This article was downloaded by: [University of Chicago Library]

On: 07 October 2014, At: 11:41

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Compare: A Journal of Comparative

and International Education
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ccom20

Multi/intercultural education in
Australia and the Netherlands
a b
Yvonne Leeman & Carol Reid
a
University of Amsterdam , The Netherlands
b
University of Western Sydney , Australia
Published online: 15 Aug 2006.

To cite this article: Yvonne Leeman & Carol Reid (2006) Multi/intercultural education in Australia
and the Netherlands, Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 36:1, 57-72,
DOI: 10.1080/03057920500382325

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03057920500382325

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 Compare
Vol. 36, No. 1, March 2006, pp. 57–72

Multi/intercultural education in
Australia and the Netherlands
Yvonne Leeman*a and Carol Reidb
a
University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands; bUniversity of Western Sydney, Australia
Downloaded by [University of Chicago Library] at 11:41 07 October 2014

In this article, the authors tease out the constructions of multi/intercultural education in Australia
and the Netherlands through a comparative study of the two contexts including the population,
scope of diversity, policies of multiculturalism and the policy and practice of multi/intercultural
education. The comparison highlights commonalities and context-bound differences. The article
then discusses some dilemmas in the practice of multi/intercultural education based on findings
from the authors’ recent empirical research in both countries using a critical multiculturalism
framework. The dilemmas discussed include the interwoven dimensions of culturalism and
individualism and the tendency towards social agnosticism among teachers and teacher education
students.

Keywords: Critical multiculturalism; Critical theories of education; Multicultural education; Intercultural

education

Introduction
During the second half of the twentieth century, multicultural and intercultural
education were put on the educational agenda. African Americans in the USA
challenged the dominant western view of the world in the curriculum and
emphasised social justice and democracy (Banks & McGee, 1995; Hooks, 1994).
In Europe, central and local authorities are interested in intercultural education as a
way to ‘manage’ the growing ethnic and cultural diversity (Fase, 1994; Driessen,
2000; Gundara, 2000; Leeman, 2003; Van Langen & Dekkers, 2001). In Australia,
multicultural education has been ongoing since the 1970s with considerable debate
at the level of theory, policy and practice (Rizvi, 1987; Kalantzis et al., 1990; Cahill,
1996; Secombe & Zajda, 1999).
Although there is consensus about the broad aims of multi/intercultural
education, there is lack of agreement on perspectives, target groups, boundaries,
dimensions and theoretical concepts within nations (cf. Banks et al., 2001; Gundara,

*Corresponding author. Department of Education, University of Amsterdam, PO Box 94208,

1090 GE Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Email: y.a.m.leeman@uva.nl
ISSN 0305-7925 (print)/ISSN 1469-3623 (online)/06/010057-16
# 2006 British Association for International and Comparative Education
DOI: 10.1080/03057920500382325
 58 Y. Leeman and C. Reid

2000; Modood & May, 2001; Ng, 1991; Sleeter & Grant, 1987) and between
nations (cf. Banks & McGee, 1995; May, 1999). Existing approaches to multi/
intercultural education in different countries have been partly analysed and
documented. Sleeter and Grant (1987) constructed a typology differentiating
between ‘teaching the culturally different’, ‘single group studies’, a focus on ‘human
relations’ and multicultural education in combination with a ‘social reconstruc-
tionist’ approach. They documented the different goals and educational aspects to
which the diverse approaches pay attention. In these analyses of multi/intercultural
education the focus is on the content of the curriculum. Another approach has
focussed on the ideological discourses deployed by teachers in Australian schools
revealing a marked tendency towards social agnosticism (Grundy & Hatton, 1995).
Downloaded by [University of Chicago Library] at 11:41 07 October 2014

In addition, an overwhelming focus on ethnicity alone when working with culturally

diverse schooling contexts has been considered an issue in Australia (Secombe &
Zajda, 1999; Tsolidis, 2001). In the USA and Canada, the degree to which
multicultural education can achieve socially just outcomes has been discussed and
found to be questionable (James & Schecter, 2000). Finally in the UK there has
been much debate between multiculturalists and anti-racists where on the one hand
multicultural education has been seen as reproducing the status quo while anti-
racism challenges it, and on the other hand anti-racism has been seen as negative and
ignorant of the need to celebrate diversity by focussing on structural relations
(Troyna, 1992; Modood & May, 2001).
To gain understanding and scientific insight into multi/intercultural education,
similarities and differences across national boundaries need clarification and
analysis. Comparative studies offer the possibility to analyse and critique edu-
cation from a considerable distance (see Phillips, 1999). This article compares
Australia and the Netherlands, countries with different histories—one was an
important colonial power while the other was colonised by the British—and
somewhat marginalised in the debates put forward by colleagues in the UK and
USA.
Inspired by Sleeter and Grant’s (1987) ‘social reconstructionist’ approach to
multi/intercultural education, this article argues for a reflective and democratic ethos
in culturally diverse educational contexts. A social reconstructionist approach
attends to struggles for the recognition of diversity within the current structures but
also develops a political literacy that links these struggles to issues of wider social
justice leading to social transformation. This is important since educational theory
has focussed on ‘managing differences’ and culture has tended to be understood in
terms of the ‘otherness’ of ethnic minority groups leading to culturalism.
Culturalism is a set of ideas and practices that frame identity in such a way as to
identify those of particular ethnic groups as the same and to assign characteristics
that are considered by the namers as innate. Culturalism is problematic because
there are differences between group and individual identities. In addition, ethnic and
cultural identification is a process, not a static category (McConaghy, 1997)—
culture and identity are always in a state of flux (Hall, 1987). This necessitates an
understanding of power relations: identity choices are not available to all individuals
 Multi/intercultural education 59

