Language diversity as resource or as problem? Educator discourses and language policy at high schools in the Netherlands

ABSTRACT

The ways in which educators talk about diversity, and specifically about linguistic diversity, reflect underlying beliefs about language in society and influence teaching practice. Semi-structured interviews with 55 high school teachers in the Netherlands were analyzed qualitatively in order to identify teachers’ discourse patterns related to the backgrounds and home languages of their students as well as language policies in the school context. The teachers struggle with the labels to categorize students with migration backgrounds, showing awareness of problematic insider-outsider labels. In terms of language diversity, deficit discourses about home languages and a monolingual focus on Dutch acquisition for immigrants highlights the prevalence of a language-as-problem orientation in decisions about language use. Language policy is focused on the development of skills in the target language, Dutch, and the promotion of a Dutch-only norm in the high schools. However, some interviewees describe the potential resource of the mother tongue in the classroom. Highlighting taken-for-granted assumptions in the discourses of Dutch teachers does not negate their best intentions in preparing their students for society. Rather it demonstrates the influence of language ideologies on teaching practice and the importance of teacher preparation and increased awareness of students’ home language resources.

KEYWORDS:

• Teacher discourses
• Netherlands
• language policy
• language ideology
• language orientations

Educational contexts are becoming increasingly diverse in the Netherlands, a country where first and second generation immigrants make up almost a quarter of the population (CBS, 2020). Thus, the student population brings to school a range of abilities in a variety of home languages. This same fact is sometimes put in other terms, with emphasis on the limited Dutch skills of many of the students and the home language as an obstacle to their educational advancement. As this shift in perspective and in wording implies, language diversity may be construed as a resource to be built upon or as a problem to be overcome, with direct implications for language policies in school contexts (Ruiz, 1984).

The ways in which educators perceive and respond to diversity, as revealed in their discourse choices, has important implications for the educational environment (Tsui, 2013; Vedder, Horenczyk, Liebkind, & Nickmans, 2006). Our beliefs are revealed through our words and actions, just as the words we hear around us influence our beliefs (Erickson, 2004; Gee, 2014; Smart, 2008). Thus, discourses circulating in educational environments, including discourses about language and diversity, can both reflect and influence teachers’ beliefs and practices, including the language policies implemented at the school and classroom level. As discourses are constructed socially, they tend to perpetuate dominant power structures, contributing to the reproduction of existing social hierarchies, particularly through education (Blommaert, 2005; Heller, 1997; Levinson, Foley, & Holland, 1996; Stewart & O’Neill, 2003). Through words, ideologies are both reproduced and challenged in educational settings (Heller & Martin-Jones, 2001). Thus, while language diversity may be considered a problem and gaps in educational achievement are often treated as something to be solved within minoritized populations themselves, some educators seek to understand, value, and incorporate the various linguistic and cultural practices of the home (Hornberger, 2005; Johnson & Johnson, 2021; Ricento, 2016). Here we focus on what teachers in diverse high schools in The Netherlands are saying about their students’ (linguistic) diversity and about language policy at school, reflecting on the ways in which common discourses reveal and perpetuate underlying ideologies and how teachers perceive and respond to their students in multilingual school contexts. Through interviews with fifty-five teachers at diverse high schools in a large city in The Netherlands, we explore current educational discourses surrounding students from diverse linguistic backgrounds, as well as implicit and explicit language policies implemented in the schools and classrooms.

Language policy and language ideology in teacher discourses and practices

Teachers play an important role in the multiple layers of language policy making and implementation in educational contexts (Ricento & Hornberger, 1996). Language policies or decisions that are made about language are established and implemented at multiple levels of society and are intricately related to the language ideologies or linguistic culture of a group of people and to their language practices (Johnson, 2013; Schiffman & Ricento, 2006; Spolsky, 2004). Here language policy includes not only formal, documented, top-down policies but also classroom-level decisions and language choices made in interaction. Research that illuminates these various layers highlights the dynamic role of teachers, among others, in shaping how languages are used and perceived in school environments (García & Menken, 2010; Hornberger & Johnson, 2007). Teachers’ language-related beliefs and experiences have an important influence on language policies and practices in educational contexts. Language ideologies, or shared beliefs about language that seem natural and intrinsically true to a group of people, influence decisions that are made about languages, how languages are used and learned, and attitudes toward speakers of different languages (Blackledge, 2008). A monolingual ideology, for example, can be associated with a one-nation, one-language ideology and with a subtractive view of multilingualism, which assumes that learning an additional language necessitates the weakening of a previously known language (Creese & Blackledge, 2011; Woolard, 1992). Ideologies about language learning also influence policies in educational contexts and can differ considerably, with differing priorities, from the acquisition of elite languages to the revitalization of endangered languages, and with differing approaches, from maximum exposure to the target language to building on existing language resources (Canagarajah, 2011; García, 2009, 2017; García & Wei, 2015). A standard language ideology influences perceptions of other linguistic varieties, perpetuating power asymmetries and division among groups (Wiese, 2015). Approaches to language diversity reflect broader stances toward diversity in society, as they change over the years, carrying implications for attitudes and policies related to minorities (Duyvendak, 2011; Rampton, Harris, & Leung, 1997; Vasta, 2007).

Although ideologies elevating monolingualism have influenced the push for assimilation and the blaming of individuals and “cultures” for difficulties in school performance, researchers and educators have been drawing attention to larger social injustices leading to marginalization (Jacob & Jordan, 1993; Ricento, 2016). The languages of the school as well as the typical ways of using language in educational settings are often considered to be intrinsically superior, but educators are also gaining awareness of the legitimate ways of communicating and cultural practices that differ from those valued in the school (González, Moll, & Amanti, 2006; Heath, 1983). Pushing back against dominant ideologies and policies, efforts are being made around the world to make space for and develop multilingual skills within diverse educational contexts (García, 2009; Hornberger, 2003; Hult & King, 2011; Kirsch & Duarte, 2020; Little, Leung, & Van Avermaet, 2013; Martin-Jones, Blackledge, & Creese, 2012).

