Filipović, Jelena, Julijana Vučo & Ljiljana Đurić. (2007) Critical review
of language education policies in compulsory primary and secondary
education in Serbia. Current Issues in Language Planning , Vol. 8:1:
222-242.
Critical Review of Language Education Policies in Compulsory Primary and Secondary
Education in Serbia ............................................................................................................. 2
Theoretical and Empirical Models of Language Policy and Planning and Language
Education Policy ............................................................................................................. 2
Language Education Policies in Serbia........................................................................... 5
Social and linguistic context ....................................................................................... 5
Educational and LPP/LEPP legislature and relevant institutions ............................... 7
LEPP behind teaching Serbian as L1, Serbian as L2 and minority languages:
Objectives and realities ............................................................................................... 8
Foreign Language Education in Serbia ......................................................................... 11
Comments and Conclusions .......................................................................................... 15
1
Critical Review of Language Education Policies in
Compulsory Primary and Secondary Education in Serbia
Jelena Filipović, Julijana Vučo, Ljiljana Djurić
School of Philology, University of Belgrade
In this paper a comparative analysis of the status of four types of languages present in the Serbian
compulsory education system is presented: (1) Serbian as L1; (2) Serbian as L2 (for ethnic minorities); (3)
minority languages; as well as (4) traditionally designated 'foreign languages', such as English, French,
Russian and German, through the perspective of language policy and planning theory. It is argued that the
concept of plurilingualism in education and communication still remains an idealistic construct in Serbia, as
long as issues related to the political and socio-economic power of languages are not recognised and
seriously taken into account. The present analysis identifies certain socio-political, educational and
sociolinguistic trends which, if identified and understood properly, may help outline a theoretical model of
language education policy that would favour plurilingualism and interculturalism in countries in transition
such as Serbia.
Keywords: language policy and planning theory; language education policy and planning; compulsory
education (primary and secondary); Serbian as L1 and L2; minority languages; foreign languages.
Theoretical and Empirical Models of Language Policy and
Planning and Language Education Policy
In its basic definition, language policy and planning (LPP) represent any organised,
intentional and long-term intervention of the institutions of the state in the area of
language selection (status planning), its form and lexicon (corpus planning), as well as
the selection of a language as a medium of instruction within a given education system
(acquisition planning) (see Bratt Poulston, 2003b: 476, for different definitions and
classifications of LPP articulated by different authors). Furthermore, one of the basic
postulates of this paper is that LPP is a multidisciplinary research area which cannot be
analysed in isolation from specific socio-political, scientific and cultural contexts. These,
in turn, directly imply that implicit and explicit objectives as well as planned (and/or
achieved albeit unexpected) outcomes of a specific LPP vary significantly in accordance
with the socio-political, epistemological and strategic attitudes of the language planners
in different socio-political and cultural contexts around the world (Ricento, 2000).
Language education policy and planning (LEPP) can, therefore, be equated with
acquisition planning, and is an integral part of any serious LPP. In consequence, it shares
the methodological apparatus, as well as the theoretical views (and/or biases), that affect
the overall LPP activities.
The general history of the LPP research foci can be analysed from different standpoints,
and we shall herein present three complementary models. According to Ricento (2000),
2
the LPP paradigms can be best understood if three groups of factors are taken into
consideration:
1. Macro socio-political (which include general socio-historical and political events and
developments, such as state creation and disintegration, population migrations, wars,
organisation of capital and the institutions of the state, etc.);
2. Epistemological (models of scientific research and knowledge paradigms); and
3. Strategic factors (research objectives and argumentation).
Ricento (2000) provides an intellectual history of LPP in the light of the above sets of
factors, and clearly distinguishes three phases in the development of LPP as a scientific
field.
The first phase of LPP (early 1960s) occurred in the period during which this research
area was shaped from the standpoints of structural linguistics, within the historical and
socio-political context of decolonisation. In other words, the creators of the field (e.g.,
Fishman, 1968) at that point believed LPP to be an ideology-free and non-political
process in which languages were viewed merely as systems which may be more or less
suitable for standardisation and modernisation (primarily in post-colonial societies on the
Asian and African continents). And very often, only languages with developed writing
systems and literary traditions (i.e. major European (colonial) languages) were considered
suitable to become 'national languages'.
The second phase of LPP (early 1970s–late 1980s) is characterised by neo-colonialism in
the socio-political sense. It saw the emergence of sociolinguistics as a theoretically and
methodologically independent linguistic discipline which recognises the importance of a
multidisciplinary approach to any language study. Moreover, it rejects the idea that
languages can be analysed without reference to the socio-cultural context in which they
are used. It was during this phase of LPP that theorists began to recognise the ideological
aspect of any LPP, and to make initial correlations between purely linguistic and social,
political and economic aspects of the LPP process.
Finally, the third phase of LPP, which has not yet come out of its formative stage (mid1980s to the present day) is being developed within the context of the 'new world order'
shaped by the concepts of global capital, global media and global technologies. It
operates within the predominant epistemological paradigm of postmodernism, and
oscillates between two often conflicting positions of linguistic ecology on one hand, and
the global role of English as the lingua franca on the other hand. Linguistic ecology
strongly advocates that the preservation of linguistic diversity and linguistic identity of as
many communities as possible is the right way to fight poverty and maintain global ecostability1 (see, e.g., Scutnabb-Kangas, 2002, 2005; Scutnabb-Kangas et al., 2001). Those
in favour of the use of English as an international language, however, argue that the
'international variety of English' is viewed by its users as the mere language of
communication, not identification2 (e.g., House, 2002; Geeraerts, 2002), which, in
consequence, does not endanger the existence and the relevance of other languages.
3
Other (mainly European) authors view and analyse the history of LPP exclusively
through the socio-political lens, thus expanding it to include the processes which shaped
the European linguistic and political context during the 18th and 19th centuries. (See,
e.g., Bugarski, 2005; Geeraerts, 2002; also see Milroy, 2001, for a detailed discussion on
social/ideological factors in standardisation processes.) It should be pointed out that their
taxonomies and classifications are based mostly on empirical data derived from the
results of various LPP processes over the centuries, rather than on theoretical concepts
(within contexts of specific linguistic and/or social and political theories) which have
shaped LPP thought during the last 50 or so years.
Geeraerts (2002) thus describes the rationalist and the romantic models of language
standardisation (status planning in LPP terms) of the 18th century (which result directly
from the larger socio-cultural movements of the period). He believes them to have
underlined in a very powerful way every subsequent European LPP model. Of these the
most important one to the present day is the nationalistic model of LPP (initially
developed during the 19th century), in which concepts of national unity and identity are
directly related to specific, so-called national, languages.
Bugarski (2005), on the other hand, names the nationalistic LPP model modular, a model
which he labels:
a typical example of the European romantic pattern of the inseparable 'holy trinity'
of language, nation and state from the end of the 18th century, which has over the
centuries had serious impact upon laymen's consciousness, and whose
consequences, often devastating, can be felt even today (Bugarski, 2005: 96).3
In both analyses the focus is predominantly on standardisation, namely on the selection of
languages to perform a unifying role in the formation of the European nation-states of the
19th century.
