James McMenamin, Christa van der Walt

4 Macro policies and meso language planning: The

case of supranational policies in Europe
The growing use of English in higher education can be linked to the desire for increased
transnational mobility of students and the view that English programmes, particularly
at postgraduate level, would accommodate such mobility. Against the background of
European agreements and treaties, this chapter considers language policy at macro or
supranational level in the form of European Union (EU) language policy statements
but also take factors such as the Bologna Agreement into account, which we argue
has a significant de facto influence on language policy in higher education. Taking as
its context a trilingual programme that is shared by three universities in neighbouring
countries, this chapter will attempt to establish to what extent the language policies
of the participating countries are in harmony with each other and with supra-national
treaties and trends, referring to Baldauf’s (2006) distinction between policy formation
at macro, meso and micro levels. In this process the chapter also distinguishes policies
and processes that may have an unofficial, but nonetheless significant impact, ‘from
the side’ as it were.
For many students, English has become closely associated with transnational
mobility due to its perceived economic strength (Graddol, 1997), and the perception
is that the ‘internationalisation’ of an institution is directly linked to the number of
English-medium courses it offers. In Europe, this phenomenon has arisen in a specific
policy landscape derived from the Bologna Declaration28 (among others) founded on a
political ideology that is market-driven and that favours competition between institutions
for international students (van der Walt, 2004). However, as pointed out by Erling and
Hilgendorf (2006), the Bologna Declaration is noticeably silent on the question of
language planning, despite its emphasis on increased mobility and the need for foreign
language competencies that would in all likelihood be required. What has happened in
practice is that the post-Bologna requirement for student and staff mobility has led to
an increase in English-medium courses, (e.g. Coleman, 2006; Phillipson, 2006; Erling
& Hilgendorf, 2006; Studer et al., 2009; Schomburg & Teichler, 2011). Therefore, the
situation arises that the Bologna Declaration has become a de facto language policy,
since it has led to the outcome of increased English language learning at micro level,
even if this was not directly intended by the authors of the Declaration.

28 A��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
joint declaration of the European Ministers of Education to mutually recognise academic qualifi-
cations, which intends to promote student mobility among European higher education institutions.

James McMenamin, University of Applied Sciences, North-West Switzerland

Christa van der Walt, Department Curriculum Studies, Stellenbosch University, South Africa
58 Macro policies and meso language planning: The case of supranational policies in Europe

Much emphasis has been placed recently on micro-level language policy and
planning because of the view that this is where policy is “implemented” or rather,
interpreted, re-imagined, revised and even subverted (van der Walt, 2013: 127).
However, in the case of supra-national agreements and treaties, the process of
‘implementation’ can in theory also take place at national and regional levels. Against
the background of a broader research project (McMenamin, 2015) this chapter focuses
on meso level as a similarly contested area of implementation, where (language)
policies are interpreted and construed in contexts where competing national agendas
and (trans)national priorities influence the meaning-making process.

4.1 Transnational, macro, meso and micro levels of policy

development

Inspired by Baldauf’s (2006) distinction between macro, meso and micro levels of
policy development, this chapter presents an analysis of a variety of policy documents
at transnational, national and regional level. Yet where Baldauf (2006) describes
macro as governmental or national level, in order to make sense of the European
context, this chapter redefines macro level as transnational level, and meso level as
national and regional level.
The exclusive focus on macro and meso levels in this chapter is not intended to
deny the possibility of further interpretation of language policy at micro level, but seeks
to emphasise the clear differences of approach to language policy at transnational,
national and regional level in the immediate (tri-national) European context. As we
will argue in this chapter, these distinctions are so stark that they deserve attention
in their own right. Baldauf (2006: 148) explains, “many of the same issues that can
be found in the macro policy and planning frameworks and literature are relevant
to the micro”. In our view, the interpretation of language policy that Baldauf (2006)
identifies at micro level can also take place at meso level. A discussion that restricts
its focus to language policy at transnational, national and regional level is therefore
merited.
In the process of moving the focus from supra-national to national and regional
level, the chapter sets out to give a broad overview of language policy as it relates
to study programmes organised trinationally, or in this context, where the borders
of France, Germany and Switzerland meet. The specific context is that of a Bachelor
programme at a University of Applied Sciences (UAS) in Switzerland. The Bachelor
programme is in fact one of ten Bachelor’s or Master’s programmes organised tri-
nationally, in which students complete their studies by commuting between French,
German and Swiss university campuses (TMO, 2014), normally spending one or
two semesters in each country. Such cross-border cooperation is facilitated by the
trinational nature of the area concerned, illustrated in Figure 1 where the borders of
the three countries meet.
 Transnational, macro, meso and micro levels of policy development 59

Fig. 4.1: A simplified view of the tri-national region (FHNW, 2016).

As France and Germany are EU member states, supranational EU language policy

should in theory inform the language curricula of the Bachelor’s and Master’s
programmes offered in these two countries. At meso level, the curricula might also be
influenced by the language policy of the three participating countries. Using Baldauf’s
(2006) distinction between macro, meso and micro levels of policy development,
and extending this framework to include policy and other influences that may exert
pressure on local contexts in other ways, an attempt is made to analyse the way in
which policies ‘cascade down’ from macro (international) to meso (national) level.
A brief comment on the way in which Baldauf’s terminology will be made before
the discussion becomes more detailed. As has been mentioned above, the term
‘macro’ is used to denote the supranational level, while ‘meso’ will apply to national
and regional policy levels, for example, of the German states, and micro refers to
institutional level. This classification is not self-evident ‒ in classical language
60 Macro policies and meso language planning: The case of supranational policies in Europe

planning, (Baldauf & Chua, 2012) national level is normally regarded as macro
level ‒ but the distinction as used in this chapter is necessary, since in this context the
highest policy-making level is supranational i.e., at EU level.
Baldauf (2006: 149) states that while language policy is the “plan”, language
planning is the “plan implementation”. For Kaplan (2013), the distinction between
policy and planning is significant, and he argues that implementation of language
planning can only proceed on the basis of pre-existing policy. However, a further
element of language policy needs to be considered in the local context: as we will see,
de facto language policy (as in the case of the Bologna Agreement) can also play a role
in the local context. For the purposes of this chapter, the distinction between explicit/
official language policy and de facto language policy is a meaningful one, since in the
local context higher level language policy could be obscured by factors that influence
language planning, such as it is, at lower levels. In this situation official and de facto
policies exist side by side. It is therefore necessary to distinguish between ‘official’
policies or policy influences that exert pressure from the top and those that have a
more indirect influence.
Since official
‘official’ policieslanguage
or policypolicy is made
influences at exert
that state level,
pressure or in thethe
from casetopof and
the EU at that
those
supranational level, it influence.
have a more indirect will be described as a vertical influence in this chapter. On the
otherSince
hand, official language
horizontal policycan
influences is be
made at state aslevel,
understood or that
factors in the
maycase of thethe
influence EU at
supranational
curriculum in alevel, it will
de facto be described
sense, for example as the
a vertical
Bologna influence in this
Declaration chapter.
(1999), evenOnif the
other hand, horizontal influences can be understood
they are not part of formal language policy (see Figure 4.2). as factors that may influence the
curriculum in a de facto sense, for example the Bologna Declaration (1999), even if they
are not part of formal language policy (see Figure 4.2).

Vertical macro influences, including

Official EU Language Policy

Horizontal macro
Influences (Bologna
Declaration)
French,
German, Swiss

(meso) language policy

Figure 4.2: Vertical and horizontal language policies’ sphere of influence

Fig. 4.2: Vertical and horizontal language policies’ sphere of influence.
Figure 4.2 is a depiction of the possible vertical and horizontal spheres of influence. In
order to clearly separate meso level from macro (international level) and micro
(institutional), I have chosen to interpret national and regional policy as meso level,
since they are both country-specific (below macro level) but above micro (institutional)
level. Regional policy-making in Germany and Switzerland will be considered but, as
will be discussed below, policy-making in France is more central in nature. Only the
macro and meso level influences will be discussed in this chapter to investigate their
possible effect, if any, on the higher education institutions that are involved in the tri-
national programme. As will be discussed, the interpretation of policies from macro to
 Background to policy-making in the European Union 61

Figure 4.2 is a depiction of the possible vertical and horizontal spheres of

influence. In order to clearly separate meso level from macro (international level)
and micro (institutional), we have chosen to interpret national and regional policy as
meso level, since they are both country-specific (below macro level) but above micro
(institutional) level. Regional policy-making in Germany and Switzerland will be
considered but, as will be discussed below, policy-making in France is more central
in nature. Only the macro and meso level influences will be discussed in this chapter
to investigate their possible effect, if any, on the higher education institutions that
are involved in the tri-national programme. As will be discussed, the interpretation of
policies from macro to meso level is as contested as the interpretation from meso to
micro (classroom) level.