Scholars studying multilingualism in education often refer to the work of Ruiz (1984, 2010), who brought attention to the policy implications of different orientations to language: whether linguistic diversity is perceived as a problem, as a right, or as a resource. As expressed by Hult and Hornberger (2016), “Ruiz sought to draw attention to the values about language underlying policymaking. Specifically, he was concerned about the prevailing deficit perspective … ” (p. 31). Minority languages are often perceived not only as a disability to be overcome but also as a threat to national unity – and to classroom unity as well. As such, the language-as-problem orientation “rests on the idea of compensating for a linguistic deficit by focusing on assimilation and transition to a dominant majority language” (ibid., 35). In contrast, a language-as-right orientation focuses on addressing “linguistically-based inequalities using compensatory legal mechanisms” and is complementary to a language-as-resource orientation, which shifts the emphasis to the benefits of linguistic diversity on multiple levels (ibid., 35).

Language can be perceived as both a personal and a national resource (Ruiz, 2010). Seeing multilingualism as a valuable resource at the national level is not difficult, especially when the focus is on multilingualism in the elite, prestigious languages. However, viewing language resources in solely economic terms brings the risk of reifying existing power inequalities (Petrovic, 2005; Ricento, 2005). As From and Holm (2019) point out, “[w]hen language is recognized as valuable first and foremost in providing access to other material and social resources, questions related to identity and linguistic belonging are more likely to become submerged” (206). Their ethnographic research in Sweden and Finland drew attention to the commodification of language in different educational contexts and the influence of national language and educational policies on orientations to language. A language-as-resource orientation can, thus, take various forms, as also highlighted in a New York study focusing on school principals’ beliefs about language. Some principals focused on the instrumental value of a language for jobs and social mobility and others focused on the integrative value of a language for the empowerment of students and for promoting democratic equality in education (De La Cruz Albizu, 2020).

Clearly, differences in experiences and beliefs related to language influence teachers’ actions. For example, a program to raise awareness of the value of multilingual approaches for immigrant minorities in Germany influenced teachers’ decisions to include home languages in their classrooms (Gilham & Fürstenau, 2020). Even within the same policy context, teachers can choose to implement policies in different ways, based on their language ideologies and their beliefs about what is best for their students (Zuniga, Henderson, & Palmer, 2018). A survey-based study in Belgium revealed the prevalence of monolingual beliefs among teachers and associated low expectations of their students. The authors conclude that the goal of “increasing language proficiency (in Dutch) by imposing the exclusive use of Dutch and the banning of other home languages in the school context – appears to be jeopardized by the interaction between teachers’ language beliefs, teachers’ trust in pupils and teachers’ expectations about academic achievement” (Pulinx, Van Avermaet, & Agirdag, 2017, p. 553). In view of the power of different orientations toward language to influence practice, we explore language ideologies and policies in the Netherlands context as revealed and perpetuated through teacher discourses.

Language and education contexts in the Netherlands

Multilingualism is valued in The Netherlands, as evidenced in an education system that prioritizes language learning and the increasing popularity of Dutch-English bilingual schools. In line with the European goal of training citizens in two additional languages besides their national language (Council of the European Union, 2008), most Dutch high school students learn English, German and/or French, and sometimes also Latin and Greek. Such linguistic skills are valued as a resource in society. The Council of the European Union (2008) Resolution on a European strategy for multilingualism listed as a first rationale that “linguistic and cultural diversity is part and parcel of the European identity; it is at once a shared heritage, a wealth, a challenge and an asset for Europe.” Official attention is also given to regional languages and varieties in The Netherlands, most notably through the recognition of Frisian as an official language, but also through recognition of the regional varieties Low Saxon and Luxembourgish (Kuiken & van der Linden, 2013). Experiments with trilingual education in Friesland have demonstrated successful education through the medium of Frisian, Dutch, and English (Gorter, 2005).

When the lens is turned to immigrant languages, however, the emphasis tends to shift to problems associated with linguistic diversity. Policies related to immigrant languages in education have shifted over the decades in The Netherlands, as have attitudes toward minority integration, with monocultural, monolingual attitudes on the rise (Duyvendak, 2011; Vasta, 2007). In Dutch political discourse a shift is evident from an initial welcoming of so-called “guest workers” in the 1960s to a view of immigrants as obstacle to integration (Bouras, 2013). Exclusionary discourses reproduced in the Netherlands challenge the belonging of residents from different backgrounds, with current assimilation goals particularly targeted at non-western Muslim immigrants (Long, 2015). Problems of segregation and educational inequity have been highlighted in Dutch schools, along with a lack of teacher training for working with diverse student populations (De Jong & Nelis, 2018; Vedder et al., 2006). Young people from immigrant backgrounds have felt pressure to assimilate and face challenges in maintaining their multiple identities (Kooistra, 2013; Yağmur & Van de Vijver, 2012).

Attention to diversity issues is growing in the Netherlands. The terms considered appropriate for talking about the portion of the population with a “migration background” in the Netherlands are changing, with criticism rising for the use of dichotomous terms such as native/non-native, autochtoon/allochtoon, and western/non-western. Most government agencies officially gave up the use of these labels in 2016 and the Scientific Council for Government Policy (WRR) advised that such group classifications should be used only to the extent needed for a particular analysis (Bovens, Bokhorst, Jennissen, & Engbersen, 2016). While their report expressed the need for a multi-sided migration idiom with more inclusive terminology such as autochtonen van de eerste generatie [first-generation natives], the awkwardness of finding the appropriate terms in conversations about an ethnically diverse population reveal the sensitivity of the topic. Ethnic labels and terms such as buitenlanders [foreigners] are common for referring to immigrant populations. Verkuyten (2003) analyzed the discourses of Dutch citizens from various backgrounds, showing how essentialist discourses about social groups are both embraced and criticized by ethnic minorities, depending on the context and how they are used. Interestingly, research among high school students from a low tier of education in the province of Limburgh shows how young people with migration backgrounds use such labels as a strategic tool in interaction, although jocular labeling of themselves as “foreigners” is perceived differently than being labeled as such by others (van de Weerd, 2019).

