German language support in Austria: feasibility, effectiveness and legitimacy from the perspective of public administration

Abstract

Education systems around the world have been grappling with the task of including multilingual students. To achieve this objective, multilingual students in Austria have been receiving parallel instruction in segregated classrooms since the 2018/19 school year. These measures have been the subject of criticism, particularly in terms of their practical feasibility due to limited space and staff resources, as well as their effectiveness in terms of students’ academic, linguistic, and socio-emotional development and their fundamental normative value (i.e. legitimacy). To add a new perspective, this study employs qualitative data to clarify public administration employees’ stances on the perceived feasibility, effectiveness, and legitimacy of German language support measures. The results of a reflexive thematic analysis reveal that most participants hold negative perceptions of perceived feasibility, particularly concerning spatial and personnel resources as well as class composition. Findings also indicate that participants convey a critical outlook on the effectiveness of the German language support measures in terms of students’ general academic progress and socio-emotional development. Interestingly, the findings suggest that, despite clear negative assessments, there exist conflicting and indecisive views pertaining to perceived legitimacy. The results presented in this study hold significant implications for research efforts that prioritize language and diversity considerations.

Keywords:

• Language policy
• multilingual students
• public administration
• segregated language support
• feasibility effectiveness and legitimacy

Introduction

To establish sustainable and inclusive education (IE), it is imperative to ‘overcome barriers limiting the presence, participation and achievement of learners’ [United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), 2017, p. 7]. Realization of this objective requires a concerted effort from stakeholders in educational policy and practice to identify and address barriers that impede students’ access to quality education and opportunities (Alexiadou and Essex 2016). Furthermore, according to Bleidick (1985), planners and implementers of IE must have a positive attitude towards its feasibility, effectiveness, and legitimacy. Successful implementation of inclusion therefore requires recognition of its feasibility, its potential to meet the needs of a diverse student body (i.e. effectiveness), and its fundamental normative value (i.e. legitimacy) (Bleidick 1985). In the face of increasing migration movements worldwide, linguistic diversity in society and thus also in educational institutions has increased significantly, which is why the need for IE that prioritizes linguistically responsive pedagogy has become even more crucial (Alisaari et al. 2019). It is pertinent to note that this holds true for Austria as well, where the classroom environment has been characterized by the presence of students with diverse linguistic backgrounds for a prolonged period. This is evidenced by the significant proportion of students with a first language other than German, which has remained relatively constant at around 25% over the last decade across all school levels (Statistik Austria 2022).

Although schooling in Austria requires an inclusive education (IE) approach that recognizes language differences, promotes cultural sensitivity and understanding, and ensures educational success for all learners, educational policy decisions still maintain a monolingual habitus (Gogolin 2021). Accordingly, in response to the growing plurality of student languages, Austrian authorities introduced a new language support model in the 2018/19 school year [see e.g. Bundesministerium Für Bildung and Wissenschaft Und Forschung (BMBWF), 2019]. As part of the language support model, students who do not meet a certain language proficiency level in the language of instruction (LoI) (i.e. German), as evaluated by the language screening tool known as MIKA-D, are mandated to participate in pull-out German language support classes (GLSC) or courses (GLSCO). Upon completion of MIKA-D, learners’ language skills are assessed and categorized as either ‘sufficient’, ‘poor’ or ‘insufficient’. The School Organization Act stipulates that students labeled as exhibiting ‘adequate’ language skills are placed in mainstream classrooms without receiving any further support measures. Those who are classified as having ‘poor’ German language skills are required to participate in the GLSCO for 6 hours per week, while those categorized as ‘insufficient’ are required to participate in the GLSC for 15 hours per week at the elementary level and 20 hours per week at the secondary level. The School Organization Act allows for the implementation of GLSC if there are eight or more students with ‘inadequate’ German language skills at one school site. If this number is not met, students may receive integrative language support in mainstream classrooms with an additional six hours of language support in GLSCO. Students may stay in GLSC and GLSCO for a maximum of two years. During this period, students remain in the segregated language support measures until they successfully pass the MIKA-D and are generally not permitted to progress to higher grades, as per the guidelines issued by BMBWF (2019). If students do not pass the MIKA-D after two years, they are placed in the mainstream setting without any further language support.

These GLSCO and GLSC programs run concurrently with mainstream instruction, indicating that students are physically, socially, and academically separated from their classrooms to attend these language support classes. In addition, GLSC students are taught according to a specific curriculum, and GLSCO students receive additional curriculum supplements (BMBWF, 2019). The curriculum focuses on four areas of learning: oral language skills, linguistic skills, language learning skills, and social skills. This outlines the necessary competencies for transferring to the mainstream class. It also explicitly permits teachers to provide individual support based on each child’s abilities and needs. Moreover, teachers are expected to draw on current experience with German as a second language, as well as the students’ entire linguistic repertoire, to promote the acquisition of the LoI.

