Discrimination in Munich schools in the guest worker regime. The intersection of language, nationality and gender

Bergmann, Mona; Fettke, Ulrike Discrimination in Munich schools in the guest worker regime. The intersection of language, nationality and gender Zeitschrift für erziehungswissenschaftliche Migrationsforschung : ZeM 2 (2023) 2, S. 172-189 Quellenangabe/ Reference: Bergmann, Mona; Fettke, Ulrike: Discrimination in Munich schools in the guest worker regime. The intersection of language, nationality and gender - In: Zeitschrift für erziehungswissenschaftliche Migrationsforschung : ZeM 2 (2023) 2, S. 172-189 - URN: urn:nbn:de:0111-pedocs-344693 - DOI: 10.25656/01:34469; 10.3224/zem.v2i2.05 https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0111-pedocs-344693 https://doi.org/10.25656/01:34469 in Kooperation mit / in cooperation with: https://www.budrich.de Nutzungsbedingungen Terms of use Dieses Dokument steht unter folgender Creative Commons-Lizenz: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/deed.de - Sie dürfen das Werk bzw. den Inhalt vervielfältigen, verbreiten und öffentlich zugänglich machen sowie Abwandlungen und Bearbeitungen des Werkes bzw. Inhaltes anfertigen, solange Sie den Namen des Autors/Rechteinhabers in der von ihm festgelegten Weise nennen und das Werk bzw. den Inhalt nicht für kommerzielle Zwecke verwenden. This document is published under following Creative Commons-License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/deed.en - You may copy, distribute and render this document accessible, make adaptations of this work or its contents accessible to the public as long as you attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor. You are not allowed to make commercial use of the work, provided that the work or its contents are not used for commercial purposes. Mit der Verwendung dieses Dokuments erkennen Sie die Nutzungsbedingungen an. By using this particular document, you accept the above-stated conditions of use. Kontakt / Contact: peDOCS DIPF | Leibniz-Institut für Bildungsforschung und Bildungsinformation Informationszentrum (IZ) Bildung E-Mail: [email protected] Internet: www.pedocs.de Discrimination in Munich Schools in the Guest Worker Regime: The Intersection of Language, Nationality and Gender Mona Bergmann &UlrikeFettke Summary: After the recruitment stop of guest workers in 1973, ahigh proportion of migrants lived in Munich and faced aseparating, marginalizing schooling situation. Using an intersectionality approach, we show how migrant pupils were particularlymarginalised by the overlappingsocial categories of language, nationality and gender. According to our empirical observationsfor the period from the 1970s to the 1980s, the segregation into nationally homogeneousdual-language classes reproduced astructure of social exclusion.Our findings illustrate how past schooling policies have doomed the educational and occupational opportunitiesofageneration of guest workers’children. As some of thediscriminatory grievances can still be seen in today’sneoliberalconjuncture of racism, the results shed new light on contemporary(Bavarian) school policies towards migrants. Keywords: Intersectionality,social exclusion,dual-language classes, educational discrimination, migration Titel: Diskriminierung im Bayerischen Schulsystem an der Intersektion von Sprache, Nationalität und Gender während der 1970erund 1980er Jahre. Eine Münchener Fallstudie Zusammenfassung: Nach dem Anwerbestopp für Gastarbeiter im Jahr 1973 sah sich ein hoher Anteil migrantischer Mitbürger:innen in München einer ausgrenzenden Schulsituation gegenüber. MitHilfe des Intersektionalitätsansatzes zeigen wir für das Schulsystem in München im Zeitraum der 1970er und 1980er Jahre, wie migrantische Schüler:innenüber die zusammenwirkenden sozialen Kategorien Sprache, Nationalität und Gender marginalisiert wurden. Die Beschulung in national homogenen Zweisprachenklassen reproduzierte eine Struktur der gesellschaftlichen Ausgrenzung, womit die damalige Schulpolitik die Bildungsund Berufschanceneiner Generation reduzierte. Da es auch heute noch ausgrenzende Strukturen gibt, werfen die Ergebnisse ein neues Licht auf die (bayerische) Schulpolitik gegenüber Migrant:innen. Schlüsselwörter: Intersektionalität, Soziale Exklusion, Zweisprachenklassen, Bildungsdiskriminierung, Migration 1Introduction: The educational situation of immigrants in Germany Education is an important marker for aperson’ssocial status. The German federal education system has been criticized in school performance studies for reproducing and amplifying social inequities,especially for immigrants (Ha 2016a: 181). Segregatingeducation measures point to persisting institutionalracisms (Dean 2020: 310), like intentional allocationofstudents into different elementary classes according to markers like foreign names or ethnicities and special integration courses for immigrants (Ha 2016a:180). Separateschooling is being ZeM –Zeitschriftfür erz.wiss. Migrationsforschung, Vol. 2, Issue 2/2023, 172–189 https://doi.org/10.3224/zem.v2i2.05 discussed again, although it had already counteracted social inclusion during the guest worker regime half acentury ago. In 1972,the Bavarian