Insights into students’ experiences of social inclusion and exclusion during attending language pull-out classes

ABSTRACT

A crucial aspect of the discourse of inclusion revolves around the concept of language pull-out classes and their potential to hinder inclusion. This paper addresses this issue by engaging with the voices of the addressees of German language support measures, namely multilingual students. Hence, the experiences of 49 primary school students (27 girls; 22 boys; age = 6–11) enrolled in segregated German language support classes (GLSC) were examined. Therefore, face-to-face interviews were conducted, employing a semi-structured interview guideline. Results indicated that the spatial and social segregation of students has negative effects on their social inclusion on several levels. E.g. it minimises opportunities for students to form stable friendships in mainstream classes. Additionally, findings revealed that students find strategies to cope with their placement in additive language support classes. To feel a sense of belonging students denied the presence of their further languages when interacting with friends or rationalised attending a GLSC as beneficial for them. However, these strategies reflect those inequities.

KEYWORDS:

• Pull-out classes
• language support
• belonging
• social inclusion
• students’ voices

Sustainable Development Goals:

• SDG 4: Quality education

Introduction

Amidst various interpretations of inclusion, a widely shared premise is the concept of education as an essential human right (UNESCO 2017). In this context, inclusive education signifies granting access to educational opportunities, which involves addressing social exclusion rooted in distinctions such as social status, gender, ability, religion, and language (Ainscow 2020). This encompasses the goal of enhancing the involvement of all learners in a school's curriculum, culture, and community (Ainscow, Booth, and Dyson 2006). In addition to structural engagement and formal participation in educational processes, which are pivotal facets of inclusion (Felder 2021), prior research underscores the significance of school relationships, including friendships, and a sense of belonging as crucial elements in providing access to social experiences and mitigating disadvantages (Hassani et al. 2021). The feeling of being included and belonging in interpersonal school interactions constitutes a pivotal aspect of societal inclusion (Felder 2018). Consequently, fostering inclusive practices at the micro-level necessitates active engagement from all participants to nurture an environment devoid of discrimination (Biesta 2019; Rapp and Corral-Granados 2021).

This perspective aligns with existing studies on language support programmes, which propose that when these models are exclusively tailored to a specific group of learners instead of offering equitable assistance to all, they are more likely to perpetuate unequal educational structures within schools (Juvonen et al. 2019). In contrast, the practice of segregating students into distinct learning groups and spaces is often justified as a political strategy to address language barriers in European education. Notably, certain European nations endorse segregation as an initial step towards achieving inclusion for newly arrived students (Norozi 2023; Tajic and Bunar 2023; Terhart and Von Dewitz 2018). Austria, for example, implemented language support models following a pull-out strategy in the academic year 2018/19.

The implementation of German language support classes in Austria

In Austria, around 27% of students in public compulsory schools (in the school year 2020/21) speak a first language¹ other than the language of instruction. This percentage is almost double in Vienna, where it stands at 53% (Statistik Austria 2022). In primary schools, students who do not pass a standardised German language screening called MIKA-D are required to enrol in segregated German language support classes (GLSC), which comprise up to 15 h per week. These students spend only a limited amount of time in mainstream classes (MC) with their peers. Students can attend GLSC for a maximum of two years, during which they do not receive grades in any subject, and they are not permitted to advance to higher grade levels alongside their peers in MC (BMBWF 2019). This model is applied not only to newly arrived students but also to Austrian-born multilingual students who do not pass the MIKA-D screening. The implementation of GLSC, however, varies widely across Vienna. Results from Schwab et al. (2023) indicate significant differences in the degree of spatial exclusion: For example, some schools reduce the number of GLSC hours for individual students or initiate the transition back to MC before the end of the school year. Given that this model is assessed against the backdrop of criteria for effective language support (Erling, Gitschthaler, and Schwab 2022), it has faced substantial criticism from experts and stakeholders (Flubacher 2021; Schwab and Schweiger 2023). Research focused on teachers’ perspectives highlights that the model has a notably adverse impact on students’ social inclusion (Resch, Gitschthaler, and Schwab 2023), underscoring how it contributes to exclusionary and othering processes.