4.2 Background to policy-making in the European Union

A review of EU language policy should firstly consider the conditions under which
policy in the European Union is made. Borchardt (2010) describes the EU as states
which have,

…ceded some of their sovereign rights to the EU and have conferred on the Union powers to act
independently. In exercising these powers, the EU is able to issue sovereign acts which have the
same force as laws in individual states. (Borchardt, 2010: 11)

The idea that nations can delegate their sovereign rights to the EU is not uncontested,
and the United Kingdom (UK) and Poland have yet to accept the EU’s constitution
(Borchardt, 2010). All other EU members are bound by the current version of EU
constitution which was ratified in the Lisbon Treaty in 2009. The first source of EU
language policy can therefore be traced to this treaty.
The Treaty which represents the EU Constitution, the Lisbon Treaty (2009),
is divided into two sections, each of which are treaties themselves, the Treaty on
Functioning of European Union (TFEU) and the Treaty on European Union (TEU) (EUR-
Lex, 2012a). The TEU (Article 3) and the TFEU (Article 165) sets out to respect Europe’s
“rich cultural and linguistic diversity” (TEU, Article.3), while the TFEU, (Article 165,
p. 1) specifies that EU member states are responsible for the “content of teaching and
the organisation of education systems and their cultural and linguistic diversity”.
Furthermore, the TFEU (Article 165) states that this should be supported by:
–– developing the European dimension in education, particularly through the
teaching and dissemination of the languages of the Member States;
–– encouraging mobility of students and teachers, by encouraging inter alia, the
academic recognition of diplomas and periods of study; and
–– promoting cooperation between educational establishments [...]. (p.2)
62 Macro policies and meso language planning: The case of supranational policies in Europe

In essence, it appears that promoting linguistic diversity is seen as the task of

the member states. This in effect allows EU member states some discretion as to how
linguistic diversity should be promoted. Later in this study, we will explore some of
the differing interpretations apparent at meso (national/regional) level.
The TFEU (Article 165) also seeks to promote mobility of students and teachers.
The duty to promote linguistic diversity and student and staff mobility, is therefore a
basic element of EU language policy. The EU Constitution makes no secret of the fact
that member states are entrusted with certain responsibilities: the task of determining
teaching content and the organisation of educational systems rests with the member
states. Therefore, it appears that member states have the legal right to control content
of education on a national basis, which casts doubt on the ability of EU institutions to
directly influence curriculum content at universities.
The Lisbon Treaty, as the EU constitution, effectively outlines the most important
EU policies in respect to language, which can be summarised as follows (see Table 1):
–– promotion of multilingualism, particularly the ‘mother tongue plus two’ policies
–– a view of language competence as a facilitator of student mobility and employa-
bility

The other EU policy documents considered here were found at EUR-Lex (2015), the
online repository of EU law, and include those explicitly referring to language and
which were seen to have implicit relevance. In the sections below, an overview of
the legislation/official documents outlining the various language policies is firstly
provided in a table, and followed by a brief discussion.
A brief note of introduction may be useful before EU policy is further discussed.
Three EU bodies are allocated legislative powers: the Parliament, the Council (heads
of EU states), and the Commission, which proposes new laws to the Parliament and
the Council, who approve their applications (EU, 2013). The European Commission
seems to be the dominant policy-making body of the EU, as it implements laws and
policies and also proposes new ones (EU, 2013). Voting actually takes place in the
Council or the Parliament, so that either the Council or the Parliament can elect to
block the passage of legislation. Due to the complex policy-making environment, the
review below categorises policies according to topic, rather than the EU organisation
that produced them.
The discussion will now return to the points identified as main topics of EU
language policy, for example, the promotion of mobility or employability through
language learning. These can be seen as ‘vertical policy’ in terms of Figure 2 above,
where official ‘vertical’ policy was contrasted to de facto ‘horizontal’ factors. Since
various EU bodies customarily produce a great deal of legislation on one topic, the
review of legislation below should be seen as non-exhaustive, but still serves to
confirm the EU’s commitment to the basic tenets of language policy laid out in its
constitution.
 Promotion of multilingualism 63

4.3 Promotion of multilingualism

In addition to the explicit promotion of multilingualism, the teaching and learning of

foreign languages can clearly be seen as priorities in the documents summarised in
Table 4.1.

Tab. 4.1: A Summary of the EU foreign language policy.

Origin Date Summary of policy

Council 1995 The Council suggests ways to improve teaching and learning of foreign
(EUR-Lex, languages, and to increase the number of languages taught.
1995)
Council 1998 Council Resolution on the Early Learning of Languages; it promotes
(EUR-Lex, learning of at least one foreign language at an early age, in order to
1998) preserve the Union’s linguistic diversity, and two foreign languages at
secondary level.
Council 2002, Resolution supporting linguistic diversity and language learning; it
(EUR-Lex, 2008 requires EU school pupils to learn two foreign languages, and refers to
2002, 2008) CEFR (Common European Framework of Languages)1 as a benchmark for
competence. The Council repeats its commitment to ‘mother tongue plus
two’ in 2008.
Commission 2003 An action plan is adopted from 2004 - 2006 to promote language learning
(EUR-Lex, and linguistic diversity; it is noted that foreign language of EU citizens
2003) is mostly limited to English, French, German and Spanish. It states that
English as sole foreign language is not sufficient and reiterates that
member states bear responsibility for promoting language learning.
Commission 2005 Proposes new ‘framework for multilingualism’; Multilingualism is defined
(EUR-Lex, as the co-existence of languages in a particular area, but also as individual
2005a) foreign language competence; the goal of ‚mother tongue plus two‘
is repeated, and it is repeated that learning English only cannot be a
substitute for true multilingualism.
Parliament 2006 Resolution on measures to promote multilingualism and language
(EUR-Lex, learning; made a commitment to multilingualism and the ‘mother tongue
2006a) plus two’ policy.
Commission 2007 The Commission requires a survey to establish the level of foreign
(EUR-Lex, language competence in EU member states, focusing on the first and
2007a) second ‘most taught official languages’ of the EU i.e., Spanish, Italian,
German, French, and English.
Commission 2012 The survey proposed in 2007 was carried out in 14 EU countries and found
(EUR-Lex, that of 54,000 respondents, 42 per cent were found to be ‘competent’ in
2012) the first foreign language and only 25 per cent in the second.
Parliament 2013 In a document entitled ‘Language Policy’ the commitment to learning two
‘Fact Sheet’ foreign languages from an early age is reiterated. Where financial support for
(European the learning of foreign languages is concerned, the Parliament refers to EU-
Parliament, funded mobility programmes, for example: Erasmus (higher education), and
2013), Comenius (school education). Language Policy refers to steps being taken to
protect minority languages through the founding of an NGO with this goal.
64 Macro policies and meso language planning: The case of supranational policies in Europe

As shown in Table 4.1, there has been consistent support for multilingualism in the
policy documents, which repeats a concern with promoting multilingualism in the
EU’s constitution (Lisbon Treaty, 2009), discussed above. It can be seen from the
short overview in Table 1 that the EU’s policy-making organs consistently emphasise
the importance of second and third language learning. The overview also makes
clear (EUR-Lex, 2005a) that knowledge of English is no substitute for learning other
languages.

4.4 Language competence as a factor favouring employability and

mobility

As noted above, the other key facet of EU language policy is a view that language
learning facilitates mobility and employability (see Table 4.2).

Tab. 4.2: Language skills as a factor facilitating mobility and employability.