Bugarski also describes the expansionist model of LPP, which favours the so-called
larger languages at the expense of the small, sometimes even seen as 'useless', ones
(Bugarski, 2005: 96). This roughly coincides with the outcomes (not beliefs or
expectations of the linguists and educators and other language planners) of Ricento's
(2000) first phase of LPP under which standardised languages (predominantly European
languages of the former colonial powers, such as English or French) were often given
supremacy over other languages (sometimes spoken by large numbers of speakers and
covering vast geographic regions).
And finally, the last decade of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century are,
according to Bugarski (2005), characterised by the predominance of the interactive model
of LPP. The main objective of this model is to make peace between the linguistic ecology
and the global role of English paradigms. Cultural and linguistic interaction, exchange,
cooperation and understanding of speakers of different languages are the underlying
concepts of the interactive model. This has found its formal presentation in a series of
documents prepared by the Council of Europe, the last of which is the Common European
4
Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment (2001). Many
applied linguists and language policy makers (e.g., Trim, 2005) around Europe believe
that the recommendations made by the Framework should be incorporated into European
LPP and LEPP processes. In such a way, state/national and European language policies
would be created which actually protect the language rights of the small area languages
and also promote the linguistic and cultural diversity of the continent.
In the remainder of this paper, language education policies in Serbia are analysed through
a critical overview of the status of four types of languages present in the Serbian
compulsory educational system:
1. Serbian as L1;
2. Minority languages (which have been given certain rights within the educational
systems by the constitutions of different states of which Serbia has been a part over
the last century from 1921 onwards);
3. Serbian as L2 for ethnic minorities; as well as
4. The traditionally designated 'foreign languages', such as English, French, Russian and
German (present within the Serbian educational system since the fourth decade of the
19th century).
The concepts of LPP theory are then applied to the facts described, in an attempt to
identify and understand the nature and consequences of some of the LPP processes which
have been taking place under varying socio-political circumstances in Serbia over the last
85 years.4 Our main hypothesis is that the concept of plurilingualism in education and
communication (as proposed by the Council of Europe in its latest documents, e.g., the
Framework) remains an idealistic construct in many European societies as long as issues
related to political and socio-economic power of languages are not recognised and
seriously taken into account. (This situation is not unlike that of many other parts of the
world, post-colonial countries included, where language teaching is 'generally the quest
for power that enters into the equation whether people demand to learn a language or
whether some powerful entity, such as the state, makes policies to teach it' (Rahman,
2001: 56)). In other words, this analysis once again illustrates the case in point: LPP can
never be seen outside of its socio-political, epistemological and strategic context, and its
design and strategies always reflect in a more or less direct way the scientific, political
and ideological attitudes of its creators.
Language Education Policies in Serbia
Social and linguistic context
Since June 2006, the Republic of Serbia5 has been an independent state. According to the
2002 census,6 there are 7,498,000 inhabitants, of whom 82.86 per cent (6,212,838) are
Serbian, while other ethnic groups make up 17.14 per cent (1,285,163) of the total
population. The ethnic structure of the population of Serbia is shown in Table 1.
5
Ethnicity
Number of
Percentages
Inhabitants
Total number of inhabitants
7,498,001
100.00
Serbian
6,212,838
82.86
Hungarian
293,299
3.91
Bosnian
136,087
1.82
Roma
108,193
1.44
Yugoslav
80,721
1.08
Croatian
70,602
0.94
Montenegrin
69,049
0.92
Albanian
61,647
0.82
Slovakian
59,021
0.79
Vlach
40,054
0.53
Rumanian
34,576
0.46
Macedonian
25,847
0.35
Bulgarian
20,497
0.27
Bunian
20,012
0.27
Muslim
19,503
0.26
Rusyn
15,905
0.21
Ukrainian
5,354
0.07
Slovenian
5,104
0.07
Goran
4,581
0.06
German
3,901
0.05
Russian
2,588
0.03
Czech
2,211
0.03
Jewish
1,158
0.015
Egyptian
814
0.010
Shok
717
0.009
Ashkali
584
0.007
Greek
572
0.007
Turkish
522
0.006
Aromanian
293
0.003
Other
201,751
2.69
Table 1: Ethnic Structure of the Population of Serbia
Source: 2002 census; <http://www.statserb.sr.gov.yu/zip/esn31.pdf>
Research on the correlation between ethnicity and the L1 of the speakers has been
systematically conducted only in Vojvodina, an autonomous region in Northern Serbia. It
indicates that 97.4 per cent of the population equate their ethnicity with their language
(e.g., Serbs – Serbian Hungarians – Hungarian, etc.), i.e. that only 1.6 per cent of the
population of Vojvodina does not (Mikes, 2001a). Data on those who do not equate their
ethnicity and their language are presented in Table 2.
6
Serbian
Hungarian
Rumanian
German
Roma
Language
Ethnicity

Hungarian
7,461
234
Macedonian
3,260
Croatian
1,868
Slovenian
1,464
Rusyn
1,439
Slovakian
1,374
419
German
1,315
406
Serbian
762
380
1,191
Ukranian
1,006
Rumanian
860
Bulgarian
714
224
Roma
555
617
Russian
538
Czech
417
Albanian
353
Jewish
271
Table 2. Numbers of inhabitants of Vojvodina who do not equate their ethnicity and
the corresponding language
Source: Mikes, 2001a: 13
The same research (Mikes, 2001a) also indicates that these nation/language discrepancies
are results of interethnic marriages, rather than the results of any conscious choice of a
language for home and/or education, while their number varies in accordance with the
degree of interethnic mixing among communities. It is clear that such conclusions are
quite vague and, further, that much more refined measurements are required if the
processes of minority languages shift or maintenance in the region are to be understood
and explained.