or groups equally because class, ethnic and gender stratification, objective

constraints and historical factors structure them.
Theoretical focus therefore needs to be on analysis of, and reflection on, the ways in
which ethnic/cultural diversity occurs in education and the possible actions and
constraints—from the perspective of a reflective and democratic multiculturalism—on
different levels of education. A useful way in which to do this is through an approach
known as ‘critical multiculturalism’. May (1999, pp. 7–8) argues that critical
multiculturalism ‘incorporates post-modern conceptions and analysis of culture and
identity, while holding onto the possibility of an emancipatory politics. It specifically
combines multicultural/antiracist theoretical streams… It emphasises the crucial links
between theory, policy and practice… And finally, it lends itself to the possibilities of a
Downloaded by [University of Chicago Library] at 11:41 07 October 2014

cross-national dialogue in which the differing theoretical and practical concerns of a

variety of national contexts can be reflectively and reflexively explored’.
This comparative study of multi/intercultural education in Australia and the
Netherlands aims to provide an insight into both the metanarratives of liberal
democracies and the culture-based studies of the local context (Rust, 1991). To
understand the wider national and international contexts we carried out a literature
review to describe the context, politics and practice of multi/intercultural education
in both countries. We have only summarised this research in the article as there is a
large body from both normative and critical perspectives and we did not want to
merely review that literature again preferring, instead, to focus more on the
substantive issues. We start, therefore, with a general comparison of the societal
context for multi/intercultural education in both countries including the population,
scope of diversity and policies of multiculturalism. This is followed by an
examination of the policy and practice of multi/intercultural education in the two
countries. The sources we used for our comparison are key literature available in
both countries, including policy documents of the central governments, reports
monitoring the situation of immigrants in education, research reports and review
articles into the policy and practice of multi/intercultural education. We conclude
this article with an examination of critical areas at the level of the classroom.

Comparison of contexts
Immigration
In Australia and the Netherlands, multicultural and intercultural education entered
the educational agenda in relation to immigration after the Second World War.
Today both countries have similar populations of around 19 and 17 million
respectively. Both are ethnically diverse and reveal tensions emanating from
inequitable social relations. These inequities result from problems related to
integration in a new society, language, religious and cultural differences and the
exclusion of immigrants—and in the case of Australia, the Indigenous peoples.
Differences also exist between the Netherlands and Australia. Post-war immigra-
tion to the Netherlands consisted of labour migrants from the south of Europe,
Turkey and Morocco. People came from the former colonies of Suriname and
 60 Y. Leeman and C. Reid

Indonesia (which had special relationships with the Dutch and the Dutch language)
and refugees came from all over the world. A large portion of immigrants arrived (in
the 1960s and 1970s) as guest workers to fulfil labour contracts with the intention of
returning to their country of origin; in practice, they stayed. The Netherlands did not
have an elaborated or long-term immigration policy because of the ideological
hegemony of temporary migration; policy formation was ad-hoc (WRR, 1979).
When the economic situation brought a period of unemployment in the early 1980s,
a policy of ‘closed borders’ was formulated and included the possibility of family re-
union for labour migrants, intake of political refugees and special regulations for
immigrants from the former colonies. Immigration has become a permanent flow
and is, in effect, difficult to control (CBS, 2002; Dagevos et al., 2003).
Downloaded by [University of Chicago Library] at 11:41 07 October 2014

In comparison, Australia has been a ‘settler society’, with immigration policies in

place prior to Federation. In 1865 for example, the colony of New South Wales
passed legislation restricting Chinese immigration (Collins 1991). Later, as a nation-
building priority, the Federal Government introduced the 1901 Immigration
Restriction Act, subsequently known as the ‘White Australia’ policy. Similar policies
can be found in the histories of other ‘New World’ countries such as Canada, New
Zealand and the USA (Collins, 1991). This was the period during which Australia
and other New World countries created images of homogeneity when indeed they
never were, all had Indigenous populations. Australia has not had ‘labour’ migrants
or guest workers, but like the Netherlands it is witnessing increasing numbers of
refugees and there is an indication that a ‘labour migrant’ category may be
introduced by the current conservative Federal government.
Today in Australia, first and second generation immigrants make up 40% of the
population: one in four Australians were born overseas with 14.2% born in non-
English-speaking (NES) countries. Among children, 15% over five-years of age
speak a language other than English. The change in linguistic diversity is significant
given that in 1947, 81% of the overseas-born population were from English-speaking
countries whereas in 1997, only 39% were from English speaking countries (figures
from Jonas, 2001).
Immigrants and their descendants can be found across all social classes, but it is
the more recently arrived who tend to cluster in areas of high unemployment.
During the 1980s, immigrants came mainly from Vietnam and Lebanon, escaping
political persecution and war. These two groups remain among the most
disadvantaged, although there appears to be some differentiation in relation to
religious affiliation. For example, according to the 1996 Census, Muslims from the
Middle East and North Africa are found among the more disadvantaged whereas
Christian Lebanese are less so. Muslims in general have a 25% unemployment rate
compared to a national rate of 9% (Australia Bureau of Statistics 1996). The 1990s
saw a shift in Australia’s immigration pattern, with more immigrants coming from
Asia, whereas previously Europe had been the main source of new-comers. Six
categories in the top ten are now from Asian countries, with the UK and New Zea-
land still at the top of the list. They, and South Africa, are the only English-speaking
countries in the list (Department of Immigration, 1999). Over this period the
 Multi/intercultural education 61

conservative Federal Government has tightened its immigration policies, and

attitudes and practices towards refugees are becoming harsher.
In terms of educational outcomes, results vary. Cahill (1996) found that children
of immigrants generally do quite well in the Australian education system, some
groups out-performing the dominant ‘Anglo’ majority. However, other groups, such
as refugees from Vietnam and the Middle East, generally do not do as well. There
are connections here to wider policies of immigration, which in Australia targets
people with social, economic and cultural capital such as the ability to speak English.
The ‘points test’—an inventory of characteristics required to gain entry—targets
cultural capital and this tends to override factors related to ethnicity.
Dutch policies on immigration have become increasingly part of the highly
Downloaded by [University of Chicago Library] at 11:41 07 October 2014

