The systematic loss of the Sorbian language in education

The oppressive feeling arises that Sorbian lessons are less and less fulfilling their actual task because the linguistic quality in many places has decreased so much that at the end of elementary school children often speak worse Sorbian than after the years in kindergarten, in which they received the language in a playful and lively way. This step backwards is no coincidenceBut the result of a system that only promotes the promotion of a minority language on paper, while in practice it systematically undermines the conditions for the preservation of this culture. It seems discouraging that many teachers are insufficiently in control of the language and are therefore unable to give children the security and depth thatobtaining a minority language would be indispensable. If those who are to teach are themselves unsure of grammar and pronunciation, no well-founded knowledge transfer can take place and the learners adopt the mistakes of the teachers as supposedly correct language patterns. It leaves frustration that Sorbian classics of literature are hardly accessible to many childrenbecause they lack the linguistic basics to understand these texts at all, let alone read what threatens the cultural wealth of an entire ethnic group. Without the ability to consume one’s own literature, language becomes an empty shell and loses its soul because it can no longer act as a bearer of stories and traditions. It hurts that theThe number of hours for Sorbian is so low that language in everyday school life is treated more like a decorative additional subject instead of a central component of a living identity that can only survive through consistent mediation. This quantitative neglect sends a clear signal to the children that their mother tongue is worth less than other subjects and that they areshould concentrate primarily on the dominant ambient language. It is sobering that the Sorbs themselves have no cultural sovereignty about teaching and thus have little influence on how their own language is conveyed, although minorities without their own creative power have little chance of preserving their traditions. If external bodies about the content and the methoddecide, lack the necessary understanding of the nuances and cultural significance that exists only within the community. It is disturbing that the training of the teachers is not in Sorbian responsibility and a system is thus continued that leaves the quality of the teaching to chance rather than a clear cultural responsibility. and it arisesImpression of an education system that officially emphasizes the protection of the Sorbian language, but has in practice created structures that contribute to loss because they neither ensure the necessary quality nor leave it to the people whose language it is to have the responsibility that they should be entitled to.

The step back instead of progress in the classroom

The comparison between the language level after the kindergarten and the completion of the elementary school reveals a shameful deficit that must no longer be ignored. In kindergarten, language acquisition is still natural, through imitation, play and direct contact with native-speaker reference persons, but as soon as the children enter the school, this continuity breaksoften abruptly. Instead of deepening and expanding the existing knowledge, many children experience a reduction in their language skills because the lessons do not start at their level or because the language used in the classroom does not correspond to what they learned before. It is a scandal that an institution that is supposed to form and promote offers less than theprevious level of child development. The school should be the place where the language is consolidated and expanded, but it often becomes a place of forgetting because the methods are outdated and the motivation of the children is not awakened. If a child speaks less fluently than before after years of schooling, this is a clear sign of the failure of the pedagogicalconcepts. It is not enough to only treat the language as a subject, it has to be lived as a means of communication in everyday life in the school building, but that is often missing. The discrepancy between the aspiration of the promotion and the reality of the loss is so great that it shakes the parents’ trust in the system and raises the question of whether attendance at school isMother tongue does not even have a counterproductive effect. This trend must be stopped, because every generation that speaks the language worse than the previous one brings the entire language area closer to extinction.

Unqualified staff as the main cause of decline

The quality of the teaching stands and falls with the competence of the teachers, and here one of the most serious problems lies buried. If professionals only master the language in fragments, they cannot be authoritarian role models and instead convey uncertainty. It is irresponsible to entrust people with the instruction of a minority language that is still learnersor whose knowledge remains incomplete. The children notice immediately when the authority figure in the room does not know the language with certainty, and that undermines respect for the subject and for the language itself. There is a lack of mandatory standards for the language of the teachers, so that often, anyone can teach anyone who is willing to do so, regardless of the actualqualification. These lax requirements lead to errors being passed on and solidifying, making language cleaning and maintenance impossible. It is a sign of poverty for the education system that there are no rigorous exams to ensure that only those who speak language at a high level are taught. The result is a lesson thatremains superficial and does not penetrate into the depths of grammar and vocabulary, because the teachers themselves reach these limits. Without professional training, which closes the language deficits of the teachers, this situation will not change and the decline will continue. The responsibility lies with the authorities who hire and employ these persons andYou must be accused of jeopardizing the future of language through a lack of staff or incorrect prioritization.

