Plusvalor Bookletenglish Finalfebr10

Plurilingualism Strengthening Valorisation of Roots
Workpackage 3

Teaching Minority Languages:

The Case of Arabic in Europe

Jan Jaap de Ruiter, Redouan Saidi, Massimiliano Spotti
Tilburg University
2009

Jan Jaap de Ruiter, Redouan Saidi & Massimiliano Spotti

2
The Plusvalor Project

This booklet on Arabic language teaching in Europe has been produced in the context of the
PLUSVALOR Project (144368-2008-IT-KA2-KA2MP; www.plusvalor.eu) which started on 1st
December 2008 and it is due to end 30th November 2010. Here follows a short description of
the project.

Partners:
Universit Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Italy coordinator
Fondazione Iniziative e Studi sulla Multietnicit (Ismu), Italy
Stichting Katholieke Universiteit Brabant, Netherlands
Societatea Romana pentru Educatie Permanenta, Romania
Ec-Pec Foundation, Hungary

Main aims:
to spread the aim of multilingualism into primary and secondary school in partner
countries;
to develop innovative methodologies for valorization of the language of origin in migratory
context, in constant reference to the Common European Framework of Reference for
Languages;
to spread the use of Common European Framework of Reference for Languages to all the
partner countries;
to develop a model of citizenship education for adults in migratory situations and in the
new European contexts (Romania, Hungary) in order to foster the migrated families
social inclusion, supporting parents role in the new contexts of migration.

Target groups:
primary and secondary schools students and adults in Romania, Hungary and Italy who
will participate to Italian, Arabic and intercultural education courses;
primary and secondary teachers in Romania, Hungary and Italy who will attend teacher
training courses;
European citizens by means of the awareness-raising activities on intercultural issues and
European integration.

Main results:
research and booklets on multilingualism, the valorization of first language and the
relationship between the first and second language;
training courses for teachers;
language and citizenship courses for children and adults;
didactic materials for language teaching and intercultural education;
project website;
international conference and other dissemination activities.

3
Teaching Minority Languages: The Case of Arabic in Europe

Table of contents

1. Introduction 5

2. Home Language Instruction: the case of the Netherlands 6
The Dutch education system 6
Integration as a joint effort 7
Integration while retaining ones own identity 8
The burden of integration is on the minorities 9
Home Language Instruction in the Netherlands: an overview of its history 11

3. Home Language Instruction: the case of Arabic 15

3.1 Arabic in Europe 15
Migration of Arabic speaking minorities to Europe 15
Arabic language vitality 16
Arabic language teaching and education 16
Arabic language proficiency and language behavior 17
Arabic language in the cultural scene 18

3.2 Arabic in the Netherlands: historical perspectives 19
A short overview of its history 19
Issues at stake in Arabic HLI 21
Relationship between Arabic HLI and regular education 21
Position of HLI teachers 22
HLI teachers recruitment 23
Legal status of HLI teachers 25
Debate on the status of HLI and Arabic HLI in particular 27
Teaching materials 30
Numbers of pupils in HLI and Arabic HLI 31
Motivation to follow HLI 32
Level variablity 32

3.3 Mastering Arabic 34

3.4 Teaching Arabic: best practices and methods developed in the Netherlands 44
Best practices 44
Arabic language teaching materials developed in the Netherlands 46

Summary in Arabic 47

References 49


5
1. Introduction

In the context of the aforementioned Plusvalor project, this booklet deals with the issue of
teaching minority languages and adopts as case the teaching of Arabic in European migration
contexts, the Dutch context in particular. Since large migrant groups have been settling in
Europe since the sixties and seventies of the last century, the issue of teaching their children
their mother tongues has become pertinent. In most western European countries the so called
Home Language Instruction (HLI) was installed in primary schools and, to a lesser extent, in
secondary schools as well. Primary languages taught were Arabic and Turkish, but also lesser
used languages like Vietnamese, Urdu and Somalian as well. Since its implementation Home
Language Instruction has been the subject of debates and discussions. One of the important
questions was if HLI should serve the integration processes of the pupils at stake or should
HLI be given as an independent subject? Also the concept of multilingualism plays a role:
should mother tongues or languages of the country of origin be taught in an intercultural and
multilingual context, that is, in combination with the language of the country of settlement, or
not? Different views existed and exist on these questions. Concerning the case of Arabic
questions rose such as to the variety to be taught: should it be the classical or literary variety
that should be taught, the dialectal variety or a combination of both? The Netherlands have
known in the fourth quarter of the last century an intensive debate on HLI and an enormously
rich experience in the actual teaching of home languages, among which Arabic and Turkish,
has been developed. This book focuses on the case and developments in the Netherlands in
particular although other Western European countries will not be discarded.
This booklet deals with the theoretical background of HLI and thus the developments of the
specific case of Arabic in the Netherlands. Jan Jaap de Ruiter, Massimiliano Spotti and
Redouan Saidi are responsible for the text which partly originates from earlier publications
such as Chapter 2, Spotti (2007), Section 3.1, De Ruiter (2006), Section 3.2 Obdeijn & De
Ruiter (1998) and Section 3.3 Saidi (2001). Jasmijn Hattinga Verschure and Jan Jaap de
Ruiter took care of the Dutch version of this publication and Mohammadi Laghzaoui translated
the summary of the booklet into Arabic. We owe lots of thanks to Karin Berkhout, secretary of
Babylon, Centre for Studies of the Multicultural Society, at Tilburg University to take care of the
lay-out and formatting of this book.
The Dutch version of the book is smaller than the English one. This is the case because the
authors considered that the non Dutch audience is much bigger than the Dutch one and
because the Dutch readers and market have a multitude of other publications available on the
subject already. Therefore more texts were added to the English version of the booklet.
The present publication, as part of workpackage 3, is linked to the teacher training
programme, executed in 2009 by both Italian partners, the ISMU Foundation and the Catholic
University in Milan, together with the developments of experimental paths in Arabic, to be
executed by both partners as well. Their reports will appear shortly on the website
(www.plusvalor.eu).


6
2. Home Language Instruction: the case of the Netherlands

As a result of politically, economically and socially motivated immigration, the Netherlands has
undergone considerable demographic changes since the second half of the twentieth century
(Lucassen & Penninx 1994). As a result of this immigration flux, almost 3 million inhabitants
out of a total population of approximately 16 million people have at least one parent born
outside the country (CBS 2004). Cultural and linguistic diversity among the Dutch population
has become therefore object of hatred public and political debate which mostly focuses on the
need for integration of immigrant minority group members namely Turkish, Moroccan,
Surinamese and Antillean within mainstream Dutch society. Education, with a particular
focus on the primary sector, constitutes no exception to this. Diversity is also found in the
language repertoires that pupils bring along from home to school (Broeder & Extra 1998; Extra
et al. 2002) which markedly contrast the monolingual character of mainstream (primary)
schooling and that are often coupled up with pupils low proficiency in Dutch. Furthermore,
current ethnographic research shows discontinuity between the culturally and linguistically
heterogeneous character of immigrant minority pupils and the more homogeneous character
of primary education and of primary school teachers (cf. Bezemer 2003; Spotti 2007).
Against this background and in the light of the little knowledge at our disposal in the field of
(Dutch) primary education on the construction of pupils intercultural subjectivity (cf. Leeman
1994; Saharso 1985, 1992), we present an overview of the last three decades of development
around immigrant minority language teaching in primary education. In so doing, we come to
grip with the Dutch macro-discourse of representation of its cultural Others (cf. Van Dijk
1993). Everyday (educational) discourse, in fact, is covered by a shade of normality populated
by assumptions, inferences and the like. Moving discourse away from such shade would be
not only significant for a critical reflection of the last three decades of policy development. It
will also be especially significant for its social outcomes when dealing with issues of identity
construction in intercultural educational contexts across Europe.

The Dutch education system
The Dutch education system has its foundation in Article 23 of the Constitution of the
Netherlands. This article declares that education is the object of continuous governmental
concern and charges the government with ensuring that there are a sufficient number of public
primary schools. Apart from this general requirement, educational freedom in the Netherlands
is catered for in terms of founding schools, of determining the denominational or pedagogical
standpoint on which education is based and in terms of the organization of its teaching. This
freedom, though, can still be constrained by the legislator (Onderwijsraad 2002). The
curriculum requirements for primary schooling are laid down in the Wet Primair Onderwijs
(Primary Education Act). This Act, among other requirements, clearly prescribes that primary
education has to take into account that all pupils grow up in a multicultural society. The
subjects to be dealt with and their respective requirements are rendered in cross-curricular
and subject-specific kerndoelen (attainment targets). These attainment targets describe the
minimum achievement levels with respect to knowledge, understanding and proficiency
required from each pupil by the end of their primary schooling career (Kerndoelen 1998).
Further, the Primary Education Act states that the curriculum is taught in Dutch, that English is
taught as a foreign language and that schools in the province of Friesland are required to
provide instruction in Frisian unless pupils are granted exemption from the provincial authority.
If, apart from Dutch, Frisian or another regional minority language is actively used it can be
used at school as a language of communication alongside Dutch.
Most schools organize education in eight forms. At every new school year a pupil moves up
to the next form, thus making the primary school generally last for eight years. Schools,
however, hold the right to have under-achieving pupils repeat the school year. The
Leerplichtwet (Compulsory education act) indicates that children must attend school from the
first school day of the month following their fifth birthday. However, most children are regularly
enrolled by the age of four, meaning that by the age of twelve they will pass on to secondary
schooling. Each school week consists of five teaching days, with a minimum of three hours of
lessons per day but no indication is given about the length of teaching hours. At the end of

7
primary school, nearly all pupils take part in the Cito Toets, a national test designed by the
National Institute for Educational Measurement. The result of this test together with the class
teachers assessment of the pupils primary school career inform the advice for the pupils
parents about the type of secondary education that they should opt for. Each type inserts
pupils in a specific form of secondary education, ranging from vocational to pre-academic. The
Inspectorate of Primary Education, an institutional body that safeguards and promotes the
quality of education as well as the legal requirements set by the government, is in charge of
the assessment of schools. This assessment, formulated in an annual visit report and made
available to the school and the general public, is based on observations of the teachers
practice and scrutiny of the schools policies, the school plan and the school guide. The former
is a document drafted every four years in which schools are required to describe their policies
on pedagogy, staff, educational quality control and implementation; the latter is a yearly
revised prospectus aimed to inform parents, caretakers, child minders and pupils about the
school rules, policies and past performance.
In the school year 2004-2005, regular instruction was provided for approximately one
million six hundred thousand pupils of which 15.7 percent were registered as belonging to
cultural minorities (cf. Eurydice 2006: 42). These pupils not only have a heterogeneous
cultural background but also, as language surveys have shown (Extra et al. 2002), they have
home languages that are other than Dutch. The different patterns of home language use
among these pupils lead to different levels of proficiency in both Dutch and the home
languages once the pupils enter primary school. This situation is in marked contrast with the
monolingual character of mainstream primary schools that have Dutch not only as a core
curriculum subject but also as the official language of instruction. Cultural minorities pupils
mastering of Dutch, their integration and the catering for their cultural and linguistic
heterogeneity, all hold a key position in the historical development of Dutch educational
discourse.

Integration as a joint effort
Since the Beleidsplan voor het onderwijs aan groepen in achterstandssituaties (Policy plan for
the education of groups in disadvantaged circumstances) (TK 1973/1974), Dutch educational
discourse has dwelt on the specific educational needs of the children of guest workers.
Building up from the Nota buitenlandse werknemers (Paper on foreign employees) (TK
1969/1970), the policy plan drew a distinction between education for pupils residing in the
Netherlands for a short period of time and education for those pupils who were expected to
stay. It is the Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid (Scientific council for
government policy) that with its advisory report Etnische minderheden (Ethnic minorities)
makes clear that the assumption of a return to the country of origin of most immigrant families
and their children was contradicted and that the Netherlands had become de facto an
immigration country (WRR 1979). The Minderhedennota (Paper on minorities) (TK
1982/1983), a governmental policy on minorities, that first stressed that the successful
realization of a multicultural society relied on a joint effort from both minority and majority
group members. This paper focused on the functioning of immigrant minority pupils in main-
stream Dutch society and, at the same time, it provided facilities for the maintenance of
minority groups own cultures and identities. Right before the Minderhedennota, the
Beleidsplan culturele minderheden in het onderwijs (Policy plan on cultural minorities in
education) (Ministerie van OCW 1981) was launched. It proposed two objectives in the
governmental approach to the Dutch multicultural society. The first focused on preparing
immigrant minority children for full participation in Dutch society while enabling them to
maintain their own cultures. The second focused on the enhancement of acculturation
(Ministerie van OCW 1981: 6) seen as a bi- or multilateral process of getting to know, accept
and appreciate each other and the opening of ones mind to each others culture or elements
thereof [translation MS]. It was with the 1985 Primary Education Act (TK 1985/1986) that
schools were charged with the duty of initiating the opening to each others cultures. Schools,
in fact, were asked to take into account that all pupils grow up in a multicultural society and
that multiculturalism is a point of departure of Dutch education. Consequently, Intercultureel
onderwijs (Intercultural education) and Nederlands als tweede taal (Dutch as a second

8
language) were adopted as ways forward for the integration of immigrant minority pupils (cf.
Van de Guchte 1989). In the event, however, both initiatives fell short. Intercultural education,
in fact, lacked clarity of implementation at school and classroom level (cf. Kloprogge 1992: 11)
while policies for Dutch as a second language appeared only in some general measures
(Ministerie van OCW 1988). Furthermore, both these measures seemed to contain a mixed
message. On the one hand, in fact, interculturality stood as the emblem of the joint effort by
majority and minority members to build a multicultural society. On the other hand, Dutch as a
second language was seen as the key for minorities to enhance their societal chances.
The early and mid eighties of the last century also saw the coming into existence of two
other milestones of the Dutch educational discourse. These were the concept of immigrant
minority language teaching embodied in the paper Onderwijs in eigen taal en cultuur
(Education in ones own language and culture) commonly referred to as OETC (TK 1983/
1984) and the Onderwijsvoorrangsbeleid (Educational priority policy) (TK 1984/1985). At its
start, minority language teaching wished to serve the purpose of immigrant minority pupils
reintegration in their country of origin and for this reason, it provided teaching in the official
language of the parental country of origin. In many cases, though, the officially taught
language did not match the actual home language used by immigrant families, exposing these
pupils to yet another foreign language. The educational priority policy initiatives, instead,
joined the needs of both Dutch working-class pupils and pupils from cultural minorities, both
constructing group identities through the common denominator of educational disadvantage.
This emphasis on communal disadvantage was also supported by the introduction of the
gewichtenregeling (weights regulation) and the registration of cumi-leerlingen (cultural minority
pupils). The policies of the nineteen eighties were initially put in place to promote the cultural
equity of immigrant minority pupils and to positively enhance the relationships between
immigrant minority groups and the majority population in the creation of the Dutch multicultural
society enterprise. This proposed discourse of joint effort comes together, on the one hand
with immigrant minority language teaching because of a hypothetical return of immigrant
minority group members to their country of origin on the other with the introduction of Dutch
as a second language. Furthermore, toward the end of the eighties, the Dutch educational
macro discourse focused its attention on the common educational disadvantage felt by both
Dutch working class pupils and pupils from immigrant minority groups. This attention resulted
in the introduction of identity labels. These labels, that are still being used, corresponded to
the measurements of these pupils educational weight and constructed these pupils in terms of
the demands that their enrolment placed on schools.

Integration while retaining ones own identity
By the very end of the nineteen-eighties, there was a change in the Dutch political and
educational discourse with the formulation of the Allochtonenbeleid (Policy on non-indigenous
people) (cf. WRR 1989). From a standpoint that presented the multicultural society enterprise
as the result of a bilateral commitment among minority and majority group members,
knowledge of Dutch was soon introduced as top priority for immigrants and their descendants
up to the third generation (WRR 1989: 39). The governments thinking therefore focused on
initiatives centered on Dutch as a second language, mobilized by the Projectgroep NT2 (Task
force for Dutch as a second language). Further, it relegated immigrant minority language
teaching to the role of in-school extra-curricular activity (cf. Bezemer 2003: 42) and it proposed
keeping immigrant minority languages in order to develop immigrant minority pupils optimal
participation in society through a sufficient command of Dutch (cf. Kroon & Sturm 2003). The
publication Eigen taal als onderdeel van een gentegreerd talenonderwijs (Ones own
language as part of an integrated language education) (Ministerie van OCW 1991) is an
instance of this discourse shift, as it clearly spelt out that immigrant minority languages are of
the greatest importance for immigrant minority groups, as it reads next to it and as its
support it is important that young people from ethnic minority groups that speak a language
other than Dutch at home, also receive education in their own language [translation MS]
(Ministerie van OCW 1991: 5), and
[] moreover ones own language can be used as a language of support for the re-
maining subjects [translation MS]. (Ministerie van OCW 1991: 5)

9
In 1991 the appointment of the Commissie Allochtone Leerlingen in het Onderwijs (Committee
for non-indigenous pupils in education) and its proposal of three policy pathways took place.
The first policy pathway was for educational disadvantage, the second for Dutch as a second
language and the third for immigrant minority language teaching. The latter was addressed as
Onderwijs in Allochtone Levende Talen (Teaching in non-indigenous living languages), or more
commonly by the acronym of OALT, refers to any language that originates outside the
Netherlands and that is used in life situations by the inhabitants of the Netherlands (CALO
1992: 41). Further, the Committee proposed differentiating cultuurbeleid (culture policy) from
achterstandbeleid (disadvantage policy). In response to the Committees proposals, the
government split its policy in three branches, namely for immigrant minority pupils, for
facilitation of pre-schooling and for Dutch as a second language (cf. TK 1993/1994). Even
though this response seemed a promising start, it turned out to be a mixed blessing for the
positioning of immigrant minority pupils within educational discourse. With the
Uitwerkingsnotitie Nederlands als tweede taal (Elaboration paper on Dutch as a second
language, Ministerie van OCW 1995), the government stressed again that

it is a serious concern of the government to strongly aim for a situation in which immi-
grant minority pupils acquire proficiency in Dutch as soon and as much as possible.
(Ministerie van OCW 1994: 2)

As a result, municipal coordination was established for school policies on Dutch as a second
language and school based reception classes. In addition, attention was paid to teachers
knowledge of Dutch as a second language. The Uitwerkingsnotitie onderwijs in allochtone
levende talen (Elaboration paper on teaching in non-indigenous living languages) (Ministerie
van OCW 1995) took on board the 1992 CALOs recommendation. However, the
recommendation was put into practice only partially. The cultural policy proposal advanced by
the Committee resulted in immigrant minority language teaching being decent red to municipal
authorities and being included in the regular curriculum for instrumental reasons, i.e., the
improving of pupils skills in Dutch.
From the joint effort preached in the early eighties, the early and mid nineties of the last
century appear characterized by a halfway approach between the assimilationist and the
pluralist turn that a multicultural society has at its disposal. At this point in time, while
confronted with the dilemma of desirability versus feasibility, the Dutch macro-educational
discourse proposed integration while retaining ones own identity (cf. Kroon & Vallen
1994: 125). In this way, any language related activity that caters for the cultural maintenance
of immigrant minority pupils was placed outside the classrooms door because thought not to
have any instrumental relevance for learning Dutch (as a second language).

The burden of integration is on the minorities
Since 1997, yet another shift in the approach to immigrant minority identity construction has
taken place at the institutional level. Municipalities have become educationally autonomous in
combating disadvantage caused by social, economic and cultural circumstances (cf. LBK-GOA
1997a). Thanks to this autonomy, municipalities together with primary and secondary schools
are required to develop a plan for local educational compensatory policy that falls within the
Landelijk Beleidskader Gemeentelijk Onderwijsachterstandenbeleid 1998-2002 (National
policy framework for municipal educational compensatory policy), also known as LBK-GOA.
The LBK-GOA plan, to be redrawn every four years, relies on the regulation of pupils edu-
cational weight, in use since 1986. On the basis of pupils educational weight and the number
of cultural minority pupils enrolled, schools receive extra funding from their municipality. While
educational weight is assigned to all pupils, including those who are native-Dutch, their
weighting scores differ. A pupil, who has at least one parent schooled equally to or below the
level of lower secondary education, or where the household breadwinner is a manual laborer,
will be classified as a 1.90 pupil. Pupils not falling within these criteria but whose parents have
a low educational level are assigned the weight of 1.25. Pupils in orphanages or living with
foster parents count as 1.40 and nomadic pupils as 1.70. All other pupils are classified as 1.00
pupils (Eurydice 2006: 42). In its first period of implementation, the LBK-GOA plan focused on

10
the eradication of immigrant minority pupils Dutch language gap (LBK-GOA 1997b). Its goal
was informed by the belief that cognitive development and language proficiency, or the lack
thereof, goes hand in hand with the low educational level of the parents and with the fact that
little Dutch is spoken at home. To counteract this disadvantage the Regeling voor- en
vroegschoolse educatie (Paper on pre- and early schooling) (Ministerie van OCW 2000)
channeled funding into tackling the language and cognitive development gap of immigrant
minority pupils from their very first approach to schooling. The remaining objectives of the first
period of LBK-GOA dealt with regular instruction in the Dutch language, encouragement of the
use of extracurricular programmes aimed at improving pupils Dutch language proficiency,
teachers recruitment and professionalisation as well as improvement of the Dutch proficiency
of these pupils mothers. During the first LBK-GOA period, the policy paper Aan de slag met
onderwijskansen (Get going with educational opportunities) (TK 1999/2000) aimed at
reinforcing the position of Dutch across the curriculum for primary schools with more than fifty
percent disadvantaged pupils. The paper relied on the assumption that the approach to
language should compensate for the special needs of pupils speaking other languages, and
extend over the Dutch language in subjects other than Dutch [translation MS] (TK 1999/2000:
16). At the end of 2001, a new plan of action was formulated for the LBK-GOA period 2002-
2006. While the emphasis on the role of Dutch language strongly overlapped with that
endorsed in the first period, the second period introduced the support of an overarching
language policy that had a direct implementation at school and class level as well as the
cooperation of schools with other municipal bodies. Yet again, the goal of this second period of
compensatory policies was the reduction of the language gap experienced by pupils with a
heavy educational weight. Moreover, the emphasis on Dutch was extended to all subjects and
aimed at newcomers, at immigrant minority pupils in the primary and secondary vocational
sectors as well as at their parents.
From 1998, municipalities have also been in charge of immigrant minority language
teaching that is used either to support the learning of the regular curriculum or the teaching of
an immigrant minority language even though limited to the lower years of primary schooling.
Together with the devolution of immigrant minority language teaching to municipalities, the Wet
Inburgering Nieuwkomers (Law on the integration of newcomers) (WIN 1998) also required
Dutch citizens of non-indigenous origin to be able to speak Dutch. In 2000 the effectiveness of
immigrant minority language teaching and the multicultural enterprise at large were questioned
by Scheffer (2000), supported later on by a negative evaluation of OALT implementation (cf.
Turkenburg 2001). Consequent to these negative developments, the Onderwijsraad
(Education Council) proposed separating the support function of OALT from its cultural
maintenance function and incorporating the former under those policies that regard Dutch as a
second language. Furthermore, in line with the discourse that proposed ethnic group
measures as less significant (cf. WRR 2001: 180), the Education Council has advocated the
substitution of allochtone levende talen (non-indigenous living languages) with nieuwe
moderne vreemde talen (new modern foreign languages). This move was made to exchange
language teaching focused on specific population groups with language teaching open to
anyone, to be taught outside school time in specialized municipal language schools
(Onderwijsraad 2001). While a governmental reaction to this proposal was never given, the
2002 strategic accord of the newly formed cabinet stated that priority must be given to the
learning of Dutch, therefore the regulation for education in non-indigenous living languages is
abolished (Strategisch Akkoord 2002: 12). Consequently, whether the immigrant minority
group member or the newcomer to the Netherlands also masters a language other than Dutch,
is a matter that falls beyond the governments remit (Pels 2004). The acquisition, use and
maintenance of ones own language (and thus culture), although these may be relevant to
someones own identity, thus became irrelevant to the issue of Dutch citizenship. The
commencement of the abolition process for immigrant minority language teaching in 2003
established the mastering of Dutch language (and culture) as the norm and it has recently
been applied also to non-western immigrants even before they enter the Netherlands (cf. WIB
2006).
Both the current evolvements of the Dutch macro-educational discourse at a national level
and the decentralized meso-educational discourse at a municipal level appear to have laid the

11
integration task on the shoulder of immigrant minority group members. Measures centered on
the well being of minority groups have been diminished in importance and the ascribed identity
of immigrant minority pupils has been constructed through a more pronounced connotation of
educational disadvantage to be repaired solely through learning Dutch. Further immigrant
minority language teaching, which in the late nineteen-nineties was either taught in the lower
years of primary education or used for support to the learning of Dutch or both is now
abolished (cf. Bezemer 2003: 149-168; Extra & Yamur 2006). The Dutch multicultural society
of the twenty-first century therefore appears still alive and kicking. Like the Amsterdam Arena,
the current multicultural society caters for all its visitors needs through plenty of facilities that
can be accessed through an Arena Pass, i.e., the Dutch language as well as Dutch cultural
values and norms. Like the Arena, the grass of its pitch still hesitates to grow, flooded by an
ongoing discourse of us versus them.