restrictive European Community policies. Immigrants differ from each other and
from the majority ‘Dutch’ along religious, linguistic, colour and ethno-cultural lines.
Immigrants differ in official status and in rights for settlement. At the start of the new
millennium, 17.5% of inhabitants of the Netherlands were born, or had at least one
parent who was born abroad. Of these, half originate from other western countries
like Germany. The rest, the so-called ‘ethnic minorities’, come predominantly from
Turkey (21.9%), Morocco (18.6%) and Suriname (21.5%) (CBS, 2002). There are
also spatial dimensions to settlement with concentrations of ethnic minorities in the
Randstad, the area in the west of the Netherlands where Amsterdam, Utrecht, The
Hague and Rotterdam are situated. In these cities almost half of the youngsters are
part of ethnic-cultural minorities.
The position of ethnic minorities in the Netherlands today reveals that relatively
new groups of immigrants are still situated in the lower socio-economic strata.
Relatively, their unemployment rate is high, level of education low and housing
conditions poor (Dagevos et al., 2003), although there is some differentiation
between and within the different ethnic minority groups. Recent research (Tesser,
2003) shows that ethnic minorities, especially those educated in the Netherlands are
making progress in their schooling to the extent that some are closing the
gap between ethnic minority and majority performance. There are special
priority policies aimed at equal opportunities for and integration of ethnic mino-
rities. Whether these policies are effective is highly debated (see Dagevos et al.,
2003).
In conclusion, each country’s population has a different composition with the
percentage of immigrants considerably higher in Australia. Immigration policies of
both countries are increasingly similar, although their histories differ. Australia has a
longer immigration history and consequently more experience with attempting to
manage cultural difference. The Australian image is western and English speaking. It
is an image of the people that immigrated to Australia, particularly from the late
nineteenth century; it is not the image of the Indigenous people. The most recent
discussions on immigration started during the second-half of the twentieth century
and involve immigrant and Indigenous communities. In the Netherlands, multi-
culturalism is at the margin of a discussion focussed on integration, a discussion in
which the ethnic minorities, as newcomers, are relatively silent.
 62 Y. Leeman and C. Reid

Conceptualisation of difference
In the Netherlands, the use of the dichotomy autochtoneous (Dutch descent)—
allochtoneous (descent from abroad) is very popular in circles of the dominant
ethnic groups, in both media and politics. The majority see immigrants as culturally
different. Opinions about difference change over time. For example, in the early days
of post-war immigration, the Dutch saw Italian, Spanish, Turk and Moroccan
migrant workers as very different. Nowadays, Italy and Spain are part of the
European Union and are not seen as that ‘foreign’. In relation to this difference,
religion—Christian/Islam—poses another strong dichotomy. Social psychologists
show that the current general ethnic hierarchy in the Netherlands puts Moroccan
Downloaded by [University of Chicago Library] at 11:41 07 October 2014

and Turkish people most socially distant from ‘the Dutch’ (Oudenhoven et al.,
1998). The ‘black’ Surinamese and Antilleans are in the middle. Some immigrant
groups downplay their difference and are moving (in their aspirations and partly in
their positions) in the direction of the mainstream; others feel excluded and tend (in
reaction) to emphasise ethnic cultural differences.
The frequently used Dutch dichotomy autochtoneous/allochtoneous-to give, in a
nutshell, a description of the dichotomy of power and difference, this distinction,
however, does not exactly fit the Australian case. Australia has a history of excluding
people based on colour—both immigrants and the local Indigenous peoples—and
the ‘White Australia’ policy was not formally removed until 1972 (Collins, 1991).
Furthermore, the black–white dichotomy used in the US is not precise enough for
the Dutch situation, nor does it help in understanding the Australian context.
Colour has been an important dimension of discrimination in Australia, particularly
in relation to Indigenous peoples, but also Asians, Pacific Islanders and more
recently those from the Middle East. In addition to these dichotomies of Christian/
Muslim and immigrant ‘other’/‘real’ Australian, is the problematic place of
Indigenous Australians. There is overwhelming resistance by Indigenous
Australians to being seen as ‘just another ethnic group’, due to the initial
dispossession of land and social marginalisation, and while only small in number
(350,000), Indigenous Australians mobilise considerable moral and ethical force in
their claims. Therefore the dimensions of power and difference are multiple/
overlapping and shifting in Australia and relate to both the legacies of colonialism
and the changing dynamics of immigration.
In conclusion, there seems to be a range of interethnic differences connected with
a social hierarchy operating in both countries. What is consistent across both
contexts is a cultural form of racism (culturalism). Indeed in both countries, this
culturalism seems to be increasingly focussed around religious difference. The
situation in Australia is made even more complex considering the position of the
Indigenous peoples.

