Interview - 27.04.24
The interview was conducted by Catherine Ding, a graduate with a Bachelor's degree in Economics and Finance from ESCP, who grew up in Luxembourg in an international and multicultural environment.
Her interview partner is Fari Khabirpour, a school psychologist, psychotherapist, and former head of the school psychological (CPOS) services in Luxembourg.
Catherine Ding (CD): Does the Luxembourg education system meet your expectations?
Fari Khabirpour (FK): In my opinion, the Luxembourg education system does not necessarily align with my desires or expectations. It places too much emphasis on the cognitive abilities of students and neglects important areas such as emotional, social, and artistic skills. A good education system should not only foster intellectual development but also help students and their parents grow in these other areas. There is still much work to be done, and this is not limited to Luxembourg. In fact, I see this as a global issue. The only education systems I know of that have recently focused more on emotional intelligence are the Scandinavian ones. They are also very successful and are now among the best in the world because they do not reduce intelligence solely to cognitive and intellectual abilities. There is still a lot of potential for improvement, even in Luxembourg. The first step would be to expand the definition of intelligence and not limit it to cognitive aspects alone. While science has already embraced these insights, the education system has not yet caught up. Once this happens, teacher training will also undergo a fundamental change. There is therefore still much room for improvement, not only in Luxembourg. In my opinion, this is a global problem.
CD: Yes, that's true. What essential steps need to be taken to further develop the education system so that children are better prepared for future societal roles, and how is Luxembourg positioned in this regard?
FK: In my view, teachers are the heart of a successful education system. They play a central and crucial role in shaping and implementing the system. Therefore, we should focus on this area: significantly more investment is needed in the training and ongoing professional development of teachers. Careful attention must be given to selecting prospective teachers, ensuring they are genuinely interested in the profession and possess the necessary foundational skills to be successfully trained and later employed in this field. For me, this is one of the key points that need attention. The entire teacher training process is also of utmost importance. There is still much work to be done in this area, and it requires continued, intensive effort. Ultimately, the success of the education system depends on the teachers who shape it.
CD: Do you believe that Luxembourg has sufficient financial resources to further train teachers and develop a new training structure? One must not forget that we are already struggling with a shortage of teachers. Despite the attractive salaries offered by the state, there are not enough people interested in becoming teachers. Do you think we have both the financial resources and enough teachers to implement these reforms and provide adequate professional development?
FK: I believe it’s less a matter of money. We don’t lack resources. The teachers already in the system don’t need to be dismissed and replaced with new ones; they can be further trained, and there are already many professional development programs available. The content of these programs would just need to be revised and adjusted. So, it’s not about financial resources – Luxembourg is already investing heavily in education, probably more than many other countries. Therefore, I don’t think this is the real issue. The true problem lies in the fact that often the wrong people are in key positions.
This is not meant as criticism of the teachers – they are doing their best. However, it’s not always ensured that those in certain positions are actually the most qualified for them.
CD: This is indeed a large and challenging issue. No minister dares to tackle this challenge head-on, as it would provoke strong reactions. Teachers might feel attacked and could collectively resist any minister or political measure that questions their role, position, or even their professional identity.
FK: Yes, this is certainly an extremely difficult matter, and it cannot be resolved overnight. One would need to gradually ensure that new individuals gain access to the system. At the same time, existing teachers should be further supported through targeted professional development.
A crucial aspect of teacher training is that educators need to become aware of their own attitudes and perceptions about the nature of the child. The reality we perceive is always subjective—we view our perception as objective and thus define it as "realistic." However, it remains unclear what the actual objective reality is. Our perception of reality influences our relationship with it, and this applies to our understanding of educational systems, including Luxembourg's, but also more broadly.
Our perception of the child—how we understand and view them—is often shaped by a materialistic view of humanity. We tend to see humans as purely biological beings primarily focused on survival. From this perspective, instincts and survival drives, such as Freud's concept of the pleasure principle, determine human behavior. This leads to the view that humans are mainly concerned with meeting their basic needs, such as obtaining food, and are engaged in a daily struggle for survival.
In this context, we also often define intelligence very narrowly and materially, as something that pertains solely to cognitive abilities. Knowledge is viewed as a form of consumption, similar to food. Just as we consume food to survive, we gather knowledge to succeed in society and potentially exert power. Knowledge thus becomes a source of influence and control: those who know more can dominate others.
This perspective may seem realistic to some extent, but it is overly restricted. When we expand our view of humanity, we recognize that people are not only biological beings. Humans also possess spiritual qualities—not in a religious sense, but as the ability to transcend the purely material. For example, the capacity to feel love is part of this spiritual dimension.