Home Language Instruction in the Netherlands: an overview of its history
In the Netherlands migration patterns during the post-war period have resulted in hetero-
geneous school populations. Classes which include children from widely different linguistic
and ethnic backgrounds gradually became the norm for growing numbers of schools. There is
a number of distinct phases in response to linguistic and cultural diversity by Dutch
educational policy. Instruction in the home language (HLI) of ethnic minorities at Dutch schools
was introduced in 1974 (HLI was then known as OETC, in English: Education in Own
Language and Culture) and today as OALT (Education in Minority Living Languages). HLI for
minority children at Dutch schools was originally directed at their eventual return to the home
country, that is, to help children achieve reasonable skills in their native language and culture
that would facilitate their reintegration in school in the home country. Gradually, it was realized
that the presence of immigrant families is a long-term phenomenon and that their stay has to
be seen as permanent. This resulted in substantial changes in the policy vis--vis the
objectives of HLI. The focus shifted from remigration to integration. This, in turn, resulted in
redefining new objectives for HLI, that is, preservation of childrens contact with their parents
and relatives, development of their identity and a positive self-image in the host country,
identification with the school and increasing their school success. Interestingly, the cultural
dimension of the previous OETC program faded out in the background, resulting in a change
in the term itself: OET without the abbreviation C for the word Culture (Education in Own
Language).
In retrospect, the teaching of ethnic minority languages as part of the curriculum of Dutch
schools has a unique history of implementation (Broeder & Extra 1998: 152). Since its launch
in 1974, the organization of OETC has been problematic. Hardly any previously developed
curriculum and materials existed, nor are teachers prepared, trained or inspected for this form
of instruction. It operated in the beginning even without a legal framework. Moreover, the
language provision is hugely complicated by the piecemeal nature of the policy response.
Broeder & Extra (1998) point out that the Dutch policy underlying HLI has been a truly difficult
endeavor for the schools for at least three reasons. In the first place, the schools task is not
restricted to establishing bilingual programmes only, but extended to ensuring multilingual
education, given the ever-growing multilingual and multicultural character of the school
population. Secondly, there is a spectrum of variation in the patterns of bilingualism
characteristics of minority children both within and across different ethnic groups. Thirdly, HLI
provisions have not been uniform. While some ethnic minority children receive HLI in addition
to other subjects in the core curriculum, others receive it instead of other subjects in the core
curriculum.
In the Netherlands, ethnolinguistic variation is usually viewed in terms of deficits and
problems, rather than in terms of differences and resources. In this vein, developments in HLI
are assessed from a policy deficit perspective rather than from a cultural perspective, that is,
in terms of socio-economic and second-language deficits rather than in terms of ethnocultural
differences. The beginning of the 1970s marks the Ministry of Educations attempt to focus on
the primacy of the struggle to eliminate the deficiencies of elementary school children from low
socio-economic background. Schools hosting children with a low socio-economic background
are allocated funding for additional teaching staff. Later in the seventies and eighties, minority

12
policy becomes exclusively equated with this struggle against deficits in the domains of
education at the expense of ethnocultural differences. The deficit versus cultural perspectives
on home language use in the Netherlands has particular repercussions on the directionality of
majority/minority focus on the acquisition of languages along with the underlying attitudes
involved. There is what is referred to as a top-down focus of majority groups (e.g., national or
local education authorities, school boards or principals and majority language teachers) on the
acquisition of Dutch as a second language, combined most often with rather negative attitudes
towards first language learning and maintenance over time. In contrast, there is a bottom-up
focus of minority groups (e.g., ethnic minority organizations or parents and ethnic minority
teachers) on first language learning and maintenance over time (Van de Wetering 1990; De
Jong et al. 1988). Majority language speakers in the Netherlands still commonly subscribe to
the model which expects that ethnic minority children should abandon their own language and
culture in favor of the dominant language and culture. In this general conception multi-
lingualism is seen as a problem, not as an asset or resource. More recently, significant policy
developments have been taking place in relation to the status of ethnic minority languages in
the Dutch educational system. The 1992 CALO report for the Dutch Ministry of Education,
Culture and Sciences Ceders in de tuin (Ceders in the garden) is an important move in this
regard. The importance of this document lies in the marked shift from approaches which
attempt to assimilate ethnic minority children to a more pluralist multicultural stance. In the
CALO report, the exclusive form of HLI as a means of meeting ethnic minority childrens
difficulties needs is gradually replaced by arguments that minority children should be
encouraged to retain and develop their own linguistic and cultural resources within the school
context. In this connection, this advisory report marks a change in the definition of HLI from a
deficit to a cultural perspective. Such a redefinition has far reaching implications for the target
groups, goals, target languages and evaluation of HLI. In Table 2.1 the previous and proposed
policy concepts are seen from both deficit and cultural perspectives.

Table 2.1 Home Language Instruction from a deficit vs. cultural perspective
(source: Extra & Verhoeven 1993: 19; SES = socio-economic status)

HLI: a deficit perspective HLI: a cultural perspective
Target groups temporary facility for low SES children
from first/second generation
structural facility for groups of children
with non-Dutch home language,
independent of SES and generation
Goals primary focus on auxiliary goals: bridging
the home/school gap and contribution to
second language learning or school
success
primary focus on intrinsic goals:
contribution to first language learning
Target language home language home language or standard language of
source country (optional)
Evaluation in terms of school success in other
subjects
in terms of first language proficiency

Not all minority groups in the Netherlands have been eligible in the past for HLI: only children
having at least one parent from a Moluccan or Mediterranean origin and children with at least
one parent with a recognized refugee status. While such a listing of target groups appears to
be indicative of a variety of policy restrictions, it has attracted a number of remarks. While the
list remains restricted in terms of source countries and/or target groups (Broeder & Extra
1998), it is striking that the government lists target groups for HLI without explaining the criteria
whereby such groups rather than others are considered (Kroon & Vallen 1994). Similarly, the
target groups list being restricted in terms of generation (i.e., first/second generation) is
intended to be only a temporary facility (Broeder & Extra 1998). Thirdly, the list tends to place
emphasis on groups with socio-economic disadvantages which obstructs the view of the
ethnocultural differences which are so important to many minorities (Kroon & Vallen 1994).
Such groups as the Chinese, because they have a relatively higher socio-economic status
than the Mediterranean target groups for instance and Antillean and Surinamese children,

13
because of the colonial status of Dutch in the respective source countries, are explicitly
excluded. Socio-economic as well as generation criteria in listing target groups for HLI are
disregarded by the CALO (1992). This means that all children using another language at home
in addition to or instead of Dutch in contact with at least one of the parents would have the
right to follow HLI.
Over the past years, the goals for HLI have primarily been spelled out in terms of
dependence; only rarely has the primacy of intrinsic goals in terms of promoting proficiency in
the minority language been advocated. HLI is perceived in the current policy as a means to
bridge the gap between the home and school environment and to promote second language
learning and/or school success. It is interesting to note in this connection that the CALO
(1992) argues for the primacy of intrinsic goals rather than dependent goals for HLI in
elementary education. The question of which language should be the target for HLI (i.e., the
actual home language (i.e., mother tongue)) or the official national language (i.e., the standard
language) remains problematic. This holds in particular for situations in which the home
language of ethnic minority children diverges widely from the standard language of the source
country. This applies very much to the case of Moroccan children who often speak a Berber
variety at home. In cases of home and standard language divergence, the CALO (1992)
suggests that parents of elementary school children have the right for option. Such a
conditional right of option derives largely from principles of cultural self-orientation and
freedom of choice. While most children have education in the official language of their country
of origin, Moluccan and Syrian-Orthodox children are currently the only groups receiving HLI in
a non-standard language variety. While Moluccans learn Malay instead of Standard
Indonesian, Syrian-Orthodox children may opt for Aramese instead of Turkish.
Most evaluative studies of HLI programmes for ethnic minority children in Europe focus on
L2 learning and on school achievement in other subjects. In this conception, the main obstacle
to the educational success of ethnic minority children is perceived to be the low proficiency in
Dutch language. The priority is therefore to learn Dutch as rapidly and effectively as possible
and childrens home languages or L1 are seen to play only a bridging role in this process.
Also, progress in L1 proficiency is rarely thought of and measured in terms of school success.
The effect of HLI on the level of L2 proficiency and school success is not entirely clear from
the empirical point of view (Driessen 1990). With reference to the effects of HLI on L1, very
few studies have been conducted. While HLI appears to have positive effects on the Turkish
proficiency of Turkish elementary school children in the Netherlands (Aarts, De Ruiter &
Verhoeven 1993), similar effects of Arabic instruction only emerge to a lesser degree for
Moroccan children (Driessen 1990; see also Section 3.1).
One of the recent features of educational policy in the Netherlands is its tendency towards
decentralization. With the aim of establishing a new balance in educational policy, there is a
redistribution of tasks and responsibilities of the Ministry of Education, municipalities and
schools. Against this background and in response to the CALO report, the Ministry of
Education published a policy document (Ministerie van OCW 1995), acknowledging three
basic elements - taken over from the CALO (1992) report:

the broad support of HLI as expressed by minority parents and minority organizations;
the governmental responsibility for the provision and quality of HLI;
the relevance of the home language criterion instead of socio-economic status or
generation criteria for determining a childs entitlement for HLI.

A newly spelled out element involves the focus on local educational policy. Given the local
variation in municipalities, the Ministry envisages that municipalities should take responsibility
for informing parents about HLI facilities, for HLI needs assessment, for a selective distribution
of the decentralized and locally available budget across schools, for interscholastic
cooperation on HLI for smaller language groups and for the role of minority groups as actors
rather than just target groups for the implementation of a municipal HLI policy. The schools on
the other hand should retain responsibility for recruiting qualified teachers and for the quality of
HLI. Recently, in 1997, a law has been approved regarding the implementation of this policy in
elementary education. The extent to which the law should be carried out and the resources

14
made available for its implementation, remain a subject of concern. Such concern results not
only from the vagueness surrounding the newly assigned roles of the Ministry, the
municipalities and the schools, but also from the budget, local expertise and commitment
presently available for implementing the new law. The law functions since September 1998. It
implies that municipalities can take their own stand regarding the target groups of HLI. They
can opt for a system in which through the whole school programme of 8 years HLI is offered to
the minority children as an autonomous language programme at extracurricular hours. Another
option is to offer HLI in a dependent context in the lower grades, i.e., serving the acquisition of
Dutch as a second language. In the latter case, HLI as an autonomous language is given from
group 5 onwards outside regular school hours. Most municipalities opt for HLI supporting
Dutch as a second language in the lower grades of primary education (group 1 to 4) and HLI
outside school as en autonomous language from group 5-8. The new situation has led to an
enormous fragmentation of the HLI system in the whole country.
In considering the official statements set out in government policy regarding minority
languages in the Netherlands, a number of points should be made clear. Since the launch of
HLI, minority languages in the Netherlands have not been able to acquire a stable status of
their own in primary education. The main reason for this state of affairs lies in the fact that
Dutch government policy has remained ambivalent over the years due to the type of
perspectives adopted (i.e., deficit vs. cultural perspectives). Also, there has always been a
monolithic language policy with respect to HLI for all the minority languages involved without
trying to take into account their specific situation, needs or achieved potential. Third, it should
be noted that the use of the label HLI does not apply to all the cases of minority languages
involved. The home language for Moroccan children is either Moroccan Arabic or Amazigh.
However, the language which is taught to Moroccan children within the framework of HLI is
Modern Standard Arabic, which is the official language of Morocco and the language used as
the medium of education at Moroccan schools. With reference to the aims of HLI, these have
most of the time been (re)formulated in terms of broad categories. Such general aims as
allowing minority children to retain and develop their own linguistic and cultural resources
within the school (CALO 1992) have nothing specific to the Dutch situation or to the particular
needs of any specific minority group in the Netherlands.
In addition to HLI, a community-based type of Arabic instruction takes place in mosques. It
is common practice for part of the Moroccan parents to send their children to attend lessons in
Arabic outside the school. As yet not much is known about this type of schooling. Shadid &
Van Koningsveld (1990) mention that in Rotterdam around 40% of the Moroccan children
between 6 and 14 years frequent mosque education. Driessen (1990) registers that of the
Moroccan subjects in his study 15% in grade 3, 36% in grade 7 and 30% in grade 8 of
elementary schooling participate in this kind of education. He reports that having followed
additional lessons in Arabic has a positive effect on the childrens skills in this language. Not
much is known though about the content of these lessons. Shadid & Van Koningsveld (1990)
point out that this kind of education gives the children the opportunity to become full members
in the religious community of their parents. In any case, these lessons take up much of the
childrens time, in most cases not only Wednesday afternoons, but also Saturday mornings.
Striking in the research of Aarts, De Ruiter & Verhoeven (1993) is that most of their 222
Moroccan subjects followed lessons in Arabic outside school whereas none of their 263
Turkish subjects participated in this kind of education.


15
3. Home Language Instruction: the case of Arabic

In the following the status of Arabic, Standard and dialectal is firstly treated in its European
context, shortly referring to the situation in the Netherlands as well, followed by a more
extensive description of Arabic language teaching in the Netherlands, its history, practice and
present day status. Furthermore the issue of the methodology of teaching Standard and
dialectal Arabic is treated, followed by a reflection on teaching Arabic to migrant children in
Europe.

3.1 Arabic in Europe

In the following the status of Arabic, Standard and dialectal, is treated in a European context. It
describes the status and development of Standard and dialectal Arabic in those European
countries that have undergone an influx of mainly labor migrants from countries where Arabic
is the language of daily communication, starting from the early fifties of the nineteenth century
until today. The present description of the status and development of the varieties of Arabic in
Europe is based on studies executed in the diverse European countries where Arabic
speaking immigrant groups live. The relevant studies mostly come from France, Germany, the
Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Belgium and Spain. These studies focus mostly on Arabic
as it is spoken by people from the most important Maghreb countries, i.e., Morocco, Algeria
and Tunisia and to a lesser extent on the Standard variety of Arabic.
This section is presented from diverse linguistic and sociolinguistic angles, based on the
diverse studies done. After a short introduction (1), the following topics are treated: Arabic
language vitality (2), Arabic language teaching and education (3), Arabic language proficiency
and language and Arabic language in the cultural scene (5).

Migration of Arabic speaking minorities to Europe
A speaker of Arabic can be defined as a national from an Arabic speaking country but due to
processes of nationality erosion, where nationals of Arabic countries obtain the citizenship of
European countries the speakers of Arabic disappear from national statistical surveys. The
criterion of birthplace has its disadvantages as well as many second and third generation
children, born in Europe are not registered in national statistics as foreigners. The combined
birth criterion, in which a speaker of Arabic is defined as such if the person himself or one of
the parents is born in an Arabic speaking country, seems the most plausible one to identify
Arabic speaking persons. Based on nationality EuroStat (1997) registers the following
numbers of people originating from Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia in the West European
countries Belgium (161,588), Germany (133,945), France (1,393,195), Italy (3,656), The
Netherlands (167,887) and Great Britain (7,000; see also Basfao & Taarji 1994; Lpez Garca
1996; Vermes 1988; Extra & Gorter 2001). According to the Spanish National Institute of
Statistics 199,782 Moroccans live in Spain (Nouaouri Izrelli 2001). In Sweden lives an Iraqi
community of 55,696 persons and another Lebanese community of 20,288 persons (statistics
based on birth country; Nygren-Junkin & Extra 2003). If the combined birth country nationality
criterion is taken into consideration in the case of Moroccans in the Netherlands their numbers
rise with one third, from 164,567 to 252,000. This kind of considerations does not hold though
for Germany where it is relatively hard to obtain German citizenship and therefore the
nationality criterion will cover the actual number of speakers of Arabic there quite well. In
France, many speakers of Arabic hold French nationality. One could then suppose for France
an addition of around 30% as well to the existing numbers, which implies a number of nearly
two million people in France from the Maghreb. The Arabic speaking people from the Near
East, living mostly in France, and the Arabic Peninsula, living mostly in Britain, are outside the
scope of Arabic in Europe. It must be mentioned as well that people from North Africa do not
automatically have Arabic as mother tongue. In Europe many Moroccans (more than 50%)
and a minority of Algerians have Amazigh (Berber) as mother tongue. Most of them speak
dialectal Arabic as well though.


16
Arabic language vitality
Large scale language surveys executed in several European cities among children in the age
of primary education show that Arabic is a relatively vital language (Extra & Yamur 2004).
One of the goals of these surveys was to establish the language vitality index (LVI) of the
languages used and mentioned by the children. Following the LVI for Arabic per city is
mentioned (behind brackets the numbers of children are mentioned that indicated Arabic to be
their mother tongue). In Hamburg (464) it was 57; in The Hague (1,391) 56; in Brussels
(1,608) and Lyon (2,789) 52 and in Madrid (662) 69. For all cities combined the LVI of Arabic
is 58. The Romani/Sinte language had the highest LVI with 70 and German the lowest with 33.
With these scores the Arabic language groups in the surveys hold a middle position between
the top-20 languages. This kind of research indicates that Arabic is quite a vital language
among its speakers. More specific data on language proficiency show that most pupils have a
high understanding of spoken Arabic and are quite capable of speaking the language itself but
they have much lower skills in reading and writing. In most cases, Arabic is spoken with
fathers and mothers but much less with siblings and even less with friends. In general Arabic
loses ground with older children. Of the total of 7,787 Arabic speaking pupils in these surveys
43% declared to have followed lessons in Arabic.

