by policymakers on the grounds of reducing the performance gap between students with and without German as their first language (BMBWF, 2019). With these consideration in mind, the upcoming chapter will provide a comprehensive explanation of the fundamental principle that underlies the introduction of GLSC and GLSCO, which is centered around creating equitable opportunities.

Equality, equity, and the principle of equitable opportunity

The Austrian government has pledged to “ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all” (United Nations, 2015: 17). In this regard, it is important to note that the Austrian Ministry of Education’s position on reducing inequalities in educational opportunities and outcomes, as articulated in its comments to the GLSC and GLSCO, is as follows:

Students who are unable to follow lessons due to insufficient language skills are to be given equitable opportunities and, in order to improve their integration into the classroom, are to be offered German support classes or German support courses running parallel to lessons in the 2018/19 school year. (BMBWF, no date)

This statement issued by BMBWF presents a favorable interpretation of the implementation of the GLSC and GLSCO, emphasizing the promotion of equitable opportunities and the facilitation of a comprehensive and continuous educational experience for all students, irrespective of their social and linguistic background (BMBWF, 2021). Nevertheless, this article contends that an examination of policy-making and problem representation by policy stakeholders utilizing PPA (Bacchi, 2009, 2015, 2020; Bacchi and Goodwin, 2016) allows for a critical analysis of the seemingly positive legitimization of the segregation of German promotion measures to create equitable educational opportunities. To pursue this line of argument, it is essential to undertake a critical examination of the concepts of equity, equality, and justice, followed by an in-depth examination of the concept of equitable opportunities.

The principle of equality is concerned with sameness in terms of what is shared or distributed and how individuals are treated (Blessed-Sayah and Griffiths, 2024; Buchholtz et al., 2020). It pertains to the state of being equal, thereby underscoring sameness among individuals and in terms of what is distributed (Blessed-Sayah and Griffiths, 2024). Consequently, contextualized differences between individuals are not taken into account (Blessed-Sayah and Griffiths, 2024). A constructive interpretation of the concept of equality is one that aligns with Fredman's (2016) proposal of a non-categorizing approach to the distribution of goods and the advancement of collective human rights. However, the assumption of equality in given societies becomes problematic when individuals are grouped together, resulting in the erasure of their individuality and the silencing of their voices, needs, and experiences (Coleman, 2018). Consequently, collective human rights confer the capacity to prevail over individual claims (Takeuchi et al., 2018).

The concept of equity has undergone a process of evolution over time and is currently defined as the provision of opportunities for all in a manner that is both fair and just (Blessed-Sayah and Griffiths, 2024; Espinoza, 2007). In this sense, it involves a moral judgment about a particular distribution of opportunities or goods and, when applied to education, refers to a learning environment in which each student must be able to strive and reach their full potential (Buchholtz et al., 2020). Furthermore, discussions about equity acknowledge the existence of individual circumstances and differences related to individual needs (Buchholtz et al., 2020).

Since the advent of egalitarian liberalism, which was largely founded by Rawls’ A Theory of Justice (1999), the concept of equity has also been discussed in relation to social institutions. Rawls (1999) posits that justice is manifested in the allocation of capabilities and resources, which is conducted in a manner that ensures no individual is placed at a disadvantage relative to another. The realization of this objective hinges on the implementation of concerted measures by the state to eradicate inequitable outcomes (Holzleithner, 2009). In this context, the state is arguably predestined in this respect because its actions are democratically legitimized, follow certain legally generated rules, and should be based on the intention of protecting the rights of all those within its sphere of control (Holzleithner, 2009).

The concept of equitable opportunities is generally associated with important social values such as justice and tolerance, and affects all levels of society (McDowell, 2016). However, some experts (e.g., Rolff, 2020) have argued that the term should be used with caution, particularly in educational contexts (e.g., Rolff, 2020; Schneider, 2017). Accordingly, the authors posit that the demand for equitable opportunities can only be justified insofar as the underlying social inequalities are eliminated. In light of these considerations, the authors emphasize the importance of addressing empirically proven inequalities, such as those resulting from a migration background or socio-economic disadvantage, to achieve equity in the education system (Rolff, 2020; Schneider, 2017). In this context, however, it is necessary to refer to the concept of the “illusion of equal opportunities” (p. 7) in the education system postulated by Bourdieu and Passeron (1971). This postulate undermines the assumption of a level playing field for all due to the existing links between social power relations and the educational system, resulting from an unequal distribution of capital and the inability of educational institutions to counteract this injustice (Bourdieu and Passeron, 1971).

In conclusion, the preceding remarks on the fundamental tenet of equitable opportunities, which serves as the foundation for the political legitimacy of German language support measures, indicate that this concept has only limited appeal and, as a result, must be evaluated with a critical lens. In light of these considerations, a poststructural policy analysis will be employed to examine the process of policy legitimation, specifically focusing on how policies pertaining to German language support construct and legitimize particular problems, solutions, and authority structures.

Materials and methods

Poststructural policy analysis

This article presents a methodological approach that draws upon poststructural policy analysis (PPA). Practices inspired by PPA typically subject unquestioned assumptions and pervasive knowledge that shape social relations to scrutiny, as well as their connection to the maintenance of social inequalities (Bacchi, 2020; Bacchi and Goodwin, 2016). Bacchi and Goodwin (2016: 4) suggest that PPA offers a “refreshing skepticism” regarding the long-held stability of traditional political and policy-related concepts. Accordingly, it shifts the analytical focus from problem-solving approaches to policy-making to the role of governments in the production of policy problems (Bacchi and Goodwin, 2016).