Although some educational space has in the past been provided for some of the immigrant languages, the longevity and institutionally-measured success of the programs has been limited (Lucassen & Köbben, 1992). More often, retaining (use of) a non-prestige home language has been perceived as a detriment to the successful acquisition of Dutch and to academic achievement. More than two decades ago, Kroon (1994) had noted a Dutch-only, monolingual habitus in primary school classrooms. Speakers of immigrant languages have faced ideologies of disadvantage in educational contexts, with parental language practices blamed for weak Dutch language skills as teachers interpret multilingual realities through a monolingual lens (Bezemer, 2003; Spotti & Kroon, 2009). For new arrivals to the Netherlands, the initial language learning year/s happen in a Dutch immersion program (ISK, international transition class) outside of mainstream classrooms. On average students spend one to two years in an ISK program before transitioning on to regular secondary education in the Netherlands. Education in the ISK focuses in particular on acquiring the Dutch language, academic skills and civic integration in the Netherlands in addition to subjects such as English and biology.

Attention to linguistic diversity in education is growing in the Netherlands. For example, a holistic model of multilingualism in education is being tested through a collaboration with researchers and teachers in training (Duarte & Günther-van der Meij, 2020), and the Language Friendly Schools movement is encouraging schools to allow and even promote the use of home languages in the school context (Hurwitz & Kambel, 2020). As discourses change over time and across contexts and given the importance of educators’ discourses in shaping the educational experiences of minoritized students, this study explores discourses used by current high school teachers in an urban area in the Netherlands. We analyze their ways of talking about and addressing (language) diversity in order to shed light on underlying language ideologies that influence the school environment through educational practices and (sometimes implicit) language policies.

The data and methods: Teacher interviews

Context

The city where this research was conducted is one of the largest cities in The Netherlands, with over half a million residents. Of those residents, 53.7% have been classified as having a migration background. Although the residents come from a wide variety of backgrounds, the largest group of immigrants are classified as “western” and the next largest groups are from Surinamese, Turkish, and Moroccan backgrounds, which are also nationally the largest immigrant groups (CBS, 2020). The ethnic diversity in the city is reflected in the schools, although the demographics of the student population varied across the participating schools, which are kept anonymous here. All three tiers of the Dutch high school system were represented among the schools, thus including pre-professional (vmbo), general secondary education (havo) and pre-university education (vwo).

Procedure and participants

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 55 teachers at 8 participating high schools as part of a larger project, which explored diversity issues in local high schools. The project was approved by the ICLON Research Ethics Committee (IREC_ICLON 2019–05), and teachers gave consent for the recording and use of the interviews for research purposes. Of the 55 participating teachers, 31 were female and 14 reported that they have a migration background. Thus, about 25% of the teachers have a non-Dutch background whereas about half of the students can be estimated to have a non-Dutch background, varying across schools. The teachers had a mean age of 40.91 years (SD = 10.47), with an average teaching experience of 12.22 years (SD = 8.77).

The interview protocol addressed the educators’ experiences with and teaching preferences related to diversity at school, including questions specifically related to language diversity and language policy. The protocol was organized for the semi-structured interview with main questions and optional sub-questions (See Appendix A). The interviewers asked follow-up questions and sub-questions depending in part on responses and the context of the interview. For example, not all of the teachers were specifically asked about language policy or taalbeleid, this question being more often asked at schools that had already been established as having high linguistic diversity.

Interviews were conducted in 2018 by seven student-assistants from an international bachelor’s program and by a post-doc member of the research team. The student-assistants were trained for conducting semi-structured interviews, were engaged in discussions and literature on diversity issues in education, and were involved in the process of creating the interview protocol. Because some of the student-assistants did not speak Dutch, the language of the interview was Dutch or English, depending on the preferences of both interviewer and interviewee. Interviews were transcribed and systematically coded based on the different project themes, which facilitated the focused analysis described in the following section.

Analysis methods

The current analysis, focusing on language-related themes in the interviews, was guided by the following questions: (Q1) How do teachers perceive and respond to linguistic diversity in high schools in The Netherlands?, and (Q2) In teacher discourses, what evidence do we see of language ideology and multiple levels of language policy, and how these influence each other?

The analysis follows principles of linguistic ethnography (Copland & Creese, 2015; Creese, 2010) and ethnographic-based discourse analysis, taking into account the broader context in exploring language in use, maintaining a balanced, critical perspective, and remembering the cultural situatedness of an informant’s reality (Bhatia, Flowerdew & Jones, 2007; Smart, 2008). Interview analysis takes into account the context of the interview itself as a speech event in which interviewees make choices about how to communicate information and present themselves to the interviewer (Briggs, 1986; Groff, Pilote, & Vieux-Fort, 2016; Hymes, 1974). Along with an ethnographic focus on the insiders’ perspectives, the analysis of teacher discourses provides insights into their beliefs and practices, including how they perceive and interact with their students (Heller & Martin-Jones, 2001; Smart, 2008).

The qualitative analysis presented here was conducted by the first author in consultation with the coauthors and is based on a careful (re)reading of the language-relevant components of the interviews and inductive analysis of specific themes in the data. First, twenty-five of the interviews were read in full, using open coding to mark themes of interest as well as summaries and research memos on how teachers talked about diversity, students’ backgrounds, mother tongue, and language challenges. Getting to know the data also included summarizing highlights from the reflection reports written by the student assistants about the interviews. The interviews were coded using Atlas.ti, in this case primarily to identity and retrieve the segments of the interviews relevant to the research questions. The Atlas.ti WordCruncher was also used for some basic corpus analysis to explore the use of specific terms. Next, in the core analysis for this article, specific themes were selected, and a closer analysis was conducted on specific segments of each of the interviews, including what each teacher said about language policy and about the influence of the mother tongue on the learning process. Segments for analysis were identified using both word searches and the thematic coding provided by the research team. Notes on the individual responses, clustered by school, were used to identify salient themes and patterns that emerged from the data. Attention was also given to the choice of wording as well as hesitations or hedging, evident through pauses, repetitions, or sudden shifts mid-sentence. The selection of themes and analysis involved discussions among the coauthors, drawing on our knowledge of the local educational context, and with reflection on the relevant literature. In this way, the Ruiz (1984) orientations and literature on deficit ideologies highlighted above were chosen in the analysis process to help explain what was observed in the data.