Arabic language teaching and education
From the beginning of the presence of Arabic speaking migrants in the European countries
there was a debate on the question whether or not to teach the children of the migrants Arabic
language in primary education in the context of the so called Home Language Instruction and
if so, in what juridical and linguistic contexts (Obdeijn & De Ruiter 1998; Tilmatine 1997).
Sweden was the first country to organize this kind of language teaching. Already in 1976 it
implemented Home Language Instruction, including the teaching of Arabic to primary school
children. Regrettably in the beginning of the nineties of the last century government spending
cuts lead to a severe deterioration of the system (cf. Nygren-Junkin & Extra 2003). The effects
of this teaching have from the beginning on been severely debated and criticized. The
measure of participation differed strongly from country to country, with percentages varying
from 70% in the Netherlands to 15% in France. In Spain, where maghrebine migration started
later in time, in the eighties and nineties of the twentieth century, the teaching of Arabic is
partially in the hands of the educational authorities and partially in the hands of NGOs like
ATIME, Asociacin de Trabajadores Inmigrantes Marroques en Espaa (see Broeder &
Mijares 2003; Lpez Garca & Mijares 2001; Franz & Mijares 1999). In Belgium, due to the
strict language laws in that country, the teaching of Arabic has never surpassed the
experimental stage (Verlot et al. 2003). In France at the beginning of the third millennium, a
debate was held to incorporate Home Language Instruction into the existing system of
Enseignement de Langues Vivantes in primary education (Akinci, De Ruiter & Sanagustin
2004). In Germany the policy concerning Home Language Instruction differs from Land to
Land. In Nordrhein-Westphalen it is under the shared responsibility of local authorities and
those of the countries of origin as is the case in Hamburg, Berlin and Baden-Wrttemberg as
well while in Bavaria it is under the responsibility of the local authorities only (cf. Frstenau et
al. 2003). The Netherlands have decided to abolish Home Language Instruction as of the
school year 2004-2005 on. Regarding teaching materials, in most countries materials
developed in the countries of origin were and are used. Newly developed materials are scarce.
The discussion what variety of Arabic to teach, Standard or dialectal, played a prominent role
in the debate in France (Caubet 2001; Caubet, Chaker & Sibille 2002) and the Netherlands
(Boumans & De Ruiter 2002). A European project, Comenius, led to the development of a
course in dialectal Moroccan Arabic for elementary (and secondary, see below) education
suitable for all Western European countries mentioned (Aarts & De Ruiter 1998; Abu Haidar &
Bos 1998, 2000a, 2000b; Benjelloun, Bos & De Ruiter 2001). The dialect of the course was
written in Arabic script. In France the Institut du monde arabe (www.ima.org) published, apart
from many materials in Standard Arabic like the periodical Al Mukhtaaraat, an interactive CD-
ROM for children in Moroccan Arabic (Dumas & Laamiri 1997).
In secondary education Arabic is taught in France and the Netherlands. The measure of
participation in both countries has never been high. Absolute numbers indicate that in the

17
school year 2002-2003 some 3,000 pupils in the Netherlands followed this type of education
and around 10,000 in France. It concerns the teaching of Standard Arabic only. In the
Netherlands the government decided in 2003 to no longer support financially the teaching of
Arabic but not forbidding schools to offer it. The Dutch Ministry of Education has though been
very supportive in the development of teaching materials of Arabic and the development of
dictionaries Dutch-Arabic Arabic-Dutch. France offers pupils in secondary education the
possibility to do a final exam in more than sixty languages, among which five dialects of
Arabic, Moroccan, Algerian, Tunisian, Egyptian and Levantine Arabic. The measure of
participation in these exams is invariably high with 5,000 students participating in the 2004
Arabic exams. Benjelloun (1998a, 1998b, 2000a, 2000b) developed a course in Moroccan
Arabic for secondary education.
The debate on writing the informal languages of Moroccans in particular led in Germany to
a project on the writing of their mother tongues, i.e., Moroccan Arabic and Amazigh (Berber)
(Maas & Mehlem 2003; Maas, Mehlem & Schrder 2004). This kind of research had two
goals, a scientific one to establish what processes take place if speakers of a non codified
language start writing their language and a more applied goal, the codification of both mother
tongues of the Moroccans. The research was executed in both Germany and Morocco. The
corpus of the project was formed by 73 spontaneously written texts in Moroccan Arabic and
Amazigh. The choice of the writing system was free, but the majority of the children in
Germany chose Latin script (62), while only a small group wrote in Arabic characters (11). In
Morocco, almost exclusively the Arabic script was used, for Moroccan Arabic and Amazigh
likewise. One of the results of the project is that a majority of the Moroccan children that grew
up in Germany did not only succeed in acquiring basic orthographical notions of German but
also to transfer this knowledge when writing spontaneously their non-written vernacular
language
The renewed existence of Arabic in Europe led to the establishment of new academic
programs in Arabic, its dialectical varieties in particular. In France INALCO, Institut National
des Langues et Civilisations Orientales (www.inalco.fr) proposes an MA program in
Maghrebine Arabic. The University of Cadiz (www.uca.es) in Spain proposes courses in
dialectal Moroccan Arabic, Amazigh and North African culture in its master program Arabic and
Islamic studies.

Arabic language proficiency and language behavior
Studies on language proficiency in Arabic concern mostly members of second generation
Arabic speaking children, and to a much lesser extent of first generation people. Furthermore
most studies opt for a bilingual or multilingual format. De Ruiter (1989) studied the multilingual
development of young Moroccans in Dutch, Moroccan Arabic and eventually Berber. Applying
a semi-longitudinal model De Ruiter measured language proficiency of children and
youngsters in four age groups, 7 year olds, 11 year olds, 14 year olds and 21 year olds, each
consisting of 20 Moroccans of which 10 were arabophone and 10 others amazighophone. For
the proficiency in Moroccan Arabic the results point to a relative that is compared to Dutch
weak proficiency in this language in the three younger groups and a relative stronger
proficiency in the oldest group. The patterns of language use, dominant use of Arabic with
parents and much less use of Arabic with siblings and friends are quite identical to the
European patterns found in the Extra & Yamur data (2004; see above, Chapter 2). In
Germany, Mehlem (1998) performed an elaborated linguistic inventory, comparable to De
Ruiters research of 1989, among 28 children of Moroccan descent who had frequented
German schools from the start. The average age of these children was 11.8 years. Mehlem
tested the proficiency of all of these children in their mother tongues and compared it to their
proficiency in German. In general the children attained higher levels of performance in
German than in their mother tongues. In Spain Nouaouri Izrelli (2001; to be published)
executed a study similar to De Ruiters (1989) and Mehlems (1998). He found that young
Moroccans, in the age range from 4-17 years old, living in Andalusia had a better proficiency
in Spanish than in their mother tongues. Furthermore they would use their mother tongue
dominantly in contacts with their parents and merely Spanish with sisters and brothers and
friends. Aarts, De Ruiter & Verhoeven (1993) report on a research on the proficiency in

18
Standard Arabic of 222 Moroccan children at the end of primary education in the Netherlands
in the context of Arabic language teaching (see also Chapter 3). 222 Pupils did four language
tasks. The scores of the pupils on word decoding are high with 79%. Their scores on reading
comprehension are reasonable (50%), but the scores on spelling (30%) and written
vocabulary (34%) are extremely low. The authors conclude that the limited amount of Arabic
language instruction that the pupils in the Netherlands receive in primary education does not
suffice to attain a high level of Arabic language proficiency. Saidi (2001) argues that studies
such as those by Aarts, De Ruiter & Verhoeven (1993) took pupils at random without taking
into consideration the often chaotic organization of the Arabic lessons. Eager to establish a
more reliable picture of the results of Arabic language teaching to Moroccan pupils, he
decided to test the proficiency of those Moroccan pupils who had followed seven to eight
years instruction in Arabic uninterruptedly within schools. His results point to a higher
proficiency in Arabic than in the study of Aarts, De Ruiter & Verhoeven (1993). Nevertheless it
must also be said that the successful schools Saidi selected for his study cannot be
considered representative for all schools where HLI was offered.
Pupils that follow Arabic in secondary education in the Netherlands and France, small
numbers as they are, are able to attain quite a high level in Arabic. In the Netherlands
Citogroup (www.citogroep.nl) is responsible for the development of exams in Standard Arabic
for secondary education and from the internal guidelines of this institution it shows that the
level of Standard Arabic the pupils attain can be compared to the ones of French and German
in these same schools. Also in France the level of the exams in Standard Arabic point to high
proficiency in reading and writing Standard Arabic and the exams in dialectal Arabic can only
be accomplished with success if the candidate has a relatively fluent communicative
proficiency in the dialect he opted for. In the Netherlands, Diephuis et al. (1993) developed a
guide with guidelines for the Arabic exams for all layers of secondary education. In France the
French ministry of education regularly publishes guides of the like as well.
First generation Arabic speaking migrants have in general a low command of Standard
Arabic. Only a few people from this group followed the full educational programs in their native
countries or additional education in Europe. Illiteracy is more rule than exception, especially
under women of this generation (De Ruiter 2000). El Aissati (1997, see also below) shows that
the migration setting of young Moroccan adults affected the richness of their language, i.e.,
Moroccan Arabic as compared to similar young adults in Morocco. Broeder (1992) shows that
first generation Moroccans are very poor in Dutch but they can express themselves very well
in Moroccan Arabic. With the ongoing family reunion in all European countries it is observed
that higher educated young brides and grooms come to Europe. They, in general, have a
relatively good command of Standard Arabic. It goes without saying that proficiency in the
mother tongues, the diverse Arabic vernaculars, is good in all members of the first generation.
In the sixties to nineties of the twentieth century, local authorities in the diverse European
countries, the Netherlands and Germany in particular, developed information materials in
Arabic dialects, both in written form and in audiovisual form. In the beginning of the twenty-first
century, this kind of information service came to decline due to more strict language policies
implying that migrants should know and use the languages of their new countries of residence.

Arabic language in the cultural scene
Many artists from North African origin are active in European theatre, music making and
literature. And although their output in the form of theatre plays, music songs and novels and
poetry is mostly in the language of the European country in question, some productions are
composed in Arabic, be it dialectal or Standard. The productions of these artists have started
to attract the cultural interests of researchers in West European countries. The output of this
new kind of artists adds to the existing culture in Europe and leads to new forms of
intercultural arts. Caubet (2004) presents some of the most leading artists from Maghreb origin
in France among whom Fellag, Baziz and Cheb Sahraoui. The book describes the
development of these artists and the way they consider their contribution to French art and
culture. Caubet executed a similar research among artists from Moroccan background in the
Netherlands. She interviewed among others writers like Abdelkader Benali and Hafid Bouazza,
both of whom obtained important literary prizes in the Netherlands for their Dutch written
novels.

19
3.2 Arabic in the Netherlands: historical perspectives

There is a plethora of reports, management projects and laws regarding the development of
(Arabic) Home Language Instruction (HLI) and its implementation. In the following sections, an
overview is given of the developments involved, starting with a historical perspective.

A short overview of its history
1960-1974
Discussions on HLI started in the 1960s. The first community involved was that of the
Moluccans, an immigrant minority group from the former Dutch colonies in the Indies, which
once hoped to return to the home country and wanted, therefore, a type of HLI for their
children. The Dutch Ministry of Education had insisted nonetheless to organize education in
Dutch only, both for those children and the children of all the immigrant minority communities
involved. In 1967, Spanish parents took the first initiative to organize lessons of the language
and culture of the childrens home country. Their project was immediately supported by the
Spanish Embassy along with the Ministry of Culture. Only the Ministry of Culture at that time
was aware of the fact that some form of HLI was essential for immigrant minority children. The
Dutch government policy vis--vis HLI was always focused on a return to the home country.

1974-1980
For the school year 1974-1975, the Ministry of Education officially supported HLI, then,
labelled bicultural education. That year, the Ministry made funds available for hiring teaching
assistants for this form of minority education. Within the schools and during regular classes,
immigrant minority pupils received up to 5 hours of lessons in their own language, that is to
say, the language of the home country. In order for such lessons to be organised, there was to
be a minimum of 8 pupils wishing to follow HLI lessons. According to the Ministry, the target
group should be composed of children who would return to their country of origin in the near
future on the one hand, and children who would remain longer in the host country on the other.
It was clearly a double-pronged form of HLI implementation, seeking the return of some
children and the integration of others. No initiative was taken for teachers training or for the
development of the didactic materials for HLI. School directors and Dutch teachers did not
consider this form of education as of a back-home-return order, causing a more significant
segregation within the schools. It was mostly the Turkish and Moroccan pupils who benefited
from the internal organization of the HLI, while children from southern Europe continued to
prefer the HLI organised outside school hours.

1980-1989
In 1980, the Minister of Education at the time Mr. Pais formulated three goals for the HLI in his
project of implementing minority cultures within the framework of education and he promised
that HLI would have a legal basis. But, this would not take place until 1985, when the Law on
Elementary Education was adopted. This law stipulated that the competent school
management can decide whether they adopt HLI within the regular school curriculum. The
organization of the HLI was therefore not compulsory. It also stated that HLI could be provided
only for a maximum of 2:30 hours within the regular school hours, while another maximum
2:30 could be arranged outside these hours, which meant that generally only 2:30 hour-
lessons should take place during the regular school hours. Schools wishing to obtain funds for
the organization of the HLI had to have at least 8 pupils interested in the language. HLI
lessons were not compulsory. The school was the sole responsible for the choice of programs,
materials and teachers, provided that the teachers must be qualified to give HLI lessons.
Teachers were paid by the Dutch authorities, except when HLI was organized by the embassy
of the respective countries (as was the case for the Spanish HLI). Teachers recruitment was
done in consultation with the authorities of the country of origin.
On February 24, 1983, a cultural agreement was concluded between the Dutch and the
Moroccan authorities as regard the language and culture provisions identified above. While
the Dutch authorities organized and financed the HLI program, the Moroccan authorities
recruited the teachers. The schools concerned made their choices with respect to the

20
candidates to recruit. There were no further bilateral agreements with the Moroccan
authorities.

1989-1995
A reaction of the HLI implementation project appeared in response to the report entitled
Minorities policy of 1989. It was observed that the school results of immigrant minority
children were actually very low, and that HLI left much to be desired. It was decided that HLI
was to remain within the range of the school curriculum, while other objectives should be
formulated. In 1991, the Secretary of Education Mr. Wallage recommended in his report that
HLI was to become an integral part of language teaching. He suggested that the primary
function of minority language use is to operate as language learning supportive to the
learning of Dutch and to the Dutch education as a whole. HLI should also have an
independent function, in acting as a catalyst to childrens identity development. In 1991, Mr.
Wallage composed a commission in response to the 1989 report, which should make
proposals for the development of policies in favour of immigrant minority children. Mr. van
Kemenade Committee published the Cedars in the garden report in 1992. A whole new
perspective on HLI was proposed: immigrant community languages should no more be
regarded as a means to redress immigrant minority childrens school deficit, but rather as a
subject with independent objectives. In this context, HLI should have cultural rather than deficit
objectives.
This new perspective had obvious implications for the choice of objectives, target groups,
target languages and the evaluation of HLI. HLI had a new label, since for many members of
the target group (generally the second or the third generation of an ethnic minority), it was no
longer own language but a foreign language (e.g., Modern Standard Arabic) or the language
of their parents. This is why HLI was labelled at the time Education in Modern Native
Languages (EMNL). In the same report, a distinction was proposed between two perspectives:
deficit vs. cultural perspectives, which implied the concept whereby immigrant minority
children were automatically categorised as children whose deficit should be eliminated. To
replace this perspective, specific facilities should be provided for children in deficit situations in
terms of both Dutch as a second language (NT2) and Education in Modern Native Language
(EMNL).
One of the major recommendations of the Cedars in the garden report was to allow for the
opportunity to organise lessons of the actual language of origin of the children, as part and
parcel of HLI, and not only lessons of the official language of the home country. This would
mean that Moroccan children could not only follow lessons in Modern Standard Arabic, but
also in Moroccan Arabic or Berber. Courses in Education in Modern Native Languages
(EMNL) should stand on equal footing with other courses in primary schools; and immigrant
minority children should also be able to follow EMNL lessons. These EMNL lessons should not
be organized at the expense of other courses. Otherwise, extending the school day is highly
recommended.
Transferring the EMNL organisational responsibilities from the state to municipal authorities
which, after consultation with parents, should determine which language would be proposed,
was the last major recommendation of the report. From 1995 until now, the government
agreed on the Van Kemenade Committees guidelines, though the suggestion to increase the
autonomous function of HLI was included, assuming that HLI might jointly support both
functions and autonomy.
The EMNL report of 1995 formulated by the Secretary of Education Mrs. Netelenbos
caused quite a stir in the education sector, especially within the EMNL circles. The main points
of this report were:

the organization of EMNL was the responsibility of municipalities;
in principle all mother tongues may be proposed;
EMNL should be offered as an independent subject outside school-time. This last point
was the most important.

A form of EMNL was proposed as part of the school activities, but in this case, it would have a

21
supportive function (improving the school results in another way) and it would require highly
qualified EMNL teachers. The last two paragraphs of this report were severely critical,
because they had deviated from the Van Kemenade Committees opinion: taking the EMNL
outside the school hours and using it as support subject. Moreover, the Moroccan authorities
expressed their concern about Arabic within the framework of the EMNL if provided outside
school hours. They worried that the quality of education would become uncontrollable and a
large number of Moroccan children would not follow this instruction anymore. The aim was to
start new EMNL on August 1, 1997, but its launch had been delayed for a year and was
rescheduled for August 1, 1998, with a transitional period of one year (until August 1, 1999).
Debates going on in society and parliament led to new legislation on HLI in the
Netherlands, namely its abolishment from September 1, 2004. The basic idea was that pupils
with a migrant minority background had better invest in Dutch and Dutch culture, in order to
better integrate and that if they wish they can learn their own languages in self organized
teaching sessions. The effects of this law were that until today many Moroccan and Turkish
children follow Arabic and Turkish lessons in mosques not covered by the educational
inspection services and in many cases following the authoritative antiquated teaching methods
of the countries of origin. On top of that those mosque schools are strongly influenced by
orthodox Islamic streams (cf. the teaching of the Fethlla Glen movement in Europe).

Issues at stake in Arabic HLI
At the time of the existence of Arabic HLI in the Netherlands, different issues were tackled but
never actually solved. We mention the weak relation between Arabic HLI and regular
education, the training and status of the Arabic teachers, the (lack of) teaching materials, and
the general effects of this type of education: What was the level in Arabic of the children
following this type of education at the end? These issues are discussed in the following
sections.

Relationship between Arabic HLI and the regular education
A review of the NT2 Group Project, published in 1992 (Werken aan Taalbeleid, Working on
Language policy) called for better coordination between HLI and the teaching of Dutch as a
second language (NT2) in elementary education. The choice of the group was geared toward
a bilingual model, where both languages were taught in a coordinated method. In short, the
group wished that the mother tongue would play a role during the kindergarten phase (i.e.,
groups 1 and 2). At this level, the language still needed to be developed; it should serve as a
lingua franca for teaching and fostering childrens development, serving as a catalyst to the
acquisition of Dutch. With respect to Arabic, they advocated the use of the actual mother
tongue of the Moroccan children. To cope with these tasks, HLI teachers should receive
additional training. In elementary education (i.e., groups 3-8), HLI should, according to the
group, have a supportive function to NT2. In groups 3, 4 and 5, greater importance would be
given to further develop childrens knowledge of the reading and writing skills in the (standard)
language. But starting from groups 5/6, HLI should be more linked to the core of the NT2. The
group knows that this orientation would require greater spirit of cooperation from immigrant
minority language teachers and their Dutch colleagues, which is lacking nowadays. While HLI
teachers were generally isolated, they should still be able to follow further training. The group
project also knew that words are easy, but deeds are difficult. Teachers often worked in
different schools, and they had little time for consultation with the teachers teams of the
respective schools. As was stated above, the organization and content of HLI would undergo
significant changes on 1 August 1998. National authorities would no more be responsible for
HLI legislation and funding, HLI organization of appropriate teachers training, and the
development of objectives, programs, exams and teaching materials. The organization of HLI
was decentralized towards the municipalities: from now on, they would decide on the
languages to provide in the HLI program, after consultation with parents of the pupils. This
offer should not be limited to the official languages of the countries of origin. For Moroccan
pupils, this meant they would also follow lessons in Moroccan Arabic or Berber. It was still
thought that parents, mostly Moroccans, would cling to Modern Standard Arabic for HLI.
Besides this, new problems arose to teach the language, since there was virtually no teaching

22
material available at this level.
Another question concerned what form will take parents consultation: through independent
organizations (which by far do not represent all the parents), through parents surveys (and
how?). All this was not yet clear. Another modification in the HLI organisation was that the
municipalities could decide about the number of pupils to follow HLI lessons and the number
of hours they would spend there. Schools were to be responsible for the organization and
quality of HLI, and the appointment and training of HLI teachers. However, the need to
organise HLI outside the school hours caused much stir. The argument for this decision was
that HLI could not take place at the expense of the regular curriculum. Yet there was a catch
herein: if HLI was to have a supportive function, it had to be held during the school hours.
However, if its function was independent (the acquisition of Arabic (Modern Standard)), it had
to be done outside the school hours. How was this possible in schools with more that 75% of
children with immigrant minority backgrounds (mostly Turks and Moroccans)? If the total of
HLI hours had to be given outside the school curriculum, the school day may either be
overloaded and longer or children must return to school just for a HLI lesson. Many parents
feared an overload of their children and a stigmatizing effect of seeing HLI placed outside
school hours.
We must note here that the minorities of southern Europe have long organized their
courses outside school hours, Wednesday afternoon or Saturday. The implementation of HLI
as support to NT2 caused many problems for teachers who were in charge: they should be
qualified for such teaching; they should be able to follow training and should have a better
command of the Dutch language. All the signatures collected and protests from both parents
and teachers could not prevent this new form of HLI be implemented from 1 August 1998.

Position of HLI teachers
To give an overview of the overall situation of HLI teachers, particularly within the framework
of the HLI in the Netherlands, the focus was put on the findings of Driessen, Louvenberg and
Jungbluth (1987), who in their investigation of the HLI in the Netherlands examined the origins
of 63 teachers in HLI in the Netherlands. The HLI teachers examined in this survey were
overwhelmingly male (81%), less than 40 years and lived in the Netherlands for over 5 years.
In general, they had benefited from good training, they were qualified Moroccan teachers, and
they had completed courses/training in the Netherlands. They also had several years of
teaching experience in both their country of origin and the Netherlands. The Moroccan
teachers legal status could be best described as weak. More than one third of these teachers
were active in many schools. Nearly 90% of the Moroccan HLI teachers had a full-time
schedule. Their tasks were really heavy, which was the prime cause of their high frequency of
absenteeism, while a replacement teacher was rarely available. In fact, there was particularly
a stark shortage of Moroccan teachers, which was the main reason for the non-organization of
HLI in numerous schools. The main problems cited by these teachers include:

teaching heterogeneous groups;
teaching in several schools (3/4 teachers work in more than one school and have full
schedules);
too many social and educational activities (interpretation, translation, interviews with
parents);
problems of teaching materials;
a combination of all of the above-mentioned reasons.

All these teachers had one or many additional tasks in addition to their teaching tasks:

guiding pupils;
supervising homework;
collaborating with the school director;
coordinating with pupils of other languages;
developing content;
providing for other courses than those of HLI

23

Establishing contacts with the Dutch colleagues was often difficult. The main causes were:

teaching in several schools;
providing for courses outside the school hours;
part-time schedules;
remoteness of the localities;
language barriers;
lack of interest from Dutch colleagues.

According to various reports, neither did HLI teachers make efforts to have and maintain
contact with Dutch colleagues. Driessen, Louvenberg and Jungbluth (1987) noted that most
HLI teachers did not attend school team meetings (in 50% of cases, they did not attend) or
parents meetings, partly because they worked in several schools. Still, they wrote reports on
the childrens progress. Contact with Dutch teachers generally focused on pupils and their
parents, but rarely on educational issues and coordination. With their fellow HLI teachers they
discussed these topics and others related to the didactic materials. In the following table, an
overview is given of the numbers of hours of the HLI teachers involved. A full-time schedule
consists of 40 hours. Most teachers had a full-time schedule.

