Educational practice in Switzerland: Searching for diversity-engaged leadership

Abstract

Despite the uptick in awareness of racial and other sociocultural diversity owing to recent social movements particularly in the United States but also in many countries in Europe, deep understanding of identity and bias is lacking and remedies for policy and practice inequities in the education sector remain. Steadily increasing racial and linguistic heterogeneity demands better understanding on the part of school leaders—and the larger school staff—to redress inequity and improve schooling for all students. This study utilized in-depth interviews to gather secondary school leaders’ perspectives on, and level of engagement with, diversity in Fribourg, Switzerland. Findings revealed that school leaders are, overall, inadequately prepared to tackle difficult, identity-charged conversations or to confront their own positionality and subjectivity vis-à-vis newcomer students. Recommendations are made for aspiring and current school leaders to become active by practicing diversity-engaged leadership.

Keywords

Leadership diversity multilingualism integration inclusion culturally-responsive

Introduction

Discussions of race, racism, gender fluidity, ethnic diversity, multilingualism, and whiteness have recently gained prominence in the wake of Black Lives Matter, #MeToo, pride and migrants’ rights movements particularly in the United States but also in many countries in Europe and around the world. However, deep understanding of identity and bias, strategies for addressing challenging identity-charged situations, and remedies for policy and practice inequities remain. In Europe, and specifically in Switzerland, increased (and intersectional) diversity resulting from racially and linguistically heterogeneous migration patterns, unfolds prominently in the education sector. Unfortunately, teachers and school leaders are inadequately prepared to tackle the resulting difficult conversations and interactions and to confront their own positionality and subjectivity vis-à-vis newcomer students (Gómez-Hurtado et al., 2016; Kloetzer et al., 2021; Polat and Ogay Barka, 2014).¹

Because of the speed of change toward heterogeneity as a consequence of migration and new conversations sparked by social justice movements, this study was undertaken to capture the perspectives of current secondary school leaders in one canton in Switzerland.² The bilingual canton of Fribourg/Freiburg, like elsewhere in Switzerland, has experienced a growth in migration over the past decades. This study does not focus on a particular migrant group, immigrant generation or racial, ethnic or linguistic group in Fribourg. Rather, it interrogates the context of reception (Suarez-Orozco and Suarez-Orozco, 2001) through which diversity weaves. By engaging the worldviews of school leaders, we believe we can ameliorate reception contexts that may not treat all students equitably. In fact, nowhere in Swiss education policy is equity or integration explicitly mentioned, with the exception of support for students with special needs (RSF 411.0.11, 2016, Article 83; RSF 412.0.1, 2020, Article 38) and promotion of bilingualism (RSF 412.0.1, 2020, Article 7). In the policy for secondary schooling, diversity is mentioned once (RSF, 412.0.1, Article 4): “The school helps students to know our country in its cultural diversity and mutual understanding.”

Having consulted previous literature on culturally-responsive teaching (Ladson-Billings, 1995, 2014) and culturally-responsive leadership (Dimmock and Walker, 2005; Khalifa, 2018; Khalifa et al., 2016), as well as literature regarding multilingualism (Dirim and Mecheril, 2018), we suggest that culture-responsiveness is more passive than active, and allows for the appearance of tolerance and understanding without necessitating action. By suggesting diversity-engaged leadership, we posit that school leaders (and, by extension, all other school staff, as they can be considered part of the leadership structure) will be obligated to proactively identify diversity issues and actively address them. This approach thus builds on cultural-responsiveness, critical race theory (CRT) and multilingualism and expands the field with the intention of making those in power over school decision-making more accountable and involved in cultural recognition (Levitt, 2012) and the processes of integration. The research questions guiding our interview-based qualitative study are as follows: (1) What are secondary school leaders’ perspectives on integration, migration, and diversity in schools? and (2) How do school leaders act on these perspectives?

Migration and racial-ethnic and linguistic diversity

Much of the attention to migration and education in Switzerland and abroad centers around the concept of “integration.” As a consequence, school leaders are responsible for facilitating the integration of migrant students through education provision. This responsibility, however, is problematic for two main reasons. First, the term integration is not well-defined—neither in the policy sector nor in the school context. On a policy level, its measures and outcomes are rarely detailed and, while ostensibly meant to be bi- or multidirectional, the onus remains on the newcomer to integrate into the host society by, for example, attaining language proficiency, completing educational programs or obtaining employment (Federal Statistical Office (FSO), 2021; OECD, 2015), despite structural or cultural inequities and barriers. And even when achieved, such measures do not necessarily reflect an individual's sense of belonging or perceptions of discrimination in a community nor specific circumstances or interactions that facilitated or hindered the achievement (Macleod, 2021; OECD, 2015; OECD/EU, 2018). Indeed, education indicators often focus solely on migrant children's assessment/performance rather than their social experience (OECD/EU, 2018). Second, it derives from antiquated notions of assimilation that are heavily critiqued in the literature (Macleod, 2021). As such, it often presumes deficits rather than assets and resulting educational programs and interventions are designed accordingly. One last complication in the education context is the intersection (and confusion) between integration (across all demographic characteristics) and inclusion (referring to physical or cognitive special needs). As a result, “integration” as a societal or pedagogical goal is obscured and generalized to the point of holding little meaning. For the purposes of this study, we therefore focus on two very specific characteristics with which migrants to Switzerland and the receiving population must directly grapple if any hope of eventual, equitable integration is to be achieved: racial-ethnic and linguistic diversity.