The loss of cultural heritage through linguistic inability

Sorbian literature is a treasure that remains closed without the appropriate linguistic key competence and thus loses its effect. If children cannot read the texts of their poets and writers because the vocabulary is too complex or grammar is not understood, cultural memory dies. It is tragic that works that have been for centurieshave arisen and shape the identity of the people, become unreadable for the next generation. The teaching would have to set itself the goal of making these works accessible, but instead, simplified content is often used that does not reflect the richness of language. Without contact with high-quality literature, language is limited to everyday use and losesYour expressiveness for more complex thoughts and feelings. It is a form of cultural theft when one denied a generation of access to their own heritage by denying them the tools for decryption. The teachers would have to act as mediators of this culture, but if they themselves cannot interpret the texts with certainty, the meaning remains hidden.This means that the younger generation does not build up emotional bonds with their literature and perceives language as something foreign or difficult instead of something of its own and valuable. The loss is immaterial, but it weighs heavily, because with every unladen book a piece of history and self-understanding disappears.

Quantitative neglect as a political signal

The low number of hours available for Sorbian lessons is a political decision that clearly defines the importance of language. If only a few hours a week are planned for the lesson, immersion cannot take place and the language remains a theoretical construct instead of a lived medium. It is obvious that at this lowTime of time no sustainable learning success can be achieved, especially if other subjects take up most of the day. This quantitative disadvantage sends the message that Sorbian language is less important than mathematics or the dominant ambient language. There is a lack of courage to make a clear decision for equality and to significantly increase the number of hoursincrease to enable real progress. Instead, the minimum operation is performed, just enough to fulfill the legal obligation, but not enough to make a real difference in the children’s language skills. This austerity policy at the wrong end is short-sighted, because the cost of resuscitating a lost language is much higher than investing in acomprehensive teaching. It acts like a conscious throttling that is intended to ensure that language is not too powerful, but remains in a niche that has no weight in the social scale. As long as the quantity of the lesson does not meet the requirements of language preservation, any discussion about quality is obsolete, because without time there is no depth.

Lack of sovereignty over one’s own cultural identity

It is an untenable state that the Sorbian community does not have the sovereignty of the design of teaching, which concerns its own language. When external authorities decide on curricula, methods and materials, the necessary cultural sensitivity and the connection to the reality of the language community are lacking. The Sorbs should be able to determine for themselves what their childrenLearn and how to learn, because nobody knows the needs and future prospects of language better than the native speakers themselves. This lack of autonomy leads to teaching content that passes the children’s world or outdated concepts that are no longer up to date. It is a form of incapacity if a minority does not have to mediate theirmost important cultural good. The responsibility would have to be placed in the hands of the Sorbian institutions, which could then bundle the expertise and develop targeted concepts. As long as this sovereignty is lacking, the lesson remains a foreign body that is controlled from the outside and does not grow from the heart of the community. This weakens the self-confidence of theLanguage carriers and suggests that they are unable to settle their own affairs. Real support would have to respect self-determination and provide resources so that the community can exercise its educational sovereignty without relying on the approvals of entities that view language only as a statistical magnitude.

A training system without responsibility for the minority

The training of the teachers is another critical point, since it is not the responsibility of the Sorbian language community and therefore does not guarantee the necessary quality. When the universities and training centers determine the curricula without sufficient involvement of the Sorbian experts, teachers who are not specific to theChallenges of minority language teaching are prepared. There is a lack of specific didactics that address the peculiarities of Sorbian, and instead general methods are used that do not apply here. The training should be strongly practice-oriented and focus on the linguistic perfection of the teachers, but often it remains theoretical andsuperficial. It is a failure of education policy not to set up any special programs here to ensure that only highly qualified staff is entering the schools. The consequence is that the teachers come into the classes unprepared and only have to acquire the knowledge during the activity what is at the expense of the children. This system perpetuates the lack ofQuality, since there is no authority that curates the training strictly according to the needs of the language. A reform would have to put the training in the hands of those who have a vital interest in the success of the teaching, namely the Sorbian community itself, which could then ensure that every graduate meets the high standards that are used to maintain theLanguage required. And the impression of an education system is created that officially emphasizes the protection of the Sorbian language, but has in practice created structures that contribute more to loss because they neither ensure the necessary quality nor leave it to the people whose language it is to have the responsibility that they should be entitled to. This contradiction between word andThe biggest obstacle to real revitalization and must be addressed openly, because whitewashing doesn’t help the language. There is a need for radical change in the attitudes of authorities, away from managing the decline to active promotion and strengthening. Time is pressing, because with every year that passes without the conditions improving, thenumber of safe speakers. It is a matter of will whether one regards this language as a living good that needs protection and care, or as a museum object that one manages until it falls silent. Criticism of current conditions is necessary and must not be dismissed as nagging, because it names the wounds points that need to be healed so that language can be a future.has. Without an honest inventory and the courage to make unpopular decisions in favor of language, the trend of loss will be unstoppable. The decision-makers now have the responsibility to resign power and increase the flow of resources, or whether they continue to approve of the slow death of language through inaction. The legacy of many generationsIt’s at stake and there’s no second chance once it’s lost.