Table 3.1 Number of hours per full-time schedule in the school years 1985-1991;
Source: Ministry of Education, PO/IAE section.

School year Number of hours per full-time schedule
19851986 263,4
19861987 274,1
19871988 332,3
19881989 363,6
19891990 384,7
19901991 412,0

HLI teachers recruitment
In the Netherlands, the Moroccan teachers recruitment was done in a different way than in the
rest of Europe. The Moroccan authorities could only propose seemingly valid candidates, but
ultimately it was the schools or the municipal authorities which had the last word on their
appointments. To better understand the reasons behind this situation, reference should be
made to historical developments. When HLI was still under the auspices of the Ministry of
Culture of the time, no specific qualifications were required from HLI teachers. When HLI was
transferred to the Ministry of Education in 1974, the teachers so far paid by the Ministry of
Culture had been maintained, notwithstanding their lack of qualifications. Also later, the
exemption policy had always been fairly flexible. Since 1980, HLI organisation adhered to
strictly defined criteria. Therefore, since 1990 no exemption was granted with respect to the
required HLI teachers qualification. Only those granted temporary exemptions have been
renewed or replaced by permanent exemption at the authorities request. This happened
especially when the concerned teacher had been in office as such since at least one year; and
that the authority had declared that the teacher worked with the general satisfaction of all
parties involved. A number of municipalities and schools issued major objections against the
appointment of teachers sent officially by recruiters in the country of origin. As a result, the
choice was very restricted and political indoctrination, especially by the organizations of the
extreme right, was mostly feared. At first, coordinators of the Ministry of Education had no
objection against the teachers recruitment by the embassies. Any criticism could be levelled
against other parties involved. In addition, it was long estimated that HLI education was the
responsibility of the country of origin. It was generally thought that this latter should be more
aware of transmitting the language and the culture involved. The Ministrys sole requirement
was the teachers qualification. Such behaviour was widely criticised by the municipalities who

24
sometimes even escaped regulations in appointing migrant workers living in the Netherlands.
As it was often about illegal people or people with temporary residence permits, Social Affairs
and Justice began to intervene. The Director of the Nursery and Elementary Education of the
Ministry of Education proposed a solution whereby the qualification of teachers hired officially
was verified by the coordinators. When composing the list of candidates, a representative of
the municipalities should also play a part.
The same director then proposed to appoint a recruitment body (officially teaching
attachs) in the respective embassies in Rabat and Ankara to serve the Ministry of Education,
which should try to limit the direct intervention of the embassies. In practice, this was limited to
the composition of a pool by the recruitment body, satisfying the wishes of municipal
administrations. After interviewing the candidates in the concerned country, representatives of
the school directors could then compose from this pool the final list of the available teachers
on call. Despite these regulations, the lack of teachers increased sharply in the early 1980s,
while the situation was complicated by the sudden rejection by Minister Pais of the Cultural
Agreement with Morocco signed in February 1980. He explained his decision as follows:
according to this agreement, the Moroccan authorities recruit teachers. In the context of the
academic freedom, he considered it unacceptable. Due to these differences regarding
recruitment, the lack of thirty Moroccan teachers in the 1980s was a serious structural
challenge. The intervention of Minister Pais also contributed to an almost complete halt of
recruitment in Morocco. The relations only resumed with the successor to the Minister. The
Ministry wanted to quickly clarify this situation, because many posts were vacant, and the
functions were employed only many years later. The municipal authorities insisted that
exemption be granted to teachers with no teaching qualification. The case of recruitments in
Morocco had been reopened only after the signing of the Cultural Agreement in February 24,
1983.
Many teachers associations, directions of four large municipalities, political parties and
interested associations tried to mobilize public opinion and the parliament to prevent
ratification. According to them, the way would be open to the infiltration of associations and
teachers who are politically indoctrinated into the Dutch education system. To counter this
criticism, the Secretary of Education Mrs. van Leijenhorst composed a Joint Committee with a
representation of the directions league to establish selection criteria in 1983. It was decided to
act in the following way: the education attach at the embassy in Rabat was to ensure that all
potential applicants be informed of the opportunity to come to the Netherlands. Following the
reactions, she made a list and forwarded the names of the appointed candidates to the
Moroccan Ministry of Education, which, in turn, decides whether an immigration visa will be
issued. The selection was in the hands of the attachs, but authorities influence was more
pronounced compared to the ways selection procedures were carried out in Turkey. The Joint
Commission could not prevent a boycott of the list by the four major municipalities and the
teachers union. Therefore, recruitment took place in Morocco outside official channels; a
procedure to which also education attachs participated. These candidates were still in a bad
legal situation, because they could no longer claim back their old jobs. Moreover,
indoctrination among teachers was not visible. Despite the disagreements, the recruitment
process was relatively successful. In three years, 59 teachers arrived in the Netherlands, most
of who were recruited outside the official list, with the tacit agreement of the Moroccan
authorities. The control for assistants qualification, largely ensured by attachs, underwent a
number of problems, due to different causes. There was, for instance, no such influence on
uncontrolled or free recruitment organized by the school directors who would not collaborate
with the attachs for reasons of principle. The Ministry assumed that many people were
recruited, though with questionable qualification or no qualification at all. It was striking how
the media had highlighted the danger of political indoctrination, which had the effect of
underestimating the qualification of the teachers coming directly from Morocco, which was as
fundamental as the issue just mentioned. This holds true especially for those who had been
recruited directly in Morocco, without the intervention of the attach. Their recruitment took
place without the least control, while their teaching quality was assumed execrable.
Another problem concerned teachers who had completed their studies and were
contractually bound to the state for a period of eight years. If they left their posts without official

25
permission, they would be guilty of contract breach, compromising thereby their reintegration
in the Moroccan education system if they would return. The method applied by the attachs
gave further guarantees of qualification. It did not only take into account the candidates
teaching experience and fluency in Arabic and French, but their knowledge of the Western
society and Dutch as well. In addition, a kind of fundamentalism scale applied to crowd out
orthodox candidates. All these conditions did not automatically qualify candidates for teaching
in the Netherlands, which was often reported to the Ministry by the attachs. In practice, many
people were appointed, though they not only had a simplistic idea of the status of education in
the Netherlands, but they, according to the selection criteria, lacked the necessary qualification
as well. In addition, as the Ministry paid little attention, the newly arrived HLI teachers were
abandoned to their fate. Therefore, they could not expect to make strenuous efforts, in the
short run, to contribute to an integral definition of the HLI objectives. According to alarming
inspection reports from 1982 and 1988, an intensive course of six months had not changed
much. Afterward Mrs. van Leijenhorst admitted that she was mistaken about the quality of the
teachers recruited in Morocco.

The legal status of HLI teachers
The legal status decree of the teaching staff governed the legal situation of the staff generally
operating within the ambit of education. Since the application of the Law on Elementary
Education, all teachers of elementary education were included in the same salary regulation,
regardless of whether the teacher was a regular school teacher or a HLI teacher. In actual
practice, however, there remained the issue of delay in regulating the situation of HLI
teachers. This delay was said to be the result of regulation procedures based on the situation
of teachers who were both Dutch nationals and Dutch-born. The teachers leave was not
regulated according to the Islamic holiday calendar. This meant that the teacher depended on
his employers goodwill. A number of definitions for special leaves were difficult to apply to the
situation of Moroccan teachers. Consider, for example, the case of a leave for family reasons.
The time was too short for cases where such events took place in the country of origin. The
appointment of a HLI teacher was temporary-based. The teacher had first to follow HLI
application courses before being considered for final appointment. When temporary
appointment expired, the staying permit was at risk as it might expire. Return fees
reimbursement was not regulated. Legally, teaching in primary school could only be given by
qualified teachers. Additionally, the decree underlying the legal status made it clear that
temporary appointment was not to exceed one year, unless the Ministry allowed extension in
few exceptional individual cases and for good reason.
All of the newly appointed HLI teachers were considered temporarily appointed during the
HLI application course, under the pretext that they did not yet show the regularly required
qualification. Regardless of the regulation at play, many HLI teachers had not yet been
permanently appointed, notwithstanding their right. In the executive EMNL report, the
Secretary of Education Mrs. Netelenbos guaranteed that teachers posts in the Dutch
education were maintained. Municipalities had the obligation of integrating all these teachers
into the new situation. The Education Act stated that the HLI teachers pay was regulated by
the Dutch authorities; the Moroccan authorities had nothing to do with this matter. In the new
situation of EMNL, the HLI finances were to be transferred to the municipalities, which would
be, accordingly, responsible for the remuneration of HLI teachers to start from August 1, 1998.
From the moment the Ministry of Education took over the HLI responsibility from the Ministry
of Culture, teacher retraining courses were organized for HLI teachers. In 1975, this course
focused on pedagogical training, where knowledge of Dutch vehicled not only information on
the Dutch society and education, but on pedagogical and didactic topics as well. The
organization of these courses was given to the Dutch Centre for Foreigners. The mere fact of
following this course did not allow for a qualification or any other rights whatsoever. Rather,
only a certificate was obtained, proving that courses were followed regularly.
As soon as HLI became less focused on a return to the home country but rather on the
integration of pupils, the requirements of the immigrant minority teachers changed accordingly.
Integration turned into the main objective. It was conceived of as an orientation of the Dutch
teacher towards education in general: the program requirements were not defined for the HLI

26
modified objectives. The teachers training course was compulsory for teachers with a
temporary exemption from qualification, but teachers with final exemption from qualification
were also entitled to participate. This course designation was confusing. Its content focused
only on the skills and knowledge to improve the role of teachers within the teaching team, and,
then, in Dutch education. There were three subjects involved: the Dutch language first, then an
orientation towards the Dutch culture and society, and finally knowledge of the Dutch
education system. The course was organized in six Training Centres enjoying greater freedom
to organize it the way they want. At the end of the training cycle, a certificate was granted
thereby providing the qualification essential for the HLI program. The course lasted one year,
with an average of two days per week. An application course for the fully qualified teacher was
available for teachers who obtained qualification in the country of origin. Fully qualified means
qualified for teaching in a Dutch school. The program also focused on the pedagogical and
didactic aspects currently at use in the Dutch elementary education. It was important that
access to this course was not possible unless the candidate passed an entrance examination
in Dutch. No help was provided for reaching this level of access.
Later, there were lessons of Dutch, a one-week course, whereby trainees learned to work
in a kindergarten: a course in Turkish/Arabic (Modern Standard), and an intensive course for
Moroccan teachers. Daily courses of Dutch were provided in the Training Centres, generally
for foreign pupils who planned to continue their education in the Netherlands. Starting from the
month of August 1985, the kindergarten children also had the possibility to follow HLI lessons.
Apart from Italians, no foreign teacher achieved the qualification required for this form of
education in the country. The position advocated by the municipalities was to retrain teachers
during the effective course, so they were able to work in a kindergarten when school started in
1986. The course focused on mixed classes according to nationality. These courses did not
lead to any certificate. These courses were also available in the same six Training Centres
organizing application courses for fully qualified teachers.
In secondary education, second-level Arabic and Turkish part-time trainings were available
for the immigrant minority members who were proficient in the languages concerned and
wished to obtain a second-level qualification. Secondary education Dutch teachers had the
possibility to take these courses if they had a sufficient level in Arabic or Turkish. It involved
four-year training with an average of 8 hours per week. The intensive course for Moroccan
teachers was a temporary solution with respect to the lack of teachers in this category. It was
being organized by a number of Training Centres. It was a full-time training lasting three
months, after which it was possible for Moroccan teachers to teach and follow the HLI
courses. When this cycle was completed, teachers were qualified for HLI. This course was
intended only to Moroccans having followed prior training equivalent to the higher level of
secondary education.
The criteria of qualification and the mastery of Dutch by Moroccan teachers were always a
source of concern, despite all the efforts of retraining. In 1982, the education inspectorate
found that 50% of teachers did not sufficiently master Dutch, in 1986/1987 the inspectorate
concluded that half of the Arabic teachers not only lacked the required qualification, but also
they did not follow any qualification training. In 1988, the inspectorate concluded for the first
time that the mastery of Dutch had improved (60% of the Moroccan teachers mastered Dutch
well), the teaching experience and quality had improved compared to the year 1982 and the
HLI teachers encountered no problem in teaching pupils of groups 1 and 2 in particular. In the
Eigen Taal (Own Language) report of 1991, the Secretary of Education Wallage predicted
an imminent lack of teachers in HLI since the number of pupils participating in HLI kept on
growing. He preferred in-country teachers training rather than hiring teachers from abroad. In
this context, he proposed a short term HLI teaching qualification training for elementary
education offered to teachers of Arabic and Turkish. This training was actually taking place in
Amsterdam. In addition, he wanted to establish an intensive training program to reinforce HLI
teachers knowledge of Dutch. To cater for the future need for HLI teachers, Wallage
conducted a survey to see whether HLI teacher training could possibly be launched. He
obviously intended to link this training to a teachers training for elementary education.
Moreover, after a couple of years of practice, a part-time training was expected to be
followed by a regular-school-teachers training, leading ultimately to full qualification. The NT2

27
Group Project did not only go much further in its proposals to improve the level of training of
HLI teachers, but it gave a critical feedback on proposals and previous courses as well.
According to this group, the biggest problem lied in the lack of teaching expertise in the HLI
teachers work, particularly at the kindergarten level. The limited mastery of Dutch defined
further retraining opportunities. The teacher alone should not be held responsible for this poor
mastery of the host country dominant language (i.e., Dutch), retraining courses, already listed,
were also of very low intensity and quality. In addition, the HLI teacher had generally too little
contact with the Dutch colleagues at schools. The group hoped that new training was put into
practice to socialize HLI teachers in the Netherlands and this within the framework of existing
teachers training programs for elementary education. For secondary schools, new teachers
had also to be trained in the Netherlands, and teachers already in service should be retrained.
While secondary school teachers training programs for Turkish and Arabic (Modern Standard)
already existed for years, there was still no such foundation for the HLI teachers in primary
education. However, the Minister would, over two years, train teachers for language teaching
to work as a support for the teaching staff (in, among other tasks, receiving bilingual groups,
groups 1 and 2 included), next to and under the responsibility of a regular school teacher. The
Ministrys goal was that these support teachers were transferred, after some years of
practice, to a teacher training group in the Training Centres or to the HLI application course for
one year, where he/she could obtain HLI teacher qualification. By this detour, the Ministry
wanted to train HLI teachers, instead of real initial training. This proposal for assistance
entitled Support Pillars was actually a return to the situation before 1985, where HLI teachers
were also called teaching assistants, and used to have a lower status compared to their
Dutch colleagues.
Since April 19, 1993, new teachers were needed. In addition to the qualification for primary
education in the country of origin, an adequate command of Dutch was a prime requirement (A
Certificate of Dutch State Exam as a Second Language, level II). Without certification it was
impossible to obtain a temporary appointment as a HLI teacher. This regulation led to a
growing shortage of teachers and an overload of the teachers already in office. In the new
situation EMNL, there was to be, on the one hand, more demand on teachers, and less
demand on the other: a HLI teacher who would give HLI lessons as a support to the regular
school program was to have a good command of Dutch and finally teacher qualification. In the
case of HLI as an autonomous subject, taking place therefore outside the school hours, it was
considered that, at certain levels, one just had to be a native speaker of a language to teach it.
The proposals of the Secretary of Education Netelenbos were strongly criticized.

Debate on the status of HLI and Arabic HLI in particular
Since its inception, HLI always was at the heart of a strong debate. It was about legitimizing
the subject and its place in the curriculum. This place was fixed since the application of the
EMNL report of August 1, 1998. The question to legitimize HLI was mainly concerned with its
objectives. These had often been modified and amended by various laws and reports: starting
from a perspective of a possible return to the country through integration while maintaining the
original culture, and reaching a point of identity development and struggle against deficit. Two
major perspectives could be distinguished in this main debate during the years 1993-1998:
cultural vs. deficit perspectives on HLI. The first perspective defended the immigrant
minorities rights for HLI as an autonomous subject. The second perspective called for a
consideration of HLI as a catalyst to the improvement of immigrant minority childrens general
cognitive development, through, among other things, greater affinity between HLI and NT2
education. To promote this, the Group Project recommended in 1994 the development of a
new HLI curriculum formula where HLI was equipped with a clearly defined supportive
function. Although the government at the time reproduced in its broad outlines the opinions of
the Van Kemenade Committee, it appeared that the State Secretary in the last report was still
wavering between two options: she spoke of HLI as having a supportive function, which may
be proposed within the school curriculum on the one hand, and as an autonomous subject
which were only to be offered outside school hours on the other. Accordingly, it seemed that
only the supportive function had the right to be included in the teaching program of the
elementary schools. Language teaching was at the heart of the Dutch HLI education. In 1989,

28
the Secretary of Education of the time, Mrs. Ginjaar Maas, removed the letter C from the
label of Education in Language and Culture (ELC) as she believed that it was not up to the
school to vehicle the culture of origin. According to the education inspectorate, HLI was mainly
focused on the teaching of the language, although culture was touched on through the history
and the geography of the home country. And although this was not the purpose of HLI, 60% of
Moroccan teachers sometimes or even often gave religious lessons during HLI lessons. They
responded well to a majority of Moroccan parents wish regarding HLI contents. In practice,
HLI lessons had no affinities whatsoever with the religious program. In general, HLI target
attainment levels have never been clearly defined, particularly in the case of Arabic HLI. Most
schools organised HLI with a partial work plan for HLI. In general it was formulated by the only
HLI teacher, possibly in collaboration with colleagues from other schools. In these work plans,
objectives were formulated in terms of very broad lines (these were often merely copies of
some sketchy implementation notes), while didactic work programs were very rarely drafted.
The plans were rarely responsive to emerging developments in the implementation program
and there were very few research affinities with the regular education. These plans contained
little information regarding how tests (exams) and teachers reports were elaborated. In HLI,
the potential level of attainment was relatively low, and it was, therefore, advisable not to set
the bar too high.
In 1993, the Centre for Curriculum Development (Stichting Ontwikkeling Leerplan
Ontwikkeling, SLO) tried to find common grounds in the HLI teachers curricula; an opinion on
this matter was communicated to the teachers union (Algemene Bond Onderwijzend
Personeel, ABOP). It is noteworthy to mention that the authors started from the viewpoint that
Arabic should be considered as an autonomous subject and not just a supportive topic to other
subjects on the curriculum. According to them, the main function of HLI was to contribute to
Moroccan childrens identity development. The result of their advice led to the same goal of
HLI as the one formulated a year earlier by the NT2 Group Project, notably: to give lessons to
kindergarten children in their mother tongue (Berber or Arabic Morocco), and to use Modern
Standard Arabic starting from group 3. The overlap between the two opinions is even clearer
when we talk about the motivations of language use: to maintain contact with family in
Morocco, and to develop NT2 on the one hand and to learn Modern Standard Arabic on the
other. The objectives of Modern Standard Arabic use were twofold: obtaining access to the
basic-level written resources of the Arab world; and developing affinities with other subjects
such as NT2, while teaching general concepts and skills. This was summarised by the authors
themselves in the following fashion: to focus the subject primarily on childrens language and
identity development, while ensuring that the concepts taught had close relationships with
other subjects. Finally, the objectives of the different course components should be clearly
defined (such skills as listening, writing, culture, language). In this perspective, it was
estimated that the HLI supportive function was at least as important as its independent
function.
The debate surrounding the HLI effects was at least as vehement as that focusing on its
objectives. Anything that related to scholastic achievements was kept by the teachers, but
their way of evaluating the results did not really correspond to that of the other teachers at the
school. The school direction was also often misinformed about how teachers formulate their
assessment. So far, it was not compulsory to register the mark the child had obtained for HLI
on the school report. For people who were not directly involved in HLI, it was therefore very
difficult to get an idea of the individual pupils results. However, the views were known of the
parents and the children who attend HLI lessons. For parents, it goes without saying that
Modern Standard Arabic was the language taught within the framework of HLI. Arabic was
indeed the language of Islam. They appreciate HLI insofar as it allows for the maintenance of
their culture and their religion as part and parcel of their childrens education in the migration
context. However, they were unhappy with the results and insisted that the courses be more
intensive. They wanted better results in Arabic to ensure the maintenance of their language
and culture, mainly for cultural and ethnic motives. In addition, they wanted better results with
respect to the teaching of Islam. Finally, parents wanted HLI to focus on subjects of real
cultural load such as Islam, geography and the history of Morocco to establish a link between
children and their country of origin.

29
As for the pupils, they considered it necessary to devote sufficient time to achieve
interesting results with regard to language, knowledge of religion and culture. The pupils were
disappointed with their unsatisfactory results. They also argued that the content of the course
was too high for their actual level. They believed that religion, geography, history and songs
were obviously part and parcel of HLI. At this level, they agreed with their parents and they
rejected the governments plan to eliminate these subjects in particular.
The effects of HLI have long been evaluated in terms of other subjects such as Dutch and
arithmetic. Specifically in these subjects, the results of the children following HLI were
generally disappointing, compared with their Dutch classmates. Still, the main question was
whether this underachievement had anything to do with HLI classes. In 1988, the Ministry
requested an investigation of the HLI effects on language acquisition and language
maintenance, cultural awareness, academic achievement in other school subjects, the
learning situation of Dutch pupils at schools and on the overall school-based educational
activities. In this regard, a report published in 1989 contains answers to the following
questions. What was the relationship between following HLI and:

the written language skills in the mother tongue;
knowledge of key elements of the original culture;
results in Dutch and arithmetic;
the situation of pupils in school;
characteristics of the school organization.

Moroccan pupils of group 8 participated in this investigation. The main conclusions were:

Mastery of the written Arabic was poor. This was not surprising, given the limited number
of hours allotted to the learning of HLI Arabic by Moroccan children;
A surprising conclusion was that participation in school-based HLI had a beneficial effect
on Moroccan pupils exam results and their own views on language proficiency. The
results were even better than those of pupils taking lessons of Arabic outside the school;
Moroccan pupils had poor test scores of Dutch and arithmetic, where the extramural HLI
had negative effects. Investigators expressed their doubt regarding the negative results,
as being related to HLI participation. According to them, the explanation lied rather in the
number of years pupils had followed Dutch lessons;
Moroccan pupils enjoyed more pleasure in education than their Dutch peers, which
corresponds to their participation in other curriculum courses;
Moroccan pupils, by participating in HLI, generally missed classes of cognitive subjects;
but they usually manage to catch up;
In practice, there was very little affinity between HLI and the regular Dutch education
(20%).

