moving language barriers
TRANSCRIPT
Moving language barriers
A mixed-methods study of the implementation of school-based language
policies in primary schools
Proefschrift ingediend tot het behalen van de graad van Doctor in de Taalkunde
door Marieke Vanbuel, 2020
Promotor
Prof. dr. Kris Van den Branden
Begeleidingscommissie
Prof. dr. Bieke De Fraine
Prof. dr. Sven De Maeyer
Prof. dr. Piet Van Avermaet
Juryleden
Prof. dr. Orhan Agirdag
Prof. dr. Kate Menken
Prof. dr. Elke Peters
KU Leuven
Faculteit Letteren
Onderzoekseenheid Taalkunde
Onderzoeksgroep Taal, Onderwijs & Samenleving
© 2020 Marieke Vanbuel
Printed by Copy De Raaf – Leuven, Belgium
Dit onderzoek werd gefinancierd door SONO, Vlaams Departement voor Onderwijs en
Vorming, onder krediet nummer ZKD1468.
Dankjewel
‘Dat doctoraat, dat is uwen speeltuin’. De afgelopen vier jaar hebben me
ontzettend veel geleerd, geamuseerd, soms ook gefrustreerd. Maar ze zouden
niets zijn geweest zonder iedereen die erbij was. Duizendmiljoenmiljard
bedankjes voor jullie.
Kris, ook al moesten onze uitwisselmomenten bij een kop koffie en ons
gepingpong aan het kopieerapparaat in de CTO-keuken tijdens de laatste
eindspurt vanop meer dan anderhalve meter afstand gebeuren, je feedback
kwam steeds snel en was constructief als altijd. Bedankt dat dat doctoraat mijn
speeltuin mocht zijn.
Bieke, Piet en Sven, bedankt om me als leden in mijn begeleidingscommissie
eraan te herinneren dat dat doctoraat toffer is om aan te werken dan al die SONO-
rapporten, en om eerdere versies van die rapporten of van mijn papers van
commentaar te voorzien. Elke en Orhan, bedankt om erbij te zijn als juryleden,
en te tonen hoe belangrijk onderwijsonderzoek met een stevige poot in de
maatschappij wel niet is. Kate, thank you for being part of my jury, and for your
kind hospitality when I had the plan to make an extra stop in New York on my
way back from the AERA conference; too bad the corona crisis foiled the plan. I
still hope to attend one of your partnership schools someday.
Bart en Goedele, beste bubbelteam op vrijdag. Zonder jullie was mijn proefschrift
vast een variant van de bananenposter geworden. Keihard dankjewel voor al
jullie feedback. Maar bovenal had ik het zonder jullie de afgelopen jaren zeker
nooit zo tof kunnen houden (Fika’s! Pizza! Vietnamees! Pintjes in de Fak!). Jullie
zijn fantastisch. Goedele, bedankt voor die laatste vrijdagbubbels (letterlijk zelfs)
en coronafika’s op mijn stoep. Bart, bedankt om uit alle (lege) kantoren in het
CTO het mijne te kiezen. Bedankt om steeds hoera te roepen, ook al was het crap.
Carolien en Katrien, allerliefste, warmste boompjes. Bedankt om me te
introduceren in het onderzoek naar taalverwerving en geletterdheid, en voor
jullie hulp bij de dataverzameling. Het is er even niet van gekomen, maar plannen
we binnenkort een nieuw projectje? Carolien, van masterproefbegeleider tot
vriendin, dat kunt alleen gij. Bedankt voor je ge-cheer, van begin tot eind.
Anneleen, jij was erbij van bij het begin. Dat eerste artikel. De review. Bedankt
voor al je hulp! Tineke, jij was mijn allereerste CTO-collega. Bedankt om me af en
toe op mijn plaats te zetten, naïeve jonkie die ik was. Ik mis je mopjes. Joke, jij die
mee in het SONO-schuitje zat: bedankt om mee callcentermedewerker te spelen
om al die scholen te rekruteren. Joe, without you, there would be no Q-study;
thank you! RR-team, bedankt om mij als niet-pedagoog te adopteren.
Inge en Sara, liefste poezenmoekes, bedankt om mij af en toe uit mijn kot te
sleuren, en mij steeds te vergeven dat ik weer eens vergat waar de weken heen
waren. Sara, jij maakte deel uit van zowat alles de afgelopen jaren. Ik ben blij met
u. Bedankt ook om altijd klaar te staan tijdens de dataverzameling. (‘Je bent zo’n
mooie juf met je rokje aan’).
Sara, Wouter, Stefano, beste FC-alma/datumvrienden, ik kijk er keihard naar uit
om weer samen datums te zoeken en te komen/gaan eten – maar please ergens
anders dan de Alma? Birgit, bedankt om mij Meeko’s kamer te lenen toen ik in-
between-houses zat, en om te luisteren naar mijn gefoeter over onderwijspolitiek
– of toch te doen alsof. Ik kan weer reizen. Zijn we weg? Dankje Fiona en Joeska
voor onberispelijke outfits en beter-dan-Friends-jaren in la casa de Marcel.
Sara, Babette, Stefano, Freek, en andere vrienden uit het Erasmusgebouw, zonder
jullie zou ik helemaal niet meer op de hoogte zijn van de nieuwtjes die leven
onder minder hybride taalkundigen. Ik zou niet zonder de lunches, koffies, ijsjes,
frisse pintjes of verbroederende diners met jullie hebben gekund.
CTO-collega’s/oud-CTO’ers, en in het bijzonder Hannelore, Steven, Pandora,
Sophie, Karen, Goedele, Bart, Anneleen, Dana (oké, geen CTO’er, maar toch voor
een dag), Mie, Liesbeth: bedankt om mee die bergen data te helpen verzamelen
of coderen, maar vooral om het mee tof te houden. Christina, je blijft de meest
memorabele paashaas. Mariet, bedankt dat ik die laatste paar maanden onder
mijn steen mocht kruipen. Ik maak het goed.
Jan en Lieven, jullie zijn de heerlijkste verjaardagskompanen voor altijd. Jan,
bedankt om in de afgelopen maanden mijn corona/study buddy te zijn zoals in
de good old days, en me af en toe koffiekoeken toe te werpen. Ik bak binnenkort
de cake. Dit keer voor echt. En sorry voor de chmess. Lieven, je mag me vanaf nu
meesleuren naar klimmuren en –rotsen. Of doe misschien eerst de Onan.
Moeke en pap, bedankt om voor mij een kot in Leuven te zoeken terwijl ik op
chirokamp kinders aan het animeren was, of ik was misschien in een andere
studentenstad en studierichting beland. Bedankt voor al die keren dat jullie
zeiden dat ik toch nog even moest doorzetten, en om te blijven juichen, ondanks
mijn wervelwindbezoekjes. Ik maak meer tijd, beloofd.
Koen∞, zonder jou was ik nooit aan een doctoraat begonnen. Ook al was het veel
te kort, ik ben blij dat ik in jouw team heb gezeten. Wat had ik je er graag nog bij
gehad.
De leraren en directeurs in de dataverzamelingsscholen, bedankt om mij toe te
laten in jullie schoolgebouwen en klaslokalen. En de leerlingen! Zonder jullie was
er geen onderzoek geweest. En ik had alleen maar één sticker van nog geen twee
centimeter groot om in ruil te geven. (Iemand wat Frozen- of emojistickervellen?
Ik heb er nog een paar op overschot).
Ook een grote dankjewel aan de taalbeleidscoördinatoren, directeurs,
lerarenopleiders, onderwijsinspecteurs die deelnamen aan de Q-interviews, en
de studenten (Julie, Lara, Siel, Pauline, Stiene, Kaat, Ineke, Jolien, Klaartje, Nina)
die meehielpen met data transcriberen, verzamelen of coderen. Ik ben een
gelukzak dat ik zoveel toffe mensen heb mogen ontmoeten tijdens
schoolbezoeken, dataverzamelingsmomenten, studiedagen, lezingen, en SONO-
vergaderingen.
Na vier jaar is het tijd om mijn speeltuintijd af te ronden. Ik ga het sowieso
missen. En ook al denk ik soms ‘verdorie ge waart beter nog een keer op de
schommel geweest, die was de hele tijd vrij’, denk ik ook: tijd voor iets anders.
Table of Contents
Introduction 1
Moving language barriers
Chapter 1 25
School-based language policies and student language achievement
Chapter 2 53
Implementing school-based language policies: ‘good for the strong, strong for
the weak’?
Chapter 3 87
Each school a language policy?
Chapter 4 115
What do stakeholders consider best?
Chapter 5 141
Summary & discussion of the results
Chapter 6 151
Limitations, implications and recommendations
Academic output related to this PhD 173
Samenvatting 177
Appendices 185
Appendix I – Factor analyses 185
Appendix II – Teacher questionnaire: scales and items 188
Appendix III – Estimates of random effects 191
Appendix IV – Interview protocols 193
Appendix V – Coding template 199
Appendix VI – SLP interventions per school 201
Appendix VII – Q-Statements 202
Appendix VIII – Factor loadings Q-sorts 205
List of Tables and Figures
Table 1.1 School sample characteristics 29
Table 1.2 Characteristics of the pupils in the sample 32
Table 1.3 Parameter estimates empty model 37
Table 1.4 Estimates of the random effects of the empty model 37
Table 1.5 Parameter estimates for the fixed effects of Model 1, 2 and 3 39
Table 1.6 Comparison of Model Fit 41
Table 2.1 Qualitative Sample: School Characteristics 59
Table 2.2 SLP configuration in schools 65
Table 2.3 SLP types 65
Table 2.4 School effectiveness and SLP 75
Table 3.1 Sample: school & participant characteristics 92
Table 3.2 Descriptive results of the management team questionnaires 93
Table 3.3 Descriptive results of the teacher questionnaires 94
Table 3.4 Management team questionnaire: estimates of the fixed effects 99
Table 3.5 Management team questionnaire: estimates of the random effects 100
Table 3.6 Teacher questionnaire: Estimates of the fixed effects 101
Table 3.7 Teacher questionnaire: Estimates of the random effects 102
Figure 0.1 Research objectives 12
Figure 3.1 Presence of a policy plan/team according to student composition 97
Figure 4.1 Q-sample sort grid 122
Figure 4.2 Characteristic placement of Q sample for viewpoint 1 124
Figure 4.3 Characteristic placement of Q sample for viewpoint 2 125
Figure 4.4 Characteristic placement of Q sample for viewpoint 3 127
Figure 4.5 Characteristic placement of Q sample for viewpoint 4 129
1
Introduction
Moving language barriers
If we want all students to have the language skills necessary to fully participate
in education and current-day knowledge societies (Cummins, 2015; UNESCO,
2005, 2017), significant changes in education are needed: language instruction
should prioritize the development of language and literacy competences instead
of just knowledge, and each subject in the curriculum should preferably include
a language focus (Jaspaert, 2017; Lorenzo & Trujillo, 2017). This implies that the
policies by which we intend to bring about such changes have the identified
capacity to do so (Berthele, 2019; OECD, 2015b).
This dissertation zooms in on the implementation of one such policy in
primary schools in Flanders (Belgium), so-called school-based language policies
(SLP) (Corson, 1990). While the Flemish government mandated schools to design
and implement their own SLP more than ten years ago, surprisingly little
research has examined its effectiveness when implemented at scale. Using a
combination of both quantitative and qualitative research methods, this study
examines what evidence there is to support the Flemish government’s decision
to give schools great autonomy in designing and implementing their own SLP.
This introduction first elaborates on the Flemish educational language
policy. The next section situates this dissertation in the wider scientific literature
on language education policy. The final section draws up the research objectives
and provides an outlook on the following chapters.
Research context: school-based language policy in Flanders
In 2007, the Flemish Minister of Education at the time, Frank Vandenbroucke,
issued the first governmental ‘Language Policy Plan’ by which he intended to ‘set
the bar high for languages’. He called upon all schools to implement a school-
based language policy (SLP) (Corson, 1990), which was identified as ‘the
Introduction
2
sustained and strategic attempt of an entire school team to address the linguistic
needs of students in order to foster their (language) development’ (Van den
Branden, 2010, p. 10). An SLP in each school was alleged to be ‘good for the strong
[students], and strong for the weak’ (Vandenbroucke, 2007, p. 1).
Vandenbroucke’s policy was continued by the following Ministers of Education
(Crevits, 2014; Smet, 2011), and still affects current-day Flemish language
education policy.
An SLP should lead to school improvement in order to ensure that ‘every
student [is] able to communicate in Dutch (the language of instruction) at a high,
rich level, both passively and actively, and both in oral and written form’
(Vandenbroucke, 2007, p. 2). National and international assessments of student
performance have repeatedly indicated that students coming from non-native
and underprivileged or low-socioeconomic status (SES) families systematically
underperform in education (AHOVOKS, 2019; De Meyer et al., 2019; Franck &
Nicaise, 2018; OECD, 2011). This performance gap is largely attributed to
students’ proficiency in the language of instruction, which is not always the
language they are most familiar with (Cummins, 2015; Spolsky, 1974; Van
Avermaet, Van Houtte, & Van den Branden, 2011). Moreover, research into
educational linguistics has shown that the language used for schooling can be a
barrier for all students, because it is more abstract and complex than the
language that is used in informal settings (Cummins, 2008; Schleppegrell, 2004).
As the language skills that students need for successful participation in education
and society become increasingly complex, and contemporary society focuses
primarily on communicative competence instead of knowledge (Cincinnato & De
Meyer, 2013; De Meyer et al., 2019; Mullis, Martin, & Sainsbury, 2016), the
Flemish government argued that a shift in language instruction in all schools was
needed: language instruction should prioritize language and literacy
competences over knowledge, and each subject in the curriculum should include
a language component (Jaspaert & Van den Branden, 2011). In other words, SLP
is a task for all schools and for all teachers.
SLP is not the first policy initiative trying to enhance the quality of
language education in Flemish schools. In 1991, the government issued the
‘Educational Priority Policy’ (Onderwijsvoorrangsbeleid) in an attempt to bridge
Introduction
3
the social achievement gap in education. Schools received more resources if,
amongst others, they devoted specific attention to ethnic minority students’
language development and trained their teachers in communicative language
teaching (Jaspaert & Van den Branden, 2011; Van den Branden & Van Avermaet,
2001). This policy was soon adjusted and followed by the ‘Non-Discrimination
Policy’ in 1993, the ‘Broadened Special Needs Policy’ (Zorgverbredingsbeleid) in
1998, and the ‘Equal Education Opportunities Policy’ (Gelijke Onderwijskansen,
GOK) in 2002, because little changes had occurred in schools’ educational
approaches. While the first two policies specifically targeted migrant students,
the latter two adopted a more inclusive approach, targeting native Dutch-
speaking pupils from socially deprived families as well (Van Avermaet et al.,
2011; Van Praag, Verhoeven, Stevens, & Van Houtte, 2019). The PISA results of
2003, however, sent out a clear message that the Flemish policy did not achieve
its intended effects: Flemish 15-year-olds belonged to the top performers in
mathematics and reading comprehension, but the social achievement gap
between low- and high-risk students was nowhere as large as in Flanders (OECD,
2004). Changes in language education remained largely superficial and
fragmentary, as most improvement initiatives targeted individual teachers
rather than entire school teams (Van den Branden, 2017). Moreover, schools
used the extra resources primarily to organize remedial teaching outside regular
classroom practice (Padmos & Van den Berghe, 2009).
It is by no means unexpected that the Flemish policy initiatives prior to
SLP failed to achieve their intended effects. A shift in the direction of a more
communicative approach to language instruction substantially challenges
traditional practice (e.g., Graham, 2019; Lorenzo & Trujillo, 2017). High-quality
communicative language instruction requires student-centered practice,
interaction, cooperative learning, formative assessment, feedback, the explicit
teaching of strategies, tolerance towards student home languages, and
opportunities to produce extended text, among others (e.g., Bourdeaud’hui,
Aesaert, Keer, & Van Braak, 2018; Graham, 2019; Long, 2014; Merchie et al.,
2019; Vanbuel, Boderé, & Van Den Branden, 2017). This contrasts strongly with
traditional practice that is mainly teacher-centered, and focuses on the explicit
instruction of linguistic knowledge, discrete units, and foundational skills (e.g.,
Introduction
4
grammar, spelling, decoding skills in reading) (AHOVOKS, 2019; De Smedt, Van
Keer, & Merchie, 2016; Flemish Inspectorate, 2020; Graham, 2019). Moreover,
the majority of teachers strongly adheres to a monolingual policy, and is
convinced that speaking home languages other than the language of instruction
is detrimental to academic achievement (e.g., Agirdag, 2010; Agirdag, Avermaet,
& Van Houtte, 2013).
Contrary to previous policy initiatives, SLP is expected to have a greater
potential to bring about change in schools and to bridge the social achievement
gap (Corson, 1990). It is inspired by policies issued by local governments in other
countries such as the UK (Bullock, 1975; Crown, 2009), the Netherlands (Elbers,
2012; Van der Aalsvoort & Van der Leeuw, 1992), Australia (Corson, 1990) and
New Zealand (May, 1997; May, 2007), with a strong focus on language and
literacy development across the curriculum. It is different from traditional policy
and professional development initiatives because it relies on the collective
responsibility of an entire school team to tackle complex language problems
(Corson, 1999; Wright, 2007), and because schools are given the opportunity to
tailor their SLP to the needs of their local context (Bullock, 1975; Corson, 1990;
1999; May, 1997). This is in line with recent theories on educational change,
which emphasize that top-down policies are not conducive to achieving their
intended effects (e.g., Fullan, 2015; Hyland & Wong, 2013; Kaplan, Baldauf, &
Kamwangamalu, 2011). In order for large-scale educational change to be
successful, governmental policies are essential because they can push for change
(Fullan, 2015; p. 209); but local actors in schools and classrooms, too, have to
gain ownership of the improvement initiatives they implement (Honig, 2006;
Liddicoat & Taylor-Leech, 2014). In addition, these theories argue that the focus
should not be on the individual teacher, but on entire school teams (and in
particular, on the collegial cooperation and joint decision-making by all team
members) so that students can be taught by high-quality teachers in every grade
(De Smet et al., 2019; Graham, 2019; Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012; Van den
Branden, 2019). In other words, schools need to improve, by ‘moving towards
the ideal type of the self-renewing school’ (Teddlie & Reynolds, 2000, p. 210).
Flemish schools have great autonomy to design and implement their SLP,
which is a central characteristic of Flemish education policy (OECD, 2015).
Introduction
5
Depending on the schools’ local needs, teams can decide which pedagogical,
organizational and staff-related measures they take – regardless of whether
these measures relate to decisions of which languages are used for instruction,
the design of the language course(s), and/or the integration of language focus in
other subjects. The government issues minimal attainment targets for students.
There are no standardized or centralized exams, however; only the Inspectorate
checks (during their school audits) whether schools meet the minimum
standards, and provides advice to schools. School counsellors help schools with
the implementation of their SLP.
Implementing language education policy
School-based language policy can be identified as a type of language management
or language acquisition policy (Cooper, 1989), as it is an attempt to ‘influence the
language practices or beliefs of the community’ (Spolsky, 2004; 2017, p. 5). In the
language planning and policy (LPP) literature, which identifies education as a
‘key site’ as it can reach many students simultaneously (Fishman, 2006; cited in
Hult, 2008: 21), language policy is conceptualized as a multilayered process
(Ricento & Hornberger, 1996). Governmental policies aimed at educational
improvement provide a general framework that local actors in schools and
classrooms implement within the constraints of their real-world context, with or
without the help from intermediary organizations (Fullan, 2015).
While effective policy design at the macro-level has long been considered
the most crucial factor to predict a policy’s success (McLaughlin, 2006),
researchers both in the field of general education policy and language education
policy now agree that the implementation of a policy impacts the outcome as
much as its design (e.g., Fixsen, Naoom, Blase, Friedman, & Wallace, 2005; Honig,
2006; Hornberger & Cassels Johnson, 2007; Menken & García, 2017). Contrary to
what traditional public policy theories have posited, policy implementation
appears far more complex than the simple execution of policy prescriptions
(Laswell, 1965, cited in Fischer et al., 2007). Policy implementation changes as it
filters through the different layers of the education system, with educators at its
Introduction
6
epicenter (McLaughlin, 2006; Menken & García, 2010; Ricento & Hornberger,
1996).
In order to know whether a policy has a true impact, then, it is necessary
to examine how the policy plays out at the local level (Hornberger & Johnson,
2007; Ricento & Hornberger, 1996). In recent years, LPP researchers and
education policy researchers in general have greatly shifted attention from the
macro-level to meso- and micro-levels of policy in order to explain the gap that
often exists between policy intentions (i.e., the policy issued at the macro-level),
and policy implementation at real-world contexts (e.g., Ball, Maguire, & Braun,
2012; Johnson, Stephens, Johnston Nelson, & Johnson, 2018; Liddicoat, Scarino,
& Kohler, 2018; Menken & Garcia, 2010). Studies increasingly show how local
actors (e.g., teachers, parents, students …), too, exert agency, and interpret the
policy’s intention on the basis of their own knowledge and experience, and the
context in which they are situated (Johnson, 2013; Menken & García, 2010;
Ricento & Hornberger, 1996). As Menken & García (2010, p. 2) point out, ‘often,
entirely new policies are created’. These new policies are not always more likely
to accommodate the linguistic needs of students (e.g., Foley, Sangster, &
Anderson, 2012; Johnson et al., 2018; Lo Bianco & Aliani, 2013).
The question is whether this indeed is the case. As language education
policy has a clear link with multilingual students (Menken & García, 2017), most
of the available studies focus on the consequences that language policies have in
terms of equal educational opportunities for multilingual students. By adopting
a critical and/or ethnographic approach, and discussing the findings in terms of
justice and equity (e.g., Blommaert & Van Avermaet, 2008; Johnson et al., 2018;
Shohamy, 2006), these studies have revealed how politics and ideology permeate
all layers of policy, including language education. Yet, few studies to date have
empirically linked language education policy to language teaching and learning
outcomes (Liddicoat, 2014; Shohamy, 2006; Spolsky, 2017). Most studies are,
furthermore, qualitative in nature (e.g., Johnson, 2013; Johnson et al., 2018;
Menken & García, 2010), which implies that their findings are not always easily
transferable to other contexts.
Introduction
7
Examining converging evidence on school-based language policy
In order to know whether SLP has the potential to enhance the quality of
language education, we need empirical evidence that SLP benefits language
teaching and learning when implemented at scale (Berthele, 2019). Flemish
schools provide an interesting case to study the implementation of language
education policy, as the macro-level language education policy leaves ample
space for schools to adopt measures that fit their local needs (Liddicoat & Taylor-
Leech, 2014; OECD, 2015). Policy interpretations are expected to be even more
diverse in low accountability settings (Coburn et al., 2016; Ball et al., 2012; OECD,
2015), and when policies are complex (McLaughlin, 2006). Few studies have
directly addressed the question of how the policy plays out in Flemish schools,
and whether and on what conditions the implementation of a school-based
language policy actually leads to enhanced student outcomes and/or teaching
quality. This is surprising, as both policy makers and researchers (also outside of
Flanders) strongly encourage schools to implement an SLP (e.g., Camilleri Grima,
2007; Corson, 1999; Van den Branden, 2010).
The little information that is available on the impact of SLP
implementation on school policy, teaching and student outcomes stems from
reports issued by the Flemish Inspectorate, and a limited number of intervention
studies. Based on school and classroom observations during audits between
2010 and 2014, the Flemish Inspectorate concluded that around 60% of the
Flemish schools had started with the implementation of an SLP (Flemish
Inspectorate, 2015). Most of these schools developed a vision on language
education, and took organizational decisions, such as the appointment of a
language planning team or the writing of a language policy plan. Most schools
also provided remedial teaching in pull-out classes for students with learning
difficulties (e.g., problems with technical reading, language classes for
newcomers, etc.). In contrast, few adaptations were made to the existing
classroom practice. The Inspectorate also noticed differences in the motivation
to implement an SLP between schools in rural areas compared to schools in
urban areas. The latter are assumed to be more advanced in implementing an SLP
because they have more experience with multilingual students. Yet, the reports
Introduction
8
of the Inspectorate do not present details on the pedagogical/didactical
measures schools take within the confines of their SLP, or link SLP with effects
on student achievement.
Some small-scale intervention studies have been conducted to examine
how SLP can be effectively implemented. They emphasize the importance of
developing a vision on language education that is shared with all team members,
identifying the language needs of students, appointing a language policy
coordinator, and frequently evaluating and adjusting the policy (Corson, 1999;
Kroon & Vallen, 2000; Meestringa & Tordoir, 1999; Meestringa & Van der Laan,
2002; Schrauwen & Van Braak, 2001; Van den Branden, 2010). Some of the
studies also report a positive effect on student outcomes, but no statistical data
are available (e.g., Brink et al., 1998; Westerbeek & Wolfgram, 1999; reported in
Kroon & Vallen, 2000, p. 139). More recent intervention studies focus on specific
parts of SLP, such as the inclusion of student home languages (e.g., Menken, Pérez
Rosario, & Alejandro Guzmán Valerio, 2018; Van Praag et al., 2019), or literacy
across the curriculum (e.g., McNaughton, Lai, Jesson, & Wilson, 2013). Positive
effects are observed for students’ well-being (Jordens, 2016; Ramaut et al., 2013),
teachers’ tolerance towards home languages (Menken et al., 2018; Ramaut et al.,
2013), school language policies (Menken et al., 2018), and student literacy
achievement (McNaughton et al., 2013). These intervention studies, however,
cannot guarantee that SLP yields the same results when implemented at scale.
Perhaps, the positive effects that are found may be attributed to the intensive
support of researchers which the schools received while implementing their SLP
(May & Wright, 2007; McNaughton et al., 2012).
This dissertation adds to the research base and literature on LPP in
education by investigating the implementation of language education policy in
Flemish schools and linking it with educational effectiveness. It examines how
schools shape their language policies, and which pedagogical practices they
adopt in order to increase the Dutch language skills of their students. Particular
attention is devoted to explaining why some schools are more successful than
others. It does so by drawing on insights from the field of educational
effectiveness (Kyriakides, Creemers, Antoniou, & Demetriou, 2010; Reynolds et
al., 2014), educational improvement (Fullan, 2015; Hopkins, Stringfield, Harris,
Introduction
9
Stoll, & Mackay, 2014), and language education (Spolsky, 2017). It further adds
to the LPP literature by combining perspectives from stakeholders operating at
different levels of the policy process (cf. Johnson & Johnson, 2015).
Research objectives
The main objective of this dissertation is to investigate whether the Flemish
government’s decision to give schools great autonomy in designing and
implementing their own SLP is effective, and to provide insight into which factors
enhance or constrain its implementation in schools. This main objective is
subdivided into four research objectives. The first two research objectives focus
on the effectiveness of SLP when implemented at scale. The third research
objective concerns the factors that affect SLP implementation in schools. The
fourth and final research objective aims at understanding different stakeholders’
interpretations of SLP.
Research objectives 1 & 2: examining the effectiveness of SLP implementation
Current language education policy research mainly examines how official
policies issued by official instances are shaped and appropriated/negotiated by
local actors in schools and classrooms, but usually does not link these ‘new’ policy
configurations with educational effectiveness (Shohamy, 2006). The Flemish
governmental education policy, however, assumes that if schools implement an
SLP, school policy and language instruction will improve, and all students will be
able to use Dutch at a high level. This, in turn, is expected to narrow the social
achievement gap in education. The first two research objectives each concern one
of the expected outcomes of SLP.
Introduction
10
RO1: examining the relationship between SLP and student language achievement
If SLP indeed benefits student language achievement, schools that show evidence
of successful SLP implementation across the curriculum should yield higher
student language performances compared to schools that have implemented SLP
to a lesser extent. Moreover, this effect may be expected to be particularly
prominent for students with high risk of underachievement (i.e., low-SES
students and students with a home language different from the language of
instruction), as SLP is specifically aimed at narrowing the social achievement gap
(Van Avermaet et al., 2011).
RO2: examining school configurations of SLP
One of the key challenges that schools face is how to operationalize an SLP in
order to enhance student outcomes (May, 2007). Flemish schools have a lot of
autonomy to design and implement their SLP, which is expected to be a benefit
as schools can tailor the policy to their own needs (Corson, 1990). The second
objective of this study is to explore in detail which practices schools adopt to
promote student language development, and how school teams that differ in
terms of student language performances configure their SLP.
Research objective 3: examining the conditions that affect SLP
implementation
The third research objective concerns the contextual conditions that may
influence the SLP implementation process in schools. Schools are different (e.g.,
student population, size, location), and not all schools are equally effective at
implementing an SLP that has the capacity to improve language education (Ball
et al., 2012; Honig, 2006). According to the Flemish Inspectorate audits, the
school context has an impact on the implementation of SLP (Flemish
Inspectorate, 2010; 2015). The influence of school contextual factors is also
Introduction
11
reflected in a number of case studies on general education policy implementation
(e.g., Ball et al., 2012; Honig, 2006), and in some intervention studies of specific
aspects of SLP (e.g., Strobbe et al., 2017; Van, Wildt, Van, Mieke, & Houtte, 2016).
They indicate, for instance, that the student composition enhances or hampers
schools’ openness to multilingualism (e.g., Pulinx, Van Avermaet, & Agirdag,
2017; Strobbe et al., 2017). To enhance the generalizability of these findings, it is
important to examine the impact of school contextual factors on SLP
implementation by means of large-scale quantitative analysis, and combine the
results with qualitative data to explain the findings (Reynolds et al., 2014).
Research objective 4: understanding different stakeholders’ interpretations
of SLP
Policy implementation relies on the work of many different stakeholders (Burns
& Köster, 2016). In designing and implementing SLP, school teams may be
influenced by policy makers, school counsellors, teacher educators, and
researchers, amongst others. Since policy implementation inevitably entails an
interpretation of the policy’s intention by stakeholders (Ball et al., 2012; Spillane,
Reiser, & Reimer, 2002), and stakeholders use their personal and social
knowledge and experiences to do so (Spillane et al., 2002), interpretations may
widely diverge across and within groups of stakeholders. Varying interpretations
can especially be expected in low accountability settings such as Flanders
(Coburn et al., 2016), and with complex policies such as SLP (McLaughlin, 2006).
As different interpretations may hamper a policy’s impact (Edgerton &
Desimone, 2019), it is important to identify what interpretations of SLP exist in
different groups of stakeholders, and to what extent they are different.
Introduction
12
Research design
A multidisciplinary topic such as the improvement of language teaching and
learning by means of school-based language policies requires a mixed-method
research approach (Reynolds et al., 2014). This dissertation therefore combines
large-scale quantitative analyses with qualitative analyses within a selected
number of respondents (Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2009).
The targeted research population are all mainstream, government-
subsidized primary schools in Flanders and their stakeholders. Although the
Flemish Government summons both primary and secondary schools to
implement an SLP, this dissertation focuses only on primary schools because of
feasibility reasons. The following paragraphs provide a short description of the
data and analyses that were used to tackle the different research goals.
Methodological details will be provided in the designated chapters.
The study that addresses RO1 adopts a school effectiveness perspective
by examining to what extent indicators of SLP implementation are empirically
linked with student language achievement. Data were collected cross-sectionally
from 3000 students in 1st, 3rd and 6th grade from 28 primary schools. All pupils
conducted a reading test, and teachers and administrative team members (i.e.,
principals, special needs teachers) completed a questionnaire concerning their
school’s SLP. Data were analyzed using multivariate multilevel models in order
Stakeholder policy interpretations
RO3
RO2
RO1
SLP implementation
Student language
outcomes
Figure 0.1 Research objectives
School context
RO4
Introduction
13
to take into account the hierarchical and multiple-outcome structure of the data
(De Maeyer, van den Bergh, Rymenans, Van Petegem, & Rijlaarsdam, 2010; Hox,
2010).
RO2 is addressed with a qualitative multiple case study in a subsample of
six schools that were selected from the first study. A qualitative approach helped
us to gain a more ‘truthful’ and detailed insight into local agents’ perceptions of
their schools’ SLP-related practices (Mortelmans, 2013). The study relies on two
focus group interviews that were conducted at each school with teachers and
administrative team members. It uses insights from EER to identify four types of
SLP and devotes specific attention to differences between effective and
ineffective schools. A grounded theory perspective was adopted to code the data,
moving from in-vivo codes close to the data to axial codes (Corbin & Strauss,
2008). Data were analyzed using vertical and horizontal analyses (Miles &
Huberman, 2014).
RO3 is addressed using a sequential mixed-method design. Quantitative
survey data from the teachers and principals that participated in the school
effectiveness study (RO1) were complemented with qualitative focus group data
from the multiple case study (RO2). Multivariate multilevel models (De Maeyer
et al., 2010; Hox, 2010) were used to analyze the quantitative data, while the
qualitative data were analyzed by means of within-case and cross-case analyses,
adopting a constant-comparison method (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Miles &
Huberman, 2014).
Q-Methodology (Brown, 1980; Lo Bianco, 2015) was used to tap into
stakeholders’ viewpoints (RO4). This is a very effective method to objectify
subjectivity by combining both qualitative and quantitative methods. A total of
43 stakeholders operating at the macro, meso- and micro-level of the education
system participated in the study. By means of an inversed factor analysis, clusters
of participants sharing the same viewpoint emerged (Watts & Stenner, 2012).
Introduction
14
Outlook on the following chapters
The rest of this dissertation is subdivided into six chapters. Chapter 1 reports the
findings of the EER study that examines the relationship between SLP and
student language achievement (RO1), whereas Chapter 2 zooms in on the SLP
configuration in a small set of schools (RO2). Chapter 3 examines the role of the
school context (RO3), whereas chapter 4 discusses how SLP can contribute to
student (language) achievement from the viewpoint of prominent stakeholders
involved in the implementation process (RO4). Chapter 5 summarizes the
research findings. Chapter 6 discusses the strengths and limitations of the studies
included in this dissertation and provides an outlook on future policy, research
and practice.
A note on publications
Chapters 1, 2, and 3 are based on research papers that have been submitted to
peer reviewed journals, or are accepted for publication in peer reviewed
conference proceedings and journals. The sections of the original papers that
deal with the research context and the overarching theoretical framework have
been omitted from the chapters and are included in this introduction.