National policies of multiculturalism

In the Netherlands, the descriptive term ‘multicultural society’ is generally accepted;
however few favour the idea of multiculturalism as an ideal societal form. This is
 Multi/intercultural education 63

because multiculturalism is an ideologically ‘loaded’ term that gives value to cultural

diversity. Emphasis is on integration and the participation of immigrants in the
central institutions of society. Multiculturalism was never an important policy
subject. In the Dutch liberal way of thinking, core values of freedom of opinion (for
example affected in the free expression of cultural and religious beliefs) and
individual autonomy guarantee cultural rights. There is minimal attention at the
national level on special cultural privileges or for the languages of immigrants as the
focus is on integration and openness to diversity at the individual level. At this level,
individual agency is captive to the ‘law of the market’ ideology, which dictates that
the strong and integrated will succeed. Such an approach to policy makes
immigrants who are not successful a ‘problem’; they appear as ‘culturally hand
Downloaded by [University of Chicago Library] at 11:41 07 October 2014

icapped’. The consequences of this approach for social cohesion are growing
geographical segregation along the lines of ethnicity that emerge in poor areas of big
cities, with increasing socio-economic disparity along ethnic lines. In the changing
and hardening political climate, loyalty to the Netherlands and acceptance of the
Dutch system are important themes. Mutual respect was always an essential feature
and thus is an integrationist model.
There is some parallel between Dutch and Australian policies. While group
cultural rights are respected, the constitution concerns itself with individual rights
over any collective rights. Multiculturalism in Australia has three essential features
(Jonas, 2001, pp. 5–6):
N Loyalty to Australia
N Acceptance of the Australian system
N Mutual respect
It tends therefore to be mainly liberal in approach by promoting loyalty to Australia
first but allowing for the expression of cultural beliefs and values within the law.
There is still the notion that immigrants create problems, particularly those seen as
most ‘alien’ such as people of colour and different in terms of religion. The irony is
however, that although collective rights are not recognised because of the hegemony
of individualism, this does not stop ethnicity becoming a marker and explanation to
justify essentially racist constructions of difference. For example, youth gangs are
criminalised and ethnicised by police and the media in Sydney. That is, they are seen
as criminal gangs and their ethnicity is identified (before proof ) (Collins et al.,
2000). From the perspective of anti-racists this is an outcome that could be expected
of a form of multiculturalism which has focussed too much on the cultural
maintenance of the ‘Other’, thus producing bounded notions of identity, and not
enough on challenging the status quo, which would reveal relations of power shaping
identity (Rizvi, 1987).
These recent tensions are set against a background of increased conservatism
where special programmes for immigrants have been reduced or stopped. While
multiculturalism as policy and practice is integrationist in approach, it nevertheless
provided focussed support. ‘Mainstreaming’—the end of specific migrant group
targeting of special provisions and the expectation that these will be taken up more
 64 Y. Leeman and C. Reid

generally in the provision of services to the wider community—has been evident

since 1996 when the new right-wing Howard Government abandoned multi-
culturalism as a policy, and dispersed the Department of Multicultural Affairs
(Noble & Poynting, 2000). Leading up to the Centenary of Federation in 2001, the
question of what it meant to be Australian arose and, along with it, what a revised
constitution would look like if Australia became a Republic. This questioning
included concerns about religion, language and individual versus collective group
rights. There was some comparison made with Canada’s Bill of Rights but fear of
creating ‘many nations within’ halted the debate. The Republic referendum was lost.
Since then, treatment of asylum seekers landing on Australian shores, ethnicisation
of youth crime and the rise of conservative Christian groups have meant that
Downloaded by [University of Chicago Library] at 11:41 07 October 2014

multiculturalism is seen as a threat to social cohesion and national identity.

In politics then, multiculturalism in both countries is associated with ‘problems’ or
the management of ‘potential problems’. Orthodox liberals defend liberalism against a
politics of difference represented by multiculturalism. Only neutrality of the civic
realm can ensure personal autonomy, equality and common citizenship. Both research
and policy focus on ‘the problematic immigrant’. In education, in both countries, the
bulk of research is concerned with immigrant children and social mobility (Leeman &
Volman, 2001; Cahill, 1996, p. 15). In Australia, research discusses the contribution
immigrants have made to the country (see Collins et al., 1995), their experiences of
racism and exclusion (Castles et al., 1998), educational and social experiences of
ethnic minority female students (Tsolidis, 2001) and the school experiences of ethnic
minorities (Smolicz, 1971). Research into the realities (positive and negative) of
people living in a multi-ethnic-cultural context is less abundant.
Australia in a moral sense finds it difficult to defend a western image in the face of
the Indigenous peoples’ struggles and a highly diverse society. Consequently,
discussion is highly politicised. In the Netherlands, until recently, multiculturalism
was not a highly important political issue; the majority of the population was
somewhat indifferent to the issue. The elections in Spring 2002 brought
considerable change. Pim Fortuyn put the problems of multiculturalism high on
the agenda, and was supported by almost 20% of voters. Since then there has been
considerable change in Dutch policies. Multiculturalism has now been abandoned
and the idea of assimilation—‘fitting in’ and the concomitant denial of difference—is
gaining ground. Ethnic minority groups don’t have significant political power and
lack unity, discouraging development of a critical counterforce.

Policy and practice of multicultural and intercultural education

There is a minor differentiation between the terms multicultural education and
intercultural education: both multicultural and intercultural education aim to
provide language support to immigrants and to improve relations between
immigrants and non-immigrants. However, Australian multicultural education has
always included an anti-racist element, in part due to the Australian history of
discrimination on the basis of race, but also because Australia adapted the Canadian
approach to multicultural policies and practices.
 Multi/intercultural education 65

Dutch educational policy, being mainly integrationist, focusses on opportunities

for immigrants to enable them to participate in the institutions of Dutch society
(including teaching Dutch as a second language) and on intercultural education—a
kind of citizenship education for all in the multicultural society (Fase, 1994;
Leeman, 2003). Since the 1970s school regulations insist teachers pay attention to
intercultural education—that immigrants as well as the Dutch have to change in
order to co-exist in a multicultural society. Mutual respect and tolerance are
important goals of intercultural education (Ministerie van OenW, 1981).
However, the content and pedagogies of intercultural education are not officially
prescribed. Schools and teachers have considerable freedom in the way they bring
intercultural education into practice and ‘freedom of education’ is an important
Downloaded by [University of Chicago Library] at 11:41 07 October 2014