The physical and social separation of language learners is a commonly used practice in many countries worldwide (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2019; OECD, 2018). Although these segregated approaches aim to equip students with the language skills to thrive in a monolingual environment, research has continuously pointed to their negative effects on student academic performance and social inclusion (e.g. Hilt 2017; Bunar and Juvonen 2022). This is also true for the GLSC, which have been introduced under the pretext of creating equal opportunities for all learners (BMBWF, 2019), but have been subject to criticism. Accordingly, various empirical findings have shown that the language support measures prevalent in Austrian schools are associated with organizational difficulties, have a negative impact on the educational biographies of students and lack empirical evidence with sound arguments or justifications (Müller and Schweiger 2022; Spiel et al. 2022). These previous studies provide important insights into educators’ perspectives on the overall feasibility, effectiveness, and legitimacy of GLSC. However, it is also important to consider the regionally comprehensive views of public administration employees who play an important role in the implementation of top-down decisions in the education system. Against this backdrop, the current study aims to examine the perspectives of public administration employees from different Austrian federal states regarding the feasibility, effectiveness, and legitimacy of GLSC. This approach intends to provide a valuable contribution to the ongoing discourse on segregated language support in Austria, while also shedding light on the level of enforcement of school laws. By analyzing relevant data and engaging with key stakeholders, this research project aims to advance the conversation on an important issue and contribute to the development of more effective and equitable language policies in Austria.

Theoretical embedding: feasibility, effectiveness, and legitimacy

Although there is no consensus on the definition of IE, its meaning has evolved over the years due to historical, cultural, political, and economic forces (Dyson 1999; Moberg et al. 2020). The diverse conceptual interpretations of IE encompass a broad spectrum, ranging from the basic inclusion of students with special educational needs (SEN) in mainstream classrooms to fostering inclusive communities where all students are supported to reach their full potential (Göransson and Nilholm 2014). Buchner and Proyer (2020) describe several phases in the historical development of IE in Austria. Accordingly, the authors delineate a progression of policies that have transformed from the establishment of special schools, which culminated in the 1980s, to an augmented emphasis on fostering inclusivity within the educational system in more recent decades (Buchner and Proyer 2020).

In addition to debates on the definition of IE, the discourse on IE in scientific circles has mainly revolved around its justification and implementation (Dyson 1999). Scholars who have contributed to the discourse on justification have provided valuable insights into the rights, ethics, and effectiveness of IE. The discourse on implementation, on the other hand, has focused specifically on the practical aspects of implementing IE (Dyson 1999). Considering the dual scientific discourse, a plethora of research papers have been published on this subject in recent years. Accordingly, studies drawing on the extensive research on IE concerning students with SEN have shown that teachers generally have a rather positive normative attitude towards IE - but also many practical concerns about its feasibility when it comes to implementing inclusion in their classes (e.g. Avramidis and Norwich 2002). This contradiction between a rather positive normative attitude and a rather negative attitude towards its implementation was also found in a recent study in the context of teaching students with and without SEN together in one classroom (e.g. Syring et al. 2018).

According to the theoretical framework by Bleidick (1985), the decision to adopt inclusive or segregated education for students with SEN can be evaluated from three distinct perspectives: feasibility, effectiveness, and legitimacy. Bleidick (1985) referred to feasibility in the context of didactics, educational policy, and aspects such as staff competencies, availability of teaching materials, infrastructure, financial resources, but also curricula and educational laws. Effectiveness refers to evidence-based student learning and development outcomes such as achievement, well-being, and social participation (Bleidick 1985). Finally, legitimacy includes an ethical component and requires fundamental normative value judgments and basic normative decisions. Accordingly, legitimacy in this context refers to the pedagogical justification of IE in terms of children’s rights and its impact on students’ developmental opportunities (Bleidick 1985). It can therefore be considered part of the rights and ethics discourse of the overarching justification debate as proposed by Dyson (1999).

Several studies have found varying attitudes among teachers regarding the feasibility, effectiveness, and legitimacy of teaching students with and without SEN together in mainstream classrooms. The results of the study by Saloviita and Consegnati (2019), for instance, show a high level of commitment of teachers to IE. Teachers in this study were very positive about IE in terms of its impact on students’ expected learning outcomes (i.e. effectiveness), teachers’ associated workload (i.e. feasibility) and IE as an expression of students’ rights (i.e. legitimacy) (Saloviita and Consegnati 2019). Nevertheless, despite the empirical evidence indicating that teachers hold highly positive attitudes towards these three aspects, several other studies have revealed that teachers tend to express positive views regarding the ideological principles and effectiveness of IE, yet express reservations about the practical implementation of inclusion (e.g. Woodcock and Woolfson 2019; Dorji et al. 2021). Furthermore, the findings of Yada and Savolainen (2017) demonstrate that educators hold negative perceptions of the effectiveness of IE in facilitating optimal learning and social development for students from diverse backgrounds and abilities, largely due to low self-efficacy beliefs and attitudes.

