Language Education for Everyone? Busting Access Myths

This is a self-archived version of an original article. This version may differ from the original in pagination and typographic details. Author(s): Title: Year: Version: Copyright: Rights: Rights url: Please cite the original version: CC BY 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Language Education for Everyone? Busting Access Myths © The Author(s) 2023 Published version Ennser-Kananen, Johanna; Kilpeläinen, Erja; Saarinen, Taina; Vaarala, Heidi Ennser-Kananen, J., Kilpeläinen, E., Saarinen, T., & Vaarala, H. (2023). Language Education for Everyone? Busting Access Myths. In M. Thrupp, P. Seppänen, J. Kauko, & S. Kosunen (Eds.), Finland’s Famous Education System : Unvarnished Insights into Finnish Schooling (pp. 351-367). Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-8241-5_22 2023 Chapter 22 Language Education for Everyone? Busting Access Myths Johanna Ennser-Kananen, Erja Kilpeläinen, Taina Saarinen, and Heidi Vaarala Abstract Finland has, rather successfully, promoted an image of itself as a model of educational excellence and linguistic equity. This chapter problematises this image by analysing Finnish language education policies at the comprehensive school level. For our analysis we use a three-fold understanding of access as; (a) having the opportunity to participate in language education (getting in); (b) participating in education that is meaningful and effective for the pupil (getting it); and (c) receiving credentials that are societally legitimate and valuable assets (getting out). We elaborate on each aspect of access by debunking three myths for the Finnish context that: (a) Multilingualism is politically valued; (b) the curriculum promotes multilingual education; and (c) the education system offers equal opportunities to all, regardless of language. We conclude with a mixed picture. While initiatives have been put in place to expand participation in language learning and develop multilingual pedagogies, the societal status of national languages and constitutional bilingualism have also, somewhat paradoxically, strengthened monolingual ideologies. Such ideologies have contributed to the erasure of I ndigenous and autochthonous languages from education and minimise the position of allochthonous (migrant) languages in curriculum and education. We propose several reforms in teacher education and a more systematic, long term, national supervision of (language) education policy in the service of equitable multilingual education. J. Ennser-Kananen (B) Department of Language and Communication Studies, University of Jyväskylä, PL 35, 40012 Jyväskylä, Finland e-mail: johanna.f.ennser[email protected] E. Kilpeläinen Centre for Applied Language Studies, University of Jyväskylä, 40014 Jyväskylä, Finland e-mail: [email protected] T. Saarinen Finnish Institute for Educational Research, University of Jyväskylä, P.O. Box 35, 40014 Jyväskylä, Finland e-mail: [email protected] H. Vaarala Centre for Applied Language Studies, University of Jyväskylä, 40014 Jyväskylä, Finland e-mail: heidi.v[email protected] © The Author(s) 2023 M. Thrupp et al. (eds.), Finland’s Famous Education System, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-8241-5_22 351 352 J. Ennser-Kananen et al. This chapter analyses Finnish language education policies at comprehensive schools through an access framework. Constitutionally bilingual, Finland is commonly perceived as a model of educational excellence, language equity, and language education policy.1 While this image has been promoted and commodified,2 it has also been criticised.3 In this chapter, we focus on debunking myths of access to education from a language perspective. All pupils must learn both Finnish and Swedish in Finnish comprehensive schools. This, combined with one so-called “foreign”4 language makes Finland formally fulfil the recommendation of “mother tongue plus two” of the Barcelona European Council in 2002,5 i.e., that students should know two languages in addition to their first one. However, both the recommendation itself and Finland’s fulfilment of it are problematic. “Mother tongue plus two” normalises the notion of having one first language as well as an understanding of multilingualism as simply accumulating languages as distinct and separate units. Fulfilling the recommendation also perpetuates a view of the national languages as the only important languages, which, in turn, lowers political motivation to invest in multilingual education. Since the two additional (“plus two”) languages are commonly identified as Finnish/Swedish and English, many pupils’ heritage and other minoritised languages remain marginalised.6 Relatedly, language education is unequally available across Finland (with fewer opportunities in rural areas) and participation in language education is stratified according to socio-economic background and gender.7 In this chapter, we analyse access to language education against larger education and language policy trends. We operationalise “access” as the opportunity to participate in language education (getting in), participating in education that is meaningful and effective (getting it), and receiving credentials that are societally legitimate and valuable assets (getting out).8 This approach enables us to identify and understand inequities throughout the process of language education, rather than limiting our focus to the “getting in” phase. We debunk three myths of Finnish (language) education, one related to each dimension of access: 1. Myth 1 (getting in): Multilingualism is valued in Finnish language education policy. 