The current article employs a specific approach informed by PPA, namely, Bacchi (2000, 2009) “What’s the Problem Represented to Be?” (WPR) approach, to analyze how government actors contribute to the production and reproduction of problems associated with the introduction of GLSC and GLSCO. In detail, the WPR approach postulates that policymakers introduce a specific problem and a call to address it into the public discourse. This process of problem representation is designed to facilitate the formation of a collective understanding of the problem and to mobilize public action to address it. The WPR approach entails a rigorous examination of problem representations or problem statements. This process enables the identification of deeply entrenched assumptions and presuppositions, as well as the potential for adverse consequences (Bacchi, 2015). The term “problematization” can be employed in two distinct ways. First, in its verb form (i.e., problematize), it refers to the actions of subjects (e.g., policymakers) (Bacchi, 2015). Secondly, as a noun (i.e., problematization), it indicates the consequences of the act of problematization (Bacchi, 2015). As Webb (2014: 368) observes, the WPR approach and its strategy of problematization offer a perspective that “seeks explanations about the ways thinking is practiced and produced.” In this context, the PPA and the related WPR approach examine the manner in which issues are constituted as problems within policies (Bacchi, 2020). Furthermore, Bacchi (2009) presents the WPR approach as a means of elucidating how rules that are widely accepted in society are perceived. In their 2016 publication, Bacchi and Goodwin explicitly reference the application of WPR in a range of contexts where inequalities emerge. For example, Bacchi and Goodwin (2016) address the issue of inclusion, which is typically discussed and regarded as a matter of awareness in various policy domains. In particular, the authors adopt an approach to inclusion that is centered on the discursive practices and power relations that are embedded in policy-making (Bacchi and Goodwin, 2016). In contrast to the conventional approach of merely inquiring about the inclusion of specific individuals or groups in policy-making processes, Bacchi and Goodwin (2016) advocate for a more nuanced examination of how inclusion is constructed and the subsequent implications for those included or excluded. For example, the authors challenge the assumption that the mere inclusion of marginalized groups or individuals in policy discussions necessarily leads to more equitable or just outcomes (Bacchi and Goodwin, 2016). Furthermore, in light of a perspective informed by PPA, Bacchi and Goodwin (2016) posit that inclusion itself can be problematic if it occurs within a predefined category or structure that continues to privilege certain perspectives. They argue that policies, even when aiming for inclusivity, operate within dominant discourses that shape who is seen as deserving of inclusion and how issues are framed. In this context, Bacchi and Goodwin (2016) posit that inclusion often entails expectations of conformity, whereby those included in policy solutions are expected to adopt specific behaviors or identities to align with the policy’s framework and dominant societal norms. This, in turn, constrains the transformative potential of inclusion. In conclusion, the PPA approach proposed by Bacchi and Goodwin (2016) offers a detailed and nuanced understanding of the concept of inclusion in policy. It challenges the underlying assumptions about who is included, how, and for what purpose, while also emphasizing the role of power relations in shaping inclusionary practices. Similarly, the concept of segregation (e.g., GLSC or GLSCO) is not inherently neutral or merely spatial in nature. Rather, it is shaped by the framing of problems in policy (Bacchi and Goodwin, 2016).

The WPR approach

In the following section, the main features of the WPR approach are delineated, building on the preliminary considerations about PPA, WPR, and the associated key strategy of problematization.

Bacchi and Goodwin (2016) employ a comprehensive array of six interrelated methodologies to examine the underlying assumptions embedded within political actions. To achieve this objective, it is first necessary to select a specific policy document for further analysis (Bacchi and Goodwin, 2016). The document should be prescriptive in nature, containing suggestions or advice for the addressees or specific individuals (Bacchi and Goodwin, 2016). For the current analysis, the introductory section of a comprehensive document entitled “German language support at Austrian schools. A guide for school principals” published by the Ministry of Education (BMBWF, 2024) will be used. This choice is justified by the document’s status as the most recent governmental policy paper issued by the Ministry of Education and its recognition of current developments in education and criticisms raised since the establishment of the policy of interest. From this point of departure, the initial inquiry—namely, “What is the problem that is represented in a particular policy or policies?”—is introduced and applied to initiate the analytical process and commence the identification of a problem statement (Bacchi and Goodwin, 2016).

Once the problem statement has been identified, the second step of the WPR approach is to ascertain the underlying presuppositions or assumptions that inform this representation of the “problem.” It is of paramount importance to underscore that the identification of assumptions and presuppositions must be conducted within the confines of the policy document itself, rather than in the minds of social actors.

Having uncovered the deep-seated presuppositions and assumptions of the authors of a policy document, the third question of the WPR approach asks about the genesis of this problem representation. As posited by Bacchi and Goodwin (2016), the question of the occurrence of a particular problem representation serves to challenge the search for the origins of a policy’s development and to point to possible alternative developments. In line with Foucault’s forms of the genealogical method, Bacchi (2009) and Bacchi and Goodwin (2016) view historical analysis as a means of identifying specific points in time when pivotal decisions were made, thereby enabling policy to evolve in a particular direction in response to a specific issue.

The subsequent step is to investigate which aspects are not addressed in the specific policy document under examination. In particular, Bacchi and Goodwin (2016: 22) pose the following questions: What aspects of this problem representation remain unproblematic? What aspects are not addressed? It is also necessary to consider whether the problem can be conceptualized in a different way.

In accordance with the methodology proposed by Bacchi (2009) and Bacchi and Goodwin (2016), the fifth step of the WPR approach entails an investigation into the diverse effects produced by the problem representation in question. This inquiry aims to examine the potential consequences of the problem representation as it is presented in the relevant policy document. Specifically, Bacchi and Goodwin (2016) identify three distinct categories of effects, as follows: “Discursive effects, subjectification effects, and lived effects” (p. 23). Discursive effects pertain to the constraints imposed by problem representation on the scope of thought and discourse (Bacchi and Goodwin, 2016). In contrast, subjectification effects focus on the manner in which particular categories of subjects are constituted by the policy document and the associated problem representation (Bacchi and Goodwin, 2016). Finally, lived effects encompass all impacts on the lives of the individuals addressed in the respective problem representation (Bacchi and Goodwin, 2016).