Migration and racial-ethnic diversity

Globalization and, in particular, tremendous demographic movements, have changed the sociocultural landscape of Europe, and Switzerland is no exception. People from increasingly varied ethnic, racial, linguistic, and religious origins are resettling and recasting both the visible and invisible entanglements of populations that historically tended to be homogeneous. These “global tides of people, ideas and values are qualitatively changing the environment of many schools…and so changing the nature of the [leadership] task in hand” (Lumby and Morrison, 2010: 3). Foreigners comprise a quarter of Switzerland's population today (FSO, 2021), and schools often occupy a central role in “integrating” newcomers, with unique opportunities for socialization among students and families. Moving from assimilationist toward more multiculturalist education has evidenced an effort to increase an openness and acceptance of cultural diversity during the last decades (Polat and Ogay Barka, 2014), at least among teachers. Importantly, a troubling trend is simultaneously occurring: in 2020, 19% of the Swiss population aged 15 to 88 reported experiencing racial discrimination. Among migrants the rate was nearly three times higher (31%) than among non-migrants (11%) (FSO, 2020). In a hopeful turn, recent scholarship pushes beyond simple tolerance of the “other” but rather toward active celebration of and engagement with diversity and difference (Amiot et al., 2020; Moorosi, 2020). It calls on educators to identify racist and anti-racist teaching and requires them to critically examine their own power and privilege in relation to those who look and speak differently from them, so as not to assume White superiority or normalize academic failure of migrant students or students of color (Sleeter, 2017; Wade and Noguera, 2014). We know that teachers are minimally exposed to multicultural education theory and practice in Switzerland and that they have basic levels of intercultural competence (Polat and Ogay Barka, 2014). Akkari et al. (2011) summarized their empirical findings from teachers in Geneva this way: “Not only do Swiss teachers conceive diversity in limited terms of students’ belonging to different cultures and needing to comply with the dominant culture, but in addition, there is little room for taking into account the sociopolitical situation linked to international migrations and social inequalities” (p. 9). We know much less about the preparation of school leaders in this area, as educational leadership is largely embedded in “a structural management logic that is still hesitant within a teaching community in which the notion of leadership remains a hidden dimension” (Perrenoud and Tulowitzki, 2021: 1). Indeed, educational leadership theory on a global level has largely remained silent regarding questions of identity and diversity (Lumby and Morrison, 2010), in Switzerland likewise, and regarding the specific issue of racism even more so.

Literature suggests that “rapidly changing demographics…demand innovative, complex, visionary, collaborative, culturally grounded, and immanently future-focused leadership practices” that should depart from traditional, managerial functions and be “more responsive to socio-political realities and serve to benefit…students who have been systemically underserved” (Santamaría and Santamaría, 2015: 23). Culturally-responsive leadership is one approach that demonstrates acknowledgement of and respect for a multicultural ethos (Magno and Schiff, 2010). As helpful and important as this is, we believe it does not go far enough. We suggest that, in line with the most recent social justice scholarship emanating out of Black Lives Matter, #MeToo and sustainability movements, educators and especially school leaders need to proactively engage with diversity—particularly regarding racial and linguistic difference. This is because much leadership theory assumes “leaders” to be a homogenized group for whom what they do matters more than who they are (Lumby and Morrison, 2010). Contrarily, recent research has demonstrated the role that racial/gender positionality plays in leader reasoning and decision making (Santamaría, 2014), and some scholars have developed self-assessments and inventories for school leaders to evaluate their own anti-racist efforts (Clapper, 2015). Whiteness and maleness—across country and continent—are “the most salient characteristics in conferring power” yet the significance of these characteristics is nearly absent from leadership theory (Lumby and Morrison, 2010).

Applied critical leadership exemplifies one such approach, which is informed by transformative leadership, culturally responsive leadership, and critical pedagogy and takes into account leaders’ professional practice and their embodied lived experience (Santamaría, 2014). Santamaría and Santamaría (2015) found that leaders can counteract educational injustice through applied critical leadership by, for example, willingness to learn from others, practicing humility, recognizing biases and connecting deeply to all members of the community. When educational leadership standards make no explicit mention of race or ethnicity, they are therefore colorblind or race-neutral (Moorosi, 2020). Such standards and policy, based on meritocracy, are challenged by CRT which helps us to understand and ultimately dismantle endemic structural racism in (mostly Northern/Western) White-dominated, patriarchal societies (such as Switzerland) by uncovering intersections of race and power (Bonilla-Silva, 2015; Gooden, 2012). Colorblindness, in the framework of CRT, serves to maintain the status quo of White dominance anywhere in the world that there is racial diversity by allowing racism to hide behind rules and actions that portend to treat people of all races/colors the same (Moorosi, 2020) or by allowing educators to collude in feigning that racial difference is irrelevant (Lumby and Morrison, 2010). Rather, dismantling racism (and other “isms”) requires an “explicit commitment to confronting and disrupting” it (Moorosi, 2020: 14). Lumby and Morrison (2010) have also called for a “determined effort at multiple levels to move diversity from the periphery to the centre” (p. 3) and to educate those who prepare leaders in developing commitment and confidence to develop requisite introspection and skill. This study attempts to do just that by emphasizing engagement. Specifically, we respond to the literature with a call for a type of applied critical leadership we term “diversity-engaged.”

Migration and linguistic diversity

Unlike its neighboring countries, which in the course of the 19th and 20th century underwent homogenization processes as sovereign nation-states based on one national language, Switzerland has historically been a multilingual country with constitutional equality provided to its four national languages: French, German, Italian, and Romansh. Its four language groups vary in size³ and are geographically separated due to the territoriality principle, which provides cantonal authorities jurisdiction to determine official languages based on the canton's historical composition to guarantee linguistic harmony (Thürer and Burri, 2006). As a consequence, 22 out of 26 cantons are officially monolingual, three are French-German bilingual, and one is trilingual with German, Italian, and Romansh. Additionally, especially within these officially monolingual German-speaking cantons, there exist a plethora of local Swiss German dialects creating a diglossic situation of standard German and local dialects (Christen, 2001). The latter are an important identity marker for their speakers, provide a sense of belonging and are used in all social spheres regardless of socioeconomic background (Christen, 2001). According to the FSO (2021), 22.7% of the population are speakers of other languages, thus more than the Romansh and Italian speakers and almost as many as the French speakers. From a CRT perspective, Switzerland's language landscape might be better described as linguistic complexity than diversity because by recognizing the complex dimensions of multilingualism, it acknowledges and addresses the enormous challenges an equitable inclusion and treatment of all languages, dialects and ways of speaking pose. As well, it aims at uncovering the interwovenness of linguistic and racial structures, which can impact individuals’ competences and sense of self (Rosa and Flores, 2017). The many heritage languages of migrants, however, are often entirely excluded from societal and/or educational language policies, which continue to impose a “monolingual habitus” (Gogolin, 2002) onto multilinguals. In order to reduce linguistic barriers, increase institutional recognition and normalize linguistic and cultural diversity (Dirim and Mecheril, 2018), Otheguy et al. (2015) propose the integration of students’ idiolects into the classroom. Idiolects are defined as unique ways of speaking free of social and political boundaries or constraints while linguistic standards are typically associated with ideologies and impede social justice.