A note on terminology and scope
We consider school-based language policy as ‘policy as text’, referring to the rules
that have been encoded in official documents (Ball, 1993). Policies at lower levels
are considered implementations or ‘enactments’ (i.e., interpretations,
translations) of the macro-level policy (Ball et al., 2012). In the literature on
language policy and planning, many different labels have been used to describe
language policies in education (e.g., micro language planning, language
acquisition management). This has caused quite a ‘terminological stew’ (Johnson,
2013: 54). Throughout this dissertation, we will use the term ‘school-based
Introduction
15
language policy’ (Corson, 1999; Menken & García, 2010) or its acronym SLP, since
that term most closely matches the way the Flemish government conceptualizes
language education policy.
Unlike school language policies in other countries which often prioritize
one educational approach or program specifically for multilingual students (e.g.,
Johnson, 2013; Liddicoat & Taylor-Leech, 2014; Menken & García, 2017), SLP in
Flemish education is not specifically dedicated to support multilingual students
only, but explicitly addresses all students. This study will therefore focus on
educational effectiveness in general, although at some points specific attention is
devoted to students at risk of underachievement.
While the Flemish language education policy is also aimed at promoting
students’ proficiency in at least two other foreign languages (e.g., French,
English) (cf. European policy mother tongue + 2, Council of Europe, 2002), this
falls out of the scope of this dissertation.
Introduction
16
References
Agirdag, O. (2010). Exploring bilingualism in a monolingual school system:
Insights from Turkish and native students from Belgian schools. British
Journal of Sociology of Education, 31(3), 307–321.
Agirdag, O., Avermaet, P. Van, & Van Houtte, M. (2013). School Segregation and
Math Achievement: A Mixed-Method Study on the Role of Self-Fulfilling
Prophecies. Teachers College Record, 115.
AHOVOKS. (2019). Peiling Nederlands. Lezen, luisteren en schrijven in het
basisonderwijs. Brussel.
Ball, S. J. (1993). What is policy? Texts, trajectories and toolboxes. Discourse:
Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 13(2), 10–17.
Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., & Braun, A. (2012). How schools do policy: policy enactments
in secondary schools. London: Routledge.
Berthele, R. (2019). Policy recommendations for language learning: Linguists’
contributions between scholarly debates and pseudoscience. Journal of
the European Second Language Association, 3(1), 1–11.
Blommaert, J., & Van Avermaet, P. (2008). Taal, onderwijs, en de samenleving: De
kloof tussen beleid en realiteit. Berchem: EPO.
Bourdeaud’hui, H., Aesaert, K., Keer, H. Van, & Van Braak, J. (2018). Thematic
Review Identifying student and classroom characteristics related to
primary school students’ listening skills: A systematic review. Educational
Research Review, 25, 86-99.
Brown, S. (1980). Political Subjectivity. Applications of Q methodology in political
science. New Haven/London: Yale University Press.
Bullock, A. (1975). A language for life. London.
Burns, T., & Köster, F. (2016). Governing Education in a Complex World. Paris.
Camilleri Grima, A. (2007). Promoting linguistic diversity and whole-school
development. Graz: Council of Europe.
Cincinnato, S., & De Meyer, I. (2013). Vaardig genoeg voor de 21ste eeuw? De eerste
Vlaamse resultaten bij PIAAC. Gent.
Introduction
17
Coburn, C. E., Hill, H. C., & Spillane, J. P. (2016). Alignment and Accountability in
Policy Design and Implementation: The Common Core State Standards
and Implementation Research. Educational Researcher, 45(4), 243–251.
Cooper, R. L. (1989). Language Planning and Social Change. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
Corson, D. (1990). Language policy across the curriculum. Clevedon/Bristol:
Multilingual Matters.
Corson, D. (1999). Language policy in schools: a resource for teachers and
administrators. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Council of the European Union. (2002, March 15-16). Barcelona European Council
15 and 16 March 2002: Presidency conclusions. Barcelona.
Crevits, H. (2014). Beleidsnota 2014-2019 Onderwijs. Brussel.
Crown. (2009). Developing language in the primary school: Literacy and primary
languages. London.
Cummins, Jim. (1979). Linguistic Interdependence and the Educational
Development of Bilingual Children. Review of Educational Research, 49(2),
222-251.
Cummins, Jim. (2008). BICS and CALP: Empirical and theoretical status of the
distinction. In B. Street & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of
Language and Education (2nd ed., pp. 71–83). Boston, MA: Springer US.
Cummins, Jim. (2015). How to reverse a legacy of exclusion? Identifying high-
impact educational responses. Language and Education, 29(3), 272-279.
De Maeyer, S., van den Bergh, H., Rymenans, R., Van Petegem, P., & Rijlaarsdam,
G. (2010). Effectiveness criteria in school effectiveness studies: Further
research on the choice for a multivariate model. Educational Research
Review, 5, 81–96.
De Smedt, F., Van Keer, H., & Merchie, E. (2016). Student, teacher and class-level
correlates of Flemish late elementary school children’s writing
performance. Reading and Writing, 29, 833–868.
De Smet, M., Ruys, I., & Frijns, C. (2019). Collectief leren via samenwerking met
externe professionals. Eindrapport literatuurstudie. Gent.
Introduction
18
Edgerton, A. K., & Desimone, L. M. (2019). Mind the Gaps: Differences in How
Teachers, Principals, and Districts Experience College-and Career-
Readiness Policies. American Journal of Education, 125, 593-619.
Elbers, E. (2012). Iedere les een taalles? Taalvaardigheid en vakonderwijs in het
(V)MBO. De stand van zaken in theorie en onderzoek. Utrecht.
Fischer, F., Miller, G. J., & Sidney, M. S. (2006). Handbook of Public Policy Analysis:
Theory, Politics, and Methods (1st ed.). Routledge.
Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005).
Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. Tampa, Florida.
Flemish Inspectorate. (2015). Onderwijsspiegel 2015. Jaarlijks rapport van de
Onderwijsinspectie. Brussels.
Flemish Inspectorate. (2020). Begrijpend leesonderwijs in de basisscholen
kwaliteitsvol? Brussels.
Foley, Y., Sangster, P., & Anderson, C. (2012). Examining EAL policy and practice
in mainstream schools. Language and Education, 27(3), 191-206.
Franck, E., & Nicaise, I. (2018). Ongelijkheden in het Vlaamse onderwijssysteem:
verbetering in zicht? Een vergelijking van PISA 2003 en 2015. Gent:
Steunpunt voor Onderwijsonderzoek.
Fullan, M. (2015). The New Meaning of Educational Change (fifth). New York:
Teachers College Press/Routledge.
Graham, S. (2019). Changing how writing is taught. Review of Research in
Education, 43(1), 277–303.
Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional capital. Transforming teaching in
every school. Taylor & Francis.
Honig, M. I. (2004). The new middle management: Intermediary organizations in
education policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 26(1), 65–87.
Honig, Meredith. (2006). New directions in education policy implementation. New
York: State University of New York Press.
Hopkins, D., Stringfield, S., Harris, A., Stoll, L., & Mackay, T. (2014). School and
system improvement: a narrative state-of-the-art review. School
Effectiveness and School Improvement, 25(2), 257–281.
Introduction
19
Hornberger, N. H., & Cassels Johnson, D. (2007). Language Policies and TESOL:
Perspectives from Practice. TESOL Quarterly, 41(3), 509-532.
Hox, J. J. (2010). Multilevel analysis. Techniques and applications (2nd ed.). New
York: Routledge.
Hult, F. (2008). The history and development of educational linguistics. In B.
Spolsky & F. Hult (Eds.), The Handbook of Educational Linguistics (pp. 10–
24). Malden/Oxford/Cartlton: Blackwell Publishing.
Hyland, K., & Wong, L. (Eds.). (2013). Innovation and Change in English Language
Education. Taylor & Francis.
Jaspaert, K. (2015). Creating quarter for doing things with language. European
Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3(1), 21–45.
Jaspaert, K. (2017). Visietekst. In Jaspaert, K., & C. Frijns, Taal leren. Van kleuters
tot volwassenen (pp. 15-44). Leuven: Lannoo Campus.
Jaspaert, K., & Van den Branden, K. (2011). Literacy for all. In K. Van den Branden,
P. Van Avermaet, & M. Van Houtte (Eds.), Equity and excellence in education.
Towards maximal learning opportunities for all students (pp. 215–235).
New York/London: Routledge.
Johnson, D. C. (2013). Language Policy. Hampshire/New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Johnson, D. C., Stephens, C., Johnston Nelson, J., & Johnson, E. (2018). Violating
Lau: Sheltered English Instruction programs and equal educational
opportunity. Journal of Education Policy, 33(4), 488–509.
Jordens, K. (2016). Turkish is not for learning miss. KU Leuven. PhD Dissertation.
Kaplan, R. B., Baldauf, R. B., & Kamwangamalu, N. (2011). Why educational
language plans sometimes fail. Current Issues in Language Planning, 12(2),
105-124.
Kroon, S., & Vallen, T. (2000). Taalbeleid en taakgericht taalonderwijs. In M.
Colpin, N. Bogaert, J. Devlieghere, G. Goossens, P. Van Avermaet, K. Van den
Branden, … K. Van Gorp (Eds.), Een taak voor iedereen. Perspectieven voor
taakgericht onderwijs (pp. 123–144). Leuven/Apeldoorn: Garant.
Kyriakides, L., Creemers, B., Antoniou, P., & Demetriou, D. (2010). A synthesis of
studies searching for school factors: implications for theory and research.
British Educational Research Journal, 36(5), 807–830.
Introduction
20
Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2009). A typology of mixed methods research
designs. Qual Quant, 43, 265–275.
Liddicoat, A. J. (2014). The interface between macro and micro-level language
policy and the place of language pedagogies. International Journal of
Pedagogies and Learning, 9(2), 118–129.
Liddicoat, A. J., Scarino, A., & Kohler, M. (2018). The impact of school structures
and cultures on change. Curriculum Perspectives, 38, 3–13.
Liddicoat, A. J., & Taylor-Leech, K. (2014). Micro language planning for
multilingual education: agency in local contexts. Current Issues in
Language Planning, 15(3), 237–244.
Lo Bianco, J. (2015). Exploring language problems through Q-sorting. In F. Hult &
D. Johnson (Eds.), Research Methods in Language Policy and Planning (pp.
69–80). West-Sussex: Wiley Blackwell.
Lo Bianco, J., & Aliani, R. (2013). Language planning and student experiences.
Intention, rhetoric and implementation. Bristol/Buffalo/Toronto:
Multilingual Matters.
Long, M. (2014). Methodological principles and pedagogic procedures. In Long,
M., Second Language Acquisition and Task-Based Language Teaching (pp.
300–328). Chicester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Lorenzo, F., & Trujillo, F. (2017). Languages of schooling in European
policymaking: present state and future outcomes. European Journal of
Applied Linguistics, 5(2), 177-197.
May, S. (1997). School Language Policies. In Encyclopedia of Language and
Education (pp. 229–240). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
May, S. (2007). Sustaining Effective Literacy Practices Over Time in Secondary
Schools: School Organisational and Change Issues. Language and
Education, 21(5), 387–405.
May, S., & Wright, N. (2007). Secondary Literacy Across the Curriculum:
Challenges and Possibilities. Language and Education, 21(5), 370–376.
McLaughlin, M. W. (2006). Implementation research in education: lessons
learned, lingering questions and new opportunities. In Meredith Honig
(Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation. Confronting
complexity (pp. 209–228). New York: State University of New York Press.
Introduction
21
McNaughton, S., Lai, M., & Hsiao, S. (2012). Testing the effectiveness of an
intervention model based on data use: a replication series across clusters
of schools. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 23(2), 203-228
Meestringa, T., & Tordoir, A. (1999). Taalbeleid in de lespraktijk. Aanbevelingen
op grond van zes casestudies. Utrecht.
Meestringa, T., & van der Laan, E. (2002). Bronnenboek taalgericht vakonderwijs.
Enschede.
Menken, K., & Garcia, O. (2010). Negotiating language policies in schools:
educators as policymakers. Routledge.
Menken, K., & García, O. (2017). Language Policy in Classrooms and Schools. In T.
McCarthy & S. May (Eds.), Language Policy and Political Issues in Education
(pp. 211–225). Cham: Springer.
Menken, K., Pérez Rosario, V., & Alejandro Guzmán Valerio, L. (2018). Increasing
multilingualism in schoolscapes. New scenery and language education
policies. Linguistic Landscape, 4(2), 101-127.
Merchie, E., Gobyn, S., De Bruyne, E., De Smedt, F., Schiepers, M., Vanbuel, M., …
Keer, H. Van. (2019). Effectieve eigentijdse begrijpend leesdidactiek in het
basisonderwijs. Brussels.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded
sourcebook. Thousand Oakes: Sage.
Mortelmans, D. (2013). Handboek kwalitatieve onderzoeksmethoden. Leuven:
Acco.
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., & Sainsbury, M. (2016). PIRLS 2016 Reading
Framework. IEA.
OECD. (2004). Learning for Tomorrow’s World. First Results from PISA 2003.
OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2011). Education at a Glance 2011: OECD Indicators. OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2015a). Education Policy Outlook 2015. OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2015b). Education Policy Outlook 2015. OECD Publishing.
Padmos, T., & Van den Berge, W. (2009). Het verschil maken. Gelijke kansen in
beroeps- en technisch secundair onderwijs in Vlaanderen. Leuven:
Steunpunt GOK.
Introduction
22
Pulinx, R., Van Avermaet, P., & Agirdag, O. (2017). Silencing linguistic diversity:
the extent, the determinants and consequences of the monolingual beliefs
of Flemish teachers. International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism, 20(5), 542–556.
Ramaut, G., Sierens, S., Bultynck, K., Van Avermaet, P., Slembrouck, S., Van Gorp,
K., & Verhelst, M. (2013). Evaluatieonderzoek van het project ‘Thuistaal in
onderwijs’. Gent/Leuven.
Reynolds, D., Sammons, P., De Fraine, B., Damme, J. Van, Townsend, T., Teddlie, C.,
& Stringfield, S. (2014). Educational effectiveness research (EER): a state-
of-the-art review. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 25(2),
197–230.
Ricento, T. K., & Hornberger, N. H. (1996). Unpeeling the Onion: Language
Planning and Policy and the ELT Professional Author. TESOL Quarterly,
30(3), 401-427.
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The Language of Schooling: A Functional Linguistics
Perspective. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schrauwen, W., & van Braak, J. (2001). Stappen op weg naar een taalbeleid op
school. Vonk, 32, 19–32.
Shohamy, E. (2006). Language Policy: Hidden Agendas and New Approaches.
Oxon/New York: Routledge.
Smet, P. (2011). Samen taalgrenzen verleggen. Brussel.
Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy Implementation and
Cognition: Reframing and Refocusing Implementation Research. Review of
Educational Research, 72(3), 387–431.
Spolsky, B. (1974). Linguistics and the language barrier to education. In T. Sebeok,
A. Abramson, D. Hymes, H. Rubenstein, E. Stankiewicz, & B. Spolsky (Eds.),
Current trends in linguistics (Vol 12) (pp. 2025–2038). The Hague: Mouton.
Spolsky, B. (2004). Language policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Spolsky, B. (2017). Language Policy and Political Issues in Education. In McCarty,
T., & S., May, (Eds.), Language Policy and Political Issues in Education (pp.
3–16). Springer.
Strobbe, L., Van Der Wildt, A., Van Avermaet, P., Van Gorp, K., Van den Branden,
K., & Van Houtte, M. (2017). How school teams perceive and handle
Introduction
23
multilingualism: The impact of a school’s pupil composition. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 64, 93–104.
Teddlie, C., & Reynolds, D. (2000). The international handbook of school
effectiveness research. Falmer Press.
UNESCO. (2005). Education for all. Literacy for life. Paris: OECD Publishing.
UNESCO. (2017). Reading the past, writing the future. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Van, A., Wildt, D., Van, P., Mieke, A. &, & Houtte, V. (2016). Opening up towards
children’s languages: enhancing teachers’ tolerant practices towards
multilingualism. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 28(1), 136–
152.
Van Avermaet, P., Van Houtte, M., & Van den Branden, K. (2011). Promoting
equity and excellence in education. An overview. In K. Van den Branden, P.
Van Avermaet, & M. Van Houtte (Eds.), Equity and Excellence in Education.
Towards Maximal Learning Opportunities for All Students (pp. 1–20). New
York: Routledge.
Van den Branden, K. (2010). Handboek taalbeleid lager onderwijs. Leuven: Acco.
Van den Branden, K. (2017). Taalbeleid in Vlaamse basisscholen: terugblik,
balans en vooruitblik. In Jaspaert, K., & C., Frijns, Taal leren. Van kleuters
tot volwassenen (pp. 79–100). Leuven: Lannoo Campus.
Van den Branden, K. (2019). Rethinking Schools and Renewing Energy for
Learning. New York/London: Routledge.
Van den Branden, K., & Van Avermaet, P. (2001). Taal, onderwijs en ongelijkheid:
quo vadis? T.O.R.B., 5–6, 393–403.
Van Praag, L., Verhoeven, M., Stevens, P., & Van Houtte, M. (2019). Belgium:
Cultural versus class explanations for ethnic inequalities in education in
the Flemish and French communities. In P. Stevens & G. Dworkin (Eds.), The
Palgrave Handbook of Race and Ethnic Inequalities in Education (pp. 159–
213). Palgrave.
Vanbuel, M., Boderé, A., & Van Den Branden, K. (2017). Helpen talenbeleid en
taalscreening taalgrenzen verleggen? Een reviewstudie naar effectieve
taalstimuleringsmaatregelen. Gent: Steunpunt voor Onderwijsonderzoek.
Vandenbroucke, F. (2007). De lat hoog voor talen in iedere school. Goed voor de
sterken, sterk voor de zwakken. Brussels.
Introduction
24
Watts, S., & Stenner, P. (2012). Doing Q methodological research. Theory, Method
and Interpretation. London: Sage Publications.
Wright, N. (2007). Building Literacy Communities of Practice Across Subject
Disciplines in Secondary Schools. Language and Education, 21(5), 420–
433.
25
Chapter 1
School-based language policies and student language
achievement
The purpose of this chapter is to explore whether there is empirical evidence to
support the claim that SLP enhances student language proficiency in Dutch. It
examines to what extent SLP is related to student reading achievement, and links
the findings with the policy’s intention.
School-based language policies (SLP) are expected to promote excellence and
equity in language education (Bullock, 1975; Corson, 1990; May, 1997). Research
and policy recommendations within this tradition have also been referred to as
‘writing across the curriculum’ (Bullock et al., 1975) and ‘language across the
curriculum’ (Corson, 1990, 1999). The idea central to the implementation of SLPs
is that SLP should lead to reform in the way schools handle language teaching
and language in education, and that reform should be local, with the school as the
‘key site’ for educational improvement (Corson, 1999: 2).
SLP is not a goal in itself; it is a means that schools can use to help pupils
achieve their learning goals (Corson, 1990, pp. 2–3), as it identifies ‘areas within
school organization, pedagogy, curriculum and assessment where specific
language needs exist’ (May & Wright, 2007, p. 370). Corson (1999) argued that
school language policies have the capacity to drive school teams to improve their
literacy and language practices, as they enhance a school team’s reflective
capacity on language instruction, collaboration between teachers, teacher
efficacy, teacher support, and commitment in all team members to promote
student language development (Corson, 1990; 1999; May, 2007). Indeed, SLP
reflects some of the characteristics of effective schools as identified in
educational effectiveness research, and which have been empirically linked with
student achievement (Reynolds et al., 2014). Amongst others, SLP is therefore
expected to ensure that all students, and in particular disadvantaged students
Chapter 1
26
(e.g., low-socioeconomic background and non-native pupils), acquire high
proficiency in the language of instruction.
Despite the introduction of SLP in the late sixties, until today, most work
available on the implementation and impact of school language policies remains
conceptual rather than empirically validated (Corson, 1990, 1999; Lewis & Wray,
2001; May, 1997; 2007; Shohamy, 2006). To our knowledge, only a handful of
studies has examined the impact of a school language policy on student
achievement, and all of them are descriptive or take the form of intervention
studies. Some early case studies on SLP have been conducted in secondary
schools in The Netherlands. These studies mainly describe the conditions
necessary for implementing an SLP, and do not report any impact on student
outcomes (Meestringa & Tordoir, 1999; Meestringa & van der Laan, 2002). The
intervention studies, by contrast, do note an effect of SLP on student outcomes.
One large-scale quantitative study was conducted between 1992 and 1999 in the
Netherlands (Brink et al., 1998; Westerbeek & Wolfgram, 1999). The researchers
concluded that the language proficiency of pupils slightly improved in schools
that had put a lot of effort in their language policy (Kroon & Vallen, 2000, p. 139).
More recent intervention studies report on the New Zealand Secondary Schools’
Literacy Initiatives (May, 2007; May & Wright, 2007; Smyth, 2007; Whitehead,
2010; Wright, 2007) and the Secondary Literacy Project (Lai, McNaughton,
Timperley, & Hsiao, 2009; McNaughton, Kuin Lai, & Hsiao, 2012). These studies
describe the results of two consecutive 3-year literacy development programs
funded by the government in an attempt to support schools to implement a
whole-school literacy policy. The researchers concluded that students’ reading
skills improved after the schools had implemented an SLP. Since these studies
report on interventions, however, they cannot guarantee that SLP yields the same
results when implemented on a large scale (Berthele, 2019; Honig, 2004).
Perhaps, the positive effects that are found should be attributed to the intensive
support by researchers the schools received while implementing their SLP, which
was also emphasized by the researchers themselves (May & Wright, 2007;
McNaughton et al., 2012).
School-based language policies and student achievement
27
Research questions
Although both policy makers and researchers seem convinced of the potential of
SLP to provide students with excellent and equitable education (e.g., Bullock et
al., 1975; Corson, 1990; Van den Branden, 2010), there is little information
available that SLP actually benefits student outcomes when implemented on a
large scale. This chapter addresses research objective 1 and is approached by two
research questions:
1) Are schools that have implemented a school language policy more
effective in enhancing their students’ language development than
schools that have not?
2) To what extent is the effect of school language policy differential for
pupils at risk (i.e., pupils with Dutch as L2 and low-SES pupils) versus
pupils who are not at risk?
Methodology
In order to examine to what extent the implementation of SLP is related to
student language achievement, this study adopts an educational effectiveness
research (EER) perspective. EER aims to ‘open up the black box of school
processes’ in order to identify the school factors that affect the learning outcomes
of students (Reynolds et al., 2014; Scheerens, 2016). School effectiveness is
usually conceptualized in terms of excellence (i.e., better outcomes compared to
other schools) or equity (i.e., the capacity to compensate for student input)
(Reynolds et al., 2014).
Chapter 1
28
Design
This study is primarily interested in the effects of school factors on student
performances. The data are thus hierarchical: students are nested within schools
and classrooms (Reynolds et al., 2014). In order to associate school-level SLP
factors and processes with student outcomes, we opt for an integrated approach:
a CIPO-design (context-input-process-output) (Scheerens, 2016). Indeed,
schools differ in their student and teacher intake (input), and there are also
contextual factors that schools do not have control of (e.g., location, school size).
The CIPO-model takes these factors into account.
Additionally, we opt for a cross-sectional and multivariate design, as this
gives us the opportunity to examine the combined effects of SLP on students in
different grades and on different language skills within the same school (De
Maeyer et al., 2010). EER studies have, furthermore, indicated that school effects
are not necessarily equivalent for all types of skills (Mortimore et al., 1988;
Reynolds et al., 2014; Rymenans, Geudens, Coucke, van den Bergh, & Daems,
1996).
Sample
Data were collected in 3271 pupils in the 1st, 3rd and 6th grades, 219 teachers and
77 administrative team members (i.e., principal, special needs teacher) nested
within 28 elementary schools. There were 1149 pupils in 1st grade, 1111 in 3rd
and 1011 in 6th grade.
Participants were selected by means of stepwise stratified random
sampling (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2018). In a first phase, schools were
selected from a population of 2800 primary schools. Strata were province (5
provinces), location (urban/rural) and in the rural areas the proportion of ethnic-
minority pupils (low ≤ 22.7% > high, percentile 70 in the population). 30 schools
agreed to participate in the study. In a second step, all pupils in the first, third and
sixth grades were selected. As this study is part of a larger research project in
which we investigate differences in SLP across schools as well, schools with a
School-based language policies and student achievement
29
high ethnic minority student population are overrepresented in our sample
(χ²(1)=13.79, p < .001). As such, our sample is not representative of the
population. We excluded data from two schools from the study because less than
60% of the teachers completed the accompanying questionnaire and did not
administer all reading tests. Table 1.1 presents an overview of the characteristics
of all schools in the final sample.
Table 1.1 School sample characteristics
Urban
Rural high %
ethnic
minority
pupils
Rural low %
ethnic
minority pupils
Total
Province
No.
N
schools
N
pupils
N
schools
N
pupils
N
schools
N
pupils
N
schools
N
pupils
1 3 254 1 76 2 262 6 592
2 1 65 2 266 2 218 5 549
3 2 157 2 215 3 387 7 759
4 2 395 3 409 1 54 6 858
5 1 53 2 341 1 119 4 513
Total 9 924 10 1307 9 1040 28 3271
Measures
Dependent variables
Because reading is a key language skill in the curriculum, and previous studies
indicate that schools usually invest more time in reading than in oral language
skills or writing (e.g., Flemish Department of Education, 2004; 2013; Bonset &
Braaksma, 2008) pupils’ reading performances function as the dependent
variables (Slavin et al., 2011). We included separate tests for decoding skills in
reading and reading comprehension. Reading performances were measured by
Chapter 1
30
means of existing standardized reading tests especially designed for the different
age groups. All pupils in 1st and 3rd grade conducted a decoding skills test for
reading (Van Rompaey & Vandenberghe, 2013). Pupils in 3rd grade were also
administered a reading comprehension test (Colpin et al., 1997), as were all
pupils in 6th grade (Steunpunt voor Toetsontwikkeling en Peilingen, 2014).
Cronbach’s α ranged from .80 to .96, indicating the test results could be
considered reliable.
The decoding skills test consisted of a chart with 120 words that each
pupil had to read aloud individually during 1 minute 30 seconds. There was a
separate chart for each grade. Errors or words that were skipped were coded as
0, correct words were coded as 1. The final score was calculated by adding all
words that were read correctly within the given time frame. The tests were
administered by trained researchers and special needs teachers that had
experience with the tests.
The reading comprehension test in 3rd grade consisted of one text with 15
questions and was task-based (Long, 2014): pupils needed to complete a
meaningful, functional reading comprehension task (i.e., to locate all the animals
on the map of the zoo), a goal for which they had to read and understand the
content of the text. Each correct answer was coded 1, with a maximum score of
15. The test was administered by their classroom teacher and took 50 minutes.
The pupils in 6th grade had to complete a reading comprehension test with
8 texts and 39 questions that measured the pupils’ ability to understand the
contents of the texts. Tasks were functional as well (e.g., understanding a recipe,
deciding which bike to buy …). Each correct answer was coded 1. The test was
administered by their classroom teacher and took approximately 100 minutes.
Independent student-level variables
We included four student characteristics as control variables and in order to
check for differential school effects: pupils’ SES, pupils’ home language, age and
gender. It is well established in the educational literature that pupils from
underprivileged families generally underperform (OECD, 2004; Sirin, 2005). We
School-based language policies and student achievement
31
included a dichotomous variable for SES, based on the criteria used by the
Flemish government: a pupil was considered a low-SES student if his mother did
not complete secondary education, lived in a low-SES neighborhood or received
social support. We also included a dichotomous variable for home language.
Studies have repeatedly indicated that pupils with a home language other than
the language of instruction systematically underperform in comparison with
their native monolingual peers, even after controlling for SES (OECD, 2004;
2019). In line with the criteria used by the Flemish government, a pupil is
considered non-Dutch when he speaks a language other than Dutch with at least
two persons at home (siblings are counted as one person).1 For pupils’ gender
we included a dichotomous variable. In Flanders, girls generally outperform boys
on reading comprehension tests (De Fraine, Van Damme, & Onghena, 2006).
Since we had 20% of missing data on grade retention for each grade, we decided
not to include that variable in our analyses. Instead, pupils’ age in years was
included as control variable. As students are grouped in grades according to birth
year (Verachtert, De Fraine, Onghena, & Ghesquière, 2010), age can be
considered a robust indicator of school trajectory. The final day of the school year
in which the test was administered (30 June 2016) was chosen as the reference
date to compute age. Pupil background characteristics were obtained via the
administrative databases of the Department of Education in order to avoid as
much missing data as possible.
1 We checked whether we could include both home language and SES into the models. Both student characteristics are associated (Kramer’s V = .34, p < .001), but there is no risk of multicollinearity.
Chapter 1
32
Table 1.2 Characteristics of the pupils in the sample
low-SES non-Dutch
background
gender
(ref = boy) age
% N % N % N M SD
1st
grade 38.7 684 40.8 453 49.7 570 6.61 .61
3rd
grade 38.2 674 37.0 402 52.7 585 8.72 .70
6th
grade 49.0 512 29.7 298 48.6 491 11.68 .64
Independent school-level variables
Covariates. The percentage of students with a low socio-economic status was
included as a control variable at the school level, as previous studies indicated
that school composition may affect student achievement (Timmermans,
Doolaard, & de Wolf, 2011). The mean percentage of students with a low SES
background was 34% (M = 34.34, SD = 22.94), which is above the average in the
population (around 20%). The findings are therefore not generalizable to the
population.
School-based language policy. In order to measure the perceptions of primary
stakeholders of their school’s SLP, two separate questionnaires that included
different SLP components were administered: one for members of the school
language policy management team (e.g., principal, special needs teacher), and
one for classroom teachers. The questionnaires of the policy management team
included two objective measures of SLP for each school: the presence of a policy
plan and the presence of a policy-making team. Since having a plan or policy
making team does not guarantee that the policy is actually being enacted (Corson,
1990), both questionnaires included additional indicators of SLP (six in the
teacher questionnaire, six in the administrative team questionnaire). These
indicators are based on SLP theory, which indicates that school teams that have
School-based language policies and student achievement
33
effectively implemented an SLP are characterized by reflective dialog among staff
members on language instruction, a clear focus on language (i.e., low turbulence),
and are convinced of the relevance of an SLP. In addition, teachers are highly
committed, collaborate and experience self-efficacy to promote student language
development (Corson, 1990; 1999; May, 2007).
The presence of a plan and team was registered by means of yes/no-
questions put to the school management team, and was completed with
information collected by the researchers during informal correspondence and
school visits. For the construction of the other SLP components and items we
mainly relied on existing scales on educational or organizational improvement
which we adapted to the context of SLP: commitment (Herold, Fedor & Caldwell,
2007), self-efficacy (Gilbert & Graham, 2010), collaboration (i.e., coordination of
language instruction, communication, collective responsibility, Park, Henkin &
Egley, 2005; Vangrieken et al., 2015), support (self-developed), beliefs and
controllability (Yan & Cheng, 2015), turbulence (Herold et al., 2007) and
reflective capacity of school teams (Vanhoof, Deneire & Van Petegem, 2011).
Think-aloud protocols with five teachers, four special needs teachers, and a pilot
study with 43 teachers were conducted to refine the instruments; items that
deviated too much from the other items in the scales were removed. In the final
questionnaires, all items were randomly presented in a paper-pencil-survey in
order to avoid order effects in items of the same scale (Lavrakas, 2008).
Respondents rated each item on a Likert-scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree)
to 5 (totally agree). It took approximately 30 minutes to complete the
questionnaire.
For this study, questionnaires were completed by all members from the
school management team (N = 77), and by all teachers whose pupils conducted a
reading test (N = 219). All complete questionnaires were automatically
processed in SDAPS (version 1.9.5), an open source optical mark recognition
(OMR) system. For the items of each questionnaire, a polychoric correlation
matrix was calculated. Two separate PCA’s with oblimin rotation were conducted
to check for construct validity (Appendix 1). Three scales (i.e., self-efficacy,
controllability, beliefs) had to be excluded from the teacher questionnaire
because the items did not correlate significantly with the other items (r < .30;
Chapter 1
34
MSA < .40), and were not sufficiently reliable (Cronbach’s α < .7). Three
components were retained in the analyses of the teacher questionnaire,
explaining 53% of the initial variance: 1) teacher personal engagement (5 items),
which examined teachers’ personal commitment to promote students’ language
development in every course, 2) collaboration (8 items), which measured
perceived collaboration of the entire school team to support student language
development, and 3) support (4 items), which indicates to what extent teachers
feel supported by their school team to promote student language achievement.
Reliability scores (Cronbach’s α) ranged between .75 and .82, indicating that all
scales can be considered reliable (see Appendix 2 for items and scales).
For the questionnaire of the management team, solutions with two or
three components were examined. The items of three components (team efficacy,
beliefs regarding SLP and controllability) had to be excluded because of low
correlations with the other items (r < .3). A solution with three components
explaining 59% of the original variance seemed to provide the best results. Three
components were retained in the final analyses: 1) team engagement (3 items),
in which the administrative team members scored the perceived commitment of
the entire team to promote student language achievement, 2) turbulence (3
items), i.e., the perceived priority the school team gives to stimulating language
development, and 3) reflective capacity of the team (5 items), which measures
whether team members are open towards reflecting on the promotion of
language development. Reliability analyses were conducted afterwards.
Cronbach’s α for all scales ranged from .71 to .87, indicating all scales of the
administrative team questionnaire can be considered reliable.
The presence of an SLP plan and team was coded into dummy variables.
