|
The number of individuals who have
participated in NPLLT LSL courses (autumn 1996 until end 2001) by profession:
Table 5.
Participants by profession
Preschool
educators |
4,832 |
School
and university educators |
10,252 |
New
recruits |
1.059 |
Young
unemployed |
439 |
Medical
personel |
1,952 |
Municipality
personel |
926 |
Journalists |
232 |
Handicapped |
210 |
Courses for young
adults |
766 |
Youth clubs |
895 |
Summer camps for
school students |
1.730 |
Latvian railway
employees |
151 |
Ministry of
Interior employees |
3,347 |
Factory workers |
157 |
People from
different ethnic organizations |
1,178 |
Young prisoners |
151 |
School cooperation
projects |
237 |
Total |
28,514 |
The NPLLT working
group has calculated that an average non-Latvian speaker in Latvia needs 360 h (6 x 60 h
courses) to become fluent in Latvian. The table below shows how many courses have been
taken by different individuals.
Table 6
Number
of courses received |
Individual
persons |
Number
of registered course trainees(1, 2 or more courses) |
60 h |
16,522 |
16,522 |
2 x
60 h |
8,099 |
16,198 |
2 x
60 h |
1,896 |
5,688 |
2 x
60 h |
1,059 |
4,236 |
2 x
60 h |
439 |
2,195 |
2 x
60 h |
246 |
1,476 |
Total |
28,514 |
48,382 |
The success of the
NPLLT is based on certain basic principles. The participation in Programme activities is
voluntary and based on open competitions, the target groups are stimulated by positive
motivation, LLPU is not testing or examining the learners, LLPU seeks to focus on
individuals and find out their needs, LLPU seeks to keep a constant dialogue with the
target groups and makes efforts to involve them instead of to exclude.
Most non-Latvians
have meanwhile accepted that it is necessary to know Latvian in Latvia. At least on a
theoretical level. Even if they do not know Latvian themselves, many of them are sending
their children to Latvian schools to promote the language learning process. But still
there is a core of resistence which is supported and upheld by the above-mentioned myths
and prejudices. The national-international working group as well as the directives of the
MES stress, according to worldwide praxis, that a second language cannot be learnt by
means of language lessons alone. It has to be supported by some subjects taught in the
language.
7. Changes in the Education System a political or pedagogical problem
The Latvian
Education Act offers the minority schools different bilingual education models. This is a
very good opportunity to learn the second language and the mothertongue in minority
primary schools (grade 1 to 9). The Education Act stipulates that starting with grade 10
in the year 2004, the language of instruction in minority secondary schools should provide
a gradualchange to Latvian as the language of instruction. This issue has been politicised
from the very beginning. The arguments used are the old prejudices, that the Latvian
language cannot be used to express global and higher values, that the Russian language is
superior to the Latvian language, that the students being instructed in Latvian will be
stupid and "half products" whatever that means. The opponents of the education
reform want to keep the status quo and even the most illogical arguments against the
reform are good enaugh to be used in this dispute.
About 50% of the
minority schools are already ready to put into practice the bilingual education models and
the change of the language of instruction in secondary schools. They have realized that
this is a tremendious pedagogic challenge. About 30% of the minority schools need strong
support to be able to meet the Act's requirements. But about 20% of the minority schools
are not ready. Why? This is a good question. By December 1998, all minority school
teachers should have reached the highest level of proficiencyin Latvian. The transition to
bilingual education was begun in 1996. The Education Act did gradually come into force
starting with the year 1998. Still a group of minority school representatives want to
postpone or dehalt the process -- which raises the question, that is, whether these
persons have been aware of the changes in Latvia and if these persons are loyal State
employees?.
8. Language acquisition the way to integration or vice versa?
Every year LLPU
has also implemented different informal so-called integration activities, such as camps,
clubs, cooperation projects, etc. This has been extremely successful. This shows clearly
that not only does language knowledge promote integration but also vice versa, integration
is promoting language learning. In society the understanding of the ways and needs of
integration activities has changed. The following example shows this clearly. In 1997 all
cooperation activities between Latvians and Non-latvians were rejected by the Latvians. By
2001, however, different cooperation project models had come to be a part of everyday
life.
Also the LLPU
newsletter "Tagad", a quaterly bulletin published in three languages (Latvian,
Russian and English), is a welcome contribution to the education reforms and integration
issues in Latvia. Every number adresses some methodological problem, integration ideas and
presents an interview on language acquisition with the widest range of different people
living in Latvia.
In March 2002, the
NPLLT was evaluated by an independent international-national team. It was recommended to
continue all activities as before and to enhance the target groups on minority school
parents. Actually the NPLLT had already in early 2002 started an information campaign
addressed to the parents. Together with the Ministry of Education and Science, the LLPU
has developed three different booklets with answers on the most frequent questions about
bilingual education asked by parents, students and teachers. The LLPU is now organizing
seminars to inform all the involved auditories about the benefits of bilingual education.
The next step will be to offer the parent groups LSL courses and to tie the course content
to the content of their children's school work. Via this activity the NPLLT is reaching
the whole of society in Latvia.
9. The current situation
Meanwhile the LLPU
is running a medium-size college and a medium size publishing house. The LLPU has expanded
to a 20-person team (content, administration, finances, sale, etc.) with more than 2,000
individual contracts per year (trainers, teachers, authors and others). The budget is
approximately 2 million US$ annually. The finances for the first four years were funded
from a broad donor community via the UNDP. Starting with the year 2001 the Latvian
Government has taken over a considerable amount of the funding, which together with the
PHARE money makes up 60% of the total funding.
Every year LLPU is
inviting all Programme participants to an evaluation conference to discuss and analyze the
previous year and come up with ideas on how to improve the Programme work. These
conferences have not only become a nicetradition but are also giving a constructive
feed-back and future ideas.
The NPLLT has
meanwhile crossed the borders of Latvia and is known also outside Latvia. The know how and
expertise of the Programme has been requested by Estonia, Georgia and Moldova. In November
2002, the LLPU has been asked to host the yearly conference of the Nordic Network of
Intercultural Communication. The NPLLT has also opened a webpage www.lvavp.lv in three
languages where you can receive information about the past, present and future plans of
the Programme.
Furthermore you
can also consult the listing (1) of those sociolinguistic studies
carried out in Latvia since its independence in 1991.
Dr. Aija
Priedite
aija.priedite@lvavp.lv
Director of the Latvian
Language Programme Unit |