The sixth and final step of the WPR approach, as outlined by Bacchi (2009) and Bacchi and Goodwin (2016), is to examine the manner and context in which problem representation was disseminated and to assess the potential for its replacement.

Results

To respond to the initial and fundamental question of how the issue at the core of this policy is defined, it is essential to examine the introductory remarks presented in the publication in detail. The authors explicitly highlight a discrepancy between the multilingual reality in classrooms on the one hand and the necessity to acquire German as the LoI and education. This is considered a fundamental prerequisite for participation in social, cultural, economic and political life in Austria, as it is the language used as the basis for all educational processes. Against this backdrop, the problem representation can be formulated as follows: Exclusion from educational, social, cultural, economic and political life in Austria can be seen as a consequence of insufficient or no knowledge of the German language.

Having delineated how this policy defines and frames an issue, it is imperative to examine the underlying assumptions and values that are embedded within the policy document under examination. First, the policy is predicated on the assumption that proficiency in German is the primary, if not the sole, determinant of success in education and future integration into the labor market, as well as participation in societal and cultural life. Secondly, the policy assumes that targeted language support, particularly in German, is a provisional necessity. It is presumed that, once students have reached a certain level of proficiency, they can fully integrate into mainstream classrooms without the need for ongoing language assistance. Thirdly, the policy document suggests that students do not inherently require additional support simply because they speak multiple languages or have German as their second language. Consequently, multilingualism is not regarded as inherently problematic. Fourthly, there is an underlying assumption that providing support in German will result in the equalization of educational opportunities for multilingual students, thereby enabling them to engage fully with and benefit from the education system in a manner that is comparable to their monolingual counterparts. The policy in question presupposes that monolingual environments are the norm in Austrian schools, thereby suggesting that the system is initially designed for a homogeneous, German-speaking population. A second presupposition is that proficiency in German is a prerequisite for participation in various dimensions of life in Austria. This implies that the process of integration into Austrian society is contingent on language proficiency. Thirdly, it is presumed that the faster students become proficient in the language, the more effectively they will be able to integrate into the mainstream classroom setting. Fourth and finally, the policy presupposes that the primary obstacle for multilingual students is language proficiency.

To gain a deeper understanding of the genesis of problem representation, it is essential to examine the historical, political, and societal context in greater detail. In examining the historical context, it is essential to recognize that the prioritization of German language proficiency may have its origins in Austria’s prolonged history of national identity being inextricably linked with the German language. This association emerged in the aftermath of the Second World War, when the pursuit of national unity and linguistic uniformity became a pivotal objective (De Cillia et al., 1999). Furthermore, the policy of GLSC and GLSCO was introduced in 2018, at a time when the country was under the governance of right-wing conservative parties. In the context of recent political debates surrounding immigration and integration, the perception that learning German is crucial for “fitting in” and becoming a productive member of society may have been reinforced. It is important to acknowledge that this problem representation may have initially served the interests of political elites who advocate for stricter immigration policies, as well as businesses and organizations that seek workers who are proficient in German. Moreover, the prevailing socio-cultural milieu in Austria continues to exhibit a pronounced proclivity towards linguistic homogeneity, perceiving multilingualism as an impediment rather than an advantage.

The fourth step of the WPR approach requires a specific examination of the limitations inherent in the problem representation. It is first necessary to reiterate that the policy in question implies that German proficiency is the determining factor in success in education and future integration into the labor market, as well as participation in societal and cultural life. By taking this approach, the authors place a strong emphasis on individual-level factors, viewing academic and later career success or failure as primarily an individual responsibility and agency. This perspective precludes consideration of broader societal influences and systematic issues that affect individuals, which may result in a tendency to ascribe blame to the victim, whereby individuals are held responsible for their situations without sufficient contextualization. Moreover, this approach fails to recognize and marginalizes the possibility that students may have skills in other languages that could facilitate their learning and should be utilized. In addition, this approach does not address the underlying issue of class placement and labeling as “irregular students” based on achieved or unachieved levels of language proficiency, which are set by educational policy and based on national standards, with far-reaching consequences for learners’ educational careers.

One significant inconsistency in the policy document is the contradictory stance on mono- and multilingualism. While the document initially asserts that multilingualism is a reality in schools, it subsequently implies that integration into Austrian society is contingent on language proficiency. This suggests that the school system was initially designed for a homogeneous, German-speaking population. This is an important discovery, as the initial positive perception of multilingualism is undermined by the subsequent narrow focus on the necessity of learning German for social integration. In conclusion, although the policy acknowledges the multilingual reality in Austrian schools, its emphasis on German language proficiency may inadvertently overlook the nuances and benefits of multilingualism. Addressing these inconsistencies and limitations could potentially lead to more inclusive and effective educational practices that respect and promote linguistic diversity.

Upon reaching the fifth step and thus exploring the multifaceted consequences of the issue under examination, it becomes evident that an exclusive emphasis on the German language may unwittingly diminish the value attributed to students’ other languages and cultures. This could potentially engender a sense of inadequacy among multilingual students, ultimately deterring them from fully utilizing their linguistic capabilities. In this context, the depiction of multilingual students as requiring assistance with German can perpetuate stereotypes that they are less capable or less deserving of academic success. Furthermore, educators may be compelled to prioritize German language instruction over other crucial elements of education, such as cultural proficiency and the cultivation of students’ other languages. This may potentially constrain their efficacy in diverse learning environments. Finally, the policy’s focus on German may result in an unequal distribution of resources, with funding and support predominantly allocated to German language programs, potentially at the expense of initiatives that promote and preserve multilingualism.