In addition to influencing the (in)equality of educational experiences (Becker, 2010; Felouzis and Charmillot, 2017), language proficiency takes on a special role in that mastering the national language impacts educational opportunities and trajectories (Esser, 2006), it is considered cultural capital (Jacob and Kalter, 2011) and is an important requirement for successful integration (Esser, 2006), which in turn serves several functions. It is a prerequisite for everyday personal and professional communication and not knowing the national language can lead to segregation, exclusion, and discrimination. While acquiring the relevant national language at a sufficient level may be a primary objective for migrants it can be hindered in certain circumstances, such as the socioeconomic and educational level of the parents, the living environment, the struggle with mastering a second language, plus factors such as indirect and direct discrimination in the education system (Becker 2010; Esser, 2006).

For lower level (compulsory) schooling there is a legal language provision stating: “A foreign-language student who has recently moved here can be granted permission to attend a language course, which is intended to enable students to acquire the linguistic and cultural basics necessary for school and social integration as quickly as possible” (RSF 411.0.11, 2016, Article 94, our translation). However, there is no such provision for secondary (post-compulsory) school. Most language resources, then, are available in lower grades, and students at the secondary school level receive little to no language support (Esser, 2006; Sommer, 2019). Consequently, very few foreign-born students attend post-compulsory school; the second-generation migrants who do attend and who already have competence in the national language, experience a different set of challenges around race, gender, etc., while still characterized by their migration background. Some students who migrate during adolescence have to be admitted directly to secondary schools because of their previous education and/or age, but they have a (national) language deficit. In that case, students can apply for a temporary disadvantage compensation, and it is up to the school leadership to decide which measures to take regarding language support (RSF, 2020, Article 38). Importantly, the disadvantage compensation concerns language subjects only. Although all school subjects are indirectly or directly language related, there is no language support provided in other subjects. Therefore, despite the compensation for language disadvantage, certain inequities will remain across the curriculum (Bylinski and Vollmer, 2015).

Finally, it is pertinent to mention that migrant students and those with lower national language facility are often treated through deficit-based images. (OECD, 2018). Ill-equipped teachers and leaders in Switzerland tend to lack understanding of the diversity of the migration experience and rarely apply asset-based models of teaching which recent scholarship tells us works to the benefit of the whole school population (OECD, 2017).

Methodology

This study is situated at the intersection of educational leadership, diversity, and linguistics. To investigate diversity-engaged school leadership, we employed a qualitative methodology consisting of interviews with which “we get to know other people, get to learn about their experiences, feelings and hopes and the world they live in” (Kvale, 2007: 1). By engaging in an informed conversation on relevant social issues, “knowledge is constructed in the inter-action between the interviewer and the interviewee” (Kvale, 2007: 1). The aim is thus to advance understanding and awareness of what diversity, integration, and diversity-engaged school leadership might mean, raise, and (ideally) answer critical questions about policies, experiences, and intentions together with key actors in the field, and improve collaboration and exchange among practitioners and researchers.

In order to conduct empirical studies in schools in the canton of Fribourg, the authors sent a request to the cantonal authorities. Permission was granted to contact six secondary school principals who all responded and participated in our study. The participants, one female and five male principals, had all been teachers prior to their appointment as school leader. The in-depth interviews lasted for approximately 1 h each, were conducted in German or French, and were recorded via smartphone. Two of the interviews took place in the schools while the other three were conducted online using MS Teams. The semi-structured interviews contained 13 questions covering different topics such as school background/social context, school leadership preparation and experience, and personal engagement with the central concepts of diversity and multilingualism, and ended with a short activity when time permitted. The recorded interviews were then transcribed verbatim. In order to do this, we listened to the entire recording once, then transcribed word-by-word while listening to the recording, and finally listened to the recording one more time to verify the accuracy of the transcription. The German and French transcripts were then translated into English for analysis.

The data were analyzed using Mayring's (2015) qualitative content analysis, that is, summarizing, forming inductive categories, broad and narrow context analysis, structuring of form and content, and finally representing the categories and themes as findings textually. To increase inter-rater reliability, the transcripts were distributed among the research team, so that each transcript was read and coded by at least two team members independently. A first set of codes was determined and then the transcripts were read again and codes were reduced. The individual analyses were discussed during team meetings and captured in a Word table comprised of bits of text and quotes according to eight final codes, which was modified and expanded by each author. The following codes emerged out of data analysis and were thereafter considered categories: demographic information/statistics, diversity/difference, integration/assimilation, inclusion/exclusion, leader preparation, multilingualism, multiculturalism, and problems/conflicts/racism.

Findings and discussion

In this section, we present data⁴ to support our findings that secondary school leaders have a myriad of experiences and understandings of integration, migration, and diversity and are, overall, ill-prepared to engage in the actions that would ensure equity for the diverse range of students in their schools. The findings and discussion are organized within two main themes: (1) migration and racial-ethnic diversity and (2) migration and multilingualism.

Migration and racial-ethnic diversity

Changing demographics in Switzerland include increased racial and ethnic diversity, with more migrants coming from Africa and the Middle East. This new diversity is seen in schools, but is not addressed in leadership preparation, resulting in somewhat opaque and contradictory beliefs among school leaders. Most interviewees do not have the necessary confidence, introspection, or skill to actively dismantle racism in their schools, as called for by scholars such as Moorosi (2020) and Lumby and Morrison (2010).