2. Myth 2 (getting it): The Finnish curriculum and schools promote multilingual education. 3. Myth 3 (getting out): The education system offers equal possibilities t o all learners, regardless of their first languages. We discuss the first myth in the context of foreign language and heritage language education. While the Finnish National Core Curriculum for Basic Education9 has educational and social equity and equality as one of its core values and multilingualism is politically valued, access to less commonly taught languages and heritage languages varies greatly across municipalities and between demographic groups. We approach the second myth by problematising the fact that while the national core curriculum is quite forward-looking in promoting language awareness and multiple 22 Language Education for Everyone? Busting Access Myths 353 language use i n schools, it remains surprisingly vague about multilingual pedagogies.10 Regarding the third myth, we argue that the Finnish education system does not offer the same opportunities to first and second language users of national languages. All these myths are discussed against the goal of educational equity. Recycling Ideologies and discourses—A Historical Overview Finland is commonly idealised as a bilingual country.11 This bilingualism is, however, institutional rather than individual in nature, as it is based on the idea of separate parallel Finnish and Swedish language institutions rather than bilingual institutions or individuals.12 In addition to the two national languages, Sámi languages, sign languages, and Romani are mentioned in the constitution, albeit in the context of Indigenous (Sámi), disability (sign languages) and cultural (Romani) rights and values, rather than linguistic ones. While the constitution does not recognise minority languages, they, together with Karelian, have received recognition as minority languages based on The European Charter f or Regional or Minority Languages (ECRML).13 The comprehensive school reform that was debated in the 1960s and gradually implemented from 1972 on, brought all students together under one educational system in order to increase equal educational opportunities. In the reform, compulsory teaching of both national languages was extended to all students in the cohort. According to the Basic Education Act, teaching is organised in two separate strands based on the two national languages (Basic Education Act 628/1998), following the constitutional principle of parallel language institutions. The role of the second national language (Swedish for most pupils) has been controversial ever since, with Swedish occupying a complex role as hegemonic national language, compulsory school subject, and de facto minoritised language.14. The language education policies of the 2000s tend to focus on the availability of “foreign” languages (e.g., English, German, French, and Russian) on the one hand and the teaching of second language and heritage languages to migrant background students on the other. The position of autochthonous minority languages, particularly Sámi, Romani and Karelian, remains vulnerable, with little support and low status within mainstream education, apart from Sámi languages in the Sámi homeland, an administrative area in the very north of Finland with some autonomy in Sámi matters.15 This is illustrative of the historical erasure of minoritised languages in education.16 According to the Basic Education Act from 1998, the language of instruction at school and the language of the “mother tongue and literature” subject is either Finnish, Swedish or a Sámi language, but, based on guardians’ choice, also “Romani, sign language, or pupil’s other mother tongue” may be taught “as mother tongue” (§12). Unfortunately, municipalities are not required to offer heritage language teaching, nor is studying heritage languages compulsory. Municipalities can, however, apply 354 J. Ennser-Kananen et al. for funding from the National Agency for Education to organise heritage language programs.17 Language education is thoroughly linked to the historically recycled language ideologies of the relative value of different languages. Societally, emergent new nationalist and