Ultimately, the sixth and final step of the WPR approach entails an examination of the implications of the problem representation for social change and an investigation of potential alternative representations. To achieve this objective, it is essential to consider the context in which the document was published. This was in 2024, following the results of an evaluation study by the GLSC and the GLSCO, which showed that a significant proportion of educational staff considered it necessary to further develop or optimize the current legislation on the promotion of the German language. Compared to an earlier version of the amendment to the legal text published by the Ministry of Education in 2019 (cf. BMBWF, 2019), the policy document considered for the current analysis contains measures to further develop German language promotion in Austria, such as more flexible testing times for the language proficiency test and the provision of additional teaching posts as well as the expansion of support for regular students. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that the introductory section of the current version of the policy amendment addresses the topic of multilingualism and situates it within the context of the school reality. However, it is important to acknowledge that, as previously discussed in the fourth step of the WPR approach, the policy document exhibits some inconsistencies. In particular, the authors place considerable emphasis on the monolingual nature of the Austrian education system, which may not entirely align with the proposed approach. In light of the aforementioned points, it is worth reiterating that the current form of problem representation may potentially exacerbate social divisions and impede integration efforts, as students may feel disconnected from their cultural identities. In light of these considerations, it is crucial to underscore the potential of a reimagined policy to bolster linguistically and culturally responsive pedagogical approaches that facilitate students’ comprehensive linguistic abilities. This could pave the way for an inclusive learning environment where all languages are esteemed and cultivated. Such a transformation could foster a sense of empowerment among multilingual learners, leading to enhanced participation and engagement, and ultimately, to improved educational outcomes.

Discussion and conclusion

The present investigation was designed to elucidate, analyze, and question the problem representation framed in the policy document published by the BMBWF (2024). This was done to reveal the underlying assumptions and values that significantly influence decision-making processes (Bacchi, 2009). This is particularly relevant in the context of a comprehensive analysis of the legitimization rationale for introducing the GLSC and GLSCO, specifically aimed at creating equitable opportunities for language learners in the Austrian school system.

The application of the WPR approach (Bacchi, 2009; Bacchi and Goodwin, 2016) has shown that the exclusion of individuals from various aspects of Austrian society, including educational, social, cultural, economic, and political life, is perceived as a consequence of inadequate or no knowledge of the German language and is articulated as a key issue in the policy document. This most prominent finding of the current study is of great significance, particularly given that the Ministry of Education has sought to justify its policies on GLSC and GLSCO on the grounds of creating equitable educational opportunities for language learners. In the course of an exhaustive examination of the concepts that are pivotal to this legitimization, it was illustrated that the foundational tenet of equitable opportunities has only limited appeal and must be evaluated with a discerning perspective (e.g., Rolff, 2020). In light of the aforementioned, it can be posited that a more nuanced examination of the concept of equitable opportunities underlying this problem representation reveals a discrepancy with previous and contemporary understandings that posit educational success is shaped by prevailing structures and inequalities (Boudon, 1974; OECD, 2018). In contrast, the problem statement used in the policy document examined in this study is based on the principle of equity of opportunity, which is based on the principles of meritocracy. Accordingly, the problem statement follows an idea of equity of opportunity in which people are rewarded or treated according to their performance, while success is seen as the result of individual effort, disregarding structural inequalities and social factors that contribute to a person’s opportunities (Sandel, 2020). This issue has also been addressed by Rothe (2015), who highlighted that while education policymakers frequently employ the term equitable opportunities, they tend to conceptualize it as a “matching problem between educational prerequisites and concrete educational opportunities” (p. 380), while failing to problematize the reproduction of inequality through the education system.

The application of PPA to the policy document is advantageous in that, when viewed in isolation and without consideration of the problem statement, it could be argued that the GLSC and GLSC legislation are founded upon a diversity-sensitive concept of equity, whereby those requiring greater support receive more (in this case, language support). Accordingly, as noted in the seminal work of Sen (1992), inequalities should be addressed by providing individuals with the opportunities they need to realize their potential, recognizing different needs and starting points. Conversely, if one considers that the legislation on GLSC and GLSCO only determines that the measures to promote the German language should be in effect for a maximum of four semesters, one can conclude that it can only be temporarily interpreted as a diversity-sensitive, oriented policy. Rather, it can be seen as egalitarian, as it entitles all learners to the same support, regardless of their individual differences.