Increasing diversity is recognized but downplayed

Overall, we note a range of responses to and understandings of diversity and the relevance of race and ethnicity in schools. If positioned on a continuum, one end would include those school leaders who feel that diversity must be explicitly acknowledged and accepted and the other end would be represented by those who feel that diversity should not be a central consideration or that differences are not problematic. We would locate only one of our six interviewees on the acknowledgement end. Another might be placed in the middle of the continuum, and the other four would fit toward the non-problematic end. Despite not being able to provide statistics, two mentioned that their schools have become progressively more diverse (L1, L3), while two others mentioned that their schools have few foreigners (L5) and that diversity is not “a big issue” (L6). We see also a loose correlation between leaders’ perspectives and the socioeconomic and multiethnic status of their schools, which is consistent with literature demonstrating more progressive attitudes in more diverse settings and views that more diversity benefits all students (Stuart Wells et al., 2016). Our findings show that the topic itself is not prominent in the region at present, and self-reflections and dialogues about it are neither deeply nor broadly deliberated.

Diversity is understood to be related to differences, and to that end the school leaders all mentioned that diversity includes heterogeneity based on language, race, origin, culture, sex, etc. (L1-L6), with one noting for example that diversity means visible differences and others explaining that their schools are diverse because they include students from other countries or different origins (L3, L4). There were, however, some contradictions within and among the leaders. One questioned whether diversity is an important issue that needs attention or simply exists but is not problematic. The literature clearly suggests that school leaders should openly address diversity and feelings and beliefs around it for the benefit of students and staff (Akkari et al., 2011; Amiot et al., 2020; Clapper, 2015; Moorosi, 2020; Santamaría, 2014). Some school leaders in this study were hesitatingly aligned with this suggestion, stating that, “diversity is good” (L1), “differences must be noted” (L3), “we should accept differences” (L1), and “schools should take diversity into account” (L2). Meanwhile, these same leaders said that students do not want to be seen as different: “we should accept diversity in a neutral way” (L2) and “we should be colorblind” (L3), demonstrating internal confusion about their own stance and about the extent to which racial and ethnic differences and identities should be openly acknowledged. The following quote demonstrates the tensions, challenges, and uncertainties faced by a leader who is experienced, fairly progressive, and yet unsure of how to handle (i.e. act on) diversity:

I know a lot of debates happen in school, in sociology classes, in history classes. I think it's great, but then we have to have teachers who are moderators. If the student has an opinion, we have to respect that opinion…We have students who are veiled…I have students who have come to ask me, ‘this girl, sir, can't you tell her to take off her veil? I mean, she has a full veil, it's really a big veil. And always dressed in black.’ I have to tell them, yes, I have to welcome her…And I don't know, there's something that's disturbing for me but at the same time it's part of the welcome. It's complicated. Because sometimes I feel like I’m not being open. No. I don't know, it's complicated. That's it, it's not easy (L6).

Some further explained that their mission statements included principles such as respect for and tolerance of differences, intimating that because of this, issues such as diversity or racism would be respected. One did state that “teachers have to deal with differences and use the differences in a positive way” (L2). Such a perspective moves toward the diversity-engagement that we argue is necessary for all students to thrive, but no specific illustrations were offered. That school leader also stated that, “racism is not a big issue anymore, because the ethnic mix in this school has become normal” which again points to the assumption that increased presence or parity results in elimination of racial and ethnic bias on the part of teachers, staff, students, and leaders (with power and privilege). It is exactly this argument that recent literature has debunked by stressing the relevance of microaggressions and significance of systemic racism (Amiot et al., 2020; Clapper, 2015).

Colorblindness is emphasized

Importantly, most leaders felt that diversity should not be emphasized or defined at all. One explained that defining oneself by skin color causes an automatic separation from others (L5). This leader felt that the identity discourse is exclusionary and causes rather than reduces problems among students; such a perspective then tends to rest on a default assimilationist approach (Akkari et al., 2011). Similarly, the leader prefers to not name racism as a source of conflict, believing that one human race supersedes racial categorization. This perspective is not uncommon and, as a colorblind approach, is problematic according to critical race scholars. While ostensibly fueled by good intentions, this outlook assumes that human beings, especially those with privilege, are highly reflective and self-aware enough to overcome their own biases (Magno and Schiff, 2010; Sleeter, 2017) as well as proactive in identifying and dismantling structurally violent barriers and institutional racism. Research has demonstrated this assumption to be in error (Lumby and Morrison, 2010).

One leader said, “we never had a problem related to diversity” (L1) but we wonder: according to whose lived experience? Given that none of the school leaders have conducted a school climate survey or systematically asked for students’ views and experiences, this is a giant claim to make. One particularly prescient comment was that “teachers are aware that it is not acceptable to be racist in this school [but this] doesn't mean people aren't racist” (L2), and, indeed, it is not clear if there are sanctions for “unacceptable” behavior. Critical race scholars suggest equity audits as a way to uncover lived experiences of school climate among all school members (Amiot et al., 2020).

The belief in schools as neutral social equalizers rather than producers of equity (Santamaría and Santamaría, 2015) resonates in comments about treating everyone the same and overlooking differences (L5). Such views can be juxtaposed with those of one leader who said, “we cannot just turn a blind eye” (L2) to discrimination and “it is important to have a culture of conversation” (L2), though it is relevant to note that this same leader also stated that “students should understand the way they have to be in schools, they should be able to adapt.”

We asked school leaders what integration means to them, curious to know how they conceive of this phenomenon. Some conflated integration with inclusion and others did not have a definition at hand. One leader, who believes that the majority of students with a migrant background will adapt, further states that the organization “Stop Violence” helps migrants integrate, so that “they know our traditions” (L3). With this statement it is clear that he feels that knowing host community traditions is important to stop violence and at the same time the statement has a negative connotation as it associates violence with immigrant students, in an instance that could be understood as unconscious bias. Similarly, he posits that Muslims, for example, “do not want to be seen as Muslims at all” and that “Previous generations want their children to function like the indigenous population,” which aligns more closely with assimilationist approaches and colorblindness than with diversity engagement. Paradoxically, he also mentions that “there is no need for people to become like natives,” which contradicts other statements and demonstrates internal wavering on the subject.