Origin Date Summary of Policy

Council 2000 In the Lisbon Strategy (distinct from the Treaty of Lisbon) the EU sets
(EU, itself the target of ‘becoming the most competitive and dynamic
2000) knowledge-based economy in the world by 2020’; [This informs later
language policy].
Commission 2005 Europe 2010 sets out the general plan for EU economic growth till 2010,
(Eur-Lex, 2005) focusing on the need for job creation and economic growth. It sees
student mobility as developing a helpful ‘skills set’ (2005, p. 7) and
regards skills as a driver of economic growth.
Council, 2006 The learning of foreign languages is viewed a key competence required
Parliament for ‘lifelong learning’, which in turn is seen as necessary for active
(EUR-Lex, 2006b) citizenship, personal fulfilment, social cohesion and employability.
Commission 2007 Council recommends that member states should promote
(EUR-Lex, multilingualism to facilitate competitiveness, mobility, employability
2007b) and intercultural dialogue
Commission 2009 ET 2020 sets out to develop education and training systems in Member
EUR-Lex, 2009) States to not only promote personal, social and professional fulfilment
but also sustainable economic prosperity and employability. It succeeds
Europe 2010 in policy terms. It intends to reduce unemployment and
describes mobility as a factor favouring employment.
Commission 2011 In the context of ET 2020, the Commission issues two reports dealing
(EUR-Lex, 2012 with demand for, and the state of, language skills in the labour market.
2011, 2012)
Commission 2013 Returning to the goals set out in 2000, that the EU should become the
(EU, 2013b) ‘most competitive and knowledge-based economy’ worldwide by 2020, the
Commission notes that language learning should help achieve this aim.
 Language competence as a factor favouring employability and mobility 65

As shown in Table 4.2, student mobility is emphasised as a driver of economic

growth and job creation, since it develops a helpful “skills set” (EUR-Lex, 2005: 7).
As pointed out in the Europe 2010: A Partnership for European Renewal, the “… most
urgent issue facing Europe today is the lack of growth and job creation that safeguards
the standard of living and social protection Europeans have grown used to” (EUR-Lex,
2005: 6). EU policy appears to subscribe to the view that language learning will allow
Europeans to remain competitive and “better skilled and better adapted to change”
(2005: 7).
The Lisbon Strategy and the policies that succeeded it, Europe 2010 and Europe
2020, were primarily documents concerned with economic themes. However, it is
evident from a compilation (European Commission, 2013) of the so-called “main policy
initiatives and outputs in education and training since 2000” that language learning
is included as a facet of the kind of education that should lead to economic benefits.
This link is made plain by the nature of the reports that have been commissioned
(European Commission, 2013); for instance, a publication entitled “Recommendations
on how to achieve a better match between the demand and the supply of language
skills on the labour market” (ibid.) and “Rethinking Education: Investing in skills for
better socio-economic outcomes – Communication” (ibid.).
The link reappears in a later document included in the review above, known as
Education and Training 2020, or ET 2020 (2009). The aim of ET 2020 is to,

… support the further development of education and training systems in the Member States
aimed at ensuring the personal, social and professional fulfilment of all citizens, as well as sus-
tainable economic prosperity and employability, whilst promoting democratic values, social
cohesion, creativity and innovation, active citizenship, and intercultural dialogue.

It seems clear that the document links education, professional fulfilment, prosperity
and employability. However, it has been argued (Shore & Wright, 2000; Hursh,
2005; Lorenz, 2006; Lynch, 2006) that a view of education to achieve economic
goals in general reflects a neo-liberal agenda. We would argue that the above review
demonstrates fairly clearly that education is seen as a means to an economic end
by EU policy makers. The appropriateness of this view of education is questionable
because its key focus on economic concerns could undermine the EU’s commitment
to a policy of multilingualism, and by extension to cultural diversity. Where a concern
with employment becomes an overriding concern, the result can be that languages
associated with commerce, for example English, might take the place of others in
language planning. ET 2020 also undertakes to safeguard intercultural dialogue and
democratic values, but this undertaking appears to be added as an afterthought which
clearly has to co-exist with economic goals. In this context, global competitiveness
and cultural diversity are uneasy bedfellows, or even potentially competing aims.
66 Macro policies and meso language planning: The case of supranational policies in Europe

4.5 The Bologna Declaration

The following section discusses the horizontal forces e.g. the Bologna Declaration
discussed in Figure 1 above. These so-called horizontal forces do not reflect official EU
language policy, but we will argue that they can exert a profound de facto influence
on language policy nevertheless. The Bologna Declaration should in any case be
treated separately from EU policy because although many of the 28 EU member states
are among its signatories, the Declaration had a total of 47 signatories by 2012 (Vögtle
& Martens, 2014), making it of more general application. Switzerland, for instance, is
both a signatory and a non-EU country.
While it seems safe to say that few policies have had a more marked effect on
HEIs than the Bologna Declaration (1999), the Declaration does not specifically refer
to language issues, as noted by Erling and Hilgendorf (2006). The Declaration’s
objectives can be summarised in the following terms (1999):
–– Easily comparable degrees;
–– Adoption of two qualification levels (Bachelor and Master), where a Bachelor’s
degree should be sufficient for the purposes of the labour market;
–– A common system of credits (ECTS) should be established to facilitate compara-
bility and promote student mobility; and
–– Quality assurance should be undertaken in order to develop comparable criteria
and methodologies. (p. 3)

Originally signed by 29 states (Bologna Declaration, 1999), the Declaration was

recognised by 46 states less than ten years later (Saarinen, 2008). Vögtle and Martens
(2014) argue that the Declaration’s influence can now be felt beyond Europe, in the
Asia-Pacific area, South America and parts of Africa. This growing acceptance is all
the more remarkable since the structural reform imposed by the Declaration threatens
long-standing traditional structures in some countries, for instance in Holland
(Dittrich et al., 2004), Spain (Räisänen & Fortenet-Gomez, 2008) and Germany (Witte
et al., 2008). Witte et al. (2008: 218) claim that due to the Declaration “tension” is
created between traditional universities and centres of tertiary learning with an
applied focus, such as hogescholen in the Netherlands, Fachhochschulen in Germany,
and grand écoles in France. This tension was a result of the fact that both types of
institution are able to offer Bachelor’s and Master’s Degrees (2008) in terms of the
Bologna declaration. It is therefore remarkable that the Declaration has enjoyed wide
acceptance (Hedberg, 2003) despite such tension, and the potential threat posed to
university structures which do not follow the Bachelor-Master model is ignored.
Hedberg (2003) explains that this acceptance was driven by the need of continental
European universities to retain their attractiveness for non-European students, which
made the document’s emphasis on mobility and quality standards easy to accept.
Erling and Hilgendorf (2006) argue that in Germany, there was a concern that skilled
graduates in the life sciences prefer to continue their studies in the United States of
 The Bologna Declaration 67

America (USA), which may have been a motive for the Declaration’s supposed intent
to make Europe more attractive as a study destination. Lorenz (2006) explains that
the Bologna Declaration should be understood in terms of attracting internationally
mobile students:

The competition on the ever growing and promising Asian student market is being lost by Europe
‒ with the UK as the only exception. ‘The Chinese are coming!’ is nowadays not meant as a
warning in education contexts, but as something (educational) policy makers welcome and want
to stimulate ‒ as long as the Chinese are willing to pay, of course. The ‘exceptional’ success of UK
higher education probably explains why the Anglo-Saxon structure [Bachelor, Master] of higher
education was accepted in Bologna as the general European model without much discussion.
(p. 6)

Lorenz’s comments go some way towards explaining why many continental universities
chose to restructure their degree programmes and do things the ‘English way’.
If one assumes that acceptance of the Bologna Declaration is fueled by a desire
to attract foreign students, it is perhaps not entirely co-incidental that European
higher education institutions have been offering more courses in English. It is not
clear whether this situation was anticipated by the Bologna Declaration; this is
puzzling that the Declaration makes no reference to language learning, because
students travelling to unfamiliar language environments will be in need of improved
language skills (Erling & Hilgendorf, 2006). HEIs in the EU seem to be responding to
this gap in the Declaration by preferring English as language of instruction. There is
a broad consensus (Coleman, 2006; Phillipson, 2006; Studer et al., 2009; Schomburg
& Teichler, 2011) that the Bologna Declaration has brought about an increase in the
number of English-medium courses at European universities. Wächter and Maiworm
(2008) note that there were 700 full programmes offered in English at around 400
higher education institutes in 2002, a figure which had tripled by 2006. Crosier et al.
(2007: 36-48) even link the extent to which universities are internationally oriented
with the degree to which they offer courses in English, an assumption questioned by
van der Walt (2013).
Coleman (2006) points out although plurilingualism is enshrined in the EU’s
constitution, English as teaching language is threatening the status of local languages
of instruction at HEIs. Phillipson (2006, p. 13) argues that Bologna has led to “diglossic
domain loss”, and calls for language policy reform on a European scale. For the
purposes of this study, therefore, it appears clear that the EU’s constitutional policy
of multilingualism is under pressure from both vertical (official) and horizontal (de
facto) policies. It remains to be seen whether this seeming lack of policy coherence at
macro level will have any effects at meso (country) level.
Before we consider language policy at meso level, it seems worthwhile investigating
whether the English-medium programmes introduced at continental universities
really have led to the arrival of greater numbers of foreign students. OECD data does
not clearly confirm this. Figure 4.3 (OECD, 2012: 24-25) suggests that among the USA,
68 Macro policies and meso language planning: The case of supranational policies in Europe

Australia, and UK they attracted at least 30% of the 4.1 million visiting students in
2010, and nearly 40 per cent in 2000. However, the figure also shows that while Italy
and Spain show a slight increase in the number of visiting students, in this period
Germany, France and Belgium show minor decreases.