Segregated classes as a risk for social inclusion

The risk of social exclusion through pull-out language learning support has been also discussed within international research (Fandrem et al. 2021; Hos, Murray-Johnson, and Correia 2019). Other studies, however, indicate that high-quality pull-out classes can be experienced as ‘safe spaces’ for newly arrived students, albeit for a brief duration (Terhart and Von Dewitz 2018). However, the assumed protective function of special programmes is often an important motive for legitimising a certain form of exclusion within broader inclusive claims (Felder 2021). Given that inclusion extends beyond mere physical placement in MC (Felder 2018; Nilsson Folke 2016), it raises questions about the extent of participation that students attending GLSC experience within their structurally segregated environment. While the impact of GLSC on children's social inclusion has been explored from the perspective of teachers (Resch, Gitschthaler, and Schwab 2023), there has been limited attention given to the views of students attending GLSC themselves.

Although some studies have been conducted in this area in the Austrian context, findings have proved inconclusive and even contradictory. These studies have unveiled that refugee students report a sense of belonging to school but limited interaction with their peers in MC (Bešić et al. 2020; Woltran et al. submitted). However, the findings of Woltran et al. (submitted) indicate that Ukrainian students who exclusively attend segregated classes tailored for them tend to have more positive relationships with their peers, teachers, and schools. In contrast, refugee students from other countries often described feeling actively excluded by their peers in MC and teachers (Bešić et al. 2020). These differing outcomes may be attributed to three factors: Firstly, Woltran, Hassani, and Schwab (2023) have noted unequal institutional treatment of different newly arrived student groups, such as the provision of bilingual education exclusively for Ukrainian refugee students in Austria. Secondly, there were variations in sample size and age between the two studies. Finally, Bešić et al. (2020) described the overall experiences of refugee students in MC with occasional German language support, while Woltran et al. (submitted) drew data from students in segregated classes. In a similar vein, international literature on language support models and social inclusion primarily focuses on the perspectives of newly arrived students (Harju-Autti, Mäkinen, and Rättyä 2022). Austria's unique situation stands out due to a substantial proportion of students being born and having completed their kindergarten education in Austria (Expert Council for Integration 2022). Within pull-out or push-in language models, the voices of students attending these measures mostly remain overlooked. This paper fills this gap by engaging with the voices for whom the language support courses were designed.

Past research has underscored the link between social inclusion in peer relationships and subjective well-being (Juvonen et al. 2019; OECD 2018; Ziaian et al. 2018). Regarding the use of pull-out classes, research has demonstrated that these measures act as obstacles to intergroup interactions (Juvonen et al. 2019). They also contribute to the fostering of exclusionary and othering dynamics among students (Hilt 2017), as well as having a negative impact on peer affiliations (De Jong, Coulter, and Tsai 2023; Tajic and Bunar 2023). Additionally, it has been found that students’ sense of belonging is diminished in classes where their academic and social needs are not adequately addressed (Ziaian et al. 2018). In this context, criticism has been directed at the composition of pull-out classes for impeding the opportunities for students to learn alongside peers of the same age (Fandrem et al. 2021). Experiences of segregated language classes during primary school have been also discussed in the context of long-term impacts on personal biographies (Diz Muñoz et al. 2023). In addition, the transition to MC after attending a pull-out class has been linked to potential emotional challenges and a sense of disappointment in peer relationships as well as reduced confidence in own academic capabilities (Bunar and Juvonen 2022). Nilsson Folke (2016, 833) expounds on the embodied experience of exclusion: ‘If it is the body that is positioned as different, then it is also in the body that the feelings of exclusion are made themselves known’. Feeling in or out of place may be influenced by interactions with peers and teachers as well as linguistic and social practices within the school setting (De Jong, Coulter, and Tsai 2023). This aligns with the research conducted by Wagner (2021), which suggests that the prevalence of monolingual norms within the educational systems of Germany and Austria, as well as within broader society, exert a considerable influence on the dynamics of inclusion and exclusion. This influence extends to the formation of in-groups and out-groups. Notably, in pull-out classes, these language norms were identified as posing challenges to the development of social relationships, prompting students to express a strong desire to improve their language skills (Harju-Autti, Mäkinen, and Rättyä 2022; Hilt 2017). Excluded from the monolingual networks students may find alternative, but less stable ways² to interact with peers in their further shared languages. In this context, Hilt (2017) elucidates the reciprocal processes of ‘excluding inclusion’. Being vaguely involved in peer actions – e.g. because of spatial separation or lacking shared intentionality – conversely is not sufficient to be claimed included (Felder 2018; Tajic and Bunar 2023). Against this backdrop, it is important to consider the concept of belonging along with other elements of inclusion: structural and social involvement, participation in goods (e.g. friendships), as well its negative side of exclusion (Felder 2021). Referring to a personal perspective on life, belonging encompasses one's needs, desires, and experiences.

