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’.
-1-
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 nonDutch (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
-2-
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 Dutchspeaking 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.
-3-
2. 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 NonDiscrimination 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).
-4-
TABLE 1
Soenen (1995-1998)
School ethnographic research
Pelemans (1998-1999)
Implementation of the NonDiscrimination Treaty
Hillewaere (2000-2001)
Implementation of the
Educational Priority Policy in
primary education
Evaluation of the implementation
of intercultural education (one field
among other fields of Flemish
Priority Policy)
Semi-structured evaluation design
● Half open observation scheme
to cover class room interaction
● Semi-structured interviews
with teachers
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
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
Schools involved
3 primary schools
15 primary schools
● 2 with ethnic mixed population ● 5 with < 30% non-‘white’
(very few ‘white’ pupils)
pupils
● 1 with 30% non-‘white’ pupils ● 6 with number of non-‘white’
(contrast school)
pupils between 30% - 50%
● 4 with non-‘white’ pupils >
70%
20 primary schools
(extra funding for schools in
relation to the Flemish Priority
Policy supposes a minimum of
10% of non-‘white’ pupils)
 3 classes
4th and 6th grade
One year in 2 classes
4 months in 1 class (contrast
school)
● ½ week in the school
● ½ week transcripts of
observation and interviews
 20 classes
4th & 5th grade
Two weeks in each class
Time of fieldwork
involved
30 classes
1st & 5th grade
One week in each class
-5-
Joos (2001), Denolf & Labath
(2001-2002), Blaton & Joos
(2002-2003)
Priority Policy Brussels
Evaluation of the impact of Priority
Policy Brussels on the quality of
education in the involved schools
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
12 primary schools
(all involving an ethnic mixed
population)
 24 classes
Kindergarten & 2nd grade
● Joos (2001): 1 hour of videoobservation in each class
● Denolf & Labath (2001-2002):
several interviews
● Blaton & Joos (2002-2003):
two hours of video-observation
in each class
3. Concepts of intercultural education
The autonomy of schools to define their own pedagogical concept –although in practice provided
by their educational networks- leaves the concept of intercultural education to a broad range of
interpretations. Introduced as a practice of dealing with migrant pupils in the classroom, with a
strong focus on knowledge transmission about ethnic differences, the concept of intercultural
education only slowly developed towards a broader definition. Nowadays it gets broadly accepted
to define intercultural education as “learning to manage social and cultural diversity in an active
and efficient manner” whereas ‘diversity’ also refers to similarities. Still the concept leaves room
for very different interpretations, ranging from ‘differentiation’ in order to meet universal criteria
of school success to the active use of the existing intercultural competence of children in order to
promote open ending learning.
The ethnic concept
 Some schools still associate intercultural education with a practice in schools with children with
an ethnic minority background. However the “dealing with different ethnic minorities” mark is
slowly dissolving.
 In the study of Inge Pelemans in 1999 25 upon 30 teachers defined intercultural education as
learning about other ethnic cultures. Only 4 teachers spontaneously also referred to socialeconomic besides ethnic diversity to deal with. The interviewed teachers reflect in general in
deterministic terms, referring to social, ethnic or religious background and using the metaphor of
the supposed gap between ‘home culture’ and ‘school culture’. In 2000 Katrijn Hillewaere found
only ¼ of the respondents to define diversity in a broader sense than ethnic diversity. Bieke
Denolf & Thomas Labath in 2001-2002 report half of their respondents referring to different
ethnic cultures in relation to intercultural education. As a consequence, if the presence of
representatives of other ethnic cultures is low, intercultural education is considered redundant.
 The most important criticism towards the ethnic concept considers the meaning of ethnicity to the
individual pupil. Pupils embody not only their ethnic background. They act and react, create as
well as reproduce different types of ‘cultural’ behaviour referring to their belonging to different
cultural communities. In her analysis of the school ethnographic research Ruth Soenen uses the
idea of modes of interaction (borrowed from McLaren) to clarify the argument. A mode of
interaction is defined as the entire of behaviour patterns developed by the children themselves but
referring to their relations in different groups. She discerned at least three recurring modes of
interaction.