characteristic of the school system (Van Langen & Dekkers, 2001; Vermeulen,
2004). Intercultural education is not a priority subject and this would be difficult to
achieve since although all schools are state funded, they differ along religious and
pedagogical lines. For example, there are now more than 30 Islamic primary schools
within the state system. The policy recommended that there be no fixed timetable
for intercultural education and no special subject area in the curriculum; it was to be
integrated across all curriculum areas. In principle all teachers have responsibility
and ownership. Here it is important to remember that in the Netherlands there are
almost no immigrant teachers (Visser & Theunissen, 1998), so critical perspectives
on intercultural education and views of the world from an immigrant perspective are
not easily included. Unlike countries such as the UK, intercultural education is not
highly contested (Modood & May, 2001). Immigrant groups do not fight for social
justice through intercultural education. It is part of the policy of the Department of
Education and part of the struggle of democratic workers in education.
In practice different schools have different lessons. In ethnically diverse schools,
there is a practice of intercultural education, an emphasis on relevant content for all
and on ensuring a safe and encouraging school climate. Research (Projectgroep
Intercultureel Onderwijs, 1995) shows that intercultural education is very weak in ‘all
white’ schools and has not entered the mainstream educational debate, nor succeeded
in positioning itself as a relevant issue for both—immigrants and the majority.
In Australia, since the late 1970s, multicultural and Indigenous education have
been tied to sometimes-parallel concerns, especially in terms of social exclusion and
racism. To this end, multicultural education was largely concerned with language
acquisition for the immigrant and anti-racist practices in schools and classrooms.
Multicultural education had a focus on the maintenance of culture—for the
immigrant—and was embedded in policy at the national, state and departmental
levels of education. Debunking myths about Indigenous peoples through curriculum
vehicles such as Aboriginal Studies was also introduced in the early 1980s. In
addition, there have been various forms of ‘perspectives’ approaches—whereby a
multicultural or Indigenous perspective was added on to curriculum areas—as well
as community language programmes and lessons on tolerance and respect for all.
The focus of policies and practices during the 1970–1980s was on access to the
mainstream via equality of opportunity. Thus, the idea was to provide space for
 66 Y. Leeman and C. Reid

cultural difference but in an instrumentalist way. This was one of Troyna’s (1992)
criticisms of multicultural education policy in England: that multicultural education
was about managing difference rather than transforming social structures. Since the
national policy in Australia was axed in 1986 due to budgetary constraints and the
subsequent mainstreaming of many programmes, the idea of a ‘culturally inclusive
curriculum’ has developed which is less ethnicised and more focussed on
intersections of ethnicity, gender, class and other social relations. Programmes for
English have been seriously cut back providing only short-term support for
immigrant children in schools. There has also been a fragmentation of the state
education system alongside an increase in the number of private schools, particularly
in terms of religion. There is now a nationally-backed ‘Community Harmony’
Downloaded by [University of Chicago Library] at 11:41 07 October 2014

programme which funds small community-based initiatives that focus on co-

operation and dissolving difference around the theme of ‘you+me5us’. Individual
states have their own policies and thus policy and practice has, like the Netherlands,
become less centralised. Paradoxically, this has occurred at the same time that
assessment has become more centralised through mass testing. This means that
there is tension created by the demands of testing regimes, on which teachers’
performances are assessed, and the need for local, contextualised responses.
Multicultural and Indigenous education are still separate policy areas. Indigenous
education is highly politicised with organisations at local, national and international
levels providing input into policy and producing curriculum materials. Initially,
Indigenous education policy directed practice towards a two-fold objective: historical
and structural explanations of contemporary inequalities and teaching ‘about’
Indigenous cultures. Currently the curriculum centres on integration of perspectives
across the curriculum at primary level, a mirror of the long-term practice of
multicultural education. In secondary schools there is a separate elective subject.
Like the Netherlands, practice in multicultural education varies depending on the
diversity of the school context and the interest of the teacher. While individual
teachers determine the content of multicultural lessons, citizenship studies have
recently been added to the curriculum as a space for exploring rights and
responsibilities. In contrast to the Netherlands, one out of five teachers in
Australia responding to a survey stated that they were born overseas or came from
a Non-English Speaking background and 0.8% of teachers were Indigenous
(Australian College of Education, 2001). The effects of this difference in the
teaching population have not been researched.
Thus, in the context of liberal policies on multiculturalism in both countries it
is possible to see a number of similarities: multi/intercultural education is a
pedagogical enterprise that predominantly involves lessons in tolerance for all. In
both countries there is room to incorporate anti-racism although only in Australia is
this made explicit. However, anti-racism is often seen as too negative and not treated
unless there is an ‘event’ such as name calling or violence that requires a response. In
both countries the schools are expected to provide multi/intercultural education, but
not as a special subject area, the exception being Aboriginal Studies in Australia. In
general then, multi/intercultural education in both countries has no strong position,
 Multi/intercultural education 67

is difficult to control and depends on a predominantly mainstream teaching force to

give it content and shape.
Differences between the countries relate to the rejection of multicultural
education by Indigenous peoples in terms of their own struggles and prior
occupation of the Land, and the fact that multicultural education is seen as
something done for immigrants. In the Netherlands it is a separate issue, but only
teachers in schools with a high percentage of immigrants are interested. In Australia,
the debate was highly politicised until recently; the new trend in Australia towards
non-tolerance, despite the rhetoric of government, has silenced this issue. In the
Netherlands intercultural education is seen as important for mutual respect and as
helpful for integration, but indifference is evident in schools. This probably relates to
Downloaded by [University of Chicago Library] at 11:41 07 October 2014

a perceived lack of relevance to Dutch culture; a sense of relevance that, due to a