The application of the WPR approach demonstrated that this specific representation of the problem is the consequence of political, social, and historical developments resulting from endeavors to achieve national unity and linguistic uniformity, with origins in the 19th and 20th centuries. This was a period during which an ideology of “one state, one nation, one language” (Braunmüller and Ferraresi, 2003: 1) emerged in Europe and was established as the norm and prerequisite for political loyalty. Accordingly, the concept of the national language, which was originally confined to the cultural domain, was subsequently incorporated into the political sphere and gradually acquired the status of a means of expressing power (Haarmann, 1991). Consequently, language ideologies were exploited for the establishment and perpetuation of ethnic and national boundaries (Busch, 2021). In this context, May (2011) posits that the nation-state continues to create sociological minorities through the establishment of a bourgeois language and culture that is exclusive to and represented by the dominant state population. In contrast, minoritized groups are deprived of the linguistic and cultural traditions that they would otherwise possess. While contemporary states are seldom monolingual in the sense that all citizens speak only one language, it can be argued that the dominant ideology of language, in terms of a standard variety and the associated hierarchies, is a legacy of the colonial era and remains in place (Busch, 2021; May, 2011; Stavans and Hoffmann, 2015). Moreover, as De Cillia et al. (1999) note, national identities can be conceptualized as social identities, shaped and maintained through language. Consequently, those responsible for formulating policy contribute to the formation of a distinct, unified national community, characterized by a shared history and language, through their representation of policy issues in figurative discourse (De Cillia et al., 1999). It is also noteworthy that the topic of migration in German-speaking countries has been a recurring point of contention in public discourse and has been exploited by political actors (Salchegger and Herzog-Punzenberger, 2017). This has occurred not only in the context of the significant refugee movements to Europe in 2015 but also in previous instances. One need only consider the predictions made by the right-wing populist Liberal Party of Austria regarding the “ruin of the education system” resulting from the influx of newly immigrated students at Viennese compulsory schools (Parliamentary correspondence no. 82, 2024). Nevertheless, despite the global adherence to the construction of “discourses of difference” through the exclusion of individuals with migration biographies and their linguistic resources in educational settings and other public domains, there have been counter-movements and alternative approaches to language support that should not be disregarded (De Cillia, 2012; García and Otheguy, 2020). Accordingly, scholars are challenging the prevailing approach to education, which emphasizes the cultivation of valued capacities and norms (e.g., developing skills in the dominant language to contribute to the labor market) and the promotion of the importance of children’s dignity (Roth et al., 2022). Furthermore, researchers have increasingly proposed an inclusive approach to language learning that operates through a dynamic understanding of languages, such as plurilingualism and translanguaging (García, 2009; García and Otheguy, 2020). This alternative approach to language posits that individuals possess the intrinsic capacity to use and learn more than one language, and that linguistic tolerance constitutes the basis of educational value (García and Otheguy, 2020). Innovative approaches to language learning encompass a variety of methodologies, including but not limited to translanguaging—the recognition of an individual’s unitary linguistic system, encompassing diverse modes of communication—and content and language integrated learning (CLIL)—the teaching of language through content (García and Wei, 2014; Marsh, 2002). As demonstrated in previous studies (e.g., De Los Reyes, 2019; Satayev et al., 2022), the integration of these principles within pedagogical practices has been shown to yield substantial benefits for learners. In light of the aforementioned considerations, it is anticipated that future pedagogical initiatives in Austria will contribute to the advancement of language-sensitive approaches that prioritize inclusivity and the dynamic utilization of linguistic resources to foster more equitable educational environments for multilingual students.

Lastly, before presenting the concluding remarks, it is important to acknowledge that, while the WPR approach offered a robust and promising methodological framework for conducting an in-depth analysis of Austrian language support policy-making, it is not without its limitations, as is the case with any analytical method. It is imperative to acknowledge that, despite WPR’s emphasis on discourses and knowledge systems that underpin policies, there is an absence of a comprehensive engagement with language as a fundamental analytical lens. Consequently, it lacks the capacity to delve into the subtleties of linguistic nuances or the role of language in constructing meaning. This may impose limitations when analyzing policies where language assumes a pivotal role. Furthermore, WPR emphasizes problematizations within policy texts rather than examining how policies are implemented or delivered (Tawell and McCluskey, 2022). Consequently, WPR does not offer any data concerning real-world implementation outcomes. In this regard, the findings of a recent study by Schwab et al. (2024) must be highlighted. The study revealed that the implementation of segregated language support policies varies widely across Austria, suggesting that principals and teachers do not always follow the legal guidelines and find alternative solutions (e.g., less time for multilingual students in GLSC). In conclusion, notwithstanding its methodological limitations, the application of the WPR approach, as proposed by Bacchi (2009) and Bacchi and Goodwin (2016), to a policy document pertaining to the GLSC and GLSCO facilitated the elucidation of the way policies provide support, construction, and legitimization of specific problems, solutions, and authority structures. It is therefore advantageous to question the assumption that policy initiatives are designed to address pre-existing issues. Conversely, it is proposed that policies themselves are responsible for creating the very issues they are designed to address. Furthermore, the WPR approach proved effective in identifying the implicit assumptions, beliefs, and presuppositions embedded in the representation of a problem, the exclusion or neglect of pertinent issues in policy discourse, and the effects of problem representations on individual groups. The systematic and step-by-step analysis of the policy document was ultimately complemented by a constructive critical reflection and the presentation of potential policy alternatives. It was thus underscored that a shift in focus from the perceived mismatch between learners’ prerequisites and the offerings of the education system to a recognition of the structural deficiencies and the deeply entrenched, educational institution-specific processes of valorization and devaluation of certain social groups is imperative. In consideration of the notion that discursive practices shape tendencies toward inclusion and exclusion, the WPR approach calls for individuals to challenge and resist the prevailing discourse and current approaches to the inclusion or exclusion of multilingual students from policies. This objective is pursued with the aim of transforming the discursive boundaries of inclusion and exclusion.