Figure 4.3: Student mobility - destinations by country (OECD, 2012)

Fig. 4.3: Student mobility - destinations by country (OECD, 2012).
Reviewing English-medium programmes in continental (non-Anglophone) Europe,
Studer et al. (2009) deduce that Italy, Spain and Portugal offer the fewest English-
medium courses of the Bologna signatories, while Germany, Finland and the
Reviewing English-medium programmes in continental (non-Anglophone) Europe,
Netherlands offer the most (Wächter & Maiworm, 2008). In general, it seems that
Studer et al. (2009)
English-medium deduceinthat
courses Italy, Spain and Portugal
a non-Anglophone offer the
environment do fewest English-
not attract as many
medium courses of the Bologna signatories, while Germany,
visitors as equivalent programmes in English-speaking countries. Secondly, there Finland and the does
Netherlands
not appear toofferbe athe most correlation
marked (Wächter &between
Maiworm, 2008). In general,
English-medium it seems
courses that
and increasing
English-medium
numbers of visiting courses in a non-Anglophone
students. A possible lesson environment
to be learnt dofrom
not attract
this isasthat
manyEnglish-
visitors
mediumas equivalent
courses programmes
in themselves do notin guarantee
English-speaking countries.
larger numbers Secondly,
of visiting there
students.
does
As not
noted appear to be
above, a markedhigher
European correlation between
education English-medium
institutions have been courses and more
offering
increasing numbers of visiting students. A possible lesson to be learnt from thishas
courses in English. However, the desire to attract greater number of students is to be
that English-medium courses in themselves do not guarantee larger numbers of needs
balanced with ethical considerations. The drive towards English-medium courses
to remain
visiting compatible with “The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union”
students.
(2010: 3),
As noted inabove,
whichEuropean
the EU undertakes to protect
higher education “the indivisible,
institutions have been universal values of
offering more
human dignity, freedom, equality and solidarity” and to “respecting the diversity of the
courses in English. However, the desire to attract greater number of students has to
cultures and traditions of the peoples of Europe” (2010: 3). This commitment to
be balanced with ethical considerations. The drive towards English-medium courses
equality and diversity of languages (among others) appears to echo the concerns of the
needs to remain compatible with “The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European
EU Constitution (Lisbon Treaty, 2009). However, the Charter is predated by the
Union”
Bologna(2010: 3), in which
Declaration, thewas
which EU therefore
undertakes settoupprotect “the
without theindivisible,
guidance universal
of the Charter,
values of human
which could havedignity,
led to freedom,
its failureequality and solidarity”
to mention and to let
language issues, “respecting
alone thethe issue of
equality of languages.

Other horizontal macro influences

It is beyond the scope of this chapter to consider horizontal policy influences besides
the Bologna Declaration in any detail, although this is not to say that Bologna is the
 Other horizontal macro influences 69

diversity of the cultures and traditions of the peoples of Europe” (2010: 3). This
commitment to equality and diversity of languages (among others) appears to echo
the concerns of the EU Constitution (Lisbon Treaty, 2009). However, the Charter is
predated by the Bologna Declaration, which was therefore set up without the guidance
of the Charter, which could have led to its failure to mention language issues, let alone
the issue of equality of languages.

4.6 Other horizontal macro influences

It is beyond the scope of this chapter to consider horizontal policy influences besides
the Bologna Declaration in any detail, although this is not to say that Bologna is the
only influence of this kind. Since English-medium courses have become more common
in Europe due to the Declaration’s influence, however, it might be worthwhile to briefly
consider common standards in English Language Teaching (ELT) practice, specifically
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT). CLT is currently the foremost pedagogy in
English language teaching (Jacobs & Farrell, 2003; Richards, 2006; Magnan, 2007,
Kramsch, 2014). The decision to mention it here can be justified because of the
potentially strong overlap of CLT’s goals with those of European language policy
where employability is concerned.
We would argue that there is a definite overlap between the focus of CLT
on practical, ‘real world’ tasks and European language policy in respect of the
requirement for students to have the language skills that make them mobile and
employable. There is in our opinion a link with these concerns and the goals of CLT
which—specifically in the form of ESP (English for specific purposes)—attempts to
anticipate the workplace needs of students. Kramsch (2014) argues that CLT can even
lead to the conceptualisation of language courses as a commodity. In her view, CLT
has:

… brought language learning yet closer to the real world of work and the economy. It has not
abandoned the teaching of national cultural information and literary samples, but it has made
them into goods that can be exchanged for greater symbolic distinction. Knowledge of a FL has
become… an ‘added value’… It is no coincidence that beginning FL textbooks have become more
and more like tourist brochures… . (p. 301)

According to this line of argument, CLT can in its various forms transform students
into service providers whose language competencies provide them with an ‘added
value’ in the labour market. CLT has been criticised for its narrow focus on students’
perceived needs (e.g. Wallace, 2002; Magnan, 2007; Kramsch, 2014). In the context of
this chapter, it is worth noting that the policy concern with preparation for employment
is also reflected in terms of language pedagogy.
A new development in language teaching, called Content and Language Integrated
Learning or CLIL, is increasingly being introduced in Europe. Although the ideal is to
70 Macro policies and meso language planning: The case of supranational policies in Europe

focus language learning by teaching so-called content subjects in a foreign language,

Coleman (2006: 5) points out that although CLIL may appear to be “firmly harnessed
to European ideals of multilingualism and the MT + 2 formula … in reality the target
language adopted as the medium of teaching can often be English”.
The focus of CLT, which is to become communicatively competent, changes
with the introduction of CLIL, where academic literacy becomes the main target of
language learning. In schools where CLIL is introduced, it is conceivable that the
language of everyday communication will not be the same as the language of learning
and teaching. This implies a change in the focus of CLT: where oral communication
and familiarisation with the culture of the target language formed a very important
part of the curriculum, academic language proficiency and the use of the language for
instrumental (rather than integrative) purposes become the main aim.
The introduction of CLIL at school level can be seen as a direct result of the
increase in English language programmes at higher education level. The widely-held
perception that the sooner a student starts in a language, the better their mastery,
means that the expectations for English language proficiency at higher education
levels cascade down to secondary and primary school levels. To a certain extent then,
this can be seen as one of the possible unintended consequences of the Bologna
Declaration.

4.7 Language policy at meso (national and regional) level

This section discusses language policy at national and regional level, to determine
what links (if any) exist between macro and meso policy. It should be said at the outset
that there are profound differences in the political organisation of France, Germany
and Switzerland. While Switzerland and Germany devolve some powers to regional
law-makers, policy-making in France is organised centrally (Malan, 2004; Pilkington,
2012). Furthermore, while Switzerland shares national borders with France and
Germany, it is distinct from them in that it is not a member of the EU. The translations
in the review of national language policy that follows are our own.