Centering on teacher discourses and themes that surfaced as important in the interviews, the focus of analysis for this article settled on how the teachers chose to talk about diversity, how they describe language policies in the school and in the classroom, and on the potential value of the mother tongues of diverse student populations, as described in the following results sections. In line with the research questions focused on teacher perceptions and responses to linguistic diversity, the current analysis did not focus on nuances in individual responses or differences between schools but rather presents general patterns observed in the data.

Labels, deficit discourses and mother-tongue as problem

In exploring how teachers perceive (linguistic) diversity, our attention was drawn to specific terms they were using to describe their students: the use of labels and their hedging around sensitive terms, showing awareness of problematic dichotomies. We also noticed the tendency to talk about home languages in terms of a deficit, revealing an underlying language-as-problem orientation.

Labels for a diverse population

In their interviews, the teachers show the sensitivity of the topic of diversity and their efforts to maintain discourses that would not be considered offensive or racist. Finding the appropriate terms to talk about the diverse student population is a challenge made evident through hesitations and hedging. -Since interviews were conducted in both Dutch and English, the analysis includes words from both languages. Among labels for groups of people, the words “Nederlands/e,” “Nederlander and “Dutch” were by far the most commonly used in the interviews. Frequent mention was made of “achtergrond/en” or “background/s,” which were terms introduced in the interview questions, and more specifically “migratieachtergrond.” The terms for “culture/s” and “cultural difference” were also frequently used and were introduced through the interview questions, which also helps to explain the frequent use of the term “diversity.”

In teachers’ descriptions of diversity in their schools, by far the most common ethnic labels mentioned were with reference to Moroccans and Turks. Although these groups are no longer among the most numerous in terms of new immigrants arriving in the Netherlands, they are still the largest ethnic minority groups in the Netherlands, and they are clearly differentiated in public discourse from immigrants with “western” backgrounds as well as those from the former colonies. These two groups were mentioned more than three times as often as the groups mentioned below. Although the Surinamese constitute the largest specific ethnic group in the city, this population was mentioned much less frequently by the teachers and is often referred to as Indian or Hindu. The next most frequently mentioned groups are Chinese and Polish, along with the general categorizations Muslim and Arabic. References to head scarves and frequent examples related to Ramadan also showed that Muslim populations were in the forefront on teachers’ minds in conversations about diversity, as they are in public discourse in the Netherlands. Teachers also made frequent use of labels related to English and French, often in reference to languages as a subject.

The tensions around who counts as “Dutch” are reflected in the use of labels and the hedging around these categories. Few of the teachers used the recently outdated terms “autochtoon” and “allochtoon,” which refer specifically to ethnic origins of natives and non-natives. The sensitivity of these categories is evident in the following quote:

…van – mag je dat zeggen? – allochtone afkomst. Zo heette dat vroeger toch?

… from – can you say that? – non-native origin. That’s what it was called before, right?

This teacher tries to avoid a straightforward insider/outsider categorization by making reference to the origin or background of these students, but mid-sentence s/he realizes that her attempt is still doomed because of the stigma attached to the dichotomous label “allochtoon.” Still, whether students are or are not from Dutch heritage is significant to the conversation about diversity in the schools. This distinction continues to matter beyond the first and second generation. In describing the diverse school context in which s/he works, another teacher exemplifies the difficulty in labeling.

… voornamelijk ‘hier geboren’ — Uh … maar wel uit een migranten achtergrond … . Geen, eh, zeg maar, ‘Nederlandse’ leerlingen. Ze zijn natuurlijk wel Nederlands maar je begrijpt wat ik bedoel [lach].

… mostly ‘born here’ – Uh … but with a migration background … No, uh, let’s say, ‘Dutch’ students. They are, of course, Dutch but you know what I mean [laugh]

This teacher could chuckle about the familiar awkwardness of the labeling, acknowledging that the use of “Dutch” as an ethnic label to exclude students with a migration background is not meant to contest the “Dutch” nationality or citizenship of the students.

Another teacher avoided the “foreigner” and “migration background” labels by describing some of her students as recent arrivals, and searching for a category, she then describes the second group as “those who were in fact born here but have learned Dutch later”: “nieuwkomers en … die hier wel geboren zijn maar ook later Nederlands hebben geleerd.” The students who recently arrived in The Netherlands, as first-generation immigrants, were clearly facing the hurdle of learning Dutch and of learning academically through Dutch. However, Dutch-born students who were learning and using Dutch as a second or additional language were also importantly deserving of the teachers’ attention, even if making a distinction between these groups was awkward in conversations. Although groups of students were not explicitly labeled by their language learning status, a deficit in Dutch language skills is important in teacher discourse, as described in the following section.

Deficit discourses: The home language problem

In discussing more specifically the influence of the home language on the learning process or learning outcomes, teachers made frequent reference to taalachterstand – a linguistic deficit, deficiency, or delay. Having a migration background or achtergrond seems often to be treated as equivalent to having an achterstand – a language or education deficit. With the teachers’ focus clearly on Dutch language acquisition, linguistic diversity becomes associated with problems and deficiencies, and little if any reference is made to the home languages as potentially valued or valuable. Rather, the home language is described by some teachers as burdensome taal baggage. Through many of the interviews we noticed the assumption that the presence of another language in the home implies an obvious language disadvantage. This connection seems to be taken for granted in the following quote, even when Dutch is one of the home languages:

De meeste van mijn leerlingen spreken thuis Nederlands, maar ook in combinatie met … een moedertaal. De taal van zijn ouders of opa en oma … Dus er is sprake van taalachterstand bij heel veel leerlingen …

Most of my students speak Dutch at home, but also in combination with … a mother tongue – the language of their parents or grandparents … So, many of the students have a language deficiency.

Another teacher expresses the common belief that the students’ language deficit is caused by a deficiency in what is done or not done with the Dutch language at home.

