Education without a shared language: dynamics of inclusion and exclusion in Norwegian introductory classes for newly arrived minority language students

Abstract

Based upon fieldwork in two upper secondary schools in Norway, this article offers an analysis of inclusion and exclusion processes for newly arrived minority language students. Minority language students are defined by policy as students who have a different mother tongue than the Norwegian and Sami languages, and students who are newly arrived in Norway are considered especially at risk for marginalisation. This article explores processes of inclusion and exclusion in two schools with segregated classes for this group, called introductory classes. The analytical framework is Niklas Luhmann's theory of autopoietic social systems, where inclusion is defined as the requirements for participation set by a system, and exclusion accordingly as being unable to meet these requirements. The article displays different constellations of inclusions and exclusions for newly arrived students in the educational system: in school organisations, organisation-based interactions and informal networks of students. It will be showed that introductory classes erect several barriers towards newly arrived students' inclusion, especially towards those students who are placed at the basic level of the schools' hierarchy of performances. As a consequence of multiple educational exclusions, informal networks emerge as alternative socialities that include and exclude students on the basis of mother tongue. ARTICLE HISTORY

Education is my passport: experiences of institutional obstacles among immigrant youth in the Swedish upper secondary educational system

“…In order to counteract and to keep pace, many immigrant students describe themselves working harder than native students (Nilsson and Axelsson 2013), and they are aware that it will be difficult for them to succeed in school (Sharif 2016). Kalalahti, Varjo, and Jahnukainen (2017) and Hilt (2017) find that it is more common among students of immigrant background to drop out of upper secondary education than it is among the native peer group.…”

“…In addition, research from various countries points to teaching in transitional classes that is often rudimentary (Rutter 2006), not recognising pre-migratory knowledge and experiences (Hilt 2017;Sharif 2016) and not connecting between past and present instruction, described as a 'discontinuous past' by Nilsson Folke (2017). The instruction in transitional classes seldom also agrees with what is brought up in mainstream courses (Axelsson 2015;Nilsson and Bunar 2016).…”

“…The educational system neglects immigrant youths' individual resources when viewing them in terms of various deficits (Nilsson and Bunar 2016;Rodríguez-Izquierdo and Darmody 2017). This has been characterised as a 'deficit model', leading above all to a focus on immigrant students' acquisition of the dominant language of education (Hilt 2017;Nilsson and Bunar 2016;Nilsson Folke 2017;Taylor 2008;Torpsten 2013). Hilt (2017) adds that Norwegian teachers of immigrant youth consider students lacking both in cultural references needed in formal instruction and in ability to self-manage their learning processes (Hilt 2016), which is ascribed to insufficient learning in their home or transit countries.…”

“…This has been characterised as a 'deficit model', leading above all to a focus on immigrant students' acquisition of the dominant language of education (Hilt 2017;Nilsson and Bunar 2016;Nilsson Folke 2017;Taylor 2008;Torpsten 2013). Hilt (2017) adds that Norwegian teachers of immigrant youth consider students lacking both in cultural references needed in formal instruction and in ability to self-manage their learning processes (Hilt 2016), which is ascribed to insufficient learning in their home or transit countries. Moreover, Sharif (2017) indicates that lack of knowledge about the national educational system is what defines immigrant youth.…”

You Are Not Like Us: On Teacher Exclusion, Imagination and Disrupting Perception

“…The literature on educational exclusion offers substantial debates and insights into the experiences of learners in relation to a wide and complex range of forms of exclusion. These include exclusion on the basis of race, and marginalised groupings (Parsons, ; Sayed et al , ; Soudien, ); disability and special needs (Ainscow et al ., ; Bakhshi, 2017; Ferri and Connor, ; Florian, ; Michailakis and Reich, ); gender (Bennett, ; Slee and Allan, ); exclusion on the basis of religion, culture, ethnicity or caste (Davids, ; Davids and Waghid, ; Meier and Hartell, ; Subrahmanian, ) sexuality (Francis, ; Le Mat, ; Msibi, ); language (Bamgboṣe, ; Hilt, ; Tinsley and Han, ), as well as social exclusion, which according to Sparkes (, p. 1) includes economic and civic non‐participation, and is conceptually different to poverty and deprivation, ‘primarily by having a focus on the process of disengagement’ (also see Lynch and Baker, ; Peters and Besley, ). This abundant research suggests a familiarity with conceptions of inclusive education, and by implication, exclusion.…”