4.7.1 Switzerland

Switzerland is divided into 26 cantons (regions) which have law-making

competencies, but laws applying to education are primarily made at federal level.
Despite the harmonisation supposedly brought about by Bologna, Rege-Colet and
Durand (2004: 169) note “…the Swiss higher education system remains extremely
heterogeneous with marked differences and distinct academic cultures between the
linguistic regions”.
 Language policy at meso (national and regional) level 71

Since 2004, the teaching of the ‘first foreign language’ (in de facto terms, English)
in some cantons has begun at primary level. The Conference of Cantonal Ministers
of Education decided in 2004 that teaching of a first (foreign) language and second
(national) language should begin in the third and fifth school year respectively (a
process known in Switzerland as the Harmos Reform). Some evidence of cantonal
political independence is provided by the Conference’s admission in 2013 that only 12
of 26 cantons had implemented the reform (SDE, 2015).
Switzerland has four official languages (French, German, Italian and Romansch),
and the Swiss Languages Act, 2007 (Sprachengesetz) views competence in four national
languages [Viersprachigkeit] as something that characterises Switzerland (Art. 2a).
The government seeks to preserve this Viersprachigkeit and requires the four national
languages to be given equal status (Art. 3a). However, even within the content of the
act itself, this egalitarian position becomes at times unsustainable, since Article 10
generally permits publication of official documents in French, German and Italian,
with Romansh only considered in one canton (Art.11).
Article 15 states that ‘Teaching’ [Unterricht] requires the following:

[Bund und Kantone] setzen sich im Rahmen ihrer Zuständigkeit für einen Fremdsprachenunterricht
ein, der gewährleistet, dass die Schülerinnen und Schüler am Ende der obligatorischen Schulzeit
über Kompetenzen in mindestens einer zweiten Landessprache und einer weiteren Fremdsprache
verfügen.

In the context of their responsibility for foreign language instruction, the state and cantons
promote a model of foreign language teaching that ensures that pupils have developed com-
petencies in at least a second national language and a further foreign language at the end of
obligatory schooling.

At first glance, this policy appears to be similar to the EU policy of ‘mother tongue plus
two’. The Act intends that the first two languages taught are Swiss national languages,
whereas it does not require that the third language taught in schools be a national
language. It has been claimed that this effectively opens the doors to the teaching of
English at primary and secondary level (NZZ, 2007), although there is no obligation
for Swiss schools to choose English as third language. French seems to have lost
ground in one Swiss city. Stolz (2006) notes that English has overtaken French as the
second language of choice at primary schools in the canton of Zurich. This appears to
be part of wider development in Switzerland; in 2009, nine German-speaking cantons
(including Zürich) agreed on a language syllabus for primary school in which English
is introduced earlier than French, as can be seen from the extract represented in
Table 4.3.
72 Macro policies and meso language planning: The case of supranational policies in Europe

Tab. 4.3: Foreign Language Syllabus of Eastern and Central Swiss Cantons.

Klasse Lektionen Englisch Lektionen Französisch

2. 0-2 -
3. 2-3 -
4. 2-3 -
5. 2 2-3
6. 2 2-3
Primarschule insgesamt 8-11 4-6
7. 3 4
8. 3 3
9. 3 3
Sekundarschule 1. insgesamt 9 10
Obligatorische Schule 19 14-16

It can be seen from Table 4.3 that in primary school years 2-4, English replaces French
as second language, and for primary school as a whole (Primarschule insgesamt),
more English lessons are offered (Lehrplan Englisch, 2009). The number of lessons
per language evens out in middle school (years 7-9). Although English seems to have
acquired preferred status, however, lessons are offered in two foreign languages,
reflecting the EU policy of ‘mother tongue plus two’, although Switzerland is not a
member of the EU.
According to Stolz (2006), the Swiss constitution requires that harmony be
preserved between the four official languages (German, French, Italian, and Romansh).
So much weight is given to the peaceful co-existence of Swiss national languages that
Article 70.2 of the Swiss constitution prescribes that,

… the Cantons shall designate their official languages. In order to preserve harmony between
linguistic communities, they shall respect the traditional territorial distribution of languages,
and take into account the indigenous linguistic minorities.

Stolz (2006: 248) states that languages are thereby assigned territorial rights, having
theoretically been given the right to “defend” their territory. This devolution of
language policy to regional (cantonal) level in effect means that the Swiss Federation
is willing to allow regions the freedom to choose their official language, which can be
seen as federal support for multilingualism. There is evidence, however, of federal
co-ordination in terms of the language level required for university entrance, CEFR
B229 (EBMP, 2010).

29 Generally speaking, B2 represents an intermediate to upper intermediate level of language learning.

 Language policy at meso (national and regional) level 73

At tertiary level, there was little evidence of explicit language policy until 2014.
The Fachhochschulgesetz (1995), which provided the legal basis for the creation of
Swiss UASs, made no reference to language policy. It has now been succeeded by
the Hochschulförderungs-und Koordinationsgesetz (SBFI, 2015), or ‘Higher Education
Development and Coordination Law’ in English. This law has generally more to do
with accreditation and coordination among Swiss HEIs, it does state that federal
funds are available for any projects that aim to improve multilingualism in respect of
the national languages (Article 59).

4.7.2 Germany

Where language policy for Germany as a whole is concerned, the German constitution
(German Bundestag, 2013) firstly stipulates that,

nobody be discriminated against, or receive preferential treatment, on the basis of his or her sex,
descent, race, language, country of origin, beliefs, religious or political views.

There is therefore some provision for diversity of languages in the German

Constitution. In the tertiary context, the Hochschulrahmengesetz (German Higher
Education Framework Law, 2006) defines the duties and responsibilities of German
higher education institutions. It requires that suitably qualified Germans should
theoretically be guaranteed entry to higher education ‒ the rights of other nationalities
are not specified, although students from other EU countries will need to possess the
‘necessary’ language competence for admission (German Higher Education Framework
Law (2006), paragraph 27). The German Higher Education Law has been the target of
some criticism within Germany, largely because it is perceived as limiting the freedom
of the German states too severely in matters of tertiary education (German Bundesrat,
2007). This criticism is typical of the German policy landscape, where there seems
to be a long-standing tension between central policy-making and the desire of the
German states for political self-determination.
Ash (2006) explains that the traditional political independence of the German
states has increased the speed of Bologna reforms at regional level, because states
are given the power to introduce the reforms autonomously. At regional level, Article
58 of the Landeshochschulgesetz (Higher Education Law of Baden-Württemberg/
German LGH, 2005) stipulates that foreign students should have sufficient language
competencies as required by the course of study; no mention is made of language
competence in another context. One requirement at federal level has not been
challenged, it appears: for students to achieve the Fachhochschulreife, or entrance
certificate to UASs, they should reach CEFR level B2 in a foreign language (Leitfaden
für Berufschulen, 2013).
74 Macro policies and meso language planning: The case of supranational policies in Europe

Erling and Hilgendorf (2006) note that English is growing in importance as a

medium of instruction at HEIs, which they attribute to the influence of the Bologna
Declaration. While Germany’s Federal Ministry of Education and Research (GFME,
2012, p. 92) views English as ‘erste Fremdsprache’ or first foreign language for
secondary school students, the question of which foreign language should be studied
first is not federally defined. Nevertheless, language practice, as Spolsky (2004) might
term it, reveals certain trends. According to Erling and Hilgendorf (2006), 77% of
German pupils are learning English, with French, as the second most popular being
learnt by 15 per cent. This development seems to be more spontaneous than centrally
organised.
The seeming lack of a centrally-formulated language policy in Germany is in our
view connected with the strong political autonomy of the German states. The age
at which children start learning a second language, for instance, is dependent on
the policy of the state where they live (Goethe Institute, 2013). Where the German
language policy landscape is concerned, it is therefore useful to refer to Spolsky’s
(2004, p. 8) use of the term “language practices”. It is difficult to detect a consolidated
language policy at national level and so it seems more appropriate to refer to language
practices than to language planning.
In the context of the German state bordering on France and Switzerland, Baden-
Württemberg (BW), there does not seem to be any particular language policy at
tertiary level, although language policy at secondary level has recently been fiercely
contested. In 2007, Helmut Rau, the regional minister of education, reportedly sought
to require the teaching of French as first foreign language at secondary schools in the
part of BW adjacent to France. Nevertheless, this move was legally challenged, and
stopped, by parents (Der Spiegel, 2013). In BW (2009), policy has since 2004 made
English and French lessons obligatory from the first year of primary school. In 2011, it
was announced (BW, 2011) that from 2009 onwards all secondary school pupils in the
state would be obliged to learn English; it was noted that 75 per cent learnt French, 32
per cent Latin and 22 per cent Spanish. No reference is made, however, to desired exit
levels in these languages, but this is regulated at national level (Fachhochschulreife).
The picture that therefore emerges from this brief review of German language
policy is that it is more relevant in the local context to refer to the language policy
of German states, rather than central language policy. It is for this reason that the
concept of ‘regional’ language policy was included in the definition of meso level; in
the German political landscape, the ‘regions’ or states have real policy making power,
as seen in the example the German region/state Baden-Württemberg (BW). Even
within BW, there does not appear to be a specific language policy where tertiary level
is concerned although on a de facto basis, there seems to be fairly strong tradition of
instruction in two foreign languages (English and French).
 Language policy at meso (national and regional) level 75