capital started aschooling model of dual-language-classes [Zweisprachenklassen]that existed for almost two decades. Students were divided into nationally homogeneous groups, expelled from regular classes and predominantly taught all subjects in the official language of their country of origin, whereas German was taught as a second language. Following ministerial guidelines of the Conference of Ministers of Education [Kultusministerkonferenz (KMK)], these classes becamethe regular form of schooling for students of guest worker parents in all of Bavaria by 1976 until the end of the 1980s. As numbers illustrate, more than half of the dual-language class-students failed at the general final exams in the first years in Munich (Kristen 1978) showing that this generation was only granted limited chances for education. The educational separation during the 1970s and 1980s in Munich has not yet been examined with an intersectionality approach. Aperspective of intersectionality allows for an examination of how individual dispositions of immigrant students were turned into social disadvantages by the educational system. In sociology,the catholic daughter of working class parents from the countrysidehas long been the generic pars pro toto for showing that educational chances depend on certain social characteristics (Dahrendorf 1968). The Munich case complements the criteria of social exclusion in education with migration-relatedmarkers and thereby also provides anew perspective for current debates in education politics. Structural racisms in educational institutions are commonly justified with the merit principle of performance. After an introduction of the intersectionality approach and the research design applied (Chapter 2) the Munich case (Chapter 3) is illustrated. Then, thediscriminatory effects of the Bavarian schooling practice on the guest workers’children are highlighted. The analysis is carried out along the social markers nationality, language and gender (Chapter 4). Lastly, the findings are theoretically framed and connected to debates on educational (in)equity(Chapter 5) and aconclusion (Chapter 6) is drawn. 2Theoretical frame and research design By applying an intersectionality perspective on empirical materialfrom Bergmann’smasters thesis (2017), the marginalization of guest workers’children by discrimination in the education system becomes evident. Firstly developed by Crenshaw (1989; 2004) in studies of Black Feminism and Critical Race Theory, the concept allows analysis of the intersection of social categories that produces unique forms of discrimination and oppression.The approach stresses the discrimination of societal groups along certain social dispositions (Walgenbach 2009; Chebout 2011)generated by hegemonic structures of power and leading to unequal political representation (Ganz/ Hausotter 2020: 19). The social dispositions may develop and overlap in complex ways (Scherr 2012: 3) and have to be considered in thecontext of their social conditions and processes of construction (Rodríguez 2011:78f). The intersections of social categories entail specific inequities that reproduce the social structures, practices, and identities they consist of. 173M .Bergmann, U. Fettke: Discrimination in School by Language, Nationality,Gender Hence, it is important to reflect on their context of discovery (Kallenberg/Müller/Mayer2013: 26) as well as their historical and cultural conditions (Degele/Winker 2009). The most commonly analyzed categoriesare race, gender, and class (Degele/Winker 2009; Hill Collins/Bilge 2016: 79). Intersectional studies are often criticizedfor taking personal identities for granted. The mere selection of categories in advance of investigation by the researchercarries the risk of reproducing dominantpower dynamics. This can be met by reconstructing political contexts, decisions (Crenshaw 1989), and processesofknowledge production. For Degele and Winker (2009), focusing on theindividual level and on qualitative data enables acloser, agency-centered comprehension. The precarious positions of migrants are framed by societies’capitalist logic of profit maximization. Only those who assimilate into society unobtrusively are able to live relatively undisturbed –albeit within the given framework. Structures of power work on the level of symbolic representation and identity constructions (Degele/Winker 2009: 50) justifying the exploitationinthe lowest segments of industrial jobs (Karakayalı2008:106f.; Bojadžijev, 2012:186f.). In order to avoid deriving conclusionsfrom structural information only (Degele/Winkler 2009), our study relies on assemblage-oriented mapping (Rodríguez 2011:96f.; Schwertl 2013: 113) of empirical material that documents schooling decisions of the time. The empirical materialconsists of abody of around 250 archival documents and 13 narrative expert interviews with central migration and education policy activists. With qualitative interpretative interview analysis and qualitative mapping of documents we trace the educational situation of guest workers’children and its dynamics in the City of Munich during the 1970s and 1980s through the points of view from that time. The archival materialsubstituted the