In conclusion, it can be posited that the concepts of feasibility, effectiveness, and legitimacy have been empirically investigated in numerous studies, illuminating teachers’ perspectives on the teaching of students with and without SEN in non-segregated environments. Nevertheless, Bleidick (1985) applied the various methods of interpreting teachers’ attitudes not only to the practice of school inclusion, but also to segregation. In this context, and for the purpose of the current study, the aspects of feasibility, effectiveness, and legitimacy are used to analyze attitudes toward the GLSC in Austria.

Educators’ perspectives on the feasibility, effectiveness, and legitimacy of the GLSC

Regarding the feasibility of GLSC, a recent study conducted by Spiel et al. (2022) found that a significant number of school leaders and teachers expressed the need for further development of the current model of German language support. Participants highlighted certain challenges related to the implementation of organizational strategies, as well as the scarcity of personnel and spatial resources (Spiel et al. 2022). This is in line with the findings by Müller and Schweiger (2022), who point to far-reaching challenges for school administration, including the development of schedules and the provision of appropriate facilities for segregated German language support.

In addition to concerns about feasibility, principals and teachers have expressed their reservations about the effectiveness of GLSC and MIKA-D. On average, the school staff surveyed in the study by Spiel et al. (2022) only partially agreed with the statements that MIKA-D is useful for working in GLSC and for determining the success of language support. In this context, the results of Hassani et al. (submitted) show that principals and teachers have expressed strong doubts about the validity of MIKA-D. Regarding criticism of the effectiveness of GLSC, social exclusion - as with segregated language support measures in other countries - continues to be one of the main issues cited in the literature (see e.g. Svensson and Eastmond 2013; Hos et al. 2019; Steiner 2019). Accordingly, several findings point to far-reaching socio-emotional consequences for students resulting from frequent removal from mainstream classes (Müller and Schweiger 2022; Spiel et al. 2022). Müller and Schweiger (2022) and Spiel et al. (2022) highlight the teachers’ perspective and emphasize concerns about the social exclusion of students and othering. Regarding the effectiveness of GLSC in promoting students’ language development, researchers have raised concerns about creating and maintaining a monolingual school environment that does not address learners’ full linguistic repertoire and limits their overall opportunities to use and learn the LoI (e.g. Gitschthaler et al. 2024). In this context, Liu and Fang (2022) emphasized the importance of challenging fixed and traditional monolingual frameworks (in their context, English only) by offering practical implications for translanguaging. This statement is supported by Carhill-Poza (2017) findings, which confirm that language learning in isolation from other subjects creates barriers to natural language use and practice. In addition, Bushati et al. (2023) showed for Austria that a higher number of reciprocal (i.e. bidirectional) ‘best’ friends is associated with greater learning progress in the LoI. In terms of the academic success of students in segregated language programs, the findings of Collier and Thomas (2017) highlight that monolingual programs are ineffective. In detail, Collier and Thomas (2017) have expressed concerns regarding the efficacy of segregated second language learning settings that do not establish connections to classwork in other subjects, which is also evident in the case of GLSC and GLSCO. In this context, Spiel et al. (2022) have raised a valid concern regarding the academic impact of missed content in mainstream lessons on students enrolled in GLSC. Overall, the results on effectiveness are not surprising, as there are no evidence-based findings to date that underline the positive effects of GLSC on student performance. Furthermore, the low perceived effectiveness of GLSC in promoting students’ academic, socio-emotional, and language development by school staff can be explained by pointing out that no pilot study was conducted before the introduction of GLSC (Erling et al. 2022) and no evidence-based characteristics of ‘good practice’ in language development were considered (see e.g. Collier and Thomas 2017).

Finally, regarding the legitimacy of GLSC, it can be said that it follows the idea that a higher level of participation can be achieved as a result of an ‘inclusion through exclusion’ approach (e.g. Bunar and Juvonen 2022). This approach is predicated on the idea that language learners should initially be placed in segregated environments, where they can obtain fundamental knowledge in the LoI before transitioning to the mainstream educational setting (Hilt 2017; Bunar and Juvonen 2022). Applying the ‘inclusion through exclusion’ justification to the Austrian context, GLSC are legitimized as enhancing opportunities for learning and providing a safe space until students are ready to be included in mainstream classrooms (BMBWF, 2019). Although this can be seen as a normatively desirable objective, it can be assumed that the underlying deficit assumption requires a change in educational requirements rather than an educational provision to eliminate inequities (Rothe 2015).