Ze hebben een enorme achterstand, maar die halen ze ook bijna niet in omdat ze daar thuis niks mee doen. En als ze dat wel thuis zouden doen, zou het veel beter zijn.”

They have an enormous deficiency, but they can also barely make up for it because they don’t do anything about it at home. And if they would do that at home, it would be much better.

This teacher does not mention what specifically is expected of families in working with Dutch at home. Regardless of where the blame is laid, for teachers it is quite evident that students who are less competent in the Dutch language will have to work harder in order to achieve the same results as the other students, as stated in the following quote:

Bijna alle leerlingen hebben taalachterstand en – en, uh, ze zullen harder moeten werken. Ze zullen meer moeten doen om uh op hetzelfde niveau te komen.

Almost all of the students have a language deficit and – and, uh, they will need to work harder. They will need to do more in order to reach the same level.

Although most of the students in this teacher’s classroom deal with language-related challenges, the teacher’s focus here is more on the hard work that they will have to put in and less on the kinds of support they may require. Even among those teachers who talk about diversity as enrichment, few mention language as a positive aspect of that diversity or the potential of the home language as a resource.

A deficit view of the home language is not surprising when the focus is placed on the acquisition of Dutch language skills and academic assessment through Dutch. The teachers frequently talk about the challenges related to limited knowledge of the Dutch language, especially vocabulary. These challenges are particularly evident in examinations, which are important in an educational climate where testing is currently a high priority. Interestingly, where the students “come from” is central to their underlying language challenges in this teacher’s comment:

Qua Nederlands taal, qua spreken kunnen ze het perfect. Zul j’ ’t nooit merken dat ze daar vandaan komen, maar op het moment dat ze een toets moeten maken, dan vinden ze het heel lastig om, hun gedachten …, zeg maar, onder woorden te brengen.

In terms of the Dutch language, in terms of speaking, they can do it perfectly. You would never notice that they come from there, but as soon as they need to take a test, they find it very hard to … let’s say, put their thoughts into words.

This teacher makes a distinction between basic communication skills and the academic language skills required for good test-taking. An additional language-related issue frequently mentioned and worth further investigation involves expectations of parental involvement and the challenge of communication between parents and teachers.

In discussing the presence of multiple languages in the classroom, teachers in this study primarily place the emphasis on what the students do not have (i.e., sufficient proficiency in the Dutch language) rather than on what they do have (i.e., proficiency in another or multiple other languages). In addition, general statements about the work needed in the home and by the students to improve Dutch skills, in the absence of specific strategies and resources, seems to focus the responsibility on the students and families. The following section focuses on how teachers describe the efforts that are being made in the schools to address language challenges and the subsequent logic of Dutch-only policies.

Language policy and the Dutch-only norm

The ways that our interviewees talked about language policy or taalbeleid in the school provide an additional glimpse into the norms and belief systems around language. Although our original focus was on which languages are used and/or allowed for which purposes, in talking about language policy, many teachers focused on school-wide strategies for helping students to develop Dutch language skills.

Language policy as a language development plan

More than half of the teachers who were explicitly asked about the language policy at their school talked first about language policy in terms of a language development plan, including specific strategies geared to supporting Dutch language acquisition. These teachers were mostly from highly diverse schools that have established specific plans and strategies for developing the Dutch language skills of speakers with Dutch as a second or additional language. The extent to which the teachers were aware of specifics about their school’s language development policy varied. Some were aware that teachers of all subjects were also expected to be language teachers; they were aware of their students’ language-learning needs and the importance of reinforcing language acquisition across learning contexts. Others expressed the need for improvement in this type of language support plan or the fact that more attention had been paid to these issues in the past at their school, under different management. One teacher expressed the desire for a national policy, guidelines, and resources for supporting Dutch language acquisition.

Some examples offered of aspects of a school’s Dutch language development plan include the presence of a language coach, coordinator, or team; homework support; and Saturday schools. Subject teachers were also expected to be involved in supporting Dutch language acquisition, as evident in the following examples: language development scores distributed to the subject teachers; trainings for subject teachers on language awareness, vocabulary types, etc.; a list of subject-specific terms in certain home languages; a focus on specific language forms or a word of the day to be incorporated into subject lessons; and the use of language-rich posters. One school had previously used a smiley system to provide language-specific feedback to students apart from content scores on assignments.

These references to a school language policy in terms of a language development plan for students acquiring the Dutch language highlights the importance of a broad and nuanced approach to language in the school – an approach in which language development is not just a student/family problem and not just in the domain of the language classroom. Several diverse schools in our study have invested in specific plans to support students who are struggling with the Dutch language, plans that deserve further exploration. The amount of support these schools have received in developing such plans is unclear. Besides language development plans, language policy extends to the rules and expectations around language use, which is the focus of the following section.

Language policy as Dutch-only

A follow-up question in the interview protocol directed teachers to talk about whether the speaking of certain languages was encouraged or discouraged in the school. Although some were uncertain and few could cite a specific written policy, for most of the teachers a formal or informal Dutch-only policy was self-evident. For some teachers, the Dutch-only policy applied only to the classroom, but to many it applied to the whole school environment. The following quote demonstrates how ordinary, natural, and logical the dominant role of Dutch seemed in the school, although this teacher was unsure of the school’s stated policy:

Dat weet ik dus niet, maar ik ga er vanuit, het lijkt me logisch, als je, eh, hier op school bent, dat– dat zij ook gewoon aanmoedigen om gewoon Nederlands met elkaar te praten. Dat doe ik wel.

So, I don’t know that, but I assume; it seems logical to me, if you, eh, are here at school, that– that they are also simply encouraged to speak simply Dutch with each other. I DO do that.”

This teacher, as many others, does take on the responsibility of encouraging the students to communicate with each other in Dutch, and therefore not in their other language(s). The use of the Dutch word gewoon, translated here as “simply,” captures the idea of something quite natural, ordinary and obvious, as also exemplified in the following quote:

Vind ik gewoon, vind ik ook onbeleefd tegenover mij, tegenover anderen, en we spreken gewoon Nederlands. Dat is de voertaal hier, dus dat doe je.