 The ‘child interaction mode’ refers to belonging to a certain family and entails ethnic,
religious, social-economic and/or family elements. Some of the elements are common with
other pupils. Others elements are not.
 When children meet some criteria induced by the school they act and react within the ‘pupils
interaction mode’, referring to behaviour common to all children in the same school. Ruth
Soenen describes this ‘pupils interaction mode’ as mainly meeting the daily routines in the
classroom and performing a rather passive and reserved line of conduct.
 The ‘youngsters interaction mode’ is developed in peer group relations. Soenen gives
illustrations of common interests (in sensational stories, in the private life of the teacher, in
specific music and fashion), of specific abilities (negotiation skills, for instance about the rules
of a game or in merchandising, ways to undermine the purposes of sanctions, the skill to
combine different activities) and specific style elements of communicating.
The occurrence of these modes of interaction changes in different environmental contexts, as well
as the specific patterns of behaviour involved. Soenen explores how in different schools (the
‘Gaulish’ context and the context of the ‘managers’) the internal hierarchy between modes of
interaction could be almost completely altered. The crux in relation to ethnicity is her assertion on
pupils creating their own hierarchy. In the investigated three classrooms the criteria for separating
groups by the pupils themselves rarely involved ethnic borders. In the ‘Gaulish’ context the
criteria to divide into subgroups were mainly criteria related to the ‘youngster’s mode of
interaction’ (gender, status, etc). In the context of the ‘managers’ these criteria mainly referred to
-6-
the ‘pupils mode of interaction’. Pupils with an ethnic minority background could excel among
peers because of their (peer group related) communication abilities or because of behaving as a
model pupil.
The ‘acquaintance with strangers’ approach
 In the protraction of the practice-with-migrant-pupils label intercultural education is strongly
affected by the idea of learning about foreign cultures. 25 of the 30 teachers Inge Pelemans
interviewed defined intercultural education in terms of “acquaintance with foreign cultures in
order to promote openness to these cultures”. In the description of their practice the focus lies on
the comparison of ‘strange’ cultures –in the study on the Non-Discrimination Treaty narrowed to
Turkish and Moroccan cultures- with ‘our’ own. However, Katrijn Hillewaere reports a gradually
shift from the “learning about other cultures” towards “learning that other cultures exist”, the
experience that different ways of living are legitimate.
 This conception raises the question about the importance of ‘cultural’ knowledge –in the sense of
information about ‘other’ cultures- as a necessary and sufficient condition for appropriate dealing
with cultural differences. Teachers presuppose that this knowledge will contribute to tolerance and
even recognition. However, transmission of ‘cultural knowledge’ in the existing curricula and
practices suffers from the trap of stereotypes and useless generalisations, especially when
combined with folkloric activities (type Moroccan tea ceremonies, etc) with in may ways may
reinforce existing prejudices or the idea of unbridgeable cultural gaps. But even in the assumption
of the possibility of a very balanced mix of cultural information (but still, how to define what
knowledge is necessary and what knowledge is not?), one may wonder the effect of cognition on
dispositions and behaviour. For instance, defenders of the segregation model are in many cases
very well informed about the ‘cultures’ to separate.
 If intercultural education is supposed to promote co-existence of different cultural groups within
the own society, the transmitted ‘cultural knowledge’ about living in societies in foreign cultures
is not relevant. Participants of the same society may have more in common with their neighbours
than with groups sharing the same ethnic background abroad.
The diversity concept
 The teachers defining intercultural education as “dealing with diversity” in the study of Katrijn
Hillewaere associate intercultural education with anti-nag programmes and conflict resolution and
the development of social skills. Although the aim is to improve respect, tolerance and recognition
of the ‘other’, intercultural education is banned from the core ‘learning the curriculum’ business,
because associated with the domain of interpersonal relationships.