Educational and LPP/LEPP legislature and relevant institutions
The right to education in general and the right to education in Serbian as L1, as L2,
and/or in one of the minority languages, as well as the right to study a specific foreign
language, are regulated by a set of general laws and regulations at the Union level and at
the level of the Republic of Serbia. In terms of the most recent legislation on human and
minority rights, these are guaranteed by the Law on Protection of Rights and Liberties of
National Minorities and by the Charter on Human and Minority Rights and Liberties (a
part of the Constitutional Charter of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro)
Furthermore, in 2005, the General Assembly of the State Union of Serbia and
Montenegro also ratified the European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages.7
When it comes to linguistic rights within the formal educational system, educational
laws8 since the end of World War II9 have given all children in Serbia the right to choose
7
their language of primary and secondary education.10 In other words, primary and
secondary education in Serbia have been offered in:
1. Serbian as L1;
2. One of the minority languages (those recognised by the different Constitutions of the
Republic of Serbia and Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY), Socialist
Republic of Yugoslavia, the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro, and the state of
Serbia).11 The number and the list of languages have varied over time. For example,
at present Hungarian, Slovakian, Rumanian, Rusyn, Croatian, Albanian, and Roma
(since 2005 when the Roma community was given the legal status of a national
minority) are the languages from which the students may choose; and
3. Serbian as L2
The following are the possible combinations of the above languages within the
educational system of primary and secondary school:
1. Complete educational process in L1 (Serbian or one of the languages of the national
minorities);
2. Minorities who chose to attend schools together with the members of the majority
population; these students may choose as optional a course in a 'native language with
elements of national culture' (see Stojanović 2005) (such courses are presently offered
only to the members of the national minorities, but not to the members of the majority
nationality, i.e. these courses are not open to Serbian children in multilingual/
multiethnic/ multicultural settings); and
3. Bilingual education (Serbian and one of the minority languages).
Foreign language education policies have for decades been systematically defined
completely independently from general language education policies. Their presence in the
Serbian educational system is guaranteed by the laws on education of the Ministry of
Education and Sport of the Republic of Serbia.
LEPP behind teaching Serbian as L1, Serbian as L2 and minority
languages: Objectives and realities
A brief look at the history of LPP thought and the place of Serbia/SFRY within the
historical context which conditioned the creation of specific language education policies
after WWII,12 makes evident a simple connection between the socialist regime and its
language policies. Socialism, at least in principle, favoured equal linguistic and other
rights and opportunities for all. Therefore, the official SFRY's LPP and LEPP documents
declaratively promoted linguistic rights for all nations and nationalities recognised by the
state's legislation. It was within such a socio-political framework that language education
policies provided opportunities, at least at first glance, for large numbers of minority
groups to maintain their L1 as one of the principal symbols of their ethnicity and in-group
membership. Tollefson (2002) gives a good description of the explicit objectives of the
LPP and LEPP of the time:
The Titoist13 ideology of language and nationality, and its associated public
discourse, entailed powerful legal protections for language, with detailed policies at
8
the federal, republic and local (communal) levels designed to guarantee language
maintenance and use for a wide variety of languages, including Serbian, Croatian,
Macedonian, Slovene, Hungarian, and Albanian. Pluralism became fully
institutionalised with the constitution of 1974, which largely moved power to the
republics and their associated nationalities (Tollefson, 2002: 68–69).
An attempt to analyse the implicit objectives of the same policies from all the
perspectives outlined by Ricento (2000), however, clearly indicates that the most relevant
ones appear to be strategic and socio-political (rather than epistemological). The language
education policies regarding primary and secondary education in Serbian and/or in
languages of the national minorities outlined above and maintained to the present day
have brought about some serious and long-term problems which yet remain to be solved.
Firstly, when it comes to teaching Serbian as L1 (which affects the majority of the
population), it is directly correlated with a specific attitude on language standardisation,
which Geeraerts (2002: 12-13) labels nationalistic. It basically means that 'if
standardization aims at democratic, political participation, then obviously the existing
entity of political organization, the nation, becomes the locus of standardization processes
and the educational effort supporting them' (italics ours). In other words, Serbian
language education planners (as well as Serbian language planners in general) still view
the Serbian language as a 'cultural possession analogous to religion and legal systems
rather than part of human mental and cognitive faculties' (Milroy, 2001: 538). In
consequence, they still give academic legitimacy to a variety which has both
diachronically and synchronically never been recognised by the society at large as the
prestigious, i.e. for all practical purposes standard, variety of Serbian (see, e.g., Petrović,
2001). Those in Serbian academic circles who have a decisive say in the LPP and LEPP
processes still believe that the 'literary' language described in every Serbian grammar
textbook since the early days of Serbian standardisation in the 1850s is the only proper
standard which should be taught throughout the educational process at all levels. This
variety differs from what can for all practical purposes be considered a Serbian standard
(varieties corresponding to large cultural centres such as Belgrade and Novi Sad) in many
ways in terms of their lexicons, syntax, etc.14 As an initial step, it is necessary to at least
acknowledge in Serbian textbooks aimed at students in primary and secondary education
that there exist two separate standard varieties. One is predominantly spoken by the
population of Serbia (whose urban varieties are considered standard in the sociolinguistic
sense). The other one (the older and canonical one) is spoken by the Serbian population
originating from the rural western regions of Serbia as well as from the western regions
of the former Yugoslavia, primarily Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina).
Furthermore, in terms of teaching methods, Serbian is still taught in the best tradition of
structuralism: a language is a discreet finite system which should be presented in a series
of deductive grammar rules without any serious attention being paid to the sociolinguistic
and pragmatic aspects of language use. In consequence, Serbia's elementary and high
school graduates rate very low on tests evaluating various aspects of communicative
competence and knowledge of the so-called functional styles (writing for special
purposes, e.g., term papers, presentations, public speech, etc.).15
9
The analysis of results of education in minority languages also indicates that the proposed
(and supposedly expected) results vary significantly from the achieved ones. Teaching all
classes in primary and secondary school in a minority language, with only a couple of
hours a week of Serbian as L2, has brought about a number of generations of imbalanced
bilingual speakers characterised by very low levels of competence in Serbian. In
consequence, they cannot function outside their linguistic (read: ethnic) communities:
they are incapable of continuing their education at university level in Serbia, and/or
finding satisfying jobs which by default require knowledge of Serbian. Hence, this type
of language education policy has led to a kind of subtractive bilingualism (Mikes, 2001b),
on one hand, or to language shift in favour of the majority language (Serbian) on the
other. This latter result, of course, is not difficult to understand; as Ricento (2000: 202)
points out:
the status (and utility) of language x is, as well as its viability in the short or long
term, ... correlated with the social and economic status of its speakers ... .
In other words, the members of minority communities with aspirations in terms of
academic and professional excellence simply cannot afford to undergo 12 years of
schooling in their L1, thus depriving themselves of the possibility of acquiring native-like
proficiency in Serbian. On another note, as already mentioned, the members of the
majority linguistic community (Serbian) have in the last two or three decades been
systematically excluded from minority language classes (those which the educational
laws recognise as courses on 'native language with elements of national culture'). Thus an
ever-expanding gap between ethnic groups in multiethnic/multilingual settings is created.
As many language education planners all over the world suggest (e.g., see SkutnabbKangas, 1991: 158), inclusive bilingualism seems to offer a viable solution to these
problems. Mikes (2001b: 66) states:
When connected to the maintenance of a national minority language, bilingualism is
a delicate issue. The idea that bilingualism may lead to language shift and perhaps
to the loss of national identity often arouses fear among members of a national
minority ... bilingualism may be an instrument of language shift but not its cause ...
bilingualism is the reality that must be faced in multilingual communities. It is to
the advantage of the children growing up in such communities to become bilingual,
on the condition that particular attention is paid to the development and cultivation
of their mother tongue.