populist politics manifest as concern for (a) national language(s), putting pressure particularly on the areas of language education that are associated with learners who are perceived as “foreign”. These developments reproduce a hegemony of national languages and the marginalisation of minoritised (allochthonous and autochthonous) languages.18 Language Education in Finnish Comprehensive School Finnish comprehensive school is divided into primary education (Grades 1–6) and secondary education (Grades 7–9). Finnish and Swedish speaking pupils take a subject called “mother tongue and literature” throughout their school careers. The second national language, Swedish for most pupils, starts in 6th Grade as a compulsory subject. However, Swedish-speaking students usually start learning the second national language, Finnish, earlier than this.19 While there are no statistics of Finnish-Swedish bilingualism, there is some evidence that Swedish speakers as a minority (5.9% of population) tend to be more Swedish-Finnish bilingual than Finnish speakers and to choose Finnish as their first compulsory language. According to Statistics Finland,20 in 2019, 5.7% of pupils in Grades 1–6 took Finnish as their first compulsory language whereas most pupils chose English. The narrow spectrum of languages learned at school (mostly English and Swedish) has been cause for concern since the 1990s. According to the official statistics, in 2019, 83% of pupils in Grades 1–6 and 99.5% of pupils in Grade 7–9 studied English.21 One effort to alleviate this problem was a 2020 policy change, which required pupils to begin to learn their first “foreign” language in Grade 1 (rather than Grade 3, as before). As the 309 municipalities are under no obligation to offer more than one language, and because resources are (perceived to be) scarce and demand for variety from parents and guardians is limited, municipalities offer mostly English as the first “foreign” language.22 As a result, for an overwhelming majority, English remains the first “foreign” language, even though English itself is not a compulsory subject.23 In 2019, around 48,000 pupils spoke some language other than Finnish, Swedish or Sámi as their first language.24 These pupils are taught Finnish or Swedish as a second language. Additionally, they can be offered heritage language teaching. In 2019, approximately 44% of the pupils entitled to heritage language teaching participated in it.25 According to The Finnish National Agency for Education,26 in autumn 2019 there were 89 education providers who organised heritage language teaching in 57 languages, and 21,215 pupils participating in i t in comprehensive education and at senior high school level. The language groups with most learners were Russian (5745 pupils), Arabic (3095 pupils) and Somali (2261 pupils).27 Because most speakers of 22 Language Education for Everyone? Busting Access Myths 355 these “other” languages live in the urban centres, linguistic diversity in smaller rural municipalities receives less attention, meaning less language learning support and opportunities for pupils.28 Access is More Than “Getting in” Traditionally, access to educational opportunities, more specifically language education, has been understood as the possibility to participate in educational programs. However, opportunities to develop useful and socially valued language skills not only hinge on the existence or availability of a language program, but on a complex multitude of factors, including socially just language education as a linguistic and educational (human) right,29 education as participation,30 and dis/investment in education,31 all of which has influenced our three-fold approach to access.32 In addition to continuous access to education—what we call getting in—our concept of access includes also the enabling of education and learning (getting it), and the value of education—what we call getting out. The following sample questions are associated with these three dimensions of access: (Table 22.1) This frame challenges and expands a narrow view of access as “getting in” and enables us to examine potential obstacles and opportunities for language education in more thorough and nuanced ways. Table 22.1 The three dimensions of access to educational opportunities Getting in Access to education Who is expected/allowed to participate? What prerequisites exist, infrastructural obstacles and opportunities exist? Getting it Enabling of education and learning How is quality of teaching ensured? What education, networks, support, opportunity for professional development do teachers have? What pedagogical principles or curricular incentives and guidelines guide them? What materials are available and used? How is the course/program organised? Getting out Value of education What credentials do learners receive at course completion? How likely are they to complete the program? What is assessed, how, and by whom? What doors do they open/close? 