 In the Priority Policy Brussels study a minority of teachers refer to a broader definition of
diversity, but diversity is taken in the sense of all possible differences between pupils (black or
blond, big or small, wearing glasses or not, etc).
 The Extended Care programme and the Act on Equal Educational Opportunities enlarge the target
group to deprived groups and pupils with learning difficulties in general. As a consequence the
conception of diversity is moving towards “dealing “dealing with dissimilarities”, read dealing
with individual differences or differences assigned to specific groups.
 In the former case intercultural education is reduced to differentiation: the support of
individual styles of learning, or “respect” for pupils wearing glasses, etc. In the slipstream of
the counsellors’ approach Bieke Denolf and Thomas Labath also found this differentiation
variant in the Priority Policy Brussels schools.
 In the latter case the ethnic minority label is replaced by another group label. Individual
behaviour is for instance explained by referring to living in deprived families including a very
normative appreciation of this living condition and the supposed lack of support in their
family systems. The ‘acquaintance with strangers’ approach is now adapted to pupils living in
poverty. Once again the focus is predominantly on dealing with differences with a strong
emphasis on reducing these differences. The hidden agenda seems to understand this ‘other’ in
order to enhance a better accommodation to the ‘mainstream’ education.
-7-
4. From an ethnographic tradition to an evaluative approach
The CIE adopts a pragmatic approach concerning human beings-in-the-world, pointing to the
importance of context-relatedness, embedded in an ethnographic tradition. The transfer of this
approach (fully applied in the first study) to evaluation research (3 following studies),
requiring more general statements, causes fruitful methodological and conceptual tensions.
This combination forces the CIE to swing to and fro between a notion of context-related
diversity on the one hand and recommendations overall contexts in the other.
A pragmatic approach to diversity and intercultural education
 Inherent to the conceptualisation of intercultural education by the CIE is a development based on a
pragmatic approach of men and reality, pointing out the importance of context-relatedness to the
meaning of ‘diversity’. I will refer to this pragmatic approach both in the sense of referring to the
philosophy of pragmatism as to a strategy to approach the educational system.
 If intercultural education is defined as “learning to manage social and cultural diversity in an
active and efficient manner” each of these words get a specific interpretation.
- Culture refers to a non-essentialist, dynamic concept of culture, mediated in interaction.
- Social and cultural diversity should be taken in a broad sense, involving similarities as well as
dissimilarities. Important to implementation of intercultural education is not so much the
actual feature of diversity (colour, religion, age, interest, ethnic background, gender, …), as
well the meaning these features get in specific contexts. In the spotlight of a specific situation
some diversity features become important, others keep in the shadow. On the spot we refer to
previous interactions, putting the whole situation in a specific colour of light.
- If intercultural education refers to “dealing with diversity” this management includes (1) the
recognition (of sliding meaning) of diversity as ‘normal’ and (2) approaching diversity as a
source of learning. In other words: intercultural education is the management of the class and
school life is such a way that learning from each other becomes obvious.
- The educational system functions on the base of a priori norms (as well in term of expected
cognitions as in terms of socialisation), set by majority groups. However in an active and
efficient manner should be read as involving a sort of negotiation between different cultural
groups about the applied criteria system.
 Although not yet defined in these words, a leading idea in the school ethnography was the idea of
intercultural competence, not as something to acquire, but as a capacity within each person.
Everybody is capable of managing all kinds of differences and similarities in daily interactions as
illustrated by the code switching pupils continuously made between different modes of interaction.
Intercultural education then should start by observing the existing different meanings of diversity
in an almost ethnographic manner, in order to get rid of fixed ideas and stereotypes and to explore
the dynamic of sliding meanings. Existing patterns and recurring insistence (by the teacher or by
the pupils themselves) on certain behaviour should be, in one way or another, enlarged but starting
from the already existing competence.