history of immigration, is part of the Australian culture.
Thus, we can see that contexts shape practical concerns. This is made clearer when
we look at Australia and the Netherlands and then compare them with the
international situation. While Australia has always included anti-racism in multi-
cultural education for example, the UK keeps the two separate. Australia’s ‘White
Australia’ Policy (discontinued in 1967) has produced ideological legacies that require
deconstruction and anti-racism provides this platform through a concentration on the
origins of racialised thinking and the history of racialised practices in Australia. In the
US more black teachers are employed to promote multicultural education. This
strategy has, to some extent, also been used in Australia in relation to Indigenous
teachers. Canada and New Zealand also have multi/intercultural education and, like
Australia, separate Indigenous education policies. But once again, the Maori in New
Zealand and First Nations in Canada tend more towards separatist policies and
practices than Indigenous peoples in Australia (Reid, 2004, pp. 41–42). Canada also
must wrestle with the question of Quebec and the French language.
Generalisable multi/intercultural education policies and practices are therefore not
a way forward because of different contexts and histories. These different contexts
and histories require local responses rather than a reliance on generic ‘toolkits’ that
often result in simplistic practices that tend towards culturalism. In our final section
we examine culturalism in terms of the form/s it takes in classroom practice and its
effects on students, as well as examining the relationship between culturalism and
individualism. In examining the effects of culturalism we will demonstrate the ways
in which cultural boundary making closes off possibilities while individualism denies
social and cultural difference. In these examples we also demonstrate the tendency
for teachers and teacher education students to be socially agnostic.

Multi/intercultural education in the classroom

To conclude this article, we examine critical areas at the level of the classroom. In
both countries there has been little research into the daily practice of multi/
intercultural education or the perspectives of the participants. Our recent research
shows that culturalism frequently occurs in classrooms (Leeman, 1997, 1998;
Leeman & Volman, 2001; Reid, 1999, 2001, 2003). For example, in Australia, a
 68 Y. Leeman and C. Reid

study involving four focus groups of Aboriginal students [n526] across different
levels of a Sydney secondary school, and focus group discussions with their teachers,
illuminated the problems associated with culturalism (Reid, 1999, 2001). For
example, in policy materials, curriculum documents and in the discourses of
teachers, urban Aboriginal youth had been pathologised as having low self-esteem
because they had ‘lost’ their culture. The development of self-esteem through
school-based activities was a major focus of Aboriginal Studies. Much of the
curriculum was historical and environmental but there was also a focus on culture
aimed at Aboriginal students. The problem with much of the cultural material was
that there was a slippage from ‘textbook’ traditional Aboriginal society to the urban
context. This revealed itself in ways that students found objectionable. For example,
Downloaded by [University of Chicago Library] at 11:41 07 October 2014

students objected strongly to having ‘traditional Aboriginal culture’ imposed in the

form of traditional ‘bushtucker’ and the wearing of the highly political Aboriginal
colours of resistance (red, black and yellow) in the clothing of the Aboriginal
Education Assistant at their school. They were more interested in African American
rap clothes, while at the same time coming to understand family history. Students
revealed a strong sense of identity and belonging rather than a lack of self-esteem,
which Griffiths (1993) has in fact argued has more to do with achievement.
Problems of racism, sexism and poverty were seen to be more urgent than learning
‘how to be Aboriginal’. The reliance on victim discourses in relation to Aboriginal
students also led to a containment of dynamic identity processes and therefore a
potential removal of agency.
In the Netherlands, immigrant pupils did not voice this criticism. Awareness of the
problems associated with culturalism led the Dutch Ministry of Education to launch
a project into new ways of operationalising intercultural education. The Intercultural
Learning in the Classroom project involved teachers across all education sectors
collaborating in sector networks on the development of intercultural activities and
experimenting with them in the classroom. Teachers were asked to develop
examples of intercultural activities in which culturalism was avoided and which
could easily be used by other teachers in their daily classroom activities. Researchers
evaluated the lessons on intercultural education developed by the individual teachers
participating in the project (Ledoux et al., 2001; Leeman & Ledoux, 2003a, 2003b),
and analysed the teacher curriculum documents, which were the end products of the
four sector networks. Teachers were asked to document their objectives, content,
didactic approach and the competencies required of pupils and teachers for
intercultural education. In addition, the researchers observed lessons and discussed
them with the teachers (in a reflective way) to gain an impression of classroom
practice. One conclusion was that the teachers moved away from culturalism and
focussed more on individual differences of age, religious orientation and lifestyle
than on ethnic differences. Only in ethnically-mixed classrooms were ethnic differ-
ences prominent. Teachers saw intercultural education mainly as education for
tolerance, emphasising the necessity of a safe atmosphere in the classroom, and
competencies to promote this. According to the teachers, these competencies
include empathy and communication skills.
 Multi/intercultural education 69

A focus on the individual, or providing opportunities to discuss the personal, does

not take account of the political—such as factors shaping education and educational
policy (Young, 2000). Indeed group differences related to power imbalances in
society seem to be no part of the repertoire of teachers in the Netherlands and
teacher education students in Australia. A study by Reid (2000), revealed that
teacher education students rejected critical approaches of theory and restated their
desire to learn about ‘how’ to teach students of difference. In this study, the analysis
of four focus group discussions with students and on-line discussion material
involving 125 participants over a 3-month period revealed that developing reflexivity
is often rejected in favour of a safe, non-threatening approach. This safe approach to
understanding and dealing with difference has a focus on the peculiarities of the
Downloaded by [University of Chicago Library] at 11:41 07 October 2014