This was written in favour of a bilingual kindergarten education programme offered to
Russyn/Serbian and Hungarian/Serbian children in Vojvodina. We are not aware of any
follow-up study which measures the success and the effects of the above curriculum.
As we have already pointed out, laws on primary and secondary education in the
Republic of Serbia create a legal framework for bilingual education. However, so far only
one bilingual programme, Bulgarian/Serbian, is carried out in practice, and its most
10
important flaw, according to a Ministry of Education and Sport official, is that the
curricula do not precisely define which courses should be taught in which language
(Stojanović, 2005). In consequence:
free interpretation of the legal framework is to offer in a minority language those
courses which are considered important for preservation and cultivation of national
identity (Stojanović, 2005: 52).16
It is, however, necessary to point out that any future bilingual curricula need to take into
consideration the notion of intercultural communicative competence. They should aim at
helping to raise generations of individuals aware of their own cultural, ethnic and
linguistic heritage, as well as capable of recognising cultural pluralism, universal human
values, and a need for a social dialogue at local, national and supranational levels.17
In all areas of education in minority languages, the most important problem lies in the
professional competence of the teachers and the adequacy of teaching materials. (These
need to be in compliance with the national curricula prescribed by the Ministry of
Education and Sport of the Republic of Serbia.) The Roma minority is particularly
affected in this way, as it was recognised as a national minority only in 2003. However,
the Ministry of Education and Sport, as well as the Pedagogical Institute of the
Autonomous Region of Vojvodina (supported by the international community and the
Roma Education Fund)18, have initiated several projects aimed at curricula design,
instructional material preparation in Roma, and Roma teacher training programmes. A
number of textbooks in Roma have already been published and distributed free of charge
to students in different regions of Serbia. Of course, serious problems still remain,
concerning Roma language standardisation and the motivation of the Roma population to
stay in school. (Suggestions have been made to pay special attention to Roma parents,
who play a decisive role in letting their children continue their education, and to include
Roma assistants in classrooms with a predominantly Roma student population in order to
help improve cooperation between the teachers and the parents.)
Foreign Language Education in Serbia
Foreign language education in Serbia (in terms of languages which are favoured at
specific points in time, and attitudes toward early foreign language learning) has always
been a very direct reflection of the socio-political and economic factors of a given era.
Visibly (and often explicitly) defined strategic objectives have led to the creation of
specific language education policies in this area. A brief history of institutionalised
foreign language education in this country outlined in the following section clearly
illustrates this.
History of foreign language education in Serbia
Institutionalised foreign language teaching in Serbia began during the fourth decade of
the 19th century (coinciding with the founding of the first public schools in the country).
Since then, the selection of languages has depended on many factors, the most important
11
ones being the political and cultural influence of a country whose language was chosen.
In consequence, in different regions of Serbia different languages were more or less
popular in accordance with particular historical circumstances. However, some general
trends can be identified. At the beginning of the 20th century, French was compulsory in
most schools starting at grades corresponding to the students' age of 11–12; in between
the two World Wars, French was also the most commonly taught foreign language
(taught to all students of ages 10–18); while German was present as the second most
commonly taught foreign language (taught to all students in grades corresponding to ages
14–18).
In the late 1950s, the SFRY's socio-political context dictated a shift in the selection of
foreign languages to be taught in primary and secondary schools: English and Russian
were favoured, while French and German (which both had a long tradition of presence in
the Serbian school system) were discriminated against.
In the early 1960s, in reaction to this drastic change of policy, the Association for
Cultural Cooperation between Yugoslavia and France (L'Association de coopération
culturelle Yougoslavie-France) established a committee to design an intensive
experimental French curriculum and monitor its implementation in two prestigious
Belgrade primary schools. The committee proposed the introduction of French from
grade 1 (students' ages 6–7) with ten hours of instruction per week. The French
government reacted at once, sending a native speaker to take over the teaching process in
both schools. Very quickly, the programme was labelled elitist, and initiatives to found a
philological high school in which intensive French courses would continue were
interrupted by the intervention of the educational authorities (despite the fact that the
curricula were already ready and political talks were under way).
In the late 1960s, however, some progressive members of the Educational Board,
associated with the Serbian Ministry of Education, proposed the experiment be extended
to include several other languages and a larger number of primary schools in both central
and suburban areas of Belgrade and in other cities and towns across Serbia. The
implementation of this foreign language curriculum for young learners was continued
throughout the 1980s, despite serious and sometimes contradictory changes introduced in
the overall educational system.19 The Council of Europe cited on more than one occasion
the success of this programme, recommending to the educational authorities of more
developed European countries the introduction of foreign languages at an early age.
However, the lack of well-trained language teachers remained a serious problem, due to
which this type of early foreign language teaching has never become part of compulsory
primary school education. In 1982 the pilot programme was modified and the educational
laws provided for the possibility of optional foreign language instruction from grade 3
(students' ages 9–10), with two hours of instruction per week. The initiation of obligatory
foreign language instruction was left for grade 5 in all primary schools in Serbia. Initially,
only Belgrade primary schools could offer optional foreign languages in grade 3 (again,
due to the lack of competent foreign language teachers). It was only a few years later that
schools in other regions of Serbia could ensure the continuous presence of qualified
12
teaching staff and offer their primary school students the possibility of studying two
foreign languages during the eight years of primary education.
During the 1990s the break-up of the SFRY, and the ethnic conflicts which followed, put
Serbia in the position of an international outcast and caused the isolation of the country.
However, this did not in any serious way change the overall trajectory of early foreign
language instruction. During this period, more than 50 per cent of Serbian schools offered
two foreign languages to their students. English was the most commonly taught language,
followed by Russian, French and German. At the same time, two foreign languages were
compulsory in all high schools (and in some trade schools as well). Italian and Spanish
were present only in specialised so-called 'philological' high schools, and initiatives were
taken to introduce these two languages into the general school system.
In the year 2000, a large project was initiated by the Serbian Ministry of Education,
sponsored by many international institutions (such as the World Bank and the Council of
Europe), aimed at modernising the overall educational system in the country. The foreign
language curriculum was, of course, an integral part of this project.
This new curriculum framework for foreign language education in Serbia aimed at being
learner centred, interdisciplinary and modular. It attempted to offer a variety of
possibilities for language learning and teaching. It proposed at least two foreign
languages during 12 years of primary and secondary education, three or more languages
as optional subjects, the possibility of starting and finishing learning a language at a
specific level of competence (in accordance with the six levels proposed by the Council
of Europe), and bilingual education at primary school and high school levels.