Training and self-reflection is lacking

Similar to teacher training in Switzerland (Akkari et al., 2011), leaders have not received multicultural or intercultural or anti-racist training, hampering their ability to engage in diversity, even when (minimally) aware of it. Most of our participants noted that to date there is no coverage of these topics in school leader training, which takes more of a business management approach, and indicated that they would benefit from additional training on diversity (L1, L2, L3, L6), and even that they would be “willing to change something if it is necessary” (L2).

Interestingly, all school leaders mentioned the current focus on gender and/or LGBTQ rights, over race, religion, ethnicity, or even language. One said, “we are not really trained or ready on gender issues” (L3) and others said, “we have LGBTQ issues” (L2), “we have the issue that a student, yes, sort of came out as transsexual,” and “we have the critical problem of the ‘in-between’” (L3).

In sum, evidence suggests the minimization of the role that diversity plays in schools and the need for training among the school leaders and their staff. The internal contradictions they exposed demonstrate a lack of time spent self-reflecting on unconscious bias and potential improvement of school culture through diversity engagement.

Migration and multilingualism

Generally, languages and language teaching are crucial topics for all Swiss school leaders due to the importance given to French and German on a societal and institutional level. That said, language policies and practices at the participating schools are overall much better described as bilingual, not necessarily multilingual virtually excluding the 22 different languages spoken by students, for example, in the school of L3. Despite the benefits of acquiring high academic linguistic competences in two of Switzerland's national languages at the upper secondary level, some students, especially non-national language-speaking migrants, are disadvantaged by this. First, their first languages rarely ever receive institutional recognition and second, the strong emphasis on languages throughout the curricula presents a particularly great challenge for newly arrived students’ academic development and integration. The relationship among students’ language skills and their academic trajectories as well their integration is presented in the two sub-sections below.

Students’ academic trajectories and educational opportunities are directly linked to and dependent on their linguistic competences

Given the particular linguistic situation in the canton of Fribourg with German and French as its two official languages, bilingualism is generally considered a unique and enriching feature by all participants while some also perceive it as a concern or obstacle especially for incoming students. Problematically, not all participants were aware of the linguistic barriers newly arrived students have to face, with one leader assuming that “everybody speaks French” (L1). This is partly due to their systemic underrepresentation at the upper secondary level exactly because of their (lacking) linguistic competences. Further, those students who successfully enroll in upper secondary schools with only “limited” linguistic competences can be hugely disadvantaged based on the importance given to the two languages acting as intercultural mediators throughout the entire curricula from primary through upper secondary education—as exemplified in the celebration of Bilingualism Day in one of the schools (emphasis added). Academic performance across the curriculum is said to be inextricably linked to linguistic skills (Cummins, 2000; Martirosyan et al., 2015) and thus detrimental to the promotion of equal opportunities for all students. As L6 observes, “Without French, history, geography, everything will be difficult.”

In an effort to minimize discrimination against those students based on competences they might have been unable to acquire before their arrival in Switzerland, certain alleviation measures have been introduced. For instance, L3 and L6 reported that grades in French or German are initially not counted so that promotion to the next grade level does not depend on language proficiency. Other measures, although not offered at every school, included tuition by other students partly paid by the school or student tandems. As L6 specified further, these measures are not applicable to students with other first languages who have lived in Switzerland for a certain (unspecified) period of time before their enrollment:

…very often we work with the other school principals and then we try to make rules, precisely the reception of allophone students…we don't make [students] take the exam in German, but we still want [them] to have certain abilities in French…For those who have been here for two years, we want higher standards.

These rules or standards are elaborated and then imposed as such by school leaders in a top-down manner often without considering that they thereby attribute a powerful normativity to language (Butler, 1997), that is, arbitrary norms which assess languages and their speakers. As reported by L3, “Yes, it's clear that we indicate the language, if we have to write in French or German. But we are not going to mark I speak Serbo-Croatian,” indicating that students’ heritage languages are devalued in such institutional contexts and are not considered an asset to students’ academic trajectories (Dirim and Mecheril, 2018). Also, speaking only a couple of languages such as English or Spanish themselves, some leaders (L3, L4) seem to project their linguistic repertoire onto their students depriving them of the opportunity to develop and capitalize on their own idiolect (Otheguy et al., 2015).

Further, as L4 stated, “We only have one student who has problems with the language, he is from Chile,” questioning the legitimacy of additional scaffolding measures based on the ostensibly negligible demand. Arguably, given the unique nature of each individual's linguistic competences, limited or lack of access to academic language outside of school, and the omnipresence of legitimized language in other subjects and evaluations within exams and presentations, all students should benefit from such offers to maximize their potential. As advocated by Delpit (2006), “All we can do is provide students with the exposure…and allow them the opportunity to practice…in contexts that are nonthreatening, have a real purpose, and are intrinsically enjoyable” (p. 54, emphasis in original).

Students are positioned based on their competences in the local languages as active, well integrated, or censored, excluded individuals

The data further reveal that students are categorized based on their language competences in the two official school languages French and German. Put differently, some are judged—following a monolingual, native-speaker ideology—by the extent they “deviate” from fellow students who already qualify as proficient French or German speakers and thus as legitimate students at the upper secondary level: “[Migrant students] are integrated into the language classes. And then, after the classes at the professional center, there are integration classes for immigrants. If there are very good students in these classes, they can take an entrance exam to come to the gymnasium [secondary school]…” (L3, our emphasis). From a poststructuralist perspective, students are hegemonized through institutional mechanisms which undermine important constituents of their identity by imposing the local dominant languages. Further, even if students were to succeed in appropriating either French or German, they continue to be dependent on the authorities’ assessment of whether their linguistic skills are sufficient. They are thus unable to deconstruct or change the assigned categories themselves, which, problematically, often label them as “deficient” speakers and censor them from educational and social opportunities. The following quote shows that these categories are restrictive, impenetrable, and discriminatory: “A student who has been living in the canton of Fribourg for 16 years, who arrives at our school but is weak in French or German, we tell him, you are too weak, we don't welcome you. You cannot come” (L6). Students are blamed for their “weakness” in the school's official languages while it could be argued that their exclusion is due to unwelcoming infrastructure and lack of additional services and offers for students in need. Finally, as Busch (2012) argues convincingly, “the restrictive power of categorizations is particularly felt when language is not self-evidently available, that is, for example, when people are not recognized or do not recognize themselves as legitimate speakers of a specific language” (p. 509). In essence, we see that, similar to other studies (Becker, 2021), in Fribourg the two categories of integration/inclusion and exclusion are socially or discursively constructed and are embedded in historical, cultural, and political contexts.