Therefore, it is important to expand our view of humanity in the education system so that cognitive intelligence is not the sole focus, but also emotional, social, and spiritual potentials are promoted. This is the only way to enable a holistic development of the child.
Another crucial aspect is the human ability to empathize—empathy. Additional skills, such as intuition, are part of the spiritual dimension of humans. People are not only defined by material aspects. Their social competence and social nature play a central role. It is not just about the individual alone, but about seeing the person as part of a community. Purely egocentric behavior, focused solely on one's own survival, does not align with this expanded understanding of humanity.
However, our current education system, particularly in Luxembourg, is still heavily based on a purely biological or materialistic definition of humanity. If we expand our view of humanity and understand people as social and spiritual beings, we must also consider what should be integrated into education. It’s not just about imparting knowledge. Currently, our education system primarily focuses on acquiring facts and information in various subjects like history, geography, mathematics, and language. All these areas are important, but they focus too much on the material and cognitive aspects.
Humans also possess other qualities that need to be nurtured. They should not only learn to read and calculate but also learn to feel, relate to others, listen, and appreciate the beauty of the world. This is where the arts come into play, which are often neglected because our education system is based on a very materialistic view of humanity. Humans are primarily seen as consumers of knowledge, similar to someone consuming food for survival.
Therefore, it is crucial to consider the underlying view of humanity in our education system. Currently, it is heavily focused on a materialistic view that understands humans mainly as biological beings. This narrow perspective also limits our understanding of intelligence. To enable holistic development, we must build our education system on a more comprehensive view of humanity that equally considers cognitive, emotional, social, and creative abilities.
CD: In your opinion, how significant is the responsibility and impact of a good education on a person's social and economic development?
FK: The importance of education can hardly be overstated. For me, education is everything.
CD: Can you explain how the Luxembourg education system addresses the issues of wealth and knowledge inequality?
FK: What exactly do you mean by wealth and knowledge inequality?
CD: For example, children from socially disadvantaged families whose parents earn little or are not culturally open. These children often come from environments that are both socially and economically less privileged. Statistics show that such children often have fewer opportunities to advance, attend better schools, or later secure good jobs. How could the Luxembourg education system help these children to ensure more fairness and equal opportunities, even though school education in Luxembourg is free?
FK: The Luxembourg education system, in a way, disadvantages and discriminates against students from economically weaker families as well as those with a migration background. I discussed this in more detail in one of my articles. It's not that the system consciously discriminates, but these children feel excluded because they don’t find a place in a system that isn’t designed for their needs. Historically, our education system was created for a more elite group in society. It was never intended for the broader population. With the introduction of compulsory education, children from all social and cultural backgrounds joined. However, the school system was not, and still isn't, designed for this diversity. It is not adapted to today's social conditions and is therefore overwhelmed.
This is evident, for example, in the issue of multilingualism. Many see this as an advantage of the Luxembourg system because children learn multiple languages.
CD: But that's a misconception. Multilingualism is not always an advantage, because even Luxembourgish children are taught in two foreign languages, which sometimes causes them difficulties.
FK: Exactly, Luxembourgish children also face challenges, but to a lesser extent than children from other cultural or linguistic backgrounds. Luxembourgish children often have parents who can help at home, especially with the German language. Even if German isn’t their mother tongue, the parents can still provide some support. Children from migrant families don’t have that advantage. They are often left on their own, and this is where the discrimination begins. This is why I have been advocating for a long time that Luxembourg should focus more on teaching in Luxembourgish, the mother tongue, in schools.
When I suggested this, I was accused of moving politically to the right. But that’s not my aim. I’m not concerned with political positioning but with improving educational opportunities. Language instruction is a major hurdle for many children to integrate into society. A significant number of students—especially those from disadvantaged families or with migrant backgrounds—fail to complete school with a diploma. The dropout rate is particularly high among these children.
CD: So, you believe that children should be taught in Luxembourgish from the beginning, with German and French integrated in the first or second grade? But what about children from multicultural families who don’t speak Luxembourgish? Don’t you think those children would be disadvantaged if Luxembourgish were the primary language of instruction?
FK: Children from multicultural families are already disadvantaged, regardless of which language is used for instruction. Currently, both Luxembourgish and foreign children are taught in a foreign language from the start. This is problematic, especially for Luxembourgish children who are schooled in a foreign language even though Luxembourgish is their mother tongue.
How we help children from other cultural and linguistic backgrounds is a separate issue that needs to be addressed anyway—whether the language of instruction is Luxembourgish, German, or French. The problem remains the same. If we remove Luxembourgish from the school system and focus only on German or French, it won’t make the situation easier for these children.
