In Flanders (Belgium), as in many other European countries, educational language policies for the last two decades are characterized by a reinforced monolingual paradigm. Monolingual ideologies strongly impact not only the perceptions and beliefs of teachers, but also their inter-subjective relations, particularly teacher-pupil-relations. Second and third generation immigrant pupils’ linguistic capital is not activated and used as a resource for learning. The believe that these pupils lack the linguistic skills needed to be successful at school are overemphasized. This affects pupils’ beliefs, and their self-esteem, classroom involvement and motivation for learning. Unwillingly, these mutually reinforcing mechanisms contribute to processes of reproducing social inequality (Woolard and Shieffelin, 2000; Shohamy, 2006; Pacini-Ketchabaw and Armstrong de Almeida, 2006; Wortham, 2008; Pulinx e.a. 2015). In this contribution we will look into the dynamic interactions between the Flemish monolingual education policies and teachers’ perceptions and practices when encountering newly arrived migrants in their classrooms. Do teachers voice - by concurring or contesting - the political (and social) discourse regarding a monolingual approach in education and the recent refugee crisis when talking about classroom practices and teacher-pupil-interaction? Do the language perceptions of teachers in special NAMS programs differ from their perceptions in regular education programs? How do pupils (former NAMS) recount their experiences within a monolingual educational system? Are home languages of NAMS more (c)overtly valued than home languages of second and third generation migrants in a school context? And do NAMS grant (c)overtly more prestige to their own home languages than second and third generation migrant pupils? In other words, we want to look into the specific status of NAMS within the educational space: do they occupy a different position, do they enjoy a different status, compared to second or third generation migrants, within a monolingual educational space? This paper is based on qualitative data collected during semi-structured in-depth interviews and focus group discussions with school staff, teachers and former NAMS in five primary schools and five secondary school in Flanders providing education programs for newly arrived migrant children. The data collection is part of a research project, aimed at evaluating the current education programs for NAMS in Flanders. These research findings will be linked to the development of the EDINA-tool aimed at implementing differentiation practices in the classroom.

- Pacini-Ketchabaw, Veronica & Ana-Elisa Armstrong de Almeida (2006). Language discourses and ideologies at the heart of early childhood education. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(3): 310-341. - Pulinx, Van Avermaet & Agirdag (2015). Silencing linguistic diversity: the extent, the determinants and consequences of the monolingual beliefs of Flemish teachers, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. - Shohamy, E. (2006). Language Policy. Hidden agendas and new approaches. New York: Routledge. - Woolard, Kathryn A., & Schieffelin, Bambi B. (1994). Language ideology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 23, 55-82. - Wortham, Stanton (2008). Linguistic anthropology of education. Annual Review of Anthropology, 37, 37-51.