Although often suggested, no relationship was found between HLI participation and the
relatively less satisfactory results of immigrant minority children in Dutch, a number of
investigators conclude. In a subsequent survey, it was concluded that Moroccan childrens
mother tongue influences examination results in Arabic: children whose mother tongue was
Berber achieve significantly lower in Arabic exams, compared to Moroccan-Arabic speaking
children. Another survey by Aarts, De Ruiter & Verhoeven (1993), focusing exclusively on the
effect of HLI on mastering the language of Turkish and Moroccan children, provided a more
positive picture than Driessens. The results were poor on the Arabic writing test at the end of
elementary school, but better than the results in Driessens research. Also, HLI participation
and parental stimulation had a positive effect. Pupils seemed to lag behind their peers in
Morocco both in spelling and vocabulary, which was quite normal. They obtained acceptable
results during oral tests in Arabic (Moroccan) and technical reading in Modern Standard
Arabic. The pupils socio-cultural orientation appeared to be a determinant factor. Meanwhile,
Aarts and De Ruiter developed tests for the Citogroup (see below) for determining the
proficiency level in Arabic at the end of elementary school. A bilingual test of Arabic was also
elaborated for the elementary school entry to measure Moroccan childrens degrees of
bilingualism.

30
Teaching materials
A stark lack of HLI teaching materials has always been observed. Several methods were
imported from the countries of origin (25% of the methods for kindergartens and 60% of the
methods for groups 3 to 8) or from other countries (20% from Germany). These methods were
not adapted to the Dutch situation. They did not reflect the situation of immigrant minorities in
the Netherlands. The pace of the didactic work involved was not adapted too. The acquisition
pace of Arabic (Modern Standard) by children in the Netherlands was lower than that in
Morocco. The environment in the Moroccan methods did not match the profile of the Moroccan
children living in a Western culture. In addition, the vocabulary of older pupils was insufficient
for them to understand texts taken from textbooks of the country of origin. In other words, it
was very difficult in practice to use the existing teaching materials. Being abandoned to their
fate regarding the materials to be used, HLI teachers often had to rely on self-made materials.
A third of the teachers reported that HLI did not have sufficient teaching materials. The one
they had was used very intensively and it was quickly worn out. In 30% of the cases, pupils did
not have their own textbook. In 1992, a list was published which proposed elementary
teaching materials in Arabic. The NT2 Group project described a number of methods primarily
developed for regular education and issued advice on ways to further develop the methods in
use. In the NBLC catalogue, a list was provided of the HLI materials available in the
Netherlands, and that focused on language. The following is an overview of the methods for
Arabic:

Reading for Beginners: Often, there was no manual. When there was one, it was entirely
in Modern Standard Arabic. The didactic form was generally intended for global use, but
sometimes it could be individualised. There was never any indication for an evaluation
and/or testing;
Linguistic Approach: Most of the methods were written exclusively in Arabic. While the
teachers book was missing, the method could be broadly used and did not provide
information on evaluation;
Other materials: they followed the same outline. Only in rare cases, there was a teachers
book and even a student introduction;
Supporting materials and types of games;
Music.

A number of Moroccan teachers opposed the projects of developing new HLI materials. They
found that these projects had not been sufficiently adapted to their teaching practice. People
who develop new materials were rarely connected with the concerned teachers and never
asked about the opinions of experts. The collaborating actors involved often lacked the
necessary skills and often represented, to a large extent, the interests of the Dutch parties.
The SCO-Kohnstamm Institute evaluated three methods for Arabic developed in the
Netherlands, following a number of criteria, including social criterion, contemporariness
criterion and teaching quality criterion. While two methods met with these criteria, the third
one was estimated execrable. After examining several methods of Arabic, the school
inspectorate, financially supported by the authorities, concluded that these methods were
designed primarily to develop oral and written skills in Arabic. No method was in harmony with
the regular education, particularly education in the Netherlands. In less than half of the
methods, contemporariness criteria were met with. But the teaching quality was low in more
than half of the methods (no possibility of distinctness and evaluation).
An inventory survey on the use of materials in HLI revealed that out of all the available
methods, only 11 were used regularly, including 5 developed in the Netherlands. Teachers
combined two-thirds of the materials used with another material, often self-made. The
investigator noted that teachers had no overview of the materials developed in the
Netherlands, and that many materials were still insufficiently adapted to the living world of
immigrant minority children and Dutch lessons.
According to a survey conducted for the ABOP with 129 HLI teachers, the issue of the
didactic material was still on the agenda. On the question of the teaching materials used, eight
different answers were obtained. 26% of these responses referred to self-made materials. The

31
impact of HLI was considered satisfactory by only 30 Moroccan teachers. It could therefore be
concluded that the situation regarding the teaching materials was still unsatisfactory.
Apparently, the teachers did not know about the existence of other material available in the
Netherlands. Broadly speaking, they operated with self-made materials.

Numbers of pupils in HLI and Arabic HLI
Over the years, the number of Moroccan pupils participating in HLI increased steadily (see
Table 3.2). Since 1989, the number of Moroccan pupils in HLI was still relatively stable, that is,
about 70% of Moroccan children in elementary school. This percentage was relatively high
compared to other ethnic groups living in the Netherlands. Nothing suggests that there was a
difference between boys and girls or between arabophone or berberophone children with
respect to HLI results. Driessen examined whether there was any relationship between the
first language of pupils (Moroccan Arabic or Berber) and degrees of HLI participation.

Table 3.2 Number of Moroccan pupils participating in HLI from 1978 to 1992;
Sources: Van de Wetering (1990) and Lucassen & Kbben (1992)

School year Number of Moroccan pupils within HLI
19781979 3.114
19791980 4.531
19801981 6.522
19811982 8.605
19821983 9.778
19831984 11.138
19841985 17.346
19851986 17.405
19861987 18.270
19871988 22.316
19881989 23.944
19891990 27.398
19901991 27.506
19911992 28.266

One could indeed expect that berberophone children were less inclined to follow HLI where a
different language was used. There was, however, no relation between HLI participation and
the childrens first language, whereby Berber-speaking children showed generally lower
degrees of HLI participation compared to their arabophone peers. He also inquired about the
important features of Moroccan pupils with respect to HLI participation within the school
context:

they originate from relatively higher social environments;
they find themselves in classes with fewer Dutch children and fewer Moroccan children;
they find themselves in classes of children with higher social status;
they find themselves in classes with better averages in Dutch and arithmetic exams.

Regarding HLI participation outside the school context, it could be stated that children who did
not participate in this variant of HLI spoke a little more Dutch with their brothers and sisters as
they had been living for a longer period in the Netherlands. In summary, it was stated that
Moroccan pupils with lower degrees of school-based HLI participation found themselves
(somewhat) less often in classes with relatively many children of an immigrant minority
background. Perhaps they had less opportunity due to organizational problems to
participate in the school-based HLI. The Moroccan children who did not participate in HLI at
school seemed more integrated into the Dutch education system than those who did.
Since 1987, it has been possible to take Arabic (Modern Standard), among other subjects,
in the lower grades of secondary education. These subjects could either replace another or

32
constitute by themselves an additional subject. In 1987, 31 schools participated in this form of
education, with 2,000 pupils. For the school year 1990-1991, the number of pupils participating
in these disciplines ranged as follows:

First year: 1391 Second year: 1075
Third year: 731 Fourth year: 297

In Table 3.3, the total number is mentioned of secondary education (Moroccan) pupils who
choose Arabic as a subject at the end of their study in the years 1991-1995. The number of
pupils opting for Arabic in secondary education was and still is relatively low.

Table 3.3 Number of secondary school pupils having chosen Arabic as school exan from 1991
to 1995; source: Ministry of Education

School year Number of pupils
19911992 3.966
19921993 3.354
19931994 3.321
19941995 3.667

Motivation to follow HLI
As was said above, Moroccan parents had a role in their childrens participation in HLI. When
HLI was offered at schools, then it was up to the parents to decide whether their children
participated or not. Participation was, at any rate, optional. Since 1998, the role of the parents
was even more important in the organization of the Arabic HLI: they had to consult the
municipalities to plead for the organisation of HLI in the language of their wish. Parents
attached a lot of importance to HLI. For them, cultural and ethnic motivations were of
paramount importance (for the maintenance and for the practice of religion and culture).
Moroccan parents considered HLI as a means to support the cultural values and patterns of
behaviour, while their children were growing up in the migration context. In addition to the
cultural and ethnic motives, most Moroccan parents interviewed point to practical and
instrumental reasons: a possible emigration, the links with the homeland and communication
with family and acquaintances back home. The Moroccan parents did not want to assimilate.
They wanted to keep their children within the Moroccan community. Most children said their
parents supported their HLI participation. They themselves were also motivated to participate
in HLI, regardless of the opinions of their parents. They also said they felt that it was very
important to learn Arabic. As a reason, they mentioned that Arabic was ultimately their mother
tongue and had to maintain contact with family and friends in the country of origin. But they
find Arabic a difficult language. The difficulty was that the school, the teachers, the parents
and the children often had different motivations, even opposite, for HLI, causing stagnation in
the HLI enterprise:

parents considered primarily the transmission of language and culture, along with religion
as an important focus;
Dutch teachers assigned a mediating role to HLI, a student could more easily integrate
into the school context and the Dutch society, he or she could enhance the mastery of
Dutch, and the HLI teacher could play a mediating role between school and parents;
HLI teachers had set as a goal: to learn the language and to gear the teaching of culture
towards parents original culture rather than teaching religion. For them, a sense of
identity awareness and the migration situation was very important;
Pupils had many practical reasons: they wanted to learn Arabic for holidays in Morocco.

Level variability
Another problem in the HLI was the different levels involved within the target groups. In the
early phases of HLI, there was an obligation to bring together pupils of different groups, and
even different schools, who received collective rather than adequate individualised instruction.

33
These groups consisted of about ten pupils. The teacher stood before a group of pupils with
lower language proficiency than their expected linguistic level, their general education level or
their age. The criteria for the groups composition were based mainly on the number of pupils
available and the schedule of the school providing for HLI. Groups could be composed
according to age only when a teacher was assigned to an elementary school with, for
instance, 70 HLI pupils. But here also, the school program defined the school hours when HLI
could possibly take place. The age of the pupil was not even necessarily a guarantee for
comparable language levels. In 1988, HLI had not (yet) been organized for pupils in groups 1
and 2 in about 20% of the schools. Besides the reasons already stated above, the following
could be added:

The HLI teachers had not yet developed the necessary didactic skills;
Parents wanted first their children to have reasonable oral skills in Dutch.

In 1988, the average group consisted of 6 pupils. In 1997, several different groups were
present in the same class in 43% of the schools; the number of pupils varied from 5 to 10.
Besides, differences in level from 2 to 5 levels were sometimes represented in a single HLI
class. Differences in the language level also played a role in the Arabic HLI. It was, therefore,
impossible to form homogeneous classes with respect to the level and the mother tongue,
especially when taking into account that the teacher was limited in time because he also
worked in several schools. In the Netherlands, the Arabic-speaking Moroccans represent 40%
of the Moroccan community against 60% of Amazighophones. The numbers of Arabophone
and Amazighophone pupils in elementary education were supposed to be approximately of the
same proportions. The Moroccan pupils participating at the time in HLI were generally part of
the second or third generation of immigrants. This implies that Modern Standard Arabic was
for them a real foreign language; while for Amazigh children Moroccan Arabic was a foreign
language too. Linguists and educators often advocated the teaching of Moroccan childrens
mother tongues. Most Moroccan parents preferred Modern Standard Arabic as the target
language, for cultural and religious reasons. Many teachers had difficulties in accepting the
idea of teaching actual mother tongues. This would cause problems for teachers of Arabic
since the majority of their pupils speak Amazigh. Starting from a negative argument, Driessen
(1990) argued for education in the mother tongues of Moroccan children. According to him,
Moroccan children mastery of Modern Standard Arabic as taught in HLI was so weak that
it would not make sense to teach it any longer. He proposed to concentrate on the oral
mastery of the mother tongues.
Otten & De Ruiter (1991) proposed to consider the linguistic aspects common to the three
languages of Morocco (Modern Standard Arabic, Moroccan Arabic and Amazigh), and to take
them as a starting point to develop childrens vocabulary. In practice, teachers already used
Moroccan Arabic or Amazigh effectively to ensure that children understand. In the various
reports and reviews the use of mother tongues in HLI was also discussed at length. In most
cases this was limited to courses in nursery classes: in elementary education the creation of a
bilingual situation (Dutch and Moroccan Arabic or Amazigh) was advocated for the reception
of young Moroccan children who still did not speak Dutch. Here, the HLI teacher would also
not work independently, but rather under the responsibility of the regular school teacher. In
other classes, there should be a shift towards Modern Standard Arabic, taking account of the
parents wishes. In Utrecht, such a method was already at work in some schools: in groups 1
to 3, pupils were taught in Amazigh and Moroccan Arabic; the introduction of Modern Standard
Arabic was relegated to group 4. Amazigh, Moroccan Arabic or Dutch were used as a lingua
franca. Courses for groups from 1 to 3 ran parallel to the Dutch course. This method had some
success: Moroccan children performed better in Dutch and arithmetic than before. The Van
Kemenade commission was the first to propose Moroccan childrens mother tongue to be
taught as the target language of the autonomous HLI (EMNL). According to the commission,
the choice of one of the three languages fell neatly within parental decision. Obviously, the
main problem lied in that there were no standardised writing systems for both Moroccan
Arabic and Amazigh at the time. It was needless to mention the lack of the materials relevant
for the teaching of these language varieties. The choice of the Moroccan mother tongues

34
would be a fait accompli on August 1, 1998. But the question was to what extent this option
was right. In their survey, Broeder, Geertsema and Gerritsen (1997) also asked which
language Moroccan teachers felt they had to use in the new EMNL: for nursery classes, 50%
of the teachers felt that this should be the language spoken at home. For the other classes,
the vast majority was in favour of Modern Standard Arabic (84%). It was striking to note that
the majority of the school directors were for the use of Modern Standard Arabic in all classes.
Little was know as yet about the unofficial HLI. According to surveys, Moroccan pupils often
followed lessons in Modern Standard Arabic after the school hours, very often in mosques.
Shadid & Van Koningsveld (1990) reported that in Rotterdam, about 40% of Moroccan
children between 6 and 14 were taught in mosques. Similarly, Van de Wetering (1990)
mentioned this fact. In his investigation, Driessen (1990) registered 44% of Moroccan children
who followed this type of education.
Not much was known about the content or the time-load of these courses taking place
outside the regular school education. Shadid and Van Koningsveld (1990) stated that there
were no elements of Islamic fundamentalism to fear. It was better to admit that this type of
education allows for the timely and full membership of the children into their parents religious
community. Nevertheless, these lessons took much time: Wednesday afternoons and
sometimes on Saturday and Sunday mornings. Participation in these extracurricular courses
seemed to have a positive effect on the results obtained in HLI organized in Dutch schools.
The EMNL report of the Secretary of Education at the time Mrs. Netelenbos (1995) adopted on
August 1, 1998 seemed to cause a shift in HLI. Opinions diverged regarding whether HLI
should continue or come to a halt. The Secretary of Education was obviously optimistic: she
found it positive to make a clear-cut difference between the EMNL as a supportive medium for
teaching and EMNL as an independent subject. In addition, within EMNL other languages
were to be offered, including the official languages of the countries of the target groups. In
principle, the choice to organize courses in Moroccan Arabic or Amazigh was entirely free, if
there was sufficient demand. Teachers and parents were much less optimistic about the
survival chances of Arabic HLI. Criticism was expressed mainly on the following issues:

a number of consequences were feared if HLI was provided outside the school hours,
many parents would not send their children to HLI or send them only to the mosque,
where the content would be different;
if children had to stay longer in school, they would consider HLI as a punishment rather
than a pleasurable course;
teachers had not yet seen how they could teach the same number of pupils outside
school hours, while still having their full schedule unmodified;
in many municipalities, there were no real EMNL experts and no real concern was
expressed. It was not clear how to consult parents regarding EMNL. Broeder & Extra
(1996) made valuable suggestions;
in the new formula nothing was yet defined with reference to the final terms, content,
recruitment for secondary education, teaching materials and other practical elements;
there was a good chance that the means distributed to municipalities for EMNL be quickly
allocated; more groups would receive EMNL with the same budget.

In the eyes of the pupils and HLI teachers, years of discussions about the objectives, the
resources, the contents and the teachers training have not changed much the HLI scene.

3.3 Mastering Arabic

During the eighties and nineties of the last century, the acquisition of Modern Standard Arabic
by Moroccan children and the acquisition of Turkish by Turkish children in the Dutch context
gradually received more attention. Most commonly, Moroccan and Turkish children were
compared on the basis of similar background variables, particularly their period of immigration
and (low) socio-economic status. Results showed consistently that Turkish children scored
better at Turkish language tests than Moroccan children at Arabic ones. The Arabic language
tested in these studies is nearly always Modern Standard Arabic.

35
Van de Wetering (1990) reported on the proficiency of Moroccan children in Modern
Standard Arabic. In a longitudinal study from 1983-1985, she tested 447 Moroccan children
from grades 3-8 in eight primary schools in two large cities. Their age ranged between 6 and
14 years. The testing instruments used for this purpose included a decoding test (63 words)
and two reading comprehension tests based on 14 and 13 multiple choice items respectively.
The research findings were presented in correlation with the number of years of instruction in
Arabic Moroccan children received both in Morocco and the Netherlands. Of all her subjects,
71% having received three years of Arabic instruction or more, achieved at least 33 correct
items in word decoding during the first research year. In the second year, 72% of children with
four years of Arabic instruction or more obtained similar scores; the same applies to 76% of
the children with five years of Arabic instruction or more in the third research year. As far as
the first comprehension test was concerned, 70% of the children with three years of Arabic
instruction or more got 10 out of 14 questions right in the first year. The same score was
achieved by 84% of the pupils with four years of Arabic instruction or more and in the third
year by 87% of the pupils with five years of Arabic instruction or more respectively. As for the
second reading comprehension test, 39% of the children got 10 or more of 13 items correct in
the first year; in the second and the third research years the same scores were achieved by
33% and 48% of the children respectively. Generally speaking, the Amazighophone children
were found to be on a similar level as the Arabophone children with respect to technical
reading, but they were below average in reading comprehension. In the light of these results,
Van de Wetering (1990) concluded that most pupils who had had HLI for 5 or 6 years
uninterruptedly in relatively favorable circumstances were expected to reach a level at which
they were able to read and understand a simple Arabic text.
Opting for a survey-type of investigation, Driessen (1990) studied the effects of HLI on
proficiency in Turkish, Modern Standard Arabic and Spanish languages of children in
elementary schools in the Netherlands. A total number of 254 Moroccan children together with
368 Turkish and 46 Spanish children participated in his research. Driessen (1990)
distinguished between two types of variables: measures of language proficiency (dependent
variables) and background variables (independent variables). The reading and writing
dimensions in the proficiency test consisted of pragmatics, idioms, vocabulary, grammar and
spelling. Use was made of a number of formats including multiple-choice items, completion
items and yes/no items. In the pre-test phase, it turned out that it was impossible to maintain
one measure of L1 proficiency for all the groups involved (Moroccan, Turkish and Spanish) as
the Moroccan children scored dramatically low. So it was decided to adapt the norm of Modern
Standard Arabic proficiency. The definitive test for Moroccan children consisted of a total of 53
items. The test reliability was 0.93 (Cronbachs alpha). Since the proficiency test measures
written skills only, it was envisaged to present a self-assessment scale to the children under
consideration. They were asked to indicate how they perceived their own oral and written
language proficiency. Specifically, the children were asked to assess their skills in listening,
speaking, reading and writing, using a five-point scale ranging from I am unable to do that to
I find that very easy. In addition to the global proficiency test and the L1 self-evaluation test,
a questionnaire on the childrens background was presented to teachers regarding their age,
sex, home language, estimated number of years of HLI, number of years of Dutch education,
length of residence, attitudes towards their country of origin and the Netherlands, estimated
Dutch proficiency of the parents and attitudes towards HLI, the Dutch school and Arabic
teachers. Other information on individual pupils was obtained from Dutch teachers through a
questionnaire on ethnic background, support of home climate, family characteristics, parental
contacts with school, number of re-sits, school achievement, language use in different
domains, estimated Dutch proficiency of parents, number of years of HLI attendance, number
of hours HLI weekly and position of HLI: within or outside the school building. Other personal
data were sought from HLI teachers, including information like qualifications and teaching
experience of the teacher, her/his length of residence in the Netherlands, cooperation with
other teachers and aims and goals of HLI. HLI teachers also provided information about
individual children: their number in HLI groups, the number of HLI hours attended and their
estimated proficiency in Modern Standard Arabic. Among the Turkish children the mean of
correctly completed items of the language test was 73%. Of the Moroccan children, 42% failed