questioningofaffected former students that were not systematically locatable. It was limited by the availability in archives. It encompasses political documents and publications of initiatives providing informationabout the education of the guest workers’ children: Reports of the Bavarian school board, the Munich School Committee, City Council protocols, resolutions of the Munich Ausländerbeirat,1resolutions and leaflets of the Bavarian umbrella organization of educational migration work [VIA e.V.] as well as documents of Munich migrant and educational initiatives and local media publications. Two thirds of the archival documents were acquired by akeyword search in the Munich city archive and another third via agrassroots educational initiative’sarchive.2 As there was no possibility to systematically contact those who had been students in the dual-language classes or their parents, we included expert interviews with (former) education professionals and activists in our analysis. The interviewees had been involved in the civic and educational support of the guest workers and their children during the 1970s and 1980s and some of them had been affected by the separation in schooling themselves. We evaluated seven semi-guided interviews of Bergmann’sthesis (2017) as well as six narrative video interviews from achronicle of contemporary witnesses [Münchner Pioniere], that both queried education and migration experts on their personal and professionalexperiences. On the basis of this material we conducted an assemblage following the pervasive logics and structures (Schwertl 2013: 118) of discrimination.Thereby, we reconstructed theproc1The Ausländerbeirat (foreigners’council) has meanwhile been renamed to Migrationsbeirat in Munich and is an advisory council that represents the interests of the foreign populationofamunicipality or city to advocate inclusion at the municipallevel. 2InitiativGruppe e.V. ZeM –Zeitschriftfür erz.wiss. Migrationsforschung, Vol. 2, Issue 2/2023, 172–189174 esses and categories that intersected and produced social exclusion in thecase of the Munich education of guest workers’children. The most prominent categoriesofdiscrimination derived from the empirical corpus are language, nationality(with an ethnicity-dimension), and gender. Language plays agreat roleinjustifying, organizing and implementing the duallanguage classes. Furthermore,the empirical corpusdivides along the guest worker nationalities (Italian, Greek, Turkish, Yugoslavian and Spanish). Groups of guest workers are often referred to by nationality whereas there are no clear references to the category of ethnicity – though some discriminatory mechanisms work via an interplay of both. Gender –as the most common social marker –has always played agreat role for education. We are aware that we analyze this intersecting institutional discrimination in education from ahegemonic position of white academics, from whichwecannotfully disconnect ourselves and our findings. 3The education of the guest workers’children in the city of Munich The time of observation represents the second migration cycle and migration regime of 20th century Germany (Bojadžijev 2012: 245f.) characterized by the stop of immigrantworker recruitment in 1973,repatriation politics on the side of the state as well as discussions about family reunification and civil rights by immigrants. In Germany, the recruitment agreements started in 1955 to create atemporary work force for industrial jobs during the economic boom. Guest workers came from Turkey,Italy,Greece, Yugoslavia, and Spain as well as other Southern European countries like Portugal. Unexpectedly,many working immigrants decided to stay, bringing or founding families in Germany –thus becoming part of the resident population. As aresult, the numbers of students of foreign-born parents rose in the years to follow (Kischkewitz/Reuter 1980: 25–30). Compared to other West German states, the educational system of Bavaria and its capital Munich is an extreme case due to especially discriminatory dynamics (Sendlmeier 1986: 56ff., Hunger 2001:132). To illustrate the Munich case, the educational situation of migrants in Germany at the time and the Bavarian Sonderweg3(Karakaşoğlu/Linnemann/Vogel 2019: 8) are presented,followed by adescription of the situation in Munich. 3.1Educational situation of migrants in Germany Following increasing work migration within Europe, a1960 UNESCO-agreement against discrimination in educational systems compelled receiving states to guarantee the same educational standards for foreign residents as for their own citizens (UNESCO 1960). However, in Germany, specific educational guidelines and strategiesfor the schooling of non-German citizens were not evolved until thebeginning of the 1970s. German federal states have sovereign educational systems and are responsible for implementing the directives of the German educational ministerial conference respectively. The federal education system is criticized for historically producing unequal outcomes (Rist 1978). In 1971, the KMK made the education of migrant children aseparate topic for the first time and issued guidelines for policies regarding school organization and educational