For the six other indicators, sum scores for each participant were computed for
each component separately, standardized by calculating z-scores and aggregated
at the school level. An intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC(2), formula =
between mean square variance – within mean square variance / between mean
square variance) (Bliese, 2000) was calculated for each scale to check whether it
is justifiable to aggregate the individual teacher and administrative team
member responses to the group level. A score of >.60 is considered sufficient to
speak of within-group agreement (Glick, 1985). Teacher responses on the
School-based language policies and student achievement
35
personal commitment scale could not be considered sufficiently homogeneous
within schools (ICC(2) = .21), and so were the responses of the administrative
team members on the team commitment scale (< .60). These components were
therefore excluded from the analyses. ICC(2) for the other scales ranged from .61
to .79 and were considered sufficiently homogenous within schools (Bliese,
2000; Glick, 1985). Preliminary analyses further indicated that two teacher
scales, collaboration and support, were highly correlated at the school level (r =
.90). Since both scales could be considered dimensions of the same construct of
cooperation (Little, 1990), and in order to avoid multicollinearity problems in the
analyses, the two scales were combined into the scale ‘cooperation’ by taking the
average. In sum, we included three components measuring SLP: teacher
cooperation (M = 3.69, SD = .35), team reflective capacity (M = 3.69, SD = .42) and
perceived turbulence (M = 2.91, SD = .83).
Analysis
Given that we have four dependent variables (reading decoding skills in 1st and
3rd grade, and reading comprehension in 3rd and 6th grade), a multivariate
multilevel model was applied using MLwiN version 2.31 (Rasbash, Steele,
Browne, Goldstein, & Charlton, 2014). Previous research has indicated that
multivariate analysis is more accurate for this type of data, allowing us to test for
associations of the school-level factors with multiple student outcomes (De
Maeyer, van den Bergh, Rymenans, Van Petegem, & Rijlaarsdam, 2010).
We distinguished three hierarchical levels: reading outcome within pupils
within schools. The teacher-level was omitted. Not every school in our dataset
has different classrooms in each grade, the inclusion of an extra teacher or
classroom level would result in an interference between the teacher and the
school level. Additionally, our model would become too complex for the amount
of data available, resulting in a loss of power and a higher risk of type-II errors.
Models were built in a stepwise manner and the distribution of the
residuals was iteratively checked for normality on all levels. No deviations from
normality were found. An empty model containing no explanatory variables was
Chapter 1
36
calculated first in order to determine the degree of variation that exists at the
school and pupil level. This model (Model 0) informed us whether and to what
extent pupils’ reading performances differed between students within schools
and between students from different schools. Next, pupil characteristics and
school contextual variables were added to the model as control variables (Model
1). Combined effects for both measures of decoding skills and reading
comprehension were calculated in order to avoid overfitting of the model. In a
second model we investigated the impact of SLP on pupils’ reading performances
by adding all five SLP variables (RQ1, Model 2). Differential effects were checked
for by adding cross-level interactions between SLP indicators and pupil
background variables (i.e., SES, language background) (RQ2) in a third model.
Only those variables that were significantly related to at least one of the outcome
variables were included in the final model.
Results
The estimates of the random effects in the empty model (Table 1.4) show that
10.18% of the variance in decoding skills at the end of the first grade is situated
at the school level, indicating that there are significant differences in pupil
reading performances between schools. In third grade, 9.01% of variance could
be found at the school level for decoding skills and 13.29% for reading
comprehension. In sixth grade, 11.82% of variance could be found at the school
level. The covariances at school level between all reading outcomes are positive,
indicating that schools in which pupils in 6th grade perform well, are also effective
for pupils in 1st and 3rd grade. On the pupil level, only the covariance for the third
grade is calculated, since only these pupils took both a technical reading and
reading comprehension test. Pupils’ individual technical reading skills and
reading comprehension skills were related to some extent (r = .39, p < .001).
School-based language policies and student achievement
37
Table 1.3 Parameter estimates empty model
Model 0: Empty model
B SE Sign
Fixed Part
1st grade 99.551 0.973 ***
3rd grade dec 100.739 0.984 ***
3rd grade compr 100.369 1.134 ***
6th grade 100.067 1.052 ***
-2*loglikelihood 33720.863
N schools = 28, N pupils = 3172, N indicators = 4161, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
Table 1.4 Estimates of the random effects of the empty model
1st grade 3rd grade dec 3rd grade
compr
6th grade
School level
1st grade 21.091** .91 .70 .53
3rd grade
Dec 19.078** 20.834** .62 .50
Compr 17.674* 15.579* 30.199** .80
6th grade 12.070* 11.449* 21.961** 25.009**
Pupil level
1st grade 186.100***
3rd grade
Dec -,- 210.361*** .39
Compr -,- 79.533*** 197.038***
6th grade -,- -,- -,- 186.510***
dec = decoding skills, compr = reading comprehension, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
The first model (Table 1.5), which includes control variables like pupil and school
contextual characteristics, indicates that gender, pupils’ personal socioeconomic
status, home language, age and the percentage of low-SES pupils within school
Chapter 1
38
significantly affected pupils’ reading performances. Age did not significantly
affect decoding and comprehension performances. Boys performed lower on the
reading comprehension tests than girls, whereas no differences in gender were
found in decoding skills. Pupils’ socioeconomic status was found to be negatively
related to reading comprehension, but not to technical decoding skills. Pupils
with a home language other than Dutch performed significantly lower than
monolingual Dutch pupils on both the technical reading tests and the reading
comprehension tests. Furthermore, pupils in schools with a higher percentage of
low-SES pupils performed significantly lower for both decoding and reading
comprehension skills. After controlling for student background characteristics
and school contextual factors, a significant amount of variance (p < .05) remains
situated at the school level for each grade and for both decoding and
comprehension (8.08%, 7.71%, 4.16% and 4.60% respectively).
The variables related to SLP were included as independent variables in
the second model. A significant and positive association was found between team
reflective capacity for language on the one hand, and pupils’ decoding skills in
reading on the other hand. This means that students in schools where the teacher
team has a higher reflective capacity regarding language instruction, perform
better on technical reading tests than pupils in schools with lower reflective
capacities for language. No associations between indicators of SLP and reading
comprehension scores were found. In addition, no differential effects of SLP on
student reading performances were found (Model 3). After inclusion of the SLP-
related variables (Model 2), 4.85% (p < .05), 6.24% (p < .01), 3.87% (p < .05) and
4.64% (p < .05) of variance remained at the school level (see Appendix 3). When
contrasting the different models, the models that include SLP indicators do not
significantly improve compared to the basic model – except when only reflective
team capacity is included. This confirms that most SLP-related indicators do not
adequately explain the remaining differences between schools in this sample
(Table 1.6).
39
Table 1.5 Parameter estimates for the fixed effects of Model 1, 2 and 3
Model 1: Basic model Model 2a: SLP objective indicators
Decoding skills Reading comprehension Decoding skills Reading comprehension
Fixed Part B SE Sign B SE Sign B SE Sign B SE Sign
Intercepts
1st grade
101.340
3rd
grade
102.465
1.052
1.073
***
***
3rd
grade
103.630
6th
grade
102.405
.872
.867
***
***
1st grade
102.657
3rd grade
103.753
1.831
1.840
***
***
3rd grade
103.540
6th grade
102.377
1.310
1.340
***
***
Gender (ref = boy) -.452 .608 3.449 .592 *** -.459 .608 3.462 .592 ***
SES (ref = no risk) -1.024 .783 -5.868 .720 ***
-1.004 .782 -5.879 .718 ***
Home Language (ref
= Dutch)
-1.682 .722 * -3.150 .715 *** -1.637 .723 * -3.250 .717 ***
% low-SES students -.059 .035 -.088 .025 ** -.049 .039 -.101 .027 **
SLP plan -1.862 2.000 -1.246 1.372
SLP team 0.133 1.833 2.144 1.263
-2*loglikelihood 32888.212 32884.167
N schools = 28, N students = 3106, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
40
Model 2b: SLP subjective indicators Model 3: Differential effects
Decoding skills Reading comprehension Decoding skills Reading comprehension
Fixed part B SE Sign B SE Sign B SE Sign B SE Sign
Intercept
1st
grade
101.162
3rd
grade
102.252
.927
.873
***
***
3rd
grade
103.366
6th
grade
102.264
.865
.871
***
***
1st
grade
101.111
3rd
grade
102.206
.932
1.016
***
***
3rd grade
103.541
6th grade
102.348
.860
.873
***
***
Gender (ref = boy) -.452 .608 3.451 .592 ** -.452 .608 3.451 .592 **
SES (ref = no risk) -.974 .776 -5.873 .720 **
-.939 .788 -5.880 .720 **
Home Language
(ref = Dutch)
-1.717 .718 * -3.162 .717 ** -1.719 .720 * -3.160 .716
% low-SES
students
-.058 .037 -.090 .031 ** -.060 .037 -.090 .031 **
Cooperation 1.265 1.037 .259 .849 1.302 1.034 .294 .849
Reflective capacity 2.265 .897 * .623 .739 2.020 1.053 .623 .739
Turbulence -1.733 .950 -.347 .767 -1.726 .944 -.346 .767
Reflective capacity
x home language
.284 .901 -,- -,-
Reflective capacity
x SES
.236 .934 -,- -,-
-2*loglikelihood 32878.057 32877.846
N schools = 28, N students = 3106, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
School-based language policies and student achievement
41
Table 1.6 Comparison of Model Fit
Model χ2 df p
Model 0 vs 1 832.65 8 .000
Model 1 vs 2a 4.045 4 .340
Model 1 vs 2b 10.155 6 .118
Model 2b vs 3 .211 4 .995
Model 1 vs 2b reflective capacity 6.07 2 .048
Discussion
Schools that implement an SLP are expected to yield excellence and equity in
student language achievement (Corson, 1990; Van den Branden, 2010). To date,
however, little empirical evidence is available to support this claim. This study
addressed this gap by examining how SLP relates to student language
achievement in a cross-sectional sample of 3000 students from 28 primary
schools in Flanders.
RQ1: To what extent do schools with an SLP yield higher student
performances for language learning?
This study found only partly evidence that SLP enhances pupil language skills.
Our results indicate that schools in which the school team members demonstrate
reflective capacity regarding language instruction, can be considered more
effective in terms of promoting pupils’ decoding skills in reading, which reflects
the characteristics of effective schools in general (Opdenakker & Van Damme,
2000; Reynolds et al., 2014). By engaging in reflective dialog with colleagues,
teachers question their own practice, which may lead to improvement
(Vanblaere & Devos, 2016). By contrast, no association was found between
student reading achievement and the objective SLP indicators (having a
plan/team), or the other indicators of SLP that this study took into account (i.e.,
cooperation and perceived turbulence). In addition, the effect of reflective
Chapter 1
42
capacity only applies to decoding skills in reading. No association between any of
the indicators of SLP and reading comprehension was found.
Three hypotheses can be formulated to explain these findings: (1) either
SLP is ineffective for more complex language skills such as reading
comprehension, (2) effective policies for reading comprehension may have been
implemented poorly, or (3) SLP effects are poorly measured in this study.
Regarding the first hypothesis, reading comprehension and decoding skills
require different pedagogical approaches (Castles, Rastle, & Nation, 2018; Fisher,
Frey, & Hattie, 2016). The promotion of technical reading skills mainly requires
an extensive set of word images and direct instruction including highly
structured, explicit training in making sound-letter links and decoding words and
sentences. Reading comprehension, by contrast, is a complex process which
involves a complex interaction between visual information from the text and
non-visual information, including prior knowledge of letters, words, texts, and
the student’s prior knowledge of the subject and previous experiences with texts
and reading (Castles et al., 2018; Mullis et al., 2016). This requires a pedagogical
approach that strikes a balance between the performance of meaningful reading
comprehension tasks and the explicit focus on self-regulation, reading
comprehension strategies, vocabulary, text features and structures (Castles,
Rastle, & Nation, 2018; Fisher, Frey, & Hattie, 2016). For school teams, then, it
may be more feasible to design a clear, coherent and shared set of practices
regarding decoding than for reading comprehension, which is more elusive and
harder to translate in a transparent set of pedagogical principles, both in
educational tools and in collaborative dialog among staff members.
In support of the second hypothesis, studies that examine the
implementation of language education policy and education policy in general
widely speak of the uneven implementation of educational policies, with no or
limited change in practice (e.g., Franck & Niciase, 2019; Honig, 2006; May &
Wright, 2007). Often, it appears too difficult to convince and involve all teachers
in the implementation process (e.g., Johnson et al., 2018; May & Wright, 2007).
This claim is supported by our finding that teacher commitment to promote
student language learning in each course could not be considered sufficiently
homogeneous within schools. Moreover, even if school teams in our sample
School-based language policies and student achievement
43
consider language a priority, have written up a plan, composed a team, and report
collective agreement upon goals and practices that target complex language
skills, this does not necessarily mean that they have taken (evidence-based)
action upon it (Bandura, 2000; Corson, 1990), or created teacher collective
efficacy within the school (Bandura, 1997). Indeed, implementing and sustaining
SLPs requires ‘a myriad of changes to the traditional organization, pedagogy and
practice of schools’ (Lai et al., 2009; May & Wright, 2007: 372). Since Flemish
teachers typically report low numbers of collective or deprivatized practices (De
Neve, Devos, & Tuytens, 2015; Lomos, 2017), it could well be hypothesized that
an SLP that effectively promotes reading comprehension development would
imply too much of a change for school teams.
Recent national reports issued by the Flemish Department of Education
and the Flemish Inspectorate examining the reading comprehension skills of
pupils in sixth grade corroborate these findings, thereby supporting both
hypotheses. The reports indicate that despite the government’s focus on
language skills, teachers spend most time instructing linguistics and spelling, at
the expense of reading comprehension and writing (AHOVOKS, 2019; Flemish
Inspectorate, 2020). Furthermore, the strategies teachers devoted most of their
time to during reading comprehension instruction (i.e., lower-order reading
strategies such as underlining) can be considered only marginally effective
according to research evidence (Fisher et al., 2016; Mol & Bus, 2011; Nonte,
Hartwich, & Willems, 2018).
The third hypothesis, that SLP has been measured poorly in this study, is
related to two issues. First, reading comprehension performances were largely
explained by student background variables, whereas this was not the case for
decoding skills. Research into cognitive aspects of reading comprehension
indicates that this skill is primarily predicted by students’ oral language skills and
vocabulary knowledge (Snow, 2018) in higher grade pupils (i.e., around grade 3).
These skills are, indeed, less susceptible to influences from within the school
context than technical reading (Biemiller, 2003; Reynolds et al., 2014; Van
Avermaet et al., 2011; van de broek, Mouw, & Kraal, 2015). This does, of course,
not mean that schools cannot contribute to the development of these skills but it
does require more effort and, for some schools, a profound shift in their didactic
Chapter 1
44
approach to and vision on language learning (cf. Biemiller, 2003; Graham, 2019;
Vanbuel et al., 2017). Since student background variables explain most of the
variance in reading comprehension between schools in our study (see also Nonte
et al., 2018), it is, furthermore, much harder to statistically detect remaining
school effects. A replication study on a larger dataset could be an interesting lead.
Second, we used questionnaires to measure school team members’ perceptions
of SLP implementation in their school. Questionnaires enable large-scale
research, but they also have their limits as they rely on self-reports of
stakeholders (cf. Kyriakides et al., 2015). While the problems with self-reports
are usually less substantial with general school practices than with teacher
reported practices (Hook & Rosenshine, 1979), school team members may still
have over/underestimated their school’s actual SLP, especially since SLP
implementation is considered a rather difficult task for schools (Lam & Bengo,
2003; see also Sleegers et al., 2014). In addition, our questionnaires did not
include questions related to teaching practices. Measuring teaching practices by
means of questionnaires often yields unreliable results and conducting
classroom observations in all schools was not feasible within the framework of
this study (Hill, Charalambous, & Kraft, 2012). As we hypothesized above,
however, school teams are perhaps less aware of what constitutes effective
instruction for reading comprehension (Merchie et al., 2019). Consequently, they
may have failed to select effective practices that promote more complex language
skills, or selected practices that only promote language skills other than reading
comprehension. A mixed-method study that uses a larger dataset and
triangulates data from questionnaires, interviews and class observations (Hill et
al., 2012; Kyriakides et al., 2015) could probably provide a more comprehensive
view on SLP and how it relates to student language achievement.
RQ2: To what extent is the effect of SLP differential for pupils at risk versus
pupils who are not at risk?
No interaction effects on pupils’ reading outcomes were found between the SLP-
related variables and pupil SES or home language. In other words, our data do
not find evidence for the claim that SLP adds to the efforts of the Flemish
School-based language policies and student achievement
45
education policy to narrow down the socio-ethnic achievement gap in language
achievement. As SLP is only found to be related to decoding skills in our sample,
and decoding skills are not as much influenced by students’ home language or
SES as reading comprehension skills (cf. also Belfi et al., 2011), this finding is not
entirely surprising. This outcome is also in line with other research that is
involved with equity in (Flemish) education (Franck & Nicaise, 2019; Vanlaar et
al., 2014, 2015). Longitudinal data could provide further insight into the
differential effectiveness of SLP. Perhaps, an SLP has a differential effect on the
language gains of students with different profiles – on the condition that the SLP
is well implemented and adopts effective measures. Recent studies (e.g.,
Kyriakides et al., 2018) indicate that some school factors can in fact decrease the
social achievement gap that usually increases throughout students’ school
career.
Conclusion
This study examined whether and to what extent school-based language policies
are related to student language achievement when implemented in schools.
Results indicate that SLP is to some extent significantly positively related to
students’ technical reading performances. Lower-grade pupils performed better
on tests measuring decoding skills in reading in schools with more reflective
capacity on language instruction than pupils in schools where SLP seems less
well implemented. By contrast, no relationship between schools’ SLP and
students’ reading comprehension skills could be established. Summing up the
findings, we conclude that the empirical evidence on the education policy
promoting SLPs as a solution to promote pupils’ reading achievement and to
narrow the achievement gap in education, is still rather thin.
We formulated three hypotheses that could explain this finding: either
SLP is not effective as a measure to promote more complex language skills, it is
not implemented effectively within schools, or it is not measured adequately in
this study. The next chapter follows up on these findings by giving a closer look
at the configuration of SLP in a subset of schools.
Chapter 1
46
References
AHOVOKS. (2019). Peiling Nederlands. Lezen, luisteren en schrijven in het
basisonderwijs. Brussel.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman
and Company.
Bandura, A. (2000). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual
Review of Psychology, 52, 1–26.
Belfi, B., Cortois, L., Vanlaar, G., Verhaeghe, J. P., Moons, C., Van Gorp, K., … Van den
Branden, K. (2011). Vorderingen van leerlingen in het leren van Nederlands.
Leuven.
Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, no-independence, and reliability.
Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J.
Kozlowski (Eds.), Research and methods in organizations (pp. 349–381).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bullock, A. (1975). A language for life. London.
Bunch, G. C. (2013). Pedagogical language knowledge: Preparing mainstream
teachers for English learners in the new standards era. Review of Research
in Education, 37, 298-341.
Camilleri Grima, A. (2007). Promoting linguistic diversity and whole-school
development. Graz: Council of Europe.
Castles, A., Rastle, K., & Nation, K. (2018). Ending the Reading Wars: Reading
Acquisition From Novice to Expert. Psychological Science in the Public
Interest, 19(1), 5–51.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., and Morrison, K. (2018). Research Methods in Education. (8t
ed.). London: Routledge.
Colpin, M., e.a. (1997). VLOT. - Volgsysteem Lager Onderwijs: Taalvaardigheid.
Deurne: Wolters Plantyn.
Corson, D. (1990). Language policy across the curriculum. Clevedon/Bristol:
Multilingual Matters.
Corson, D. (1999). Language policy in schools: a resource for teachers and
administrators. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
School-based language policies and student achievement
47
De Fraine, B., Van Damme, J., & Onghena, P. (2007). A longitudinal analysis of
gender differences in academic self-concept and language achievement: A
multivariate multilevel latent growth approach. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 32, 132–150.
De Maeyer, S., van den Bergh, H., Rymenans, R., Van Petegem, P., & Rijlaarsdam,
G. (2010). Effectiveness criteria in school effectiveness studies: Further
research on the choice for a multivariate model. Educational Research
Review, 5, 81–96.
De Neve, D., Devos, G., & Tuytens, M. (2015). The importance of job resources and
self-efficacy for beginning teachers’ professional learning in differentiated
instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 47, 30–41.
Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Hattie, J. (2016). Visible Learning for Literacy. Thousand
Oaks: Sage.
Franck, E., & Nicaise, I. (2018). Ongelijkheden in het Vlaamse onderwijssysteem:
verbetering in zicht? Een vergelijking van PISA 2003 en 2015. Gent.
Glick, W. H. (1985). Conceptualizing and Measuring Organizational and
Psychological Climate: Pitfalls in Multilevel Research. Academy of
Management. The Academy of Management Review, 10(3), 601.
Herold, David M., Fedor, Donald B., Caldwell, S. D. (2007). Beyond change
management: A multilevel investigation of contextual and personal
influences on employees’ commitment to change. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92(4), 942–951.
Hill, H. C., Charalambous, C. Y., & Kraft, M. A. (2012). When Rater Reliability Is Not
Enough: Teacher Observation Systems and a Case for the Generalizability
Study. Educational Researcher, 41(2), 56–64.
Hook, C. M., & Rosenshine, B. V. (1979). Accuracy of teacher reports of their
classroom behavior. Review of Educational Research, 49(1), 12.
Kyriakides, L., Creemers, B., & Charalambous, E. (2018). Equity and quality
dimensions in educational effectiveness. Cham: Springer International
Publishing.
Lai, M. K., McNaughton, S., Timperley, H., & Hsiao, S. (2009). Sustaining continued
acceleration in reading comprehension achievement following an
Chapter 1
48
intervention. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21,
81–100.
Lam, T. C. M., & Bengo, P. (2003). Method Notes A Comparison of Three
Retrospective Self-reporting Methods of Measuring Change in
Instructional Practice. American Journal of Evaluation, 24(1), 65–80.
Levin, B. (2008). How to change 5000 schools. A practical and positive approach
for leading change at every level. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Lewis, M., & Wray, D. (2001). Implementing Effective Literacy Initiatives in the
Secondary School. Educational Studies, 27(1), 45–54.
Little, J. (1990). The persistence of privacy: autonomy and initiative in teachers’
professional relations. Teachers College Record, 91(4), 509–536.
Lomos, C. (2017). To what extent do teachers in European countries differ in their
professional community practices? School Effectiveness and School
Improvement, 28(2), 276–291.
May, S. (1997). School Language Policies. In Encyclopedia of Language and
Education (pp. 229–240). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
May, S. (2007). Sustaining Effective Literacy Practices Over Time in Secondary
Schools: School Organisational and Change Issues. Language and
Education, 21(5), 387–405.
May, S., & Wright, N. (2007). Secondary Literacy Across the Curriculum:
Challenges and Possibilities. Language and Education, 21(5), 370–376.
McNaughton, S., Kuin Lai, M., & Hsiao, S. (2012). Testing the effectiveness of an
intervention model based on data use: a replication series across clusters
of schools. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 23(2), 203–228.
Merchie, E., Gobyn, S., De Bruyne, E., De Smedt, F., Schiepers, M., Vanbuel, M., …
Keer, H. Van. (2019). Effectieve eigentijdse begrijpend leesdidactiek in het
basisonderwijs. Brussels.
Mol, S. E., & Bus, A. G. (2011). To Read or Not to Read: A Meta-Analysis of Print
Exposure From Infancy to Early Adulthood. Psychological Bulletin, 137(2),
267–296.
Nonte, S., Hartwich, L., & Willems, A. S. (2018). Promoting reading attitudes of
girls and boys: a new challenge for educational policy? Multi-group
School-based language policies and student achievement
49
analyses across four European countries Introduction. Large-Scale
Assessments in Education, 6(5), 1–22.
OECD. (2004). Learning for Tomorrow’s World. First Results from PISA 2003. Paris.
OECD. (2011). Education at a Glance 2011: OECD Indicators. Paris.
OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 results: combined executive summaries. Paris.
Opdenakker, M.-C., & Van Damme, J. (2000). Effects of Schools, Teaching Staff and
Classes on Achievement and Well-Being in Secondary Education:
Similarities and Differences Between School Outcomes. School
Effectiveness and School Improvement, 11(2), 165–196.
Park, S., Henkin, A. and Egley, R. (2005). Teacher team commitment, teamwork
and trust: exploring associations. Journal of Educational Administration,
43(5), 462-479.
Rasbash, J., Steele, F., Browne, W. J., Goldstein, H., & Charlton, C. (2014). A User’s
Guide to MLwiN Version 2.31. Bristol: Centre for Multilevel Modelling,
University of Bristol.
Rymenans, R., Geudens, V., Coucke, H., van den Bergh, H., & Daems, F. (1996).
Effectiviteit van Vlaamse secundaire scholen: een onderzoek naar de
effecten van onderwijsaanbod, de tijdsbesteding aan het Nederlands en de
schoolkenmerken op de lees- en schrijfprestaties. Antwerpen.
Reynolds, D., Sammons, P., De Fraine, B., Damme, J. Van, Townsend, T., Teddlie, C.,
& Stringfield, S. (2014). Educational effectiveness research (EER): a state-
of-the-art review. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 25(2),
197–230.
Scheerens, J. (2016). Educational Effectiveness and Ineffectiveness. Dordrecht:
Springer.
Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-
analytic review of research. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 417–
453.
Sleegers, P. J. C., Thoonen, E. E. J., Oort, F. J., & Peetsma, T. T. D. (2014). Changing
classroom practices: the role of school-wide capacity for sustainable
improvement. Journal of Educational Administration, 52(5), 617–652.
Chapter 1
50
Smyth, J. (2007). Pedagogy, School Culture and Teacher Learning: Towards More
Durable and Resistant Approaches to Secondary School Literacy.
Language and Education, 21(5), 406-419.
Steunpunt voor Toetsontwikkeling en Peilingen. (2014). Paralleltoets Nederlands
lezen basisonderwijs. Leuven.
Timmermans, A. C., Doolaard, S., & de Wolf, I. (2011). Conceptual and empirical
differences among various value-added models for accountability. School
Effectiveness and School Improvement, 22(4), 393–413.
van de broek, P., Mouw, J., & Kraal, A. (2015). Individual differences in promoting
reading comprehension. In P. Afflerbach (Ed.), Handbook of Individual
Differences in Reading: Reader, Text, and Context (pp. 139–150). New York:
Routledge.
Vanblaere, B., & Devos, G. (2016). Exploring the link between experienced
teachers’ learning outcomes and individual and professional learning
community characteristics. School Effectiveness and School Improvement,
27(2), 205–227.
Vanlaar, G., Denies, K., Vandecandelaere, M., Damme, J. Van, Verhaeghe, J. P.,
Pinxten, M., & De Fraine, B. (2014). How to improve reading
comprehension in high-risk students: effects of class practices in Grade 5.
School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 25(3), 408–432.
Vanlaar, G., Kyriakides, L., Panayiotou, A., Vandecandelaere, M., Mcmahon, L., De
Fraine, B., & Damme, J. Van. (2015). Do the teacher and school factors of
the dynamic model affect high-and low-achieving student groups to the
same extent? a cross-country study. Research Papers in Education, 31(2),
183–211.
Verachtert, P., De Fraine, B., Onghena, P., & Ghesquière, P. (2010). Season of birth
and school success in the early years of primary education. Oxford Review
of Education, 36(3), 285–306.
Van Rompaey, A., & Vandenberghe, I. (2013). Herziene uitgave van Dudal P.,
Garant, Antwerpen, 1997. Brussel: VCLB.
Whitehead, D. (2010). The year after: sustaining the effects of literacy
professional development in New Zealand secondary schools. Language
and Education, 24(2), 133–149.
School-based language policies and student achievement
51
Wright, N. (2007). Building Literacy Communities of Practice Across Subject
Disciplines in Secondary Schools. Language and Education, 21(5), 420–
433.
Yan, Z., & Cheng, E. (2015). Primary teachers' attitudes, intentions and practices
regarding formative assessment. Teaching and Teacher Education, 45,
128-136.
53
Chapter 2
Implementing school-based language policies: ‘good for the
strong, strong for the weak’?
Chapter 1 indicated that the empirical evidence we currently have on the
effectiveness of SLP is rather thin. The qualitative study that is reported in this
chapter provides a more detailed insight into the SLP configurations in six schools
and helps to frame the findings of the first chapter.
There is a growing awareness that top-down one-size-fits-all education policies
are generally not conducive for achieving their intended effects (e.g., Harklau &
Yang, 2020; Hornberger & Johnson, 2007; Liddicoat & Baldauf, 2008). As a result,
schools increasingly have the autonomy to design and implement their own
policies, including a school-based language policy (SLP) (Corson, 1990; Han,
2018; Sahlberg, 2016). As autonomy potentially enhances commitment and
collaboration among local stakeholders, school effectiveness is expected to
increase (Klein, 2017; Maslowski, Scheerens, & Luyten, 2008). Yet, surprisingly
little is known about the overall configuration of school-based policies, how they
are put in practice, and how effective these choices are (Harklau & Yang, 2020;
Kyriakides, Creemers, Antoniou, Demetriou, & Charalambous, 2015; Neeleman,
2019). In other words, we do not know whether schools make optimal use of
their autonomy to design policies that enhance the quality of language education
and student outcomes.
Using a subsample of six Flemish schools that also participated in the
educational effectiveness research (EER) study (Chapter 1) and that have
different profiles in terms of effectiveness, this study explores how schools
configure their school-based language policies. The study is based on two focus
group interviews that were conducted at each school with teachers and
administrative team members, and is complemented with policy documents,
class observations and focus groups with pupils. It provides an
Chapter 2
54
operationalization of four types of SLP by using insights from EER. Specific
attention is devoted to differences between effective and ineffective schools.
Implementing effective school-based language policies
Existing studies increasingly focus on how educators interpret and implement
official language education policies, since much of their impact is dependent on
how they are implemented in schools and classrooms (Durlak & DuPre, 2008;
Hornberger & Johnson, 2007; McLaughlin, 2006). The majority of the available
research has specifically examined the implementation of language policies
aimed at accommodating the linguistic needs of multilingual students (Menken
& García, 2017), and suggests that deviations from official policies are the rule
rather than the exception (e.g., Johnson, Stephens, Johnston Nelson, & Johnson,
2018; Menken & Garcia, 2010; Strobbe et al., 2017). Language ideologies of
individual teachers (Johnson et al., 2018; Pulinx, Van Avermaet, & Agirdag, 2017;
Varghese, 2008), existing school cultures (e.g., Harklau & Yang, 2020; Van, Wildt,
Van, Mieke, & Houtte, 2016), school vision and team commitment (Hunt, 2011),
and engaged school leaders are found to play a key role in changing school
structures and instructional components (Ascenzi-Moreno, Hesson, Center, &
Menken, 2015; Menken & Solorza, 2014).
Some smaller case studies that focus on school language policies in
mainstream education have been conducted in secondary schools in The
Netherlands. These studies indicate that schools face a lot of difficulties when
implementing language policies across the curriculum. Most schools did not get
any further than appointing a language policy coordinator or team because of a
lack of time, resources, and commitment of all team members (Meestringa &
Tordoir, 1999; Meestringa & van der Laan, 2002). May & Wright (2007)
emphasize similar difficulties that hamper SLP implementation in secondary
schools in New Zealand: schools fail to reach agreement over the aims and scope
of the policy, they fail to involve all team members, and lack the ability to change
school structures deemed necessary to make the policy operational (Lorenzo &
Trujillo, 2017; May & Wright, 2007).
Implementing school-based language policies: ‘good for the strong, strong for the weak’?
55
Previous studies have discussed the language policies that are enacted in
schools and classrooms in terms of justice, and in terms of the impact they may
have on students’ identity and school belonging (e.g., Menken, Pérez Rosario, &
Alejandro Guzmán Valerio, 2018; Van der Wildt et al., 2017). Few studies,
however, present details on the specific pedagogical/didactical measures schools
take as part of their SLP, or link school policies with student achievement or
educational effectiveness (Shohamy, 2006). A number of ethnographic studies
show a tendency to refer to the impact of enacted language policies on student
achievement (Foley, Sangster, & Anderson, 2013; Johnson et al., 2018), but this
does not always happen in a systematic way.
One of the reasons why little attention has been devoted to effectiveness
is that each school is considered ‘a unique setting for policymaking’, which
implies that there can be large differences in the SLPs that schools design and
implement (Corson, 1999, p. 5). ‘Core components’, specifying ‘which traits are
replicable’, can, however, be identified (Fixsen, Naoom, Blase, Friedman, &
Wallace, 2005, p. 24). Combined with insights from applied linguistics on what
constitutes effective language teaching, educational effectiveness research (EER)
can provide educators with tools to identify what can be considered an effective
school-based language policy. In their synthesis on the impact of school effects
on learner outcomes, Kyriakides et al. (2010; 2015) distinguish two dimensions
of effective school policies: (1) they promote an evidence-informed improvement
in teaching practices, and (2) they create a learning environment for teachers. As
for the first point, effective schools typically focus on their core business:
teaching and learning. They make sure that teachers have sufficient time to teach
the core curriculum and provide learning opportunities to students. Moreover,
instructional practices at the classroom level are evidence-informed, in
particular regarding language and literacy development, such as student
centered whole-classroom practices, interaction, cooperative learning, formative
assessment, feedback, the explicit teaching of strategies, and opportunities to
produce extended text (e.g., Bourdeaud’hui, Aesaert, Keer, & Van Braak, 2018;
Graham, 2019; Merchie et al., 2019; Slavin, Lake, Davis, & Madden, 2011; Vanbuel,
Boderé, & Van Den Branden, 2017). A policy focused on having pupils read more
books, for instance, will not necessarily foster vocabulary knowledge, reading
Chapter 2
56
skills and motivation in the long term, unless students are provided with direct
vocabulary and strategy instruction, or if they are given good incentives to read
(Biemiller, 2003; Nonte, Hartwich, & Willems, 2018; van Steensel, van der Sande,
Bramer, & Arends, 2016; Wright & Cervetti, 2017). Empirical studies also indicate
that including and accommodating students’ home language is beneficial for
academic achievement (Collier & Thomas, 2020; Reljić, Ferring, & Martin, 2015;
but see Berthele, 2019), just like investing in relationships of trust between
teachers, parents and students (Salloum, Goddard, & Berebitsky, 2018).