The current study

The present study endeavours to identify the perspectives of public administration employees regarding the prevailing German language support measures in Austria. For this purpose, qualitative data collected in the course of a project called ‘A multiperspective study on German language support classes’ were used to answer the following research question:

How do public administration employees view the German language support programs in Austrian schools in terms of feasibility, effectiveness, and legitimacy?

Methods

Participants

Nine public administration employees, one from each of Austria’s nine federal states, participated in the current study. To ensure the highest level of confidentiality, the detailed socio-demographic profiles of the study participants are not being disclosed due to the sensitive nature of the subject matter. However, it is worth noting that the participants are extensively involved in planning, managing, implementing, and monitoring educational policy reforms related to language and cultural diversity. This includes providing elementary and secondary schools with the necessary personnel resources to implement the segregated GLSC and GLSCO. Public administrators also provide legal assistance to schools regarding the implementation of language support measures.

Procedure and ethics

Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the Ethics Committee of the University of Vienna (approval number: 00816). Participants were recruited through purposive sampling to improve the rigor and trustworthiness of the study’s data and results (Campbell et al. 2020). The researchers contacted individuals who were considered most likely to provide appropriate and useful information and requested their participation in the study. After the participants had given their written consent to participate in the study, semi-structured interviews according to Flick (2022) were conducted via Zoom by the second author. The interview guide created for this study contained questions on information about the participants, perception of the regional implementation of German support measures, framework conditions for German support measures in the schools, allocation of students classified as ‘irregular’ to the schools and personal opinions on the educational policy approach to multilingualism. The interviews lasted 66.14 minutes on average (minimum: 53.21 min; maximum: 87.23 min).

Data analysis

To ensure the validity of the collected data, primary techniques of quality assurance in qualitative research were applied. This involved keeping the second author, who was responsible for data collection, separate from the analysis process. The analysis was conducted by the first author in collaboration with an independent coder to establish a system of checks and balances and address potential biases efficiently. Additionally, the credibility of the research process was enhanced using peer debriefing. This involved engaging one professional colleague to externally evaluate the research process, including reviewing transcripts, categories, and final themes (Janesick 2015).

During the initial stage of data analysis, a combination of deductive and inductive coding approaches was employed to gain a comprehensive understanding of the data using MAXQDA (Saldaña 2021; VERBI Software 2021). A predetermined coding system based on the underlying conceptual framework of feasibility, effectiveness, and legitimacy was applied (Bleidick 1985). This approach was considered optimal because it allowed for a systematic and structured analysis of the data. At the same time, parallel inductive coding was employed to maintain an open-minded and flexible thought process (Saldaña 2021). This approach enabled the identification of new themes and patterns that may have been overlooked by relying solely on the predetermined coding system. Moreover, by combining both deductive and inductive coding approaches, it was possible to achieve a more nuanced and comprehensive analysis of the data (Braun and Clarke 2022). To ensure inter-coder reliability and foster reflexivity and dialogue within the research team, the two coders performed the coding independently. Coding conflicts were resolved in a feedback loop between the two researchers. At the end of this circular coding process, the coders ended up with a total of 23 themes.

Upon completion of the initial data analysis phase, which involved acquainting themselves with the data and generating deductive and inductive codes, a rigorous approach was adopted by following the prescribed analytical sequence of Braun and Clarke (2022) reflexive thematic analysis. A strict adherence to this analytical procedure was upheld throughout the analysis, ensuring consistency and accuracy in the findings. This process commenced with the identification of major themes from the initial codes, followed by a refinement of the codes based on core themes (Braun et al. 2018; Braun and Clarke 2022). Next, key research topics were assigned appropriate names, or renamed, where necessary. Finally, the research findings were documented based on the steps taken (Braun et al. 2018; Braun and Clarke 2022).

Of the 157 meaning units extracted, 23 inductively and deductively formed categories were identified (see Table 1). 11 codes were deductive and based on Bleidick’s (1985) three aspects of perspectives on inclusive education initiatives, which are feasibility, effectiveness, and legitimacy. These deductive categories were expanded with an additional 12 inductively formed categories that emerged from the data.

Table 1. Overview of themes.

Level 1 codes	Level 2 codes	Level 3 codes	Level 4 codes	Level 5 codes
Feasibility	Classroom composition	Student competences
		Student socioeconomic background
		Student age
	Resources	Personnel	Quantity of personnel	Sufficient number of personnel
				Insufficient number of personnel
			Quality of personnel	Sufficiently trained personnel
				Insufficiently trained personnel
		Premises	Satisfactory premises
			Unsatisfactory premises
Effectiveness	General school progress
	Linguistic development
	Socio-emotional development
Legitimacy	Critical perspectives
	Contradictory perspectives

Results

Perceived feasibility of German language support measures

This overarching theme comprises the statements provided by the participants regarding the present status of the perceived feasibility of the German language support measures in Austria. The subcategories assigned to the overarching theme are listed and described below, supported by exemplary interview excerpts. The study findings reveal that participants hold predominantly negative perceptions regarding the practical application of GLSC and GLSCO. The critical viewpoints largely center around class composition, quantity and quality of school personnel, and spatial resources.