in3Special pathway 175M .Bergmann, U. Fettke: Discrimination in School by Language, Nationality,Gender struction of immigrant children in the German federal states with the dual aim of integrationin Germany and reintegration possibilities in the countries of origin (Karakaşoğlu/Linnemann/ Vogel 2019: 7f.). The KMK-recommendations suggested preparatory classes in short and long form as well as special classes for students of foreign-born parents. Interestingly, the guidelines concentrated on elementary school and lower secondary education only. They did not include recommendations for higher secondary education –thereby already indicating discrimination (ibid.). The West German States fostered three different approaches in the implementation of the 1971-KMK-guidelines (Röhr-Sendlmeier 1986: 56f.). Tränhardt (1991) observes that the educational achievements and the numberofimmigrant children whoacquired higher qualifications developed very differentlyinthe federal states during the four decades of the West German republic. The inequities were particularlysignificant in terms of the success levels of immigrantstudents (Hunger 2001:135). It was shown that students with foreign born parents in general have been more adversely affected by differences in federal school systems than children of German parents (Tränhardt 1991:417). While Berlin, Lower-Saxony,Saarland, Schleswig-Holstein, and later also North RhineWestphalia focused on integrating the students with foreign born parents in regular classes, Hamburg, Hesse and Rhineland-Palatinate chose adual strategy to enable both integration into the German education system and reintegration into schools in the home country. In contrast, education politics in Baden-Wuerttemberg (since 1975) and Bavaria mainly focused on repatriation(Röhr-Sendmeier 1986: 56f) by implementingsegregated classes for children of foreign-born parents. 3.2 The Bavarian Sonderweg The Bavarian Sonderweg started with the education acts of 1957 and 1961 allowing for the exclusion of children from school in case their German skills were considered insufficient (ibid.: 52). Following the KMK-guidelines, dual-language and preparatory classes were introduced. For the dual-language classes, students were divided into nationally homogeneous groups to teach them in theofficial language of their country of origin. German was taught as a second languagewith 8lessons per week. The school ministry recruited foreign teachers for the national homogenous classes, often on temporary working contracts. Allowing special curriculums meant less comparable diplomas, loopholes for anti-democratic content (ibid.: 60) and extra teaching materials, like school books in the respective languages. This meant financial expenses and complex organizational work for thecommunities (Bavarian Association of Cities 1971). In the course of their diverging implementation, the KMK-recommendations were reformulated in anew resolution on education for children of foreign workers in 1976 and supplemented in 1979.The goals of revision were to include, i.e., the Bavarian Sonderweg into the common federal guideline (Röhr-Sendlmeier 1986: 59), to foster the first language skills of children with foreign languages in German schools in favour of aregulation oriented towards the return of thechildren to their so-called home country (ibid.; Karakaşoğlu/Linnemann/Vogel 2019: 8): ZeM –Zeitschriftfür erz.wiss. Migrationsforschung, Vol. 2, Issue 2/2023, 172–189176 “However, in the context of the dual task of a) integrating into the German environment and b) creating the conditions for reintegration into the home country, the Recommendation pays increased attention to the second objective.” (Secretary’sOffice of KMK 1976: 3) Recommendations in the1976-edit also worked towards amore frequent and longer separation of children of foreign nationalities from German children, e.g. by prolonging preparatory classes to two years (Karakaşoğlu/Linnemann/Vogel 2019: 8f). Generally, the KMK-guidelines also allowed to teach children with foreign mother tongues in regular classes under the requirement of providing supplementary German as well as supplementary mother tongue instruction, “in case at least twelve pupils are expected to attend on asustained basis”(StMUK 1979). Yet, the school registration numbers, e.g. for Munich, show that these supplementary courses had rarely been established (Munich School Committee 1977). Instead, when preconditions like acertain number of students of the same nationality were not met (Schulreferat 1972: 2), students from different school catchment areas and even several school years (especially the higher years) were pooled together (StMUK 1974: 2; Mitgliederversammlung IG e.V. 1978:3). In case the nationally homogenous classes could not be filled, this could result in pooling all non-German students in a separate class (Bavarian State Ministry of Education and Cultural Affairs 1976a). Although in practice, there were specifications regarding the transition to (German) mainstream classes, such separate forms of education developed into akind of “parallel school branch”(Krüger-Potratz 2019: 395). As aconsequence, compared to 56%ofstudents with German parents, only 17%ofstudents of foreign-born parents graduated from secondary school in Bavaria in 1985,the lowest number in the Federal RepublicofGermany (Hunger 2001:125). 