Conclusion and recommendations

Racial and ethnic diversity is a new but increasingly significant phenomenon in Fribourg, as elsewhere in Europe, particularly since the so-called “migration crisis” of 2015. While linguistic diversity has always been present, the dominance of national languages over heritage and other languages has prevailed. It is therefore perhaps not surprising that neither teachers nor school leaders have received relevant training in these areas nor are they particularly well-versed in the topics. Nevertheless, diversity resulting from in-migration of racially and ethnically heterogeneous populations is occurring and is impacting prominent public institutions such as schools. In order to ensure equity of educational outcomes, policies must move beyond rhetorical expression of tolerance and integration toward the initiation and strengthening of training and structural change. We are also mindful of calls for the “de-migrantization” of research on migration and integration; we wish to direct attention not to the migrant population as the unit of analysis, per se, but rather to focus on the whole population (Dahinden, 2016) and specifically, in our case, school leaders and the interrelated leadership structures/systems in schools.

The data demonstrated a lack of purposeful engagement with diversity on the part of school leaders and overtones of (White/male) privilege and unconscious bias. There was noticeable adherence to notions of colorblindness and a preference for conflict avoidance over confrontation with difference or diversity. While our study focused on school leaders as the actors responsible for spearheading school initiatives and developing school culture and climate, we recognize that leadership is a collaborative process among all school staff. Therefore, our recommendations are specifically aimed at the positional leader but would apply across all school personnel. Further, our recommendations could be more widely applied to other similar contexts, especially in the global North/West, in which racial-ethnic and linguistic diversity is rising. Our findings indicated the need for training leaders on the importance of recognizing, celebrating, and engaging with diversity (in all its forms, including intersectionality). In fact, several school leaders indicated that they would greatly appreciate additional preparation and guidance in the areas of racial, ethnic, and gender diversity. To the extent that any individual or sub-group in a school can take on leadership, this kind of training is suggested for all.

The linguistic history of Switzerland often renders discussions of language unnecessary, however as seen in our study, the language issue is much more complex in the current era of mass migration and increasing multilingualism in Fribourg. Language proficiency regulations favoring the two dominant languages of French and German have a two-fold discriminatory effect. First, many migrant students are unable to gain sufficient proficiency to even enter secondary (post-compulsory) school. Second, heritage languages, as well as non-dominant national languages, are devalued such that students’ capabilities may not be accurately assessed and may result in social as well as academic and employment barriers. With greater exposure to newer approaches to multilingualism and translanguaging, school leaders, and indeed all members of the school community, will be able to assist migrant students and their families resist exclusion from educational opportunities at all levels.

To begin movement toward diversity-engaged school leadership, we recommend: (1) targeted preparation of school leaders, both in-service and pre-service, and (2) similar research with school leaders across cantons and levels of schooling, and (3) opening of collaborative inquiry and support among school leaders. Any interventions should advocate learning about self and other (and “unlearning” ingrained, unquestioned practices) toward more humane and empowering approaches.

While it was beyond the scope of this study to analyze the content and delivery of Swiss leader preparation programs, based on the lack of exposure to diversity-related topics as reported by participants, the following learning objectives might guide leader preparation and leader practice:⁵

To deeply understand critical leadership theories and how they interact with CRT, critical feminist theory, etc.;

To reflect on how racial-ethnic and linguistic identities factor into personal and professional roles as well as the lives of students and staff;

To engage in the practices of anti-racist pedagogy, including:

○ Acknowledgement of the historical and current role played by Switzerland in the global economy and in structuring/contributing to global inequality

○ Articulation of one's own beliefs about diversity and difference

○ Openness to listening and hearing others’ lived experiences and points of view without questioning their validity

○ Expression of one's own identity in racial, ethnic, linguistic, gender, religious, cultural, political, etc. terms

○ Reflection on racial and multilingual encounters, personal experiences of racism, etc.

○ Naming one's privileges of whiteness/maleness/language/citizenship/etc. and implicit bias

○ Describing the role of leaders and institutions in perpetuating structural racism

○ Willingness to disrupt the status quo (i.e., fundamental discriminatory practices and structures) and identification of entry points to do so.⁶

To set up a “diversity-engagement committee” or similar, in order to address overload of the principal and increase commitment from the school community; this group could reconsider and redesign the school environment to be more culturally sensitive and assist with ongoing teacher/student/principal training;

To conduct equity audits (Amiot et al., 2020) to gauge the actual beliefs and experiences of all members of the school community, and to then engage in action;

To include parents and community members, especially from newcomer populations, in events and decision-making settings to increase their visibility and participation.

To consult Khalifa's Culturally Responsive School Leadership Institute (www.crsli.org), for example, within which such topics are addressed, or the open source Comparative Educational Leadership Lab (www.compedleadershiplab.com) in which topics of equity, diversity, etc. are presented from multiple countries in the form of teaching case studies for educators at all levels.

To capture leaders’ interest in gender diversity by providing training and connecting this to related concepts of racial-ethnic and language diversity.

This list is just a beginning. Program developers would want to include these objectives in various iterations across their curricula.