Current study

Following on from these discourses, this study provides insight into the experiences³ of students attending GLSC and their sense of belonging and addresses the following research questions:

How do primary students attending GLSC experience social inclusion and exclusion in terms of peer relations?

What does attending GLSC mean for their sense of belonging?

This study approaches these questions from a hitherto rather marginal perspective. By focusing on students’ voices, it can help to understand how attending GLSC affects social relationships. On a larger scale, it can show that educational policies have a direct impact on children's lifeworld.

Research design

In the present investigation, the data was obtained from a comprehensive study concerning German support measures in Austria (‘A multiperspective study on German language support classes – MULTI PERS I’). This study received approval from the Ethical Committee at the University of Vienna. Legal guardians were duly informed about the study, including their right to decline students’ participation without facing any repercussions. When written consent was secured from the legal guardians, the students were individually apprised of their entitlement to abstain from participating in the study or to withdraw from it at any point during the interview.

Data collection

The data collection took place between November and December 2022 at nine elementary schools in Vienna, Austria. Students were asked in which language (Albanian, Arabic, Bosnian, Croatian, Dari, Farsi, German, Polish, Serbian, and Turkish) they would like to be interviewed and were told that switching between German and their further language was possible. One-on-one expert interviews, as outlined by Bogner, Littig, and Menz (2014), were carried out in a face-to-face setting within the school premises. A semi-structured interview guide was created, and translated into various languages, incorporating illustrations related to each topic to enhance question comprehension. All interviews were audio-recorded, subsequently transcribed, anonymised, and translated into German. The duration of the interviews varied, lasting between 30 and 60 min. For this study, the excerpts quoted have been translated into English.

Participants

A total of 49 interviews were conducted with elementary school students (27 girls; 22 boys) attending a mostly segregated GLSC. The age range of the students was 6–11 years, with an average age of 8.5. Based on the students’ responses, 23 of them were born in countries other than Austria, 22 were born in Austria, and 4 did not specify their country of birth. According to school administrators, the majority of them (n = 31) are physically taken out of their MC for German learning purposes for 15 h weekly. Some of them (n = 9) are placed in preschool classes which are listed as GLSC. The rest of the participants (n = 10) attend segregated GLSC for fewer hours than their allotted time of 15 h per week. The results presented in this study relate to the perspectives of the students who officially attend a GLSC and have a so-called ‘irregular’ status⁴ (BMBWF 2019).

Data analysis

All interviews underwent an inductive coding process using MaxQDA (VERBI Software 2021) based on the grounded theory approach (Strauss and Corbin 1994) to systematically explore students’ experiences. The process of data analysis encompassed several stages. It commenced with a thorough review of the raw data, aimed at pinpointing fundamental concepts and recurring patterns through descriptive coding. Subsequently, axial coding was employed to discern linkages between individual codes. This was followed by selective coding, which honed in on pivotal categories and their interrelationships, including aspects like the sense of belonging and peer relations, experiences of inclusion and exclusion within peer relations, and language norms, all situated within the broader context. Throughout this analytical process, team members actively engaged in critical discussions to validate emerging codes, categories, and the preliminary findings of the first author.

Findings

Sense of belonging

Attending a GLSC was experienced as a physical separation from MC by almost all of the students interviewed (S5–S35, S39–S49), except a few students in preschool classes⁵ (S1–S4, S36, S37). ‘Yeah, they take me out of class and then we go up’ (S13, 153–154). The interviews have shown that the participants experienced enrolling in GLSC as a difference to the norm: Some students distinguished between their ‘own’ and the ‘other’ [GLSC] class (S43, 112–114; S19, 113; S47, 42–43). Being in a GLSC meant for some of the interviewees attending a different school or the ‘wrong class’ (S42, 165). ‘When I go there, I have a lot of fun. Besides, school isn’t like here, it’s different’ (S5, 326–328). ‘We go to German class and the others go to the real school’ (S30, 149).

Students occasionally expressed mixed opinions about GLSC, sometimes describing it as a favourable and at other times, a less favourable environment for them (S17). This ambivalent perspective stems from their contemplations on both positive and negative experiences within GLSC, frequently comparing these experiences to their time in MC. Several students expressed a preference for feeling more comfortable in their MC as opposed to GLSC, with or without providing specific reasons (S16, S26, S28, S32, S35, S38, S43, S45, S46).

