CPG kinderen Spaans onderwijs
CPG kinderen Spaans onderwijs

Education in the New Multicultural Society

News item

During the Lubbers-Cabinets, a remarkable transformation of political decision-making took place and ministers and MPs held numerous interesting debates, which can be found in written records, such as the Bulletin. We will keep you updated on our work in our blog series, Wandelingen door de Handelingen (Walks through the Bulletin). This first blog focuses on education in the multicultural society in the 1980s and is written by Michelle Rosmalen.

Multicultural education in the Netherlands in the 1980s remained a significant concern for the government and parliament. With the idea of a multicultural society in mind, the Lubbers-Cabinets in the 1980s wanted to ensure education recognised and respected all cultures present in the Netherlands. In practice, this proved to be a difficult endeavour; educational outcomes of minorities gave cause for concern and policy revision was required. The further divergence of views on the subject made this a challenging task. 

 

In the early 1980s, the Lower House welcomed the idea of a multicultural society with open arms. In 1983, after years of increasing migration and mediocre policy implementation, the Lubbers I Cabinet, based on advice from the Scientific Council for Government Policy (WRR), drafted a Minorities Memorandum containing policy on Dutch citizens with a migration background. One of the main principles of this memorandum was that "minorities should be enabled to acquire, like all other residents, the skills needed for equal functioning in our society."[1] The main underlying idea of this memorandum was that a multicultural society would be a strong society.

A key component for fulfilling this objective was education. Through education, children learned to deal with different cultures in the Netherlands. In addition, children with a migrant background would be taught in their 'own language and culture'.[2] MPs saw education in their own language and culture (OETC) as a way for children with a migrant background to defend themselves 'against Dutch cultural domination'.[3] OETC was a means of shaping ideas about the design of the multicultural society.

Change in Conviction

A turning point in this conviction was during a committee meeting on 31 October 1988. At the centre of this debate was the minority policy action plan for 1989. Like many other components of the minority policy, education in one's own language and culture did not present the expected results. Pupils with a migrant background invariably got lower grades and also lagged behind Dutch citizens without a migrant background.[4] The Lubbers II Cabinet, therefore, asked the WRR to evaluate the minorities policy and its results and come back with an opinion.

In the debate, committee members frequently referred to this upcoming WRR report. The committee members expressed dissatisfaction with the results of the minority policy over the past five years and wanted change in the policy[5], including a change in education in one's own language and culture. This education would strengthen the multicultural society by ensuring that pupils mastered the language and culture of their country of origin, making all cultures equal. Speaking good Dutch also proved important for proper integration. Despite the emphasis on the importance of education in one's own language and culture, the parties felt it was important for pupils with a migration background to learn to speak good Dutch so that they would not fall further behind. Although this importance of Dutch also came up during the discussion of the introduction of OETC, particularly in the contributions of the VVD and presented in a more extreme form by the Centre Party, this importance was more widely supported during the 1988 committee meeting.[6]

Another area for improvement in the functioning of OETC was the teachers. From the beginning of the introduction of OETC, there was a shortage of teachers who could teach pupils in their own language and culture. A large proportion of teachers, therefore, came over to the Netherlands from their countries of origin for this purpose. These teachers did not speak Dutch, causing several members of parliament to express concerns about the impact on pupils' Dutch.[7] In a debate on the cultural treaty with Morocco in 1985, this discussion gained momentum.[8] Yet, three years later, a long-term solution had still not been found, and the issue was still on the agenda.

The Importance of Education

Despite concerns about lagging results and the negative aspects, MPs continued to support OETC. Most still wanted pupils from migrant backgrounds to be taught in their own language and culture so that they represented that culture well in this multicultural society concept. However, they did feel that the current form of OETC did not meet expectations and that the policy needed to change. Many parties sought the main change not in the content of the programme but in the position of the OETC within the educational programme. This did not mean that OETC would disappear; on the contrary, most parties were convinced of its importance despite all the setbacks. Teaching was to take place outside regular class hours, leaving enough time for Dutch classes, which most parties felt had priority.[9]

Black and white picture of multicultural classroom in the Netherlands protest
Minority groups also made themselves heard and protested against the disappointing education system. Spanish children and their parents protested in Amsterdam in January 1986 against how they received education in their language and culture. Bee

The government believed that education in one's own language and culture was of great importance for the future of the multicultural society concept. State Secretary for Primary Education, General Secondary Education and Teacher Policy Nell Ginjaar-Maas (VVD) argued: "you should not question OETC's right to exist.".[10]

Although this committee debate was not the most heated debate on education - the debates on the cultural treaty with Morocco and the plenary debate on adjusting the legal position of teachers were more heated - this debate shows the vulnerability of minority policy.[11] On the one hand, the MPs placed the importance of cultural diversity in the Netherlands first; on the other hand, they could not deny that the poor command of Dutch was an important factor in the persistent disadvantage of Dutch citizens with a migrant background. This debate illustrates well the sensitivities surrounding the OETC and the minorities policy and, with it, the MPs' struggle with the organisation and functioning of a multicultural society.

Sources

  1. Handelingen II 1982/83, bijl. 16 102, nr. 21, Minderhedenbeleid (nota), p.17 https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/0000143005.
  2. Handelingen II 1982/83, bijl. 16 102, nr. 21, Minderhedenbeleid (nota), p.27 https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/0000143005.
  3. Uit de bijdrage van PSP-Kamerlid Willems. Handelingen II 1983/84, 27 maart 1984, p.3994 https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/0000132334.
  4. Handelingen II 1987/88, bijl. 20 200-VII, nr. 2, Memorie van Toelichting bij de Rijksbegroting voor het jaar 1988 van het Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/0000101526.
  5. Handelingen II 1988/89, 31 oktober 1988, p.7-2-7-3 https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/0000090552.
  6. Handelingen II 1983/84, 27 maart 1984, p.4002 https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/0000132334; Handelingen II 1983/84, 28 maart 1984, p.4066 https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/0000132335; Handelingen II 1988/89, 31 oktober 1988, p.7-13, 7-16-7-17 https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/0000090552.
  7. Handelingen II 1988/89, 13 december 1988, p.35-2079 https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/0000090485.
  8. Handelingen II 1984/85, 27 augustus 1985, p.6242-6276 https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/0000122977.
  9. Handelingen II 1988/89, 31 oktober 1988, p.7-13, 7-16-7-17 https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/0000090552.
  10. Handelingen II 1988/89, 31 oktober 1988, p.7-34 https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/0000090552.
  11. Handelingen II 1984/85, 27 augustus 1985, p.6242-6276 https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/0000122977; Handelingen II 1993/94, 14 juni 1994, p.76-5316-76-5325 https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/0000003669.

Contact information

This blog was written by Michelle Rosmalen, an intern at the Centre for Parliamentary History during April-July 2023, as part of the research project on parliamentary history in the 1980s. 

Organizational unit
Centre for Parliamentary History

See other news

Demonstratie van het landelijk WAO Comité op het Binnenhof, 1982

Parliamentary History Series: Politics during the Lubbers cabinets (1982-1994)

Research

In 2023, the CPG began a new research project on politics in the long 1980s and during the Lubbers cabinets (1982-1994) that will result in a new volume (volume 11) of the Parliamentary History Series.

de Handelingenkamer in het gebouw van de Tweede Kamer aan het Binnenhof

Wandelingen door de Handelingen (blogreeks)

Onderzoek

In de blogreeks Wandelingen door de Handelingen neemt het Centrum voor Parlementaire Geschiedenis je mee in hun onderzoek naar de periode-Lubbers door stil te staan bij opmerkelijke debatten, personen of gebeurtenissen.