Future research is recommended in various dominant-language cantons, to analyze canton-specific policies as well as school-level practices of school leaders who face changing demographics on a daily basis. Additional structured time for leaders to exchange experiences, reflections, and ideas with each other could be built into their professional responsibilities. It is critical to include school leaders in the development of integration agendas in order to capture the promise and potential of education systems in supporting all members of the community. Curriculum design and pedagogical practice in schools, as domains of school leader oversight, should take into account the most recent scholarship around anti-racist approaches and multilinguistic expression in order to provide a diversity-engaged school staff. Additional research could investigate leader preparation programs to assess opportunities that would encourage foundational development of diversity-engaged leadership. Globally, demographics are in constant flux. In Europe, diversity is increasing and we are just beginning to see the impact(s) of racial and linguistic diversity on majority-White schools, communities, cultures, and nations. The limits of policy rhetoric can now be evaluated, and we see in Switzerland both a lack of reform and a lack of research. Our study revealed the prevalence of unconscious bias and lack of anti-racist and multilingual understanding; this may be—and is likely to be—the case in other country contexts with similar historical demographics. More knowledge is needed, broadly and deeply, regarding to what extent leaders are aware of and facilitating such approaches in their schools across community contexts in order to gauge their levels of, comfort with and support for diversity-engagement. Only when engaging with difference and diversity can we begin to welcome the challenges and embrace the respect and empathy necessary to thrive in our ever-changing society.

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

Cathryn Magno

Notes

Author biographies

Cathryn Magno is a professor in the Department of Education Sciences at the University of Fribourg where she teaches international education policy, education theory, and other seminars related to comparative education. Her research and publications include topics such as educational leadership and governance, gender and health, migration, and human rights.

Anna Becker is a PhD candidate and research assistant in the Department of Education Sciences at the University of Fribourg where she is responsible for student internships and teaches seminars on multilingual and practical education. Her lines of research focus on multilingualism in schools, migration, and language and power.

Marion Imboden is currently studying for a masters in education with a focus on migration and education at the University of Fribourg, Switzerland. She is interested in the administration of social justice and the extent to which the influence of power and politics manifests as challenges in educational polices addressing migration-related diversity from the view point of the actors involved.

References

Akkari

Loomis

Bauer

(2011) From accommodating to using diversity by teachers in Switzerland. Journal of Multiculturalism in Education 7(1): 1–11.

Amelina

Faist

(2012) De-naturalizing the national in research methodologies: Key concepts of transnational studies in migration. Ethnic and Racial Studies 35(10): 1707–1724.

Amiot

Mayer-Glenn

Parker

(2020) Applied critical race theory: Educational leadership actions for student equity. Race Ethnicity and Education 23(2): 200–220.

Becker A (2021)“I’m Always in This Conflict” – Students’ Struggle of Plurilingual Identity Expression, Linguistic Insecurity, and Assimilation in Switzerland’s Higher Education. European Education 53(1), 15–30.

Becker

(2010) Bildungschancen von Migranten und Migrantinnen im Schweizer Bil- Dungssystem – ErklärUngen und Empirische Befunde im Internationalen Vergleich. Zürich: Universität Zürich.

Bonilla-Silva

(2015) More than prejudice: Restatement, reflections, and new directions in critical race theory. Sociology of Race and Ethnicity 1(1): 75–89.

Busch

(2012) The linguistic repertoire revisited. Applied Linguistics 33(5): 503–523.

Butler

(1997) Excitable speech: A politics of the performative. New York: Routledge.

Bylinski

Vollmer

(2015) Wege zur Inklusive in der beruflichen Bildung. Bundesinstitut für Berufsbildung: Bonn, Deutschland. https://www.bibb.de/veroeffentlichungen/de/publication/show/id/7718

10.

Christen

(2001) Die regionalen Besonderheiten der deutschen Standardsprache in der Schweiz. In: Knipf-Komlósi

Berend

(eds) Regionale Standards . Budapest: Pecś, 120–159.

11.

Clapper

(2015) The 20th year anniversary of critical race theory in education: Implications for leading to eliminate racism. Educational Administration Quarterly 51(5): 791–833.

12.

Cummins

(2000) Language, Power and Pedagogy: Bilingual Children in the Crossfire. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

13.

Dahinden

(2016) A plea for the ‘de-migrantization. Ethnic and Racial Studies 39(13): 2207–2225.

14.

Delpit

(2006) Other People’s Children: Cultural Conflict in the Classroom. New York/London: The New Press.

15.

Dimmock

Walker

(2005) Educational leadership: Culture and diversity. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.

16.

Dirim

Mecheril

(2018) Heterogenität, Sprache(n), Bildung: Eine differenz- und diskriminierungstheoretische Einführung. Bad Heilbronn: Julius Klinkhardt.

17.

Esser

(2006) Migration, Sprache und Integration . Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung GmbH FSP Zivilgesellschaft, Konflikte und Demokratie Arbeitsstelle Interkulturelle Konflikte und gesellschaftliche Integration, AKI. Retrieved on 8 March, 2022, from https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/bitstream/handle/document/11349/ssoar-2006-esser-Migration,_Sprache_und_Integration?sequence=1

18.

Federal Statistical Office (2020) Integration Indicators: Racism, Discrimination and Security. Switzerland: Section Demography and Migration. https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/en/home/statistics/population/migration-integration/integration-indicators/all-indicators/racism-discrimination/racial-discrimination.html

19.

Federal Statistical Office (2021) Integration Indicators: Education and Training. Switzerland: Section Demography and Migration. https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/en/home/statistics/population/migration-integration/integration-indicators/all-indicators/education-training.html

20.

Felouzis

Charmillot

(2017) Schulische Ungleichheit in der Schweiz. Social Change in Switzerland. N° 8. doi:10.22019/SC-2017-00002

21.

Gogolin

(2002) Linguistic and cultural diversity in Europe: A challenge for educational research and practice. European Educational Research Journal 1(1): 123–138.

22.

Gómez-Hurtado

González-Falcón

Coronel

(2016) Perceptions of secondary school principals on management of cultural diversity in Spain. The challenge of educational leadership. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 46(3): 441–456.

23.

Gooden

(2012) What does racism have to do with leadership? Countering the idea of color- blind leadership: A reflection on race and the growing pressures of the urban principalship. Educational Foundations 26: 67–84.

24.

Gooden

Dantley

(2012) Centering race in a framework for leadership preparation. Journal of Research on Leadership Education 7(2): 237–253.

25.

Jacob

Kalter

(2011) Die intergenerational transmission von Hochkulturellen Lebensstilen unter Migrationsbedingungen. In: Rössel

Otte

(eds) Lebensstilforschung. KöLner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie Sonderheft 41. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, pp.223–246.

26.