Furthermore, it also envisioned the development of the Language Portfolio,20 which
would allow Serbian students to be given credit for acquiring languages in different more
or less official and/or unofficial language learning settings. The Serbian foreign language
curriculum used the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (Council
of Europe, 2001) as a point of reference. In other words, special attention was paid to
ensure that students' achievements at different education levels were directly correlated to
the six levels of the Framework. The main reason for this was that the new curriculum
should lead to the formation of generations of students who could easily be integrated
into larger European communities of students, professionals, etc. This approach would
make access to different kinds of information and ability for interpersonal contacts with
individuals of other linguistic and cultural origins as easy as possible. In that sense, the
authors of the foreign languages curricula aimed at creating an educational framework
which would allow for life-long learning and improvement inside and outside the
traditional classroom. The same approach to teaching and learning, along with the
indicators from the Framework, were used to define the students' communicative
competence in Serbian as L1 and L2, as well as their competences in the
minority/regional languages spoken and taught in the country (e.g., Hungarian,
Rumanian, Slovakian, Croatian, etc.).
Initially, only six languages (the so-called 'world languages') were to be offered to
students to choose from: English, French, German, Italian, Russian and Spanish. A
13
recommendation was made to the educational authorities to include in the legislation the
possibility of instruction of other languages (regional languages, etc., and/or other
languages as required by local communities and parent/student committees).
The first phase of the curriculum design project was finalised during the spring/summer
of 2003, when the set of legally binding documents was published. Their application was
initiated in the autumn of 2003. For the first time in Serbian educational history, foreign
languages were compulsory from day 1 of the educational process and at least two
foreign languages were to be learned at different stages. Furthermore, room was made for
the introduction of a third, fourth, etc., foreign language, in accordance with students'
needs and interests and the capabilities of local communities.
However, change of balance in the socio-political context had a serious impact on the
implementation of the foreign language curriculum. After the early elections in December
of 2003, the political structure of the government of Serbia was changed,21 and at the
beginning of 2004 the implementation of the new curriculum was stopped. Instruction of
the first foreign language in grade 1 was stopped, and its status defined as 'optional' in
and grades 1 and 2, while it was left unclear what would happen to foreign languages in
grades 3–12. No documents were published by the new Ministry of Education to give
legal and/or expert support to this shift in policy. Grade school students who entered first
grade in 2003 and 2004 were affected by this severe and unjustified shift in educational
policy.
After only a few months in the cabinet, the Minister of Education resigned and a new
Minister was appointed in the autumn of 2004. Foreign language instruction has not been
high on his priority list. However, due to pressure from professional and academic
associations of foreign language teachers and applied linguists, the situation has again
begun to change for the better. (This is despite the fact that Serbia still lacks a serious
educational strategy and a modern national educational system which would make sure
that foreign language instruction is directly and successfully correlated with other
teaching areas in compulsory education.)
Foreign language instruction is again made obligatory from grade 1 (starting with the
children entering grade 1 in the school year 2005–06), and a second foreign language is
to be introduced in grade 5. Several serious problems still remain to be solved. The most
important one is still the lack of highly qualified and motivated foreign language
teachers, especially where English is concerned, this being the most popular foreign
language within the frameworks of both formal and informal education. Other languages
are not so seriously affected since the demand is not as high, and numbers of graduates in
other languages from the schools of philology at different academic institutions of higher
education can easily satisfy the educational needs of different local communities. Foreign
language curricula are once again directly correlated with the six degrees of competence
proposed by the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. (For
example, there is the objective of reaching level A1 in L2 at the end of grade 4, and A2 at
the end of grade 8 (last year of primary education). L3, which is to be introduced in grade
5, is presented with a higher number of hours of instruction per week, which should
14
ensure that at the end of grade 8 all students should have the same level of competence in
both the L2 and L3 they choose to study.)
However, it should be pointed out that these attempts still remain within the scope of
individual efforts of the members of the foreign language curricula team.22 Therefore, no
documents have yet been published by the Ministry of Education and Sport which would
make official this relationship between foreign language curricula at all education levels
and the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages.
Another serious overall flaw in language education policies in Serbia is, as we have
already pointed out, a complete disassociation (in terms of contents and teaching
methods) among Serbian as L1 and L2, minority languages and foreign languages.
Serious theoretical and methodological biases still present among linguists, educators and
policy makers have impeded any attempt to correlate theoretical knowledge on L1, L2
and FL acquisition processes and corresponding teaching methods.
Comments and Conclusions
A history of language teaching in Serbia (Serbian as L1 and L2, minority languages and
foreign languages) clearly indicates that:
1. There exists a direct relationship between a language's status and its place in the
educational system on the one hand, and its value as a social (often ethnic or national)
symbol on the other hand;
2. Language planners often choose to base their LPP and LEPP decisions and documents
on strategic rather than purely epistemological factors (in other words, their beliefs about
language often override their scientific knowledge and expertise about its structure, the
acquisition process and its social functions); and
3. From the standpoint of language users, it is also evident that as important as languages
are as carriers of ethnic and other identities, they are also sometimes (in the last few
decades in particular) recognised as instruments for improving one's social status. For
example, if you speak the majority language you are more likely to get a better job; if you
speak specific foreign languages, you are more likely to internationalise your career, and
to maximise your intellectual potential.
These facts have sometimes been fully recognised by language planners, but also very
often completely neglected or even discriminated against.
Therefore, the fact that Serbia was at certain points in modern educational history
considered the avant-garde when it comes to early foreign language education (see, e.g.,
the documents issued by the Language Policy Division of the Council of Europe from the
1970s and 1980s), does not undermine the reality behind the declarative right to
education in minority languages. At first glance these language education policies were
very progressive for their time (before WWII and for the duration of Titoist Yugoslavia).
However, they have almost always led either to subtractive bilingualism (resulting in a
kind of apartheid in which members of minority groups are being denied access to higher
education due to their insufficient competence in Serbian), or to language shift (in favour
15
of the majority language). Furthermore, the members of Serbian society who do not
belong to minority groups have also consistently been denied access to minority
languages within the educational system. And finally, the ideology of teaching Serbian as
L1 as the symbol of national identity and unity, which views interaction with other
languages as inherently threatening to the preservation of the Serbian linguistic and
cultural heritage, is still very far from the most recent LPP standards.23
In conclusion, individual applied linguists and other scholars aim at shaping language
policies and language education policies in Serbia based on expert knowledge and the
know-how from language teachers and other practitioners (including the members of the
institutions of the state). However, despite their efforts, there still exists a lack of
(primarily) academic consensus on what Serbia's LPP and LEPP goals and objectives
should be in terms of:
1. Choice of languages to be taught;
2. Time and space allocated to those languages within the institutional educational
system;
3. Language contents to be learned;
4. Teaching methods to be applied; and last, but not least
5. Rationale (epistemological and strategic, recognising the effects of a broader sociopolitical context which brought a specific policy about) behind the answers to the
above four questions.
It is our strong belief that any serious Serbian language education policy should include a
thorough analysis of the above parameters, which would lead to a series of theoretically
sound and practically applicable solutions. These would in turn be presented to the
academic and general public, and incorporated into a well-thought-out national
educational strategy. These measures could enable the future generations of the children
of Serbia to be raised in an atmosphere of intercultural competence and tolerance, and in
turn, help them become members of a plurilingual and pluricultural Europe.