3.3 The Munich case Munich was (amongst Augsburg and Nuremberg) one of the cities that first established national homogenous model classes in 1972 as well as other types of special model classes for students of foreign-born parents. In Germany, migrant groups are predominantly located in metropolitan areas (Lutter 2016: 128), turning federal state capitals to important places of politics and integration. Munich has always had one of the highest percentages of foreign residents in Germany up untiltoday. At thebeginning of the period investigated, more than 88,000 guest workers lived in Munich (Dunkel/Stramagglia-Faggion 2000: 9) which had a total population of 1.3 million. In comparison to the rather restrictive immigration politics of Bavaria, the Social Democraticcity council in Munich oftenprovedtobemore liberal. Yet, being an immigrant city had often been rendered aproblematic issue in Munich, keeping a mostly culturalist –at times culturally racist –discourse towards migrants in local politics (Hess/Moser 2009: 15). In accordance with the Bavarian Educational Ministry, the Munich school policy aimed at giving the guest workers’children access to theschool system, while simultaneously keeping open the option of theirrepatriation (Bavarian State Ministry of Education and Cultural Affairs 1976a;Herbert 2003: 238). The numberofstudents with foreign nationalitieswas especially high in Munich, rising from around 8,000 in the school year 1973/74 to over 10,000inthe 1980s (Schulreferat 1973: 1; Schulreferat 1982). Dual-languageclasses were predominantly set up for guest worker 177M .Bergmann, U. Fettke: Discrimination in School by Language, Nationality,Gender nationalities without their ownprivate schools (Turkish, Yugoslavian and Italian) in Munich. Turkish students represented the biggest national group in Bavaria as well as Munich (StMUK 1976; Via LV Bayern 1983: 2). Student nationalities in Munich School year Turkish Yugoslavian Italian Greek Spanish Other nonGerman Student numbers 1973/ 74 1.313 819652 267 204 820 Dual-language classes 1974/ 75 17 99-- - Own illustration (Schulreferat 1973:3; 1974) After the model character ended with the 1976-editofthe KMK, the numbers of duallanguage classes rose until almost two thirds of the students of foreign-born parents went to nationally homogenous classes (StMuK 1976). The numbers of dual-language classes only started to decrease after the second migrationcycle and the guest worker regime by theend of the 1980s. Compared to these numbers, in theschool year 1982/83 around 12,500students with guest worker parents still attended Munich public schools, of which 7,000 already went to regular classes while 5,500 remained in national homogenous classes (Jungfer et. al. 1983: 2). 4Inequalities by intersections of language, nationality and gender in the Munich case Altogether,restrictive Bavarian politics of education were an orientation for decisions on the German federal level for along time, giving Munich’sschool system aspecial position. The model wasimplemented in away that rather ensured ’trouble-free lessons’for German pupils instead of focusing on qualifying the children of foreign-born parents (Krüger-Potratz 2019: 395). 4.1The roleoflanguage in education Language was an important dimension of inequity as imposed decisions about language proficiency, alack of parents’inclusion and impediments for attending higher education bereaved the children of chances for exploiting their potential in diplomas in Germany and abroad. Proficiency in many languages and mastering of more than one mother tongue were not considered aresource by educational institutions and authorities. Instead, mastering the mother tongue of the parents’home-countries was an unquestioned requirement. “Iwas blindsided when Iwas told that it is importanttolearn your mother tongue first, and that you need, let’ssay, 7–8 years, then you should learn German. And Icome (…)from the Dolomites.Icouldn’tunderstand [that] at first, ZeM –Zeitschriftfür erz.wiss. Migrationsforschung, Vol. 2, Issue 2/2023, 172–189178 because we spoke Rhaeto-Romanic, that is Ladin, at home, in kindergarten we learned Italian, then in elementary school Italian and German, and then later in high school English was added, so practically we were always confronted with five languages somehow, and it was no problem at all for us. So it was difficult for me to understand at first, practically, until of course it was quite clear that this was apolitical decision.”