36
to provide answers at all. The mean of correct answers of children in the Moroccan group that
completed at least one item correctly was 33%. At group level, self-assessed ability paralleled
the scores on the language test, which indicated that children had a fairly good idea of their
own linguistic ability. For a better interpretation of the results of Moroccan children in the
Netherlands, a replication of the test took place in Morocco (1992). The testing involved
primary school children in years 2, 3 and 4 in three Moroccan cities (Marrakech, Tissa and
Oujda). Second-year-children completed on average one third of the items correctly (34.2%).
Third-years completed slightly over half correctly (58.9%) and fourth-years over three quarters
(95%). The Moroccan data also showed that children made progress in results as their period
of years of schooling grows.
Aarssen, De Ruiter & Verhoeven (1992) assessed the language proficiency of Moroccan
and Turkish children at the end of primary school in Modern Standard and Moroccan Arabic
and in Turkish respectively. 81 Moroccan children participated in their research, 40 boys and
41 girls. Of all the subjects, 24 started their education in Morocco, entering Dutch elementary
schools at a later stage and were referred to as higher grade entrants (HGE). The rest were
first grade entrants (FGE). All attended schools in big cities in the central and southern part of
the Netherlands. The Moroccan group of children was tested on both Moroccan Arabic and
Modern Standard Arabic proficiency. Language tasks were accordingly divided into oral and
written terms. In addition to two oral measures for vocabulary listening comprehension in
Moroccan Arabic dialect (Oral Vocabulary, 60 items and Instruction Task, 30 items), five written
measures on the levels of grapheme, lexicon, syntax and text were developed in Modern
Standard Arabic (Word Decoding, 46 items; Spelling, 42 items; Written Vocabulary, 54 items;
Syntax, 42 items and Reading Comprehension, 18 items). While means and standard
deviations on each measure were computed, other statistical calculations were conducted to
evaluate the reliability and validity of the measures involved. The internal consistencies as well
as the content validity of the language proficiency tasks were examined. Correlations between
the scores on the measures as well as the relation between language skills and background
variables (i.e., the period of L1 instruction and the use of L1 at home and in the peer group)
were computed. While the internal consistency of the Oral Vocabulary and Instruction task was
good, other tasks, except for reading comprehension, had to be adapted for reliability. On the
level of content validity, there was no need to reject the model for both the oral and written
tasks. Moroccan childrens scores on Word Decoding and Reading Comprehension were
satisfactory, i.e., 81% and 60% correct items respectively. Their scores on Written Vocabulary,
Spelling and Syntax were very low, i.e., 31%, 26% and 24% correct items respectively. With
respect to the analysis of correlations for the Arabic proficiency tasks with the variables
number of years HLI, home language and peer language, spelling and syntax tasks were
excluded because of their low means. A significant correlation between the amount of
instruction in Arabic and the scores on Word Decoding and Written Vocabulary was found. The
measures of Oral Vocabulary and Word Decoding appeared significantly correlated to the use
of Arabic at home. The measures of Instruction, Written Vocabulary and Reading
Comprehension tended to be significantly correlated to the use of Arabic in peer contact. A t-
test was calculated to see whether there were differences in scores between high grade
entrants (HGE) and first grade entrants (FGE). HGE were found to have higher scores than
FGE. The differences were not significant though, showing that the educational experience of
HGE in Morocco did not influence their language performance favorably. Compared with the
Turkish group, Moroccan children had lower scores on all measures of the proficiency test.
Based on the findings of their previous research of 1992, Aarts, De Ruiter & Verhoeven
(1993) did an attempt to refine the test developed in 1992. Their follow-up research focused
on the level of oral and written skills of Turkish and Moroccan children at the end of
elementary school and on whether differences in skills in the childrens native language could
be related to their own personal, family or school characteristics. 242 Moroccan children (108
males and 114 females) in the Netherlands and 222 children from Morocco (92 males and 150
females) participated in this research. In order to measure proficiency in Modern Standard
Arabic, the Arabic Language Test (ALT) was used. The first version of the test was formerly
described in Aarssen, De Ruiter & Verhoeven (1992). In the second version of the ALT, the
tasks of spelling and syntax form one single task. Additionally, for measuring the abilities and

37
knowledge for the performance of literacy tasks, a Functional Literacy Task (FLT) was
introduced. The latter comprised a letter, a page from a TV guide, the front page of a
newspaper and an application form. Also, a questionnaire was developed for children and their
teachers to gather relevant sociolinguistic data on pupils characteristics such as country of
birth, length of stay, age, sex, socio-cultural orientation, self-esteem and reading
comprehension in Turkish or Arabic and Dutch; family characteristics such as socio-economic
background, socio-cultural orientation; family culture, aspects such as general stimulation
regarding school achievement, motivations for schooling, capacity of the parents to motivate
the child; language contact and reading in Turkish or Arabic and in Dutch; and school
characteristics such as percentage of ethnic minority pupils, percentage of Dutch lower class
pupils, amount of Home Language Instruction and expectations of the teacher in terms of
his/her perception of the performance of the pupil and the aspiration level he/she holds for the
pupil. The Arabic and Turkish Language tests along with the accompanying questionnaires
were conducted at the end of elementary schools both in the Netherlands as well as in
Morocco and Turkey. Of the two oral tasks only the Oral Vocabulary Task was administered in
Morocco and Turkey. The Oral Instruction Task was perceived as trivial for native speakers in
the source countries. In Morocco and Turkey, the Functional Literacy Tasks were conducted
simultaneously. In the Netherlands, however, they were administered at the beginning of
secondary education. A number of statistical analyses were made, including mean values,
standard deviations and t-tests for the significance of difference. Moreover, factor analyses
were conducted to cluster the scores for the tasks on school-type language proficiency.
Correlations were computed to examine the interrelationships between language skills and to
explore the relationship between language skills and background variables. Finally, the best
predictors of childrens language proficiency were revealed by means of multiple regression
analyses.
Moroccan children in the Netherlands scored reasonably well on the Oral Vocabulary Task
with a mean score of 21.60 (60% correct items). Their scores on the Instruction Task were
lower with a mean score of 15.54 (52% correct items). On Oral Vocabulary, the scores of
children in Morocco were higher than those of children in the Netherlands with a mean score
of 32.69 (91% correct items). For children in the Netherlands, the scores on word decoding
were high with a mean score of 27.81 (79% correct items); their scores for reading
comprehension were reasonable, with a mean score of 12.69 (50% correct items). However,
their scores for spelling and written vocabulary were extremely low, with mean scores of 12.18
and 12.94 respectively (30% and 34% correct items respectively). Children in Morocco
obtained significantly higher scores on all written tasks, though the Spelling Task was difficult
for them too. It was concluded that Home Language Instruction appeared only sufficient to
attain the basic skills of word decoding and also a limited oral vocabulary and reading
comprehension.
Also the scores of first grade entrants (FGE) and high grade entrants (HGE) were
compared. The significance of difference between FGE and HGE was calculated by means of
a t-test. With respect to the Oral Vocabulary and Instruction Task in Moroccan Arabic, it was
found that HGE scored significantly higher than FGE, with mean scores of 24.24 (67% correct
items) and 20.99 (58% correct items); and 20.00 (67% correct items) and 14.20 (47% correct
items) respectively. Similarly, on the written tasks HGE scored generally higher than FGE. For
the Spelling Task and the Reading Comprehension Task the difference between HGE and
FGE was significant. The mean scores for HGE on spelling were 13.83 (35% correct items)
and for FGE 11.73 (29% correct items) respectively; for HGE, the scores for the Reading
Comprehension Task were 14.43 (58% correct items); for FGE 11.64 (47% correct items). On
Word Decoding and Written Vocabulary only small differences emerged. For Word Decoding,
the mean scores of HGE were 29.10 (83% correct items) and of FGE 27.37 (78% correct
items; for Written Vocabulary 14.40 (38% correct items) and 12.32 (32% correct items)
respectively. It was concluded that Moroccan children who had had some education in
Morocco performed better than those who had none.
With respect to the results on the literacy tasks, Moroccan children in the Netherlands
performed very poorly on the Arabic Functional Literacy Task, while children in Morocco did
not face major problems with the same task: 4.44 (19% correct items) and 18.95 (79% correct

38
items) respectively. In similar vein, HGE performed significantly better than FGE on the Arabic
Functional Literacy Task. But HGE, when compared to Moroccan children in Morocco, scored
much lower.
Generally, Moroccan children in the Netherlands seemed to be less equipped for everyday
literacy tasks as shown in correlations between school-type and functional literacy skills. The
correlations between the written tasks of the Arabic Language Test and functional literacy were
stronger than the correlations between the oral tasks and functional literacy. Regarding the
prediction of Arabic proficiency, there was a positive relationship with the country of birth:
pupils born in Morocco performed significantly better on the written tasks of the Arabic
Language Test and on the Functional Literacy Task in Arabic. There were also positive
correlations between the childrens cultural orientation and their language proficiency level.
Children who were oriented towards the Moroccan language and culture had substantially
higher scores for both the oral and written tasks of the Arabic Language Test and for the
Functional Literacy Task. Children who read more in Arabic also seemed to perform better on
the Functional Literacy Task.
Concerning family characteristics, the general stimulation which the parents give to the
child correlated significantly with the written dimension of the Arabic Language Test. The
motivation of the parents for school had an impact on both the written language proficiency
and the level of functional literacy. The amount of reading and writing by the mother correlated
significantly with the level of Arabic functional literacy of the children.
School characteristics primarily correlated with the childrens written language proficiency.
Moroccan children who attended schools with a high percentage of ethnic minority children
had high scores for the written tasks of the Arabic Language Test and for the Functional
Literacy Task in Arabic. Children attending schools with a high concentration of Dutch children
scored significantly lower on the written tasks in Arabic. Instruction outside the school context
seemed to a have a positive impact on mastering the written tasks in Modern Standard Arabic.
The teachers view of the performance ability of Moroccan children also correlated positively
with proficiency in Modern Standard Arabic. The amount of instruction outside the school
context and the parents motivation with respect to their childrens schooling seemed to be the
best predictors of the childrens proficiency in Modern Standard Arabic. Also the socio-cultural
orientation of the children, the percentage of ethnic minority pupils in the school and the
amount of reading in Arabic by their pupils were found to have an impact on proficiency in
Modern Standard Arabic. These factors explained 80% of the variance. The best predictor of
oral proficiency in Moroccan Arabic was the socio-cultural orientation of the pupil, accounting
for 11% of the variance. Finally, the best predictors of functional literacy in Arabic were the
socio-cultural orientation of the pupil and the parents motivation with respect to their childrens
schooling. These factors explained 34% of the variance.
De Ruiter (1997) studied the position of Amazighophones and Arabophones vis--vis
French and Arabic in Morocco, i.e., their proficiency in Modern Standard Arabic, their language
behavior and attitudes towards Arabic and French and the linguistic behavior of their parents in
both languages. The same group of 242 pupils that participated in the research described
above, participated in this research. These pupils were in the last grades of elementary
schools in Rabat and Nador. With respect to proficiency in Arabic, the Arabic Language Test
was administered (for a description of the Arabic Language Test see Aarssen, De Ruiter &
Verhoeven 1993 and above). For the study of childrens language behavior and attitudes
towards Arabic and French and the language behavior of their parents in both languages, a
questionnaire was used. The questionnaire on childrens language behavior and attitudes
towards Arabic and French consisted of scales running from 1 to 5 where 1 stood for an
equivalent of Modern Standard Arabic only and 5 for an equivalent of French only. To deal
with the language behavior of the childrens parents, pupils were also asked in what language
their fathers and mothers read and write, using the same scales presented to them earlier.
Teachers were asked to judge the proficiency of the pupils parents in Modern Standard Arabic.
Concerning the pupils proficiency in Modern Standard Arabic, the differences between the
Amazighophone and Arabophone groups were small in three of the five tasks. It was in the
Vocabulary and Reading Comprehension tasks that the Arabophones were significantly ahead
of the Amazighophones. The Amazighophone group scored quite low on the vocabulary task.

39
From the point of view of proficiency in Modern Standard Arabic, De Ruiters research (1997)
made clear that Arabophones and Amazighophones had similar problems and skills in
acquiring Modern Standard Arabic, although the Arabophones profited from the common trunk
of vocabulary between dialectal and standard Arabic. In terms of language behavior, Arabic
was the dominant language for both groups, while French seemed to play only a minor role.
With regard to language attitudes, a significant difference between the two groups emerged.
For Arabophones, Arabic was the most important language. Modern Standard Arabic was the
language Arabophones preferred most. According to them, it was also the language of best
expression. It was also the case that a large minority opted for French as a dominant
language. For the Amazighophone group, the majority opted for Arabic and French similarly as
a neutral choice. With respect to the data on the parents, Amazighophone and Arabophone
fathers made less use of Arabic than their children. The French language was strongly
represented in the language behavior of the Arabophone fathers and mothers. Relatively many
Amazighophone mothers were illiterate. If they were schooled, Arabic was their medium of
communication.
Saidi (2001) investigated the proficiency of Moroccan children in the Netherlands in Modern
Standard Arabic and, through that, in order to gain insight into the results and effects of Arabic
language instruction in Dutch elementary schools. A comprehensive sociolinguistic approach
was used, incorporating three related studies: a study of Moroccan childrens proficiency in
Modern Standard Arabic, a study after the perceived status of Modern Standard Arabic and a
study after the input of Modern Standard Arabic.
The proficiency study was based on the design and results of a proficiency test. A
replication of the same test took place in Morocco, focusing on a reference group children
following Arabic education in Moroccan elementary schools.
The results of the proficiency test showed that Moroccan pupils of group eight having
followed seven to eight years of Arabic instruction uninterruptedly had developed good
receptive skills in Modern Standard Arabic. Regarding their competence in word decoding,
Moroccan children in the Netherlands were quite proficient and did not seem to face major
difficulties. Similar conclusions were arrived at by Aarssen, De Ruiter & Verhoeven (1992) and
Aarts, De Ruiter and Verhoeven (1993). In relation to the same task of Word Decoding,
children in Morocco had higher scores. Both groups of children had had enough instruction in
Modern Standard Arabic to develop a good command of the word decoding skill.
The scores of the Moroccan children on the Written Vocabulary task were satisfactory.
Moroccan children in Morocco performed better on the same task than Moroccan children in
the Netherlands. The results of Moroccan pupils in the Netherlands with respect to the Written
Vocabulary task were better than those obtained in previous studies with respect to the same
skill (Aarssen, De Ruiter & Verhoeven 1992; Aarts, De Ruiter & Verhoeven 1993).
Undoubtedly the favorable circumstances under which the children participating in this study
acquired Modern Standard Arabic account for their better results.
With reference to the Syntax task, the scores of Moroccan children in the Netherlands were
quite high. Moroccan children in Morocco performed slightly better on the same task. It should
not be surprising that Moroccan children in Morocco had not achieved higher scores on the
task of syntax. The learning of syntax was not immediately linked to the linguistic environment
as in the case of lexical knowledge. Syntactic rules were much more abstract and implicit and
thus hard to be grasped effectively by children at this level of linguistic development,
irrespective of the language environment. The results of Moroccan pupils in the Netherlands
regarding the Syntax task remained very interesting. In fact, it was the first time that research
showed that Moroccan pupils had such syntactic skills. The results were much better than
those described in earlier research as in Aarssen, De Ruiter & Verhoeven (1992) and Aarts,
De Ruiter & Verhoeven (1993).
On all three receptive tasks in Modern Standard Arabic, the results of pupils in the
Netherlands were satisfactory. It appeared that an extended period of Arabic instruction had a
rather positive impact on the proficiency in Modern Standard Arabic of Moroccan pupils at the
end of Dutch elementary schools. This was in line with Van de Weterings (1990) finding that
Moroccan pupils proficiency in Arabic correlated positively with the number of years of Arabic
instruction at Dutch elementary schools.

40
Referring to pupils performance on the productive tasks, the results demonstrated that
Moroccan pupils who had followed seven to eight years Arabic instruction uninterruptedly at
Dutch schools had basic productive skills in Modern Standard Arabic. Such productive skills
were not as yet well developed. Both groups of children scored rather high on the Dictation
task, though, quite surprisingly, Moroccan children in the Netherlands perform better than
children in Morocco. The higher results of Moroccan children in the Netherlands on the
Dictation task could be linked to their well developed metalinguistic awareness most frequently
taken as a predictor of childrens decoding development (Droop 1999). In a study by Uiterwijk
(1994), Moroccan children in the Netherlands turned out to have better decoding skills than
Dutch children in identifying errors of spelling in verbs and other words in Dutch.
On both Cloze tasks (1 & 2), which strongly bear on lexical and syntactic knowledge of
Modern Standard Arabic, the scores of Moroccan children in the Netherlands and Morocco
were low. It seemed that their lack of full proficiency in Modern Standard Arabic hinders from
completing correctly the omitted words. The low scores in Morocco could be accounted for as
well by the unfamiliarity of the pupils with this kind of tasks.
The performance of the Moroccan children in the Netherlands on the Composition task was
low in comparison to that of the Moroccan group of children in Morocco. Syntactically, the
utterances produced were shorter than those produced by Moroccan pupils in Morocco, as
indicated by the scores on the Mean Length of Utterance (MLU). Orthographically, it was found
that Moroccan pupils in the Netherlands produce more errors in the use of written Modern
Standard Arabic when compared to their peers in Moroccan elementary schools. Such
differences in the mastery of written Modern Standard Arabic could be explained as follows. In
Dutch schools, Moroccan children did not learn the skill of composing in Modern Standard
Arabic as a subject in its own right as was the case with Moroccan children in Morocco. The
input study had made clear that the development of the skills of children in writing Modern
Standard Arabic received little attention from the part of Arabic teachers in Dutch schools.
From the point of view of difficulty, the results of the item analysis of the receptive Written
Vocabulary and Syntax tasks demonstrated that there were no large differences between
pupils in the Netherlands and pupils in Morocco. Both groups of children had fewer difficulties
with concrete and informal words, i.e., making reference to concrete objects or activities. The
rather formal lexical items posed difficulties for Moroccan children in the Netherlands as well
as in Morocco. The non-contrastive vocabulary did not turn out to be difficult for pupils in both
groups of children. Contrastive vocabulary though posed problems for pupils in the
Netherlands and Morocco. From the syntactic point of view, structures like noun-adjective
agreement did not pose great difficulties for the pupils either in the Netherlands or in Morocco.
Cases of subject-verb agreement, especially where the subject was human plural or human
singular, were generally handled with relatively little difficulty. Still, cases of agreement
involving non-human plurals were difficult for both groups of pupils. The average correct
scores for pupils in Morocco were higher given obvious differences in the learning contexts.
The results of the item analysis for the receptive Written Vocabulary and Syntax tasks
demonstrated that both groups of pupils were on a normal track of linguistic development.
According to the error analysis of their Composition performances, Moroccan pupils in the
Netherlands encountered relatively few difficulties with the use of the correct forms of
definiteness and spelling in Modern Standard Arabic. Hamza placement was definitely very
difficult for them. In the other categories of the error analysis, i.e., time/tense, prepositions,
case and agreement, the scores were not bad at all. Pupils in Morocco mastered all categories
very well, except for the hamza placement.
On the whole, it can be deduced from the data presented in Saidis study that the results of
Moroccan pupils with relatively good chances of learning Modern Standard Arabic, i.e., after
having followed seven to eight years of Arabic instruction, are much better than those
presented in earlier research (Aarssen, De Ruiter & Verhoeven 1992; Aarts, De Ruiter &
Verhoeven 1993; Driessen 1990; Van de Wetering 1990). The logical explanation for the
discrepancy between the results of earlier studies and those of Saidis was that only children
with the best chances of learning Arabic were included in it. This was not the case with earlier
research. This earlier research shared two basic characteristics. Apart from their focus on
receptive proficiency, in all these studies reported here the number of hours per week and the

41
number of years of Arabic instruction vary greatly among the pupils selected for testing. There
was no attempt to select more homogeneous samples of pupils or pupils with relatively good
chances of learning Arabic. As regard proficiency in Modern Standard Arabic, the findings of
the reported studies generally pointed out the low proficiency of Moroccan pupils in this
language. The discrepancy between the results of Saidis study and those obtained in earlier
research lies in the focus of the former on pupils with relatively good chances of learning
Modern Standard Arabic.
On the basis of receptive and productive data obtained until Saidis study (2001), it can be
argued that the results attained by Moroccan pupils in the Netherlands, after having followed
seven to eight years Arabic instruction uninterruptedly, are satisfactory when seen in the light
of those produced by pupils living in Morocco and having followed full-time Arabic instruction
during five years in Moroccan primary schools. Likewise, following Arabic lessons only for a
couple of hours per week and only for seven to eight years is not enough to attain a thorough
productive knowledge of Modern Standard Arabic. Both the limited amount of language input
at home and the limited status and quality of Modern Standard Arabic instruction at schools in
the Netherlands can be viewed as major obstacles in attaining higher-level productive abilities
in the language under concern.
Furthermore it was important to note that the receptive and productive proficiency of
Moroccan children at Dutch schools in Modern Standard Arabic should not be qualified as
deficient in comparison to the reference group of children in Morocco. Any attempts to
evaluate their Arabic proficiency may lead to unrealistic conclusions if no account is taken of
the specific circumstances under which these children acquire the language at stake. The
language proficiency of Moroccan children in Modern Standard Arabic seemed to be hugely
complicated by the quality and quantity of Arabic language input available in classes of Arabic
at Dutch schools, at home and in the community at large. In classes of Arabic, the children
faced the most challenging task of learning a language (i.e., Modern Standard Arabic) for
which their teachers received little training. Their attempts to adjust the instruction of Modern
Standard Arabic according to the language proficiency levels of the children were very scarce
if not non-existent. Arabic was often taught in terms of a whole-group approach where children
generally felt passive in classes and contribute very little to classroom discussion. Similarly, for
a considerable number of children opportunities for practice were not commonly provided
because of the insufficiency of the time allotted for Arabic instruction and the teacher-centered
approach. Similarly, the use of childrens home languages (i.e., Amazigh or/and Moroccan
Arabic) to facilitate Arabic language input is very restricted. While class talk is made
predominantly in Modern Standard Arabic, Amazigh language, for example, is largely
neglected as a medium of instruction even in classes where Amazigh speaking children form
the majority. Such limited use of childrens actual home languages could possibly lead to
situations in which the communication between the Arabic teacher and the children becomes
impossible given the limited proficiency level in Modern Standard Arabic of the children. As
regards the appropriateness of teaching materials (i.e., Arabic textbooks), the problem
seemed greater. Arabic teachers generally made use of textbooks imported from Morocco, or
textbooks imported from other Arab countries. Such textbooks were reported to offer generally
no instructions to teachers regarding how to make best use of the reading materials. Little and
sometimes no attention was paid to fostering the development of linguistic and especially
communicative skills in Arabic; and the topics were often too formal or exalted. In fact, a
number of imported cultural topics were reported to stress the importance of moral values,
religion and patriotism. Moroccan children born in the Netherlands might find it difficult to
understand such concepts if they are far removed from their own experiences and
expectations. Thus these concepts might fail to support the childrens development of
language proficiency. Additionally, Arabic teachers use of the teaching materials and activities
related to teaching materials took relatively little time of the total amount of lesson time
available. As a result, children rarely had the opportunity to practice the language orally or
even in written form.
Also, Moroccan childrens out-of-school exposure to Modern Standard Arabic language
input was scarce. They rarely if ever had contact with Modern Standard Arabic within the
family. At home, Moroccan parents appeared unable to provide any model in Modern Standard