‘Because it is the class I like the most [MC]’ (S35, 174). ‘Yes, but the two hours [GLSC] I do not like’ (S38, 116). ‘I am sad because I do not want to leave the class [MC]’ (S27, 210–211).

Other students stated that they feel better in MC due to the learning and social conditions and processes (S1, S8, S11, S14, S49). ‘I have more freedom in my own class. I can go outside during the break. There are also things to play with. There's also a ball. My friends are there too, I talk to them’ (S47, 95). Of these, several students expressed feeling neutral, comfortable, or supported in GLSC (S1, S5, S34, S39). Feeling good in GLSC was described as having friends and participating in playing activities: ‘I have friends, I can play’ (S14, 130).

Role of peer-relations

For students’ positive peer relationships were often an important reason to look forward to school (S4, S6, S21, S37, S49). Having fun at school and not feeling alone was linked to good friendships from the student’s perspective (S1, S13, S14, S20, S29, S30, S37, S46). Otherwise, students expressed negative emotions when they lacked friends at school (S4, S8, S9, S28, S39). ‘I: Do you ever feel alone at school? S: Only when I have no friends’ (S4, 106–108).

Additionally, students shared both negative and positive experiences related to friendships in both MC and GLSC. Some differentiated between the number of friendships they had in each class, while others provided qualitative explanations for why they favoured one class over the other. ‘I have three friends in my class [MC] and in another class [GLSC] I have ( … ) two friends (…)’ (S19, 113). Despite the ambiguity about which class this student preferred to be in, there was a distinction between the classes based on friendships made. Positive experiences with GLSC were linked to good emotions of being liked by others: ‘I am very happy that my classmates like me’ (S49, 120). ‘When we sit next to each other and the chocolate is handed out’ (S34, 128–130). Social and situational factors were highlighted as crucial determinants to appreciate GLSC. Consequently, some students expressed their negative experiences with social and situational conditions in GLSC. This includes instances of noisy or disruptive behaviour by other students, which led them to voice their dissatisfaction with the class (S13, S16, S35, S48). From the perspectives of students, these conditions were experienced as challenging socialising processes.

Experiences with social inclusion and exclusion

During interviews, students emphasised the importance of friendships in terms of their perceived emotional well-being in GLSC, noting both similarities and differences compared to MC. If the primary friends were located in MC, students tended to miss them during their time in GLSC and as a consequence, did not like to attend GLSC (S32, S35). Some students conversely preferred to be only in GLSC given that there was hardly any interaction with classmates in MC (S39). In addition, feeling lonely in MC ‘because they [classmates] never come to me’ (S15, 58) was reported in this context. Students found different expressions for experiencing separation from their main friends within MC. For S28, not having the choice to stay with friends, ‘the teacher says I have to go’ (S28, 146), interrupted peer interactions ‘they [students in MC] want me to stay with them’ (S28, 148) and promoted feelings of loneliness or isolation.

Apart from the social makeup of the two classes, students perceived challenges in forming friendships in MC due to the physical separation from peers in these classes. Students emphasised that time was a crucial factor that either facilitated or constrained the development of friendships in MC. The longer stay ‘so many hours’ (S49, 90) in GLSC in comparison to MC was evaluated by some students as positive with more time for socialising with other students in GLSC (S34, S35) and on the other hand as an exclusion factor for making friends in MC (S15, S28, S29, S39). Although S49 (48–62) liked to play with ‘boys and girls’ and rated ‘all the kids’ in her MC as ‘nice’, she wondered why she didn’t play with students in her MC, also pointing out that she had made more friends in GLSC. Having (more or good) friends in GLSC was also for S39 the reason for wishing for more time in GLSC.