(Interview 1) Yet, contrary to the aim of the dual-language classes, some children were not taught in (any of) their mother tongue(s) at all (Bergmann 2017:29) as they often becameenrolled in nationally homogeneousclasses without acheck of their language skills (Bußer et al. 1981: 38). The mother tongue of Turkish Kurds, whowere mostly enrolled in the Turkish classes, was predominantly not Turkish but Kurdish (Interview 1, 2014; Interview 5, 2017). Children from Yugoslavia had many different mother tongues and did not always speak the official language, Serbo-Croatian. The decision, whether children were allocated to nationally homogenous classes or to regular classes, or whether they would be able to attend higher education, was often taken by institutions on behalf of the foreign-born parents, e.g. by teacher recommendations (StMUK 1974: 6). Thereby, the subjective impression of teachers and the institutionally estimated language skills played agreater role than KMK-guidelines intended (Jungfer et.al. 1983: 2). Additionally, language excludedmany parents from well-informed decision making: For example, there was no bilingual information available in Munich about the secondary school system in the respective national language (Schulreferat 1978: 5). Amultilingual letter handed out to parents by the schools informed about the dual-language classes, but did not mention the parents’right to object (Geiselberger 1974) and information evenings about dual-language classes for parents at schools were often only held after the registration date for the duallanguage classes in Munich (Scharnagl/Schulamt1974). In the 1980s, the school department started offering consultation hours for Turkish and Yugoslavian parents held by compatriots with limited opening hours (Schulreferat 1983: 7) incompatible with working shifts of industrial workers. An international counseling center with contact persons speakingRomanian, Greek, Italian, Serbo-Croatian, and Turkish wasnot set up until 1985. For changingfrom dual-language classes to regular classes, no official procedure existed (Ausländerbeirat 1982:1). For allocationinto higher education, besides the generalreferral certificate [Übertrittszeugnis],4there were special prerequisites German students did not face: Awritten recommendation by the class teacher5and ahigh grade6in German that could even outrank the grade point average of the Übertrittszeugnis (Schulreferat 1983:1). According to the official rationale, an education in their mother tongue would give the children “asense of achievement”(Interview 4, 2017), facilitate success in school, and best prepare the children for their anticipated resettlement to their home country in later life (Meier 1980). The Bavarian education ministry also stresses the importance of first properly acquiring one’s(supposed) mother-tonguefor mental-emotional development and national identity formation (Röhr-Sendlmeier 1986: 58). The educational requirements of the German school system and the pressure for integration were consideredtoo high for the immigrant children (StMUK 1974: 3), indicating that their abilities were perceived as deficient. This points at aculturalist rationale of racism that contains an imperative to assimilate (Bojadžijev 2012; Karakayalı2008). 4Referral recommendation to Realschulen and Gymnasien 5Pädagogisches Wortgutachten (Schulreferat 1983: 1) 6Grade 1or2out of 6inthe German grading system 179M .Bergmann, U. Fettke: Discrimination in School by Language, Nationality,Gender Diewald, Martin/Pollmann-Schult, Matthias (2009): Erwerbsverläufe in Ostdeutschland –Inklusion und Exklusion seit 1989. In: Stichweh, Rudolf/Windolf, Paul (Hrsg.): Inklusion und Exklusion. Analysen zur Sozialstruktur und Sozialen Ungleichheit. Wiesbaden: Springer VS, S. 139–156. Dunkel, Franziska/Stramaglia-Faggion, Gabriella (2000): Zur Geschichte der Gastarbeiter in München. München: München Verlag. Ganz, Kathrin/Hausotter, Jette (2020): Intersektionale Sozialforschung. Bielefeld: transcript. Goeke, Simon (2020): “Wirsind alle Fremdarbeiter!”.Gewerkschaften, migrantische Kämpfe und soziale Bewegungen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland der 1960er und 1970er Jahre. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh. Ha, Kien Nghi (2016a): “billig und willig”–Arbeitsmigrationsund Integrationspolitik aus postkolonialer Perspektive. In: Ziai, Aram (Hrsg.): Postkoloniale Politikwissenschaft. Bielefeld: transcript, S. 173–190. Ha, Kien Nghi (2016b): Deutsche Integrationspolitik als koloniale Praxis. In: Ha, Kien Nghi/al-Samarai, Nicola L./Mysorekar, Sheila (Hrsg.): re/visionen. Münster: Unrast, S. 113–128. Häußermann, Hartmut/Kronauer, Martin (2009): Räumliche Segregation und innerstädtisches Ghetto. In: Stichweh, Rudolf/Windolf, Paul (Hrsg.): Inklusion und Exklusion. Analysen zur Sozialstruktur und sozialen Ungleichheit. Wiesbaden: Springer VS, S.157–173. Herbert, Ulrich (2003): Geschichte der Auslanderpolitik in Deutschland. Saisonarbeiter, Zwangsarbeiter, Gastarbeiter, Flu chtlinge. Bonn: Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung. Hess, Sabine/Moser, Johannes (2009): Jenseits der Integration. Kulturwissenschaftliche Betrachtungen einer Debatte. In: Sabine Hess/Binder, Beate/Moser, Johannes (Hrsg.): No integration?! Kulturwissenschaftliche Beiträge zur Integrationsdebatte in Europa. Bielefeld: transcript, S. 11–26. Hill Collins, Patricia/Bilge, Sirma (2016). Intersectionality. Malden: Polity Press. Hooks, Bell (1984): Feminist Theory. From Margin to Centre. Boston: South end press. Hunger, Uwe (2001): Bildungspolitik und institutionalisierte Diskriminierung auf Ebene der Bundesländer. Ein Vergleich zwischen Baden-Württemberg, Bayern, Hessen und Nordrhein-Westfalen. In: Lale, Akgün/Thränhardt, Dietrich (Hrsg.): Integrationspolitik in foderalistischen Systemen. Münster: Lit-Verlag, S. 119–138. Kallenberg Vera/Müller, Johanna M./Meyer, Jennifer (2013): Introduction: Intersectionality as aCritical Perspective for the Humanities. In: dies. (Hrsg.): Intersectionality und Kritik. Neue Perspektiven für alte Fragen. Wiesbaden: Springer VS, S. 15–35. Karakaşoğlu, Yasemin/Linnemann, Matthias/Vogel, Dita (2019): Schulischer Umgang mit transnationaler Migration und Mobilität. Rückschlüsse aus Empfehlungen der Kultusministerkonferenz seit den 1950er-Jahren. In: Transnationale Mobilität in Schule Arbeitspapier 2019, 2, S. 1–23. Karakayalı,Serhat (2008): Gespenster der Migration. Zur Genealogie illegaler Einwanderung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Bielefeld: transcript. Kischkewitz, Peter/Reuter, Lutz-R. (1980): Bildungspolitik zweiter Klasse. Ausländerkinder im Schulsystem der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Frankfurt a.M.: Rita Fischer. Kollender, Ellen (2016): “Die sind nicht unbedingt auf Schule orientiert.”Formationen eines ‚racial neoliberalism‘an innerstadtischen Schulen Berlins. In: Movements. Journal fu rkritische Migrationsund Grenzregimeforschung, 3(1), S. 39–64. Kollender, Ellen (2020): “Und das nenn’ich Nehmermentalität.”Rassistische Adressierungen von Eltern in der Schule im Kontextdes sozialstaatlichen Aktivierungsdiskurses. In: Akbaba, Yalız/ Bello, Bettina/Fereidooni, Karim (Hrsg.): Pädagogische Professionalität und Migrationsdiskurse. Wiesbaden: Springer VS, S. 167–190. Krüger, Heinz-Hermann/Rabe-Kleberg, Ursula/Kramer, Rolf-Torsten/Budde, Jürgen (2010): Bildungsungleichheit revisited? –eine Einleitung. In: Dies. (Hrsg.): Bildungsungleichheit revisited. Bildung und soziale Ungleichheit vom Kindergarten bis zur Hochschule. Wiesbaden: Springer VS, S. 9–21. ZeM –Zeitschriftfür erz.wiss. Migrationsforschung, Vol. 2, Issue 2/2023, 172–189186 Krüger-Potratz, Marianne (2019): 100 Jahre Grundschule –100 Jahre Umgang mit nationaler, sprachlicher und ethnischer Differenz. In: Zeitschriftfür Grundschulforschung, 2019, 12, S. 383–398. Lörz, Markus (2019): Intersektionalität im Hochschulbereich: In welchen Bildungsphasen bestehen soziale Ungleichheiten nach Migrationshintergrund, Geschlecht und sozialer Herkunft –und inwieweit zeigen sich Interaktionseffekte?In: Zeitschriftfür Erziehungswissenschaft, 22(1), S. 101– 124. Lutter, Andreas (2016): Jenseits von Assimilation und Multikultur?Herausforderungen migrationspolitischer Bildung in Deutschland. In: Linguistik online, 79(5), S.127–137. Radke, Frank-Olaf (2008): Schule und Ethnizität. In: Helsper, Werner/Böhme, Jeanette (Hrsg.): Handbuch der Schulforschung. Wiesbaden: Spinger VS, S. 651–672. Rist, Ray C. (1978): Guestworkers in Germany: the prospects for pluralism. New York: Praeger. Rodríguez, Encarnación G. (2011): Intersektionalität oder: Wienicht über Rassismus sprechen?In: Hess, Sabine/Langreiter, Nicola/Timm, Elisabeth (Hrsg.): Intersektionalität revisited. Bielefeld: transcript, S. 77–100. Röhr-Sendlmeier, Una M. (1986): Die Bildungspolitik zum Unterricht für ausländische Kinder in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland –Eine kritische Betrachtung der vergangenen 30 Jahre. In: Deutsch lernen, 11(1), S. 51–67. Scherr, Albert (2012): Diskriminierung: Die Verwendung von Differenzen zur Herstellung und Verfestigung von Ungleichheiten. Paper presented at the Kongress der Deutschen Gesellschaftfür Soziologie, Vortrag 36, Plenum Diversity und Intersektionalität. Retrieved from: http://www.portalintersektionalität.de (accessed 20.02.2022). Schwertl, Maria (2013): VomNetzwerk zum Text. In: Hess, Sabine/Moser, Johannes/Schwertl, Maria (Hrsg.): Europäisch-ethnologisches Forschen. Berlin: Riemer, S. 107–l26. Thranhardt, Dietrich (1991): Länder-Differenzen in der Bildungspolitik. In: Wollmann, Hellmut (Hrsg.): Die alte Bundesrepublik. Kontinuität und Wandel. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, S. 409–419. Walgenbach, Katharina (2007): Gender als interdependente Kategorie. In: Walgenbach, Katharina/Dietze, Gabriele/Hornscheidt, Antje/Palm, Kerstin (Hrsg.): Gender als interdependente Kategorie. Opladen: Budrich, S. 23–64. Wellgraf, Stefan (2011): Hauptschule: Formationen von Ethnizität, Klasse und Geschlecht. In: Hess, Sabine/Langreiter, Nicola/Timm, Elisabeth (Hrsg.): Intersektionalität revisited. Bielefeld: transcript, S. 119–148. Empirical Sources Ausländerbeirat München (1982): Gespräch beim staatlichen Schulamt (Herrn Sikora) am 10. März 1982. Bavarian Association of Cities (1971): Unterricht für Kinder Ausländischer Arbeitnehmer. Entwurf an das Bayrische Staatsministerium für Unterricht und Kultus. Az. 202/1, Nr. 728/70 vom 22.06.1971. Bußer, Irmgard/Hoffmann, Fritz/ Runggaldier, Giovanna (1981): Situation der ausländischen Schüler in muttersprachlichen Klassen in München. In: Informationen zur Ausländerarbeit, 81(1), S. 23–45 Fachbasis München (1984): Internationales Mütterzentrum. In: Informationen zur Ausländerarbeit, 84(8), S. 27–50. Geiselberger, Irmgard (1974): Einschulung ausländischer Kinder in muttersprachliche Klassen. Letter to Scharnagl, Wilfried, München: Schulamt München, 26.04.1974. GEW BV Oberbayern (1982): ‚Türkische Kinder werden ausgesondert, abqualifiziert und abgeschoben –GEW Oberbayern erhebt schwere Vorwürfe gegen Münchner Schulbehörden‘,82(1), S. 1–2. Kristen, Ursula (1978): “In München geboren –verloren”,Münchner Stadtanzeiger, 11. August 1978. 