Independently of the fact whether schools, as social and learning spaces, are multilingual and although there is no empirical evidence for the effectiveness of an exclusive L2 submersion model, many schools maintain a policy of submersion into the dominant language as a primary condition for school success. This often results in school policies and classroom practices in which multilingual repertoires are banned, not exploited strategically, and in which children are sometimes punished for using their multilingual repertoires in school and classroom interaction. In defiance from indisputable empirical evidence of positive effects of multilingual pedagogies in education, we can observe prevailing monolingual beliefs, policies and practices in schools to address inequality an inequity in education (Pulinx et al., 2017). However, if we take Flanders (Belgium) as a case we can conclude that, although exclusive L2 submersion models are in place for two decades, the latest PISA-data show that the inequality gap has not been reduced. At the same time, our engagement as academics in the multilingual policy and equity debate has been continuous throughout this period, though frequently our expertise has been brushed aside as ‘ideological belief in a multilingual paradigm’. It was only in 2008, with the start of a number of longitudinal multi-method studies on multilingualism in Flemish education, that we have been able to gradually, slowly and with ups and downs, “unlock” the stalemate position in our discussions with professional educational practitioners. In this paper I will argue that hard research findings are pivotal in the development of a successful advocacy towards altering monolingual policies and practices in schools. However, based on our work in Flanders, we experienced that more is needed than solid, convincing and valid research data. Four other types of advocacy action are necessary: (i) intensive cooperation with NGO’s and local education counsellors, principals and teachers in the classroom; (ii) a proactive engagement in media coverage and debate and in training, coaching, workshops, seminars, etc. for education practitioners; and (iii) intensive interaction with policy makers and politicians. We need to learn to speak and appeal to “their” language(s). Finally, (iv) for each of the depicted social spaces of intervention we need to reflect on how we (re)frame the discourses of our research and its findings. Supported with illustrative evidence from successive research projects in Flanders I will discuss a theoretical model for academic advocacy for multilingual pedagogies in education.

Pulinx, R., Van Avermaet, P., & Agirdag, O. (2017). Silencing linguistic diversity: The extent, the determinants and consequences of the monolingual beliefs of Flemish teachers. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 20(5), 542-556.