In general, it is apparent that the assertions regarding feasibility are intricately connected to the contextual factors present in the classroom where students receive German language support. The comments provided by seven participants serve to underscore the significance of class heterogeneity in relation to language proficiency, living circumstances, age, and grade level in shaping the perceived practical feasibility and quality of GLSC and GLSCO, as shown in the following quote:

And another problem is that if these German support classes are too heterogeneous, then it is very difficult to support these children and young people. We now have children in the GLSC who have not yet been socialized at school, who cannot yet read and write, not even in their first language. And on the other hand, (…) there are also those who have a school education.

The interview excerpt presented above, along with several others, highlights the perceived issue of diversity within the classroom. Participants noted that student heterogeneity poses a significant challenge for educators. Accordingly, participants report receiving feedback from teachers that the conditions in GLSC and GLSCO are ‘unbearable’ and that it is ‘impossible to cope with all these challenges’, indicating that educators do not feel prepared to teach in linguistically diverse classrooms.

In terms of assessing feasibility, the availability of school resources is considered a crucial factor. As per the study findings, most participants expressed concerns about the availability and competence of staff in GLSC and GLSCO and premises. The public administrators stated that the lack of available teachers for GLSC and GLSCO significantly hinders the feasibility of these measures. However, the participants’ statements about the teachers’ willingness to teach in GLSC and GLSCO varied. For example, participants reported that the ‘willingness of teachers to teach in these classes is rather low’ and that ‘their big goal is always to become a form teacher’. Others noted that young educators, some of whom are still pursuing their studies, tend to favor teaching in GLSC and GLSCO due to the flexibility of working hours that comes with teaching exclusively in these facilities, as opposed to mainstream classrooms. Regarding staff qualifications, six participants expressed that GLSC and GLSCO teachers are not adequately trained to teach German as a second language. Some of them have not even completed their regular teacher training, as shown in the following quote:

These are often lateral entrants, but also student teachers in their 3rd semester (…) who teach in GLSC, which unfortunately usually have more than 20 students, regardless of whether they are in elementary or secondary school. There’s not a lot of expertise from colleagues.

The remaining three public administrators indicated that educators teaching in GLSC and GLSCO for the most part have received prior training in teaching German as a second language before entering these classrooms. To maintain high standards of quality, it was suggested by two of the participants that the teachers in these classes should furnish proof of their qualification in teaching German as a second language.

Concerning premises made available to ensure that physically separate teaching in GLSC and GLSCO can take place, eight respondents reported that the availability of separate rooms for GLSC and GLSCO lessons is limited. Several participants have affirmed that the challenges pertaining to spatial resources are more prevalent in educational institutions situated in urban regions, as the following interview extract illustrates:

Where there are already difficulties, especially in the urban area, are the spatial resources, so if there are now two or three additional GLSC at one location, it is difficult to simply find the premises, because of course the mainstream classes also need their premises.

One of the public administrators who participated in the current study reported that German language support provided in schools is predominantly integrative, regardless of their location in urban or rural regions, due to the small number of multilingual students. Moreover, three interviewees reported that the minimum enrolment threshold for segregated GLSC, which is set at eight students classified as ‘irregular’ (BMBWF, 2019), is often not met in rural regions. Consequently, according to the participants, German language support in these schools is provided during lessons in the mainstream class.

Finally, some participants expressed their views on the availability of teaching materials and curriculum for instruction in GLSC and GLSCO. Two public administrators shared their satisfaction with the teaching materials provided for instruction in GLSC and GLSCO. Their satisfaction was largely attributed to the extensive resources that the ministry offers to support teachers. However, one participant expressed that the available materials are not adequate to meet the needs and requirements of secondary school students and are thus only suitable for younger age groups. Regarding the GLSC and GLSCO curriculum, one interviewee commented favorably, stating that the curriculum allows for innovative and creative exchanges with learners. Two participants noted that it might not be feasible to establish connections between GLSC and GLSCO lessons and the language of education in subject lessons. They stressed that the educational language used in subject lessons can be exceedingly complex, particularly in secondary school settings, posing a significant hurdle to effectively aiding students in their transition from everyday language to educational and subject-specific language. Finally, one participant highlighted that while the GLSC and GLSCO curriculum focuses heavily on promoting language skills among students, it fails to consider aspects of intercultural learning.

