Islamic schools in three western countries: policy and procedure

Abstract

In this article, the authors compare Islamic schools in three countries: the United States, the Netherlands, and Belgium. In each country, the authors take care to situate Islamic schools within the broader context of educational policy and practice. In particular, the authors examine the mechanisms for funding, choice and control, noting that for reasons specific to each context monitoring either by the state or accrediting agencies poses both challenges and opportunities for Islamic schools.

Notes

1. The 2001 CAIR study concluded that there are approximately 5–6 million, while that same year the American Jewish Committee estimated there to be 1.9 million. The State University of New York (SUNY) conducted another study, also in 2001, in which they concluded there to be between 1.1 and 2.2 million. See Broadway (2001). The reasons for this uncertainty have to do with the fact that both the US Census Bureau and US Immigration Service are forbidden to ask questions concerning one’s religion. Moreover, most mosques do not have formal membership policies and it is rare to find accurate attendance records. Using ethnicity as an indicator of religious affiliation is unreliable for a variety of reasons not least because a large number of Arab‐Americans are Christian.

2. The breakdown in ethnicity varies somewhat from study to study and, particularly since 9/11/2001, is sometimes guided by ideology. Another finding, with data supplied by the American Muslim Council and gathered between 1986–1992, reports South Asians at 24.4%, African‐ Americans at 42%, Arabs at 12.4%, Turks at 2.4%, Iranians at 3.6%. See www.ugs.edu/islam/muslimpop_usa.html. Jocelyne Cesari is correct to say that a systematic comparison of different [Muslim] ethnic groups in the United States ‘remains to be written’ (Cesari, 2004, p. 4).

3. The Dutch Educational Priority Policy (Onderwijsvoorrangsbeleid or OVB) had as one of its primary purposes to supply schools with more staff, special teaching methods, and opportunities for more contact with parents of ethnic minority pupils. However, one longitudinal study in the 1990s demonstrated that the OVB had had very little impact on the achievement levels of disadvantaged pupils. Three reasons are likely for this. First, outside of priority or target areas, school staff were largely unaware of the extra resources. Second, no conditions were set for how schools would use extra staff or resources; the only criterion was that the schools submit a plan ‘describing problems, aims, activities, organizational structure and budget allocations’. Third, while some improvements (e.g., class size reduction) were observable, these were not limited to the targeted groups but extended to all groups, thus maintaining the general achievement gap. (Mulder & van der Werf, 1997). Some evidence suggests that the situation for disadvantaged autochthonous Dutch children, most of whom live in the rural northern provinces and count as 1.25, has deteriorated even more than it has for the allochthonous pupils. See Tesser, (2003), pp. 53–78. The Educational Disadvantage Policy (Onderwijsachterstandbeleid), which took over where the Educational Priority Policy left off, effectively gives more autonomy to the municipalities and local school boards. This portends more difficulties in assessing both the appropriation of funding and the achievement of disadvantaged students.