Remedial practices have specific value for the development of technical skills
(e.g., phonics) in struggling readers (Slavin et al., 2011). Whole-classroom
approaches that incorporate peer collaboration are, however, in most cases
equally effective to foster reading and writing skills, and more children can
benefit from them simultaneously (Graham, 2019; Inns, Lake, Pellegrini, & Slavin,
2019; Slavin, Lake, Chambers, Cheung, & Davis, 2009). The second dimension,
school learning environment, refers to the support and opportunities the school
environment offers to teachers to develop their professional expertise. Teachers
in effective schools feel supported by their school team, have the possibility to
experiment with new teaching methods and feel safe enough to discuss their
attempts with colleagues (Fullan, 2015; Marks & Louis, 1999). Schools that focus
on both dimensions, and that evaluate their policy by using data to monitor the
implementation process (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012; Van den Branden, 2019)
are likely to (indirectly) promote student learning (Kyriakides et al., 2010; OECD,
2015). This study uses these insights from EER to compare the SLP
configurations in schools with research evidence on school effectiveness.
Research question
Chapter 1 found that the existence of SLP in schools only partially predicts the
reading skills of pupils. In order to better frame those data we argued that we
needed a deeper insight into the SLPs that schools design, since we only
measured process-related SLP indicators such as collaboration and reflective
capacity by means of questionnaires, and not actual teaching practices, tools,
Implementing school-based language policies: ‘good for the strong, strong for the weak’?
57
routines etc. There is, however, generally little information available on the
design of school-based (language) policies (Neeleman, 2019) and about language
instruction in Flemish primary schools in particular (Merchie et al., 2019).
What information we have on SLP implementation in Flemish schools
stems from reports by the Flemish Inspectorate (2015, 2019). These reports
indicate that 60% of the schools have implemented a language policy, and most
of those have largely taken organizational decisions, such as appointing a
language planning team or writing of a language policy plan. Most schools also
provide remedial teaching in pull-out classes for students with learning
difficulties. Regular classroom practices, however, are hardly changed, nor do
schools follow up on the implementation of the policy. The Inspectorate mainly
attributes this narrow focus of SLP to existing school cultures (e.g., principals
having difficulties with telling teachers how to change their practices), but also
to the rather limited time schools have devoted to SLP thus far (Flemish
Inspectorate, 2015). Since SLP only became mandatory in Flemish schools from
2007 onwards, schools still might have been in the adoption phase, deciding
whether to go for implementation or not – even though it was mandatory (Fullan,
2015). These reports, however, did not provide a profound insight into the
pedagogies that were adopted, nor did they discuss SLP in terms of educational
effectiveness.
The aim of this study is therefore to examine how school teams configure
their language policies. It addresses research objective 2 and is guided by the
following research question: Which measures or planned actions do schools take
to promote student language development as part of their school-based language
policy, and to which extent are these policies consistent with evidence regarding
educational effectiveness?
Method
In order to identify how school teams configure their SLP, we opted for a
qualitative research design. By using a qualitative research method involving
semi-structured (focus group) interviews, we gave school team members the
Chapter 2
58
opportunity to express their experiences with their school’s approach to SLP. As
such, a qualitative approach helped us to gain a more ‘truthful’ and detailed
insight into local agents’ perceptions of their schools’ SLP-related practices
(Mortelmans, 2013).
Sample
This study was conducted in six of the 28 schools that also participated in the
EER study (Chapter 1). Since we wanted to make sure that schools had passed
the adoption phase of deciding whether to implement an SLP (Fullan, 2015), we
required that schools were in the process of implementing an SLP (N = 20) as a
precondition to participation. In addition, all teachers and parents had to give
consent for further data collection in the classrooms. From the remaining 17
schools, six were selected based on their effectiveness for reading skills, after
controlling for student characteristics like home language and socioeconomic
status (i.e., value-added).
Three effective and three less effective schools were selected. Since
technical reading skills are a necessary but insufficient condition for reading
comprehension (Castles, Rastle, & Nation, 2018), schools were considered
effective when their students in the final, sixth grade achieved significantly
higher overall test scores for reading comprehension in comparison with the
other schools in the sample, while controlling for student characteristics that are
known to affect language achievement (i.e., gender, home language and
socioeconomic status) (Reynolds et al., 2014). Schools were considered
ineffective when their students in sixth grade performed at or significantly below
the average in the sample. Two schools (school 23, 67) are minority-dominant
schools with a high number of Turkish heritage students, three schools (school
28, 52 and 63) have a mixed population of students with diverse language
backgrounds (e.g., Albanian, Bantu language, Arabic), and one school is majority-
dominant (school 45) (cf. Strobbe et al., 2017). All schools included in this study
had a mean score on the SLP indicators (i.e., teacher cooperation, reflective team
capacity, turbulence) that was not significantly different from the average score
Implementing school-based language policies: ‘good for the strong, strong for the weak’?
59
in all schools. Table 2.1 presents an overview of the six schools included in this
study and their characteristics.
Table 2.1 Qualitative Sample: School Characteristics
School
ID
Location School
size2
% non-Dutch
background
pupils
Linguistic
diversity*
Student
achievement
23 rural > 360 21-40% 1 ineffective
28 rural > 360 21-40% 2 ineffective
45 rural 201-360 < 20% 3 effective
52 urban 201-360 > 40% 2 effective
63 urban > 360 > 40% 2 ineffective
67 rural < 201 > 40% 1 effective
* 1 = minority dominant school, 2 = mixed multilingual school, 3 = majority dominant school
In each school one to three members of the school’s SLP management team (i.e.,
principals, special needs teachers) were interviewed (N = 14; 13 female; Median
experience = 10 years). They were appointed by the principal as the team
members who knew most about the school’s SLP. They had various
responsibilities related to staffing, supporting students with special needs and
implementing school policies.
In addition, in all schools except one (45), three to six classroom teachers
from different grades were selected by the school principal and participated in a
focus group (N = 24, 19 female, Median experience = 5 years, Mean = 10 years,
range 1-33 years). Three was considered the absolute minimum for a focus
group, six the maximum (Mortelmans, 2013). Given that the conversation with
the teachers had to be scheduled outside regular school hours, participation was
on a voluntary basis. Still, a balanced distribution of different grades was
obtained in each school. In school 45, the principal did not want to involve
2 School size categories analogous with Verhaeghe et al., 2002
Chapter 2
60
classroom teachers in the study, since the school had recently been visited by the
Inspectorate, which had been a stressful period for the team.
Data, procedure and analysis
Since power issues can impact the dynamics of a focus group and the views
expressed by participants, we conducted separate semi-structured open-ended
focus groups for administrative staff members and for teachers. This way team
members could talk freely about their schools’ approaches regarding language
policy. Data were collected in May 2018.
Different topics were covered: the way the school team conceptualizes
language policy, the actions team members have agreed upon, the development
of the language policy plan, the implementation process and the expected
outcomes. Each semi-structured focus group interview was guided by an
interview protocol with key questions and some additional questions that could
be asked if necessary, and lasted on average 60 minutes (Interview protocols in
Appendix 4). In order to avoid socially desirable answers, questions such as
‘What do you hope to achieve with your school language policy?’ were asked at
the end of the interviews, whereas concrete practices were asked for at the
beginning. All interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. NVivo
12 (Version 12.5.0.815) was used to analyze the data.
Within-case and cross-case analyses were used to explore the data (Miles
& Huberman, 1994). First, the interview transcripts were read and reread and
coded in-vivo by extracting the codes from the data itself. The open codes were
further reduced and structured into axial codes (e.g., policy measures, policy
determinants, implementation strategy, perceived policy effectiveness, etc.)
(Coding template in Appendix 5). A second researcher double coded two
interviews to check coding accuracy (> 90% agreement, Kappa = 76.3, which is
considered excellent; Krippendorff, 2004). Memos and a coding matrix were used
for selective coding and cross-case analysis (Mortelmans, 2013).
Next, the data referring to schools’ SLP actions were coded deductively.
The SLP of each school was scored on the two dimensions of effective school
Implementing school-based language policies: ‘good for the strong, strong for the weak’?
61
policy as identified in the EER framework of Kyriakides et al. (2010; 2015). The
first dimension encompasses the school’s policy for improving the quality of
language teaching. The second dimension considers the extent to which a
school’s SLP provides learning opportunities for staff members. The extent to
which schools evaluate their SLP was scored separately, as Kyriakides et al.
(2010) consider it a separate category of school policy covering both dimensions.
For both dimension 1 and 2, Kyriakides et al. (2010) identify several
subcategories3. In this study, these subcategories were scored intuitively from 0
(not present) to 2 (strongly present) for each school. For dimension 1 we
differentiated between:
focus on teaching (e.g., pedagogical measures, educational
programs);
evidence-based practices (e.g., strategy-instruction, form-focus).
In dimension 2 we identified:
teacher collaboration;
partnerships with parents/experts/community;
availability of learning resources (e.g., teaching materials).
A second trained researcher with expertise in SLP coded the transcripts
separately. Inconsistent codes were discussed and resolved by returning to the
interview transcripts and vertical analyses (Miles & Huberman, 2014). Finally, a
total score for the two dimensions was calculated by adding all scores of the
respective subcategories. Schools can rank high (> half of the total score that can
be attained) or low on both school policy dimensions (Table 2).
Using cross-case analysis, we identified similarities and differences,
resulting in four SLP types. We labeled them ‘paper’, ‘phantom’, ‘arbitrary’ and
3 Three subcategories of the original framework were not scored in this study, as they were more general school policy features (i.e., quantity of teaching, which includes student absenteeism and timetabling, cf. dimension 1; subcategories student behavior outside the classroom, and positive attitudes towards learning for dimension 2).
Chapter 2
62
‘strategic’ SLP. School-specific reports from the Inspectorate, field notes of
classroom observations, and focus groups with five to seven students from 3rd to
6th grade (63% girls, 50% non-Dutch background) in the schools were used to
cross-validate our classification. The focus groups with pupils mainly clarified
the schools’ tolerance towards the use of home languages and revealed
differences between teachers in teaching practice, while the reports from the
Inspectorate confirmed the schools’ SLP focus. The classroom observations
revealed differences between teachers in instructional quality.
Results
Common SLP features
The focus groups show that the interviewed participants in all schools consider
SLP a priority. They define SLP as “something they have been quite occupied with
in the past couple of years” (principal, school 52; special needs teacher 45), a “big
factor” (special needs teacher, school 28), “something that is always in the
picture” (principal, school 67), or “something we devote all our staff development
days to” (teacher, school 63). All school teams take several kinds of actions within
the framework of their SLP to enhance their pupils’ language skills. In all schools
but one (school 23), the majority of these interventions are targeted at reading
(both technical reading and reading comprehension), sometimes in combination
with vocabulary (school 67, 28, 52) and spelling (28, 45, 52, 63), or with raising
tolerance towards multilingualism (school 23, 63). School 23 focuses on oral
language skills, and also aims to enhance teachers’ tolerance towards the use of
home languages at school.
There are several similarities between the SLP actions of schools (see
Appendix 6 for an overview). Most SLP actions are initiated and determined by
the principal or special needs teachers. These actions mainly concern classroom-
external practices, such as paying visits to the local library with students,
extending the school library catalogue, and providing remedial teaching for
students at risk of underachievement (e.g., difficulties with decoding,
Implementing school-based language policies: ‘good for the strong, strong for the weak’?
63
vocabulary). Often, these at-risk students are pupils with a non-Dutch home
language and in practice the remedial action typically means that they are called
out of the regular classes by special needs teachers. Every school in our sample
strongly prioritizes the use of Dutch over the use of students’ home language,
which is justified by the argument that students have to learn Dutch in order to
participate in a Dutch-medium society. One special needs teacher puts it this way:
If it is functionally needed, that's what we mean, isn't it? And they also
know that we try to speak Dutch as much as possible at school.
(special needs teacher, school 52)
In all schools, exceptions for newcomers are specifically mentioned – especially
when parents have the intention to return soon to their country of origin.
Newcomers are allowed to use their home language with a peer who shares their
mother tongue. The teachers believe that newcomers’ development will be
hampered otherwise, because they do not feel at ease at school if their mother
tongue is not valued, or because their command of their mother tongue “is
already poor”. In school 63, this ‘rule’ also applies to other non-Dutch background
students, but ‘only when it enhances the learning of Dutch’.
In general, we found little collaboration between teachers in the schools
included in this study. Our data indicates that SLP implementation is mainly
monitored and evaluated in informal ways (but see schools 52, 67 below).
Teachers primarily consult teachers that teach in the same grade in order to align
their classes. Any initiatives to evaluate SLP at the school-level usually originate
from the policy management team, which checks informally whether teachers
manage to implement the policy.
All schools make use of external experts to help them get started with their
SLP, either by taking in-service training (school 23, 28, 45), or by inviting external
experts to share their expertise at a school meeting (school 23, 45, 52, 63, 67).
Apart from school 67 (cf. infra), the selection of the in-service training sessions
is mainly based on availability. It was either the city, the school district or
educational network the school is part of, or a university that invited schools to
participate in a trajectory about language promotion. External partners provide
Chapter 2
64
school teams with information and concrete tools to foster student language
development, help them to stay focused, and act as intermediary:
Well, if we would present some of the exercises like one of the external
partners, then there would be a lot of discussion about topics that are not
relevant, but the expert, she is only here for SLP. […]
(principal, school 23)
Teachers also build a relationship of trust with these people, while at the
same time the threshold is lower because they are actually not part of the
school ...
(special needs teacher, school 67)
In fact, the expertise of the external partners largely determines the focus of the
SLP of the school, and most of the actions that schools implement. Schools 45 and
67, for instance, implemented the reading quarter program of the trajectory in
their curriculum, and school 28 and 63 decided to work on an increase in
tolerating multilingualism.
SLP types
As stated above, the SLP of each school was scored for the two dimensions of an
effective school policy (i.e., improving language teaching and creating a learning
environment (see Table 2.2 for the scores), and for policy monitoring and
evaluation. Based on cross-case analyses, we identified four SLP types: a paper,
phantom, arbitrary and strategic policy (Table 2.3).
Implementing school-based language policies: ‘good for the strong, strong for the weak’?
65
Table 2.2 SLP configuration in schools
Improving teaching Creating a learning environment for teachers Evaluation
School Focus on
teaching &
learning
Evidence-
informed
practices
Total Internal
collaboration
Partnerships
(parents,
community,
experts)
Learning
resources (e.g.
materials,
support)
Total
23 2 1 3 HIGH 0 1 1 2 LOW 0
28 2 1 3 HIGH 1 1 1 3 LOW 0
45 1 1 2 LOW 0 1 1 2 LOW 1
52 1 1 2 LOW 1 1 2 4 HIGH 1
63 1 1 2 LOW 1 1 1 3 LOW 0
67 2 1 3 HIGH 2 2 1 5 HIGH 1
Table 2.3 SLP types
paper SLP phantom SLP arbitrary SLP strategic SLP
School 45, 63 School 23, 28 School 52 School 67
improving teaching low high low high
learning
environment low low high high
Evaluation informal informal more formal more formal
Chapter 2
66
Paper policy. The SLP of two schools (63 and 45) is classified as a paper policy.
Their policies do not address teachers’ classroom practices in ways that are
consistent with the available evidence on effective language teaching. This is not
to say that these schools necessarily lack the insight into effective practices;
however, the concrete actions in their policy relate to the practice of effective
language education only to a limited extent. Moreover, they are not well aligned
with the policy goal. Neither does the SLP result in an effective learning
environment for teachers, as far as we could determine.
The SLP management team of school 45, for instance, indicates that the
school invested in new books for the school library, designed materials to help
pupils choose a book to read, promotes leisure reading at home (including tips
and tricks for parents), and set up additional reading programs (e.g., tutoring for
lower grade students, providing a quarter each day to read), because in the
higher grades classrooms, little time was devoted to reading. Teachers, however,
are not involved, and have complete autonomy regarding their classroom
practice. The school management team justifies this teacher autonomy on the
grounds that no SLP should be used to change teacher classroom practices:
It's part of the freedom that you have as a teacher, to decide what suits
your style – what is the most suitable manner of teaching. You cannot
impose such things. While a reading project could easily be a school
project.
(special needs teacher, school 45)
The school leaders of school 63, in contrast, do provide small-scale opportunities
for teachers to discuss and collaborate with colleagues. However, the principal
indicates that this has mainly resulted in a change in “their attitude towards
language” so far: “teachers are more aware of [the role language has in learning
and teaching].” There is no translation of the SLP plan into concrete classroom-
based actions – teachers are free to choose their own actions. A critical reflection
or discussion with the teachers on the effectiveness or aims of these pedagogical
practices, is missing. The policy management team of school 63 specifically
mentioned the aim to develop a school-wide vision on language development
Implementing school-based language policies: ‘good for the strong, strong for the weak’?
67
first, rather than jump to implementing some concrete actions, in order to
prevent resistance or ineffective implementation of the policy measures by
teachers:
It is not like we have already imposed things, told them what they must
do, it is more […] that attitude towards language […] the road is clear […].
(special needs teacher, school 63)
According to the teachers, the school team has just started with SLP, even though
the policy management team indicated “that they were just dotting the i’s”. This
might partly explain the finding that their SLP is restricted.
Well, we just started last year. And before that, it was basically ‘follow your
manual, determine pupils’ needs and plan it yourself’, but not really a
policy.
(2nd grade teacher, school 63)
Phantom policy. The SLP in two schools (23 and 28) meets the characteristics of
a phantom SLP. This can be inferred from the strong ambition of the policy
management team to change teaching practices, and their expertise with regard
to the principles of effective language instruction and policy implementation.
Both schools have at least five years of experience with designing and
implementing an SLP. The actions these schools take in order to change teaching
practices are evidence-based to some extent, but they do not have a learning
environment for their teachers. The special needs teachers in school 28, for
instance, devote a lot of attention to reading strategies in their policy plan, have
set up additional programs to promote student technical reading in 1st and 2nd
grade, occasionally invite parents to interactive storybook reading in the
classroom, and purchased new teaching materials. Yet, apart from putting up
signs with reading strategies and some science-related words on the wall, little
structural change occurred to classroom practice. Similarly, the policy
management team in the other school (23) wanted every teacher to provide rich,
Chapter 2
68
elaborated input. To that aim, the school leaders decided to remove the general
mark for language from the report card, and to replace it with several marks for
the different language skills (i.e., reading, writing, listening, speaking,
orthography, grammar). In order to mark these skills, teachers have to change
their teaching practices. The language teaching manuals were also replaced.
Some of the teachers did in fact pay more attention to speaking and listening
comprehension, but there was no structural change in the classroom practice of
all teachers.
Similar to schools with a paper SLP, teachers in schools 23 and 28 seem to
be mainly considered as executors of the policy plan that the management team
sets out. Consultation between colleagues that teach within the same grade
notwithstanding, teachers rarely collaborate in both schools. Micropolitics
(Kelchtermans, 2007) seem to complicate the policy making process, particularly
in school 23: “teachers start discussing other, irrelevant things during SLP
meetings” (special needs teacher, school 23). Differences in policy
implementation between teachers are attributed to teachers’ personalities,
which the members of the policy management teams perceive as hard to change:
You can definitely alert teachers, make sure that they are working on it, and
you must continue to encourage that, at every meeting it must be an item
that is discussed, I think, but it is a bit - I think - as they say: you either have
it in you or you don't.
(special needs teacher, school 28)
In these schools, teachers themselves consider SLP as a set of concrete tools, or
‘additional’ guidelines, which is mainly about aligning classroom practices of
different grade teachers rather than causing a shift in language education. If these
measures or tools fit in with their beliefs, experiences and needs, they will adopt
them. Of course, this often results in no or fragmental implementation of school-
wide measures.
Partnerships with parents, the community or experts exist in these
schools, but these partnerships are activated only for ad hoc purposes, or only
involve part of the team (or even exclusively the policy management team).
Implementing school-based language policies: ‘good for the strong, strong for the weak’?
69
Initiatives regarding professional development mainly address the members of
the policy management team: “you do have more time to build up expertise as a
special needs teacher of course” (special needs teacher, 28). Moreover, the policy
actions are not evaluated systematically. This results in teachers having the
feeling that the available resources to promote language learning are limited:
I: Is this part of the SLP of your school?
T1: This is something we come up with ourselves, but we are used to …
T2: to manage on our own.
(teachers, 1st and 4th grade, school 23)
Arbitrary policy. The SLP in one school (52) is identified as arbitrary. This school
started a few years prior to data collection with their SLP. The policy
management team has invested a lot of money in new teaching materials (e.g.,
iPads, new teaching methods to support teachers), especially for newcomers.
This school also made substantial changes with regard to the pupil grouping
between the first and fourth grade, because there are just “too many differences
between their students’ proficiency levels”. Students are divided in one of three
homogeneous groups, based on their level of Dutch proficiency. The
organizational changes have an impact on teaching assignments. All teachers are
assigned to a group based on their own expertise and capacities. Special needs
teachers further specialized in teaching grammar, technical reading or
vocabulary – particularly to help newcomers develop those specific skills. This
reorganization resulted in an extensive range of initiatives, which to some extent
promoted collaboration among teachers: some teachers literally opened the
doors that used to separate their classrooms and are now discussing their
practices. The policy management team also emphasized the collaboration with
an external partner of the city as a supportive factor: “we can literally ask her
anything”.
A focus on a change to more evidence-based, effective teaching practices,
however, is largely missing, since classroom practices are hardly discussed. In
fact, there is no clear vision or goal defined. Apart from the extra spelling lessons
Chapter 2
70
that all teachers provide, within the newly established groups, teachers still have
to decide for themselves which pedagogical approach is the best. This results in
widely divergent classroom practices: some teachers promote cooperative
learning, others focus on rich input, still others focus on grammar ... Teachers
themselves highly value this autonomy. In-service training sessions are provided,
but cover a wide range of topics (e.g., cooperative learning, vocabulary …). As a
consequence, a lot of initiatives fade out, and teachers mainly stick to more
traditional teacher-initiated interaction, which is hardly elaborated on or
contextualized, providing students with limited opportunities to produce more
elaborate output. This school does, however, conduct policy evaluation, albeit
rather unsystematically. For instance, members of the policy management team
noticed that one of the teachers was struggling with a new teaching method,
which was solved by co-teaching with one of the special needs teachers.
Moreover, the policy management team appears well aware that many initiatives
have been launched to promote student language development, but that their
policy lacked vision and a clear focus (“we need to come up with a good concept
now”, principal, school 52). The management team justifies the lack of a well-
considered plan by referring to a shift in the student socio-ethnic composition
that happened in the past ten years, and which led to ad-hoc responses to
promote student language development. The SLP emerged from an ‘alarm
reaction’, so to speak.
Strategic policy. One school (67) is identified as adopting a strategic SLP. Schools
that fall within this category can be considered (close to) role models when it
comes to SLP configuration. This school has a long tradition in SLP, dating back
to a time before it became mandatory. A small number of effective pedagogical
approaches are implemented. For example, the didactics regarding vocabulary
instruction have changed: vocabulary instruction includes the provision of rich,
contextualized input (e.g., pictures, referring to common experiences …), and a
focus on form during meaningful activities – also during science instruction.
Furthermore, in each classroom, pupils read for pleasure every day for at least a
quarter of an hour.
Implementing school-based language policies: ‘good for the strong, strong for the weak’?
71
In addition, this school fosters a school learning environment for their staff
members. Teachers frequently discuss classroom practices with each other, and
teachers in third and fourth grade co-teach. This school also invested in
stakeholder relationships: they involve parents in the SLP of the school, by
inviting parents to read with pupils in 1st grade, by setting up parent meeting
groups, and by making connections with the neighboring kindergarten and
secondary school. In addition, initiatives fostering staff members’ professional
development are not limited to members of the policy management team.
Instead, they are tailored to the needs of individual teachers.
I think we are doing a lot about this in a small group, but also opening it up
on staff meetings. [...] We also have a parent group that thinks about it [...]
and a teacher who goes to refresher courses on vocabulary and who gives
feedback to the team. I also followed one on reading comprehension [...] and
this year we have held a staff meeting on respect for Turkish, because
teachers were struggling with how to respond best to its use at school.
(special needs teacher, school 67)
Similar to the school with the arbitrary SLP, the evaluation of the SLP in this
school has led the team to adjust the policy. Student performances for vocabulary
did not improve as expected. In consultation with external experts, the measure
they used to test students’ progress in vocabulary was not considered valid, and
therefore discharged. Other measures are evaluated less systematically.
Yet, even in this school, SLP implementation does not run smoothly. The
parent group that was recently installed, met with a lot of resistance of teachers.
As a consequence, only one teacher participated in the group, together with the
principal and the special needs teacher – “teachers already have a lot on their
mind” (special needs teacher, school 67). The installation of the parent group
gave teachers the impression that what they were doing to enhance student
language proficiency in Dutch was not good enough; “there had to be something
extra” (1st grade teacher, 67). The parent group, however, was not only used as a
measure to promote student language development; it was also a strategic action
Chapter 2
72
of the principal to give in to objections of Dutch-majority parents, and to prevent
the school from becoming a predominantly migrant school.
Discussion
The Flemish government expects school-based language policies to be – in the
words of the former Minister of Education – ‘good for the strong [students] and
strong for the weak’ (Vandenbroucke, 2007, p. 1). SLP is expected to create the
conditions necessary to effectively promote language teaching and learning in
each school (Corson, 1990). To date, however, little information is available on
SLP implementation in schools. Since the manner in which schools implement
their policy is considered crucial to its impact (Fixsen et al., 2005; Hornberger &
Johnson, 2007), this multiple case study aimed to provide insight into the SLP
configurations of six primary schools.
Evidence from educational effectiveness research on what constitutes
effective school policies was used as a guiding framework (Kyriakides et al.,
2010), resulting in four types of SLP: a paper policy shows few characteristics of
an effective school policy as defined by EER. A phantom policy includes effective
practices, but little of this is put to practice due to the lack of a learning
environment for teachers. An arbitrary policy provides a lot of extra resources,
and involves teachers to a certain extent, but has no clear focus on teaching. A
strategic policy on the other hand simultaneously promotes an improvement of
teaching and creates a learning environment for teachers. Only one out of the six
schools in our study implemented a strategic SLP. The planned SLP actions that
schools implement are quite similar to the ones that the Flemish Inspectorate
(2015) reported earlier. Most SLP actions do not give rise to substantial
deviations from traditional classroom teaching, as they mainly concern
classroom-external measures (e.g., pull-out classes, school libraries), target
mainly multilingual students or students with specific needs, and emphasize
basic skills such as technical reading, vocabulary and spelling. School policies
generally exclude student home languages as well, and teacher collaboration and
Implementing school-based language policies: ‘good for the strong, strong for the weak’?
73
policy evaluation are limited. Materials and support from external experts are, in
contrast, available in most schools.
Our data provide four possible explanations for why schools implement
SLP in a rather restrictive way. First, the implementation of an SLP seems to clash
with existing school structures and cultures. Policy management teams seem to
struggle with the extent to which an SLP can or should direct teachers to adjust
their classroom practice, and therefore give teachers almost full autonomy to fill
in the school-level SLP frame with their own preferred actions. Teachers
themselves also like to maintain some degree of freedom, especially when it
comes to selecting concrete, classroom-based actions. Teacher autonomy, which
is highly valued in Flemish schools (OECD, 2015), is, indeed, an important school-
level predictor of teacher participation to collaborative initiatives such as SLP
(Corson, 1990; Stoll, Bolam, Mcmahon, Wallace, & Thomas, 2006), but only when
combined with support and collegiality (Clement & Vandenberghe, 2000; Valckx,
Vanderlinde, & Devos, 2020). This collective responsibility is also illustrated in
the school with the strategic SLP (67), where some teachers take on specific SLP
tasks and share their experiences at team meetings. Yet, in most schools in our
sample, teacher collaboration is limited to teachers of the same grade, and school
team members generally have little insight into what is actually happening inside
the classrooms of their colleagues. This resonates with the findings from TALIS
(Van Droogenbroeck et al., 2019), which shows that Flemish teachers typically
operate in an isolated way. Second, school teams, and teachers in particular, seem
to struggle with the best ways to enhance more complex student language skills.
All schools primarily promoted basic skills because team members perceive them
as “manageable” or “easier to grasp”. Promoting and evaluating reading
comprehension, reading motivation, writing or oral language skills, in contrast,
are perceived as “less clear-cut":
There are aspects such as spelling, where you can do very targeted actions,
but if it is about linguistics, or reading comprehension, listening, creative
writing, it just becomes much more complex.
(principal, school 63)
Chapter 2
74
J: But it is like D says, it is very difficult to score it [speaking] – perhaps
that is not a good word.
D: It is more abstract, it is rather sensed than measured …
(special needs teacher and principal, school 67)
In order to enhance classroom practice for promoting and evaluating more
complex language skills, teachers themselves mainly rely on commercial teaching
methods and materials. These materials are, however, not always based on
research evidence (Hyland & Wong, 2013), and/or subjected to quality control
(Dockx, Bellens, & Fraine, 2020). It may well be that interventions are restricted
to remedial teaching and basic skills because these require only minimal
adaptations to the existing practice of schools and individual teachers (e.g.,
AHOVOKS, 2019; De Smedt, Van Keer, & Merchie, 2016; Flemish Inspectorate,
2015). Generally, evidence-based practices hardly find their way to real-world
classrooms (e.g., Ruys, Van Keer, & Aelterman, 2014; Vanderlinde & Braak, 2010).
Third, the schools included in this sample used external experts as an important
stepping stone for schools to select and implement SLP actions. Yet, apart from
the school with the strategic SLP, professionalization initiatives or tools are not
always linked with other SLP actions or a school vision on language learning (cf.
Hunt, 2011), or are primarily, or even exclusively, available to the school
management team. Professional development usually works best if initiatives are
focused on specific problems that teachers deal with at that moment (Muijs et al.,
2014) and if it is not restricted to one-shot trainings (e.g., Darling-Hammond &
Richardson, 2009; Fullan, 2015; Korthagen, 2017). Fourth, educators’ beliefs
about language learning seem to play a role, which is in line with previous
findings. Reasons for not tolerating student home languages reflect a
monolingual ideology, and resonate with other studies’ findings: teachers fear
control issues, or perceive the use of languages other than Dutch as detrimental
to academic achievement in general, and the learning of Dutch in particular
(Agirdag, 2010; Jaspers, 2015; Strobbe et al., 2017).
More surprisingly, perhaps, is that our classification according to SLP type
does not fully overlap with the estimated differences in school effectiveness. As
the schools in this study previously participated in our EER study (Chapter 1), we
Implementing school-based language policies: ‘good for the strong, strong for the weak’?
75
were able to check whether we could map differences in SLP to the schools’
effectiveness at promoting student reading achievement. Based on tests
measuring student reading comprehension performances, three schools were
considered effective, and three less effective to promote language learning.
Table 2.4 School effectiveness and SLP
School Student reading
comprehension
% non-Dutch
background pupils
SLP type
23 Ineffective 21-40% phantom
28 Ineffective 21-40% phantom
45 Effective < 20% paper
52 Effective > 40% arbitrary
63 Ineffective > 40% paper
67 Effective > 40% strategic
An inspection of Table 2.4 shows no systematic overlap in the SLP type of
effective schools versus ineffective schools. In particular, no clear image emerges
for the two out of three schools that were found to be effectively promoting
students’ language development: the schools have a paper policy (45) or an
arbitrary policy (52).
In the following paragraphs we highlight two possible explanations for the
lack of overlap between school effectiveness and SLP (cf. Chapter 1), based on the
schools in this sample. The implementation of alternative productive practices
provide one explanation for these findings. The school with the paper policy (45)
appears to have a strict remedial teaching policy, which is also confirmed in
reports from the Inspectorate that specifically discuss this school’s policy.
Students with reading difficulties in 1st till 3rd grade are at least weekly pulled out
of the classroom by the special needs teachers in order to improve their technical
reading skills. This way, the special needs teachers make sure “every student has
a head start at reading”. When students are not able to catch up with their
classmates at the end of third grade, they are either sent to special education, or
Chapter 2
76
extensive differentiation in- and outside the classroom is provided in response to
the pupils’ needs. Remedial one-to-one instruction indeed enhances the
development of technical reading skills (e.g., phonics) in struggling readers, but
in the long run, it is expected to be less effective and sustainable than effective
classroom instruction, particularly for more advanced reading comprehension
skills (Slavin et al., 2009; 2011). The effectiveness of this school might be due to
‘unsuccessful’ learners that are cast out of the school (and thus, out of the
measurement).
The teachers and principal in the school with the arbitrary policy (school
52) mentioned that all team members appeared particularly motivated to
promote their students’ language development, which led to increased teacher
involvement. As the SLP coordinator points out:
[The team] consists of people that like to join collaborative initiatives. And
we will always do things anyway and try things out.
This quote illustrates that joint commitment can be a powerful force to bring
about change (Viennet & Pont, 2017). Perhaps, then, an SLP must not fulfill both
dimensions of the EER framework in order to be successful. On the other hand,
school improvement research does indicate that it is important that teachers
collectively improve their teaching practices (Fullan, 2015); otherwise, the
school team is just a ‘loosely coupled group’ (Harris, 2011, p. 629).
Another likely explanation why some schools without a strategic SLP still
manage to improve student language achievement is that individual teachers
deviate from the policy as set out at the school level. In fact, uneven policy
implementation, with teachers deviating from official policies, is no exception in
other contexts (e.g., Kelchtermans, 2007; Menken & Garcia, 2010; Samuda, Van
den Branden, & Bygate, 2018). In most schools we did find indications of
differences between teachers within these schools. Some teachers report that
they already take (evidence-informed) measures themselves to promote student
language development: they provide rich, elaborate input (Long, 2009), provide
extra opportunities for students to produce output by asking open questions or
adopting cooperative learning (Muijs et al., 2014; Swain & Lapkin, 1995), or
Implementing school-based language policies: ‘good for the strong, strong for the weak’?
77
provide corrective feedback on form-related errors (Lyster, Saito, & Sato, 2013).
The classroom observations that we conducted also revealed differences
between teachers, some of which were quite large. So, in a way, these schools can
be said to be effective in spite of having a paper or arbitrary SLP. They are
effective because multiple individual teachers are effective.
Conclusion
Our findings confirm the vast body of available empirical evidence on school-
based policy/management, which indicates that increased autonomy does not
necessarily lead to increased school effectiveness and improvement (e.g., Fullan
& Watson, 2000; Hanushek, Link, & Woessmann, 2013). The interventions that
most schools take constitute mainly classroom-external programs, or small
deviations from traditional practice. Teacher collaboration and policy evaluation
are limited. In particular, schools seem to struggle with both selecting and
structurally implementing measures that effectively foster more complex
language skills. Teacher autonomy and language ideology, too, complicate the
process.