‘Other’ and tends to obscure the external referent culture. Difference is seen as
something to be harnessed, co-opted and incorporated to achieve cultural
compatibility. The pedagogy of bringing into the centre—‘us’—reveals the essential
paradox of liberalism. That is, it ‘tolerates diversity only as an instrumental quality
and not as something valuable in itself ’ (Griffiths, 1993, p. 309).
These studies reveal the links between liberalism at the wider social and political
levels and the way in which the structures of society are left unexamined in favour of
approaches that focus on culture as an explanation for inequality and difference.
Multi/intercultural education is therefore complicit in maintaining the status quo if
wider socio-political processes that produce ‘difference’ are not examined and
revealed. In a critical multicultural approach to education, issues of identity and
nation become central to analysis and to multi/intercultural education. If we are to
avoid culturalism and/or a focus only on decontextualised individuals, then a new
strategy for multi/intercultural education is needed and teacher competencies need
to be re-oriented. At a time of transnational migration a ‘new racism’ has emerged
which is related to how national identity is understood in terms of who belongs and
who doesn’t. Short and Carrington (1999) argue that we need to understand this
new racism and consider how it might relate to a critical multicultural pedagogy.
They argue that children make quite complex observations and explanations about
these identities leading them to suggest that the task of schools might be to harness
these understandings and deconstruct them so that they can recognise and challenge
racist folklore such as ‘immigrants and/or multiculturalism is a threat to social
cohesion’. Perhaps the main thrust of critical multiculturalism in terms of pedagogy
is that conflict in society should be addressed rather than ignored. Sometimes this
means that a safe environment cannot be guaranteed because voicing misconcep-
tions is unsettling.
Comparative studies provide opportunities to examine examples of contextualised
dilemmas revealing the limitations to individualistic responses to culturalism in the
Netherlands and the reaction of the Aboriginal Australian students to culturalism. In
this way, teachers come to see different contexts between countries and within
countries and consequently, that ‘recipes’ are of little use. However, to see
international trends and to gain insight into local interpretations a highly
comparative educational theory is needed. Comparative studies that are grounded
 70 Y. Leeman and C. Reid

in theory and practice provide impetus for reflection and thus develop reflective and
reflexive teachers.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the reviewer/s for their important suggestions,
which clearly improved the final text.

References
Australia Bureau of Statistics (1996) Labour force status and other characteristics of migrants,
Downloaded by [University of Chicago Library] at 11:41 07 October 2014

Australia. Available online at: http://www.abs.gov.au (accessed 4 October 2001).

Australian College of Education (2001) Teachers in Australian schools: a report from the 1999
National Survey, executive summary (ACT, Department of Education, Training and Youth
Affairs). Available online at: http://www.detya.gov.au/schools/ Publications/2001/pd/
teachers1999.htm (accessed 4 October 2001).
Banks, J. A. & McGee Banks, C. A. (1995) Handbook of research on multicultural education (New
York, Macmillan).
Banks, J. A., Cookson, P., Gay, G., Hawley, W. D., Irvine, J. J., Nieto, S., Schofield, J. W. &
Stephan, W. G. (2001) Diversity within Unity. Essential principles for teaching and learning
in a multicultural society (Seattle, WA, University of Washington, Center for Multicultural
Education).
Cahill, D. (1996) Immigration and schooling in the 1990’s (Canberra, Australian Government
Publishing Service).
Castles, S., Foster, W., Iredale, R. & Withers, G. (1998) Australia and immigration: a partnership
(St Leonards, Allen & Unwin with the Housing Industry Association Ltd).
CBS (2002) Allochtonen in Nederland (Voorburg/Heerlen, Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek).
Collins, J. (1991) Migrant hands in a distant land (2nd edn) (Leichhardt, Pluto Press).
Collins, J., Gibson, K., Alcorso, C., Tait, D. & Castles, S. (1995) A shop full of dreams: ethnic small
business in Australia (Sydney and London, Pluto Press).
Collins, J., Noble, G., Poynting, S. & Tabar, P. (2000) Kebabs, kids, cops and crime: youth, ethnicity
and crime (Sydney, Pluto Press).
Dagevos, J., Gijsberts, M. & Van Praag, C. (2003) Rapportage minderheden 2003. Onderwijs, arbeid
en sociaal-culturele integratie (Den Haag, Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau).
Department of Immigration (1999) Major source countries of settler arrivals, by country of birth, July
1998 to June 1999. Available online at: www.immi.gov.au/facts/02key-1.html#2 (accessed
15 May 2002).
Driessen, G. (2000) The limits of education policy and practice? The case of ethnic minorities in
The Netherlands, Comparative Education, 36, 55–72.
Fase, W. (1994) Ethnic divisions in Western European education (Munster/New York, Waxmann).
Griffiths, M. (1993) Self-identity and self-esteem: achieving equality in education, Oxford Review
of Education, 19(3), 301–17.
Grundy, S. & Hatton, E. J. (1995) Teacher educators’ ideological discourses, Journal of Education
for Teaching, 21(1), 7–24.
Gundara, J. S. (2000) Issues of discrimination in European education systems, Comparative
Education, 36, 223–34.
Hall, S. (1987) ‘Minimal selves’, identity: the real me (London, The Institute of Contemporary
Arts).
hooks, bell (1994) Teaching to transgress: education as the practice of freedom (New York, Routledge).
James, C. & Schecter, S. R. (2000) Mainstreaming and marginalisation: two national strategies in
the circumscription of difference, Journal of Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 8(1), 23–41.
 Multi/intercultural education 71

Jonas, W. (2001) Face the facts: some questions and answers about immigration, refugees and indigenous
affairs (Sydney, Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission).
Kalantzis, M., Cope, B., Noble, G. & Poynting, S. (1990) Cultures of schooling: pedagogies for
cultural difference and social access (London, Falmer Press).
Ledoux, G., Leeman, Y. & Leiprecht, R. (2001) Von kulturalistischen zu pluriformen Ansätzen.
Ergebnisse des niederländischen Projekts ‘Interkulturelles Lernen in der Klasse’, in:
G. Auernheimer, R. Van Dick, T. Petzel & U. Wagner (Eds) Interkulturalität im Arbeitsfeld
Schule (Opladen, Leske+Budrich), 177–195.
Leeman, Y. (1997) Young together: youth, ethnicity and education, European Journal of
Intercultural Studies, 8, 37–51.
Leeman, Y. (1998) Education for the multi-ethnic society, in: C. Wulff (Ed.) Education for the 21st
century, commonalities and diversities (Münster, Waxmann), 213–227.
Leeman, Y. A. M. (2003) School leadership for intercultural education, Intercultural Education,
Downloaded by [University of Chicago Library] at 11:41 07 October 2014