 The consequence of this line of argument creates major problems for the pragmatic approach as a
“starting where they are” strategy towards the educational system. As embedded in the a priori
conception of education teachers want to know where to go to and especially how. In a contextrelated conception of intercultural education how is different in each specific situation and what is
insecure. Already from the start this tension inflicted the relationships between “researchers” and
“trainers” at the CIE, the latter demanding for recommendations overall contexts and promoting a
“selling strategy” by linking intercultural learning environments to quality of education in general.
-8-
Between compass and walking directions
 The tension between the notion of a context-related diversity on the one hand and
recommendations overall contexts in the other reoccurred in the research designs of the following
studies. As in all three studies evaluation was required the researchers needed a measuring-yard in
order to make comparisons between local situations possible.
 All three-evaluation designs make use of the same scheme of reference, based on the two key
concepts “interaction” and “diversity”, readapted to the specific evaluation questions. Indications
to “good” intercultural education, in short, were to be found in promoting interaction in a way that
reinforces diversity. Both axes were refined in observational descriptions of for instance classroom
arrangement promoting interaction or teacher-pupil interaction leaving room for diversity (made
operational in a very detailed account by Blaton & Joos, involving a list of 51 indicators of quality
of education).
Interaction
Active
II
I
III
IV
Diversity
Homogenise
Heterogenise
Passive
According to their methodological position (see table 2) each researcher used the scheme in a
specific manner.
 At least two major conceptual tensions arise around this basic scheme:
- The scheme was developed as a measuring-yard, which is a rather artificial and disputable
instrument for analysis. It is rather a compass indicating where your position than an
indication of walking directions. Still the positioning of teachers and schools on the compass is
interpreted as “better” and “worse”. And indeed it is very tempting to consider field I as the
field that meets the criteria of “good” intercultural education. According to the context-related
interpretation it is not, or rather: not under every condition, because for instance depending on
the interpretation of “heterogenisation”.
- If used as a compass, what do you register? Teacher behaviour, as done in the evaluation
designs? Or rather the class climate as done in the school ethnography? What is the relation
between particular teacher behaviour and class climate? Does every teacher measure lead to
the same ‘effects’? According to the context-related assumption is doesn’t. But if not, what
measuring-yard to construct?
-9-
TABLE 2
Central focus
Collection of data
Format of
analysis
(1995-1998)
School ethnographic research
Interaction
(1998-1999)
Non-Discrimination Treaty
Evaluation
(2000-2001)
Educational Priority Policy
Evaluation - ranking
(2001),(2001-2002), (2002-2003)
Priority Policy Brussels
Evaluation – progress
School ethnography
● Participatory observation
● Informal talks
● Ethnographic interview
Open ‘grand tour’ generates
research questions
Semi-structured evaluation design
● Half open observation scheme
● Semi-structured interviews
Semi-structured evaluation design
● Half open observation scheme
● Semi-structured interviews
Quantification of indexing
categories (observation and
interview transcripts)
Ranking of schools based on
situating teachers behaviour into
the interaction – diversity scheme
of analysis
Semi-structured evaluation design
● 2001 Video registration
● 2001-2002 Interviews
● 2002-2003 video + sociogram
2001:
Predefined scheme of analysis
Quantification
Indexing categories help to read the
material (observation and interview
transcripts)
Methodological
positions
2001-2002:
Deductive, based on scheme of
analysis Pelemans & Hillewaere
Inductive, systematisation of data
after and based on “intuitive”
reading of observation
Deductive, based on observation
scheme and findings from Soenen
Deductive + inductive, context
related revision and adaptation of
initial scheme of analysis
2003-2004:
Predefined scheme of analysis










 Reconstruction (local reality)
doesn’t exclude ranking (global
reality)
 Emic perspective in etic design
 Factist perspective





Uniform indicators of an
intercultural learning environment
Indicators should be used in a
context related manner
Uniform indicators of the quality of
teaching
Illustrations of the difference
between espoused theories and
theories-in-use
Illustrations of the difference
between espoused theories and
theories-in-use
Indicators of intercultural
education as part of indicators of
quality of education
Focus on teachers
Focus on teachers
Naturalistic
Emic perspective
Local reality,
but universal “grammar”
Specimen + Factist perspective
Conceptualisation Context related meaning of
diversity
of intercultural
education
Illustrations of the dynamics of
diversity in every day life (eye
opener) – “ready steady cook”
“Focus on pupils
Generalisation - prediction
Etic perspective
‘Global’ reality,
uniform indicators
Factist perspective
- 10 -
Generalisation – prediction
Etic perspective
Global reality,
uniform indicators
Factist perspective
5. Dealing with diversity in every day life teacher practices
TABLE 3
Central focus
Daily practises
(1995-1998)
School ethnographic research
Interaction
(1998-1999)
Non-Discrimination Treaty
Evaluation
(2000-2001)
Educational Priority Policy
Evaluation - ranking
(2001), (2001-2002), (2002-2003)
Priority Policy Brussels
Evaluation – progress
Conflict resolution in relation to
context related class climate
“Intercultural education is in a
shabby condition in Flanders”
Dutch language skill training
overshadows the other field of
action.