Apart from common SLP features, we also found differences between
schools. In particular, we distinguished four SLP types. By building a typology, we
identified concrete attributes of so-called ‘ideal types’ that can be used as a
reference point to compare other schools (Fiss, 2011). Given the small number of
cases in this study the SLP types need further empirical validation (Doty & Glick,
1994). Another limitation of this study is that the teachers that we interviewed
were most likely the ones most in favor of an SLP; this may have affected the
results. Future studies could collect data in a larger sample, and adopt a mixed-
methods design to statistically link the SLP design to student performances. The
results also hint at the impact of practices other than SLP, and at the key role of
individual teacher practices, which requires further investigation. Despite these
limitations, this study provided first insights into the configuration of SLP in
Flemish schools. The next chapter provides further insight into why schools
differ in SLP by examining how school contextual factors influence SLP
implementation.
Chapter 2
78
References
Agirdag, O. (2010). Exploring bilingualism in a monolingual school system:
Insights from Turkish and native students from Belgian schools. British
Journal of Sociology of Education, 31(3), 307–321.
AHOVOKS. (2019). Peiling Nederlands. Lezen, luisteren en schrijven in het
basisonderwijs.
Ascenzi-Moreno, L., Hesson, S., Center, G., & Menken, K. (2015). School leadership
along the trajectory from monolingual to. Language and Education, 30(3),
197–218.
Biemiller, A. (2003). Vocabulary: needed if more children are to read well.
Reading Psychology, 24, 323–335.
Bourdeaud’hui, H., Aesaert, K., Keer, H. Van, & Van Braak, J. (2018). Thematic
Review Identifying student and classroom characteristics related to
primary school students’ listening skills: A systematic review. Educational
Research Review, 25, 86–99.
Castles, A., Rastle, K., & Nation, K. (2018). Ending the Reading Wars: Reading
Acquisition From Novice to Expert. Psychological Science in the Public
Interest, 19(1), 5–51.
Clement, M., & Vandenberghe, R. (2000). Teachers’ professional development: a
solitary or collegial (ad)venture? Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 81–
101.
Collier, V. P., & Thomas, W. P. (2020). Validating the Power of Bilingual Schooling:
Thirty-Two Years of Large-Scale, Longitudinal Research. Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics, 37, 203–217.
Corson, D. (1990). Language policy across the curriculum. Clevedon/Bristol:
Multilingual Matters.
Corson, D. (1999). Language policy in schools: a resource for teachers and
administrators. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Creemers, B. P. M., & Kyriakides, L. (2008). The dynamics of educational
effectiveness. Oxon/New York: Routledge.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Richardson, N. (2009). Teacher Learning: What Matters?
Educational Leadership, 66(5), 46–53
Implementing school-based language policies: ‘good for the strong, strong for the weak’?
79
De Smedt, F., Van Keer, H., & Merchie, E. (2016). Student, teacher and class-level
correlates of Flemish late elementary school children’s writing
performance. Reading and Writing, 29, 833–868.
Dockx, J., Bellens, K., & Fraine, B. De. (2020). Do Textbooks Matter for Reading
Comprehension ? A Study in Flemish Primary Education. Frontiers in
Pyschology, 10(10), 1–19.
Doty, H., & Glick, W. (1994). Typologies as a unique form of theory building:
toward improved understanding and modeling. Academy of Management
Review, 19(2), 230–251.
Durlak, J., & DuPre, E. (2008). Implementation matters: a review of research on
the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors
affecting implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41,
237–350.
Fiss, P. C. (2011). Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to
typologies in organization research. The Academy of Management Journal,
54(2), 393–421.
Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005).
Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. Tampa, Florida.
Flemish Inspectorate. (2015a). Onderwijsspiegel 2015. Jaarlijks rapport van de
Onderwijsinspectie. Brussels.
Flemish Inspectorate. (2015b). Onderwijsspiegel 2015. Brussels.
Flemish Inspectorate. (2019). Onderwijsspiegel 2019. Brussels.
Foley, Y., Sangster, P., & Anderson, C. (2013). Examining EAL policy and practice
in mainstream schools. Language and Education, 27(3), 191–206.
Fullan, M. (2015). The New Meaning of Educational Change (fifth ed). New York:
Teachers College Press/Routledge.
Fullan, M., & Watson, N. (2000). School-Based Management: Reconceptualizing
to Improve Learning Outcomes. School Effectiveness and School
Improvement, 11(4), 453–473.
Graham, S. (2019). Changing how writing is taught. Review of Research in
Education, 43(1), 277–303.
Chapter 2
80
Han, S. W. (2018). School-based teacher hiring and achievement inequality: A
comparative perspective. International Journal of Educational
Development, 61, 82–91.
Hanushek, E. A., Link, S., & Woessmann, L. (2013). Does school autonomy make
sense everywhere? Panel estimates from PISA. Journal of Development
Economics, 104, 212–232.
Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional capital. Transforming teaching in
every school. Taylor & Francis.
Harklau, L., & Yang, A. H. (2020). Educators’ construction of mainstreaming policy
for English learners: a decision-making theory perspective. Language
Policy, 19, 87–110.
Harris, A. (2011). System improvement through collective capacity building.
Journal of Educational Administration, 49(6), 624–636.
Hornberger, N. H., & Johnson, D. C. (2007). Language policies and TESOL:
perspectives from practice. TESOL Quarterly, 41(3), 509–532.
Hunt, V. (2011). Learning from success stories: leadership structures that
support dual language programs over time in New York City. International
Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 14(2), 187–206.
Hyland, K., & Wong, L. (Eds.). (2013). Innovation and Change in English Language
Education. Taylor & Francis.
Inns, A. J., Lake, C., Pellegrini, M., & Slavin, R. (2019). A Quantitative Synthesis of
Research on Programs for Struggling Readers in Elementary Schools. US
Department of Education.
Jaspers, J. (2015). Modelling linguistic diversity at school: the excluding impact of
inclusive multilingualism. Language Policy, 14, 109–129.
Johnson, D. C., Stephens, C., Johnston Nelson, J., & Johnson, E. (2018). Violating
Lau: Sheltered English Instruction programs and equal educational
opportunity. Journal of Education Policy, 33(4), 488–509.
Kelchtermans, G. (2007). Macropolitics caught up in micropolitics: the case of the
policy on quality control in Flanders (Belgium). Journal of Education
Policy, 22(4), 471–491.
Implementing school-based language policies: ‘good for the strong, strong for the weak’?
81
Klein, E. D. (2017). Autonomy and accountability in schools serving
disadvantaged communities. Journal of Educational Administration, 55(5),
589–604.
Korthagen, F. (2017). Inconvenient truths about teacher learning: towards
professional development 3.0. Teachers and Teaching, 23(4), 387–405.
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Measuring the reliability of qualitative text analysis data.
Quality & Quantity, 38, 787–800.
Kyriakides, L., Creemers, B., Antoniou, P., & Demetriou, D. (2010). A synthesis of
studies searching for school factors: implications for theory and research.
British Educational Research Journal, 36(5), 807–830.
Kyriakides, L., Creemers, B. P. M., Antoniou, P., Demetriou, D., & Charalambous, C.
Y. (2015). The impact of school policy and stakeholders’ actions on
student learning: A longitudinal study. Learning and Instruction, 36, 113–
124.
Liddicoat, A., & Baldauf, R. B. (2008). Language planning and policy: Language
planning in local contexts. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Long, M. H. (2009). Methodological principles for language teaching. In M. H. Long
& C. J. Doughty (Eds.), The Handbook of Language Teaching (pp. 373–394).
Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Lorenzo, F., & Trujillo, F. (2017). Languages of schooling in European
policymaking: present state and future outcomes. European Journal of
Applied Linguistics, 5(2), 177–197.
Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language
classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1–40.
Marks, H. M., & Louis, K. S. (1999). Teacher Empowerment and the Capacity for
Organizational Learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35, 707–
750.
Maslowski, R., Scheerens, J., & Luyten, H. (2008). The effect of school autonomy
and school internal decentralization on students’ reading literacy. School
Effectiveness and School Improvement, 18(3), 303–334.
May, S., & Wright, N. (2007). Secondary Literacy Across the Curriculum:
Challenges and Possibilities. Language and Education, 21(5), 370–376.
Chapter 2
82
McLaughlin, M. W. (2006). Implementation research in education: lessons
learned, lingering questions and new opportunities. In M. Honig (Ed.), New
directions in education policy implementation. Confronting complexity (pp.
209–228). New York: State University of New York Press.
Meestringa, T., & Tordoir, A. (1999). Taalbeleid in de lespraktijk. Aanbevelingen
op grond van zes casestudies. Utrecht.
Meestringa, T., & van der Laan, E. (2002). Bronnenboek taalgericht vakonderwijs.
Enschede.
Menken, K., & Garcia, O. (2010). Negotiating language policies in schools :
educators as policymakers. Routledge.
Menken, K., & García, O. (2017). Language Policy in Classrooms and Schools. In T.
McCarthy & S. May (Eds.), Language Policy and Political Issues in Education
(pp. 211–225). Cham: Springer.
Menken, K., Pérez Rosario, V., & Alejandro Guzmán Valerio, L. (2018). Increasing
multilingualism in schoolscapes New scenery and language education
policies. Linguistic Landscape, 4(2), 101–127.
Menken, K., & Solorza, C. (2014). No Child Left Bilingual: Accountability and the
Elimination of Bilingual Education Programs in New York City Schools.
Educational Policy, 28(1), 96–125.
Merchie, E., Gobyn, S., De Bruyne, E., De Smedt, F., Schiepers, M., Vanbuel, M., …
Keer, H. Van. (2019). Effectieve eigentijdse begrijpend leesdidactiek in het
basisonderwijs. Brussels.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded
sourcebook. SAGE.
Mortelmans, D. (2013). Handboek kwalitatieve onderzoeksmethoden. Leuven:
Acco.
Muijs, D., Kyriakides, L., Van Der Werf, G., Creemers, B., Timperley, H., & Earl, L.
(2014). State of the art-teacher effectiveness and professional learning.
School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 25(2), 231–256.
Neeleman, A. (2019). The scope of school autonomy in practice: An empirically
based classification of school interventions. Journal of Educational Change,
20(1), 31–55.
Implementing school-based language policies: ‘good for the strong, strong for the weak’?
83
Nonte, S., Hartwich, L., & Willems, A. S. (2018). Promoting reading attitudes of
girls and boys: a new challenge for educational policy? Multi-group
analyses across four European countries Introduction. Large-Scale
Assessments in Education, 6(5), 1–22.
OECD. (2015). Education Policy Outlook 2015. OECD Publishing.
Pulinx, R., Van Avermaet, P., & Agirdag, O. (2017). Silencing linguistic diversity:
the extent, the determinants and consequences of the monolingual beliefs
of Flemish teachers. International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism, 20(5), 542–556.
Reljić, G., Ferring, D., & Martin, R. (2015). A meta-analysis on the effectiveness of
bilingual programs in Europe. Review of Educational Research, 85(1), 92–
128.
Reynolds, D., Sammons, P., De Fraine, B., Damme, J. Van, Townsend, T., Teddlie, C.,
& Stringfield, S. (2014). Educational effectiveness research (EER): a state-
of-the-art review. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 25(2),
197–230.
Ruys, I., Van Keer, H., & Aelterman, A. (2014). Student and novice teachers’ stories
about collaborative learning implementation. Teachers and Teaching,
20(6), 688–703.
Sahlberg, P. (2016). The global educational reform movement and its impact on
schooling. In K. Mundy, A. Green, B. Lingard, & A. Verger (Eds.), The
Handbook of Global Education Policy (pp. 128–144). Chicester: Wiley-
Blackwell.
Salloum, S. J., Goddard, R. D., & Berebitsky, D. (2018). Resources, Learning, and
Policy: The Relative Effects of Social and Financial Capital on Student
Learning in Schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk
(JESPAR), 23(4), 281–303.
Samuda, V., Van den Branden, K., & Bygate, M. (2018). TBLT as a researched
pedagogy. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing
Company.
Shohamy, E. (2006). Language Policy: Hidden Agendas and New Approaches.
Oxon/New York: Routledge.
Chapter 2
84
Slavin, R. E., Lake, C., Chambers, B., Cheung, A., & Davis, S. (2009). Effective
Reading Programs for the Elementary Grades: A Best-Evidence Synthesis.
Review of Educational Research, 79(4), 1391–1466.
Slavin, R. E., Lake, C., Davis, S., & Madden, N. A. (2011). Effective programs for
struggling readers: A best-evidence synthesis. Educational Research
Review, 6, 1–26.
Stoll, L., Bolam, R., Mcmahon, A., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S. (2006). Professional
learning communities: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational
Change, 7, 221–258.
Strobbe, L., Van Der Wildt, A., Van Avermaet, P., Van Gorp, K., Van den Branden,
K., & Van Houtte, M. (2017). How school teams perceive and handle
multilingualism: The impact of a school’s pupil composition. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 64, 93–104.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes
they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied
Linguistics, 16(3), 371–391.
Teddlie, C., & Reynolds, D. (2000). The international handbook of school
effectiveness research. Falmer Press.
Valckx, J., Vanderlinde, R., & Devos, G. (2020). Departmental PLCs in secondary
schools : the importance of transformational leadership, teacher
autonomy , and teachers ’ self-efficacy. Educational Studies, 46(3), 282–
301.
Van den Branden, K. (2019). Rethinking Schools and Renewing Energy for
Learning. New York: Routledge.
Van der Wildt, A., Van Avermaet, P., & Van Houtte, M. (2017). Opening up towards
children’s languages: enhancing teachers’ tolerant practices towards
multilingualism. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 28(1), 136–
152.
Van Droogenbroeck, F., Lemblé, H., Bongaerts, B., Spruyt, B., Siongers, J., &
Dimokritos, K. (2019). Talis 2018 Vlaanderen. Brussel.
van Steensel, R., van der Sande, L., Bramer, W., & Arends, L. (2016). Effecten van
leesmotivatie-interventies. Uitkomsten van een meta-analyse. NRO.
Implementing school-based language policies: ‘good for the strong, strong for the weak’?
85
Vanbuel, M., Boderé, A., & Van Den Branden, K. (2017). Helpen talenbeleid en
taalscreening taalgrenzen verleggen? Een reviewstudie naar effectieve
taalstimuleringsmaatregelen. Gent: Steunpunt Onderwijsonderzoek.
Vandenbroucke, F. (2007). De lat hoog voor talen in iedere school. Goed voor de
sterken, sterk voor de zwakken. Brussel.
Vanderlinde, R., & Braak, J. Van. (2010). The gap between educational research
and practice: views of teachers, school leaders, intermediaries and
researchers. British Educational Research Journal, 36(2), 299–316.
Varghese, M. M. (2008). Using Cultural Models to Unravel How Bilingual Teachers
Enact Language Policies. Language and Education, 22(5), 289–306.
Viennet, R., & Pont, B. (2017). Education Policy Implementation. OECD.
Wright, T. S., & Cervetti, G. N. (2017). A Systematic Review of the Research on
Vocabulary Instruction That Impacts Text Comprehension. Reading
Research Quarterly, 52(2), 203–226.
87
Chapter 3
Each school a language policy?
Chapter 2 indicated that not all schools manage to successfully implement an SLP.
The purpose of this chapter is to contribute to our understanding of why SLP
implementation is uneven across school settings. It examines the role of the school
context in SLP implementation using both qualitative and quantitative data,
thereby addressing a gap in the policy implementation literature.
Governments tend to issue generic education policy guidelines that apply to all
schools in order to improve education (Liddicoat & Taylor-Leech, 2014). Yet,
schools are different: they differ in location, school culture, composition of
students and teachers, leadership, the resources they have available, etc. (Ball,
Maguire, & Braun, 2012). Recent research indicates that the school context
considerably shapes policy implementation (e.g., Braun, Ball, Maguire, & Hoskins,
2011; Liddicoat, Scarino, & Kohler, 2018; cf. Spillane, Reiser, & Reimer, 2002). It
remains unclear, however, whether these findings can be generalized to other
contexts, as most of the available studies rely on qualitative case studies
(Berthele, 2019; Menken & García, 2017).
This study examines the case of Flanders, and adopts a mixed-method
approach to verify whether the school context plays a role in SLP
implementation, and if so, why that is the case. It combines quantitative survey
data from 28 primary schools with focus group interviews in a subsample of 6
schools.
Exploring the role of the school context in policy implementation
If policies are to improve language education in the entire school system, they
should be implementable in all types of schools (Teddlie & Reynolds, 2000). Only
recently, education policy research has started to look more systematically into
Chapter 3
88
the contextual conditions that differentiate policy implementation in schools.
Much of the work has adopted a qualitative case study approach. Ball and
colleagues (Ball et al., 2012; Braun et al., 2011), for instance, demonstrate how
even small differences in school contexts, ranging from schools’ professional
cultures (e.g., school climate, values), over student intake and aspects related to
staffing or buildings can shape policy enactment in secondary schools. In the field
of language education policy, Shohamy (2010) reports on cases in Israel where
the language ideologies of students and parents in Jewish schools obstruct the
acquisition of Hebrew, or can push an early start of English education. Several
other studies show how external pressure coming from accountability policies
creates de facto monolingual policies (Menken & Solorza, 2014; Palmer et al.,
2016), and Liddicoat et al. (2018) found that the school culture and structure can
be a real barrier/facilitator to bring about change in the language curriculum in
Australian secondary schools. In sum, these studies indicate that policies tend to
be implemented more successfully if they fit in with the schools’ existing practice
and address what local actors perceive to be the needs of their school and
students.
While case studies provide valuable detailed insights into the
implementation process at local contexts, they do not provide sufficient
converging evidence for theory development and generalizability (Berthele,
2019). To date, few studies have used quantitative data to examine whether and
how contextual dimensions are related to policy implementation in schools and
school language policy in particular. There are some exceptions in general
education policy analysis. The study by Hall & Chapman (2018), for instance,
investigated how school situated contextual factors affect the implementation of
an anti-bullying policy in US schools. Both school type (i.e., primary/secondary
education), the number of suspensions and school size affected the fidelity of
policy implementation. McCormick, Steckler, & McLeroy (1995), too, found that
smaller schools and districts are more likely than large schools and districts to
implement the new health curriculum because of the possibilities for
communication, collaboration and collective decision making among team
members.
Each school a language policy?
89
Other notable exceptions in the field of language education policy
research are studies that report on an intervention conducted in Flemish schools
(Belgium), that aimed to enhance teachers’ tolerance towards multilingualism
(Pulinx, Van Avermaet, & Agirdag, 2017; Strobbe et al., 2017; Van der Wildt, Van
Avermaet, & Van Houtte, 2017). Both Pulinx et al. (2017) and Strobbe et al.
(2017) examined whether and how the schools’ ethnic composition and linguistic
diversity affected teachers’ perceptions and practices towards multilingualism.
Teachers in schools with either a low (< 40%) or high (> 61%) proportion of
pupils with a home language other than the language of instruction were more
positive and tolerant towards multilingual policies than schools with a mixed
student population, except when there was one dominant ethnic majority or
minority group. Van der Wildt et al. (2017) found that teachers who worked in
schools with a more open and trusting work environment were more tolerant
towards multilingualism after the intervention than schools where such basic
conditions for change were absent.
School-based language policies in Flemish schools
The implementation of an SLP is obligatory for all Flemish primary and
secondary schools and should ensure that ‘every student [is] able to
communicate in Dutch at a high, rich level, both passively and actively, and both
in oral and written form’ (Vandenbroucke, 2007, p. 2). The Flemish government
argued that an improvement in the quality of language instruction in all schools
is needed, since current-day knowledge societies become increasingly
demanding in terms of language skills (OECD, 2004). A significant and increasing
number of students, however, does not manage to acquire the skills that are
minimally needed for successful participation in education and society (De Meyer
et al., 2019; OECD, 2011). In all schools, therefore, language instruction should
prioritize linguistic competence over knowledge, and should not be restricted to
the language course alone (Jaspaert & Van den Branden, 2011).
The Flemish Inspectorate (2015) nevertheless notes that schools located
in urban settings seem more inclined to implement an SLP than schools in rural
Chapter 3
90
settings, which on average have lower numbers of students with a home language
different from the language of instruction (Dutch). It was hypothesized that
schools in urban areas are more experienced with non-Dutch background
students, and are therefore ahead of other schools in developing policies and
measures to promote language learning. These hypotheses were, however, not
statistically explored. Delarue's PhD research (2016), which examined Flemish
teachers’ opinion on and the use of Standard Dutch in education, adds to these
findings. Most of the schools indicated that they had no intention of developing
an SLP because they had almost no students with a language background other
than Dutch. As Delarue’s study included mainly Dutch-majority schools and
adopted a qualitative multiple case study and descriptive survey approach, the
link between student composition and policy enactment could, however, not be
validated.
Research questions
There are several indications that the implementation of language education
policy is linked with the school context, and more in particular to student
composition. To date, however, no converging empirical evidence is available to
support this claim, as most studies that emphasize the role of the school context
are qualitative in nature, or report about intervention projects. It remains
unclear whether these findings can be generalized to other contexts, and how this
link can be explained.
The study in this chapter addresses research objective 3. Two research questions
guided this study:
1) To what extent is there empirical evidence to support the claim that
school contextual variables (e.g., student composition, average teacher
experience …) affect the implementation of SLP?
2) To what extent do school team members refer to school contextual factors
in motivating their schools’ approach to language policy implementation?
Each school a language policy?
91
This study adds to the existing research in two important ways: 1) empirically,
by investigating whether characteristics of the school context affect the
implementation of a school language policy in a meaningful way beyond the
decision of which languages will be used/allowed, and 2) methodologically, by
connecting school contextual characteristics to policy implementation through a
mix of quantitative and qualitative methods.
Method
This study adopts a partially mixed sequential dominant quantitative status
design (Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2009), by enriching quantitative with qualitative
data. The quantitative data were gathered in a first phase between May and June
2017 as part of a larger research project in which both school language policy
and school effectiveness with regard to reading skills were examined (Chapter
1). Several school contextual variables were included in the dataset. The
qualitative data were collected in May and June 2018 in a selection of the schools
that participated in the first phase (Chapter 2). We used the qualitative data to
deepen our understanding of the association between school contextual
variables and the school team’s motives to implement a school-based language
policy.
Sample
Quantitative analyses
For this study, we used the quantitative data collected in teachers and principals
from the primary schools that participated in the study that was described in
Chapter 1. We only included the responses of teachers from schools that obtained
at least a 60% response rate for the teacher questionnaire, because we were
particularly interested in the responses at the school level. We had to exclude
Chapter 3
92
data of two schools from the study. The final sample consisted of 74 members of
the policy management team (response rate = 75%) and 216 teachers (response
rate = 96%) in 28 schools. 27.3% of the teachers taught in first grade, 25% in
third, 26.4% in fourth and 21.3% in sixth grade.
Qualitative analyses
We enriched the quantitative data with the qualitative data that were collected
in the subsample of six schools for the study on SLP design. Table 3.1 presents an
overview of the six schools and team members included in this study and their
characteristics. For a more elaborate discussion on the sample, we refer to
chapter 2.
Table 3.1 Sample: school & participant characteristics
School Location School
size
% non-Dutch
background
pupils
SLP management
team
Teachers
23 rural > 360 21-40% N = 3
Principal, special
needs teachers
N = 3
1st, 4th, 6th
grade
28 rural > 360 21-40% N = 2
Special needs
teachers
N = 3
2nd, 2 x 6th
grade
63 urban > 360 > 40% N = 3
Principal, special
needs teachers
N = 6
All grades
52 urban 201-360 > 40% N = 3
Principal, SLP
coordinator, special
needs teacher
N = 6
All grades
45 urban 201-360 < 20% N = 2
Special needs
teachers
/
67 rural < 201 > 40% N = 2
Principal, special
needs teacher
N= 6
All grades
Each school a language policy?
93
Quantitative data and analyses
Dependent variables
Both management team members and the teachers completed a questionnaire
containing statements regarding their school’s SLP, which were based on
insights from theoretical frameworks on school language policy (Corson, 1999;
May, 2007), change management (Herold, David, Fedor, Donald, Caldwell,
2007) and school improvement (Levin, 2008). In the management team
questionnaire, we distinguished three components: commitment, reflective
team capacity, an turbulence. Additionally, management team members
indicated whether their school has an SLP plan and team (yes/no). For the
teacher questionnaire, we also distinguished 3 components: commitment,
collaboration and support. For a more elaborate discussion on the design of
the instrument, we refer to Chapter 1. Table 3.2 and 3.3 provide the
descriptives for both questionnaires.
Table 3.2 Descriptive results of the management team questionnaires
M (SD) Min-Max TC RC TU
Team
commitment 4.11 (.63) 2.00-5.00 1
Reflective
capacity 3.68 (.37) 3.00-4.67 0.37** 1
Turbulence 2.88 (.72) 1.44-5.00 0.31** 0.20 1
* p < .05, ** p < .01, N = 74
Chapter 3
94
Table 3.3 Descriptive results of the teacher questionnaires
M (SD) Min-Max Comm. Collab. Supp.
Personal
commitment 4.28 (.45) 2.40-5.00 1
Collaboration 3.38 (.58) 1.75-4.75 0.23** 1
Support 3.97 (.49) 2.75-5.00 0.27** 0.61** 1
* p < .05, ** p < .01, N = 210
Independent variables at the teacher/principal level
Additional background information was obtained from all participants via the
questionnaire. We included individual school experience as independent
variable, as previous studies indicated it may affect teachers’ perceptions of
school policy (Ball et al., 2012). On average, the teachers in our sample had 13
years of teaching experience (M = 13, SD = 10, min = 0, max = 39). The principals
or special needs teachers had on average 11 years of experience in their current
role (M = 11, SD = 9, minimum = 0, maximum = 39).
Independent variables at the school level
We included three school-level independent variables4: the percentage of non-
Dutch pupils (M = 33.2, SD = 23.7, min = .5, max = 76.3), school size (M = 339, SD
= 117, min = 187, max = 622), and average years of experience of teachers (M =
13, SD = 4, min = 6, max = 23). School characteristics were obtained via the
teacher questionnaires and administrative databases of the Department of
Education in order to avoid as much missing data as possible. All continuous
4 Originally, we also included the percentage of low-SES pupils. As this variable was highly correlated
with the percentage of non-Dutch background students (> .8) in our sample, we excluded it from the analyses in order to avoid multicollinearity problems. Language background was prioritized over socioeconomic class because previous studies show that Flemish teachers most often attribute low academic achievement to proficiency in Dutch instead of SES (e.g., Clycq et al., 2014; Strobbe et al., 2017).
Each school a language policy?
95
variables were standardized by calculating z-scores and centered around their
overall mean.
Logistic regression and stepwise multilevel multivariate regression modeling
The data indicating the presence of a school language plan or a school language
team were analyzed by means of two separate binary logistic regression models,
using SPSS version 25. The independent school-level variables were added to the
model in a stepwise manner. The final model included only the variables that
significantly contributed to the model.
The additional quantitative data used to answer RQ1 were analyzed by
means of multivariate multilevel models, as there were multiple dependent
variables and the data are hierarchically structured: teachers and principals are
nested in schools (Hox, 2010). We built two models, one for the teacher
questionnaire data and one for the management team member questionnaire
data. Models were built in a stepwise manner and the distribution of the residuals
was constantly checked for normality on both levels. The responses of two
management team members and twelve teachers (all from different schools, but
one) could be considered outliers and were excluded from the models. No other
deviations from normality were found.
First, an empty model was calculated in order to determine the degree of
variation that exists at the school level. This informed us whether and to what
extent teacher responses and principal responses to the different aspects of
language policy differed from school to school. Next, teacher/principal individual
experience was added as control variable. In a third model, school characteristics
were added separately to check whether they affect the different components of
language policy implementation. Only those characteristics that significantly
affected at least one of the outcome variables were included. Analyses were
performed in MLwiN version 2.31 (Rasbash et al., 2014).
Chapter 3
96
Qualitative data and analyses
In each of the six schools selected for the qualitative part of the study, a focus
group was conducted with the principal and/or special needs teachers.
Participants were asked to reflect upon their school’s SLP and the practices
related to it, the impact it has on different stakeholders and the implementation
process. All interviews were conducted by the first author and guided by a semi-
structured interview protocol with key questions and some additional questions
that could be asked if necessary.
All focus groups were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim.
Transcripts were coded and analyzed using the constant comparison method
(Corbin & Strauss, 2008). First, the interview transcripts were read and reread
and coded in-vivo by extracting the codes from the data itself 2014). In a next
step, the open codes were further reduced and structured into axial codes (e.g.,
collegiality, parental involvement etc.). Within-case and cross-case analyses
(Miles & Huberman, 2014) were used to explore the data. This way, solid codes
and patterns could be identified. The data from both focus groups were
triangulated with field notes from informal conversations with team members
and classroom observations.
Results
RQ1: To what extent is SLP implementation affected by the school context?
The presence of a policy making team and plan
The results from the logistic regression analyses (Figure 3.1) demonstrate that
the school context, and in particular the composition of the student population,
affects the presence of a language policy plan or team. Schools with a more
diverse student population (i.e., higher percentage of non-Dutch background
students) have a higher chance of having an SLP plan (B = .059, SE = .025, p < .05,
Each school a language policy?
97
eB=1.06) and team (B = .063, SE = .023, p < .01, eB=1.07) than schools with a less
diverse student population.
Figure 3.1 Presence of a policy plan/team according to student composition
SLP according to management team members
Principals’ and special needs teachers’ perceptions of their team’s commitment
to promote language learning across the curriculum did not vary at the school
level (ICC = .00). Differences were larger between teachers within the same
school than between teachers from different schools (ICC(2) = .25) (Bliese,
2000). Team commitment was therefore excluded from further analyses. The
perceptions of policy priority or turbulence and team reflective capacity for
language of policy management team members, by contrast, varied
significantly at the school level (respectively ICC = .385, p < .05 and ICC(2) =
.66 for turbulence, and ICC = .340, p < .05, ICC(2) = .69 for reflective capacity).
The priority principals and special needs teachers give to the promotion
of student language development (i.e., turbulence) is found to be affected by
characteristics of the student population: the higher the proportion of non-
Dutch background students, the more management team members perceive
the promotion of language development to be a priority for the school. This
effect is partly mediated by the average teaching experience of the teacher
team, as it diminishes when the latter is added to the model (Table 3.4).
0 20 40 60 80 100
<20%
21-40%
>40%
percentage of schools
percentage of non-Dutch
background students
teamplan
Chapter 3
98
Student composition did not significantly affect school teams’ reflective
capacity as perceived by principals and special needs teachers. By contrast,
school size was found to be negatively associated with reflective team capacity.
Management team members in large schools perceive their team as less willing
and capable to reflect upon practices to promote student language development
compared to management team members in smaller schools. The contextual
variables could explain all differences between schools for team reflective
capacity; perceived turbulence, on the other hand, still varied significantly at the
school level after the school context variables were included in the model (Table
3.5).
SLP according to teachers
Originally, we found around 4% of non-significant unexplained variance at the
school level for teacher commitment (ICC = 0.040, p > .05; ICC(2) = .21), which
means that there are no significant differences between teachers from different
schools in their commitment to promoting their pupils’ language proficiency
across the curriculum (Bliese, 2000; Glick, 1985). On the other hand, we found
around 33% significant unexplained variance at the school level for teacher
collaboration (ICC = 0.328, p < .01) and 30% for teacher support (ICC = 0.295, p
< .05). This means that characteristics of the school are likely to contribute to
teachers’ perceptions and experiences regarding their collaboration with other
teachers and the extent to which they feel supported by other staff members in
this regard.
Teachers’ perceptions concerning SLP, too, were affected by contextual
school factors. A negative relationship was found between average teacher
experience and perceived collaboration by the team, and between school size and
perceived collaboration. In addition, teachers felt less supported to promote
student language development in schools in which teachers had on average more
teaching experience (Table 3.6). Yet, contextual school variables cannot explain
all differences between schools; after inclusion of these variables, significant
differences remain for both collaboration and support (Table 3.7).
99
Table 3.4 Management team questionnaire: estimates of the fixed effects
Model 1: Null model Model 2: Individual characteristics Model 3: School contextual variables
reflective capacity turbulence reflective capacity turbulence reflective capacity turbulence
Fixed Part B SE Sign B SE Sign B SE Sign B SE Sign B SE Sign B SE Sign
Intercepts
-.009 .151 -.010 .164 -.011 .152 -.030 .163 -.004 .134 .078 .140
Ind. teaching
experience
-.005 .022 -.023 .019 -.010 .022 -.022 .019
School size
-.340 .139 ** .091 .143
% multiling.
students
.209 .128 .465 .134 **
-2*loglikelihood 397.692 384.635 367.328
N schools = 28, N management team members = 72, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
Chapter 3
100
Table 3.5 Management team questionnaire: estimates of the random effects
Model 1: Null Model Model 2: Individual characteristics Model 3: School contextual variables
Random part reflective
capacity
turbulence reflective
capacity
turbulence reflective
capacity
turbulence
School level
reflective capacity .490* .27 .486* .27 .273 .21
turbulence .105 .317* .102 .306 .042 .199**
Individual level
reflective capacity .556*** .09 .515*** .09 .504*** .21
turbulence .120 .691*** .129 .718*** .126 .724***
101
Table 3.6 Teacher questionnaire: Estimates of the fixed effects
Model 1: Null model Model 2: Teacher characteristics Model 3: School contextual variables
collaboration support collaboration support collaboration support
Fixed Part B SE Sign B SE Sign B SE Sign B SE Sign B SE Sign B SE Sign
Intercepts
.036 .122 .045 .117 .045 .126 .074 .121 -.004 .099 .031 .106
Ind. teaching
experience
.087 .061 .170 .060 * .120 .062 $ .180 .062 *
Av. Teaching
experience
-.463 .118 ** -.332 .126 *
School size
-.219 .100 * -.188 .107
-2*loglikelihood 1029.089 997.048 983.286
N schools = 27, N teachers = 204, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001, $ < .06
Chapter 3
102
Table 3.7 Teacher questionnaire: Estimates of the random effects
Model 1: Null Model Model 2: Teacher characteristics Model 3: School contextual variables
Random part collaboration support collaboration support collaboration support
School level
collaboration .300** .89 .326** .93 .159* .90
support .252** .266** .290** .298** .160** .199**
Teacher level
collaboration .678*** .49 .667*** .46 .665*** .46
support .339*** .715*** .305*** .659*** .306*** .660***
N schools = 27, N teachers = 204, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
Each school a language policy?
