Managing social and cultural diversity in Flemish primary schools

A review of 4 qualitative studies on intercultural education (1993-2004)

CESE 2004 Conference, Kopenhagen, June 24 – July 1

Stijn Suijs

Centre for Comparative, Intercultural and Development Education, KU Leuven

(Formerly collaborator at the Centre of Intercultural Education, University of Ghent)

  1. The institutional context

Since 1991 the concept of ‘intercultural education’ has become part of the Flemish governmental school policy. In the course of following policy programs schools with a certain amount of pupils originating from ethnic minority backgrounds or meeting (contested) criteria of disadvantage could apply for extra support when implementing initiatives of intercultural education. As the commonly held interpretation of the “freedom of education” in Belgium restricts the impact of government policy, the meaning of ‘intercultural education’ was delegated to the autonomy of the local school practice (mediated by their educational networks).

Freedom to organise education

According to the Belgium Constitution, every natural person or legal person has the right to organise education and to establish institutions for this purpose. As a consequence the “governing body” (school board) is a key concept in the organisation of education in Belgium.

The governing bodies have a wide-ranging autonomy. However, schools that apply for government recognition and financial support must observe a number of conditions. Besides requirements of proper accommodation the most important condition to meet in primary education (aimed at children from the ages of 6 to 12) is the achievement of attainment targets and developmental objectives, both formulated by the Flemish Parliament.

Meanwhile ‘freedom of education’ includes no involvement of the government in choice of didactic approaches or curricula in order to meet attainment targets and developmental objectives

In most cases the governing bodies surrender their autonomy to educational networks (association of governing bodies). These networks draw up their own curriculum and timetables. Traditionally a distinction is made between three types of educational networks:

-Subsidised privately run schools (68,8 %): mainly catholic schools, but also involving a few protestant and Jewish schools and private initiatives which adopt a particular education method (for instance Freinet and Steiner schools), each associated in a own educational network

-Publicly run schools (16,8 %): municipal education and provincial education

-Community education (14,4%): organised under the authority of Flemish Community by a public body. The Belgian Constitution provides that community education must be neutral, which in principle means that the religious, philosophical or ideological convictions of parents or pupils must be respected.

Although decisions about the Flemish educational system are mediated through the different educational networks (among which the association of catholic governing bodies is the biggest), a tendency towards greater local autonomy can be observed. Flemish policy makers try to stimulate a greater responsibility of the local education providers.

The ‘freedom to organise’ interpretation of the ‘freedom of education’ strongly inflicts the conceptualisation of intercultural education in the Flemish schools. The government demands schools to reflect upon intercultural education in order to get extra support, but restrains itself from methodological and even tenor demands in order to meet the ‘freedom of education’.

Tension between ‘freedom to organise education’ and parents’ freedom of choice

Although the Belgian constitution provides parents and their children to have access to a school within a reasonable distance from their home, until recent legislative measurements, privately run schools (the majority) could always refuse certain pupils with reference to their ‘freedom’ to organise education according their own religious, philosophical of methodological principles. Example: different reported cases about catholic schools refusing the enrolment of Moslem pupils.

However, the 2002 Act on Equal Educational Opportunities of the Flemish Community postulates that refusal of enrolment is only possible when the limit of appropriate accommodation is reached or when the pupil in question is ‘permanently excluded’ as a disciplinary measure.

Although the policy ambition was a greater mix of pupils with different social and ethnic background, the ‘first come, first registered’ principle didn’t change the existence of exclusive ‘white’ and ‘black’ concentration schools. Moreover, the 2002 Act offers schools with a certain amount of not native Dutch speaking pupils the possibility to refer the pupil to another school “in order to maintain a required balance” between Dutch-speaking pupils and pupils who speak another language. Whereas policy makers on the one hand tried to improve the free market in the educational landscape by attempts to limit the power of the educational networks, on the other hand they installed a principle of correction of this free market by influencing the mix of non-Dutch (read: ethnic minorities) and Dutch speaking pupils.