Furthermore, due to their lack of a sense of belonging to peers, some students negatively addressed the lack of same-aged (S17) or same-gender peers (S28) in GLSC. ‘There are not so many boys in the German class. There was one with whom I got along well, but he's gone now, too’ (S47, 163). Some students criticised the lack of perceived social participation in peer activities after attending a GLSC. Experiences of social exclusion led to negative feelings within GLSC (S17) or MC (S49), or with the school itself (S17). ‘I then feel very bad. I didn't want to go to the German course at that time. (…) Because these children [of MC] treat me very badly all the time’ (S8, 372–384). Later in the interview, S8 said that he had a predominantly negative relationship with school and preferred to stay at home as he often felt lonely. Meanwhile, some other students felt excluded from participating in activities with their peers in MC due to their attendance in GLSC. This perception was addressed to the reluctance to access play activities. ‘So, they [students of MC] don't give them so many things when they play’ (S20, 161). Experiences of being laughed at or blamed by peers in MC were reported too:

‘But with me though, the German class [is] not very good, because I want to stay in 1c [MC], because the kids laugh at me because I always go’ (S17, 211). ‘If something happened, the children blamed me’ (S47, 183).

The perception of not being able to master the language of instruction and communication was seen as limiting the ability to interact with friends or speak out against the assignment of blame.

Experiences with language norms

For some interviewees, the ability to speak German determined access to the peer group (S2, S9, S12, S13, S15, S17, S19, S38, S47). ‘I: Is it easy for you to make friends? S: Not really, because I don't know German’ (S47, 160–161). The degree of liking one another was also linked to the fit to or distinction from a linguistically homogenous group: ‘S: They don't like me and I don't like them. I: Why do you think they don't like you? S: Because I don't know the language’ (S47, 123–125). For some interviewees, the challenge to sufficiently master the language of instruction was explicitly cited as a barrier to forming friendships. One student recounted her experience of feeling embarrassed by her peers because they perceived her German skills as inadequate, although in their eyes she was at an age where this should not be a problem: ‘Because you don't speak German very well but now I'm grown up and eight years [old]’ (S17, 213).

Others reported the risk of social exclusion from the peer group more implicitly by naming their practices to avoid it ‘I am hiding because I don't want them to hear my Turkish language’ (S9, 136). To avoid attracting the attention of classmates or teachers, some students used their further languages within peer groups only ‘quiet and secret’ (S38, 385) or during outdoor activities (S9). Avoiding multilingual practices when interacting with peers was seen by some of the students as being important for participation. ‘I am not speaking wrong, I am speaking [German]’ (S11, 138–139). Thus, in the participants’ reports, language functioned as a mediator of rapprochement (S23, S14) or othering processes between peers (S2, S12). The latter was seen as separating and sometimes saddening them (S15, S47). ‘We are not allowed to speak Arabic with each other because she ((points to a friend)) doesn’t know Arabic’ (S13, 126–127).

Based on their experiences, students interpreted which languages were (not) intelligible in interactions with their peers and drew normative conclusions about each other. One student reported that they collectively dislike Serbian, ‘We do not like Serbian’ (S37, 250–251), despite personally speaking Serbian as a further language. Furthermore, some students believed that peers perceived by each other as German learners would not understand anything (S19, S34). ‘These two know Arabic but no German and they understand nothing’ (S34, 77).

Categories such as language or nationality were used as difference markers in the conversations with students when discussing friendships.⁶ The interviews revealed that national and linguistic classifications of peers primarily occurred when they were perceived as deviating from the norm [Austrian and German] (S2, S14, S19, S26, S28, S34, S47, S48, S49).

‘Yes, and there is an Arab who also goes there [GLSC]’ (S28, 130). When reporting about their friendships in school, participating students also mentioned social affiliations based on perceived nationality. They indicated forming bonds with classmates from Ukraine, Arab countries, or Turkey in both GLSC and MC (S28, S30, S47, S48). Conflicts with peers were also linked to perceived nationality and language and were seen as important factors in the social distance between these groups. ‘Because I don’t like Iranians. They used to beat me every day’ (S47, 183). ‘Yes, one annoys me. He also laughs a lot. But he speaks Turkish’ (S19, 160).

Experiences with class retention

The phenomenon of repeating a class was something students could relate to on both an experience and emotional level. Students who hadn't personally gone through the process of repeating a class could still envision how this would impact them and their friendships. They mostly associated retention with the loss of friendships and expressed fears about it:

‘I have no friends in class, there is only #Eda#, but I would miss her, I say hello every day when I get to school’ (S11, 209). ‘My friends told me they were going to a different class, and then I was sad. In the end, the teacher told me that they weren't going and I was happy’ (S39, 226).

Students referred negatively to personal or others’ experiences about class retention. They associated it with the loss of peers and rationalised it with reduced confidence in their capabilities ‘because we don’t speak German and can’t do anything’ (S34, 167; S19, S35). While certain students who repeated a grade either with their existing friends or formed new friendships afterward generally didn’t report negative emotions (S21, S24, S25). However, many participants tended to link grade retention with losing friends, which often led to feelings of sadness or fear (S8, S18, S20, S22, S23, S44).