Perceived effectiveness of German language support measures

This category pertains to statements that discuss the effectiveness of German language support programs. The focus is mainly on assessing the degree to which GLSC and GLSCO contribute to students’ overall academic progress, linguistic and socio-emotional development, as perceived by public administrators.

Regarding the overall school progress, six respondents shared their views on the matter and expressed significant concerns about the potential loss of academic progress and the aging of the student body associated with attending the GLSC and GLSCO. The following excerpt from the interview accurately summarizes the concerns expressed by the study participants:

For me, it is of great relevance in this area that students are extremely slowed down in their school careers by these regulations and their irregular status and that there are no legal options to enable these children and young people to have meaningful school careers. In other words, all students who do not achieve a sufficient level of German within two years will not pass through the system. This is a particular problem in the transition from elementary school to secondary school.

This quote inevitably expresses a negative perspective on the educational paths of students who attend instruction in GLSC and GLSCO and will no longer be eligible for further support after two years of participation. Additionally, there is concern that students who participate in German language support measures for a maximum of two years may end their school careers early because they have already completed the prescribed nine years of compulsory education before the end of the last year of lower secondary education due to grade retention.

Regarding the perceived effectiveness in terms of language development, four interviewees clearly expressed their dissatisfaction with the German support measures. Specifically, public administrators stated that GLSC and GLSCO are not conducive to children’s language development, as they do not have the opportunity to immerse themselves in the language pool and learn from peer language role models in segregated classes. One participant pointed out that the framework conditions in the Austrian school system were not able to offer ‘the positive language acquisition scenarios that linguistics suggest’. Two participants, however, judged the effects of the German support measures on language development rather positively. Thus, one public administrator called the GLSC and GLSCO ‘a very positive measure for the children and young people’. Another participant expressed confidence in the effectiveness of GLSC and GLSCO for promoting language development in students. They argued that the intensive, segregated, and classroom-parallel language support offered by these programs is backed by scientific research and is particularly beneficial for those who are new to learning a second language. The effectiveness of German language support measures was met with ambiguity by the remaining three participants. They did, however, note that a mere two years of language support is insufficient. Additionally, they highlighted that in schools with a significant number of students whose first language is not German, the immersive language acquisition process, which involves learning from one another, is difficult to achieve.

Six respondents shared their perceptions of the effectiveness of GLSC and GLSCO on students’ socio-emotional development, which reflected a consistently negative picture. In detail, participants expressed concerns regarding the ongoing transition between mainstream classes and parallel German language support lessons, as well as the requirement to remain at a particular school level for up to two years. As per the views expressed by public administrators, regular absenteeism from the mainstream classroom environment results in a restricted sense of affiliation and fewer opportunities to engage in social activities with peers. The gravity of the situation faced by students has been aptly highlighted by a participant’s comment: ‘In secondary school, the children have almost no chance and are lost if there is no teacher who is socially committed to the children’. According to the participant, the absence of such teachers could leave children bereft of opportunities and adrift in their socio-emotional and academic pursuits. Furthermore, according to the interviewees, the mandatory requirement of class retention in case of failure in the MIKA-D screening tool poses a potential risk of social isolation and stigmatization, coupled with the possibility of losing valuable friendships and close connections with the students who pass the MIKA-D, as well as with learners from mainstream classes. Finally, one participant pointed out insufficient resources in the form of additional staff for the psychosocial support of students in GLSC and GLSCO who have fled from war-torn regions and in some cases are severely traumatized.

Perceived legitimacy of German language support measures

This category pertains to statements made by participants that encompass a normative component, thereby assessing the acceptability and desirability of GLSC and GLSCO. During data analysis, two pivotal themes emerged that highlight the critical, yet partly contradictory normative evaluations of the participants with regards to the German language support measures.

The comments provided by five participants suggest the presence of contradictory positions. This was evident in their statements that allude to the subjective legitimacy and significance of GLSC and GLSCO, while simultaneously acknowledging the potential negative consequences for schools and learners. These partly irreconcilable statements, which are expressed in some of the public administrators’ comments, can be illustrated by the following interview excerpt:

I personally am in favor of the GLSC, because it is a legal requirement that children who have deficits in the educational language German are entitled to support. (…) Of course, we know since the evaluation that there is room for improvement, yes. (…) I think it simply corresponds to this control logic of the ministry to prescribe things to the school sites that don’t work (…) And in my opinion that is not really a promising model.