The comprehensive analysis of GLSC and GLSCO legislation yields several crucial policy implications. Policymakers must adopt self-reflexive practices when developing proposals, ensuring they address the structural and systemic roots of issues rather than merely treating surface-level symptoms. This approach encourages a deeper understanding of the complex interplay between policy decisions and their societal impacts. A significant shift in policy focus should occur, moving from perceived individual deficits (e.g., learners’ prerequisites) to addressing structural inequalities and institutional processes that perpetuate exclusion and marginalization. Consequently, substantial investments in teacher professional development are essential. Mandatory training programs should be implemented, focusing on effective pedagogies for multilingual students and fostering cultural competence among educators. As demonstrated by Schwab et al. (2024), one-size-fits-all approaches should be eschewed in favor of policies tailored to local contexts. This necessitates the active involvement of frontline implementers (e.g., teachers, school leaders) in both the design and execution phases of policies. Furthermore, it is imperative to incentivize school leaders in their pivotal role of instigating linguistic policy modifications, transitioning their language education methodologies from monolingual to multilingual. This assertion is substantiated by research, including the study conducted by Ascenzi-Moreno et al. (2016), which demonstrated that school leaders and educators underwent a paradigm shift in their perceptions, perceiving students as linguistic resources rather than as a high-needs population necessitating programmatic interventions. In addition, robust partnerships between in-school and out-of-school stakeholders, such as the Viennese language support center, must be fostered. These collaborations can more effectively address the unique needs of language learners by leveraging diverse expertise and resources. Moreover, initiatives should be promoted that facilitate parent engagement through accessible resources and community programs. These efforts should aim to empower multilingual families in navigating the educational system, recognizing the crucial role of family support in student success. Continuous assessment of policy effectiveness needs to be implemented, with a particular focus on the experiences of multilingual students and their families. This iterative approach allows for timely adjustments to ensure policies remain responsive to evolving needs. There should be an equitable distribution of resources, both financial and human, to support the implementation of language support programs. This may include targeted funding for schools with higher proportions of multilingual students. Moreover, curriculum development should be advocated that reflects the linguistic and cultural diversity of the student population, promoting a more inclusive learning environment. Finally, as demonstrated by Cleave’s (2020) research on innovative strategies for systems change in multilingual schools, recognizing students as key agents of change is crucial. This can be achieved by actively involving them in decision-making processes regarding targeted support and by conducting regular anonymous surveys to inform district-wide language support policies. By engaging multilingual learners and their families directly in policy-making, education systems are more likely to develop equitable approaches to language education and diversity. In a similar vein, the student resistance to deficit discourses about multilingualism and efforts to segregate language learners should not be underestimated, as demonstrated in previous studies by Carhill-Poza (2017) and Uysal (2022). Ultimately, by acknowledging and harnessing the power of student voices and their resistance to restrictive language policies, educational institutions can foster more inclusive, equitable, and effective multilingual learning environments that truly serve the diverse needs of all students.

In light of these policy and practical implications, it is imperative to conceptualize prospective future alternatives to language policies. These alternatives should embrace a holistic, integrated language approach guided by highly skilled educators within a supportive school environment. This paradigm shift entails a transition from conventional monolingual models to more adaptable, inclusive approaches that acknowledge and leverage students’ comprehensive linguistic repertoires. Key elements of this future vision include the implementation of translanguaging practices in classrooms, allowing students to draw on their entire linguistic resources for learning and communication. Crucially, curricula should be developed that seamlessly integrate content and language learning across multiple languages, promoting cognitive and linguistic development simultaneously. An ideal future also requires student-centered policy design that actively engages learners in the policy-making process and recognizes them as key agents of change through strategies such as regular surveys and student representation on advisory committees. In addition, the use of cutting-edge technologies such as virtual and augmented reality to create immersive language learning experiences will be essential. These tools can provide students with opportunities to practice language skills in simulated real-world environments, enhancing engagement and authenticity. Furthermore, the implementation of artificial intelligence-powered language learning platforms that offer personalized learning experiences, adaptive assessments, and instant feedback, catering to individual student needs and learning styles, has been shown to boost academic performance and motivation. Finally, fostering intercultural competence alongside language skills, preparing students to navigate diverse linguistic and cultural contexts effectively, and establishing strong partnerships between schools, families, and communities to create a comprehensive support system for multilingual learners are necessary steps to take. By adopting these innovative approaches, educational institutions can foster more inclusive, equitable, and effective multilingual learning environments that genuinely address the diverse needs of all students and prepare them for success in an increasingly interconnected world.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Flora Woltran

Flora Woltran is a postdoctoral researcher and lecturer at the Center for Teacher Education at the University of Vienna, specializing in inclusive education, student linguistic and multicultural diversity, and intersectionality. Her research focuses on understanding how structural discrimination is perpetuated through policies and institutional practices, particularly in educational settings. Flora Woltran is actively involved in both national and international research projects that explore strategies for supporting multilingual students and fostering equitable educational environments. Her work seeks to address the challenges faced by diverse student populations and contribute to more inclusive practices within education systems.

References

Ascenzi-Moreno

Hesson

Menken

(2016) School leadership along the trajectory from monolingual to multilingual. Language and Education 30(3): 197–218. DOI: 10.1080/09500782.2015.1093499.

Bacchi

(2009) Analysing Policy: What’s the Problem Represented to Be? Melbourne, Victoria: Pearson Australia.

Bacchi

(2015) The Turn to Problematization: Political implications of contrasting interpretive and poststructural adaptations. Open Journal of Political Science 05: 1–12. DOI: 10.4236/ojps.2015.51001.

Bacchi

(2020) Problem-solving as a governing knowledge: “skills”-testing in PISA and PIAAC. Open Journal of Political Science 10: 82–105. DOI: 10.4236/ojps.2020.101007.

Bacchi

Goodwin

(2016) Poststructural Policy Analysis: A Guide to Practice. London, UK: Palgrave McMillan.

Blessed-Sayah

Griffiths

(2024) Equity not equality: the undocumented migrant child's opportunity to access education in South Africa. Educational Review 76(1): 46–68. DOI: 10.1080/00131911.2023.2208766.

Boudon

(1974) Education, Opportunity, and Social Inequality: Changing Prospects in Western Society. New Jersey, USA: Wiley.

Bourdieu

Passeron

(1971) Die Illusion der Chancengleichheit. In: Untersuchungen zur Soziologie des Bildungswesens am Beispiel Frankreichs [The illusion of equal opportunities. Studies on the sociology of the education system using the example of France]. Stuttgart, Germany: Klett.

Braunmüller

Ferraresi

(2003) Introduction. In: Braunmüller

Ferraresi

(eds) Aspects of Multilingualism in European Language History. Amsterdam, Netherlands: J Benjamins Pub, 1–14.

10.