This model of LPP and LEPP takes into consideration LPP theory, recognises the impact
that various extralinguistic factors often have in the creation of language education
policies, and is capable of evaluating their value and predicting their consequences. We
are confident that a similar model of LPP and LEPP can be successfully applied in other
(mainly Eastern and South-Eastern European) countries in transition as well.
16
References
Bratt Poulston, C. (2003a) Linguistic Minorities and Language Policies. In C. Bratt Paulston
and G.R. Tucker (eds) Sociolinguistics. The Essential Readings (pp. 395–407). Oxford,
UK: Blackwell Publishing
Bratt Poulston, C. (2003b) Language policies and language rights. In C. Bratt Poulston and
G.R. Tucker (eds) Sociolinguistics. The Essential Readings (pp. 472–483). Oxford, UK:
Blackwell Publishing.
Bugarski, R. (2005) Jezik i kultura [Language and Culture]. Beograd: Biblioteka XX vek,
147.
Council of Europe (2001) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages:
Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fishman, J.A. (1968) Language problems and types of political and sociocultural integration:
A conceptual postscript. In J.A. Fishman, C.A. Ferguson and J. Das Gupta (eds)
Language Problems of Developing Nations (pp. 491–498). New York: John Wiley and
Sons.
Gera, I. (2005) Međunarodna konferencija Izazovi obrazovanja na manjinskim jezicima:
Iskustva u različitim modelima obrazovanja Roma u regionu [International Conference
on Challenges of Education in Minority Languages: Different models of Roma education
in the region]. In L. Erdelj (ed.) Izazovi obrazovanja na manjinskim jezicima. [Challenges
of Education in Minority Languages] (pp. 146–149). Novi Sad: Pedagoški zavod
Vojvodine.
Geeraerts, D. (2002) Cultural models of linguistic standardization.
http://wwwling.arts.kuleuven.ac.be/gling/Cultural%20models%20of%20lingui
stic%20standardization.pdf . Accessed 24 July 2006. Geeraerts, D. (2003) Cultural
models of linguistic standardization. In R. Dirven, R. Frank and M. Piétz (eds) Cognitive
Models in Language and Thought: Ideology, metaphors and meanings (pp. 25–68).
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, Cognitive Linguistics Research 24.
House , J. (2003) English as a lingua franca: A threat to mulilingualism. Journal of
Sociolinguistics 7(4), 556–578.
Levkov, L. (2005) Manjinsko obrazovanje između potreba i mogućnosti. [Minority education
between the needs and the possibilities]. In L. Erdelj (ed.) Izazovi obrazovanja na
manjinskim jezicima [Challenges of education in minority languages] (pp. 130–142).
Novi Sad: Pedagoški zavod Vojvodine.
17
Mikes, M. (2001a) Kad su granice samo tarabe [When borders are just fences]. Istraživanja
dvojezičnosti u Vojvodini [Research on bilingualism in Vojvodina]. Novi Sad:
Jugoslovensko društvo za primenjenu lingvistiku i Futura.
Mikes, M. (2001b) Sociolinguistic background of kindergarten children in bilingual settings.
International Journal of Sociology of Language 151: 49–67.
Milroy, J. (2001) Language ideologies and consequences of standardization. Journal of
Sociolinguistics 5(4): 530–555.
Petrović, D. (2001) Languages in contact: Standard Serbian phonology in an urban setting.
International Journal of Sociology of Language 151: 19–40.
Rahman, T. (2001) Language learning and power: A theoretical approach. International
Journal of Sociology of Language 152: 53–74.
Republic of Serbia (2002) Republic Statistical Office Communication No. 295: Statistics of
population. http://www.statserb.sr.gov.yu/zip/esn31.pdf Accessed 22 July 2006.
Ricento, T. (2000) Historical and theoretical perspectives in language policy and planning.
Journal of Sociolinguistics 4(2): 196–213.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1991) Bilingvizam. Beograd: Zavod za udžbenike i nastavna sredstva.
[Title of the original: Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1981) Bilingualism or not: The education of
minorities. Multilingual Matters 7. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2002) Language policies and education: The role of education in
destroying or supporting the world's linguistic diversity. Keynote address at the World
Congress on Language Policies, 16–20 April, 2002, organized by Linguapax Institute in
cooperation with the Government of Catalonia, Barcelona, Spain.
http://www.linguapax.org/congres/plenaries/skutnabb.html
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2005) Endangered linguistic and cultural diversities and endangered
biodiversity: The role of educational linguistic human rights in diversity maintenance.
Seminar on Cultural Diversity and Linguistic Diversity, Diyanrbair/Amed, 20–25 March
2005. www.pen-kurd.org/Diyarbakir-seminar/tove-endangered-linguistic-and-culturaldiversities.html
Skutnabb-Kangas, T., Phillipson, R. and Kontra, M. (2001) Reflections on scholarship and
linguistic rights: A rejoinder to Jan Blommaert. Journal of Sociolinguistics 5(1): 143–
155.
Stojanović, B. (2005) Zakonska regulativa o obrazovanju na jezicima nacionalnih manjina
[Laws and regulations on education in minority languages]. In L. Erdelj (ed.) Izazovi
obrazovanja na manjinskim jezicima [Challenges of education in minority languages]
(pp. 48–54). Novi Sad: Pedagoški zavod Vojvodine.
18
Tollefson, J.W. (2002) The language debates: preparing for the war in Yugoslavia, 1980–
1991. International Journal of Sociology of Language 154: 65–82.
Trim, J.L.M. (2005) The Role of the Common European Framework of Reference for
Languages in teacher training. Lecture delivered at Graz in September 2005.
http://www.ecml.at/10/pdf/trim.pdf Accessed 24 July 2006
19
Further Reading
Bugarski, R. (2002) Lica jezika [The faces of language]. Beograd: Biblioteka XX vek, 116.
Bugarski, R. (2004) Nova lica jezika — sociolingvističke teme [New faces of language —
topics in sociolinguistics]. Beograd: Biblioteka XX vek, 128.
Council of Europe/Conceil de L'Europe (2003) Zajednički evropski okvir za žive jezike.
Učenje, nastava ocjenjivanje [Common European Framework of Reference for
Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment]. Podgorica: Republika Crna Gora. Vlada
Republike Crne Gore. Ministarsvo prosvjete i nauke [Government of Montenegro.
Ministry of Education and Science].
Erdelj, L. (ed.) (2005) Izazovi obrazovanja na manjinskim jezicima [Challenges of education
in minority languages]. Novi Sad: Pedagoški zavod Vojvodine.
Filipović, J. (in press). Ideološki aspekti planiranja i nastave jezika [Ideological aspects of
language education policies]. Savremene tendencije u nastavi jezika i književnosti
[Current trends in teaching languages and literatures] Beograd: Filološki fakultet
Univerziteta u Beogradu/American Council for International Education.