In fact, I believe it would be less problematic for everyone—even for so-called foreigners—if it were clear that Luxembourgish is the national language. There are still many adults who have lived in Luxembourg for years and don’t speak Luxembourgish. They live almost parallel to Luxembourgish society without truly integrating into the country’s reality. This also has to do with our education system. Let me give you an example.
FK: My parents came to Luxembourg over 65 years ago. I was seven or eight years old at the time and was enrolled in the European School, not in a Luxembourgish school. I still remember my parents asking a few friends and acquaintances, "Which language should our children learn here?" They were from Persia, our country of origin is Persia. Back then, the political situation there was very different from today. They didn’t come as refugees, but simply wanted to leave for other reasons. Europe, and eventually Luxembourg, was their choice, but they weren’t forced to leave their country.
They wanted to integrate and make Luxembourg their new home. When they asked about the language, the Luxembourgers told them, "It’s best if they learn French." So, Luxembourg was presented to them as a country whose main language was French. As a result, my parents learned French. Even today, over 65 years later, my mother, who is now over 90 years old, still doesn’t speak Luxembourgish.
CD: Yes, unfortunately, that's often the case. The language is spoken less and less.
FK: Exactly. How can someone integrate into a country if they don’t speak the language of that country? This applies not just to adults, but also to children. When children start school, they are told, "First, you’ll learn German, and later you’ll also learn French." Luxembourgish is hardly used in the classroom. These children learn German and later French, but when they reach secondary school, other subjects like math or history are taught in French or German. They constantly have to focus on a new language.
And then people wonder why so many children struggle with math. One reason is that they’re not learning math in their mother tongue but in a foreign language, which makes it significantly more complicated. That's why, for me, the language issue is one of the most important ones that remains unresolved.
CD: Do you believe that the Luxembourgish school system—I'm referring to the public school, not the European School—performs better compared to other countries? You mentioned Scandinavia as an example, but do you see an overall advantage in the Luxembourgish system compared to countries like France?
FK: I don’t really see where one could identify an advantage. In many respects, the Luxembourgish system is a copy of the French system.
CD: Yes, but aside from the formal school system—we have a wide variety of subjects here, and the academic level seems higher than in France. When I went to university, many of the French students had a hard time in the first year learning independently and understanding the content. Much of what they had to learn anew at university, we had already covered in secondary school in Luxembourg. For us, studying was easier because we were just deepening our knowledge, not learning from scratch. Also, teacher salaries here are much higher than in France.
FK: There may be some advantages in that area. I haven’t extensively compared the different systems, but fundamentally, the Luxembourgish school system isn’t so different from the French one. One area where Luxembourgish students might be better off could be that teachers are paid more here, and that might lead to greater commitment. The higher level of knowledge observed among Luxembourgish students compared to French or German students could also be related to that. However, I’d like to emphasize that the overall level of education in Luxembourg is also tending to decline. More and more children are losing motivation to go to school and to learn. In the past, students may have enjoyed going to school because they wanted to learn, but that drive isn’t as strong today. This, of course, affects the general level of knowledge, which is also declining.
CD: So, to get back to the point, in your opinion, the two most important aspects that need to be improved or refined in the Luxembourgish school system are the languages taught to children and the pedagogical skills of teachers. Is that how you see it, or are there other areas you believe should be addressed?
FK: Yes, the pedagogical skills of teachers are crucial. Just as important is that children should be taught in their mother tongue when they first start school. I have nothing against learning additional languages later—on the contrary, it's important. I view Luxembourg’s multilingualism as a positive thing. But schooling should start in the mother tongue. This also applies to foreign children, who should know that Luxembourgish is the actual national language.
Pedagogical skills are another critical point. Of course, it's good that teachers in Luxembourg are well-paid—that should be the case in all countries. Teaching is one of the most important professions in society, and teachers should be compensated accordingly. A good salary contributes to their sense of self-worth and motivates them to do their job well. But that alone isn't enough. The real motivation for a teacher should not be the salary but the desire to support children in their development and help them reach their potential.
A good teacher should practice their profession with conviction and passion. It's not just about mastering the subject matter, whether it's mathematics, language, or history. What’s important is that the teacher sees the child as a being that wants to and can learn. The question should always be: How can I spark a joy for learning in these children?
I remember a situation from my time as a school psychologist. A teacher came to me and said he needed my help because he felt panic every morning before going to school. He told me that just thinking about standing in front of the children made him feel sick. When I asked him why, he said, "I can't stand these kids. I have almost an allergic reaction to them." I had to tell him, "Either you radically change your attitude towards children, or you find another profession." Of course, this was an extreme case, but it shows how important a teacher's mindset is. If a teacher sees a child only as a disruptive or difficult being, perhaps teaching isn't the right profession for them.
CD: That was very insightful. Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me.
Comments