Buchholtz

Stuart

Frønes

(2020) Equity, equality and diversity in the nordic model of education – contributions from large-scale studies. In: Frønes

Pettersen

Radišić

, et al. (eds) Equity, Equality and Diversity in the Nordic Model of Education. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 1–13.

11.

Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Forschung (BMBWF) (2021) Deutschförderklassen und Deutschförderkurse. German language support classes and German language support courses. Available at: https://www.bmbwf.gv.at/Themen/schule/schulpraxis/ba/sprabi/dfk.html (accessed 20 September 2024).

12.

Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Forschung (BMBWF) (2019) Deutschförderklassen und Deutschförderkurse. In: Leitfaden für Schulleiterinnen und Schulleiter. German support classes and German support courses. Guidelines for head teachers. Available at: https://www.bmbwf.gv.at/dam/jcr:f0e708af-3e17-4bf3-9281-1fe7098a4b23/deutschfoerderklassen.pdf (Accessed 23 September 2024).

13.

Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Forschung (BMBWF) (2024) Deutschförderklassen und Deutschförderkurse. In: Leitfaden für Schulleiterinnen und Schulleiter. German support classes and German support courses. Guidelines for head teachers. Available at: https://www.bmbwf.gv.at/dam/jcr:f0e708af-3e17-4bf3-9281-1fe7098a4b23/deutschfoerderklassen.pdf (Accessed 24 September 2024).

14.

Busch

Brigitta

(2021) Mehrsprachigkeit. Vienna, Austria: UTB GmbH facultas.

15.

Calaycay

(2023) Paving pathways for inclusion. In: Towards Evidence-Based Policy-Making for Refugee Education. Paris, France: UNESCO. DOI: 10.54675/VTKX4352.

16.

Carhill-Poza

(2017) “If you don’t find a friend in here, it's gonna Be hard for you”: structuring bilingual peer support for language learning in urban high schools. Linguistics and Education 37: 63–72. DOI: 10.1016/j.linged.2016.09.001.

17.

Cleave

(2020) Language, Education and Social Justice: International Strategies for Systems Change in Multilingual Schools. Cambridge, UK: The Bell Foundation.

18.

Coleman

(2018) Norms of equal opportunity: when and why do they arise? In: Equality and Achievement in Education. England, UK: Routledge.

19.

De Cillia

(2012) Migration und Sprache/n. Sprachenpolitik – Sprachförderung – Diskursanalyse. In: Fassmann

Dahlvik

(eds) Migrations- und Integrationsforschung – multidisziplinäre Perspektiven: ein Reader. Göttingen, Germany: V&R unipress, 185–212.

20.

De Cillia

Reisigl

Wodak

(1999) The discursive construction of national identities. Discourse & Society 10(2): 149–173.

21.

De Los Reyes

(2019) Translanguaging in multilingual third grade ESL classrooms in Mindanao, Philippines. International Journal of Multilingualism 16(3): 302–316. DOI: 10.1080/14790718.2018.1472268.

22.

Erling

Elizabeth J.

Gitschthaler

Marie

Schwab

Susanne

(2022) Is Segregated Language Support Fit for Purpose? Insights from German Language Support Classes in Austria. European Journal of Educational Research 11(1): 573–586. doi: 10.12973/EU-JER.11.1.573.

23.

Espinoza

(2007) Solving the equity – equality conceptual dilemma: a new model for analysis of the educational process. Educational Research 49(4): 343–363.

24.

European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2019) Integrating students from migrant backgrounds into schools in Europe: national policies and measures. In: Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

25.

Flores

García

(2020) Power, language, and bilingual learners. In: Nasir

Lee

Pea

, et al. (eds) Handbook of the Cultural Foundations of Learning. England, UK: Routledge, 178–192. DOI: 10.4324/9780203774977-12.

26.

Fredman

Sandra

(2016) Substantive equality revisited. International Journal of Constitutional Law 14(3): 712–738. doi: 10.1093/icon/mow043.

27.

García

(2009) Bilingual Education in the 21st Century : A Global Perspective (1. publ.). New Jersey, USA: Wiley-Blackwell.

28.

García

Otheguy

(2020) Plurilingualism and translanguaging: commonalities and divergences. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 23(1): 17–35. DOI: 10.1080/13670050.2019.1598932.

29.

García

Wei

(2014) Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

30.

Gitschthaler

Erling

Schwab

(2024) Segregation or Integration? German language support teachers’ beliefs about ‘ideal’ language support models in Austria. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 1–16. doi: 10.1080/01434632.2024.2301990.

31.

González-Riaño

Fernández-Costales

Lapresta-Rey

, et al. (2019) Language attitudes towards Spanish and Catalan in autochthonous and immigrant families in Catalonia: analysing the correlation between student attitudes and their parents. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 22(6): 754–767. DOI: 10.1080/13670050.2017.1312276.

32.

Gruber

Rosenberger

(2021) Between opportunities and constraints: right-wing populists as designers of migrant integration policy. Policy Studies 44(2): 155–173. DOI: 10.1080/01442872.2021.2019212.

33.

Haarmann

(1991) Language politics and the new European identity. In: Coulmas

(ed) A Language Policy for the European Community. Prospects and Quandaries. Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter Mouton, 103–120. DOI: 10.1515/9783110877137.103.

34.

Herzog-Punzenberger

Le Pichon-Vorstman

Siarova

(2017) Multilingual Education in the Light of Diversity: Lessons Learned. NESET II Report. Luxembourg, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

35.

Holzleithner

(2009) Gerechtigkeit [Justice]. 1st edition. Vienna, Austria: UTB GmbH facultas.

36.

Marsh

(2002) CLIL/EMILE: the European dimension: action. In: Trends and Foresight Potential. Mission Hills, California: UniCOM.

37.