356 J. Ennser-Kananen et al. Debunking Myths of Language Education Debunking Myth 1: Multilingualism is Valued in Language Education Policy At the level of national politics, multilingualism and teaching of multiple languages is celebrated and promoted in Finland.33 Nevertheless the steady decrease i n language learning, both in terms of numbers of learners and the languages learned, has led to concerns about Finnish language education. As a counter-reaction, the Ministry of Education and Culture and the Finnish National Agency for Education have funded national projects in the 1990s and early 2000s which focused particularly on world languages or “foreign languages”,34 and on early language learning, second language and heritage language learning in the 2010s.35 Despite this national attention to multilingualism, important goals of linguistic equity have not been achieved. In analysing getting in, we give examples from access to optional languages on the one hand, and heritage languages on the other. We also recognise that this is only part of the picture: pupils from different areas and socioeconomic backgrounds still lack access to language education in several intersecting ways. Laws, statutes and policies, such as the national core curriculum, steer language education policy and its implementation both nationally and locally. Decentralisation of education policy since the 1980s and 1990s means that municipalities have a lot of power in organising education, including the language programs they offer. However, while statistics exist on what languages pupils choose, there is no reliable data on what languages the municipalities offer.36 It is also important to note that municipal decisions are heavily influenced by demographic changes (for example migration from rural to urban areas and consequent closings of schools, and different migration flows into municipalities) and their economic situations (e.g., changes in funding structures and austerity measures since economic recessions in the 1990s and 2000s). Additionally, differences between bigger and smaller municipalities are increasing. Whereas bigger cities and municipalities may be able to offer varied language programs, offerings in smaller municipalities may be restricted to Swedish and English.37 In all, pupils’ choices and opportunities are not merely dependent on their individual wishes, but rather the r esult of a complex interplay of language ideologies, educational policies, municipal politics, and national regulations. Municipalities have not been required to offer optional foreign languages in secondary schools since 1994. Participation in optional language learning decreased drastically after this time, leading to counter-initiatives in the aftermath of Finland joining the European Union. Even if municipalities do offer optional language programs, they may s et the required group size relatively high, which leads to the groups not being filled and formed38 and, ultimately, programs being cancelled because of “low demand”. While language education initiatives have brought up numbers temporarily, these efforts have not been sustained and participation tends to dip as projects end and funding is exhausted.39 22 Language Education for Everyone? Busting Access Myths 357 Another factor impacting access to language education is families’ social, cultural and economic background,40 as language choice (either that of the compulsory first language or a later optional language) may operate as one distinguishing factor in school choice.41 According to Kangasvieri and others,42 the younger the language learner, the more their guardians’ attitudes and wishes affect language choices. This has spill-over effects later, as parents’ educational strategies affect school selection on a long-term basis at the secondary level as well. Consequently, whether intentional or not, language choices are mechanisms of social distinction, as particularly families from middle or upper classes exercise these options.43 Heritage language education is commonly linked to Finland’s official immigration policies, which state, in line with the constitution, that migrants have a right to maintain their languages and cultures, which have “great value in t heir integration to the Finnish society as well as in enriching the Finnish culture”.44 However, heritage language teaching is defined as complementary education, when the goal and contents of heritage language teaching are described in the appendix of the national core curriculum. Interestingly, although in the Finnish constitution and other national and international regulation, autochthonous languages such as Sámi, Romani, Karelian, Tatar or Yiddisch have different status from migrants’ heritage languages, in the national core curriculum their status is similar to “other” languages (with the exception of Sámi in the Sámi homeland), illustrating