I find it ordinary; I also find it rude towards me and towards others; and we simply speak Dutch. That is the working language here, so that’s what you do.

While reinforcing the use of Dutch, as the working language, is perceived as obvious and ordinary, the use of a non-Dutch language comes across as rude for this teacher – rude both to him as teacher and to the other students who don’t speak that language. Another teacher also expressed a strong aversion to hearing other languages spoken at school: “los van onfatsoenlijk, is gewoon niet prettig” [apart from indecent, it’s simply unpleasant]. Besides being gewoon, the natural way of things, reasons expressed by the teachers for speaking only Dutch at school are as follows: for learning and practice of Dutch, so that everyone understands each other, because it’s the Netherlands, because it’s a school rule, and to avoid the forming of clicks.

As far as implementation, teachers expressed some degree of fatalism in references to whether the ideal of a school-wide Dutch-only policy is enforceable.

Ze::ker in de klas wordt dat eh, wordt dat gedaan. Maar als de kinderen in vrije situaties zitten, dan is het eigenlijk niet te controleren.

Certainly that would be done in the class. But if the children are in free situations,

then it’s actually not controllable.

Some of the teachers said that they would or do enforce a Dutch-only policy if they hear students speaking in another language, reminding them to speak Dutch. Several talked about correcting language use in a light or humorous way, drawing attention to the socially inappropriate behavior. In using humor, these teachers build on the self-evident nature of the school as a Dutch-only environment and encourage students in a non-threatening way to comply with this social norm.

Exceptions do apply. In the following quote, the teacher starts out with a strict description of Dutch-only policy, even outside of the classroom, but then mentions the exception offered to students who had just arrived and are still in the newcomers’ Dutch immersion program (international schakelklas, ISK).

Ja, dat er geen andere talen in, eh, op school worden gesproken, je zit, eh, in Nederlands met elkaar spreekt. Ook in de kantine en in de pauze. S:oms. soms is dat natuurlijk – ja, we laten het soms gewoon los hoor, zeker met ISK kinderen die hier dan n– – kinderen die hier dan net drie maanden wonen. Ja, laat ze dan ook eventjes in hun eigen veiligheid zitten [lach], denk ik dan. Dus, eh, maar nee, anders horen ze echt Nederlands te spreken …

Yes, that there are no other languages spoken, eh, at school; you are – speak Dutch with each other. Also in the cafeteria and during breaks. Sometimes, sometimes it’s naturally – yeah, we simply let it go sometimes, certainly with ISK children who have then just arrived – children who have just been living here three months. Yeah, then let them be in their own security for a bit [laugh], I think. So uh, but, no, otherwise they really ought to be speaking Dutch.

This teacher recognizes the sense of safety or security that must be experienced by newcomer students in being able to speak their own language together. Allowing those new students a safe place during their breaks seems appropriate to her, an exception to the usual obligation to maintain Dutch-language communication among the students. However, she goes on to express how self-evident and normal the Dutch-only policy is across schools, making it easy to reinforce:

Nou, meestal hoef je het alleen even te waar—eh, te zeggen hoor, of een waarschuwing te geven en dan, eh, dan gaan ze over naar het Nederlands. En ze kennen dat ook wel van hun vrienden en vriendinnen op andere scholen. Want dat beleid is niet—niet anders op andere scholen, dus.

Well, mostly you just need to warn—uh, just to say it, or to give a warning and then, uh, then they switch over to Dutch. And they also know that from their friends at other schools. Because that policy is not– not different at other schools, that’s why.

Apparently students also understand this rule as normal, and they quickly and apologetically respond to requests to speak Dutch. However, some teachers also cite the use of non-Dutch languages in defiant ways by students, to express anger and to hide what is being said from the teacher. A fear of what is being said in an unknown language must contribute to some teachers’ experience of rudeness and unpleasantness on hearing another language that they do not understand being spoken in the school. Although it is unclear how frequently this occurs, experiences of a language switch being used for direct defiance influence decisions about which languages can be allowed and where, contributing to a problem orientation toward language diversity.

Diversity and mother tongue as (potential) resource

The previous sections describe some teacher discomfort with talking about diversity and a tendency toward deficit views of language diversity, influencing a Dutch-only approach in language policy. While this language-as-problem orientation seemed to dominate in teacher discourses, hints can also be found in the interviews of an alternative perspective: the potential of the home language as a resource in the school, allowing students to build on existing linguistic skills in their overall cognitive and academic development. We choose to highlight these voices here. Teachers could be heard acknowledging the reality of mixed language use among youth and the value that some youth place on their home language. Throughout the interviews, teachers talk about cultural differences, the multiple factors influencing the lives of their students, and the challenges students face in navigating their different worlds, sometimes getting lost between those worlds. Importantly, some teachers expressed a shift in their own attitudes toward diversity after spending time with a diverse student population, citing benefits for themselves and for their students.

Although the home languages of students are frequently conceptualized in deficit terms and school language policies tend to reflect a language as problem orientation in dealing with linguistic diversity, some teachers also acknowledge the potential value of the mother tongue in the school context. While school language policy was mostly talked about in terms of Dutch language development, a number of the teachers who were asked about language policy also expressed some positive role of the mother tongue in the school context.

Reasons mentioned for allowing students to use their mother tongue in some situations included the opportunity it provides for students to help each other:

… het kan soms ook gewoon heel nuttig zijn. Bedoel, um … als ik jou met handen en voeten iets moet uitleggen, en ik ben een paar minuten bezig, en jouw buurman kan even zeggen, ‘ja, ze bedoeld dit en dat en dat,’ in de eigen taal en dat kind kan verder, ja, waarom niet? Dat lijkt me dan gewoon winst. Dus ik denk … dat – – ja, je moet zelf kijken hoe je daar op verantwoordelijke manier mee omgaat.

… it can sometimes also simply be useful. I mean, um … if I need to explain something to you with my hands and feet, and it takes me a few minutes to do so, and your neighbor can just say, ‘yeah, she means this and that and that,’ in their own language and that child can get further, then why not? That seems to me to be simply win-win. So, I think … that the– – yeah, you need to think for yourself how to deal with that in a responsible way.