14(1), 31–45.
Leeman, Y. & Ledoux, G. (2003a) Intercultural education in Dutch schools, Curriculum Inquiry,
33(4), 385–400.
Leeman, Y. & Ledoux, G. (2003b) Preparing teachers for intercultural education, Teaching
Education, 14(3), 279–91.
Leeman, Y. & Volman, M. (2001) Inclusive education: recipe book or quest. On diversity in
the classroom and educational research, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 5,
367–79.
May, S. (Ed.) (1999) Critical multiculturalism. Rethinking multicultural and antiracist education
(London, Falmer Press).
McConaghy, C. (1997) Rethinking indigenous adult education: culturalism and the production of
disciplinary knowledges in a colonial context. PhD Thesis, University of Queensland.
Ministerie Van OenW (1981) Beleidsplan Culturele Minderheden in het Onderwijs (Den Haag,
Ministerie van Onderwijs en Wetenschappen).
Modood, T. & May, S. (2001) Multiculturalism and education in Britain: an internally contested
debate, International Journal of Educational Research, 35(3), 305–17.
Ng, R. (1991) Sexism, racism and Canadian nationalism, in: J. Vorst (Ed.) Race, class, gender:
bonds and barriers (Toronto, Garamond), 12–26.
Noble, G. & Poynting, S. (2000) Intercultural understanding: ethnicity, culture and schooling, in:
S. Dinham & C. Scott (Eds) Teaching in context (Camberwell, ACER), 56–81.
Oudenhoven, J. P., Prins, Van, K. S. & Buunk, B. P. (1998) Attitudes of minority and majority
members towards adaptation of immigrants, European Journal of Social Psychology, 28,
995–1013.
Phillips, D. (1999) On comparing, in: R. Alexander, P. Broadfoot & D. Phillips (Eds) Learning
from comparing (Oxford, Symposium Books), 15–20.
Projectgroep Intercultureel Onderwijs (1995) Intercultureel onderwijs: impuls voor school en omgeving
(‘s Hertogenbosch, KPC).
Reid, C. (1999) Whose self-esteem? Urban Aboriginal students, identity and inequality in
education, Education Links, 54 (Sydney, University of Technology, Centre for Popular
Education), 14–16.
Reid, C. (2000) What happens to democratic space when it is cyber? The ultiBASE Journal. Available
online at: http://ultibase.rmit.edu.au/Articles/online/reid1.htm (accessed 17 July 2000).
Reid, C. (2001) Magpie babies: urban Aboriginal students, identity and inequality in education,
in: A. Ward & R. Bouvier (Eds) Resting lightly on Mother Earth: the Aboriginal experience in
urban educational settings (Calgary, Alberta, Detselig Enterprises Ltd), 19–35.
Reid, C. (2003) Studying cultural diversity using ICTs in teacher education: pedagogy, power and
literacy, Journal of Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 12(3), 345–361.
Reid, C. (2004) Negotiating racialised identities: indigenous teacher education in Australia and Canada
(Melbourne, Common Ground Publishing).
 72 Y. Leeman and C. Reid

Rizvi, F. (1987) Multiculturalism as an educational policy (Victoria, Deakin University).

Rust, V. D. (1991) Postmodernism and its comparative education implications, Comparative
Education Review, 35(4), 610–19.
Secombe, M. & Zajda, J. (Eds) (1999) J.J. Smolicz on education and culture (Melbourne, James
Nicholas).
Short, G. & Carrington, B. (1999) Children’s constructions of their national identity: implications
for critical multiculturalism, in: S. May (Ed.) Critical multiculturalism—rethinking multi-
cultural and antiracist education (London, Falmer Press), 172–190.
Sleeter, C. E. & Grant, C. A. (1987) An analysis of multicultural education in the United States,
Harvard Educational Review, 57(4), 421–44.
Smolicz, J. J. (1971) European migrants and their children: interaction, assimilation, education. Part 1.
(Victoria, ACER Hawthorn).
Tesser, P. T. M. (2003) Ontwikkelingen in de schoolloopbanen van leerlingen uit achterstands-
Downloaded by [University of Chicago Library] at 11:41 07 October 2014

groepen, in: G. W. Meijnen (Ed.) Onderwijsachterstanden in basisscholen (Antwerpen/

Apeldoorn, Garant), 53–78.
Troyna, B. (1992) Can you see the join? An historical analysis of multicultural and anti-racist
education policies, in: D. Gill, B. Mayor & M. Blair (Eds) Racism and education: structures
and strategies (London, Sage), 63–91.
Tsolidis, G. (2001) Schooling, diaspora and gender: being feminist and being different (Buckingham,
Open University Press).
Van Langen, A. & Dekkers, H. (2001) Decentralisation and combating educational exclusion,
Comparative Education, 37, 367–384.
Visser, J. & Theunissen, J. (1998) Situatieschets intercultureel personeelsbeleid (Den Bosch, KPC).
Vermeulen, B. P. (2004) Regulating school choice to promote civic values: constitutional and
political issues in the Netherlands, in: P. J. Wolf & S. Macedo (Eds) Educating citizens
(Washington, Brookings institution press).
WRR (1979) Etnische Minderheden (Den Haag, Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regerings-
beleid).
Young, M. F. D. (2000) Rescuing the sociology of educational knowledge from the extremes of
voice discourse: towards a new theoretical basis for the sociology of the curriculum, British
Journal of Sociology of Education, 21, 524–536.