The introduction of the concept of Intercultural Education in the Flemish Community

The concept of “intercultural education” turned up in relation to the Council Directive 77/486/EEC from the European Community of 1977 concerning “the education of the children of migrant workers”. Pilot schools got extra support in order to promote teaching of the mother tongue and culture of the country of origin “education in the own language and culture”. The title of the Directive clarifies its general inspiration: an easy reintegration of temporary present migrant children.

In relation to this Directive in 1982 the Flemish Ministry of Education (at that time still a competence of the federal Belgian Government) launched the pilot program “Elkaar Ontmoetend Onderwijs”(literally Education to Meet Each Other), the Education of Encounter Program involving 50 primary schools. Remark the concepts in use. The idea of Encounter includes the idea of two separate ‘cultures’ meeting somewhere in between and therefore reinforces the perception of major differences between children of migrant workers and ‘regular’ pupils.

 In 1988 the competence for the educational policy shifted from the federal to the Flemish government. In 1991 the extreme-right Flemish nationalist party Vlaams Blok reached its first important electoral score. In the very same year the Educational Priority Policy (Onderwijsvoorrangsbeleid, shortened as OVB) was installed. This policy aimed at target group pupils in primary and secondary education who because of social, economic or cultural reasons have learning difficulties. Schools were granted additional financing for each target group pupil on mainly two conditions:

-A satisfactory level of presence of the target group in the school: pupils from a different ethnic background and whose mother did not attend school past the age of 18 (among other criteria).

-The establishment of an allocation plan, indicating how the school would spend the extra resources. Although the Educational Priority Policy can be seen as a typical ‘equal outcomes’ strategy, the program clearly involved elements of equal opportunity as well as equal treatment strategies. One of the central principles was the idea that the extra support should improve the general quality of education in the whole school and should not only focus on extra (individual) support of the target group. The allocation plan described the actions undertaken in 4 obligatory fields of action: (1) language skills training, (2) the prevention and remediation of learning and developmental problems, (3) the involvement of parents, (4) intercultural education. Education in the own language and culture became a 5th optional field.

In ’97-’98 the concept of intercultural education was finally unhooked from its migrant mark, at least in the educational policy from the Flemish government. The model of the Educational Priority Policy was copied to a policy towards other types of disadvantage (poverty and learning difficulties): the policy of Extended Care (Zorgverbreding, shortened as ZVB). At the beginning of the new century approximately half of the Flemish primary schools (OVB + ZVB) engaged, at least in their allocation plan, to be committed to intercultural education.

OVB (Educational Priority Policy) and ZVB (Extended Care) were at least characterised by one important disadvantage. “White schools” were in no way encouraged to deal with the multicultural and pluralized society. The first approach to include “white schools” in the implementation of intercultural education was the notorious Non-Discrimination Treaty of 1993 involving all educational networks, labour unions, confederations of parents and the Flemish government. The subscribers of the Treaty engaged in “gentlemen’s agreements” between schools to avoid the concentration of children with an ethnic minority background. Although explicitly meant as a step in countering discriminatory behaviour of schools against the enrolment of these pupils within the shortest time the Treaty and especially its local application was attacked by gatekeepers of the ethnic minorities to be … discriminatory. Certain schools used the gentlemen’s agreement to refuse enrolment of target groups “in order to refuse separation” and to promote a proper dispersion over the whole municipality. Whatever interpretation, the Treaty reinforced the popular image of the concentration of ethnic minorities to be a burden to the quality of education. The whole dispute shadowed the second engagement of the Treaty, i.e. the engagement to a process of interculturalisation in the struggle against discrimination.