Other reasons mentioned by several teachers for opening up space for mother tongues included the feeling of safety the students may experience in speaking their own language, the flexibility that could be allowed following the principle of respect, and the importance of allowing the students their own choice in the matter. Through their experiences engaging with diverse students, some of the teachers express a developing and nuanced perspectives on the needs and priorities of their students and search for ways to further their learning.

Discussion: Language as problem or as resource?

From these interviews, we have explored how participating high school teachers perceive and respond to linguistic diversity in The Netherlands (Q1) and the overlapping influences of language ideology and multiple levels of language policy as revealed in teacher discourses (Q2). Most generally, the labels and discourses commonly used by the teachers reveal underlying perceptions and beliefs about language and diversity, which are in turn translated into approaches to language diversity. Although our focus was on the general patterns seen in the interviews as a whole, each of these teachers has a more nuanced, likely ambiguous and shifting view on these topics. Similarly, stated policies are nuanced by differing implementation and situational adaptation.

While this article was in review, Johnson and Johnson (2021) published their book problematizing the (re)normalization of deficit ideologies around language in education. Their review of (socio)linguistic and anthropological perspectives on language acquisition and diversity reflects the conceptual assumptions that were brought into this analysis and skillfully refutes language deficit ideologies. Through normalization these ideologies are left unquestioned as gewoon¸ just the way things are. Taking a stance against the belief that certain languages and culture are superior, Johnson and Johnson encourage us to “redirect the conversation away from language diversity as the problem and refocus our attention on the structural issues that continue to anchor systemic inequalities and derail educational opportunities for children from linguistically and economically minoritized communities” (109).

The ways that teachers talk about diverse student populations, including the labels they choose to categorize them, reveal teachers’ caution and perhaps discomfort with conversations about diversity. Teachers are aware of current tensions and hesitate to replicate common media discourses or to be perceived as biased. While old binary terms designating insiders and outsiders, foreigners and natives, did sometimes emerge in the interviews, teachers expressed awareness that these categories were no longer considered appropriate in categorizing the changing Dutch population. Euphemisms change over time, and the previously accepted labels for stigmatized groups are exchanged for others. Certain groups loom large in public (and teacher) thinking about diversity: in the Netherlands that has been Muslim immigrants, especially the largest groups from Turkey and Morocco.

Interestingly, these teachers did not label their students according to their language-learning status as, for example, is common in the US where designations like English Language Leaner (ELL) are common, an improvement on the previously popular label Limited English Proficient (LEP) but still less inclusive than the label now preferred among scholars: Emergent Bilinguals (see García, Kleifgen, & Falchi, 2008; Webster & Lu, 2012). This category of student is perhaps less frequently differentiated as the target for specific interventions in the Netherlands, with the exception of the ISK students who have recently arrived in the Netherlands. Labeling by students’ backgrounds, in particular migration background, often comes, however, with the assumption of a language deficit, the emphasis being on limited proficiency in the Dutch language. Here educators run the risk of inadvertently conflating language and race, categories often taken for granted and co-naturalized (Rosa & Flores, 2017).

Like the labels and discourses around diversity, the ways that teachers talk about language also reflects underlying beliefs and norms, whether or not these have been consciously evaluated. In contrast to the sensitivity shown to discourses about diversity, the use of deficit discourses in talking about linguistic diversity in the classroom seemed to be more acceptable or taken for granted. When the home language is perceived as a problem and the source of a language disadvantage, the logical solution is the elimination of the home languages, leading to Dutch-only language policies in the school context – whether those policies are explicit or implicit, whether actively enforced or socially encouraged. In the US context, Fredricks and S. Warriner (2016) also observed restrictive language policies coupled with monolingual ideologies; however, teachers and youth also find opportunities to resist the status quo and promote language-as-resource orientations. The focus of many of the teachers on Dutch language acquisition for newcomers seems to be founded on the best intentions for helping students to integrate and succeed in the Dutch school system and society. Johnson and Johnson (2021) also cite examples of “how the language gap ideology manifests within the perceptions of well-intentioned teachers who see their students (and families) in terms of limitations, and judge them based on what they don’t have” (77). The extent to which our teachers talked about language policy in terms of specific plans for supporting Dutch language acquisition shows an awareness of language issues and the priority that some schools, especially the more diverse schools, have placed on language support for their students. However, these best intentions are often combined with a monolingual ideology that assumes Dutch as the sole language for communication in the school (outside of foreign language classes) and the related subtractive notion of bilingualism that assumes the loss of one language for the successful acquisition of the other. Perhaps of greater concern are the broader implications of deficit discourses. In their review on approaches to diversity in European education, Slot, Halba, and Romijn (2017) observe that “ … there is quite consistent evidence that teachers hold lower expectations of cultural or linguistic minority children, which is rooted in a cultural deficit view. Holding lower expectations can affect professionals’ (classroom) practices, which in turn affects children’s development and achievement and results in persistent inequalities, also in the long term” (p. 5).

A teacher quoted above noted that students from different language backgrounds would need to work harder in order to reach the same level, implying a low expectation of outcomes at normal effort but simultaneously expecting student to put in more effort in order to keep up. Similarly, a teacher lamented that little was done with Dutch in the home, not specifying what exactly ought to be done or what kind of support students and families might need in this process. The problem and solution are directed at the student and the family for fuller acquisition of (the school form of) Dutch, with the expectation of more use of Dutch in the home reflecting a broader expectation of assimilation. As Johnson and Johnson (2021) state:

It is much easier to assume that the language patterns of school are inherently superior than to interrogate educators’ working knowledge of their students’ linguistic strengths and expect them to be integrated into classroom practices. The language gap casts a shadow over the practices of linguistically diverse communities and removes the responsibility of failure from the teachers by placing blame on the students’ initial language environment at home (77)

The language development plans being emphasized at certain diverse schools seem a step in the right direction, bringing the responsibility for language development into the school. Ideally such plans would be established with respect for difference, drawing on the linguistic resources that students bring and valuing the development of students’ full linguistic repertoires.