103
RQ2: Explanations for school contextual effects on SLP implementation
When asking principals, special needs teachers and classroom teachers why their
schools had implemented an SLP, initially, almost all but contextual factors were
mentioned. The socio-ethnic student composition was found to be a major
catalyst of their school-wide language policy in all schools but one (School 45, the
least diverse school). In the other schools, SLP was considered a way ‘to meet the
parents of their non-Dutch pupils half way’ (Special needs teacher, School 63),
‘something they necessarily had to take into account, because their students not
only have different home languages, but also because they come from
underprivileged families’ (Special needs teacher, School 28), or because pupils’
non-Dutch language background is a ‘barrier’, ‘a problem that they keep
encountering’ (Special needs teacher, School 23). The necessity of an SLP was
justified by the difficulties their pupils are said to have with all courses,
particularly if teachers do not make appropriate adjustments:
Our schoolbooks sometimes are too difficult …. For our pupils, that is.
(6th & 4th grade teachers, school 23)
I also think the schoolbooks we use at the moment are unsuitable for our
audience, our pupils […] but in fact, no schoolbook exists that is fit for our
pupils.
(6th grade teacher, school 63)
School 45, in contrast, started implementing an SLP because they wanted to
enhance students’ reading skills, and not because they needed to meet their
students’ needs from a deficit perspective:
Reading is super important for the future, for everyone. Everyone comes
into contact with texts, everyone must be able to read, and […]relatively
little time goes to effective reading in the higher grades.
(special needs teacher, school 45)
Chapter 3
104
Differences in motivation were also found between schools with different
proportions of ethnic minority pupils. School teams with a mixed population (21-
40% ethnic minority pupils) more often referred to some sort of ‘level’ their
pupils were not yet able to reach. Team members of the two mixed schools
seemed to hope that their students would change before entering school:
We were very much in doubt about where to go with our next school
development plan [...] but actually we have this population … and our
student population has not changed in the last two or three years anyway.
So we […] do not have the feeling that there has been a huge change, so
that is why we said that we will continue to focus on reading
comprehension and language teaching.
(special needs teacher, school 28)
On the other hand, the team of the three schools with a high proportion (> 40%)
of ethnic minority pupils seemed to accept that they had to adapt their education
to their specific pupil population:
Indeed, every member of the team knows we need to work on language
here at school. […] Right now, I think we know how to deal with it […] We
know our school will never become a school with only Dutch-speaking
pupils again […] it is with this group that we need to continue.
(special needs teacher, school 52)
Apart from student composition, other contextual school factors appeared to
have a (mostly negative) influence upon the school team’s SLP implementation.
School size was mentioned by one large and one mid-sized school as a factor
prompting teams to introduce an SLP (School 23, 45): ‘Yeah, we are a large school
now, so we need to align our practices somehow’ (Special needs teacher, School
45). At the same time, both schools perceived school size as a constraining factor,
for it is more difficult to involve all teachers in the policy-making process. Team
members in another mid-sized school (52) explicitly mentioned the fact that their
school consisted of two buildings hampered teacher collaboration. Uncertainty
Each school a language policy?
105
about the available resources for the upcoming school years restrained two
school teams (school 23, 52) from hiring an extra language teacher, while the
pressure of other changes (e.g., new principal, school fusion) and policies that
needed to be implemented or revised (e.g., technology education, inclusive
education) was felt to hamper SLP implementation in all schools.
On the other hand, some contextual factors did in fact boost the decision
to implement an SLP. One school (school 28) had recently chosen another
schoolbook for language instruction because the new principal was in favor. The
introduction of this new manual had spurred a change in teachers’ language
practices, pushing them to align their practices. In addition, the Inspectorate had
urged the team to refocus their attention to language. In another school (67),
concerns of parents who feared the presence of the Turkish-speaking community
would hamper their Dutch-speaking children’s language proficiency constituted
another reason to revise the school’s language policy. Characteristics of the
school team were found to be enhancing factors by members of the management
team in two schools (school 52, 63): ‘Here, we’re a team, we’re in this together’
(SLP coordinator, school 52).
Classroom teachers, by contrast, were often found unaware of the
existence or contents of their school’s SLP: ‘Do we even have a language policy?’
(1st Grade teacher, School 67) – ‘O yes, I have seen it in one of the files of my
predecessor’ (6th Grade teacher, School 67). In all schools, the principal and/or
the special needs teachers wanted things to change and therefore took the lead
in designing an SLP:
Why we are doing this? Well, the principal said that we needed to do
something.
(1st grade teacher, school 67)
Well, we didn’t really have much of a choice. They [the principal and
special needs teachers] just told us we would […] do it this way because
otherwise it would just be about which schoolbook we would choose, and
that’s not the point, that’s not what it is about, so we are going to think
about language [across the curriculum].
(2nd grade teacher, school 63)
Chapter 3
106
Teachers in all schools indicate that they are engaged to promote student
language development, but do consider the development of an SLP to be mainly
the task of the management team.
Discussion
The aim of this study was to examine whether situated contextual school
characteristics affect the implementation of a language education policy in
Flemish elementary schools. Previous qualitative studies reveal that school
contextual factors shape policy enactment to a great extent: policies tend to be
implemented by local actors when they fit in with the schools’ current practice
and needs (Liddicoat et al., 2018; Menken & Garcia, 2010). This study confirms
these findings, and adds to theory building by providing quantitative analyses
showing similar patterns. Qualitative data further provide insight into why these
patterns exist, revealing a link between policy enactment, context, and beliefs
about language education (Spillane et al., 2002).
Results of the quantitative analyses indicate that the socio-ethnic
composition of the student population in particular is related to how
management team members perceive SLP implementation, even though the
Flemish governmental language education policy explicitly states that SLP is a
task for all schools. The more diverse the student population, the higher the
chance the school had an SLP plan and team, and the more policy management
team members considered language promotion a priority for the school. Data
from focus groups in a subsample of the schools indicated that this is associated
with a deficit perspective, with SLP as a ‘deficiency policy’ almost exclusively
serving students at risk of underachievement (Delarue, 2016). Especially in
schools with a mixed school population (21-40% non-Dutch background), SLP
was approached as if it were something that had to ‘fix’ students’ language skills.
This finding resonates the findings of Pulinx et al. (2017), which indicate that
monolingual ideologies particularly inform practice in mixed schools.
Each school a language policy?
107
Indeed, this narrow interpretation of SLP may well be informed by beliefs
about language and language education (Spolsky, 2004), and a monolingual
habitus in particular (Gogolin, 1994): school teams seem to perceive the non-
Dutch background of ethnic minority low-SES students as a problem, causing
academic underachievement. Other studies indicate that this contested
perception is widely prevalent among educators, both inside (e.g., Agirdag, 2010;
Jaspers, 2015; Pulinx et al., 2017) and outside of Flanders (Foley, Sangster, &
Anderson, 2013; Johnson & Johnson, 2015).
Existing school structure and culture further complicate policy enactment,
which has also been indicated by other studies (Liddicoat et al., 2018; May &
Wright, 2007). The implementation of SLP seems more uncommon in large
schools and in schools where teachers have on average more teaching
experience. The research literature remains rather inconclusive on the effect of
school size on school practices (Opdenakker & Van Damme, 2007), whereas
during the interviews, some schools explicitly mentioned their school size as a
hampering factor. Similarly, schools where teachers have on average more
teaching experience might feel less pressured to collectively focus on language,
as experienced teachers know what they are doing (Ball et al., 2012; Valckx,
Vanderlinde, & Devos, 2020), or might be less open to change (Agirdag,
Loobuyck, & Van Houtte, 2012). Alternatively, this effect might partly be
attributed to the fact that the number of teachers with less than five years of
teaching experience is generally higher in more diverse schools (Van
Droogenbroeck et al., 2019). Average teacher experience and student ethnic
composition in our sample were moderately correlated (r = -.40, p < .001),
although the effect did not disappear if student composition was included in the
models. Teacher collaboration and perceived support at the school-level were, in
contrast with the perceptions of the policy management team, not significantly
correlated with student composition. Previous research indicates that teachers
in disadvantaged schools often need to work harder in order to improve
education (Muijs, Harris, Chapman, Stoll, & Russ, 2004), which could imply that
they collaborate more often or feel less supported compared to teachers in more
advantaged schools.
Chapter 3
108
Of course, not all differences between teachers or members of the policy
management team from different schools, or within the same school, could be
explained by the school contextual variables that the quantitative part of this
study took into account. After inclusion of school-situated contextual differences,
differences between schools remained for perceived turbulence, the amount of
support that teachers experience and teacher collaboration. This also emerges
from the qualitative data: there are many more factors, some of which are related
to the school context such as infrastructure or school culture (Ball et al., 2012),
that influence policy enactment. Other studies have identified a wide range of
personal, group, organizational and structural characteristics that may hamper
or facilitate teacher collaboration (Vangrieken et al., 2015). Furthermore, a
recent study examining professional learning communities indicates that team
collective responsibility and teacher self-efficacy fully mediate the effect that
teacher autonomy and support have on reflective dialog within the team Valckx
et al., 2020; see also März, Gaikhorst, Mioch, Weijers, & Geijsel, 2017). Further
research could examine if this also applies to SLP. We also found considerable
differences between teachers within schools, with more experienced teachers
reporting significantly higher levels of support to promote student language
development than their less-experienced colleagues. It is thus very likely indeed
that other aspects of both teachers’ personal lives or the school context (e.g.,
Ascenzi-Moreno et al., 2015; Menken & García, 2010; Johnson et al., 2018; Van
der Wildt et al., 2017), can better explain how teachers experience and enact the
policy. Other limitations to this study are related to sample size: while substantial
in comparison to many other studies in this field, our sample of 28 schools is
rather small for multilevel analyses (Reynolds et al., 2014). Some smaller effects
might therefore have remained undetected.
Conclusion
The quantitative analyses of this study confirm that the implementation of
language education policy indeed differs according to school context, and in
particular to student composition, school size and average teacher experience.
Each school a language policy?
109
The qualitative data further provide insight into why that is, by suggesting that
SLP is mainly perceived as a deficiency policy to meet the linguistic needs of
students at risk of underachievement. Still, significant differences within and
across schools in SLP implementation were left unexplained. The next chapter
explores the interpretations of different stakeholders that are involved in SLP
implementation to gain more understanding into the policy-practice gap.
Chapter 3
110
References
Agirdag, O. (2010). Exploring bilingualism in a monolingual school system:
Insights from Turkish and native students from Belgian schools. British
Journal of Sociology of Education, 31(3), 307–321.
Agirdag, O., Loobuyck, P., & Van Houtte, M. (2012). Determinants of Attitudes
Toward Muslim Students Among Flemish Teachers: A Research Note.
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 51(2), 368–376.
Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., & Braun, A. (2012). How schools do policy : policy
enactments in secondary schools. London: Routledge.
Berthele, R. (2019). Policy recommendations for language learning: Linguists’
contributions between scholarly debates and pseudoscience. Journal of
the European Second Language Association, 3(1), 1–11.
Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, no-independence, and reliability.
Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J.
Kozlowski (Eds.), Research and methods in organizations (pp. 349–
381). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Braun, A., Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., & Hoskins, K. (2011). Taking context seriously:
towards explaining policy enactments in the secondary school.
Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 32(4), 585–596.
Burch, P. (2007). Educational policy and practice from the perspective of
institutional theory: Crafting a wider lens. Educational Researcher,
36(2), 84–95.
Clycq, N., Timmerman, C., Van Avermaet, P., Wets, J., & Hermans, P. (2014). Oprit
14. Naar een schooltraject zonder snelheidsbeperkingen. Leuven:
Academia Press.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
Corson, D. (1999). Language policy in schools: a resource for teachers and
administrators. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
De Meyer, I., Janssens, R., Warlop, N., Van Keer, H., De Wever, B., & Valcke, M.
(2019). Leesvaardigheid van 15-jarigen. Vlaams rapport PISA2018.
Gent.
Each school a language policy?
111
Delarue, S. (2016). Bridging the policy-practice gap. How Flemish teachers’
standard language perceptions navigate between monovarietal policy
and multivarietal practice. Gent: Ghent University. PhD Dissertation.
Flemish Inspectorate. (2015). Onderwijsspiegel 2015. Brussels.
Foley, Y., Sangster, P., & Anderson, C. (2013). Examining EAL policy and practice
in mainstream schools. Language and Education, 27(3), 191–206.
Glick, W. H. (1985). Conceptualizing and measuring organizational and
psychological climate: Pitfalls in multilevel research. The Academy of
Management Review, 10(3), 601.
Gogolin, I. (1994). Der monolinguale Habitus der multilingualen Schule. Münster:
Waxmann-Verlag.
Hall, W. J., & Chapman, M. V. (2018). The Role of School Context in Implementing
a Statewide Anti-Bullying Policy and Protecting Students. Educational
Policy, 32(4), 507–539.
Herold, David M., Fedor, Donald B., Caldwell, S. D. (2007). Beyond change
management: A multilevel investigation of contextual adn personal
influences on employees’ commitment to change. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92(4), 942–951.
Hox, J. J. (2010). Multilevel analysis. Techniques and applications (2nd ed.). New
York: Routledge.
Jaspaert, K., & Van den Branden, K. (2011). Literacy for all. In K. Van den Branden,
P. Van Avermaet, & M. Van Houtte (Eds.), Equity and excellence in
education. Towards maximal learning opportunities for all students (pp.
215–235). New York/London: Routledge.
Jaspers, J. (2015). Modelling linguistic diversity at school: the excluding impact of
inclusive multilingualism. Language Policy, 14, 109–129.
Johnson, D. C., & Johnson, E. J. (2015). Power and agency in language policy
appropriation. Language Policy, 14, 221–243.
Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2009). A typology of mixed methods research
designs. Qual Quant, 43, 265–275.
Levin, B. (2008). How to change 5000 schools. A practical and positive approach
for leading change at every level. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Chapter 3
112
Liddicoat, A. J., Scarino, A., & Kohler, M. (2018). The impact of school structures
and cultures on change. Curriculum Perspectives, 38, 3–13.
Liddicoat, A. J., & Taylor-Leech, K. (2014). Micro language planning for
multilingual education: agency in local contexts. Current Issues in
Language Planning, 15(3), 237–244.
März, V., Gaikhorst, L., Mioch, R., Weijers, D., & Geijsel, F. (2017). Van acties naar
interacties. Een overzichtsstudie naar de rol van professionele netwerken
bij duurzame onderwijsvernieuwing. Amsterdam/Diemen.
May, S. (2007). Sustaining Effective Literacy Practices Over Time in Secondary
Schools: School Organisational and Change Issues. Language and
Education, 21(5), 387–405.
McCormick, L. K., Steckler, A. B., & McLeroy, K. R. (1995). Diffusion of innovations
in schools: a study of adoption and implementation of school-based
tobacco prevention curricula. American Journal of Health Promotion :
AJHP, 9(3), 210–219.
Menken, K., & Garcia, O. (2010). Negotiating language policies in schools :
educators as policymakers. Routledge.
Menken, K., & García, O. (2017). Language Policy in Classrooms and Schools. In T.
McCarthy & S. May (Eds.), Language Policy and Political Issues in
Education (pp. 211–225). Cham: Springer.
Menken, K., & Solorza, C. (2014). No Child Left Bilingual: Accountability and the
Elimination of Bilingual Education Programs in New York City Schools.
Educational Policy, 28(1), 96–125.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded
sourcebook. SAGE.
Muijs, D., Harris, A., Chapman, C., Stoll, L., & Russ, J. (2004). Improving Schools in
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Areas-A Review of Research
Evidence. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 15(2), 149–
175.
OECD. (2004). Learning for Tomorrow’s World. First Results from PISA 2003. Paris.
OECD. (2011). Education at a Glance 2011: OECD Indicators. Paris.
Opdenakker, M. C., & Van Damme, J. (2007). Do school context, student
composition and school leadership affect school practice and outcomes
Each school a language policy?
113
in secondary education? British Educational Research Journal, 33(2),
179–206.
Palmer, D., Henderson, K., Wall, D., Christian, Zú, E., Berthelsen, S., & Zúñiga, C. E.
(2016). Team teaching among mixed messages: Implementing two-
way dual language bilingual education at third grade in Texas.
Language Policy, 15, 393–413.
Pulinx, R., Van Avermaet, P., & Agirdag, O. (2017). Silencing linguistic diversity:
the extent, the determinants and consequences of the monolingual
beliefs of Flemish teachers. International Journal of Bilingual Education
and Bilingualism, 20(5), 542–556.
Rasbash, J., Steele, F., Browne, W. J., Goldstein, H., & Charlton, C. (2014). A User’s
Guide to MLwiN Version 2.31. Bristol: Centre for Multilevel Modelling,
University of Bristol.
Reynolds, D., Sammons, P., De Fraine, B., Damme, J. Van, Townsend, T., Teddlie, C.,
& Stringfield, S. (2014). Educational effectiveness research (EER): a
state-of-the-art review. School Effectiveness and School Improvement,
25(2), 197–230.
Shohamy, E. (2010). Cases of language policy resistance in Israel’s centralized
educational system. In K. Menken & O. García (Eds.), Negotiating
Language Policies in Schools (pp. 182–197). New York: Routledge.
Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy Implementation and
Cognition: Reframing and Refocusing Implementation Research.
Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387–431.
Spolsky, B. (2004). Language policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Strobbe, L., Van Der Wildt, A., Van Avermaet, P., Van Gorp, K., Van den Branden,
K., & Van Houtte, M. (2017). How school teams perceive and handle
multilingualism: The impact of a school’s pupil composition. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 64, 93–104.
Teddlie, C., & Reynolds, D. (2000). The international handbook of school
effectiveness research. Falmer Press.
Valckx, J., Vanderlinde, R., & Devos, G. (2020). Departmental PLCs in secondary
schools: the importance of transformational leadership, teacher
Chapter 3
114
autonomy, and teachers ’ self-efficacy. Educational Studies, 46(3), 282–
301.
Van der Wildt, A., Van Avermaet, P., & Van Houtte, M. (2017). Opening up towards
children’s languages: enhancing teachers’ tolerant practices towards
multilingualism. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 28(1),
136–152.
Van Droogenbroeck, F., Lemblé, H., Bongaerts, B., Spruyt, B., Siongers, J., &
Dimokritos, K. (2019). Talis 2018 Vlaanderen. Brussel.
Vandenbroucke, F. (2007). De lat hoog voor talen in iedere school. Goed voor de
sterken, sterk voor de zwakken. Brussels
Vangrieken, K., Dochy, F., Raes, E., & Kyndt, E. (2015). Teacher collaboration: A
systematic review. Educational Research Review, 15, 17–40.
115
Chapter 4
What do stakeholders consider best?
Chapter 2 and 3 indicated that SLP implementation is uneven across schools. This
chapter gives voice to both school-internal and school-external stakeholders in
order to further examine the policy-practice gap.
Apart from contextual factors that affect the implementation process (Chapter 3),
uneven or fragmented policy implementation is often the result of different
stakeholders interpreting the policy’s intent in a different way (Spillane, Reiser,
& Reimer, 2002; Viennet & Pont, 2017). As such, it is fruitful to understand which
different interpretations of a policy exist, and how they are different from the
policy’s original intention.
This study examines whether prominent educational stakeholders believe
that SLP can contribute to student language achievement, and if so, in what ways.
43 stakeholders operating at the macro, meso- and micro-level of the educational
policy process participated in the study. It uses Q-Methodology (Brown, 1980; Lo
Bianco, 2015) to tap into the viewpoints of those different groups of
stakeholders, addressing a gap in the literature on language education policy.
Stakeholders’ interpretations of language education policy
Educational policy makers issue policies aimed at changing or improving
education, and assume that practitioners can make these policies operational by
executing them within their real-world contexts, with or without the help from
external experts and artifacts (e.g., policy documents, teaching materials) (Burns
& Köster, 2016; Coburn & Woulfin, 2012; Woulfin, 2016). Often, however, there
is a gap between policy intention and implementation, which is not necessarily
caused by resistance of local implementing agents (Johnson, Stephens, Johnston
Nelson, & Johnson, 2018; Lo Bianco & Aliani, 2013; Menken & Garcia, 2010;
Chapter 4
116
Spillane, Reiser, et al., 2002). Language policy changes as it permeates different
policy layers of the education system (national, institutional, interpersonal),
because it is interpreted and appropriated when implemented in real-world
contexts (Hornberger & Johnson, 2007; Ricento & Hornberger, 1996; Spillane,
Reiser, et al., 2002).
Interpretations of policy are constructed from the complex interplay of
the policy signal, the knowledge and experiences of implementing agents, and the
circumstances in which implementing agents attempt to understand the policy
(Spillane et al., 2002). Differences in policy interpretation tend to be larger when
the policy is complex and requires ‘tremendous changes’ in current-day practice
and worldviews (Galdames & Gaete, 2010; McLaughlin, 2006; Spillane, Reiser, et
al., 2002, p. 419). Since language cannot be detached from ideology and language
policy is never about language alone (Shohamy, 2006; Spolsky, 2004), many
changes related to language are complex changes.
Lately, the interpretations of educators have received increased attention,
as they are ‘the final arbiters of language policy implementation’ (Menken &
Garcia, 2010, p. 1). Differences in language education policy implementation have
been empirically linked with individual teacher differences in terms of their
personal language background (e.g., Hélot, 2010; Varghese, 2008), teaching
experience (Agirdag, Loobuyck, & Van Houtte, 2012), beliefs about language and
language education (e.g., Galdames & Gaete, 2010; Graham, 2019; Jaspaert,
2015), skills and self-understanding (e.g., Elbers, 2012; Kelchtermans, 2009;
Stephens & Johnson, 2015), and characteristics of the school context in which
they operate, such as the school culture (e.g., Liddicoat, Scarino, & Kohler, 2018),
or the student ethnic composition of the school (Pulinx, Van Avermaet, & Agirdag,
2017; Strobbe et al., 2017)(Chapter 3).
Yet, language education policy is not only shaped by practitioners. It is
shaped by various stakeholders operating at the different layers and in different
contexts (Ricento & Hornberger, 1996; Spolsky, 2017; Wiley & García, 2016), and
who often do not share the same worldview (Cherney, Povey, Head, Boreham, &
Ferguson, 2012). Different types of stakeholders can be identified. Vertical
stakeholders design, issue and evaluate the policy (implementation) (e.g.,
government, Inspectorate), internal stakeholders redesign and implement the
What do stakeholders consider best?
117
policy (e.g., principals, teachers; district leaders), and external stakeholders help
schools to implement policy, and/or provide advice to vertical stakeholders (e.g.,
researchers, policy experts) (Burns & Köster, 2016; Lo Bianco, 2018). External
stakeholders, too, can have an impact on policy design and implementation
(Johnson & Johnson, 2015). Recent studies indicate that external experts (e.g.,
reading coaches, researchers) can enhance change in practice, but they can also
push too hard for change and evoke feelings of resistance in teachers; external
stakeholders, too, have their own agenda and logics of what constitutes good
teaching (Coburn & Woulfin, 2012).
As a result, schools can be overloaded with differing and sometimes even
contrasting policy interpretations and guidelines in the form of documents and
teaching materials (Woulfin, 2016). It is, however, difficult to tell how widely
policy interpretations vary within and across groups of stakeholders, as to our
knowledge, no study has yet compared policy interpretations across different
groups of stakeholders. Moreover, the majority of the studies examining
stakeholder policy interpretations are qualitative in nature (cf. Johnson et al.,
2018; Menken & Garcia, 2010). As such, their findings cannot be easily applied to
other contexts.
The interpretation of school-based language policies
The Flemish language education policy issued by the Flemish government
indicates that an SLP in each school potentially enhances students’ language
proficiency in Dutch so that ‘every student [is] able to communicate in Dutch at a
high, rich level, both passively and actively, and both in oral and written form’
(Crevits, 2014; Smet, 2011; Vandenbroucke, 2007, p. 2). The official policy texts
strongly emphasize the importance of Standard Dutch, and describe it as ‘the only
guarantee of equal opportunities, a proper job and successful participation in
society’ (Smet, 2011, p. 4, cited in Delarue, 2016, p. 239). Hence, every single
primary and secondary school in Flanders is obliged to design and implement a
school-based language policy (SLP). An SLP, a document/policy compiled by the
school team, identifies the linguistic needs of students, and provides school-
Chapter 4
118
based solutions that the entire team agrees upon (Corson, 1990; Van den
Branden, 2010). Schools have great autonomy to design and implement their SLP,
as only the Inspectorate during their audits checks whether schools are
implementing the policy (OECD, 2015). Yet, this autonomy, and the limited
availability of concrete guidelines for schools on how to implement an SLP, have
made it long unclear what SLP is really about (Van den Branden, 2017).
To date, not much empirical research has been presented on SLP
implementation in schools. Delarue's (2016) PhD research on the use of standard
Dutch in education provides a notable exception. It suggests that Flemish
teachers comply with the focus on Standard Dutch, but perceive SLP as ‘just a pile
of paper’, intended primarily to stimulate Dutch language development,
particularly in struggling language learners and multilingual students. The
official Flemish policy has, moreover, been heavily criticized by language policy
scholars (e.g., Blommaert, 2011; Blommaert & Van Avermaet, 2008; Jaspaert,
2015). They denounce the strong yet implicit monolingual ‘language as structure’
ideology that is inherent to the policy, and argue that it puts multilingual students
at a disadvantage. Although schools are ‘invited to develop and implement
policies aimed at the same time at the development of the dominant language and
at the celebration of multilingualism’ (Jaspaert, 2015, p. 36), most schools and
teachers tend to adhere to the dominant Dutch-only policy paradigm (Agirdag,
2010; Pulinx et al., 2017; Strobbe et al., 2017).
A report by the Flemish Inspectorate (2015) and our own studies (Chapter
2 and 3) provide indirect corroborating evidence for Delarue’s findings: SLP is
implemented more often in schools with a higher percentage of multilingual
students, and policy measures mainly promote basic skills and targeted
multilingual students. Similar to Delarue, we hypothesized that an underlying
notion of SLP as a deficiency policy specifically tailored to multilingual students
lies at the base of its enactment in most schools. This notion, however, contrasts
with the policy’s original intention, which is not oriented specifically towards
multilingual students, and aims to promote complex, and not basic language
skills. Yet, it is unclear whether all relevant stakeholders indeed endorse this
interpretation of SLP.
What do stakeholders consider best?
119
Research question
Based on the literature above, there are reasons to assume that stakeholders’
understandings of how change needs to occur by means of SLP, do not always
resonate with the policy’s original intent. To our knowledge, only one study
examined what interpretations exist of SLP in Flemish education. Delarue’s study
(2016), however, mainly focused on teachers’ interpretations of the policy
message regarding the use of standardized Dutch, and only discussed data
regarding one group of stakeholders. As all vertical, internal, and external
stakeholders involved in policy implementation construct interpretations of the
policy based on their own frameworks and contexts, it is not unthinkable that
many interpretations of SLP exist. In addition, most of the work presented on
language policy enactment in schools thus far is qualitative in nature (Menken &
García, 2010).
While qualitative case studies enable in-depth explorations of how
stakeholders make sense of policies, they cannot be easily generalized to other
contexts. Survey data, on the other hand, cannot provide the detailed insight that
is needed to fully understand how stakeholders make sense of the policy. This
study therefore includes different groups of prominent stakeholders, and
examines how they experience SLP by means of Q-Methodology, a mixed-method
approach (Brown, 1980). One research question guided this study: ‘What causes
SLP to contribute to the (language) development of pupils according to different
types of educational stakeholders?’
Method: Q-methodology
In order to investigate stakeholders’ viewpoints regarding SLP implementation,
a Q-study was conducted. Coming from the field of political science, Q-
methodology (Brown, 1980) is a promising method to investigate subjectivity in
education policy implementation. It combines both qualitative and quantitative
methods to tap into respondents’ viewpoints. Participants are asked to rank a set
of Q-statements on a paper grid with fixed boxes ranging from ‘completely
Chapter 4
120
disagree’ to ‘fully agree’ (see sort grid below, Figure 4.1). By using statements, Q-
methodology provides respondents with the language to express implicit beliefs.
Still, the method leaves ample space for respondents’ personal beliefs,
interpretations etc. As a type of inverted factor analysis, Q-methodology looks for
correlation patterns in participants instead of items. This way, groupings of
participants with a similar opinion arise, whereas it is also possible to have a
detailed insight into the distinctive elements that constitute one viewpoint or the
other (Brown, 1980; Watts & Stenner, 2012).
Q-statements
Initially, a collection of statements (a ‘concourse’) on SLP was made. Sources
included official policy documents (Crevits, 2014; Smet, 2011; Vandenbroucke,
2007), manuals and book chapters that serve as guidelines for schools on how to
implement SLP (e.g., Hajer & Meestringa, 2015; Van den Branden, 2010, 2017),
articles from newspapers and educational magazines (e.g., VONK, Klasse, De
Standaard, De Morgen), national reports (e.g., Flemish Inspectorate, 2015, 2019;
Padmos & Van den Berge, 2009) and 11 focus group interviews with principals
and teachers from 6 schools that participated in another study on SLP
implementation (cf. Chapter 2). Different source types were consulted, since
stakeholders’ perceptions can be as much influenced by public discourse and
prior beliefs and practices as they are by official policy documents (Lo Bianco &
Aliani, 2013; Spolsky, 2004).
The statements reflect arguments in favor of or against SLP, as well as
strategies on implementing SLP. About 150 statements were initially selected.
Redundant statements were removed in order to arrive at a more manageable
set of statements. Statements were grouped in four broad categories of factors
that are known to affect policy implementation (Viennet & Pont, 2017):
stakeholders (N = 12), contextual factors (N = 13), policy design (N = 13) and
implementation strategy (N = 14). Two other members of the research team and
one experienced Q-method researcher were consulted in order to compile the
set. The final Q-sample consisted of 52 statements. As Q relies on the number of
What do stakeholders consider best?
121
statements rather than the number of participants, statistical power was
considered sufficient to conduct the analyses (Watts & Stenner, 2012) (Q-
statements can be found in Appendix 7).
Participants & Procedure
In order to fully understand the different views on policy implementation, we
included vertical, internal and external stakeholders who are involved at macro,
meso- and micro-level of the education system in Flanders. Participants were
selected based on their experience with SLP implementation in (primary)
schools. Forty-three respondents participated voluntarily in this study (response
rate = 77%) and worked either on a micro-level (e.g., teachers, principals, N =
17), meso-level (e.g., school counsellors, teacher educators, researchers, N = 20)
or macro-level (e.g., Inspectorate, Ministry of Education, N = 6). On average,
participants had 17 years of experience in/with education. 67% of our
participants were female.
The author and four trained MA students conducted the data collection by
individually consulting each participant between December 2019 and February
2020. All participants were informed about the study objectives and the research
question, and gave informed consent. Statements were printed separately on
small cards. Participants first sorted all cards into three groups: agree, disagree,
or neutral. Next, they sorted and ranked the statements in line with their intuitive
agreement, using a paper grid with 52 squares, arranged like an inversed normal
distribution (Figure 4.1). Answers ranged from -5 (most disagree) to +5 (most
agree). A statement that is considered irrelevant or neutral is placed somewhere
at the center of the distribution. As every statement needs to be placed on the
grid, participants are ‘forced to make distribution choices’. The ranking of each
statement is, however, relative to the one of the others (Lo Bianco, 2015).
Chapter 4
122
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5
(2) (2)
(3) (3)
(4) (4)
(6) (6)
(7) (7)
(8)
Figure 4.1 Q-sample sort grid
After the Q-sorting process, a post-sorting interview was conducted with each
participant. This permitted participants to elaborate on their Q-sorts, and to
clarify their interpretations of the statements. In particular, participants were
first asked to elaborate on their most extreme sorts. Next, they were asked
whether they wanted to discuss some of the statements themselves, and whether
they believed a statement was missing. In that case, they were invited to
formulate that statement themselves. This happened six times, but it did not
concern radical deviations from other statements. Each post-sorting interview
lasted around 30 minutes.
Analysis
The Q-sorts of all 43 participants were intercorrelated and subjected to a by-
person factor analysis using PQMethod (Schmolck, 2014). Factor extraction
showed the existence of different participant clusters in the dataset. Four factors
were retained for further analysis, as they met the Kaiser-Guttman criterion of
Eigenvalue > 1 and had at least two significant factors loadings (> .40, p < .01)
(Brown, 1980). They explained 43.6% of the original variance, which can be
considered a sound solution (Watts & Stenner, 2012). Orthogonal rotation, which
What do stakeholders consider best?
123
is the standard approach in Q-methodology, was applied in order to interpret the
factors (Factor loadings can be found in Appendix 8).
Next, single Q-sorts from the perspective of a particular factor/viewpoint
were configured. The items pertaining to each factor were carefully inspected by
means of the crib-method to derive the viewpoints (Watts & Stenner, 2012). In
particular, we looked at both extreme and differently ranked items in order to
extract the meaning of the different viewpoints. Additionally, the post-sorting
interviews were read and reread to get a thorough understanding of the various
viewpoints expressed by the participants. Relevant comments by participants
that are related to Q-statements are cited in the interpretation of a viewpoint.
Results
Four viewpoints emerged. We labelled them ‘We need to engage teachers to
collectively improve their practices’ (Viewpoint 1), ‘It’s a different mindset – but
we/they would welcome support’, (Viewpoint 2), ‘Just know what you are doing
and show it’ (Viewpoint 3), and ‘Don’t ask too much’ (Viewpoint 4). Four
consensus statements (11, 12, 23 and 44) were found. Below, each viewpoint will
be summarized and discussed in more detail. Where relevant, complementary
comments from the post-sorting interviews are added together with the
accompanying statement.
Four participants (i.e., participants 10, 13, 34 and 41) did not load
significantly on one of the factors. Additionally, five participants had confounded
viewpoints, as they loaded significantly (r > .40, p < .01) on two factors.