This statement reflects the legal justification for the German language support measures. However, it also highlights the negative implications for educational institutions arising from the strict implementation guidelines and the absence of opportunities for tailored solutions that cater to the students’ diverse needs. Accordingly, the quote reflects that legal justifications can be weakened if the prescribed educational model is ineffective. The remaining four participants consistently positioned themselves as highly critical of the legitimacy of the GLSC and GLSCO. The interviewees expressed their concerns on the lack of empirical evidence supporting the effectiveness of German language support measures and the presumed political motivation behind their implementation. This perceived scarcity considerably diminishes their worthiness of recognition, as expressed in the following statement: ‘The introduction of GLSC was politically motivated. (…) There was a massive outcry from everyone, from teachers to language professors and university staff. That was ignored’. According to the interview excerpt above, the interviewee felt that the legitimization of German support measures should be carried out by experts in the field of education and language. In summary, the results pertaining to perceived legitimacy highlight a mixed set of perceptions on the part of the public administrators who participated in the study. While some of the respondents expressed overtly critical views, others held more ambivalent positions.

Discussion

The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness, feasibility, and legitimacy of the German language support measures that have been implemented in Austrian schools from the perspective of public administration employees. The results serve as a valuable resource for policymakers, educators, and other stakeholders in public administration who are committed to improving the quality of education and linguistic support for students in Austria.

As per the results, aspects related to students, teachers, and schools have an impact on participants’ perceptions of the feasibility and quality of GLSC and GLSCO. Public administrators report that on students’ level, for example, socio-demographic factors such as living conditions, age, language skills, and class level have been observed to influence how participants assess the feasibility of German language support measures. In this context, it should be noted that teachers in Austria are required to cater to the different language requirements, as the legal provisions require the joint teaching of students of all ages and language abilities in a GLSC and GLSCO. Against this background, empirical evidence points to the benefits of adapting teaching methods to student characteristics (Collier and Thomas 2017), such as the inclusion of academic content in language teaching as also discussed by Short (2017). Furthermore, it must be acknowledged that 6-year-old students with no previous school experience compared to 9-year-old students have different academic needs (Alvarez et al. 2023). Finally, two-way dual-language classes have been shown by Collier and Thomas (2017) to be more successful than one-way models, since segregated language learning settings rarely establish connections with other subjects. This issue is evident in the cases of GLSC and GLSCO, and it requires a policy change to offer evidence-based educational programs for students.

At the teacher level, the feasibility and quality of language support in the GLSC and GLSCO as perceived by the participants are primarily influenced by two factors. Firstly, according to the public administration employees, there is a shortage of qualified teachers with the necessary skills, knowledge, and experience to provide high-quality language support to students. This finding emphasizes the need to include the promotion of these competences in the teacher education curriculum (Brisk and Kaveh 2019; de Jong and Gao 2023) to provide students with adequate support. Additionally, it is essential to consider empirical evidence from the field of linguistics, which indicates that the most effective language learning occurs when contextualized through content knowledge and acquired through interactions with educators and peers (Cummins 2015, Short 2017). Additionally, translanguaging approaches that prioritize learners’ linguistic repertoires are also beneficial (Liu and Fang 2022).

Second, the results of the current study indicate that there is a shortage of teachers willing to work in GLSC and GLSCO, making it difficult to fill teaching positions and maintain a stable teaching staff. According to recent national statistics (Statistik Austria 2022), there is a general issue of teacher shortage and teacher overaging in Austria, with nearly 42% of teachers aged 50 and older. The growing imbalance between teachers who are retiring and new teachers who are starting to teach in schools is thus steadily increasing. The statistics also reveal that overaging is more prevalent among teachers who are financed by the federal states. These teachers are primarily found in primary and middle schools, which have the highest percentage of GLSC and GLSCO students (Statistik Austria 2022). This trend, in turn, affects the allocation of teachers in GLSC and GLSCO, as mainstream classes must be staffed first before language support classes are staffed.

Moreover, these issues have a significant impact on the perceived feasibility and quality of language support measures. At the school organizational level, a lack of spatial resources to implement GLSC/GLSCO as proposed in the law was reported by participants, especially in urban regions. The challenges reported in the current study are in line with previous research (Müller and Schweiger 2022; Spiel et al. 2022), which found significant administrative hurdles (timetables, rooms) in implementing GLSC and GLSCO at the school level, as well as a lack of staff and physical resources. Against this background, it is crucial for the successful implementation of language support measures to grant schools greater autonomy so that they can act in accordance with the individual circumstances at their location (Schwab et al. 2023).