Filipović, J., Vučo, J. and Djurić, L. (2005) Language education policy in Serbia: Utopia or
reality? Paper presented at the 14th AILA World Congress, July 24–29, 2005, Madison,
WI, USA.
Greenberg, R.D. (2000) Language politics in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia: The crisis
over the future of Serbian. Slavic Review 59(3): 625–640.
Kovač-Cerović, T. and Levkov, L. (eds) (2002) Kvalitetno obrazovanje za sve.Put ka
razvijenom društvu. [Quality education for all: A path towards a developed society].
Beograd: Ministarstvo prosvete i sporta Republike Srbije. [Ministry of Education and
Sport of the Republic of Serbia].
Mikes, M. (2005) Interkulturalnost u obrazovanju [Interculturalism in education]. In L. Erdelj
(ed.) Izazovi obrazovanja na manjinskim jezicima [Challenges of education in minority
languages] (pp. 86–91). Novi Sad: Pedagoški zavod Vojvodine.
Ministarstvo prosvete i sporta Republike Srbije [Ministry of Education and Sport of the
Republic of Serbia] (2001) Deset godina reformi obrazovanja u evropskim zemljama.
[Ten years of educational reforms in European countries]. (Title of the original:
Eurydice: Zehn Jahre Bildungsreformen im Bereich der Schulpflicht in der Europäischen
Union (1984–1994). Translated from German by Savica Toma). Beograd: Ministarstvo
prosvete i sporta Republike Srbije [Ministry of Education and Sport of the Republic of
Serbia].
20
Ministarstvo prosvete i sporta Republike Srbije [Ministry of Education and Sport of the
Republic of Serbia] (2004) Opšte osnove školskog programa osnovnog vaspitanja i
obrazovanja [General guidelines for curriculum design in primary education]. Beograd:
Prosvetni pregled.
Ministarstvo prosvete i sporta Republike Srbije [Ministry of Education and Sport of the
Republic of Serbia] (2003) Posebne osnove školskog programa za prvi razred osnovnog
vaspitanja i obrazovanja [Guidelines for the design of the first grade curriculum].
Beograd: Prosvetni pregled.
Točanac, D. (1990) Učenje jezika u SFR Jugoslaviji [Language learning in the Socialist
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia]. Zbornik radova sa Prve konferencije Živi jezici:
učenje/nastava – komunikativni pristup i obrazovanje nastavnika [Proceedings from the
first conference: Languages: Learning/Teaching – communicative approach and teacher
education] (pp. 5–16). Novi Sad: Univerzitet u Novom Sadu, Filozofski fakultet.
Toldi, E. (ed.) (2005) Izazovi obrazovanja na manjinskim jezicima [The Challenges of
Education in Minority Languages]. Novi Sad: Pedagoški zavod Vojvodine.
Vinaver, N. and Žiletić, Z. (1996) O marginalizaciji evropskog iskustva u Jugoslaviji [On
marginalization of the European experience in Yugoslavia]. Prevodilac [Translator] 1–4,
5–14.
Vučo, J. (2005) Istituzioni e insegnamento di lingue straniere. Verso una politica europea.
[Institutions and teaching of foreign languages. Towards a European policy]. In Lingue,
istituzioni, territori. Riflessioni teoriche, proposte metodologiche ed esperienze di
politica linguistica. Atti del XXXVIII congresso internazionale di studi della società di
linguistica italiana [Languages, institutions, territories. Theoretical considerations,
methodological proposals and language policies. Proceedings from the XXXVIII
international congress of the Italian Linguistic Society]. (SLI). Modena, 23–25 settembre
2004, (pp. 435–445). Roma: Bulzoni.
21
The Authors
Jelena Filipović is an Associate Professor of Spanish and Sociolinguistics at the School of
Philology, University of Belgrade. She has published a book on code-switching, and coauthored (with Robert M. Hammond) a book on Spanish phonetics and phonology. She has
also authored or co-authored a number of articles on code-switching, language (education)
policy and planning, language contacts and change, historical sociolinguistics, theoretical
aspects of acquistion of Spanish as a foreign language (E/LE), E/LE methodology, etc. Since
1997, she has worked as an adviser to the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Serbia on
curriculum design and implementation, teacher training and evaluation, and textbook
evaluation in the area of foreign language instruction in formal primary and secondary
education.
Julijana Vučo is an Associate Professor of Italian and of Teaching Italian as a foreign
language at the School of Philology, University of Belgrade, as well as at the School of
Philosophy, University of Montenegro. She has written several textbooks for Italian as a
foreign language, published a number of articles on Italian linguistics, sociolinguistics
(language policy and planning, language education policy, bilingual education), SLA and
Italian language teaching pedadogy, and worked as a Visiting Professor at the Universities of
Bari, Foggia, and Siena (Italy). Since 1995, she has worked as an adviser to the Ministry of
Education of the Republic of Serbia on curriculum design and implementation, teacher
training and evaluation, and textbook evaluation in the area of foreign language instruction in
formal primary and secondary education.
Ljiljana Djurić is a lecturer in French at the School of Philology, University of Belgrade.
Until the end of 2004, she worked at the Ministry of Education and Sport of the Republic of
Serbia as a coordinator for foreign languages in formal education, where she was in charge of
curriculum design, design and implementation of teacher training programmes, and textbook
evaluation. From 2002 to 2004 she was a member of the curriculum development team, a
body which coordinated the overall primary and secondary currucular reform in Serbia. She
has co-authored several textbooks for French as a foreign language, and published articles
and translations in the area of education and pedagogy. She has also designed a number of
foreign language curricula as well as several experimental projects for foreign language
instruction.
Notes
1
Eco-stability in human communities is mainly understood as transfer of knowledge,
culture and traditions within and across societies.
2
In other words, they claim it is a variety which nobody uses for social, ethnic and
cultural identification and validation.
22
tipični evropski romantičarski obrazac neprikosnoveng 'svetog trojstva' jezika, nacije i
države s kraja XVIII veka, čiji se uticaj u laičkoj svesti proteže do dana današnjeg,
neretko s pogubnim posledicama (translation: JF).
4
During that period, Serbia has been part of four different states. For further discussion,
see the following two sections.xxx
5
After World War II, Serbia was part of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
(SFRY), which consisted of Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Macedonia and Montenegro. There also existed two autonomous regions, Vojvodina and
Kosovo, which were part of the Republic of Serbia. After the disintegration of SFRY
during the 1990s, the remaining two republics, Serbia and Montenegro named themselves
first the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and finally in 2003 changed their name again to
State Union of Serbia and Montenegro. The Union has just ceased to exist at the time of
writing, as the Montenegrins voted in favour of an independent state of Montenegro at the
referendum on 21 May 2006, and the Serbian Parliament declared Serbia an independent
state on 6 June 2006.
6
The data from the Serbian 2002 census exclude Kosovo. According to the information
available at www.sok-kosovo.org, based on the 2000 survey which aimed at measuring
the living standard in that region, 88 per cent of the Kosovo population are Albanians, 7
per cent Serbs, 1.9 per cent Muslims/Bosnians, 1.7 per cent Roma, and 1 per cent Turks.