The 2002 Act merged the former OVB and ZVB and installed –yet again inevitably disputed- five new funding criteria. Ethnic background is replaced by the pupils’ mother tongue as one of the equal opportunities indicators to define the target group. The Non-Discrimination Treaty is replaced by the Treaty of engagement to “Diversity as a surplus value”. An integrated range of support provisions should allow schools to develop their quality of education in the benefit of all children, including the target group. The external approval of the allocation plan disappears following the protests about the administrative workload. Still, schools are obliged to edit their own vision (hence, once again stressing the local responsibility) about equal opportunities in their own school according to a screening, planning and evaluation cycle of three years. Intercultural education is no longer an obligation in order to get extra funding, but still is a major option.

The Brussels Region (including 19 municipalities) takes a separate place in the federal state of Belgium. Although the Flemish Community is competent with regard to schools offering Dutch-speaking education (as is the French speaking Community with regard to the majority of schools offering French-speaking education), this competence is delegated to a separate administration under the responsibility of the Flemish speaking minority representatives in the Brussels Region government. The education is offered in Dutch, but in 2003 only 18% of the pupils have Dutch as their home language (survey of Verlot & Delrue). Other home languages range from French (majority) to 53 other languages. In 2000 the non-profit organisation ‘Priority Policy Brussels’ (Voorrangsbeleid Brussel, shortened as VBB) was founded. Several counsellors support the teachers and the school as a team at the kindergarten and primary school level in their effort to prevent and if necessary mend learning difficulties and promote education in linguistic ability, intercultural education and to improve the communication with the parents.

The Centre of Intercultural Education

In 1995 the Centre of Intercultural Education (Steunpunt ICO) (further shortened as CIE) was founded at the University of Ghent (subsidised by the Education Department), almost as a copy of the already existing Centre of Dutch as a Second Language (Steunpunt NT2) at the Catholic University of Leuven. Both offer research, in-service teacher training and the development of materials. As a consequence of the ‘freedom of education’ both centres function as a mediator between the policy of the Flemish government and the local autonomy of schools, between mainstreaming the different local concepts of intercultural education and support to local practice.

  1. Overview of 4 qualitative studies

The CIE conducted 4 qualitative studies on concepts-in-use and practices of intercultural education in 50 primary schools spread around the Flemish community (including Dutch speaking schools in Brussels).

School ethnography (1995-1998)

Crucial to the development of the Centre of Intercultural Education was the first research project. From 1995 till 1998 intensive school ethnography in three primary schools was undertaken under the supervision of Ruth Soenen. Inspired by scholars like Hammersley and Ellen and the ethnographies from Willis and McLaren among others, the starting point of research was explicitly not a ‘didactic’ or ‘psychological’ approach, but the classroom as a ‘cultural activity’. The purpose was to present an account of every day life in 4th and 6th grade (age of pupils between 9-14 year) in 2 primary schools characterised by an ethnic mix of the pupil population (fieldwork involved: one year). A 3rd primary school with an ethnic mix below 30% was included in the research project as a contrast school (fieldwork involved: 4 months) .The interest was the social interaction and the ways in which environmental contexts impose restraints on this interaction. Some dominant assumptions from the ethnographic tradition(s) strongly affected the Centre’s concept of intercultural education (see below), although not without internal struggles about its use for training and material development.

Evaluation of the implementation of the Non-Discrimination Treaty (1998-1999)

In 1999 the responsible Minister of Education requested an evaluation of the Non-Discrimination Policy. The study was undertaken by a merge of three research centres, one investigating the actual level of desegregation of pupils movements, a second analysing the functioning of the municipal Non-Discrimination Assemblies and finally the CIE describing the implementation of intercultural education. All studies concentrated on 5 municipalities out of 37 where Non-Discrimination Treaty resulted in a local agreement. Inge Pelemans made observations in 3 schools in each municipality in the first (age of pupils between 6-8 year) and fifth grade (age of pupils between 10-13 year), combined with interviews with the teachers of this particular grade and their principals (all done in one week of fieldwork in each school)

Evaluation of the implementation of the Educational Priority Policy (2000-2001)

OVB (Educational Priority Policy) and ZVB (Extension of Care) were mainly contested by the education world because of their funding criteria and the obligation of a allocation plan, seen as yet another administrative burden. In the preamble of the 2002 Act the Education Department asked for an evaluation of the Educational Priority Policy. Whereas Katrijn Hillewaere from the CIE investigated the implementation of the action fields in 20 primary schools (fieldwork involved two weeks observation and interviews in each school), the KU Leuven (HIVA) assessed the initial effects on the learning progress of the target group in the same classes in the 4th and 5th grade. The comparison of both analyses offered an account of critical success factors.