General tendency of
homogenisation by teachers. Pupils
are mainstreamed to a formal way
of behaving, which is considered to
be a condition for curriculum
learning.
“The implementation of
intercultural education is
moderate”.
- Classroom arrangement and
decoration generally promotes
intercultural education
- Informal interaction teacher –
pupils generally promotes
intercultural education
- Teacher preparation and
classroom management doesn’t
stimulate interaction. Eventual
occurrence of diversity (others
than introduced by teacher) is
rarely welcome.
2001:
Most teachers avoid teaching
methods that promote interaction.
Interactive methods are not
structured to promote a balanced
interaction of the participants.
Teachers insist on formal pupils
behaviour.
‘Managers’
Conflict mainly among pupils.
Pupils use elements of pupils’
mode of interaction to compete
with each other.
The ‘Gaulish’ context
Conflict mainly between teacher
and pupils. Pupils use elements of
youngster’s mode of interaction.
Teachers want to expel the
youngster’s mode of interaction
What doesn’t work?
- Reprimands and preaching
- Expositions of school norms
- Insisting on structure
What works?
- Observation and the adequate
use of changing meanings of
diversity
- Balancing between own and
pupils modes of interactions
Passive teaching methods:
interaction between pupils is
almost not permitted or is defined
by the teacher.
Interaction with pupils is
characterised by reprimands and
instructions. Interest of pupils that
doesn’t react in the presupposed
way of behaving is not recognised.
Desegregation is a condition for the No relation whatsoever between
implementation of intercultural
ethnic segregation and
education
implementation of intercultural
education
- 11 -
2003-2004:
“Progress in teaching behaviour
mainly involve activities where the
locus of control is situated in the
decisions made by the teacher
(teacher preparation, choice of
teaching content, …). However, the
locus of control still isn’t shared
with the pupils. Pupils are not held
responsible for their own learning
process. Teachers still keep their
‘leading’ position and therefore
limit learning possibilities.”
References
Alasuutari, P. (1995) Researching Culture. Qualitative Method and Cultural Studies (London, Sage).
Blaton, L., Joos, A., Devloeger, M. & Goossens, G. (2004) Productevaluatie Vooruitgangsbeleid Brussel. Verslag eerste fase
(februari-december 2003) (Universiteit Gent - KU Leuven, Steunpunt Intercultureel Onderwijs-Steunpunt Nederlands als
Tweede Taal).
Cohen, L., Mansion,, L. & Morrison, K. (2000) Research Methods in Education. Fifth edition (London, RoutledgeFalmer).
Delrue, K. (2003) Zure druiven, zoete krenten? Een schooletnografisch onderzoek in het secundair onderwijs (Universiteit
Gent, Steunpunt Intercultureel Onderwijs).
Denolf, B., Labath, T., Devlieger, M. & Goossens, G. (2003) Procesevaluatie Voorruitgangsbeleid Brussel. Eindverslag
(2001-2002) (Universiteit Gent – KU Leuven, Steunpunt Intercultureel Onderwijs-Steunpunt Nederlands als Tweede Taal).