Khalifa

(2018) Culturally Responsive School Leadership. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

27.

Khalifa

Gooden

Davis

(2016) Culturally responsive school leadership: A synthesis of the literature. Review of Educational Research 86(4): 1272–1311.

28.

Kloetzer

Clarke-Habibi

Mehmeti

Zittoun

(2021) Welcoming mobile children at school: Institutional responses and new questions. European Journal of Psychology of Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-021-00534-4.

29.

Kvale

(2007) Doing Interviews. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

30.

Ladson-Billings

(1995) But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy. Theory into Practice 34(3): 159–165.

31.

Ladson-Billings

(2014) Culturally relevant pedagogy 2.0: A.k.a. the remix. Harvard Educational Review 84(1): 74–84.

32.

Levitt

(2012) What’s wrong with migration scholarship? A critique and a way forward. Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power 19(4): 493–500.

33.

Lowenhaupt

(2021)

School Leadership in the United States: Evolving Responsibilities in Times of Change

In: Normand R, Moos L, Liu M & Tulowitzki P (eds.) The cultural and social foundations of educational leadership: An international comparison (pp. 175-191). Cham: Springer

34.

Lumby

Morrison

(2010) Leadership and diversity: theory and research. School Leadership and Management 30(1): 3–17.

35.

Macleod

(2021) The changing concepts around immigrant integration. Migration information source. Migration Policy Institute. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/changing-concepts-immigrant-integration

36.

Magno C and Schiff M (2010) Culturally-responsive leadership: Best practice in integrating immigrant students. Intercultural Education 21(1): 87-91.

37.

Martirosyan

Hwang

Wanjohi

(2015) Impact of English proficiency on academic performance of international students. Journal of International Students 5(1): 60–71.

38.

Mayring

(2015 Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken. 12. ed. Weinheim: Beltz.

39.

Miller

(2021) Anti-racist school leadership: making ‘race’ count in leadership preparation and development. Professional Development in Education 47(1): 7–21.

40.

Moorosi

(2020) Colour-blind educational leadership policy: A critical race theory analysis of school principalship standards in South Africa. Educational Management Administration & Leadership: 1–18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143220973670.

41.

OECD (2017) Proceedings from the Second Policy Forum: Teachers in Diverse Socities. OECD.

42.

OECD (2018) The Resilience of Students with an Immigrant Background: Factors that Shape Well-being, OECD Reviews of Migrant Education. Paris: OECD Publishing.

43.

OECD/EU (2015) Indicators of immigrant integration 2015: settling in. Report, OECD Publishing. http://doi.org/10.1787/9789264234024-en.

44.

OECD/EU (2018) Settling in 2018, indicators of immigrant integration. Report, OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264307216-en.

45.

Otheguy

García

Reid

(2015) Clarifying translanguaging and deconstructing named languages: A perspective from linguistics. Applied Linguistics Review 6(3): 281–307.

46.

Perrenoud

Tulowitzki

(2021) Images of educational leadership in Switzerland. In: Normand et al. (eds) The Cultural and Social Foundations of Educational Leadership: An International Comparison. Cham: Springer, 123–138.

47.

Polat

Ogay Barka

(2014) Preservice teachers’ intercultural competence: A comparative study of teachers in Switzerland and Turkey. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 54: 19–38.

48.

Rosa

Flores

(2017) Unsettling race and language: Toward a raciolinguistic perspective. Language in Society 46(5): 621–647.

49.

RSF 411.0.11 (2016) Règlement de la loi sur la scolarité obligatoire. (Legal regulation on obligatory schooling) Etat de Fribourg/Canton of Fribourg. Available at: https://bdlf.fr.ch/app/de/texts_of_law/411.0.11

50.

RSF 412.0.1 (2020) Loi sur l’enseignement secondaire supérieur. (Legal regulation on upper secondary schooling) Etat de Fribourg / Canton of Fribourg. Available at: https://bdlf.fr.ch/app/fr/texts_of_law/412.0.1

51.

Santamaría

(2015) Counteracting educational injustice with applied crtitical leadership: Culturally responsive practices promoting sustainable change. International Journal of Multicultural Education 17(1): 22–41.

52.

Santamaría

(2014) Critical change for the greater good: Multicultural perceptions in educational leadership toward social justice and equity. Educational Administration Quarterly 50(3): 347–391.

53.

Sleeter

(2017) Critical race theory and the whiteness of teacher education. Urban Education 52(2): 155–169.

54.

Sommer

(2019) Deutsch als Zweitsprache, DaZ. Ein Leitfaden zur Organisation des DaZ-Unterrichts und zur Integration von Kindern und Jugendlichen ohne Kenntnisse der Unterrichtssprache. Erziehungsdirektion des Kanton Bern, Amt für Kindergarten, Volksschule und Beratung. Available at: https://www.erz.be.ch/erz/de/index/kindergarten_volksschule/kindergarten_volksschule/leitfaeden.assetref/dam/documents/ERZ/AKVB/de/01_Besondere%20Massnahmen/bes_massnahmen_daz_leitfaden_d.pdf

55.

Stuart Wells

Fox

Cordova-Cobo

(2016) How racially diverse schools and classrooms can benefit all students. The Century Foundation. Available at: https://productiontcf.imgix.net/app/uploads/2016/02/09142501/HowRaciallyDiverse_AmyStuartWells-11.pdf

56.

Suarez-Orozco

(2001) Children of Immigration. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

57.

Thürer

Burri

(2006) Zum Sprachenrecht der Schweiz. In: Pan

Pfeil

(eds) Zur Entstehung des modernen Minderheitenschutzes in Europa. Wien: Springer, 242–266.

58.

Wade

Noguera

(2014) Notes on Creating Opportunity to Learn: Moving from Research to Practice to Close the Achievement gap. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

59.

Welton

Diem

Carpenter

(2019) Negotiating the politics of antiracist leadership: The challenges of leading under the predominance of whiteness. Urban Education 54(5): 627–630.

60.

Wimmer

Glick Schiller

(2002) Methodological nationalism and beyond: Nation-state building, migration and the social sciences. A journal of transnational affairs 2(4): 301–334.