the relatively poor position of Indigenous and autochthonous languages in language education policy and reinscribing the difference between “national” languages (Finnish and Swedish) and “other” languages. In the heritage language context, systematic support for teacher education is largely non-existent. The circumstances under which heritage language education operates, adds to its marginal status: formal criteria for heritage language teacher education does not exist, and lack of certification means that teachers do not receive permanent positions in the school system and receive lower pay. Instruction typically takes place for two hours per week after regular school hours and, for many pupils, outside their school campus. Groups are usually heterogeneous in terms of age and language level, which adds to the complexity of the teaching situation. While multilingualism is presented as a valued goal in language education policy, existing practices paint a different picture. Historically, promoting access to language education has been operationalised as increasing participation in “foreign language” teaching, and, in recent years, support for second language learning. While heritage language learning has been celebrated as if it were valued,45 this has not been followed-up with sustained political action. The overall impression that supports for multilingualism is, in effect, short-term promotion of world (i.e., white European) languages. When education policies are systematically decentralised, deregulated, and conducted based on individual choice and local decision making, they tend to benefit those who already have a head-start in the education system. 358 J. Ennser-Kananen et al. Debunking Myth 2: Finnish Curriculum and Schools Promote Multilingual Education In the national core curriculum, the presence and use of multiple languages at school is explicitly encouraged in the name of appreciation of linguistic and cultural diversity.46 In the document, this is even defined as one of the main objectives of basic education: The objective is to guide the pupils to appreciate different languages and cultures and to promote bilingualism and plurilingualism, thus reinforcing t he pupils’ linguistic awareness and metalinguistic skills. (National core curriculum/NCC, Sect. 9.4) The national core curriculum ties the importance of recognising linguistic and cultural diversity to language rights and identities: The pupil’s cultural background and linguistic capabilities are taken into account in basic education. Each pupil’s linguistic and cultural identity is supported in a versatile manner. The pupils are guided to know about, understand and respect each citizen’s right to their own language and culture protected under the Constitution. (Sect. 9) What is noteworthy is that this approach is not limited to pupils’ use of multiple languages but extended to teachers: School work may include multilingual teaching situations where the teachers and pupils use all languages they know. (Sect. 9.4) Although there is a general sense of promoting and valuing linguistic and cultural diversity, concrete multilingual approaches, such as translanguaging pedagogies, are not mentioned in the national core curriculum. In fact, when the use of multiple languages is discussed, the wording of the curriculum seems to reflect an understanding of languages as individual units that should be kept separate: The basic principle of language instruction at school is using the language in different situations. It strengthens the pupils’ language awareness and parallel use of different languages as well as the development of multiliteracy. (Sect. 13.4.1) The Finnish word used to describe multiple language use at school is rinnakkain, usually translated as parallel. This echoes the institutional bilingualism where national languages, constitutionally defined as Swedish and Finnish, but also other minoritised languages like Finnish Sign language (FSL), Finland-Swedish Sign Language (FSSL), Sámi languages, and Romani, have the right to co-exist, but are limited to a “parallel” life, where t hey do not interact (or interfere) with each other.47 Seen against this backdrop, it is quite possible that the national linguistic parallelism permeates the level of school language policies to a degree that restricts recommendations of (and thus opportunities for) truly multilingual pedagogies, in the sense of dynamic multilingualism or translanguaging. In other words, while the national core curriculum is well-intentioned in its goal to promote cultural and linguistic diversity, exchange, and understanding, it fails to shed an ideology of parallel monolingualisms—or, as Cummins48 has called it, a “two-solitude assumption”. Ironically, 22 Language Education for Everyone? Busting Access Myths 365 29. Hawkins, M. R. ed. 2011. Social justice language teacher education, vol. 84. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 30. Norton, B. 2001. Non-participation, imagined communities and the language classroom. Learner Contributions to Language Learning: New Directions in Research 6(2): 159–171. 31. Ahn, S–H., and M. W. Lee. 2017. "Sleeping beauties” in English classrooms: The English divestment of Korean high school students. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics 17(3): 547–579. 32. Kyckling et al., op. cit. 33. Nikula, T., T. Saarinen, S. Pöyhönen, and T. Kangasvieri. 2012. Linguistic diversity as a problem and a resource–multilingualism in European and Finnish policy documents. In Dangerous multilingualism. Northern perspectives on order, purity and normality,eds.J. Blommaert, S. Leppänen, P. Pahta, and T. Räisänen, 41–66. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 34. Pyykkö op. cit. 35. Tainio et al., op. cit. 36. Kangasvieri et al., op. cit. 37. Pyykkö op. cit. 38. Pyykkö op. cit, pp. 27–31. 39. Kangasvieri et al., op. cit.; Pyykkö op. cit. 40. Kosunen op cit. 41. Kosunen, S., V. Bernelius, P. Seppänen, and M. Porkka. 2016. School choice to lower secondary schools and mechanisms of segregation in Urban Finland. Urban Education 55(10): 1461– 1488. 42. Kangasvieri et al. op. cit. 43. Kosunen, S., and P. Seppänen. 2015. “Helky laulu, kaiu maine”: Koulujen maineiden rakentuminen ja opetusryhmien mainehierarkiat kaupungeissa. In Lohkoutuva peruskoulu: Perheiden kouluvalinnat, yhteiskuntaluokat ja koulutuspolitiikka, eds. P. Seppänen, M. Kalalahti, R. Rinne, and H. Simola, Jyväskylä, 231–260. Suomen Kasvatustieteellinen Seura. 44. See for instance, Ministry of Education. 2009. Opetusministeriön maahanmuuttopoliittiset linjaukset 2009. Opetusministeriön julkaisuja 2009:48. Helsinki: Ministry of Education. https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/161766/opm48-2009.pdf?seq uence=1&isAllowed=y. Accessed 6 Dec 2021. 45. Ministry of Education. op. cit, p. 12–13. 46. Paulsrud, B., H. Zilliacus, and L. Ekberg. 2020. Spaces for multilingual e ducation: Language orientations in the national curricula of Sweden and Finland. International Multilingual Research Journal 14(4): 304–318. 47. From and Sahlström, op. cit. Laihonen, P., and Halonen, M. 2019. Vähemmistöt ja enemmistöt kieli-ideologisina käsitteinä. In Kieli, koulutus, politiikka: Monipaikkaisia käytänteitä ja tulkintoja, eds. T. Saarinen, P. Nuolijärvi, S. Pöyhönen and T. Kangasvieri, 61–90. Tampere: Vastapaino. 48. Cummins, J. 2008. Teaching for transfer: Challenging the two solitudes assumption in bilingual education. In Encyclopedia of language and education, ed. N. Hornberger, 65–75. New York: Springer. 49. Alisaari, J., L.M. Heikkola, N. Commins, and E.O. Acquah. 2019. Monolingual ideologies confronting multilingual realities. Finnish teachers’ beliefs about linguistic diversity. Teaching and Teacher Education 80: 48–58. 50. Suuriniemi, S.-M., M. Ahlholm, & V. Salonen. Forthcoming. Opettajien käsitykset monikielisyydestä: Heijastumia koulun kielipolitiikasta.In Koulun monet kielet, eds. M. Ahlholm, I. Piippo, and P. Portaankorva-Koivisto, 44–69, AfinLA file://fileservices.ad.jyu.fi/homes/tsaarine/Downloads/7883–1343-PB.pdf. Accessed 6 Dec 2021. 51. Björklund, M. 2013. Multilingualism and multiculturalism in the Swedish-medium primary school classroom in Finland-some teacher views. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education 6(1): 117–136. 366 J. Ennser-Kananen et al. 52. Viesca, K., A. Teemant, J. Alisaari, J. Ennser-Kananen, N. Flynn, S. Hammer, R. Perumal, and S. Routarinne. 2022. Quality content teaching for multilingual students: An international examination of excellence in i nstructional practices in four countries. Teaching and Teacher Education,113, 103649. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103649. 53. Alisaari, op. cit. 54. Jakonen, T., T. Szabó, and P. Laihonen. 2018. Translanguaging as playful subversion of a monolingual norm in the classroom. In Translanguaging as everyday practice, ed. G. Mazzaferro, 31–48. Cham: Springer. Nikula, T., and P. Moore. 2019. Exploring translanguaging in CLIL. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 22(2): 237–249. 55. Björklund, S., and K. Mård-Miettinen. 2011. Integrating multiple languages in immersion: Swedish immersion in Finland. In Immersion education: Practices, policies, possibilities,eds. D. J. Tedick, D. Christian, and T. Williams Fortune, 13–35. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Pietikäinen, S., and A. Pitkänen-Huhta. 2014. Dynamic multimodal language practices in multilingual indigenous Sámi classrooms in Finland. In Minority languages and multilingual education, eds. D. Gorter, V. Zenotz and J. Cenoz, 137–157. Cham: Springer. 56. Lehtonen, H. 2019. Monikielisyys koulussa–yksikielisestä instituutiosta limittäiskieliseen opetukseen. Kielikello 4/2019. https://www.kielikello.fi/-/monikielisyys-koulussa. Accessed 6 Dec 2021. 57. University of Jyväskylä. 