Students articulated the difficulties they encountered when facing grade repetition, particularly when they perceived themselves as being older than their peers (S17, S47). They often experienced feelings of failure and exclusion in the MC and struggled to establish new friendships in their new class. Among them, many reported missing their peers and recounted their or their friends’ efforts to meet again: ‘When they walk by here, they wave at me’ (S23, 119; S8, S20). Meeting again for some of them was only possible in the GLSC:

‘We played together and started loving each other very much and became friends last year, after the holidays we always went to the garden together or did something together and now I’m in 1D (…) now we don’t see each other except in the GLSC’ (S34, 175).

Hence, S34’s sole reason for attending GLSC was to be with her best friend, who had also repeated a grade but in a different class. She felt she couldn't ‘substitute’ her friend with another (S34). Alongside grade retention, some students found themselves placed in a preschool class due to inadequate results on the MIKA-D test. Being assigned to a preschool class after being in a first-grade class was also often associated with losing friends and sadness (S4, S5). Some of the interviewees reported hardly liking their new classmates as friends (S10). ‘Yes, and there are friends whose names I forgot because I don't see them’ (S3, 151). Also missing friends ‘who speak Arabic’ (S4, 145–146) was experienced as a ‘sad thing’ (S4, 143) in this context.

Discussion

This study explored how social inclusion and exclusion affect primary school students attending GLSC within their peer relationships and how this influences their sense of belonging. Consistent with prior research (Bešić et al. 2020; Woltran et al. submitted), the study shows that prolonged physical and social separation during school time significantly hinders students’ ability to form stable friendships in MC. Consequently, this has adverse consequences on their overall social inclusion (Juvonen et al. 2019) and their overall sense of belonging (Tajic and Bunar 2023). Being structurally excluded by virtue of attending a segregated class, a situation experienced physically by nearly all students unless they were enrolled in a preschool that functioned as a GLSC, led some students to feel that they were placed in a different or even inappropriate class. Others expressed their feelings of being out of place more implicitly through their lived experiences and negative emotions within their learning environment. It's worth noting that not all students explicitly identified or acknowledged their disadvantaged position, possibly because they have developed unique strategies to cope with it. For instance, some students denied the presence of their further languages when interacting with friends, while others rationalised attending a GLSC as beneficial for them. However, the institutional separation of students into different learning groups based on their German proficiency often led to an emotional divide between students in MC and GLSC. Considering students’ experiences and the importance they place on friendships for their emotional well-being (Ziaian et al. 2018), attending GLSC was seen as a challenge for forming and maintaining peer connections on multiple levels. It was perceived as hindering or limiting interaction with students in MC, it was linked to judgments of their German proficiency or personal failure, and it was associated with the risk and reality of repeating a grade and losing friends.

Further, the concept of belonging is constructed through linguistic practices within schools (De Jong, Coulter, and Tsai 2023), as evident in the data: Some interviews revealed how Austria's monolingual approach to education (Wagner 2021) manifests a ‘monolingual habitus’ (Gogolin 2021) in the students interviewed. In between language norms practiced by schools, teachers, and others, many students experienced a requirement to adapt to a monolingual habitus in which their multilingualism was rarely seen as a potential. Fitting to the mainstream was articulated through various assimilative efforts by the children, e.g. by hiding their further languages or subordinating them, or degrading multilingual students as being unable to comprehend anything. Based on the data, these dynamics resulted in feelings of isolation in peer interactions, a sentiment expressed and criticised by almost all children. This stems from their strong desire to overcome language barriers so they can connect with their friends as also demonstrated in past research (Harju-Autti, Mäkinen, and Rättyä 2022). The practices outlined above appear to perpetuate unequal power dynamics (Rapp and Corral-Granados 2021) within peer relationships (De Jong, Coulter, and Tsai 2023). Students who were categorised as unable to engage in peer interaction due to their language skills faced discrimination from their peers in MC and from their multilingual peers. Consequently, some students felt a stronger connection to peers who shared the same language and nationality. These attributions relevant to the school context were used to create insiders and outsiders.

