This paper is part of my recent and ongoing research work on language-in-education policy, and is concerned with issues of educational equity within the multilingual context of Luxembourg (cf. Horner & Weber, 2005 and forthc.). The paper cannot hope to deal with the topic of educational equity (in particular its sociopolitical and economic ramifications) in a comprehensive way, but it will attempt to lay bare some of the ideological underpinnings that make educational equity so elusive - and it will do this through revisiting the concept of safetalk. After reviewing previous research on the topic of safetalk, I will apply some of the insights derived from this discussion to a case study of the Luxembourgish primary school system. The study focuses on the role of French language varieties in a system that forces large numbers of romanophone students to go through a German-language literacy programme which condemns many of them to educational failure. The picture that emerges will reveal what changes are needed to break through restrictive safetalk practices, but it will be argued that the difficulties of implementing such changes are compounded by a number of language ideologies that underpin both pre-school and primary education in Luxembourg. The paper uses both ethnographic and discourse analysis. The discourse analytic approach is informed by a language ideological perspective (Blommaert 1999 and 2005, Irvine and Gal 2000) and is applied to a number of official policy documents. The ethnographic data is taken from an ongoing research project on the multilingualism of children in Luxembourg aged 3-9, which is being carried out by the Language/ Culture/ Media/ Identities (LCMI) research unit at the University of Luxembourg. It was collected in weekly classroom visits over a period of two school years, and is derived from videotaping of classrooms interactions, along with participant observation as well as interviews with teachers, students and parents. The overall aim of the project is to show how migrant students' home resources can be valorized in school learning.I will argue that two steps would be necessary to establish a bridge into literacy for the romanophone students. On the one hand, teachers would need to break through the standard language ideology as it relates to the teaching of French, and build more consistently upon these students' vernacular French resources. On the other hand, a fundamental policy change would be required: I will show how official policy is based upon an essentializing 'mother-tongue ideology' and how it needs to be brought in line with actual language usage. In this case, the contradiction between home resources and in-school practice could be resolved by adding a French-language literacy option.Blommaert, J. (ed.) (1999) Language Ideological Debates. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Blommaert, J. (2005) Discourse: A Critical Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Horner, K. and Weber, J.J. (2005) The representation of immigrant students within the classical humanist ethos of the Luxembourgish school-system. In A.J. Schuth, K. Horner and J.J. Weber (eds) Life in Language. Studies in Honour of Wolfgang Kühlwein (pp. 241-58). Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier. Horner, K. and Weber, J.J. (forthc.) The language situation in Luxembourg. MS submitted to Current Issues in Language Planning. Irvine, J.T. and Gal, S. (2000) Language ideology and linguistic differentiation. In P.V. Kroskrity (ed.) Regimes of Language: Ideologies, Polities and Identities (pp. 35-83). Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press.Language and Education (journal, Multilingual Matters)