Evaluation of the Impact of Priority Policy Brussels (2001-2004)

The Priority Policy Brussels provides the guidance of 36 schools by counsellors. An assessment framework is an integral part of the programme. The evaluation will focus on the impact of the programme on the quality of education in the supported schools. The task was assigned to the CIE and the Centre of Dutch as a Second Language (KU Leuven). The assessment started with a ‘zero measurement’ (nulmeting) in 12 schools (2001). With regard to the work field “dealing with diversity” Annelies Joos covered 1 hour of video recording in 24 classes. The following two years (2001-2002) the researchers, including Thomas Labath and Bieke Denolf from the CIE, concentrated on an evaluation of the processes in the same 12 schools. The research design provided in interviews with counsellors and teachers on the interventions of the former. The last two years of the programme (2003-2004) the assessment is applied to the possible effects of the programme on teacher behaviour and pupil performance. With regard to “dealing with diversity” Lia Blaton and Annelies Joos analysed 2 hours of video recording and the change in interpersonal relationships between pupils (sociogram).

- 1 -

TABLE 1 / Soenen (1995-1998)
School ethnographic research / Pelemans (1998-1999)
Implementation of the Non-Discrimination Treaty / Hillewaere (2000-2001)
Implementation of the Educational Priority Policy in primary education / Joos (2001), Denolf & Labath (2001-2002), Blaton & Joos (2002-2003)

Priority Policy Brussels

Central focus

/ Interaction between different agents in a socially and culturally mixed setting / Evaluation of the impact of the Non-Discrimination Treaty on the interculturalisation of schools / Evaluation of the implementation of intercultural education (one field among other fields of Flemish Priority Policy) / Evaluation of the impact of Priority Policy Brussels on the quality of education in the involved schools
Collection of data / School ethnography
●Participatory observation (interaction between pupils within the school)
●Informal talks
●Ethnographic interview with teachers / Semi-structured evaluation design
●Half open observation scheme to cover class room interaction
●Semi-structured interviews with teachers / Semi-structured evaluation design
●Half open observation scheme to cover class room interaction
●Semi-structured interviews with teachers / Semi-structured evaluation design
●Joos (2001): Video registration of class room interaction
●Denolf & Labath (2001-2002): observation of intervention – semi-structured interviews with teachers and counsellors
●Blaton & Joos (2002-2003): Video registration of class room interaction + sociogram
Schools involved / 3 primary schools
●2 with ethnic mixed population (very few ‘white’ pupils)
●1 with 30% non-‘white’ pupils (contrast school)
 3 classes
4th and 6th grade / 15 primary schools
●5 with < 30% non-‘white’ pupils
●6 with number of non-‘white’ pupils between 30% - 50%
●4 with non-‘white’ pupils > 70%
30 classes
1st & 5th grade / 20 primary schools
(extra funding for schools in relation to the Flemish Priority Policy supposes a minimum of 10% of non-‘white’ pupils)
 20 classes
4th & 5th grade / 12 primary schools
(all involving an ethnic mixed population)
 24 classes
Kindergarten & 2nd grade
Time of fieldwork involved / One year in 2 classes
4 months in 1 class (contrast school)
●½ week in the school
●½ week transcripts of observation and interviews / One week in each class / Two weeks in each class / ●Joos (2001): 1 hour of video-observation in each class
●Denolf & Labath (2001-2002): several interviews
●Blaton & Joos (2002-2003): two hours of video-observation in each class

- 1 -