Driessen, G. (2004). From cure to curse: The rise and fall of bilingual education programs in the Netherlands. Invited paper Expert meeting Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB) ‘Effectiveness of Bilingual Education Programs’. Berlin, Germany, November 18-19, 2004.

1. From cure to curse:
the rise and fall of bilingual
education programs in the
Netherlands
Dr Geert Driessen
ITS – Radboud University Nijmegen, the Netherlands

2. Four categories:
1. Former Dutch colonies (e.g., Antilleans, Surinam)
2. Guest workers (e.g., Italy, Turkey, Morocco)
3. Refugees/asylum seekers (e.g., Iran, Yugoslavia)
4. Western countries, same SES (e.g., Belgium, Germany)
Ethnic minority policy: low-SES immigrants
Numbers: 7-19% of Dutch population of 16 million
Largest groups: Turks (341,000), Surinamese (321,000),
Moroccan (295,000), Antillean (129,000)
1. Ethnic minorities in the Netherlands

3. 2. Educational policy relating to minorities
Four phases:
1 Before 1980: two track approach; temporarily stay;
integration and remigration; bilingual education and Dutch
as a second language
2 1980: idea temporarily stay abandoned; preparation for
Dutch society; integration from own cultural background;
additional resources
3 1985: Educational Priority Policy (EPP): eliminate or reduce
children’s disadvantages
4 1990s: minority children lag far behind; Educational
Disadvantage Policy (EDP): decentralization, deregulation
and increased autonomy for municipalities; shift
responsibility municipalities to school boards

4. 3. Bilingual education programs (1)
1. Bilingual reception models
● Transitional and simultaneous models in lower grades.
● Purpose: facilitating mastery of Dutch and restricted
maintenance of Turkish and Arabic.
● Applied in a few schools in 1980s.

5. 4. Bilingual education programs (2)
2. Mother Tongue Instruction (MTI)
● Introduced in 1967. Organized and financed by parents and
embassies.
● After 1970. Dutch government part of financing. Aim: easing re-
integration.
● After 1974. Many, ever changing aims: from remigration (there)
and integration (here), promoting educational opportunities
(command minority language beneficial for learning Dutch) and
contributing to emancipation.
● After 1990. MTI still useful? Reduce educational opportunities?
Results in segregation instead of integration?
● After ‘9/11’. Call for assimilation instead of integration with
maintenance of own language and culture.
● 2004. Abolition of MTI, priority to learning of Dutch.

6. 5. Bilingual education programs (3)
2. Mother tongue instruction (contd.)
● Target groups: children guest workers, asylum seekers, and
Moluccans; not: Surinamese, Antilleans, and Chinese.
● Time: Under EPP 2.5 h/wk during school hours, and 2.5 h/wk
after school.
● Language: official language (standard language) of native
countries.
● Participation: 1995: 67,000 children; 61,000 Turkish or Moroccan
(=73%). 1998: 67%. 2000: 57%.
● Teachers: 1,000 fte; 1200 schools.

7. 6. Pros and cons (1)
Educational psychology arguments
For: Interdependency and threshold hypotheses (Cummins)
Against: MTI language is not mother tongue, interference
Educational theory arguments
For: Education should link up with language the pupil has already acquired;
MTI-teacher as intermediary school-parents/home
Against: Future lies in the Netherlands; MTI is extra burden
Socio-psychological arguments
For: Needed for personality development and positive self-image
Against: Minority children don not have a less positive self-image; static
concept of culture and identity

8. 7. Pros and cons (2)
Communicative arguments
For: Command mother tongue needed for intra and intergenerational
communication
Against: Expectations too high; many family members illiterate
Language-political arguments
For: Multi-lingualism source of enrichment of a society
Against: Languages can be learned more effectively than via MTI
Emancipatory arguments
For: MTI plays crucial role in getting equal opportunities; compensation for
assimilation
Against: No proof effects of MTI on opportunities; accent on own identity
hampers integration

9. 8. Practicalities
Limiting conditions in terms of personnel
Shortage of teachers; deviating teaching strategies; language barriers;
no communication possible
Limiting conditions in terms of materials
Shortage of methods suitable for the Dutch situation; few possibilities
for differentiation; poor accommodation
Limiting conditions in terms of context
Not integrated in regular education; disinterest or negative attitude of
school team; first priority on acquiring Dutch

10. 9. Effects (1)
Very few evaluation studies
In the 1980s
Focus on Turks and Moroccans
Two elements:
- effects on command of mother tongue and knowledge of native
culture
- effects on proficiency level Dutch and other aspects of regular
curriculum.

11. 10. Effects (2)
Evaluation bilingual models
• Studies: longitudinal; quasi-experimental (experimental, control
group); limited number of schools and pupils; age 6-7; analysis
techniques: table analysis, analysis of (co)variance, T-test, multi-
variate analysis of variance, regression analysis, correlational
analysis, discriminant analysis.
• Conclusions researchers: bilingual programs have a positive effect
on the development of the mother tongue, without seriously affecting
their development in the Dutch language and related school subjects.
However, Berber-speaking children are advised against participation
in this type of programs.

12. 11. Effects (3)
MTI
• Studies: cross-sectional, quasi-experimental; large random samples;
age 6-14, 12.5; analysis techniques: table analysis, correlational
analysis, analysis of variance, regression and path analysis.
• Conclusions researchers: major differences in language proficiency
levels; level of Turkish fairly good, level of spoken Arabic is poor and
that of written Arabic definitely very low; the correlation between
mother tongue level and MTI attendance is weak to very weak. This
also applies to the correlation with Dutch language and math
proficiency (correlation with after school MTI is negative).

13. 12. Where did it all go wrong? (1)
Politicians
Official aims had limited degree of exactness, more than one
interpretation, far from concrete terms, not consistent, hardly any
scientific basis. Half-hearted attitude of politicians, afraid of getting
their fingers burnt, conflicting interests, full of compromises.
Result: policy miles away from actual educational practice and
developments taking place in society at large.

14. 13. Where did it all go wrong? (2)
Practicalities
For large part of minorities official national language was not mother
tongue, but third or fourth language. Some important aims bilingual
education did not hold any water. No communication possible, no
contribution to positive self-image, no transfer-effects.

15. 12. Where did it all go wrong? (3)
Scientists
Battle linguists - educational sociologists. Deficit versus difference
view. Linguists stressed importance of learning languages as a goal in
itself and enrichment for a person and society. Sociologists pointed to
the lack of improvement of the school careers and life chances of
minorities, no evidence of success, no justice to historical and
contextual developments.