187M .Bergmann, U. Fettke: Discrimination in School by Language, Nationality,Gender Interview 1with aformer manager of an educational grassroots organization for migrants (1976–1980), who is also aformer member of the Munich Ausländerbeirat, 19.09.2014, video chronicle Münchner Pioniere. Interview 2with aformer member of an educational grassroots organization for migrants (1979–1999) and co-founder of aforeigner’sparent’scouncil for guest worker parents, 24.09.2014, video chronicle Münchner Pioniere. Interview 3with the former second Chair of the Munich Ausländerbeirat (in the 1970s and 1980s), also member of the Committee A1 for education children, youth and family. 18.04.2017, suppl. 11.03.2023. Interview 4with amanager of the Caritas academy of nations, graduated Sociologist and educational consulter, formerly active in an Italian Educational Association for guest workers in the 1980 s. 20.04.2017. Interview 5with the chair of aKurdish Association for Ethnic Minorities in Munich, 28.04.2017. Jungfer, Hedda et.al. (1983): Schulunterricht für ausländische Kinder. Antrag an den Bayrischen Landtag vom 03.02.1983. KMK –Kultusministerkonferenz (1976): Neufassung der Empfehlungen der KMK “Unterricht für Kinder ausländischer Arbeitnehmer”.Beschluss der KMK vom 8.4.1976. Kultusministerkonferenz. Bonn. Secretary’sOffice of KMK (1976): Mitteilungen und Informationen des Sekretariats der Kultusministerkonferenz, 76(3), vom 29.4.1976. Loy, Elfriede (1983): Am Beispiel Münchens: Ausländerpolitische Wende. In: Informationen zur Ausländerarbeit, Fachbasis München, 6(83), S. 7–12. Maier, Hans (1980): Kultusminister Prof. Hans Maier bei der Beantwortung der Interpellation: Nicht das ausländische Kind hat sich den vorgegebenen Bildungswegen anzupassen! Unser Bildungswesen muss sich ändern, um diesen Kindern gerecht zu werden. In: StMUK (Hrsg.): Interpellation ausländische Kinder und Jugendliche, München. Mitgliederversammlung IG e.V. (1978): Resolution zur Situation ausländischer Kinder in Münchner Grundund Hauptschulen. München. Munich School Committee (1977): Bekanntgabe: Schülerund Klassenzahlen der öffentlichen Grund-, Hauptund Sondervolksschulen für das Schuljahr 1977/78. München: Schulausschuss. Munich School Committee (1978): Ratsprotokoll. Stenographic report, 05.07.1978, München. Multi-Cultural YC Westend (1989): Besondere Problemstellungen im vergangenen Arbeitsjahr. Bericht. City of Munich (1981): Wasdie ausländischen Jugendlichen lernen. München: Münchner Rathaus Umschau. Scharnagl, Wilfried/Schulamt München (1974): Muttersprachliche Klassen. Zum Schreiben vom 7. Juni 1974. Letter to Geiselberger, I., IG e.V., 25 July 1974. Schmid (1981): An das staatliche Schulamt: Schulbücher für zweisprachige türkische Klasse. Brief vom 30.10.1981. Schulreferat, München (1973): Ausländerkinder; Stand der Beschulung. Ruf 12/578. Bekanntgabe im Schulausschuss vom 12.12.1973. Schulreferat, München (1974): Meldung für Schülerzahlen ausländischer Klassen 1974/75 und 1975/76, Stichtag Meldung: 1.10.1974. Schulreferat, München (1978): Beschluss des Schulausschusses vom 19. April 1978 –SB. Realschulbesuch für Ausländerkinder. Ruf 215/8243. Antrag Nr. 1054 von Frau Stadtrat Clarita Kuch vom 28.02.1978. Schulreferat, München (1981): Beschulung ausländischer Kinder in München im Schuljahr 1981/82. Beschluss des Ausländerbeirats der Landeshauptstadt München vom 13.12.1979, Anträge Nr. 3 und 5. Ruf 233/6293, 7.12.1981. Schulreferat München (1983): Übertritt in weiterführende Schulen (Ausländer in die Eingangsklassen). 41(4). ZeM –Zeitschriftfür erz.wiss. Migrationsforschung, Vol. 2, Issue 2/2023, 172–189188 StMUK –Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Unterricht und Kultus (1974). Unterricht für Kinder ausländischer Arbeitnehmer. Letter to Rudolf L., Evangelische Jugendsozialarbeit, 17.07.1974. StMUK (1976): Die Zahl der ausländischen Schüler an bayerischen Grundund Hauptschulen ist weiter angestiegen, Information des Pressereferats, München, 25.03.1976. StMUK (1979): Unterricht für ausländische Schüler, III A2–4/91 480 KMBl. UNESCO (1960): Übereinkommen gegen Diskriminierung im Unterrichtswesen vom 14.12.1960. In: Gesetzesblatt von Baden-Württemberg (1964), H.7, S. 107–109. Via e.V. Landesverband (Via LV) Bayern (1982): Beschluss zum Thema: Ausländische Kinder und Jugendliche –Waswird nach der Schule Eisbrecher. Informationen von und für Initiativgruppen in der Ausländerarbeit, Vol. 82 No. 3, 4–9. Via LV Bayern (1983): Daten zum Schulbesuch ausländischer Kinder –Beiblatt Antrag des VIALandesverbandes Bayern zur Situation ausländischer Kinder an bayrischen Schulen (VIA-Generalversammlung am 22./23.1.1983 in Regensburg), redaktionelle Überarbeitung der IG e.V. München. Kontakt: Mona Bergmann M.A. Technische Universität München [email protected] Dr. rer. pol. Ulrike Fettke Technische Universität München [email protected] 189M. Bergmann, U. Fettke: Discrimination in School by Language, Nationality,Gender