42
Arabic through tutoring; a fact that reduced considerably their control and intervention in their
childrens development of the language under concern. Within the network of linguistic
infrastructures, it seemed to be generally the case that a number of interesting conditions of
exposure were available at home, especially auditory and audio-visual media (i.e., TV, radio,
video-tapes and audio-tapes). Nevertheless, a limited Modern Standard Arabic input via
printed materials was reported in the home environment along with scant opportunities for
visits to public libraries and visits to Morocco.
It should be realized that the development of the potential of Moroccan children in Modern
Standard Arabic seemed to be complicated by the rather low status of Arabic in Dutch
elementary schools. This status, in turns, brings about a number of factors which were likely to
influence childrens motivation to acquire Modern Standard Arabic. Chief among these were
the divergent perceptions of the major actors regarding the fundamental motivations for
instruction in Arabic, which in turn lacked clearly defined objectives. Other factors like the
optional nature of Arabic classes, the problematic organization of Arabic lessons particularly in
relation to the core curriculum and Moroccan childrens perceived difficulty of Arabic classes
could be held responsible for the actual status of Arabic in Dutch schools. Again, contacts
between teachers of Arabic and Moroccan parents were reported to be not so frequent for a
number of reasons. Significant among these was parents little interest in taking contact with
the school and particularly teachers of Arabic, possibly due to their low level of awareness
about the effects of such contacts on their childrens school progress. Moroccan parents
reported considerable lack of time and opportunities for liaison with the Arabic class teacher
and to a lesser extent lack of information on the Arabic proficiency of their children. A
number of challenges were mentioned including the non-availability of appropriately trained
teachers and the absence of a clear vision with respect to the Arabic language provision in
Dutch elementary school. At a more practical level, there were problems of class organization
and finding space for Arabic in the curriculum. Such problems caused Moroccan children to
miss part of the main curriculum in spite of the school efforts to make adjustments, as some
school directors pointed out.
Saidi (2001) examined differences between mosque-schooled and non-mosque schooled
pupils with respect to proficiency in Modern Standard Arabic as well. To gain insight into the
effect of mosque schooling, the results of mosque-schooled and non-mosque schooled pupils
were compared. A t-test showed that the difference between mosque-schooled and non-
mosque-schooled pupils on the three tasks of Written Vocabulary, Syntax and Dictation was
not statistically significant. Viewed from the Pearsons correlational analysis point of view, the
pupils scores on Written Vocabulary, Syntax and Dictation tasks and mosque schooling
revealed no significant effect as well. Broadly speaking, the absence of a mosque-schooling
effect on the Modern Standard Arabic proficiency of mosque-schooled pupils was in
agreement with the research outcomes of Aarts, De Ruiter & Verhoeven (1993), showing the
absence of a significant effect of out-of-school Arabic instruction on the proficiency of
Moroccan pupils in Modern Standard Arabic. Both the findings of Aarts, De Ruiter & Verhoeven
(1993) and those of the Saidis study did not match Driessens (1990) findings that mosque
schooling positively influences Moroccan pupils proficiency in Modern Standard Arabic (1990).
In his research on the proficiency of Moroccan children in Modern Standard Arabic, Driessen
found that mosque-schooled children obtained a higher number of correctly completed items
compared to non-mosque-schooled pupils. Furthermore, mosque-schooled pupils judged their
own skills in Modern Standard Arabic more favorably than non-mosque-schooled pupils. The
absence of an effect of mosque schooling on the proficiency of Moroccan children in Modern
Standard Arabic in the Saidis study could be interpreted by the fact that mosque schooling in
the Netherlands emphasizes the priority of Islamic religious knowledge over linguistic
knowledge. This form of education was and still is mainly focused on giving the pupils the
opportunity to become members of the religious community of their parents (Shadid & Van
Koningsveld 1990).
The results of mosque schooling analysis contrasted also with the findings of the status
study with regard to the perceptions of Moroccan parents, their children and Arabic teachers of
mosque schooling. Moroccan parents and their children, especially those participating in
mosque schooling, shared almost the same positive views as regard the effects of Arabic

43
lessons given in mosques. Children, in particular, rated Arabic lessons in mosque schooling as
an interesting experience. In their perception, mosque schooling gave them a linguistic
advantage in terms of competence in Modern Standard Arabic over non-participant in classes
of Arabic in the mosque. The teachers were ambivalent. For some teachers, mosque
schooling reinforced the quantity of input of Modern Standard Arabic children receive in Dutch
schools. For some others, the effect of mosque schooling regarding the proficiency of children
in Modern Standard Arabic was not significant due to a number of limitations affecting the
quality of such a form of instruction, i.e., unqualified teachers of Arabic, poor teaching
conditions and traditional methods of teaching focusing on memorization.
Other studies on Moroccan children in the Netherlands that have been conducted involve
Moroccan Arabic and Amazigh, the spoken home languages of Moroccans. Broeder & Extra
(1994) undertook a study on (self)identification and home language use among 428 Moroccan
pupils from elementary schools. Among the languages used by them at home were Arabic
(33%), Amazigh (28%), Arabic plus Amazigh (8%), Moroccan not identified as either
Amazigh or Moroccan Arabic 28%, or Dutch only (3%). Here again in interaction with the
parents, the children used Dutch the least and in interaction with older brothers and sisters the
most. In a self-judgment task (Broeder & Extra 1994), grade 7 and 8 pupils judged their
proficiency in Arabic or Amazigh with 3 on a scale that runs from 1 (no proficiency) to 5
(excellent proficiency). In an oral receptive vocabulary task the average correct score of the
Arabophone children was 75% in the mother tongue and 87% in Dutch. Moreover, high skills
of children in the mother tongue correlated strongly with high skills in the second language. In
a follow-up study, Broeder & Extra (1998) reported on the status and use of Arabic in
elementary education. The language profile for Arabic consisted of five different dimensions in
terms of home language repertoire, language proficiency, language choice, language
dominance and language preference. The Arabic language group consisted of 803 pupils,
mainly second generation children. As far as the home language repertoire was concerned, for
582 children (73%) Arabic was the only home language. For 152 children (19%), in addition to
Arabic, Amazigh was also used at home. Regarding proficiency in Arabic, almost all of 803
pupils in the Arabic language group said that they understand (731 children, 94%) and speak
(701 children, 96%) Arabic. With respect to written Arabic language proficiency, the
percentages were much lower: for reading, 40% (298 children) and for writing, 42% (309
children). As for language choice patterns within the family, most children said that they spoke
Arabic always or often with their parents: 459 children (60%) with their mother and 455
children (60%) with their father. With their younger as well as their older brothers/sisters, most
children always or often spoke Dutch (306 children 66% and 418 children 54% respectively).
As regard language dominance, the children in the youngest grades said that Arabic is the
language they speak best (in grades 1/2, 90 children 61%). On the other hand, the older pupils
(grades 3/4, 5/6, 7/8) indicated that their best language was Dutch (106 children, 52%; 102
children, 62% and 114 children, 70% respectively). As for language preference, preference for
Arabic was found at a younger age (grades 1/2, 71 children, 52%; grades 3/4, 102 children,
62%). At a later age a shift in preference towards Dutch could be observed (grades 5/6, 99
children, 57%; grades 7/8, 103 children, 62%). In a longitudinal study on bilingual Moroccan
children in the age range of 4 to 11 years (Moroccan Arabic-Dutch), Bos (1997) investigated
the development of their L1 and L2. She found that the children are dominant in their mother
tongue until the age of 8, after which dominance shifts towards Dutch. In receptive tasks, the
Moroccan children seemed to emerge as balanced bilinguals. In productive tasks they had a
less sophisticated mastery of narrative skills (especially in the use of cohesive devices) than
their monolingual Dutch and Moroccan peers. This lack of mastery was statistically evidenced
for both Dutch and Moroccan Arabic. Bos made a plea for linguistic support of the home
languages (Amazigh and/or Moroccan Arabic) in schools in order to provide the children with a
stronger basis for the acquisition of Dutch.
In his study of language loss among Moroccan youngsters in the Netherlands, El Aissati
(1996) asked 25 second-generation adolescents about their language proficiency and
language use patterns with parents, siblings and friends. The reported proficiency of these
adolescents was lower for Moroccan Arabic than the one reported for Dutch. On a five-point
scale, they reported a mean score of 3.9 for speaking and 4.1 for listening comprehension in

44
Moroccan Arabic, while for Dutch these means were 4.7 and 4.8 respectively. A t-test on the
difference between the reported means for Moroccan Arabic and Dutch revealed a difference
that is significant at the .01 level. These results supported the observation that the informants
felt that they were more proficient in Dutch than in Moroccan Arabic. Regarding their patterns
of language use, the Moroccan adolescents reported that they used Moroccan Arabic more
than 80% of the time in interaction with parents, while with their siblings and friends, the use of
Dutch was much more frequent. In addition to language use within the family and with friends,
informants were also asked to report on how often they think they use Moroccan Arabic and
Dutch in general, that is, regardless of context and interlocutors. Their answers indicated that
on average they spoke Moroccan Arabic for 38% of the time and Dutch for 62%. El Aissati
found that the adolescents used more Dutch than Moroccan Arabic in their everyday verbal
interactions, especially in those situations in which their parents were not included, such as in
contacts with siblings and friends. The language proficiency of these adolescents was also
found to be higher in Dutch than in Moroccan Arabic. El Aissati concluded that the higher
proficiency of second generation Moroccan adolescents in Dutch as compared to Moroccan
Arabic was concomitant with a restriction on domains of language use characteristic of
minority languages undergoing a process of language shift.
Aspects of proficiency in Moroccan Arabic were tackled as well in the context of some code
switching studies. Both Nortier (1989) and Boumans (1998) measured the proficiency in
Moroccan Arabic and Dutch of adult informants participating in their research. The results
indicated various levels of proficiency in Moroccan Arabic and Dutch. Modern Standard Arabic
though was not included in these studies.

3.4 Teaching Arabic: best practices and methods developed in the Netherlands

Best practices
Nielsen discusses in an article in the Encyclopaedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics
(2009) the state of the art of Arabic taught as a second language. She puts forward the fact
that academic language teaching of Arabic in Europe still suffers from the consequences of its
philological past. Arabic has been taught in European universities since the Middle Ages in the
context of Biblical Studies and later for its being the language of the Koran and of Islam. In the
nineteenth century Arabic and Islamic studies served what would later be called Orientalism,
the strongly romanticized image of the Arabic Islamic world, serving though a tough policy of
world imperialism by the Western powers. The remnants of the classical philological teaching
of Arabic can still be felt in European universities. It consisted of a reading text approach. Idea
was that students were supposed to acquire the Arabic alphabet, start reading, learning
grammar and vocabulary and at the end of this process they were able to read classical Arabic
texts but no more than that. There was no question of learning to communicate orally in the
language. If students were at all interested in that aspect of Arabic language teaching, it was
left to their own initiatives to develop those skills. Now learning to read and write a language
and learning to speak and understand it, are two different worlds, and in the case of Arabic
even more as there are great differences between the standard form of Arabic and the
numerous dialect that were, at the time, hardly codified and suffered from a low prestige in the
eyes of their speakers and the Western learners.
Nevertheless the need was felt to start learning the oral varieties of Arabic as well.
Awkwardly this had everything to do with the political situation of the post WWII era. The Cold
War increased the Wests interest in the oil rich Arab countries that recuperated their
independence after WWII. And it was in particular the US military that took the initiative to
develop methods of learning to speak the diverse Arabic colloquials. In 1947 the American
Army Language School started teaching Arabic and later this school would merge with the
language school of the US Navy into the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California
which still exists. The American example was followed by the British who opened the Middle
East Centre for Arab Studies, MECAS, in Shemlan, Lebanon (which was closed in 1967).
American universities opened programmes of Arabic including the traditional writing and
reading approach combined with the oral approach and this example was again followed by
British universities and eventually, but still very slowly, by other European universities. Even

45
today not all European universities propose integrated programmes of Arabic and stick to the
traditional model. The oral language approach was also applied in newly established language
schools in the Arab world such as the Institut Bourguiba in Tunis in the mid seventies, the
International Language Institute in Cairo in 1977 and others in Syria and Morocco. Today in
virtually every Arab country institutes exist where courses in the spoken dialect(s) of the
country are offered.
Now there has been a debate on the meaning of communication in Arabic language
teaching. Initially by communication oral communication was meant, implying that students
had to develop oral skills in order to understand and speak the language of their choice. But in
the Applied Linguistic discipline communication came to mean something broader.
Communication includes all four language skills, speaking, listening, reading and writing. It
was this definition that gained ground and that would form the basis for new methods to be
developed for Arabic language learning. When in the eighties of the last century the
awareness of what communication implies grew, new initiatives were developed of Arabic
language learning. According to Nielsen (2009) two questions were central in this point: what
were the students supposed to master, i.e., what language skills and in the second place
which language varieties were they to acquire in a language with a considerable difference
between the written and the spoken language. Nielsen describes the developments in the
eighties in this respect. We limit ourselves to the observation that the two questions asked are
still relevant in Arabic language teaching today. Different goals were set at that time,
dependent on country and university, but as for the first question the ERFS presents the
options in the broadest and smallest sense and as we recommend using the ERFS in the
development of Arabic language teaching materials, we will not go into the developments and
history of this part of the problem.
More interesting and still relevant in present day teaching of Arabic is the discussion on
Modern Standard Arabic vs. the colloquials. How is a language method going to solve the
problem of teaching a language which distinguishes really very much different varieties of one
language in which the written form is standardized and recognized by its users and learners
while there are many colloquial forms of the oral variety? Nielsen goes into this complicated
question and states that three factors have to be taken into consideration. A communicative
Arabic curriculum should consider (1) the sociolinguistic situation of Arabic, consisting in a
written and a spoken variety and the consequences of this context. Further, there are
pedagogical considerations (2) as to the learnability of Arabic so that it does not create
unnecessary difficulties for the learner. Finally, (3) there is the learners motivation; the learner
has to see the relevance of the way the teaching is organized, according to Nielsen (p. 151).
Now, these criteria are true and relevant but especially the first one is difficult to operationalize
or as Nielsen states: Problems arise, however, when the four skills are to be integrated in the
acquisition process, because learners will have to deal with two varieties of Arabic, which
overlap in certain fields, but are distinctly different in others. The solution is as simple as can
be. The first option is to offer the written variety first to students followed later by the spoken
variety; the second option is to offer both of them simultaneously and then she discerns a third
option in which the learner learns all four skills in Modern Standard Arabic, but this option
violates the first criterion mentioned above for a good practice curriculum of Arabic in which
the two varieties should be offered, thus reflecting the sociolinguistic reality in the Arab world.
It seems odd that Nielsen mentions this third option but there are indeed institutes that
propagate speaking in Standard Arabic. It is though not that strange as many Arab countries
strive to arabicize their nation in that sense that Standard Arabic should replace the colloquial
as daily language of communication. Morocco and Tunisia are cases in point. With the
developing rates of literacy in the Arab world and the current media possibilities like internet,
Standard Arabic is today more represented in the Arabs than it was before. At the same time,
and this goes well with the anti globalist movement, there are currents and initiatives for the
development and sustenaince of the Arabic dialects, which are considered bearers of local
Arabic culture. In Morocco, Darija is playing an important role in the local music and poetry
scenes (Caubet 2004). It goes without saying that if a learner wants to acquire Arabic he has
no choice as to acquire two varieties of one language. The choice he has to make is only what
variety of Arabic when it comes to the colloquial variety and the question as to how he should

46
do this remains unsolved. There have been initiatives to develop integrated curricula such as
the course of Woidich & Heinen-Nasr (2004) with a strong focus on the written language but at
the same time offering double vocabulary, in Standard Arabic and in colloquial (in this case
Egyptian) and a CD ROM with texts both in Standard and in the local variety of Egypt. Al
Kitaab fii ta
c
allum al
c
arabiyya (Brustad, al Batal & al Tunsi 1999) is a method that adopts this
same methodology and it is quite successful. In both methods though the majority of texts are
on the written language and the colloquial receives only a limited measure of attention.
Nielsen indicates a bit too simple that the internet and modern multi media offer new ranges of
possibilities of offering integrated course of Arabic and indeed in surfing on the internet we
discover promising new courses but at close sight they seem less valuable. The right choice of
how to teach Arabic with its formal and informal varieties will probably never be justified in a
convincing way and each individual, pupil, teacher, curriculum developer, will have to consider
his own arguments and goals.

Arabic language teaching materials developed in the Netherlands
Despite the fact that Dutch politics have always been very critical on the issue of Arabic (and
other languages) HLI, they regularly subsidized initiatives to develop teaching materials. In the
following the materials are presented that have been developed the last decade and that are
still in use in the scarce (secondary) schools in the Netherlands that offer Modern Standard
Arabic lessons.

An Arabic teaching course as developed by the CPS. The Christelijk Pedagogisch
Studiecentrum (Christian Pedagogical Study Centre) has developed a course of Arabic for
pupils in secondary education, called Stap voor Stap (Step by step). It starts from scratch and
ends following the CEFRL on level A2. The method consists of four levels, each consisting on
its turn in a work book and text book. The method is particularly popular in Dutch secondary
schools. For more information, see:
http://www.cps.nl/nl/Diensten/Publicaties/Publicaties-Zoeken/Publicatie.html?pid=32261
Parts of this method have been edited in an Italian version in the context of the Plusvalor
project (see www.plusvalor.eu).

Dictionaries Arabic-Dutch-Arabic by Bulaaq publishers. The Dutch Ministry of Education has
financed through the Dutch Language Union, the development of two versions of Dutch-Arabic
and Arabic-Dutch dictionaries. The first version is a smaller volume and destined for pupils in
secondary education and the second version is much bigger and matches similar dictionaries
such as English-Dutch and Dutch-English. More information on these dictionaries can be
found on the website of the publisher, Bulaaq in Amsterdam:
http://www.bulaaq.nl/zoeken.php?searchFor=tbl_product_name&s_keyword=woordenboek

An Arabic grammar as developed by the Den Haag pedagogical center. This grammar
describes the rules of Arabic from a modern western perspective while referring also to the
traditional Arabic terms. The language of instruction is Dutch and the grammar can be used in
combination with the CPS method for Arabic (see above), Stap voor Stap. The grammar was
developed among others by two of the authors of the present booklet (Richters, De Ruiter &
Saidi). There is no specific website on this grammar.

The Arabic language testing service of the Citogroep in the Netherlands. The Citogroep in
Arnhem, The Netherlands, is responsible for the development of the national exams in all
subjects presented in secondary education. Since around 15 years the Citogroep also
develops final exams for Standard Arabic. The Citogroep has reached a very high level and
expertise in this field and interested people, even from the Arab world contact the group in
order to learn from them or work with them. The internet addresses are:
http://www.cito.com/about_cito/cito-offices/cito_usa.aspx and: http://www.citogroep.nl/

47
Summary in Arabic

--,- --'- =--

,''--,'- -- -+, PLUSVALOR ) -=' ,-`- ,,-- ,- .= - ,'' --' ( '-- , -'
=-,' ,'' --' ,'- .,-- _' --', ',-'- =-' ',''=, - . ,-,'- '--,- -
-,'-' . -' -''-' -'-' -='- -=,' '' -- ' ',,= -- --- . '----' ,'-` ''' --'=-
-= ,='+- -=,-, -,= --', ',''=,` ---''- '-' , '- =+' -,-' =,-- -,-= '' '- -=--
' ---'= .,- - ,= '=,-=-- -=` ,-' '''- ,-='- -= --- -'= --' -' --,-' '-
,-' '- . '-`' '''- '-- -= '-- '`- ,-''=' '-' . , ',-' - -,-' ,-'
''-'' : '--' --, - -,' ,--' -' '' -= '--- -'=- _--=-' -,=' . , '-
= --' '--, ,='+-' '' ','` '' ,'-= -' - '- - , ` -= -'=- ` _-
'--' ,-=--'' ---''- '-,-` '+-,--- . -'` -'- --'-' '' ,= = ' -,-' ,-=-, ,-' '-=`'
'' ,-=-, -,= ',-'-`-- '- ,+=,, = '' ' ,-=-, '-, '-'' _- -,-' `
---' . ' ,'' `' -+' -=---' -,-' '== ,-, = `,- =,- '-,=' -=-- - _'= '--
'---=`'- ,-=, -= ---, ` +-'+- +-'-' _' '- '-=`' _---, -,-=' +-'= : --
,''--,'- -- -' =--''- .

'-' _-'--' ,,--',+' '-' = - ,-=- -= - --' - '= : ', ', ,-
-,-' ,- ,- -,-- '- ,- - . - ',,= -=- _'= ,-, ,`='-' `, ,--' -,
-,'-' '=-' ,--' -- ,-=- -=-- - ,,'' . .-- --', _'= ,-' , --' - ,''
,-' '' ,'-- ='=` , .

'--` ','` '' ,-- '= -'-' -' - ',-,--' ',-,--' ,-- --- --', -= --'
,='+-' . =' -- .- -- -= -- .- - '-=`' ,-''- ,-='-' _'= =- ---, ' -
-` ,-- ''=, -'-- .- - _-= .- - .- - '-=` .--,' . --' '--' ',''=, ',-'--
' -' - ,,' '-=-- ,= ,='+-' --- ,='+-'' '----- .

- ,='+-' '--` '' ,'- -'=- ,--',+' ,-,'-' -',-'' '--' ,--' --` _- .-- =-' -,
,-=' = _'= ,-' '' . ,='+-' '-= ' -,-=' ,-'` ,-- ,'= _' -'-' -' ',-,--
'- ,-'-, ----` ,'-'' ,--' --' .= ,'-` +-'' . ,'-' - ,-' - '-- = - _-
-= .'-- . '- ,--` `= ,'-` ''' -- , -- --' -' '='-' -= '-- ,--' - _-
=---' --' -=' '= '-,- '-, -- -=-- . ,-' _'= ' ,--' _'--' .= '- '+' '
,-'=-' . ,'= -- -''= '- ','--' - -,-' _- . -' ,--',+' ,,'' '+-' '`-' .,-- _'
`-' _- .-,-'' '--'= .-, ' -' -' ,---' -,-- =` ''' ,-' ,-' -'-
,,--',+' ---' .= . '+-'= -, -' --' -,= --'--' ,--' -- _'-- '--- '-- '- ' '-
-'--' .-=' , ,, -' =+' ',- '--=` ,- -='- ' '+-,' --'-- --- ' ,'-` -'-' - . '-
= - -- -, _- _=- - ' -' -- ,,--',+' ,-'-' . .-- ,= -- ,=` =--' --
,'-` ''-`' ''' ,-- . ''-'' _'-' ,-' _-- _- -= , ,--' ='- `= : - ,'
- .- -'-' - +'----- '- '+-'-- ,--',+' '' _'= ,-' ,='+-' '-=` .-` '' _'= '+',--
----- ',' =' - ,'-' - ,-' - '' ,--',+' -,=' '=-' =' ,-,'-` '-`'
2004 . '=- '= -='--' - -'= ,'- ,- _=- =-- -' -- '- -,' =' ---
,'-' ,-,--- .