4.7.3 France

As previously mentioned, France’s political organisation, and its education system,

are centrally administered and implemented to a degree that would be unusual in
both Switzerland and Germany. In this regard Gauthier and Le Gouvello (2010: 75)
report that “[w]hat is taught in schools is not decided in schools by the actors. Rather,
it is fixed and dictated to all education agents at the national level”. Pilkington (2012)
claims that universities only gained complete control of their budgets in 2007; prior to
that, university departments received their funding directly from the state. In the same
vein, Malan (2004) notes the powerful role of the Ministry of Education. In France, the
adaptation of qualifications to a Bologna degree structure is subsequently subject to
evaluation by the Ministry of Education; non-compliance with Ministry requirements
can lead to a loss of funding. Arguing that central policy-making in France can lead
to problems at tertiary level, Derouet and Normand (2008) explain that the policy in
which 80% of school leavers are ‘pushed through’ to university leads to high dropout
rates.
The Loi Toubon (1994) is the dominant expression of language policy in France.
This law‘s apparent purpose is to defend the French language as ‘a key element in
the heritage and personality of France’ (Loi Toubon, 1994). In general, it stipulates
wherever possible, the French language must be used on French territory. Its
requirements are wide-ranging: Article 6, for example, stipulates that documentation
in French must be provided for any event, seminar or convention taking place on
French territory where French is not the dominant language, and texts that are
presented should include a summary in French. An exception is made in the case of
events organised primarily for ‘foreigners’. On the other hand, the law recognises that
regional languages exist in France, and is seemingly not against their use, although it
seems plain that it does not encourage the use of regional languages in the absence of
French. Article 11.1 stipulates that,

The language of instruction, examinations and competitive examinations, as well as disserta-

tions in State and private educational institutions shall be French, except for cases justified by
the need to teach foreign and regional languages and cultures or where the teachers are associate
teachers or guest teachers. Foreign schools or schools specially set up to teach foreign nationals
as well as institutions providing instruction of an international nature are not bound by this
obligation.

Co-operation between HEIs would seem to fall under this article. Nevertheless, Young
(1997) reports that legal action was taken against the Georgia Institute of Technology
on the grounds that its campus in Metz, France, was advertised on an English-
language website. The case was ultimately dismissed on a “technicality” (1997: A26).
Moreover, the increasing number of Bachelor degrees taught wholly or partly in
English at French universities (Campusfrance, 2013) suggests that legal action of this
kind would be improbable in the future.
76 Macro policies and meso language planning: The case of supranational policies in Europe

Where secondary level education is concerned, the learning of a foreign language

is required, though it is not specified which should be taught (Bonnet, 2007). Bonnet
(2007) notes that in 2005 the French Ministry of Education required that CEFR level B2
in a foreign language should be reached at the end of the tenth school year. Level C1
should furthermore be achieved by those who have continuously attended language
classes until the end of upper secondary school. He reports that this standardization
creates problems of its own with regard to quality assurance, in other words ensuring
that a test claiming to be at B2 level really is at that level.
In tri-national programmes, French partners of German and Swiss UASs are often
IUTs (Instituts Universitaires de Technologie), which are institutes integrated in French
universities offering training for specific occupations. Examples of these are business
administration, civil engineering, electrical engineering (Malan, 2004; Pilkington,
2012). The role of IUTs is described by federal law. Article 2 of the Decret IUT (2015)
stipulates that [translation of the authors]:

Les instituts universitaires de technologie dispensent en formation initiale et continue un enseig-

nement supérieur destiné à préparer aux fonctions d’encadrement technique et professionnel dans
certains secteurs de la production, de la recherche appliquée et des services.

The university institutes of technology provide initial and on-going training in higher educa-
tion designed to prepare [students] for skilled employment in technical and vocational fields in
certain sectors of production, applied research and services.

IUTs should therefore prepare their students for skilled employment; however, no
mention is made of language policy. Academic freedom is guaranteed in French
law (French Education Code, 2000), but this is no guarantee that a multilingual
language policy is evident at French IUTs or universities. De facto evidence (TMO,
2014) suggests, however, that several degree programmes are offered bilingually in
the trinational area.

4.7.4 Discussion: Contrasting language policies in Switzerland, Germany and France

The review of language policy has revealed noticeable inconsistency between

policy-making at macro and its interpretation, if it can be viewed as such, as meso
level. As is clear from the meso-level policy landscapes in the different countries,
national priorities compete with supra-national policies, whether they are language
policies or broader supranational treaties. While EU language policy makes a strong
commitment to multilingualism at macro (supranational) level, promoting linguistic
diversity is seen as the task of the member states. In fact, this chapter has showed
that this policy has received the most support in Switzerland, a non-EU state, whereas
France’s language policy appears to be largely protectionist in nature (Loi Toubon)
and Germany’s strongly federal nature makes the emergence of a unitary language
 Conclusion 77

policy doubtful, though its constitution does respect the rights of other population
groups and languages.
At the same time, de facto policies seem to promote a move towards learning
English, particularly at higher education level. Because of the desirability of a higher
education qualification, the move to English has an effect at secondary and primary
school levels, where English is increasingly the first foreign language. In terms of
the introduction of language teaching models like Content and Language Integrated
Learning (CLIL) at school level, English is not only the first foreign language that is
taught; it becomes the language of instruction. This means that a de facto policy (such
as the Bologna Declaration) that aimed to increase transnational mobility of higher
education students, not only influences the teaching of languages at primary and
secondary school level but also replaces home languages as languages of learning and
teaching (in the CLIL model). In our view, this development should be questioned if it
goes against the promotion of multilingualism. Therefore, HEIs offering more courses
in English should not do so at the expense of instruction in other languages.
The ideal of transnational mobility as accelerator for competitiveness in the
European higher education sector also has the unintended consequence that
students are seen as internationally marketable. Coleman (2006) points out that “[a]n
opportunity to study abroad is at the same time seen as better preparing domestic
students for international careers” (p. 5). This means that English is seen not only
as an instrument to enable transnational mobility of higher education students, but
also as entry point for careers. At meso level the tradition of vocational education
at tertiary level (UASs in Switzerland and Germany, and IUTs in France) suggests a
strong concern with preparation for employment in the trinational context. Teaching
English for specific, professional purposes becomes an indispensable ingredient of
English language courses.

4.8 Conclusion

This chapter has discussed how formal language policies are re-interpreted at meso
level when language planning is influenced by national priorities, unrelated supra-
national policies and neo-liberal market forces. Baldauf (2006: 149) states that,

Language policy may be realised in very formal (overt) language planning documents and pro-
nouncements (e.g. constitutions, legislation, policy statements, educational directives) which
can be either symbolic or substantive in form, in informal statements of intent (i.e. in the dis-
course of language, politics and society), or may be left unstated (covert).

As has been noted, the overt EU policy of multilingualism has not been clearly
reflected in German or French language policy, to the extent that there is also overt
policy support for multilingualism at meso level (except for Switzerland). Language
78 Macro policies and meso language planning: The case of supranational policies in Europe

policy in France is overtly protectionist; in Germany, policy is so decentralised that

it is not clear whether it can be viewed as covert, since covert seems to suggest an
identifiable, if hidden, language policy. The Loi Toubon wishes to safeguard the
position of French within France, whereas in Germany the relative independence
of the German states seems to prevent the easy passage of federal regulations on
language policy. Nevertheless, we have also pointed out that in terms of its official
language policy, the non-EU member Switzerland is probably closest to the EU
target of multilingualism (mother tongue plus two additional languages). Applying
Baldauf’s notion of covert language policy, one might say that the unstated status quo
is apparently that member nations can interpret EU policy as they see fit. As we have
seen, this can lead to markedly different language policies even among geographical
neighbours.
The Bologna Declaration, as it is silent on language issues (Erling & Hilgendorf,
2006), can be seen as a ‘sideways’ influence that encourages autonomous language
planning at national level; as has been noted, the Bologna declaration has in general
contributed towards a growth in English-medium courses, a development which
can be seen as going against the supranational EU policy of multilingualism. The
Declaration’s other focus, that of preparation of employment, can also be seen to work
against the ideal of multilingualism, since English is deemed to make institutions
more attractive to international students (e.g. Chinese) and secondly is seen to be
more beneficial to students’ future careers, perhaps, than other languages with a less
global representation.
This chapter has taken as its primary focus on the discrepancies between official
EU language policy and the Bologna Declaration, but has also noted the recognition
of the CEFR (Common European Framework of Reference), at supranational level (see
Table 1) and also at meso level (all three countries require students to have mastered
CEFR B2 level before entering tertiary education). An in-depth discussion of the CEFR
would be beyond the scope of this chapter, but it is worth noting that although EU
officially endorses its use as a benchmark (EUR-Lex, 2005b, 2007a, 2012, 2014), it was
produced by a separate body, the Council of Europe30 (CoE, 2015). As described above,
the CEFR is an influential framework which aims to describe levels of competence in
foreign language learning. A question which can be raised in this regard is whether
the CEFR can be seen as official language policy exerted pressure ‘downwards’ in a
vertical sense, or whether its presence in meso-level policy is due to its unofficial and
spontaneous adoption in a horizontal or ‘sideways’ fashion. Nevertheless, the Council
of Europe is an organisation of a cultural nature whose membership is voluntary, so it
does not have the power to make official policy. As Little (2007) states,

30 The Council of Europe is an international body made up by the Ministers of Education of partici-
pating countries, including but not limited to EU members (CoE, 2015).
 Conclusion 79

(…) the Council of Europe can only propose, advise, and encourage; it cannot intervene directly
in the educational policy and practice of its member states. Thus, it is the member states themsel-
ves that decide to what extent, if at all, the CEFR should help to shape language education policy,
language teaching and learning, and language testing. (Little, 2007: 647)

In this sense, it not clear whether the CEFR can be seen as ‘vertical’ or official policy
due to the Council of Europe’s status as described above by Little, but the fact remains
that it has greater influence in the three countries discussed here than official language
policy originating from the EU particularly regarding the goal of multilingualism.
While it is also officially endorsed as a frame of reference by EU language policy (EUR-
Lex, 2005b, 2007a, 2012, 2014) the EU has not obliged member states to refer to it in
meso-level language planning. This in turn leaves considerable room for autonomous
language policy at state level. If we accept that the Bologna Declaration and the CEFR
are examples of ‘unofficial’ influences on policy, it seems safe to conclude that meso-
level language policy is impacted upon to a greater extent by unofficial horizontal
forces, than it is by vertical, supranational policy making.
This chapter has set out to deal with policy making at higher levels, defining
macro as supranational, and meso as national or regional and has intentionally
neglected micro level. At first glance this may seem incomplete, since it is at micro or
institutional level that ‘the real learning gets done’, as it were, and surely the ultimate
test of policy making is to ascertain whether it is implemented where it really matters,
at school or university level. While not seeking to deny the importance of micro level,
this chapter has focused on national and regional level to show that transnational
policy making can be frustrated even at the next highest policy (national/regional
level). In short, when policy initiatives can go astray at national level, it is by no
means clear that supranational policy making will have any effect on micro-level/
institutional language practices. Clearly, this is not a desirable situation. Baldauf
(2006: 165) explains that,

(…) micro-level planning initiatives are essential complementary elements of macro-level langu-
age planning and neither macro-level nor micro-level planning is sufficient on its own.

Therefore, without some kind of co-ordination at higher level, micro level practices
are lacking guidance; on the other hand, macro level policy is rather meaningless
without micro level implementation, since micro level is presumably the appropriate
sphere for macro/meso-level policy to be applied. This chapter has therefore raised
some doubts whether policy-making at supranational level can have a meaningful
effect on micro-level language planning, at least in the trinational border context of
Germany, France and Switzerland.
80 Macro policies and meso language planning: The case of supranational policies in Europe

References
Ash, M. G. 2006. Bachelor of what, master of whom? The Humboldt myth and historical
transformations of higher education in German-speaking Europe and the US. European Journal
of Education, 41(2), 245-267.
Baldauf, R. B. 2006. Rearticulating the case for micro language planning in a language ecology
context. Current Issues in Language Planning, 7(2-3), 147-170.
Baldauf, B., & Chua, S. K.C. 2012. Language planning and multilingualism. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.),
The encyclopaedia of applied linguistics. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. 1-11.
Bologna Declaration. 1999. Retrieved from http://www.ehea.info/article-details.aspx?ArticleId=5
Bonnet, G. 2007. The CEFR and education policies in Europe. The Modern Language Journal, 91(4):
669-672.
Borchardt, K-D. 2010. The ABC of European Union law. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the
European Communities.
BW. 2009. Retrieved from http://www.statistik.badenwuerttemberg.de/veroeffentl/Monatshefte/
essay.asp?xYear=2009&xMonth=11&eNr=03
BW. 2011. Retrieved from http://www.statistik.badenwuerttemberg.de/veroeffentl/Monatshefte/
essay.asp?xYear=2009&xMonth=11&eNr=03
Campusfrance. 2013. Retrieved from http://www.campusfrance.org/en/page/programs-taught-
english
CEFR. 2000. A common framework of reference for languages Retrieved from www.coe.int/lang-CEFR
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. 2010. Retrieved from www.europarl.europa.
eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf
Coleman, J. 2006. English-medium teaching in European Higher Education. Language Teaching,
39(1), 1–14.
Council of Europe (CoE). 2015. Retrieved from http://www.coe.int/de/web/portal/home
Crosier, D., Purser, L., & Smidt, H. 2007. Trends V: Universities shaping the European higher
education area. Retrieved from http://static.uni-graz.at/fileadmin/lehr-studienservices/Der_
Bologna-Prozess/eua_trends_v_for_web.pdf
Decret IUT. 2015. Retrieved from https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichSarde.do;jsessionid=B42693
3271BB8F4C3C7DAE5C5D92EF5D.tpdila18v_1?reprise=true&page=1&idSarde=SARDOBJT00000
7106214&ordre=null&nature=null&g=ls
Der Spiegel. 2013. Retrieved from http://www.spiegel.de/schulspiegel/wissen/franzoesisch-zwang-
baden-wuerttembergs-kultusminister-lenkt-ein-a-496300.html
Derouet, J-L., & Normand, R. 2008. French universities at a crossroads between crisis and radical
reform. European Education, 40(1), 20-34.
Dittrich, K., Frederiks, M., & Luwel, M. 2004. The Implementation of ‘Bologna’ in Flanders and the
Netherlands. European Journal of Education, 39(3), 299-316.
EBMP. 2010. Leitfaden für die Eidgenössischen Berufsmaturitätsprüfung. Retrieved from www.sbfi.
admin.ch/themen/01366/01379/01578/?lang=de
Erling, E., & Hilgendorf, S. 2006. Language policies in the context of German higher education.
Language Policy, 5, 267-292
ET 2020. 2009. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/index_en.htm
EU 2000. Retrieved from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/summits/lis1_en.htm
EU 2013. Retrieved from http://www.gr2014parliament.eu/Portals/6/PDFFILES/
NA0113090ENC_002.pdf
EU 2013b. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/languages/index_en.htm
EUR-Lex. 1995. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:31
995Y0812%2801%29&from=EN
 References 81