These social processes on the micro-level must be seen as one part of the big picture, how segregated classes nurture marginalisation and othering processes among peers (Hilt 2017; Resch, Gitschthaler, and Schwab 2023). Embracing these norms and values presents challenges not only in terms of habitus but also from a linguistic standpoint concerning language acquisition (Erling, Gitschthaler, and Schwab 2022). In addition to these observations, some interviews revealed that students criticised the consequences of receiving negative results on the MIKA-D test, which often led to grade retention. These experiences should be examined in the context of impeding social inclusion and jeopardising emotional well-being. This implies that students who are mandated to participate in GLSC are systematically disadvantaged within the educational system, with enduring implications (Wallace, Wilson, and Darlington-Pollock 2022). This is especially relevant given that this measure only applies to those who have a first language other than the language of instruction.

Furthermore, the findings underscore that grade retention and the (re-)integration of students into MC following their transition from GLSC may give rise to additional issues concerning students’ social inclusion and emotional well-being, as also indicated in the existing literature (Bunar and Juvonen 2022; Diz Muñoz et al. 2023; Nilsson Folke 2016). The findings emphasise multi-layered exclusion processes prone to perpetuating educational inequalities (Juvonen et al. 2019). Children who have to attend segregated GLSC, experience disadvantages that go beyond the curriculum. This separation from the MC also hinders their active participation in the culture and community of the MC and the school as a whole. It seems that these classes are not safe but hindering places for peer relations.

Limitation

While some students actively engaged in discussing their time in GLSC, evaluating it, and drawing comparisons with their experiences in MC, others either spoke sparingly or did not comment on it at all. This phenomenon can likely be attributed to variations in the ages of the participants, with older children offering more nuanced and detailed accounts of their experiences, while younger ones tended to provide brief, positive responses regarding their school experiences. This observation aligns with Svensson and Eastmond (2013), who noted that older students are more open and detailed in sharing their challenges and reflections on peer experiences. When engaging with students’ voices, it's important to acknowledge that capturing the complete picture isn't always straightforward. Especially at the elementary school age, students may not readily associate their participation in GLSC with long-term consequences for their educational paths. Therefore, discussions about these consequences may need to take place at different levels. Furthermore, the data presented in this study may be incomplete due to language barriers. Some interviews were conducted in German, and students may not have had the opportunity to express everything they wanted to convey. Additionally, it's worth noting that not all children could be interviewed because the team could not serve the numerous languages represented in the schools. It's possible that children who were not interviewed may have had additional or different experiences, such as varying encounters with racism. It is crucial to emphasise that the perspectives and experiences referred to cannot be understood in isolation from contextual factors. These factors include institutional settings and organisational structures that shape the normative framework of everyday school life, influencing and anchoring students’ actions and orientations within the social environment of the school.

Disclosure statement

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

Additional information

Funding

This study was funded by the by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF; project number P35113); Grant number 10.55776/P35113.

Notes on contributors

Nazime Öztürk

Nazime Öztürk is a doctoral researcher at the Centre for Teacher Education at the University of Vienna. Her research focuses on inclusive education, social and academic participation, and policy implementations in educational systems.

Sepideh Hassani

Sepideh Hassani is a postdoctoral researcher at the Department of Education at the University of Vienna in Austria. Her research focuses on inclusive education and anti-discrimination.

Susanne Schwab

Susanne Schwab is a Full Professor at the Centre for Teacher Education at the University of Vienna, Austria. She also holds the position of an Extraordinary Professor in the Optentia Research Focus Area at North-West University, South Africa. Her research specifically focusses on inclusive education, as well as teacher education and training.

Notes

1 It is crucial to acknowledge that in practical terms, the designation of a first language can encompass more than a singular language. The concept of second language ‘risks reducing bilingual students to second-class language users and citizens’ (Wei and García 2022, 319).

2 In relation to the dominant language norms and practices.

3 Experiences are understood in a phenomenological sense as a specific way to interact with the world (Agostini and Peterlini 2022). Hence, they are situated – as they are embedded in the dynamic social context, embodied –as they affect emotions –, interpersonal – as they are related to others (Nilsson Folke 2016).

4 Officially the Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Research divides between ‘regular’ and ‘irregular’ students. This distinction determines the type of access to public schools and is anchored in the Austrian School Education Act (SCHUG § 4).

5 Some schools run GLSC as preschool classes, which is why not all students shared the experience of physically leaving the class for language acquisition.

6 These linguistic or national classifications were expressed independently of the interview guideline or the questions posed.