May

(2011) Language and Minority Rights: Ethnicity, Nationalism and the Politics of Language. 2nd edition. Oxfordshire, UK: Taylor & Francis Group.

38.

McDowell

(2016) Equal Opportunities. Philadelphia, PA: National Highlights Inc.

39.

Neubacher

Wimmer

(2021) Indikatoren D: Output – Ergebnisse des Schulsystems. [Indicators D: Output - Results of the school system.]. In: für Bildung

and Forschung

(eds). Nationaler Bildungsbericht Österreich 2021 National Education Report Austria. Vienna, Austria: BMBWF, 286–332.

40.

OECD (2018) Equity in Education. Breaking Down Barriers to Social Mobility. Paris, France: OECD. DOI: 10.1787/9789264073234-en.

41.

Rawls

(1999) A Theory of Justice. 2nd edition. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

42.

Resch

Gitschthaler

Schwab

(2023) Teacher's perceptions of separate language learning models for students with immigrant background in Austrian schools. Intercultural Education 34(3): 288–304. DOI: 10.1080/14675986.2023.2180487.

43.

Rolff

H-G

(2020) Chancengerechtigkeit oder Chancengleichheit? [Equitable opportunities or equal opportunities?]. Gemeinsam Lernen 6(1): 14. DOI: 10.46499/1588.1103.

44.

Roth

Mollvik

Alshoufani

, et al. (2022) Philosophy of education in a new key: constraints and possibilities in present times with regard to dignity. Educational Philosophy and Theory 54(8): 1147–1161. DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2020.1851189.

45.

Rothe

(2015) „Lebensbegleitendes Lernen für alle“. Chancengleichheit – Chancengerechtigkeit – Bildungsgerechtigkeit. Zur ambivalenten Produktivität einer begrifflichen Transformation. [“Lifelong learning for all”. Equal opportunities - equitable opportunities - educational equity. On the ambivalent productivity of a conceptual transformation]. In: Fegter

Kessl

Langer

, et al. (eds) Erziehungswissenschaftliche Diskursforschung. Empirische Analysen zu Bildungs- und Erziehungsverhältnissen. Berlin, Germany: Springer VS, 363–384.

46.

Salchegger

Herzog-Punzenberger

(2017) Lesekompetenz und sozioökonomischer Status von Jugendlichen mit Migrationshintergrund: Entwicklungen seit dem Jahr 2000 in Österreich, der Schweiz und Deutschland. Zeitschrift für Bildungsforschung (Internet) 7(1): 79–100. DOI: 10.1007/s35834-016-0172-1.

47.

Sandel

(2020) The Tyranny of Merit: What's Become of the Common Good? New York, USA: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

48.

Satayev

Balta

Shaymerdenovna

, et al. (2022) Content and language integrated learning implementation through team teaching in biology lessons: a quasi-experimental design with university students. Frontiers in Education (Lausanne) 7: 7. DOI: 10.3389/feduc.2022.867447.

49.

Schneider

(2017) Aufklärung tut not. Sozial Extra 41(4): 7–9. DOI: 10.1007/s12054-017-0065-0.

50.

Schwab

Resch

Gitschthaler

, et al. (2024) From policy to practice: how schools implement German language support policy in Austria. Current Issues in Language Planning 25(2): 176–192. DOI: 10.1080/14664208.2023.2269726.

51.

Schweiger

Müller

(2022) Abschlussbericht Forschungsprojekt Deutschförderklassen an der VS 1220, Deckergasse. Available at: https://www.arbeiterkammer.at/interessenvertretung/arbeitundsoziales/bildung/Abschl_ussbericht_Deutschfoederklassen_VS_Deckergasse.pdf(Accessed 23 September 2024).

52.

Sen

(1992) Inequality Reexamined. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

53.

Sṭavans

Hoffmann

(2015) Multilingualism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

54.

Suchań

Höller

Wallner-Paschon

(2019) PISA 2018. Grundkompetenzen am Ende der Pflichtschulzeit im internationalen Vergleich. PISA 2018 Basic Competencies at the End of Compulsory Education in International Comparison. Graz, Austria: Leykam.

55.

Takeuchi

Dearing

Bartholomew

, et al. (2018) Equality and equity: expanding opportunities to remedy disadvantage. Generations: Journal of the American Society on Aging 42(2): 13–19.

56.

Tawell

McCluskey

(2022) Utilising Bacchi’s what’s the problem represented to be? (WPR) approach to analyse national school exclusion policy in England and Scotland: a worked example. International Journal of Research and Method in Education 45(2): 137–149. DOI: 10.1080/1743727X.2021.1976750.

57.

Tollefson

Tsui

ABM

Borman

, et al. (2014) Language diversity and Language policy in educational access and equity. Review of Research in Education 38(1): 189–214. DOI: 10.3102/0091732X13506846.

58.

Turgut

Çelik

(2024) Kurdish students’ perceptions of stigma and their destigmatization strategies in urban contexts in Turkey. Race, Ethnicity and Education 27(7): 1125–1140. DOI: 10.1080/13613324.2022.2069735.

59.

UNESCO (2018a) Education and Migration. Policy Paper. Language, Education and Migration in the Context of Forced Displacement. Paris, France: UNESCO.

60.

UNESCO (2018b) 2019 Global Education Monitoring Report: Migration, Displacement and Education. Paris, France: UNESCO.

61.

United Nations (2015) Resolution adopted by the general assembly on 25 september 2015. Available at: https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/n15/291/89/pdf/n1529189.pdf?token=AsNt9UHMYpjMgcaP9r&fe=true (Accessed 25 September 2024).

62.

Uysal

(2022) Standardized tests and within-group segregation: the not-so-optimal ESL classroom for long-term English learners. Tesol Quarterly 56(4): 1471–1485.