EUR-Lex. 1998. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=142969861106

4&uri=CELEX:31998Y0103%2801%29
EUR-Lex. 2002. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=142969404158
9&uri=CELEX:32002G0223%2801%29
EUR-Lex. 2003. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52
003DC0449&from=DE
EUR-Lex. 2005. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/
TXT/?uri=celex%3A52005DC0012
EUR-Lex. 2005a. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/
TXT/?uri=CELEX:52005DC0596
EUR-Lex. 2005b. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/
TXT/?uri=CELEX:52005DC0356
EUR-Lex. 2006a. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=14296934574
64&uri=OJ:JOC_2006_296_E_0271_01
EUR-Lex. 2006b. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/
ALL/?uri=CELEX:32006H0962
EUR-Lex. 2007a. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/
TXT/?uri=CELEX:52007DC0184
EUR-Lex. 2007b. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=14299064806
63&uri=CELEX:52007DC0773
EUR-Lex. 2008. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=145708160068
5&uri=CELEX:52008DC0566
EUR-Lex. 2009. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/
TXT/?uri=URISERV:ef0016
EUR-Lex. 2011. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/
TXT/?uri=OJ:C:2011:372:TOC
EUR-Lex. 2012. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/
TXT/?uri=celex:52012SC0372
EUR-Lex. 2012a Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/
TXT/?uri=celex%3A12012E%2FTXT
EUR-Lex. 2014. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52014XG
0614%2806%29
EUR-Lex. 2015. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en
European Commission. 2013. Retrieved from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/aboutparliament/
en/007e69770f/Multilingualism.html
European Parliament. 2013. Retrieved from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/aboutparliament/en/
displayFtu.html?ftuId=FTU_5.13.6.html
Fachhochschulgesetz. 1995. Retrieved from https://www.admin.ch/opc/de/classified-
compilation/19950279/
FHNW. 2016. Fachhochschule Nordwestschweiz/ University of Applied Sciences, North-West
Switzerland. Retrieved from http://www.fhnw.ch/business/ibm/school-of-business-
international-business-management?set_language=en
French Education Code. 2000. Retrieved from http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do?ci
dTexte=LEGITEXT000006071191&idArticle=LEGIARTI000006525617&dateTexte=20131213
Gauthier, R-F., & Le Gouvello, M. 2010. The French curricular exception and the troubles of education
and internationalisation: Will it be enough to ‘rearrange the deckchairs’?. European Journal of
Education, 45(1), 74-88.
German Bundesrat. 2007. Retrieved from http://www.bundesrat.de/nn_1934482/DE/
parlamentsmaterial/jahresarchiv/beratungsvorgaenge-07,gtp=1934204__3D3.html
82 Macro policies and meso language planning: The case of supranational policies in Europe

German Bundestag. 2013. Retrieved from http://www.bundestag.de/bundestag/aufgaben/

rechtsgrundlagen/grundgesetz/gg_01.html
GFME / German Federal Ministry of Education. 2012. Retrieved from www.bildungsbericht.de/
daten2012/bb_2012.pdf
German Higher Education Framework Law. 2006. Retrieved from http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/
hrg/__7.html
German LGH / Landeshochschulgesetz. 2005. Retrieved from http://www.landesrecht-bw.de/jportal
/?quelle=jlink&query=HSchulG+BW&psml=bsbawueprod.psml&max=true&aiz=true
Goethe Institute. 2013. Retrieved from http://www.goethe.de/ges/spa/pan/spg/de6400582.htm
Graddol, D. 1997. The future of English? A guide to forecasting the popularity of the English language
in the 21st century. UK: The British Council.
Hedberg, T. 2003. The impact of the Bologna Declaration on European engineering education.
European Journal of Engineering Education, 28(1), 1-5.
Hursh, D. 2005. Neo-liberalism, markets and accountability: Transforming education and
undermining democracy in the United States and England. Policy Futures in Education, 3(1),
3-15.
Jacobs, G., & Farrell, T. 2003. Understanding and implementing the CLT
(Communicative Language Teaching) paradigm. RELC Journal, 34(1), 5-30.
Kaplan, R. 2013. Language planning. Applied Research on English Language. 2(1), 1-12.
Kramsch, C. 2014. Teaching foreign language in an era of globalization:
Introduction. The Modern Language Journal, 98(1), 296-311.
Lehrplan Englisch. 2009. Retrieved from http://www.vsa.zh.ch/content/dam/bildungsdirektion/
vsa/schulbetrieb/lehrplaene_lehrmittel/lehrplan_englisch.pdf
Leitfaden für Berufschulen. 2013. Retrieved from
http://www.lsbw.de/dienstleistungen/beruflschulen/pruefungen/kmk/zertifik.html
Lisbon Treaty. 2009. Retrieved from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/aboutparliament/
en/20150201PVL00008/The-Lisbon-Treaty
Little, D. 2007. The Common European framework of reference for languages: Perspectives on the
making of supranational language education policy. The Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 645-
655.
Loi Toubon. 1994. Retrieved from http://www.dglf.culture.gouv.fr/droit/loi-gb.html
Lorenz, C. 2006. Will the universities survive the European integration? ... before and after the
Bologna Declaration. Sociologia Internationalis, 44(1), 123–51.
Lynch, K. 2006. Neo-liberalism and marketisation: The implications for higher Education. European
Educational Research Journal, 5(1), 1-17.
Magnan, S.S. 2007. Reconsidering Communicative Language Teaching for National Goals. Modern
Language Journal, 91(2), 249-252.
Malan, T. 2004. Implementing the Bologna Process in France. European Journal of Education, 39(3),
289-297.
McMenamin, J. 2015. Re-interpreting English for academic purposes in a trinational
bachelor’s degree in Business Administration. Retrieved from http://scholar.sun.ac.za/
handle/10019.1/97789
NZZ (Neue Zürcher Zeitung). 2007. Retrieved from
http://www.nzz.ch/sprachengesetz-verabschiedet-1.564295
OECD / Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. 2012. Education at a glance.
Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/edu/highlights.pdf
Phillipson, R. 2006. English, a cuckoo in the European higher education nest of languages?.
European Journal of English Studies, 10(1), 13-32.
Pilkington, M. 2012. The French evolution: France and Europeanisation of higher education. Journal
of Higher Education Policy and Management, 34(1), 39–50.
 References 83

Räisänen, C., & Fortanet-Gomez, I. 2008. The state of ESP teaching and learning in Western
European higher education after the Bäologna. In I. Foätanet-Gomez & C. Raisanen (Eds.),
ESP in European Higher Education. Integrating Language and Content. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.11-51.
Rege-Colet, N., & Durand, N. (2004). Working on the Bologna Declaration: Promoting integrated
curriculum development and fostering conceptual change. International Journal for Academic
Development, 9(2), 167-179.
Richards, J.C. 2006. Communicative language teaching today. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Saarinen, T. 2008. Whose quality? Social actors in the interface of transnational and national higher
education policy. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 29(2), 179-193.
SBFI. 2015. Retrieved from https://www.admin.ch/opc/de/classified-compilation/20070429/index.
html
Schomburg, H., & Teichler, U. 2011. Employability and the Mobility of Bachelor Graduates in Europe:
Key Results of the Bologna Process. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
SDE (Swiss Department of Education). 2015. Retrieved from http://www.edudoc.ch/static/web/
arbeiten/sprach_unterr/fktbl_sprachen_d.pdf
Shore, C., & Wright, S. 2000. Coercive accountability: The rise of audit culture in higher education
audit cultures: Anthropological Studies. In M. Strathern (Ed.), Audit cultures: Anthropological
studies in accountability, ethics and the academy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
57-90.
Spolsky, B. 2004. ‘Language policy failures - why won’t they listen?’, Series A: General and
Theoretical Papers (584), Essen, LAUD
Stolz, D. 2006. Breaching the peace: Struggles around Multilingualism in Switzerland. Language
Policy, 5, 247–265.
Studer, P., Pelli-Ehrensperger, A., & Kelly, P. 2009. Mehrsprachigkeit an universitären
Bildungsinstitutionen: Arbeitssprache Englisch im Hochschulfachunterricht. Zurich,
Switzerland: Zurich Hochschule für Angewandte Wissenschaften.
Swiss Languages Act (Sprachengesetz). 2007. Retrieved from http://www.bak.admin.ch/kulturschaf
fen/04245/04246/?lang=de
TMO. 2014. Trinationale Metropolregion Oberrhein / Trinational Metropolitan Region Upper-Rhine.
Retrieved from http://www.rmtmo.eu/de/wissenschaft.html
van der Walt, C. 2004. Globalisation speak in higher education: How we talk about life-long learning.
In M. Pütz, J. Neff-Von Aertselaer & T. A. van Dijk (Eds.), Communicating ideologies. Frankfurt,
Germany: Peter Lang. 327-352.
van der Walt, C. 2013. Multilingual higher education: Beyond English medium orientations. UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Vögtle, E.M., & Martens, K. 2014. The Bologna process as a template for
transnational policy coordination. Policy Studies, 25(3), 246-263.
Wallace, C. 2002. Local literacies and global literacy: Globalisation and English teaching. London:
Routledge.
Wächter, B., & Maiworm, F. 2008. English-taught programmes in European higher education: The
picture in 2007. Bonn: Lemmens (ACA Papers on International Cooperation in Education).
Witte, J., van der Wende, M., & Huisman, J. 2008. Blurring boundaries: How the Bologna process
changes the relationship between university and non‐university higher education in Germany,
the Netherlands and France. Studies in Higher Education, 33(3), 217-231.
Young, R. 1997. French court dismisses suit over web site of Georgia Tech’s campus in Metz. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 43(41), A26.