Guba, E. & Lincoln, Y. (1994) , Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research, in: N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (eds.) Handbook
of Qualitative Research (pp. 105-117) (London, Sage).
Green, J. (1994) Qualitative Program Evaluation, in N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp.
530-544) (London, Sage).
Hammerley, M. (1990) Reading ethnogrpahic research. A critical guide (New York, Longman).
Hillewaere, K. (2001) Evaluatieonderzoek van het onderwijsbleied ten aanzien van ethnische minderheden in het lager
onderwijs. OBPWO 99.15 deelrapport: implementatie-onderzoek (Universiteit Gent, Steunpunt Intercultureel Onderwijs).
Hutchby, I. & Moran-Ellis, J. (1998) Situating children’s social competence, in: I. Hutchby & J. Moran-Ellis (eds.), Children
and social competence: arenas of action (pp. 7-26) (London, Falmer).
Joos, A. & Verlot, M. (2001) Evaluatie van het Voorrangsbeleid Brussel. Deelrapport: nulmeting voor de pijler ‘omgaan met
diversiteit’ (Universiteit Gent, Steunpunt Intercultureel Onderwijs).
Lecompte, M.D. & Schensul, J.J. Designing and conducting ethographic research (Walnut Creek, Altamira).
Mason, J. (1996) Qualitative Researching (London, Sage).
McLaren, P. (1993) Schooling as a ritual performance (London, Sage).
Mertens, D.M. (1998) Research methods in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative and qualitative
approaches (London, Sage).
Ministry of the Flemish Community. Education Department (2001) Education in Flanders. The Flemish educational
landscape in a nutshell (Brussels, Ministry of the Flemish Community).
Ministry of the Flemish Community. Education Department (2003) Equal educational opportunities for every child …
schools are working on it! (Brussels, Ministry of the Flemish Community).
Nicaise, I. (2002) The role of school community action in the context of the Flemish educational priority policy (paper
presented at the workshop ‘integration of nursery and primary school children from a migratory background’, Frankfurt, 2627 April).
Pelemans, I. & Verlot, M. (1999) Evaluatie van het non-discriminatiebeleid. Deelrapport interculturalisering van onderwijs
in scholen (Universiteit Gent, Steunpunt Intercultureel Onderwijs).
Schrijvers, E., Hillewaere, K., Van de Velde V. & Verlot, M. (2002) Evaluatieonderzoek van het onderwijsvoorrangsbeleid,
OBPWO 99.15: samenvatting en beleidsaanbevelingen (KU Leuven, HIVA).
Silverman, D. (2001) Interpreting Qualitative Data. Methods for analysing Talk, Text and Interaction
(London, Sage).
Soenen, R. (1999) Over Galliërs en managers. Bouwstenen voor intercultureel leren (Universiteit Gent, Steunpunt
Intercultureel Onderwijs)
Suijs, S. (2003) De monoculturele norm. Minderjarigen uit etnisch-culturele minderheden in het onderwijs, in:
Kinderrechtencoalitie Vlaanderen (red.) Kinderrechtenforum. Rechten van minderjarigen uit etnisch-culturele minderheden
(pp. 45-74) (Gent, Kinderrechtencoalitie Vlaanderen).
Verlot, M. & Sierens, S. (1997) Intercultureel onderwijs vanuit een pragmatisch perspectief, in: Sierens, S. & Verlot, M.
(red.) Cultuurstudie 3: themanummer intercultureel onderwijs (pp. 130-178) (Universiteit Gent, Vakgroep Vergelijkende
Cultuurwetenschappen).
Verlot, M., Delrue, K., Extra, G. & Yagmur, K. (2003) Meertaligheid in Brussel. De status vanb allochtone talen thuis en op
school (Amsterdam, European Cultural Foundation).
Willis, P. (1981) Leraning to labor: How working class kids get working class jobs (New York, Teacher’s College Press).
- 12 -