2020. Language aware multilingual pedagogy LAMP. https://peda. net/jyu/okl/ainepeda/kimo/kiellamp. Accessed 6 Dec 2021. 58. University of Helsinki. 2019. Itä-Helsingin uudet suomen kielet-hanke. https://blogs.helsinki. fi/uudetsuomet/. Accessed 6 Dec 2021. 59. EDUFI. 2015. Perusopetukseen valmistavan opetuksen opetussuunnitelman perusteet 2015. Määräykset ja ohjeet 2015:49. Helsinki: Finnish National Agency for Education. https://www.oph.fi/sites/default/files/documents/perusopetukseen_valmistavan_opetuk sen_opetussuunnitelman_perusteet_2015.pdf. Accessed 6 Dec 2021. 60. Kyckling et al., op. cit. pp. 35–45. 61. Harju-Luukkainen, H., K. Nissinen, S. Sulkunen, M. Suni, and J. Vettenranta. 2014. Avaimet osaamiseen ja tulevaisuuteen: Selvitys maahanmuuttajataustaisten nuorten osaamisesta ja siihen liittyvistä taustatekijöistä PISA 2012-tutkimuksessa. Jyväskylä: Finnish Institute for Educational Research. 62. Kuukka, K., and J. Metsämuuronen. 2016. Perusopetuksen päättövaiheen suomi toisena kielenä (S2) -oppimäärän oppimistulosten arviointi 2015. Publications 13: 2016. Helsinki: FINEEC. https://karvi.fi/en/publication/finnish-as-a-second-language-syllabus-learning-out comes-in-the-9th-grade-of-basic-education-in-2015/, p.5,80. 63. Council of Europe. 2001. Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Council for Cultural Co-operation. Education Committee. Modern Languages Division. 2001. https://rm.coe.int/1680459f97. Accessed 6 Dec 2021. 64. Ennser-Kananen et al., op. cit. 65. Ennser-Kananen, J. 2018. “That German stuff”: Negotiating linguistic legitimacy in a foreign language classroom. Journal of Language and Education 4(1): 18–30. 66. See for instance, Cenoz, J., and D. Gorter. 2011. A holistic approach to multilingual education: Introduction. The Modern Language Journal 95(3): 339–343. Hesson, S., K. Seltzer, and H. Woodley. 2014. Translanguaging in curriculum & instruction: A CUNY-NYSEIB guide for educators. New York: CUNY-NYSIEB. Wright, W., S. Boun, and O. Garcia, 2015. Handbook of bilingual and multilingual education. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Kalantzis, M., and B. Cope. 2007. Language education and multiliteracies. In Encyclopedia of language and education, ed. N. Hornberger, 195–211. New York: Springer. 67. Wheelock, A. 1992. Crossing the tracks: How "untracking" can save America’s schools. New York: New Press. 22 Language Education for Everyone? Busting Access Myths 367 Johanna Ennser-Kananen is Associate Professor of English (tenure-track) and Academy Research Fellow at the Department of Language and Communication Studies, University of Jyväskylä. Her work focusses on linguistically and culturally sustaining (teacher) education and linguistic and epistemic equity in educational contexts particularly as it pertains to the deconstruction of whiteness and the experience of students with refugee experience. Ennser-Kananen’s current study in this area is funded by the Academy of Finland. She is co-editor of the Routledge Handbook of Educational Linguistics. Erja Kilpeläinen, M.A. works as Project Researcher at the Centre for Applied Language Studies, University of Jyväskylä, and coordinates the Finnish Network for Language Education Policies (Kieliverkosto). She has been involved in research about internationalisation and language in Finnish higher education, access to language education in comprehensive education, and language education policies and language reserves in Finland. Kilpeläinen’s main research interests include learning and teaching Finnish as L1 and L2, social justice in language education, multilingualism in classrooms and language education policies. Taina Saarinen is Research Professor of Higher Education at the University of Jyväskylä. She has published widely on assessment and evaluation of higher education, internationalisation and language in higher education, language education policies, and contemporary and historical language policies. Her recent book ‘Higher Education, Language and New Nationalism in Finland: Recycled Histories’ (2020, Palgrave) analyses historically recycled and new nationalist language policy discourses in Finnish higher education. Heidi Vaarala is Senior Researcher at the Centre for Applied Language Studies and the Network for Language Education Policies, University of Jyväskylä. Her main research interests include the role of language use in second language learning, technology in language learning and teaching, translanguaging, languages in the practices of transnational visual artists, as well as language education policies. She has been involved in teacher in-service training as an educator and as a writer of the area. Vaarala previously worked as a lecturer and researcher in Finnish language and culture in Finland, Germany, Austria, Croatia, and Hungary. Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise i n a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.