The majority language is Albanian, spoken by 88 per cent of the population. In terms of
language policies, presently there is no way to make any scientific estimate, but it appears
that the majority Albanian population discriminates against all other minority groups and
their languages.
7
Legal documents guaranteeing human and minority rights in Serbia are: the Constitution
of the Republic of Serbia (1990); the Constitutional Charter of the State Union of Serbia
and Montenegro (2003); Law on the Protection of Rights and Liberties of National
Minorities, Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (2002); and Ratified European Charter on
Minority and Regional Languages, Union of Serbia and Montenegro (2005).
8
These include: Law on official use of languages and alphabets, Republic of Serbia
(1991); Law on elementary education, Republic of Serbia (1992); Law on secondary
education, Republic of Serbia (1992); Law on textbooks and other teaching materials
(1993); Law on amendments of the Law on elementary education, Republic of Serbia
(2002); Law on amendments to the Law on secondary education, Republic of Serbia
(2002); Law on education, Republic of Serbia (2003); Law on amendments to the Law on
education, Republic of Serbia (2004).
9
According to some informal statements from officials from the Ministry of Education
and Sport of the Republic of Serbia, even in between the two World Wars provisions
were made in the Constitution of the then United Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and
Slovenians to allow for education in Serbo-Croatian and Slovenian.
10
Apart from the Ministry of Education and Sport, there exist a number of institutions at
different levels which in one way or another take part in the decision making process
when it comes to language education policies in Serbia: Ministry for Human and
Minority Rights of the Republic of Serbia, Regional Department for Education and
Culture (Vojvodina), Pedagogical Institute of Vojvodina, and the Council for National
Minorities of the Republic of Serbia.
3
23
11 The Parliament of Serbia proclaimed the end of the Union with Montenegro and
proclaimed itself a legal successor of the Union (in accordance with the Constitutional
Charter of the Union) on a Parliament session held on June 5, 2006. Thish ensures that all
Union laws and regulations (including those on education and linguistic and human
rights) will continue to hold in the future.
12
In writing this paper, we have not been able to systematically trace back language
education policies which existed in Serbia within the United Kingdom of Serbs, Croats
and Slovenians, i.e. the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, before WWII. However, it is important
to point out that the idea of unity of nations (both before and after WWII) was always
associated with a certain degree of linguistic rights guaranteed to different member
nations: Serbo-Croatian, a term and a concept which has been attacked and defended on
various levels and within various linguistic and socio-political frameworks; Slovenian;
and later Macedonian, which was given language status, rather than that of a dialect of
Serbian or Bulgarian, for the first time in Titoist Yugoslavia. All these policies led to the
promotion of specific multilingual educational (as well as institutional) systems rather
similar to that of, for example, present day Spain. However, these systems were always
unidirectional, i.e. not all citizens were ever given the right (and opportunity) or required
to learn to speak and to use all the languages cited in the constitutions of the different
states of which Serbia was a part at different times. LPP policies similar to those of the
former Yugoslavia have yielded similar results in terms of promoting nationalism and
segregation rather than unity and tolerance (see, e.g., Bratt Paulston's (2003a) analysis of
the Catalonian language policies).
13
Josip Broz Tito was a communist dictator who ruled SFRY from 1945 until his death in
1980.
14
One of the most noticeable differences is found in the phonology: ijekavica vs ekavica
(terms used to describe the pronunciation of the two reflexes of the Old Church Slavonic
ĕ (jat): -ije- vs. -e-). Another is the prosodic aspects of the phonological systems (pitch
accent vs stress), which resulted in the creation of two separate systems, one
characterised by vowel quality and the other by vowel quantity and stress placement (for
further discussion, see Petrović, 2001).
15
Preliminary international PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment)
testing administered to students from Serbia in 2003 indicated that her students rate
extremely low on the functional literacy scale (among the last eight countries which took
part in the research, right next to Turkey, Uruguay, Thailand, Mexico, Tunisia, Indonesia
and Brazil; therefore, far below most European countries). In terms of numbers, about 50
per cent of grade school graduates in Serbia are considered to be border-line functionally
literate (Levkov, 2005).
16
Slobodno tumačenje ovog zakonskog rešenja je da se na jeziku nacionalne manjine
realizuje nastava onih predmeta putem kojih se razvija i neguje nacionalna posebnost
(translation: JF).
17
Most regional polities (e.g., Hungary, Rumania, Slovakia, Croatia) have already
created language education policies which emphasise pluriculturalism, plurilingualism
and interculturalism in education (Gera, 2005: 146-149). The success of their
implementation, however, yet remain to be evaluated.
24
18
The Roma Education Fund is an international grant-making foundation, with offices in
Budapest and Paris, which coordinates the Decade of Roma Inclusion, an initiative
adopted by eight countries of Central and Southeastern Europe: Bulgaria, Croatia, the
Czech Republic, Hungary, FYR Macedonia, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro. The
Decade supposes political commitment and readiness to significantly improve the social,
educational and economic status of the Roma population in the region. It is supported by
the international community: the Open Society Institute, the World Bank, the European
Commission, the United Nations Development Program, the Organization for Security
and Cooperation in Europe, Council of Europe, etc.
19
Rather unsuccessful attempts were made by the SFRY educational authorities to
correlate general and professional secondary education, resulting in the creation of the socalled 'directed education' (usmereno obrazovanje), with the complete exclusion of
traditional high schools throughout the country. This 'educational experiment' lasted for
about a decade (1979–1990), and when it failed, the high school system was reintroduced.
20
The Serbian Language Portfolio should follow the general guidelines of the European
Language Portfolio (ELP), which offers a gradation of general competences in a number
of languages, and a classification of language functions corresponding to a range of
objectives aimed at satisfying learners' individual needs, competences and capabilities.
The ELP is a personal document, a sort of curriculum linguae, and its owner has the
possibility of registering his/her linguistic knowledge and experiences in all the languages
learned in different educational formal and/or informal settings. The ELP is prepared at a
national level and there are portfolios for different age groups: young children, younger
adolescents, older adolescents and adults. 'The Portfolio would make it possible for
learners to document their progress towards plurilingual competence by recording
learning experiences of all kinds over a wide range of languages, much of which would
otherwise be unattested and unrecognised. It is intended that the Portfolio will encourage
learners to include a regularly updated statement of their self-assessed proficiency in each
language' (Common European Framework of Reference for Languages, 2001: 20).
21
The early elections were provoked by the assassination of the Serbian Prime Minister
Zoran Djindjić in March 2003.
22
The foreign language curricula design team is appointed by the Ministry of Education
and Sport of the Republic of Serbia, but the majority of its members are applied linguists
not employed by the Ministry.
23
Standards such as those proposed by what Bugarski (2005) calls the interactive model
of LPP are embodied in the Council of Europe's most recent documents on LPP and
LEPP.
25