Viewpoints 1, 2 and 3 are highly related, as the factor correlations ranged
between 67. and .70. Viewpoint 2 and 4 appear to be related to some extent as
well (r = .45, p < .05), but this can mainly be attributed to one participant (42)
that loaded significantly on both factors.
Chapter 4
124
Viewpoint 1: ‘We need to engage teachers to collectively improve their
practices’
Factor 1 has an eigenvalue of 14.34 and explains 11% of the study variance. Ten
participants, mostly school counsellors, teacher educators and SLP
implementation researchers loaded significantly on this factor (>.40, p < .01). The
Q-sorts of four participants were confounded with other viewpoints (3 with
factor 2, one with factor 3), which indicates that two overlapping viewpoints are
present in these participants.
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5
27 3 39 42 49 10 43 34 1 22 8
28 15 45 35 44 5 41 24 19 40 18
32 47 38 36 29 16 6 30 23
48 42 31 50 12 17 52
7 20 33 13 51
9 11 21 10 37
4 25 46
26
Figure 4.2 Characteristic placement of Q sample for viewpoint 1
According to this viewpoint, the main goal of SLP is to improve teachers’
practices, and have teachers to take collective responsibility to improve them. To
make this happen, teachers need to be engaged in collaboratively promoting
student language development in different, more effective ways. On the one hand,
it is important that teachers feel ‘safe’ within their school so that they can
experiment to improve their practices. They need to be able to share their
thoughts about language development and discuss them with the entire team. On
the other hand, they need to be engaged in in-service coaching, as a different
approach to language teaching is considered necessary: “You just want your
students to become more proficient in Dutch, that they are able to use Dutch, and
we are not going to realize this by focusing on ‘don’t say this or that’, on accuracy
What do stakeholders consider best?
125
and grammar alone” (SLP01, researcher, statement 15). This implies that
teachers need to know how language development works and become more open
to multilingualism. It will also ensure that “they do not have to rely so much on
their teaching manuals” (SLP01, researcher, statement 1).
Even though the teacher is central within this viewpoint, SLP needs to be
well-thought out at the school level, and embedded in the school context to make
sure that initiatives do not fizzle out after a while. SLP is not considered
something that can be fixed by purchasing new teaching materials or designing a
plan. If SLP only consists of actions without an underlying vision, a surplus of
actions may prevent teachers from seeing the forest for the trees. Making an SLP
obligatory is not going to make it more effective either. Sometimes it is even
better to start with only the team members that are willing to change; the others
will follow.
Viewpoint 2: ‘It’s a different mindset – but we/they would welcome support’
Factor 2 has an eigenvalue of 2.45 and explains 16% of the variance between
respondents. The Q-sorts of 17 participants, mostly teachers or principals (65%)
or school counsellors (24%) loaded significantly (>.40, p < .01) on this factor.
Three participants’ Q sorts were confounded with factor 1, one with factor 3.
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5
35 14 27 34 29 44 33 41 37 13 30
28 15 36 38 31 42 40 19 23 10 8
7 32 39 2 4 12 25 52 5
47 11 3 20 50 26 1
45 16 21 17 51
46 24 22 18 9
43 49 12
48
Figure 4.3 Characteristic placement of Q sample for viewpoint 2
Chapter 4
126
This viewpoint conveys a notion that SLP should involve more than the
improvement of language instruction. The goal is for every teacher to have a
‘sensitivity’ for language; to be aware of its importance for learning, and to see
opportunities to foster student language learning. SLP is in essence a policy about
learning and should therefore also have an impact on teacher beliefs about
learning, language, multilingual students, diversity, etc. If no changes occur in
teachers’ beliefs when they acquire new knowledge of language development, the
new materials and practices that are promoted within SLP will be of little use.
The changes that are needed can be quite substantial, as they require a
fundamental re-thinking of what language is: “if you don’t intervene on what the
dispositions are, little to nothing is going to change, because then they [teachers]
will continue to believe that it must be Dutch or that it must be language
knowledge or that it must be correct Dutch” (SLP05, researcher, statement 15).
Thus, SLP is not something that is easily ‘fixed’. It takes time both to
implement an SLP and to see its impact on student achievement. This means that
making SLP obligatory for each school, will not be of much use. SLP needs to grow
bottom-up. Still, every team member should be involved in the policy-making
process – even the ones who do not wish to be involved. Most teachers are,
however, (perceived to be) open to change. They just do not always know how to
improve students’ language skills.
According to this viewpoint, the best way to provide support is by creating
a collaborative and safe school climate that is beneficial for both teachers and
students. Teachers should be able to inspire each other, to help each other, to
learn by doing – without being reprimanded for making mistakes. SLP should
involve, however, more than collaborative initiatives among teachers. There
should be a policy, a guideline, something that gives direction. An important role
is reserved for the principal, who needs to act in a supportive way at all times,
and who should harness the potential of all teachers.
What do stakeholders consider best?
127
Viewpoint 3: ‘Just know what you are doing and show it’
The third factor has an eigenvalue of 1.82 and explains 15% of the variance. 15
participants, mostly school counsellors of educational networks and policy
makers at official instances (N = 12) are significantly associated with this
viewpoint. One Q sort was confounded with factor 2.
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5
27 35 11 9 3 10 2 17 30 37 52
14 29 48 21 4 1 24 8 23 51 18
28 32 45 34 16 25 5 40 38
36 43 39 46 26 12 41
15 42 31 19 13
7 44 33 50 49
47 20 6
22
Figure 4.4 Characteristic placement of Q sample for viewpoint 3
This viewpoint considers SLP to be a steady but substantial change process in
language teaching that can be accounted for if well planned. Language instruction
should be organized at the school level (“It’s more than loose initiatives […] if
there is no policy, nothing happens", SLP09, teacher educator, statement 14), to
result in the provision of excellent, challenging instruction in each classroom that
works for all students (“SLP is not about providing remedial teaching”, SLP06,
Inspector, statement 40). SLP should be a priority for all schools, as little else is
considered as important as the promotion of language skills.
For that, it is important that team members have a can-do attitude and
that they have ownership of the policy. In particular, “a culture of enthusiasm and
cooperation must be created in each school in order to excel and to offer the best
possible language education” (SLP06, Inspector, statement 8). This also implies
that a vision at school level is indispensable: “You should know why you do the
things the way you are doing them […] and that means that everyone – teachers,
Chapter 4
128
parents, students, visitors … – should immediately know when they arrive at a
school ‘ah, that’s what we are doing’” (SLP04, teacher educator, statement 38).
This vision is best visualized in an SLP plan, for which at least one person is
responsible. It is also necessary to think thoroughly about what the needs of the
school are. To keep a clear view on the policy, schools need to be selective in the
goals they pick. They should evaluate their policy as well in order to have a good
grip on what they are doing.
It is, by contrast, not considered necessary for all team members to have
a substantial insight in how language learning occurs. Knowing what constitutes
effective language instruction will suffice. Teachers do not necessarily need to
enjoy much freedom either. Sometimes it is necessary to tell teachers that what
they are doing, is just not good enough. Likewise, it definitely helps if all team
members are involved in the policy-making process, but this is not considered a
prerequisite for a successful SLP implementation.
Viewpoint 4: ‘Don’t ask too much’
Factor 4 has an eigenvalue of 1.58 and explains 5% of the original variance. The
viewpoint represents only three participants, of which one confounded with
factor 2. All participants who are significantly associated with this viewpoint are
teachers (N = 3) with no or more than 15 years of teaching experience in different
school contexts.
What do stakeholders consider best?
129
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5
17 4 3 4 46 35 1 33 5 27 13
45 20 48 50 9 32 49 42 30 10 8
31 36 34 47 6 28 7 21 52
11 40 39 51 29 37 12
26 41 44 18 25
43 14 38 19 23
22 24 16
15
Figure 4.5 Characteristic placement of Q sample for viewpoint 4
This viewpoint displays a call to entrust teachers with the task of providing
effective language education: “Teachers know what works best for their students,
there is no need for control or for more concrete policies” (Stud16, teacher).
Language is important, but SLP also takes a lot of time. It is not something all
schools should have to pay attention to. SLP needs to help students, and both
teachers and students need to feel safe. SLP is about Standard Dutch, and does
not necessarily have to involve home languages of students.
If schools are to have an SLP, it should require minimal effort of teachers.
More clarity is also needed on the essence of the school’s policy. It is particularly
important not to impose SLPs on teachers, and changes must not be too
substantial. Teachers are entitled to their own beliefs, and they should be granted
sufficient freedom to decide whether they are going to change their practices or
not. Not all teachers are required to be aware of their school’s SLP. In other
words, the SLP is more or less okay the way it is now: it is sufficiently concrete
and there is no need for teacher professionalization. External experts guiding in-
service training initiatives are not always perceived as doing a good job.
If a school decides to work on SLP, it is also considered important that
everyone is involved – not just the teachers who want to be involved. Moreover,
SLP actions should be implemented systemically, rather than through one-off
initiatives. It is not the principal’s responsibility to carry the SLP, nor to check if
the implementation occurs as intended. There is no need to involve students in
Chapter 4
130
the SLP development process, but it is nice if parents appreciate that the school
is trying to provide the best language education they can for their children. In
fact, SLP is not something a school has to/can do alone. In order for SLP to be
successful at promoting student language development, a change in parents’
attitudes towards school and language use is required as well.
Discussion
The implementation of school-based language policies is complex and often
develops in a way that deviates from the original intentions described in official
policy texts (see also Chapter 2). Scholars in the field of (language) education
policy research have pointed out the key role of local stakeholders to explain the
mismatch that often exists between a policy’s intention and its execution (e.g.,
Ball, Maguire, & Braun, 2012; Menken & Garcia, 2010). The current study gives
voice to different stakeholders involved in school-based language policy in order
to improve our understanding of the gap that exists between education policy
and practice. Q-Methodology (Brown, 1980) was used to investigate different
stakeholders’ perceptions of SLP implementation, as it is ideally suited to make
respondents’ implicit beliefs explicit (Watts & Stenner, 2012).
Overall, most stakeholders in our study seem convinced that SLP can help
to improve the quality of language education in Flemish primary schools.
Participants agree that SLP does not provide a miracle solution – teachers always
need to be aware of practices that require improvement. Nevertheless, they do
see it as something that can support teachers in improving their classroom
practice. In line with previous findings (Flemish Inspectorate, 2015; Chapter 2),
the participants indicate, however, that this is not (yet) put into practice, as many
schools struggle with SLP implementation. Our results also indicate that different
ideas exist among stakeholders on what can be considered best practice to
implement the policy. Four viewpoints regarding ‘best practices’ of SLP
implementation emerged from our analyses. As such, our study confirms the
complexity of language education policy implementation in schools: stakeholders
bring their own beliefs and experiences to policy implementation (Menken &
What do stakeholders consider best?
131
García, 2010; Spillane et al., 2002), in particular because it is about language,
which is an ideologically charged matter (Deygers, 2020; Shohamy, 2006;
Spolsky, 2004), and with micro-politics permeating policy implementation
(Kelchtermans, 2007).
A more problematic finding, in terms of real-world implications, is that the
same viewpoints tend to be shared by stakeholders with a similar professional
role. Viewpoint 1 and 3 particularly represent an ‘outsider’ perspective, as mostly
school-external stakeholders load significantly on these factors. Both groups of
stakeholders agree that teachers’ language instruction should improve
substantially, and perceive this as something that schools must and can commit
to themselves. Overall, these viewpoints reflect a dichotomy between policy
enactment and policy implementation (Fischer, Miller, & Sidney, 2006), with
implementation being considered mainly the responsibility of schools. The
viewpoints slightly differ in terms of what seems the best strategy for
implementing an SLP, which may reflect the different stakeholders’ professional
role. Participants adhering to viewpoint 3 (mostly external stakeholders working
at official instances) think it is best to plan accordingly, and therefore emphasize
most schools’ lack of policy-making capability (Sleegers, Thoonen, Oort, &
Peetsma, 2014; Vanhoof, Petegem, Verhoeven, & Buvens, 2009) as a problem.
Participants with viewpoint 1, in contrast, believe it is best to create a
collaborative environment within schools and to launch professionalization
initiatives for SLP to be successful. Their perception of SLP strongly coincides
with Lave & Wenger's (1991) idea of communities of practice, which overlaps
with the policy intention (Wright, 2007). These stakeholders mainly criticize
teaching for being an isolated practice, thereby referring to educational research
(Kelchtermans, 2006; Vangrieken, Dochy, Raes, & Kyndt, 2015). Instead, schools
should build professional capital, as teacher collaboration strengthens teacher
knowledge and consequently leads to school improvement (Hargreaves & Fullan,
2012).
Whereas respondents with viewpoint 1 or 3 perceive teachers and
principals as not (yet) doing their best effort to implement an SLP, the majority
of the local actors themselves report that they are willing and trying to
implement an SLP. Teachers and principals loaded significantly on the second or
Chapter 4
132
fourth viewpoint, which thus mainly convey insiders’ notions on SLP
implementation. Most participants share viewpoint 2. They are convinced that
changes are needed, but in a slightly different way than the official policy texts
intend. The changes that are needed involve more than the improvement of
teaching practices: they are also about embracing diversity and tolerating
student home languages (Blommaert & Van Avermaet, 2008). This viewpoint
illustrates a notion of language policy consisting of management, beliefs and
current practices (Spolsky, 2004). In order to do that, school teams need support,
and a sense of ownership. If not, teachers will ‘over-assimilate’, and they will
‘interpret new ideas within their existing frameworks and so make only
superficial changes to practice when much deeper changes are required’ (Muijs
et al., 2014, p. 248). Teachers have their own ideas about what constitutes good
language teaching (Kelchtermans, 2007), which are related to their view of the
concept of language (Jaspaert, 2015) and diversity (Blommaert & Van Avermaet,
2008), and these ideas can be quite persistent and difficult to change (Heine,
Proulx, & Vohs, 2006; Mueller & Walqui, 2018).
Viewpoint 4, on the contrary, shows a different framing of SLP which is in
sharp contrast with the other viewpoints, as it conveys a notion of resistance. It
is shared by a limited number of teachers who are not convinced that something
has to change – or at least not in all schools and perhaps not via an SLP. These
teachers – who work in contexts with either a high, average or low number of
socio-ethnically diverse students – do not feel a sense of urge to implement an
SLP: “if schools say we don't need it, everything is going well at our school, we
don't need an extra policy, why would they enforce it?” (Stud16, teacher). Instead
of viewing SLP as a supportive means to promote student language development
for which they, too, can have ownership and can take up responsibility, they
perceive SLP as a control mechanism adopted by their head teacher. Contextual
school characteristics such as school climate and leadership may affect teachers’
interpretations (Ball et al., 2012), but personal attributes will most likely predict
the viewpoint of these teachers (Bridwell-Mitchell & Sherer, 2016). Contrary to
the other viewpoints, which prioritize the competence to use language, this
viewpoint emphasizes accuracy and the use of standardized Dutch; deviations
are considered as errors indicative of reduced proficiency (Blommaert & Van
What do stakeholders consider best?
133
Avermaet, 2008). This interpretation reveals monolingual and ‘language as
structure’ ideologies similar to Flemish teachers in other studies (e.g., Agirdag,
Jordens, & Van Houtte, 2014; Pulinx, Van Avermaet, & Agirdag, 2017).
Conclusion
This study indicates that different opinions exist on whether and how SLP should
be implemented in order to contribute to student language achievement and
teaching. Moreover, our findings reveal a strong overlap in interpretations
between stakeholders who share a similar professional role, revealing an insider
versus outsider perspective. In other words, the viewpoints of vertical and
external stakeholders, who are either the ones that issue the policy and evaluate
policy implementation, or guide schools in implementing SLP, are different from
the viewpoints of internal stakeholders, who have the task to actually implement
the policy. These differences in interpretation can well explain why school-based
language policies are often not well implemented.
Due to the exploratory nature of this study, the number of participants
representing the different groups of stakeholders was limited. In order to
ascertain whether the viewpoints are significantly different across groups, we
would need to repeat the study with a larger sample size (Watts & Stenner, 2012).
Notwithstanding this need for further research, our findings do present first
insights into the experiences that different stakeholders have with SLP
implementation. To our knowledge, it is the first study to systematically assess
different stakeholder interpretations of SLP as an overt policy measure.
Implications and recommendations are discussed in Chapter 6.
Chapter 4
134
References
Agirdag, O. (2010). Exploring bilingualism in a monolingual school system:
Insights from Turkish and native students from Belgian schools. British
Journal of Sociology of Education, 31(3), 307–321.
Agirdag, O., Jordens, K., & Van Houtte, M. (2014). Speaking Turkish in Belgian
Primary Schools: Teacher Beliefs versus Effective Consequences. Bilig, 70,
7–28.
Agirdag, O., Loobuyck, P., & Van Houtte, M. (2012). Determinants of Attitudes
Toward Muslim Students Among Flemish Teachers: A Research Note.
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 51(2), 368–376.
Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., & Braun, A. (2012). How schools do policy : policy
enactments in secondary schools. Routledge.
Blommaert, J. (2011). The long language-ideological debate in Belgium. Journal
of Multicultural Discourses, 6(3), 241–256.
Blommaert, J., & Van Avermaet, P. (2008). Taal, onderwijs, en de samenleving: De
kloof tussen beleid en realiteit. Berchem: EPO.
Bridwell-Mitchell, E., & Sherer, D. (2016). Institutional complexity and policy
implementation: how underlying logics drive teacher interpretations of
reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39(2), 223–247.
Brown, S. (1980). Political Subjectivity. Applications of Q methodology in political
science. New Haven/London: Yale University Press.
Burns, T., & Köster, F. (2016). Governing Education in a Complex World. Paris.
Cherney, A., Povey, J., Head, B., Boreham, P., & Ferguson, M. (2012). What
influences the utilisation of educational research by policy-makers and
practitioners?: The perspectives of academic educational researchers.
International Journal of Educational Research, 56, 23–34.
Coburn, C. E., & Woulfin, S. L. (2012). Reading coaches and the relationship
between policy and practice. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(1), 5–30.
Corson, D. (1990). Language policy across the curriculum. Clevedon/Bristol:
Multilingual Matters.
Crevits, H. (2014). Beleidsnota 2014-2019 Onderwijs. Brussel.
What do stakeholders consider best?
135
Delarue, S. (2016). Bridging the policy-practice gap. How Flemish teachers’
standard language perceptions navigate between monovarietal policy and
multivarietal practice. Gent: Ghent University. PhD Dissertation.
Deygers, B. (2020). Advocating an empirically-founded university admission
policy. A case study. Submitted to Language Policy.
Elbers, E. (2012). Iedere les een taalles? Taalvaardigheid en vakonderwijs in het
(V)MBO. De stand van zaken in theorie en onderzoek. Utrecht.
Fischer, F., Miller, G. J., & Sidney, M. S. (2006). Handbook of Public Policy Analysis:
Theory, Politics, and Methods (1st ed.). London: Routledge.
Flemish Inspectorate. (2015). Onderwijsspiegel 2015. Jaarlijks rapport van de
Onderwijsinspectie. Brussels.
Flemish Inspectorate. (2019). Onderwijsspiegel 2019. Brussels.
Galdames, V., & Gaete, R. (2010). Chilean literacy education policies and
classroom implementation. In K. Menken & O. García (Eds.), Negotiating
Language Policies in Schools (pp. 232–246). New York: Routledge.
Graham, S. (2019). Changing how writing is taught. Review of Research in
Education, 43(1), 277–303.
Hajer, M., & Meestringa, T. (2015). Handboek taalgericht vakonderwijs (3rd ed.).
Bussum: Uitgeverij Coutinho.
Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional capital. Transforming teaching in
every school. Taylor & Francis.
Heine, S., Proulx, T., & Vohs, K. (2006). The meaning maintenance model: on the
coherence of social motivations. Personality and Social Psychology Review,
10(2), 88–110.
Hélot, C. (2010). Tu sais bien parler maîtresse! Negotiating languages other than
French in the primary classroom in France. In K. Menken & O. García
(Eds.), Negotiating Language Policies in Schools (pp. 52–71). New York:
Routledge.
Hornberger, N. H., & Johnson, D. C. (2007). Language policies and TESOL:
perspectives from practice. TESOL Quarterly, 41(3), 509–532.
Jaspaert, K. (2015). Creating quarter for doing things with language. European
Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3(1), 21–45.
Chapter 4
136
Johnson, D. C., & Johnson, E. J. (2015). Power and agency in language policy
appropriation. Language Policy, 14, 221–243.
Johnson, D. C., Stephens, C., Johnston Nelson, J., & Johnson, E. (2018). Violating
Lau: Sheltered English Instruction programs and equal educational
opportunity. Journal of Education Policy, 33(4), 488–509.
Kelchtermans, G. (2006). Teacher collaboration and collegiality as workplace
conditions. A review. Zeitschrift Für Pädagogik, 25(2), 220–237.
Kelchtermans, G. (2007). Macropolitics caught up in micropolitics: the case of the
policy on quality control in Flanders (Belgium). Journal of Education
Policy, 22(4), 471–491.
Kelchtermans, G. (2009). Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice Who I am
in how I teach is the message: self-understanding, vulnerability and
reflection. Teaching and Teachers: Theory and Practice, 15(2), 257–272.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral
participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Liddicoat, A. J., Scarino, A., & Kohler, M. (2018). The impact of school structures
and cultures on change. Curriculum Perspectives, 38, 3–13.
Lo Bianco, J. (2015). Exploring language problems through Q-sorting. In F. Hult &
D. Johnson (Eds.), Research Methods in Language Policy and Planning (pp.
69–80). West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Lo Bianco, J. (2018). Language Planning and Policies for Bilingualism. In A. De
Houwer & L. Ortega (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Bilingualism (pp.
152–172). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lo Bianco, J., & Aliani, R. (2013). Language planning and student experiences.
Intention, rhetoric and implementation. Bristol/Buffalo/Toronto:
Multilingual Matters.
McLaughlin, M. W. (2006). Implementation research in education: lessons
learned, lingering questions and new opportunities. In M. Honig (Ed.), New
directions in education policy implementation. Confronting complexity (pp.
209–228). New York: State University of New York Press.
Menken, K., & Garcia, O. (2010). Negotiating language policies in schools :
educators as policymakers. Routledge.
What do stakeholders consider best?
137
Mueller, P., & Walqui, A. (2018). Language Education Policy and Practice in the
U.S.: Emerging Efforts to Expand All Teachers’ Understanding About
Language Development and Learning. In Language Policy and Acquisition
Planning (pp. 111–133). Springer.
Muijs, D., Kyriakides, L., Van Der Werf, G., Creemers, B., Timperley, H., & Earl, L.
(2014). State of the art-teacher effectiveness and professional learning.
School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 25(2), 231–256.
OECD. (2015). Education Policy Outlook 2015 Making reforms happen. OECD
Publishing.
Padmos, T., & Van den Berge, W. (2009). Het verschil maken. Gelijke kansen in
beroeps- en technisch secundair onderwijs in Vlaanderen. Leuven.
Pulinx, R., Van Avermaet, P., & Agirdag, O. (2017). Silencing linguistic diversity:
the extent, the determinants and consequences of the monolingual beliefs
of Flemish teachers. International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism, 20(5), 542–556.
Ricento, T. K., & Hornberger, N. H. (1996). Unpeeling the Onion: Language
Planning and Policy and the ELT Professional Author. TESOL Quarterly,
30(3), 401–427.
Schmolck, P. (2014). PQMethod. Retrieved from
http://schmolck.org/qmethod/pqmanual.htm.
Shohamy, E. (2006). Language Policy: Hidden Agendas and New Approaches.
Oxon/New York: Routledge.
Sleegers, P. J. C., Thoonen, E. E. J., Oort, F. J., & Peetsma, T. T. D. (2014). Changing
classroom practices: the role of school-wide capacity for sustainable
improvement. Journal of Educational Administration, 52(5), 617–652.
Smet, P. (2011). Samen taalgrenzen verleggen. Brussel.
Spillane, J. P., Hopkins, M., & Sweet, T. M. (2002). Intra-and Interschool
Interactions about Instruction: Exploring the Conditions for Social Capital
Development. American Journal of Education, 122, 71–110.
Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy Implementation and
Cognition: Reframing and Refocusing Implementation Research. Review of
Educational Research, 72(3), 387–431.
Spolsky, B. (2004). Language policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chapter 4
138
Spolsky, B. (2017). Language Policy and Political Issues in Education. In T.
McCarty & S. May (Eds.), Language Policy and Political Issues in Education
(pp. 3–16). Springer International Publishing.
Stephens, C., & Johnson, D. C. (2015). ‘ Good teaching for all students ?’: sheltered
instruction programming in Washington state language policy. Language
and Education, 29(1), 31–45.
Strobbe, L., Van Der Wildt, A., Van Avermaet, P., Van Gorp, K., Van den Branden,
K., & Van Houtte, M. (2017). How school teams perceive and handle
multilingualism: The impact of a school’s pupil composition. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 64, 93–104.
Van den Branden, K. (2010). Handboek taalbeleid lager onderwijs. Leuven: Acco.
Van den Branden, K. (2017). Taalbeleid in Vlaamse basisscholen: terugblik,
balans en vooruitblik. In Jaspaert, K., & C., Frijns, Taal leren. Van kleuters
tot volwassenen (pp. 79–100). Leuven: Lannoo Campus.
Vandenbroucke, F. (2007). De lat hoog voor talen in iedere school. Goed voor de
sterken, sterk voor de zwakken. Brussels.
Vangrieken, K., Dochy, F., Raes, E., & Kyndt, E. (2015). Teacher collaboration: A
systematic review. Educational Research Review, 15, 17–40.
Vanhoof, J., Petegem, P. Van, Verhoeven, J. C., & Buvens, I. (2009). Linking the
Policymaking Capacities of Schools and the Quality of School Self-
evaluations The View of School Leaders. Educational Management
Administration & Leadership, 37(5), 667–686.
Varghese, M. M. (2008). Using Cultural Models to Unravel How Bilingual Teachers
Enact Language Policies. Language and Education, 22(5), 289–306.
Viennet, R., & Pont, B. (2017). Education Policy Implementation. Paris: OECD.
Watts, S., & Stenner, P. (2012). Doing Q methodological research. Theory, Method
and Interpretation. London: Sage Publications.
Wiley, T. G., & García, O. (2016). Language Policy and Planning in Language
Education: Legacies, Consequences, and Possibilities. The Modern
Language Journal, 100(1), 48–63.
Woulfin, S. L. (2016). Vehicles of Logics: The role of policy documents and
instructional materials in reform. Educational Research for Policy and
Practice, 15(2), 793–815.
What do stakeholders consider best?
139
Wright, N. (2007). Building Literacy Communities of Practice Across Subject
Disciplines in Secondary Schools. Language and Education, 21(5), 420–
433.
141
Chapter 5
Summary & discussion of the results
All schools in Flanders are mandated to implement a school-based language
policy in order to enhance students’ proficiency in Dutch, the language of
instruction. To date, little empirical evidence is available on how schools
implement their SLP, and whether it enhances language teaching and learning.
This dissertation investigated whether schools manage to implement a policy
that effectively promotes student language development. This chapter provides
a short summary of the results of the empirical studies. The strengths, limitations
and recommendations of the studies will be discussed in the next chapter.
SLP, good for the strong, strong for the weak?
The first two chapters explored the effectiveness of SLP implementation. The first
chapter reported on a quantitative multilevel study in which indicators of SLP
implementation in 28 primary schools were related to the reading outcomes of
around 3000 students in first, third and sixth grade. Results indicate that some
SLP indicators are significantly positively related to students’ technical reading
performances. Lower-grade pupils performed better on tests measuring reading
decoding skills in schools with more reflective capacity on language instruction
than pupils in schools with less reflective capacity on language instruction. SLP
seems less present. By contrast, no significant relationships between other
indicators of SLP and decoding skills, and between SLP and student reading
comprehension skills were found. In addition, SLP was not found to be
differentially effective for pupils with a different language background or low
SES. In sum, this study does not provide strong evidence that SLP implementation
enhances all students’ Dutch language proficiency. We hypothesize that either
SLP is not effective as a measure to promote more complex language skills, that
it is not implemented effectively within schools (Fixsen, Naoom, Blase, Friedman,
Chapter 5
142
& Wallace, 2005), or that it was not measured adequately in this study (cf. Hill,
Charalambous, & Kraft, 2012).
In order to further explore these findings, Chapter 2 looked closer into the
configuration of school-based SLP. Qualitative data were collected in a subsample
of six schools from the first study. Focus group interviews were conducted with
the SLP policy making team and teachers, and were supplemented with an
analysis of policy documents, class observations and focus groups with pupils
(Miles & Huberman, 2014). Insights from EER on what constitutes effective
general school policies were used to score the quality of the SLP of the 6 schools
(Kyriakides, Creemers, Antoniou, & Demetriou, 2010; Reynolds et al., 2014). The
results of this study confirm the hypotheses put forward in Chapter 1. School
teams take several measures to implement an SLP, but only one out of six schools
managed to implement an SLP that can be identified as ‘effective’, in line with the
available empirical evidence on educational effectiveness (Kyrkiakides et al.,
2010). The SLPs that schools implement are likely to foster student foundational
language skills such as reading decoding and vocabulary knowledge, but they
probably do not address complex language skills such as reading comprehension
or writing to the same degree. The perceived complexity of promoting more
complex language skills provides one explanation of this outcome and is also
reported in other studies examining innovation in language education (e.g.,
Graham, 2019). The school management teams, which function as the policy
initiators in all schools, were found to struggle with teacher autonomy. Teachers
were only partly involved in the policy making process. Teachers, in turn, mainly
interpret SLP as something additional to their current practice, and not
something that is to replace traditional teaching practices. A final explanation for
these findings corroborates the conclusion of many studies on language
education policy, which is that educators’ beliefs about language and
multilingualism, too, complicate the implementation process (e.g., Galdames &
Gaete, 2010; Harklau & Yang, 2020; Johnson & Johnson, 2015).
Since the schools in this study also participated in study 1, data were
available on student language performances. Our results indicate that schools
that are ineffective at promoting student language development (based on sixth-
graders’ reading comprehension performances) did not manage to design and
Summary and discussion of the results
143
implement a strategic SLP – their policies mainly exist on paper, or within the
rooms of policy management teams. Yet, the opposite might not be true: we could
not find a one-on-one relationship between effective SLP implementation and
effective student language development. Other practices and individual effective
teachers seem to play a substantial role, in line with previous studies indicating
that teachers are the final arbiters of policy (Hornberger & Johnson, 2007;
Menken & Garcia, 2010). It is important to note, however, that we cannot infer
causal relationships from our data. It may also be the case that the effect of SLP
on student achievement is reciprocal, with higher performances leading to a
more strategic use of school autonomy (De Grauwe, 2005; Muijs, Harris,
Chapman, Stoll, & Russ, 2004).
Overall, the first two chapters confirm that increased school autonomy
does not necessarily lead to school improvement, which has also been reported
in other studies (e.g., Franck & Nicaise, 2018; Fullan & Watson, 2000; Hanushek,
Link, & Woessmann, 2013). We hypothesized that SLP may require too much of
a change from most schools, as traditional language teaching (with a main focus
on basic skills and frontal teaching) and isolated teaching are still widely
prevalent in most schools (AHOVOKS, 2019; De Smedt, Van Keer, & Merchie,
2016; Graham, 2019). Our findings corroborate the conclusion of May (2007, p.
402) about the implementation of whole-school literacy policies in secondary
schools in New Zealand that ‘alongside knowledge of effective language and
literacy instruction, schools need knowledge of sustainable change management
and leadership, and of the school organization and culture’ (see also März,
Gaikhorst, Mioch, Weijers, & Geijsel, 2017). Furthermore, our results confirm the
findings of previous research conducted in multilingual school settings, which
indicate that language education policies are continuously interpreted and
negotiated at all levels (Menken & Garcia, 2010; Shohamy, 2006). Regardless of
school language policy, individual teachers also look for ways to continuously
adjust their practice to their students’ linguistic needs. In other words, effectively
implemented strategic SLPs may help to improve education, but schools without
a strategic SLP are not necessarily ineffective. However, this may become a
problem when effective individual teachers leave the school (Hargreaves &
Fullan, 2012).
Chapter 5
144
Conditions affecting SLP implementation: every school an SLP?
For a language education policy issued by governments to lead to system-wide
improvements in language education, all schools need to be able to successfully
implement the policy (Teddlie & Reynolds, 2000). However, a vast amount of
studies, both in the language education policy literature and the general
education policy literature indicates that policy implementation is often uneven
across different schools (Honig, 2006; Chapter 2). For instance, the Flemish
Inspectorate (2015) noticed that schools with a more socio-ethnically diverse
student population more often develop an SLP than schools that are less diverse.
The third chapter examined what role the school context plays in SLP
implementation. The study adopted a mixed-method design by combining
quantitative survey data collected in the 28 schools from Chapter 1 with
qualitative data collected in a subsample of six schools (Chapter 2). The results
indicate that student socio-ethnic composition indeed is a major driver for school
teams to implement an SLP, revealing a deficit perspective: school teams feel the
‘need’ to implement an SLP in order to compensate for their students’ low
language and literacy skills. Apart from student composition, average teacher
experience and school size seemed to influence the implementation of an SLP. Of
course, not all differences between schools could be explained by the school
contextual factors included in this study; school cultural aspects such as teacher
informal relationships and school leadership are likely to be important
predictors as well (März et al., 2017; Valckx, Vanderlinde, & Devos, 2020).
These findings nevertheless resonate with the conclusions of several
other qualitative studies that investigate the implementation of innovative
teaching practices and evidence-based programs, and that indicate that diversity
in implementation is the norm rather than the exception (e.g., Ball, Maguire, &
Braun, 2012; Johnson, Stephens, Johnston Nelson, & Johnson, 2018; Liddicoat,
Scarino, & Kohler, 2018; Menken & Solorza, 2014; Ruys, Van Keer, & Aelterman,
2014; Samuda, Van den Branden, & Bygate, 2018). This implies that some schools
experience a stronger need to implement the policy (Viennet & Pont, 2017), and
that for some schools, it is easier to implement an SLP than for others (e.g., Van
der Wildt, Van Avermaet, & Van Houtte, 2017). This also implies that different
Summary and discussion of the results
145
strategies and tailored (external) school support may be needed in order to
improve language instruction in different school contexts (Honig, 2006; Hopkins,
Stringfield, Harris, Stoll, & Mackay, 2014). It seems to be an illusion that merely
giving schools the autonomy to tailor the policy to their local needs will be
sufficient.