` - '--, ,'-' - ,-' - ,= -=' - -- -' --' ''--' . _-,- .-- -- .
''' ,'- _-'-- - -,---- =,-=- - '+- ,-='-' '-=` , _' _=, ,-' '' '-- ---
=-' -- '+- --' -' -='--' '- ,-,'-` ''-`' .-- '-, --' '--' '- '- =,-
=` '=,-=-' -' ='- .


48
,-' '' ,-- .= - --', '-= - -' ,--' -- _'-- '-, ,-=-' - '--, '- . _'=
,''= ,= ,= '-- - -= - '- ,---' - . '` -=- _' ,-'`' ,'-' - _'
=' ,-=' `=' .' - ,-' ,-' '' ,-- -, - '--,, . =-- ,-- ,--',+' -,=' '-
,-,-' -= ,--' _'-- ,,=- ,'-= .,,--- =' '--' -- .

-- ,- _'= _,-' -, ----- .-- ,,,= - -` ',-' ,='+-' '--` ,-' '' ,
,-` '-' .= ,-' '' . ',- .= =-' =+'' _- _=--' '' `= ,= , ,--- -, '-
,'-' . +' - .= '=, --' - - -`=' ,,--' ' -=` =-' - '- '` - . _,'
'=+' '- -=,- ,= _=--' ,-' '' -= . '- -=,, ' ,- ,- -= _'= ,-'' '-'
-,-= . -'-' _-= =, -,-=-''- ,-' - ' _+-- ,--' ,- ,- ,,-' -, -,
'+- ,-' .

- _-'-- -- =- _=--' ,-' '' ' ,-' -= ,,=- '-- - ,''--,' . -' --
--'` ,''--,'- _,- -= ,-- '-, ,-- . ,-= -=- +=, -' - -,='- - -' .,'-' :
Teaching Minority Languages: the case of Arabic in Europe
-, '- ,''--,'- _,- -= ',-=- '-, :
/ eu . plusvalor . www :// http


49
References

Aarssen, J., J.J. de Ruiter & L. Verhoeven (1992). Toetsing Turks en Arabisch aan het einde van
het basisonderwijs. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.
Aarssen, J., J.J. de Ruiter & L. Verhoeven (1993). Summative assessment of ethnic group
language proficiency. In: G. Extra & L. Verhoeven (red.), Immigrant languages in Europe.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 159-179.
Aarts, R., & J.J. de Ruiter (1998). Handleiding (in het Duits, Engels, Spaans, Frans, Koerdisch,
Nederlands, Tarifit, Turks en Arabisch) bij de serie 'Mijn eigen Taal'. Tilburg: Tilburg University
Press, Syntax Datura. (Mijn eigen Taal, 1).
Aarts, R., J.J. de Ruiter & L. Verhoeven (1993). Tweetaligheid en schoolsucces. Studies in
Meertaligheid, 4. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.
Abu-Haidar, F. & P. Bos (1998, 2000a, 2000b). L-lugha dyl-i (My own language. Moroccan Arabic
for primary education), Texts 1, 2; Excercises 2 (with tapes). Tilburg/Oisterwijk: Syntax
Datura/Dutch University Press.
Akinci, M.-A, J.J. de Ruiter & F. Sanagustin (2004). Le plurilinguisme Lyon. Le statut des langues
la maison et lcole. Paris: LHarmattan.
Basfao, K. & H. Taarji (eds.) (1994). Lannuaire de lmigration. Maroc. Rabat: Ministre de
lmigration.
Benjelloun, S. (1998a, 1998b, 2000a, 2000b). L-lugha dyl-i (My own language. Moroccan Arabic
for secondary education) Guide, 1, 2; Texts 1, 2 (with tapes). Tilburg/Oisterwijk: Syntax
Datura/Dutch University Press.
Benjelloun, S., P. Bos & J.J. de Ruiter (2001). L-lugha dyl-i (My own language. Moroccan Arabic
for primary education), 3. Tilburg/Oisterwijk: Babylon/Dutch University Press.
Bezemer, J. (2003). Dealing with multilingualism in education. A case study of a Dutch primary
school classroom. Amsterdam: Aksant.
Bos, P. (1997). Development of bilingualism. A study on Moroccan children living in the
Netherlands. Studies in Multilingualism, 8. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.
Boumans, L. (1998). The syntax of codeswitching. Analysing Moroccan Arabic/Dutch
conversations. Studies in Multilingualism, 12. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.
Boumans, L. & J.J. de Ruiter (2002). Moroccan Arabic in the European diaspora. In: A. Rouchdy
(ed.), Language contact and language conflict phenomena in Arabic: a variation on a
sociolinguistic theme. Londen: Routledge Curzon, 259-285.
Broeder, P. (1992). Talking about people. A multiple case study on language acquisition.
Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger
Broeder en Extra (1994). Minority languages at Dutch elementary schools: Empirical data and
policy. Journal of intercultural studies, 15(2), 53-71.
Broeder, P., & Extra, G. (1996). Minderheidsgroepen en minderheidstalen in vergelijkend
perspectief. Gramma/TTT, 5(2), 77-97
Broeder, P. & G. Extra (1998). Language, ethnicity and education. Case studies on immigrant
minority groups and immigrant minority languages. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Broeder, P. & L. Mijares (2003). Plurilingismo en Madrid: Las lenguas de los alumnos de origen
inmigrante en primeria. Madrid: Centro de Investigacin y Documentacin Educativa.
Broeder, P., S. Geertsema & R. Gerritsen (1997). Kijk op OALT vanuit de praktijk. Onderwijs in
Allochtone Levende Talen volgens OET-leerkrachten en basisschooldirecteuren. Utrecht:
Algemene Onderwijsbond.
Brustad, K., M. al Batal & A. al Tunsi (1999). Al Kitaab fii ta
c
allum al
c
arabiyya. Georgetown:
University Press.
CALO (Commissie Allochtone Leerlingen in het Onderwijs) (1992). Ceders in de tuin. Naar een
nieuwe opzet van het onderwijsbeleid voor allochtone leerlingen. Rapportage van de
Commissie Allochtone Leerlingen in het Onderwijs. Deel n. Den Haag: Ministerie van
Onderwijs en Wetenschappen.
Caubet, D. (2001). Maghrebine Arabic in France. In: G. Extra & D. Gorter (eds.), The other
languages in Europe. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 261-277.
Caubet, D. (2004). Les mots du bled. Cration contemporaine en langues maternelles, les artistes
ont la parole. Paris: LHarmattan, 261-277.
Caubet, D., S. Chaker & J. Sibille (2002). Codification des langues de France. Paris: LHarmattan.
CBS (2004). Allochtonen in Nederland 2004. Voorburg/Heerlen: Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek.

50
De Jong, M., A. de Mol & Oirbans, P. (1988). Zoveel talen zoveel zinnen. De behoefte aan lessen
eigen taal in het voorgezet onderwijs. Rotterdam: Erasmus Universiteit. Deze is ook goed.
De Ruiter, J.J. (1989). Young Moroccans in the Netherlands: an integral approach to their language
situation and acquisition of Dutch. Rijksuniversiteit Utrecht: dissertatie.
De Ruiter, J.J. (1997). Position of Moroccan berberophone and arabophone pupils between Arabic
and French, in: Cahiers du Centre dEtudes sur les Mouvements Migratoires Maghrbins.
Oujda: Rectorat de lUniversit Mohammed I
er
, 5, 139-162.
De Ruiter, J.J. (2000). The position of muslim migrants in the European Union: emancipation or
marginalization?, in: Cambridge Review of International Affairs, XII, 2, 254-266.
De Ruiter, J.J. (2006). Europe. In: K. Versteegh (ed.), Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and
Linguistics, II, 72-79. Leiden/Boston: Brill Academic Publishers.
Diephuis, R., M. Hajer, Th. Meestringa & H. Mulder (1993). Kerndoelen Arabisch in het
basisonderwijs en de eerste fase van het voortgezet onderwijs. Advies van het Instituut voor
Leerplanontwikkeling SLO aan de ABOP. Enschede: SLO Instituut voor Leerplanontwikkeling
(SLO).
Driessen, G. (1990). De onderwijspositie van allochtone leerlingen. De rol van sociaal-economische
en etnisch-culturele factoren, met speciale aandacht voor het Onderwijs in Eigen Taal en
Cultuur. Nijmegen: ITS.
Driessen, G., P. Jungbluth & J. Louvenberg (1988). Onderwijs in eigen taal en cultuur:
doelopvattingen, leerkrachten, leermiddelen en omvang. Den Haag: SVO.
Droop, M. (1999). Effects of linguistic and cultural diversity on the development of reading
comprehension: A comparative study of Dutch, Turkish, and Moroccan children living in the
Netherlands. Zeist, The Netherlands: AD Druk.
Dumas, F. & A. Laamiri, (1997). Jamal et logresse (CD-ROM). Paris: Institut du monde arabe.
El Aissati, A. (1996). Sentence processing and Language shift: the case of Moroccan Arabic in The
Netherlands. In: M. Putz (ed.), Language choices? Conditions, Constraints and
Consequences. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 62-77.
El Aissati, A. (1997). Language loss among native speakers of Moroccan-Arabic in the
Netherlands. Studies in Multilingualism, 6. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.
EuroStat (1997). Migration statistics 1996. Statistical document 3A. Luxembourg: EuroStat.
Eurydice (2006). The education system in The Netherlands 2006. Den Haag: Ministerie van
Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschappen.
Extra, G. & D. Gorter (eds.) (2001). The other languages of Europe. Demographic, sociolinguistic
and educational perspectives. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Extra, G. & L. Verhoeven (eds.) (1993). Immigrant languages in Europe. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Extra, G. & K. Yamur (eds.) (2004). Urban multilingualism in Europe. Immigrant minority
languages at home and school. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Extra, G. & K. Yamur (2006). Immigrant minority languages at home and at school: A case study
of the Netherlands. European Education, 38 (2), 50-63.
Extra, G., R. Aarts, T. van der Avoird, P. Broeder & K. Yamur (2002). De andere talen van
Nederland thuis en op school. Bussum: Coutinho.
Franz, A. & L. Mijares (1999). Lengua y cultura de origen: nios marroques en la escuela
espaola. Madrid: Ediciones del Oriente y del Mediterrneo.
Frstenau, S., I. Gogolin & K. Yamur (2003). Mehrsprachigkeit in Hamburg. Ergebnisse einer
Spracherhebung an den Grundschulen in Hamburg. Mnster: Waxmann.
Kerndoelen (1998). Besluit kerndoelen basisonderwijs. Staatsblad, 1998-354. s-Gravenhage: SDU
Uitgeverij.
Kloprogge, J. (1992). Onderwijsbeleid voor minderheden; een queeste naar doelen, middelen en
effecten. In: CALO (Commissie Allochtone Leerlingen in het Onderwijs), Ceders in de tuin.
Voorstudies naar een nieuwe opzet van het onderwijsbeleid voor allochtone leerlingen.
Rapportage van de Commissie Allochtone Leerlingen in het Onderwijs. Deel twee. Den Haag:
Ministerie van Onderwijs en Wetenschappen, 1-30.
Kroon, S. & J. Sturm (2003). Eigen taal: een gebruiksanalyse in een begripshistorische context in
taalbeleidsdocumenten met betrekking tot het onderwijs aan allochtone leerlingen in
Nederland vanaf 1970. In: T. Koole, J. Nortier & B. Tahitu (red.), Artikelen van de Vierde
Sociolingustische Conferentie. Delft: Eburon, 245-257.

51
Kroon, S. & T. Vallen (1994). Multilingualism and education: An overview of language and
education policies for ethnic minorities in the Netherlands. Current Issues in Language &
Society, 1 (2), 103-129.
LBK-GOA (1997a). Landelijk Beleidskader Gemeentelijk Onderwijsachterstandbeleid 1998-2002.
Staatsblad, 1997-237. s-Gravenhage: SDU Uitgeverij.
LBK-GOA (1997b). Landelijk Beleidskader Gemeentelijk Onderwijsachterstandbeleid 1998-2002.
Staatsblad, 1997-431. s-Gravenhage: SDU Uitgeverij.
Leeman, Y. (1994). Samen jong: Nederlandse jongeren en lessen over interetnisch samenleven en
discriminatie. Utrecht: Van Arkel.
Lpez Garca, B. (dir.) (1996). Atlas de la inmigracin magreb en Espaa. Madrid: Universidad
Autnoma de Madrid.
Lpez Garca, B. & L. Mijares (2001). Moroccan children and Arabic in Spanish schools. In: G.
Extra & D. Gorter (eds.), The other languages in Europe. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 279-
292.
Lucassen, J. & R. Penninx (1994). Nieuwkomers, nakomelingen, Nederlanders. Immigranten in
Nederland 1550-1993. Amsterdam, Het Spinhuis.
Lucassen, L. & Kbben, A. (1992). Het partile gelijk. Controverses over het onderwijs in de eigen
taal en cultuur en de rol daarbij van beleid en wetenschap (1951-1991). Amsterdam: Swets &
Zeilinger.
Maas, U. & U. Mehlem (2003). Schriftkulturelle Ressourcen und Barrieren bei marrokanischen
Kindern in Deutschland. Universitt Osnabruck: Institut fr Migrationsforschung und
Interkulturelle Studien.
Maas, U., U. Mehlem & Chr. Schrder (2004). Mehrsprachigkeit und Mehrschriftigkeit bei
Einwanderern in Deutschland. In: K.J. Bade, M. Bommes & R. Mnz (eds.), Migrations-report
2004. Fakten Analysen Perspektiven. Fr den Rat fr Migration. Frankfurt am Main/New
York: Campus.
Mehlem, U. (1998). Zweisprachigkeit marokkanischer Kinder in Deutschland. Frankfurt am Main:
Peter Lang Verlag.
Ministerie van OCW (Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschappen) (1981). Beleidsplan culturele
minderheden in het onderwijs. s-Gravenhage: Staatsdrukkerij.
Ministerie van OCW (Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschappen) (1988). Uitvoeringsnotitie Nederlands
als tweede taal (NT2). Voorstel t.b.v. de besteding van 5 miljoen. Unpublished paper.
Ministerie van OCW, 21 November 1988.
Ministerie van OCW (Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschappen) (1991). Eigen taal als onderdeel van
gentegreerd talenonderwijs. Beleidsnotitie. s-Gravenhage: Ministerie van OCW.
Ministerie van OCW (Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschappen) (1994). Uitwerkingsnotitie Nederlands
als tweede taal. Unpublished paper. Ministerie van OCW, PO/B-94014119.
Ministerie van OCW (Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschappen) (1995). Uitwerkingsnotitie onderwijs
in allochtone levende talen. Unpublished paper. Ministerie van OCW, PO/B-95017118.
Ministerie van OCW (Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschappen) (2000). Regeling voor- en
vroegschoolse educatie (VVE). Uitleg/Gele Katern, 24, 11-18.
Netelenbos, T. (1995). Uitwerkingsnotitie onderwijs in allochtonen levende talen. Zoetermeer:
Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschappen.
Nielsen, H.L. (2009). Second language teaching. In: K. Versteegh et al. (eds.), Encyclopaedia of
Arabic Language and Linguistics. Leiden-Boston: Brill, 146-156.
Nouaouri Izrelli, N. H. (2001). Escolares marroques en la provincia de Cdiz: algunos rasgos de
su perfil sociolingstico. BIBLID, 8-9, 163-192.
Nouaouri Izrelli, N.H. (to be published). The acquisition of temporality in bilingual children's
discourse. PhD Thesis.
Nygren-Junkin, L. & G. Extra (2003). Multilingualism in Gteborg. The status of immigrant minority
languages at home and at school. Amsterdam: European Cultural Foundation.
Obdeijn, H. & J.J. de Ruiter (red.) (1998). Le Maroc au coeur de lEurope. LEnseignement de la
langue et culture dorigine (ELCO) aux lves marocains dans cinq pays europens. Tilburg:
Tilburg University Press, Syntax Datura.
Onderwijsraad (2001). Samen naar de Taalschool. Nieuwe moderne vreemde talen in perspectief.
Advies uitgebracht aan de staatssecretaris van OCW. Den Haag: Onderwijsraad.
Onderwijsraad (2002). Vaste grond onder de voeten. Een verkenning inzake artikel 23 Grondwet.
Den Haag: Onderwijsraad.

52
Otten, R.Th. & J.J. de Ruiter (1991). De Marokkanen. In: J.J. de Ruiter (red.), Talen in Nederland:
een beschrijving van de taalsituatie van negen etnische groepen. Groningen: Wolters-
Noordhoff, 91-128.
Pels, D. (2004). Progressief Manifest, Trouw, 10 Jan, p. 10.
Richters, J., J.J. de Ruiter & R. Saidi (2003). Letters, woorden en zinnen in het Arabisch. Een
opzoekgrammatica Arabisch voor het Voortgezet Onderwijs. Den Haag: Haags Centrum voor
Onderwijsbegeleiding/Stichting School en Bedrijf.
Saharso, S. (1985), De tweede generatie: (voor eeuwig) verloren tussen twee culturen?,
Psychologie en Maatschappij, 9(3), pp. 371-385.
Saharso, S. (1992). Jan en alleman. Etnische jeugd over etnische identiteit, discriminatie en
vriendschap. Utrecht: Van Arkel.
Saidi, R. (2001). Modern Standard Arabic Instruction for Moroccan pupils in elementary schools in
the Netherlands: A study on proficiency, status and input. Tilburg: PhD thesis.
Scheffer, P. (2000). Het multiculturele drama. NRC Handelsblad, 29.1.2000.
Shadid & Van Koningsveld (1990). Vooroordelen, onbegrip en paternalisme: discussies over de
islam in Nederland. Utrecht : Ploeg.
Spotti, M. (2007). Developing identities: Identity construction in multicultural primary classrooms in
the Netherlands and Flanders. Amsterdam: Aksant.
Strategisch Akkoord (2002). Tweede Kamer, vergaderjaar 20012002, 28 375, nr. 5.
Tilmatine, M. (ed.) (1997). Enseignement des langues dorigine et immigration nord-africaine en
Europe: Langue maternelle ou langue dEtat? Paris: INALCO/CEDREA-CRB.
TK (Tweede Kamer der Staten Generaal) (1969/1970). Nota buitenlandse werknemers. 10 504, nr.
2. s-Gravenhage: Staatsuitgeverij.
TK (Tweede Kamer der Staten Generaal) (1973/1974). Beleidsplan voor het onderwijs aan groepen
in achterstandssituaties. Maatregelen tot uitvoering van het onderwijsstimuleringsbeleid. 10
504, nr. 9. s-Gravenhage: Staatsuitgeverij.
TK (Tweede Kamer der Staten Generaal) (1982/1983). Minderheidennota. 10 504, nr. 21. s-
Gravenhage: Staatsuitgeverij.
TK (Tweede Kamer der Staten Generaal) (1983/1984). Onderwijs in eigen taal en cultuur. 16 825,
nr. 5. s-Gravenhage: Staatsuitgeverij.
TK (Tweede Kamer der Staten Generaal) (1984/1985). Onderwijsvoorrangsplan 1985-1989. 18
828, nr. 1-2. s-Gravenhage: Staatsuitgeverij.
TK (Tweede Kamer der Staten Generaal) (1985/1986). Notitie intercultureel onderwijs 1985. 18
701, nr. 4. s-Gravenhage: Staatsuitgeverij.
TK (Tweede Kamer der Staten Generaal) (1993/1994). Naar meer schoolsucces voor allochtone en
autochtone leerlingen. 23 447, nr. 1. s-Gravenhage: Staatsuitgeverij.
TK (Tweede Kamer der Staten Generaal) (1999/2000). Aan de slag met onderwijskansen. 27 020,
nr. 14. s-Gravenhage: Staatsuitgeverij.
Turkenburg, M. (2001). Onderwijs in allochtone levende talen. Een verkenning in zeven
gemeenten. Den Haag: SCP.
Uiterwijk, H. (1994). De bruikbaarheid van de Eindtoets Basisonderwijs voor allochtone leerlingen.
Arnhem: Cito (proefschrift Katholieke Universiteit Brabant).
Van de Guchte, C. (1989). Intercultureel betekent veel. Een leeswijzer over intercultureel onderwijs.
Enschede: SLO.
Van de Wetering, S. (1990). Het onderwijs in eigen taal en cultuur aan Marokkaanse kinderen in
Nederland. Utrecht: Universiteit Utrecht (diss).
Van Dijk, T.A. (1993). Elite Discourse and Racism. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Verlot, M., K. Delrue, G. Extra & K. Yamur (2003). Meertaligheid in Brussel. De status van
allochtone talen thuis en op school. Amsterdam: European Cultural Foundation.
Vermes, G. (ed.) (1988). Vingt-cing communauts linguistiques de la France. Les langues
immigres, 2. Paris: LHarmattan.
WIB (Wet Inburgering in het Buitenland) (2006). Staatsblad, 2006-28. s-Gravenhage: SDU
Uitgeverij.
WIN (Wet Inburgering Nieuwkomers) (1998). Staatsblad, 1998-261. s-Gravenhage: SDU
Uitgeverij.
Woidich, M. & R. Heinen-Nasr (2004). Inleiding tot het Modern Standaard Arabisch. Amsterdam:
Uitgeverij Bulaaq.

53
WRR (Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid) (1979). Etnische minderheden. A.
Rapport aan de regering. B. Naar een algemeen etnisch minderhedenbeleid? Voorstudie door
Rinus Penninx. Rapporten aan de Regering, 17. s-Gravenhage: Staatsuitgeverij.
WRR (Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid) (1989). Allochtonenbeleid. Rapporten
aan de Regering, 36. s-Gravenhage: SDU Uitgeverij.
WRR (Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid) (2001). Nederland als immigratie-
samenleving. Rapporten aan de Regering, 60. s-Gravenhage: SDU Uitgeverij.

Plusvalor Bookletenglish Finalfebr10

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Plusvalor Bookletenglish Finalfebr10

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Plurilingualism Strengthening Valorisation of Roots

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi