In the above table we may first
observe that the indices of segregation differ markedly from one
municipality to another, and among municipalities with the same
linguistic profile. Although intermunicipal residential segregation
affects the linguistic segregation of pupils, there are other
phenomena which clearly affect the uneven distribution of pupils
in each municipality, independently of the concentration of Catalan
speakers. The indices would appear to reflect considerable levels
of segregation in a high proportion of municipalities. The contrast
between linguistic segregation and segregation based on levels
of education is particularly significant, as it enables us to
see the magnitude of the issue. The conclusion is very clear:
in general, levels of linguistic segregation in these municipalities
are no less marked than those of social segregation. Furthermore,
the intensity of linguistic segregation and social segregation
tend to go hand in hand, so that municipalities with a high level
of one type of segregation tend to record high levels in the other.(6)
These trends advise us, albeit indirectly,
of the high probability that linguistic segregation in schools
in the municipalities will be heavily conditioned by social segregation.
This hypothesis is examined in greater depth below.
In addition to this first reading
on a general level, we can make some more specific observations.
The first is the fact that the highest levels of linguistic segregation
are related to families who do use neither Catalan nor Spanish
at home. In these cases, if we exclude municipality B, which has
a policy for the distribution of pupils of foreign origin which
has been agreed by all the schools, and municipality D, where
the immigrant population is low, all the indices are notably high
and reflect a clear tendency for immigrant pupils to be concentrated
in a small number of schools. Secondly, in most municipalities,
we detect a clear tendency for the concentration of the Spanish-speaking
and/or Catalan-speaking population. In addition, in two of the
municipalities where levels of segregation are lowest (H and I),
we find a phenomenon which artificially reduces levels of segregation:
some families with a medium-high socioeconomic status send their
children to grant-maintained schools in neighbouring municipalities
(we will return to this question in due course).
To explain the intensity of intra-municipal
linguistic segregation, we must turn again to residential segregation.
Residential segregation partly explains both linguistic and social
segregation in the schools of certain municipalities (especially
municipality G, with one of the largest populations in Catalonia,
where there are substantial sociodemographic differences between
districts and residential areas), but this is only a partial explanation,
and, in some municipalities with high levels of segregation, a
secondary explanation. Social segregation in schools is often
not only an effect but also a cause of residential segregation,
since the family's decision about where to live is conditioned
by the sociodemographic environment of districts or towns, which
then tend to become progressively homogenised. Residential segregation,
even when it correlates with social segregation,
(7) may not be so much a cause as an
effect, especially in a historical context of great residential
mobility, as has occurred in recent years.
It is true, furthermore, that parents'
preference for enrolling their children at a school near home
does not carry much weight if the local school is not considered
satisfactory, especially among families with a higher socioeconomic
(or academic) status. The family's choice of a grant-maintained
school reveals clear limitations to the explanation of segregation
by residential factors, especially the segregation of sub-groups
associated with high status. (Benito and Gonzàlez, 2008).
To the extent that there is a correlation between the linguistic
and social composition of schools, the causal link between residential
segregation and linguistic segregation is weakened. Finally, many
small and medium municipalities have a catchment map for schools
which allows, or at least would allow, policies for assigning
pupils to schools which are very little influenced by residential
segregation.
As the foregoing paragraphs suggest,
an understanding of the intensity and the morphology of linguistic
segregation in schools calls for a study of the extent to which
social and linguistic segregation in schools are linked. Before
undertaking this, however, we present a contingency table which
clearly illustrates the levels of linguistic segregation which
we have been discussing. This table shows the distribution of
Catalan-speaking pupils among schools, based on a grouping of
the schools by quartiles. In the first quartile we find schools
with less than 25% of Catalan-speaking pupils, in the second schools
where there are between 25% and 50%, in the third schools which
have between 50% and 75%, and in the fourth those schools where
Catalan-speaking pupils account for over 75%. We shall also refer
to the third quartile as the quartile of suitability, as it is
the one reflecting what we would consider a priori to be the minimum
proportion of Catalan-speaking pupils needed to generate everyday
use of Catalan in the school's informal activities.(8)
The quartile in which we find the mean percentage of Catalan-speaking
pupils for the municipality will be referred to as the mean
quartile.
Table 3. Percentage of pupils
in schools according to linguistic composition (by quartiles)
Linguistic composition
of schools (% of Catalan speakers) |
Type of municipality |
Spanish-speaking municipalities |
Bilingual municipalities |
Catalan-speaking municipalities |
Total |
0-25% |
44,3 |
14,1 |
5 |
25,2 |
25-50% |
35,1 |
15,3 |
10,6 |
22,8 |
50-75% |
13,2 |
42,7 |
46,6 |
31 |
75-100% |
7,3 |
27,9 |
37,9 |
21 |
Total |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
The percentage of Catalan speakers
in the different municipalities ranges from 34% to 72%. The fact
that schools with less than 25% (first quartile) and over 75%
(fourth quartile) of Catalan speakers together constitute 46%
of all schools in itself indicates a significant imbalance in
the distribution of pupils. However, to be analysed with precision,
the data must be set against the linguistic composition of the
municipalities. Collective data is provided for all types of municipality,
as it corresponds to relatively homogeneous profiles of linguistic
distribution, enabling us to give a more synthetic reading of
the different scenarios we can find in Catalonia. If we consider
the data for each group of municipalities, the imbalances are
still marked. The factor which best reflects this is that in all
three types of municipality less than 50% of pupils attend schools
in the respective mean-quartiles (second quartile in Spanish-speaking
municipalities, quartile of suitability in the others), these
being the quartiles where we would find 100% of the pupils in
the municipality if they were evenly distributed.
In municipalities classified as
Catalan-speaking and bilingual, we find a similar situation. In
both cases the mean quartile and the quartile of suitability coincide,
meaning that all pupils could be attending school in language
environments which clearly favour familiarity with Catalan as
a language for informal communication. Even so, a significant
minority of pupils attend schools where Catalan occupies a more
dominant position (fourth quartile),
(9) while another significant minority
attend schools where Catalan speakers are in the minority: 15.6%
in Catalan-speaking municipalities and 29.4% in bilingual municipalities.