The inductive analysis of language issues in these teacher interviews led us to use Ruiz’s (1984) orientations to language in interpreting our findings. We also notice the overlapping influences of language ideology and multiple levels of language policy (Groff, 2018; Spolsky, 2004). The intricate connection among language ideologies and language policies, including micro-level classroom decisions, is evident in this Dutch example as analyzed through the voices of high school teachers in The Netherlands. Although multilingualism is valued in Dutch society, when we consider low-prestige home languages and the micro-level context of the Dutch high school, linguistic diversity is often perceived as a problem. When educators are working within the assumptions of a language-as-problem orientation in thinking about school language policies, the resulting policies tend to ignore or discourage the use of home-language resources in the school context. However, we also chose to highlight other perspectives. Some of the teachers interviewed expressed the value of diversity in their classrooms and the potential positive role of the mother tongue. Their recognition of diversity and their nuanced perspectives on the needs and priorities of their students begin to open up ideological spaces for more multilingual practices (Hornberger, 2005).

Experience working and interacting with diverse student populations was mentioned by teachers as influential for increasing understanding and appreciation for their students. However, teacher training could better equip teachers in advance for a resource perspective toward diversity and for practically building on linguistic resources in the classroom (e.g. Catalano & Hamann, 2016; Duarte & Günther-van der Meij, 2020). Reflection on classroom experiences and greater awareness of “the working of ideologies” could free students from “disadvantaged identities” (Spotti & Kroon, 2009). A language-as-resource orientation could lead to different conclusions in the ways teachers, school administrators, and government policymakers make decisions about language.

Conclusions

We have explored ways in which educators talk about linguistic diversity and the policies and practices that seem normal to them in their educational context. Prominent in the interviews with 55 high school teachers in the Netherlands was the struggle with the labels to categorize students with migration backgrounds, deficit discourses about home languages and a monolingual focus on Dutch acquisition for immigrants, together highlighting a language-as-problem orientation in decisions about language use. This analysis feels in some ways confrontational, as though catching teachers in their words, in a society known for its tolerance. Highlighting taken-for-granted assumptions in the Dutch context serves, we hope, to raise awareness and contribute to resourcing teachers for their work with diverse students.

Educators’ concern for their students’ getting beyond their educational and language deficiencies is foundational in their approach to language policy, showing the connection between language ideologies and decisions about language use at macro and micro levels. If home language is perceived as a problem and as the source of a (Dutch) language deficit, the emphasis is naturally placed on the development of Dutch language skills and the prohibition of the home language in school contexts. Similarly, in Finland and Sweden, From and Holm (2019) observed how linguist hierarchies are discursively constructed in educational spaces. In the US context, Sah and Uysal (2022) noticed ambiguity in teacher beliefs around language. Along with them, we note the influence of (unconscious) language ideologies on teaching practice and the importance of teacher preparation for building on their students’ home language resources.

The analysis presented here has focused on general patterns identified across multiple interviews but did not address the nuances in individual perspectives and potential differences in school environments. Further analysis of teacher discourses could focus on background influences on their perspectives and connections between deficit orientations to language and overall academic expectations. Of interest for future research is further exploration of best practices, including the language development plans implemented in diverse Dutch schools, and the resource orientation to home languages at international schools and other language-friendly schools in the Netherlands. More research is needed on the planning and implementation of these plans and the extent to which they can alleviate sink-or-swim submersion in a Dutch-language educational context. Contrasts between the language acquisition policies for elite languages and approaches to low-prestige home languages, and the ideological foundations of these linguistic hierarchies in educational contexts, are worth attention, as well as the voices and language choices of young people themselves in this linguistic environment.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful for the insightful contributions of student interviewers Wouter Brons, Defne Cam, Lisa Momoko Schmidt, Paul Musso, Sophia Queckenberg, Ana Roozendaal, and Jakob Semb Aasmundsen.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This project was made possible by a local municipality through a collaboration of schools, research institutions and policymakers, coordinated by Leiden University Graduate School of Teaching [Kenniswerkplaats Diversiteit]. The second author was supported by a grant of this local municipality. The first author was supported with funding from the European Commission’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 752550 [Voices of Belonging].

Appendix A

Interview Protocol (English)

Opening Questions (start with asking which subject and year they teach)

1. Can you tell me a bit about the different kinds of students in your classes?

o Do you have students with a migration background in your classes?

▪ Do you know their backgrounds?

o Do you have students who speak a language other than Dutch at home?

▪ Approximately what percentage of the class are they?

▪ Do you know what languages they speak?

o How do home languages influence the learning process and learning outcomes of students?

▪ Can you give an example?

Questions about Teaching Practice & School Policies

2. For you as a teacher, do you see cultural differences between students as particularly relevant to your teaching? Which ones are most important?

o Do you see any particular challenges? ▪ Can you give an example?

o Do you see potential benefits of diversity in the classroom? ▪ Can you give an example?

3. There is quite some debate about whether schools should adapt to an increasingly diverse Dutch society. Do you have thoughts about this debate?

o Do you think an awareness of students’ different backgrounds should

shape the way teachers select or deliver their course material? Why or why not?

▪ Do you adapt your practice in response to the particular groups of

students you have in your classroom? Can you give an example?

▪ Is “diversity” a topic that comes up in discussions with school

management? With colleagues?

▪ Does the school have a formal language policy? ▪ Are the students encouraged or discouraged from speaking certain languages? (How) is that enforced?

4. How diverse were the schools that you attended?

o How “diverse” is the teaching staff at your school?

o What about your own social world, friends?

5. Do you provide opportunities for your students to get acquainted with different cultures and other diversities (as reflection of the society/citizenship)? If so, how?

6. Have you observed any changes related to “diversity” in your school in the time

you have worked there? Changes in the population of students who attend the school, or in social dynamics at the school, or school policies?

7. Did you receive any particular training regarding “diversity” in your teacher training program? Was it helpful, relevant?

8. Do you observe students grouping themselves together in particular ways inside and/or outside your class, for example based on background?

o Can you describe a situation or give an example?

o How do you feel about this?

9. Do you have other ideas or question about diversity in the class?