Regarding the results on the perceived effectiveness of GLSC and GLSCO, most participants (n = 7) expressed concerns about the success of these measures on students’ academic progress, both in terms of language development and further education, only two participants rated the concept of language support measures as promising. This result is in line with the findings of Spiel et al. (2022), who point to serious disadvantages of attending GLSC and GLSCO and the associated class retention on students’ educational careers. Further empirical studies (Giano et al. 2022; Hughes et al. 2018) in this field have revealed that grade retention, particularly at the elementary level, correlates with a subsequent increase in dropouts in the later stages of a student’s educational trajectory. The presented results are also consistent with previous research on LoI learning in other countries, which have shown that segregated measures are ineffective (Hilt 2017; Bunar and Juvonen 2022). Rather, it has been shown that promoting competences across all subjects is necessary to positively influence students’ educational trajectories (Collier and Thomas 2017). Offering continuous and comprehensive language support to students throughout their educational journey is indispensable for ensuring their mastery of the LoI and promoting academic success (e.g. Erling et al. 2022). Language support models for LoI should therefore ideally begin in preschool and continue until upper secondary school (Collier and Thomas 2017; UNESCO. 2019). Despite evidence indicating the benefits of long-term language support, the current German language support model in Austria only offers two years of support for students. This limited support does not allow students to succeed in their academic careers. With longer and more comprehensive language support, students can improve their language proficiency in the LoI and develop the necessary competences to continue their educational trajectories.

Concerning the last dimension, namely the legitimacy of GLSC and GLSCO, there seems to be disagreement among the participants. More than half of the public administration employees are at least partially both in favor of and against the language support measures. These contradictory statements observed in the present study may be because participants stand between two opposing sides. On the one hand, they are in a professional position which makes it difficult to reject the legal mandate to which they are subject. On the other hand, their professional expertise and cooperation with the schools have led them to form specialized knowledge that contradicts the legal framework. These contradictions illustrate the difficulties faced by education experts, both at the administrative level and in schools, when they try to voice their criticism of certain educational support measures showing that the ethical and moral dimensions (Bleidick 1985) are very complex and hard to conceptualize. Reasons behind it might be that interviewees are afraid of facing disciplinary action if it is suspected that they are not properly implementing the measures. Past research (Saloviita and Consegnati 2019) in IE has shown that school staff legitimizes inclusive approaches based on students’ rights while simultaneously expressing reservations about the feasibility (e.g. Woodcock and Woolfson 2019; Dorji et al. 2021) and effectiveness (Yada and Savolainen 2017). The GLSC and GLSCO were initially introduced by the government as a means to foster the inclusion of multilingual students. However, their legitimacy, effectiveness, and feasibility have since been called into question, with some perceiving them as promoting segregation instead of inclusion (Müller and Schweiger 2022; Spiel et al. 2022; Schwab et al. 2023). Thus, it is imperative to conduct further research to gain a more nuanced understanding of the legitimacy of these measures and the complexity of this issue.

It can be finally summarized that according to the findings of this study, a significant number of public administrators harbor reservations or voice objections concerning the feasibility, effectiveness and legitimacy of GLSC and GLSCO. The interviewees have extensive experience in supporting the implementation of diverse educational policies, and their viewpoints furnish valuable practical perspectives on the presented subject in addition to the scientific recommendations. The results presented therefore underpin the call for a change to the current German language support measures in Austria and provide an additional perspective alongside the views of principals and teachers.

Limitations

While the current study provides valuable perspectives from public administration employees, which have received limited attention in past research on German language support in Austria, it is important to acknowledge certain limitations inherent in any research project. First, it is important to bear in mind that the research conducted did not involve data triangulation, which could have potentially impacted the credibility of the information gathered as the researchers relied on a single data source. Second, the present research project has a methodological structure that resulted in a very small sample size. As such, the results obtained from this study cannot be considered representative. Against this backdrop, it necessary to exercise caution when interpreting these results, as they may not accurately reflect the broader population. Third and finally, it is important to consider that the individuals interviewed for this study lack firsthand experience working in schools and are unable to make frequent visits due to work obligations. As a result, their perspectives may be limited by a certain level of distance from the subject matter.

Conclusion

The objective of the present study was to explore the perceptions of individuals employed in public administration regarding the feasibility, effectiveness, and legitimacy of German language support measures in Austrian schools. This opened a new perspective on the pressing issue of segregation of students based on their level of proficiency in the LoI. The findings of the study indicate that the participants exhibit a tendency to evaluate the aspects of feasibility and effectiveness in a critical manner. However, the outcomes do not provide conclusive evidence with regards to the perceived legitimacy. Overall, the results emphasize the need for prompt policy recommendations based on evidence-based research findings on contextualized language acquisition and targeted support for students. They also highlight the importance of improving teacher training to include language supportive teaching practices and promoting autonomous decision-making processes in schools regarding the implementation of German language support measures. Against this backdrop, the findings of the present study represent a valuable contribution to a paradigm of educational research and practice that recognizes the benefits of multilingualism and aims to promote a more inclusive and dynamic learning environment that reflects the cultural diversity and richness of Austria. Ultimately, this research underscores the significance of promoting language-sensitive teaching as an essential aspect of contemporary educational policy and practice.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

The data is not publicly available as it contains information that could compromise the privacy of research participants.

Additional information

Funding

This research was funded in whole or in part by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) [P 35113].