Stakeholder experiences with SLP: what do they think is best?
As SLP implementation, much like other policy implementations, is uneven
across different contexts, chapter 4 examined what stakeholders involved in the
implementation of SLP believe is necessary for SLP to contribute to student
language achievement. Previous studies emphasize that language policy
implementation is a multi-layered process that is constantly interpreted and
appropriated as it travels through different layers of the education system,
because different stakeholders bring their own beliefs and experiences into the
process (Menken & Garcia, 2010; Ricento & Hornberger, 1996). The studies
conducted so far have primarily examined teacher interpretations and
implementation of language education policy, since teachers are the final arbiters
of language policy, and mainly adopt a qualitative approach (Harklau & Yang,
2020; Johnson et al., 2018; Menken & García, 2017). There are, however, many
more stakeholders involved in the implementation process (Burns & Köster,
2016), and qualitative results cannot be easily generalized to other contexts. This
study therefore included different groups of stakeholders at different layers of
the policy process (Ricento & Hornberger, 1996), and adopted a mixed-method
approach.
A Q-study (Brown, 1980; Lo Bianco, 2015) was conducted in order to
unravel the implicit beliefs of stakeholders regarding SLP implementation. Four
viewpoints were identified: there are those who are convinced that the solution
to bridge the gap between SLP intention and execution lies in engaging teachers
to collectively improve their practices; those that believe that it is necessary for
school teams to follow a detailed roadmap; those who think it is key to provide
these teams with extensive support in order to substantially shift teachers’
Chapter 5
146
mental models of language and language learning; and, finally, a limited number
of respondents who question the overall logic of the policy.
The most striking result of our analysis is that the framing and
interpretation of the policy is substantially different for actors that have the task
to either guide or evaluate schools on the one hand, and actors that have to
implement the policy in their everyday practices on the other hand. While
interpretations of the policy are rather uniform within stakeholder groups
(Honig, 2006), and clearly reflect their professional background, no full
agreement exists across groups on how best to implement an SLP, and what its
function in schools should be. These differences in interpretation may provide an
additional explanation of why school-based language policies are often not well
implemented (cf. also Edgerton & Desimone, 2019; Levin, 2008). This outcome
shows that it is important to involve different stakeholders in future
policymaking (Lo Bianco, 2015; 2018), and to intensify their mutual dialog, as
they all shape policy implementation by bringing their own experiences and
beliefs (Spillane, Reiser, & Reimer, 2002). Implications for policy and practice are
discussed in the next chapter.
Summary and discussion of the results
147
References
AHOVOKS. (2019). Peiling Nederlands. Lezen, luisteren en schrijven in het
basisonderwijs. Brussel.
Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., & Braun, A. (2012). How schools do policy : policy
enactments in secondary schools. Routledge.
Brown, S. (1980). Political Subjectivity. Applications of Q methodology in political
science. New Haven/London: Yale University Press.
Burns, T., & Köster, F. (2016). Governing Education in a Complex World. Paris:
OECD Publishing.
De Grauwe, A. (2005). Improving the Quality of Education through School-Based
Management: Learning from International Experiences. International
Review of Education, 51(4), 269–287.
De Smedt, F., Van Keer, H., & Merchie, E. (2016). Student, teacher and class-level
correlates of Flemish late elementary school children’s writing
performance. Reading and Writing, 29, 833–868.
Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005).
Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. Tampa, Florida.
Flemish Inspectorate. (2015). Onderwijsspiegel 2015. Brussels.
Franck, E., & Nicaise, I. (2018). Ongelijkheden in het Vlaamse onderwijssysteem:
verbetering in zicht? Een vergelijking van PISA 2003 en 2015. Gent.
Fullan, M., & Watson, N. (2000). School-Based Management: Reconceptualizing
to Improve Learning Outcomes. School Effectiveness and School
Improvement, 11(4), 453–473.
Galdames, V., & Gaete, R. (2010). Chilean literacy education policies and
classroom implementation. In K. Menken & O. García (Eds.), Negotiating
Language Policies in Schools (pp. 232–246). New York: Routledge.
Graham, S. (2019). Changing how writing is taught. Review of Research in
Education, 43(1), 277–303.
Hanushek, E. A., Link, S., & Woessmann, L. (2013). Does school autonomy make
sense everywhere? Panel estimates from PISA. Journal of Development
Economics, 104, 212–232.
Chapter 5
148
Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional capital. Transforming teaching in
every school. Taylor & Francis.
Harklau, L., & Yang, A. H. (2020). Educators’ construction of mainstreaming policy
for English learners: a decision-making theory perspective. Language
Policy, 19, 87–110.
Hill, H. C., Charalambous, C. Y., & Kraft, M. A. (2012). When rater reliability is not
enough: teacher observation systems and a case for the generalizability
study. Educational Researcher, 41(2), 56–64.
Honig, M. (2006). New directions in education policy implementation. New York:
State University of New York Press.
Hopkins, D., Stringfield, S., Harris, A., Stoll, L., & Mackay, T. (2014). School and
system improvement: a narrative state-of-the-art review. School
Effectiveness and School Improvement, 25(2), 257–281.
Hornberger, N. H., & Johnson, D. C. (2007). Language policies and TESOL:
perspectives from practice. TESOL Quarterly, 41(3), 509–532.
Johnson, D. C., & Johnson, E. J. (2015). Power and agency in language policy
appropriation. Language Policy, 14, 221–243.
Johnson, D. C., Stephens, C., Johnston Nelson, J., & Johnson, E. (2018). Violating
Lau: Sheltered English Instruction programs and equal educational
opportunity. Journal of Education Policy, 33(4), 488–509.
Kyriakides, L., Creemers, B., Antoniou, P., & Demetriou, D. (2010). A synthesis of
studies searching for school factors: implications for theory and research.
British Educational Research Journal, 36(5), 807–830.
Liddicoat, A. J., Scarino, A., & Kohler, M. (2018). The impact of school structures
and cultures on change. Curriculum Perspectives, 38, 3–13.
Lo Bianco, J. (2015). Ethical dilemmas and language policy (LP) advising. In P. De
Costa (Ed.), Ethics in Applied Linguistics Research: Language Researcher
Narratives (pp. 83–100). Routledge.
Lo Bianco, J. (2018). Language Planning and Policies for Bilingualism. In A. De
Houwer & L. Ortega (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Bilingualism (pp.
152–172). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Summary and discussion of the results
149
März, V., Gaikhorst, L., Mioch, R., Weijers, D., & Geijsel, F. (2017). Van acties naar
interacties. Een overzichtsstudie naar de rol van professionele netwerken bij
duurzame onderwijsvernieuwing. Amsterdam/Diemen.
May, S. (2007). Sustaining Effective Literacy Practices Over Time in Secondary
Schools: School Organisational and Change Issues. Language and
Education, 21(5), 387–405.
Menken, K., & Garcia, O. (2010). Negotiating language policies in schools :
educators as policymakers. Routledge.
Menken, K., & García, O. (2017). Language Policy in Classrooms and Schools. In T.
McCarthy & S. May (Eds.), Language Policy and Political Issues in Education
(pp. 211–225). Cham: Springer.
Menken, K., & Solorza, C. (2014). No Child Left Bilingual: Accountability and the
Elimination of Bilingual Education Programs in New York City Schools.
Educational Policy, 28(1), 96–125.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded
sourcebook. SAGE.
Muijs, D., Harris, A., Chapman, C., Stoll, L., & Russ, J. (2004). Improving Schools in
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Areas-A Review of Research Evidence.
School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 15(2), 149–175.
Reynolds, D., Sammons, P., De Fraine, B., Damme, J. Van, Townsend, T., Teddlie, C.,
& Stringfield, S. (2014). Educational effectiveness research (EER): a state-
of-the-art review. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 25(2),
197–230.
Ricento, T. K., & Hornberger, N. H. (1996). Unpeeling the Onion: Language
Planning and Policy and the ELT Professional Author. TESOL Quarterly,
30(3), 401–427.
Ruys, I., Van Keer, H., & Aelterman, A. (2014). Student and novice teachers’ stories
about collaborative learning implementation. Teachers and Teaching,
20(6), 688–703.
Samuda, V., Van den Branden, K., & Bygate, M. (2018). TBLT as a researched
pedagogy. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing
Company.
Chapter 5
150
Shohamy, E. (2006). Language Policy: Hidden Agendas and New Approaches.
Oxon/New York: Routledge.
Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy Implementation and
Cognition: Reframing and Refocusing Implementation Research. Review of
Educational Research, 72(3), 387–431.
Teddlie, C., & Reynolds, D. (2000). The international handbook of school
effectiveness research. Falmer Press.
Valckx, J., Vanderlinde, R., & Devos, G. (2020). Departmental PLCs in secondary
schools: the importance of transformational leadership, teacher
autonomy, and teachers’ self-efficacy. Educational Studies, 46(3), 282–
301.
Van der Wildt, A., Van Avermaet, P., & Van Houtte, M. (2017). Opening up towards
children’s languages: enhancing teachers’ tolerant practices towards
multilingualism. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 28(1), 136–
152.
Viennet, R., & Pont, B. (2017). Education Policy Implementation. OECD Publishing.
151
Chapter 6
Limitations, implications and recommendations
The goal of this research project was to examine what empirical evidence
there is to support the claim that the implementation of a school-based
language policy enhances student language development when
implemented at scale. This chapter first discusses the strengths and
limitations of the studies reported in this dissertation. Next, it elaborates
on the implications for policy and practice. The chapter concludes with
some recommendations for further research.
Strengths and limitations of this study
SLP effects on student language achievement
This dissertation was the first to document and explore in depth the efforts of
Flemish mainstream, government-subsidized school teams to implement an SLP
and to examine the impact of SLP on student language performance (Berthele,
2019; Corson, 1990).
In the first chapter, we reported on a cross-sectional study aiming to
examine the link between SLP and student language achievement. The choice for
this design made it possible to establish more stable effects of SLP, i.e., effects that
are valid for more than a single grade. Longitudinal data, however, could have
provided even more valuable information regarding the policy’s impact on
learning gains. Diverse schools were overrepresented in our sample; yet these
schools are the schools that implement an SLP more often (cf. Chapter 3).
We also noted some difficulties with examining SLP by means of
questionnaires. The SLP configurations that are reported in chapter 2 seem to
confirm that educators’ responses to the surveys may not have been entirely
‘truthful’ to their school’s actual situation: in all schools that participated in the
Chapter 6
152
multiple case study, educators had reported similar SLP perceptions. In practice,
however, there were large differences in the actual SLP implementation in the
schools. This finding seems to indicate that using questionnaires to examine
school effects provides only partial insight into what really happens in schools
and classrooms. Case studies such as the one in chapter 2, in contrast, can provide
more fine-grained insight into the quality of the enacted policy, yet may lack
generalizability (cf. infra). A mixed-method approach could be a fruitful
alternative. Lastly, we only included reading performances as outcome variables.
We made this choice because reading is considered one of the most important
skills students acquire at school (Slavin, Lake, Davis, & Madden, 2011; Vaughn et
al., 2019), and because it is more feasible to administer reading tests in a large
number of schools. Previous studies also indicated that when it comes to
monitoring communicative language skills, schools mainly focus on reading
comprehension (Bonset & Braaksma, 2008; Vanbuel, Boderé, & Van Den
Branden, 2017). We are aware, however, that the impact of SLP on student
language achievement may have been underestimated because of this narrow
focus on reading.
Local experiences with SLP implementation
This dissertation is also a response to the call to investigate language policy
enactment at the local level by showing how language education policy plays out
in schools (Ball, Maguire, & Braun, 2012; Ricento & Hornberger, 1996). As Van
den Branden (2017) recently indicated, it has long been unclear what SLP is
really about, and how schools can effectively implement SLP in order to improve
the quality of their education. By zooming in on SLP implementation in real-
world school settings, and operationalizing SLP on the basis of empirical
evidence on what constitutes effective school policy (Kyriakides, Creemers,
Antoniou, & Demetriou, 2010; Kyriakides, Creemers, Antoniou, Demetriou, &
Charalambous, 2015), we gained new insights into the factors that affect its
implementation.
Limitations, implications and recommendations
153
Chapter 2 used qualitative research methods to explore how SLP plays out
in real-world school contexts, because qualitative data provide a more detailed
and contextualized insight into the topic. However, this implies that
extrapolation of these findings should be treated with caution. It is nevertheless
plausible that these findings also apply to other schools. Stakeholders operating
at different layers of the SLP implementation process indicate that few schools
manage to successfully implement an effective SLP (Chapter 4). The Inspectorate
also reported similar findings in an earlier report (Flemish Inspectorate, 2015),
and we found very similar patterns in a separate study that we conducted in six
secondary schools (Vanbuel, Vandommele & Van den Branden, forthcoming).
From an international perspective, Flemish schools are probably not the
exception. As Caldwell (1998, p. 14) concluded in his study on school-based
management in Australian schools, ‘few initiatives in school self-management
have been linked in a systematic way to what occurs in classrooms’. Given the
similarities with findings from studies examining general school improvement
(e.g., Muijs, Harris, Chapman, Stoll, & Russ, 2004; Viennet & Pont, 2017), and SLP
in particular (e.g., May & Wright, 2007), and that were conducted in contexts
outside Flanders, we believe that the insights this dissertation provides on
language policy implementation may be relevant to other contexts as well. Global
trends in education policy research indicate that schools are increasingly being
given the autonomy to design and implement their own school-based policies
(Grek, 2009; Neeleman, 2019; Sahlberg, 2016). In addition, education systems all
over the world aim to strengthen their language education (OECD, 2011);
current-day knowledge societies become increasingly demanding in terms of
their citizens’ language and literacy skills, and people are increasingly being
confronted with many different types of (written) information (Castles, Rastle, &
Nation, 2018; Cincinnato & De Meyer, 2013; Fadel, Bialik, & Trilling, 2015; Mullis,
Martin, & Sainsbury, 2016; Vanhooren, Pereira, & Bolhuis, 2017).
Chapter 6
154
The complexity of language policy implementation
By focusing on SLP and how it is implemented at the local level, this research
project showed how complex the implementation of SLP in real-world contexts
really is. In line with the sense-making perspective that is currently prevalent in
the educational policy implementation literature (cf. Coburn, David Pearson, &
Woulfin, 2010; Menken & Garcia, 2010; Spillane, Reiser, & Reimer, 2002), the
studies of chapter 2 and 3 show that uneven or failed policy implementation is
more often a matter of differences in interpretation than of resistance in
stakeholders. Policies are not just implemented or executed (e.g., Ball et al., 2012;
Harklau & Yang, 2020; Honig, 2006; Menken & Garcia, 2010; Viennet & Pont,
2017), even though stakeholders at higher levels sometimes seem to believe it is
(Chapter 4). The majority of the educational practitioners in our sample try their
best to implement an SLP, and to promote student language development, but
they struggle with how to effectively enhance language and literacy skills
(Chapter 2), encounter other structural or school contextual obstacles (Chapter
3), or interpret the intended school policy in different ways (Chapter 4). This
finding resonates with the findings from other recent studies on (language)
education policy and educational change (Fullan, 2015; März, Gaikhorst, Mioch,
Weijers, & Geijsel, 2017).
Longitudinal data could have provided a more dynamic perspective on
SLP implementation. One of the schools in our sample, for instance, recently took
the decision to ask students’ opinion on leisure time reading within the
framework of their renewed SLP, and another installed a new SLP coordinating
team. Depending on the school context or history, it might be more effective to
first start with promoting extracurricular activities in order to deal with
resistance from teachers, before passing on to changing teaching practices in the
classroom (Schleicher, 2014).
Limitations, implications and recommendations
155
Implications for policy and practice
Notwithstanding the above-mentioned methodological limitations and the need
for further research, this dissertation contributes to explaining policy-practice
gaps (Hudson, Hunter, & Peckham, 2019). It shows that, at least in the Flemish
context, there is no strong empirical evidence that SLP meets the overall policy
goal to improve language education and learning considerably when
implemented at scale.
Although this finding may not be surprising from a research perspective
(cf. Fixsen, Naoom, Blase, Friedman, & Wallace, 2005; Hanushek, Link, &
Woessmann, 2013; Sleegers, Thoonen, Oort, & Peetsma, 2014), our findings do
have a substantial real-world impact, as many students are not adequately
prepared to deal with the high language and literacy demands in education and
society (Mullis et al., 2016). Given the recent reported decrease in the reading
comprehension and literacy skills of Flemish students (AHOVOKS, 2019; De
Meyer et al., 2019; Kelly Tielemans, Vanlaar, Damme, & Fraine, 2019), and the
limited impact that the more general Equal Educational Opportunity policy has
on student achievement (Franck & Nicaise, 2018), this finding is a cause for major
concern.
Macro-level policies that vary widely at the local level and/or that do not
meet policy makers’ intended effects, have a high chance to be dismissed and
replaced by a new policy; a new policy is, however, not necessarily in the interest
of local actors, who may finally be getting ‘familiar’ with a certain policy when a
new one arrives (McDonnell & Weatherford, 2016; cf. also Chapter 4). Similarly,
there is a strong empirical basis for believing that an SLP can, when implemented
effectively, enhance student (language) achievement. There is evidence from
different fields (e.g., EER, SLI, applied linguistics) that school policies can
stimulate teacher learning and teacher commitment by stimulating them to
reflect upon their own beliefs and current practices, by providing possibilities to
work together to solve problems related to teaching, and through shared decision
making (e.g., Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012; Harris, 2011; Ruys, Van Keer, &
Aelterman, 2014; Sleegers et al., 2014). There is also some evidence from
Chapter 6
156
targeted SLP interventions that enhance student literacy development (e.g.,
McNaughton, Kuin Lai, & Hsiao, 2012).
Of course, it should be noted that SLP is only one of the policy measures
that are available to enhance student (language) achievement. Nevertheless, this
dissertation indicates that there are certain aspects related to SLP design and
implementation that need to be reconsidered and re-examined.
Recommendations for national policy design
One of the major problems this study has laid bare is that the Flemish
governmental, macro-level policy was overly optimistic in its expectations to
enhance students’ proficiency in Dutch, and to bridge the social achievement gap
(Franck & Nicaise, 2018; Hudson et al., 2019; Kyriakides, Creemers, &
Charalambous, 2018). Our study also indicates that the implementation of SLP is
uneven across educational settings because not all schools and/or educators feel
equally responsible (cf. chapter 3, 4).
A likely solution starts with a thorough analysis of the problem that the
policy intends to address (Hudson et al., 2019). Several (local) stakeholders seem
to link SLP particularly with multilingual students (Chapter 2, 3, 4; see also
Delarue, 2016; Flemish Inspectorate, 2015), which is not in line with the macro-
level policy’s intent. Given that the policy texts strongly emphasize the PISA
results of 2003 and the social achievement gap in education that national and
international assessments of student (language) performances reveal (De Meyer
et al., 2019; K. Tielemans, Vandenbroeck, Bellens, Van Damme, & De Fraine, 2017;
Van Avermaet, Van Houtte, & Van den Branden, 2011), this interpretation of the
policy is not surprising. Nevertheless, this framing of the policy problem provides
schools with few non-Dutch background pupils with an easy excuse not to
implement an SLP, while it directs other schools to focus primarily on these
students in restricted ways (cf. also Menken, 2013).
It probably does not help that different stakeholders with different tasks
in the policy implementation have different interpretations of the policy and how
it can contribute to student language development (cf. chapter 4). Since prior
Limitations, implications and recommendations
157
studies indicate that stakeholders at all layers have the power to either restrict,
enhance or modify the implementation of a macro-level policy (Giudici, 2020;
Johnson & Johnson, 2015; Shohamy, 2010), we believe that dialog is needed to
further align the different stakeholders’ perceptions of SLP (Levin, 2008). Top-
down attempts to change language policies of institutions ‘without the consent of
the affected parties will always be problematic’ (Ricento & Hornberger, 1996, p.
416). For local stakeholders, it is important that they too can build up ownership
of the policy (Fullan, 2015). Policy makers, in turn, need to be informed of the
research findings regarding policy implementation, a process which is not just a
linear sequence of stages (Fullan, 2015). Researchers and experts need to gain a
better understanding of how real-world policy-making and implementation
occurs in order to make concrete, feasible recommendations (Lo Bianco, 2015;
Tony Townsend, 2007; Vanderlinde & Braak, 2010). Communication through a
variety of channels with all relevant stakeholders can help to understand and
address the needs of everyone involved in the implementation process (Davis,
2014; Deygers, 2020; Lo Bianco, 2015). Different interpretations of policy are
unavoidable (Spillane et al., 2002), but discrepancies in policy interpretation can
seriously hamper its effectiveness (Edgerton & Desimone, 2019; Levin, 2008).
According to recent insights, policy implementation is best ‘planned’ in
policy design as well. From this perspective, policy implementation is not only
considered a responsibility for local actors; it is a combined responsibility of all
stakeholders involved. This implies that the policy implementation and
evaluation should be part of the design of the policy (Hudson et al., 2019).
Recommendations for policy implementation
The basic idea behind SLP implementation sounds pretty simple: school teams
have the autonomy and responsibility to collectively create the conditions
necessary to change didactics and pedagogical principles in the classroom,
because they are better equipped to do so; they are closer to their pupils, and are
thus better suited to address local needs. This study has showed, however, that
local actors do not always manage to do so.
Chapter 6
158
We will use Fullan’s (2015) framework of effective educational change to
discuss our recommendations for practice or policy enactment at the local level.
In order to bring about effective change in schools, there need to be 1) a clear
framework (what is the school-specific SLP about? What needs to change and in
what direction?), 2) incentives (why should we implement SLP?), and 3)
capacity-building (how can change be managed?).
A clear framework
As Fullan (2001, p. 36) indicates, ‘there is some evidence that projects with
greater definition and more specific implementation support strategies do better
at impacting student achievement’ (see also Durlak & DuPre, 2008). Moreover, if
schools are to be able to self-assess their performance of SLP, which is considered
key to successful implementation (Van den Branden, 2019; Viennet & Pont,
2017), it should be clear ‘what’ the problem is, ‘how’ it can be solved, and when
it is considered as ‘solved’ (cf. also policy design) (Hudson et al., 2019). It is
therefore important that schools set clear, specific, challenging but feasible goals,
which are stated in terms of student, teacher and school outcomes (Kotter, 2012;
Levin, 2008; Reezigt & Creemers, 2005). The actions they take should be aligned
with these goals, and with the school context (e.g., other policies, infrastructure,
partnerships) (Ball et al., 2012; Coburn, Hill, & Spillane, 2016; Viennet & Pont,
2017). In addition, it is important that schools create conditions in which
teachers feel safe to experiment and share their expertise with each other (Harris
& Jones, 2018; März et al., 2017). In order to promote language development in
pupils at risk of underachieving, it is particularly important that school teams
invest in building relationships of trust with parents and students (Salloum,
Goddard, & Berebitsky, 2018). The EER framework used in Chapter 2 can be a
starting point, as it illustrates that effective school policy is both about improving
language teaching and learning, and about creating a learning environment.
Limitations, implications and recommendations
159
Incentives
Commitment to educational improvement is an important prerequisite to
effective policy implementation (Fullan, 2015; Robinson, Mcnaughton, &
Timperley, 2011). Some stakeholders seem to interpret SLP as a policy that
primarily benefits mixed schools (Chapter 3, 4). One could argue that the same
policy does not necessarily need to apply to all schools (Meredith Honig, 2006).
Yet, even if SLP should apply only to schools with a high number of non-Dutch
background students and newcomers, a change in educators’ beliefs regarding
language and language teaching may still be needed (Jaspaert, 2015, 2017; Muijs
et al., 2014). Our study indicates that some educators interpret language from a
‘structure viewpoint’, which prioritizes uniformity, accuracy and linguistic
knowledge (i.e., basic skills) over language variation, communicative skills and
competence (Blommaert & Van Avermaet, 2008; Jaspaert, 2015). Other studies
also found indications that this view on language is widely prevalent in Flemish
schools and teachers (e.g., Delarue, 2016; Frijns, 2017; Pulinx, 2017), and in
contexts outside Flanders (e.g., Gogolin, 2002; Johnson & Johnson, 2015).
Language education that emerges from this perspective is likely to improve
students’ accuracy in Dutch, but can be expected to have less impact on
communicative competence (Hulstijn, 2005; Jaspaert, 2015; cf. also Vanbuel et
al., 2017).
What seems more important, then, is that local stakeholders become more
aware of their view on language and language learning, have access to evidence
that shows what works best in education practice, and gain insights into the
effects of their practices on student outcomes (Reynolds et al., 2014; Shohamy,
2006). This is particularly important for teachers, as all decisions of teachers in
terms of education (e.g., teachers deciding to use a certain teaching material or
spend time on certain subjects or competences) are all instances of language
policy (Lo Bianco, 2010; Menken & Garcia, 2010; Ricento & Hornberger, 1996).
Chapter 6
160
Capacity building
Autonomy without support is ineffective for school improvement (Fullan, 2015;
McLaughlin, 2006; Valckx, Vanderlinde, & Devos, 2020), especially when it
concerns the implementation of complex policies that challenge traditional
language teaching (Lorenzo & Trujillo, 2017; May, 2007). In addition, a change in
school structure and culture is deemed necessary (May & Wright, 2007);
implementing an SLP is also about creating collaborative environments (cf.
Vanblaere & Devos, 2016). Teaching, however, is still considered an isolated
practice in the majority of contemporary (Flemish) schools (Van Droogenbroeck
et al., 2019; Vangrieken, Dochy, Raes, & Kyndt, 2015).
Such changes require a strengthening of the policy-making capacity of
schools (Sleegers et al., 2014; Vanhoof & Van Petegem, 2017), and of the
dynamics that exist within school teams (März et al., 2017). In this respect,
Hargreaves & Fullan (2012) emphasize a school team’s decisional capital, or the
joint capacity of a team to make decisions in complex situations; changing
education requires effective and shared leadership, which involves vision and
team-building (Geijsel, Sleegers, Van Den Berg, & Kelchtermans, 2001; Van den
Branden, 2019). Some (if not most) schools may need extensive support that
includes more than one-shot training sessions taking place outside the school
building (e.g., Coburn & Woulfin, 2012; De Smet et al., 2019; Menken et al., 2018;
Darling-Hammond & Richardson, 2009; De Smet et al., 2019). Professional
learning communities across different schools could also provide an interesting
pathway for school improvement (Schelfhout, Sprangers, Vanthournout,
Lochten, & Buckinx, 2019; Vescio, Ross, & Adams, 2008), as schools can well
benefit from collaboration with other schools (Muijs, 2015; Prenger, Poortman,
& Handelzalts, 2020).
Recommendations for further research
Since each chapter already includes some recommendations for further research,
some more general recommendations will be discussed in what follows. Overall,
Limitations, implications and recommendations
161
this dissertation stresses the need to keep examining how language education
policies are implemented in schools and classrooms (cf. Ball et al., 2012;
Hornberger & Johnson, 2007; Menken & García, 2010). This study explored new
ways to do so by combining qualitative and quantitative data, and integrating
research methodologies and findings from adjacent research fields such as
educational effectiveness and school improvement (Kelchtermans, 2018;
Reynolds et al., 2014).
Since it was found in chapters 2 and 3 that SLP implementation is uneven
across school contexts, corroborating the findings from general policy
implementation in schools (e.g., Ball et al., 2012), a first recommendation for
further research is that we need more insight into ‘what works, when, for whom
and under what conditions?’ (Honig, 2006, p. 2). The small sample size of the
study detailed in Chapter 1 did not allow us to examine differential effectiveness
of SLP across school contexts; this might be an interesting research avenue. In
fact, one of the main critiques on EER is that school improvement researchers
have been too much focused on the ‘what’ in school improvement, whereas the
effects of certain policies might be different depending on the school context
(Creemers & Kyriakides, 2009; Hopkins, Stringfield, Harris, Stoll, & Mackay,
2014). We recommend future research to consider both school contextual (e.g.,
dynamics of team-building or leadership style) and teacher personal
characteristics to fully understand the complexity of policy implementation in
schools. As school policy is dynamic and always in a state of change (e.g., some
schools in our study recently adopted some ‘new strategies’ that might in fact
lead to a more successful change management in the near future) (Kyriakides et
al., 2015), future research would certainly benefit from a more longitudinal
approach. It could try to adopt a longitudinal mixed-method approach to see
whether certain types of SLP or certain SLP implementation processes are more
or less effective to bring about change in different contexts, and why that is the
case (cf. Schleicher, 2014). A longitudinal approach could also facilitate the
further exploration of the impact of SLP on school differential effectiveness for
students with different language and SES backgrounds (Kyriakides et al., 2018).
Additionally, future research should include a classroom- or teacher-level.
It could well be the case that SLP indicators have a larger indirect effect on
Chapter 6
162
student achievement via specific teaching practices (Kyriakides et al., 2010;
2015). Still, the assessment of teacher practices is considered a real challenge:
self-reported practices by teachers may be biased (e.g., De Smedt et al., 2016;
Sleegers et al., 2014; Chapter 1), pupil ratings of teacher effectiveness may be
influenced by teacher popularity (Bijlsma, van der Lans, & Donker, 2019; but see
De Jong & Westerhof, 2001), and observations conducted by researchers require
a well-defined observation system, which consists of multiple observations and
ratings (Hill, Charalambous, & Kraft, 2012). Future studies could try to
triangulate classroom observations conducted by researchers, student
perceptions of teacher effectiveness and self-reports of teachers (Bijlsma et al.,
2019).
Limitations, implications and recommendations
163
References
AHOVOKS. (2019). Peiling Nederlands. Lezen, luisteren en schrijven in het
basisonderwijs. Brussel.
Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., & Braun, A. (2012). How schools do policy : policy
enactments in secondary schools. Routledge.
Berthele, R. (2019). Policy recommendations for language learning: Linguists’
contributions between scholarly debates and pseudoscience. Journal of
the European Second Language Association, 3(1), 1–11.
Bijlsma, H., van der Lans, R., & Donker, M. (2019). De betrouwbaarheid en
validiteit van leerlingpercepties van leskwaliteit. In Onderwijs Research
Dagen. Heerlen.
Blommaert, J., & Van Avermaet, P. (2008). Taal, onderwijs, en de samenleving: De
kloof tussen beleid en realiteit. Berchem: EPO.
Bonset, H., & Braaksma, M. (2008). Het schoolvak Nederlands opnieuw onderzocht.
Een inventarisatie van onderzoek van 1997 tot en met 2007. Enschede: SLO.
Caldwell, B. J. (1998). Self-managing schools and improved learning outcomes.
Canberra: Department of Education.
Castles, A., Rastle, K., & Nation, K. (2018). Ending the Reading Wars: Reading
Acquisition From Novice to Expert. Psychological Science in the Public
Interest, 19(1), 5–51.
Cincinnato, S., & De Meyer, I. (2013). Vaardig genoeg voor de 21ste eeuw? De
eerste Vlaamse resultaten bij PIAAC. Gent.
Coburn, C. E., David Pearson, P., & Woulfin, S. (2010). Reading Policy in the Era of
Accountability. In Handbook of Reading Research, Volume IV. Routledge.
Coburn, C. E., Hill, H. C., & Spillane, J. P. (2016). Alignment and accountability in
policy design and implementation: The Common Core State Standards and
implementation research. Educational Researcher, 45(4), 243–251.
Corson, D. (1990). Language policy across the curriculum. Clevedon/Bristol:
Multilingual Matters.
Creemers, B., & Kyriakides, L. (2009). Situational effects of the school factors
included in the dynamic model of educational effectiveness. South African
Journal of Education, 29, 293-315.
Chapter 6
164
Darling-Hammond, L., & Richardson, N. (2009). Teacher Learning: What Matters?
Educational Leadership, 66(5), 46–53.
Davis, K. (2014). Engaged language policy and practices. Language Policy, 13, 83–
100.
De Jong, R., & Westerhof, K. J. (2001). The quality of student ratings of teacher
behaviour. Learning Environments Research, 4, 51–85.
De Meyer, I., Janssens, R., Warlop, N., Van Keer, H., De Wever, B., & Valcke, M.
(2019). Leesvaardigheid van 15-jarigen. Vlaams rapport PISA2018. Gent.
Delarue, S. (2016). Bridging the policy-practice gap. How Flemish teachers’
standard language perceptions navigate between monovarietal policy and
multivarietal practice. Gent: Ghent University. PhD Dissertation.
Deygers, B. (2020). Advocating an empirically-founded university admission
policy. A case study. Submitted to Language Policy.
Durlak, J., & DuPre, E. (2008). Implementation matters: a review of research on
the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors
affecting implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41,
237–350.
Edgerton, A. K., & Desimone, L. M. (2019). Mind the Gaps: Differences in How
Teachers, Principals, and Districts Experience College-and Career-
Readiness Policies. American Journal of Education, 125, 593–619.
Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005).
Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. Tampa, Florida.
Flemish Inspectorate. (2015). Onderwijsspiegel 2015. Brussels
Franck, E., & Nicaise, I. (2018). Ongelijkheden in het Vlaamse onderwijssysteem:
verbetering in zicht? Een vergelijking van PISA 2003 en 2015. Gent.
Frijns, C. (2017). Als we ’t de kinderen vragen. Het potentieel van productieve
interactie voor tweedetaalverwerving vanaf het prille begin. KU Leuven,
Leuven. PhD Dissertation.
Fullan, M. (2015). The New Meaning of Educational Change (fifth edition). New
York: Teachers College Press/Routledge.
Geijsel, F., Sleegers, P., Van Den Berg, R., & Kelchtermans, G. (2001). Conditions
Fostering the Implementation of Large-Scale Innovation Programs in
Limitations, implications and recommendations
165
Schools: Teachers’ Perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly,
37(1), 130–166.
Giudici, A. (2020). Teacher politics bottom-up: theorising the impact of micro-
politics on policy generation. Journal of Education Policy (Online
publication ahead of print).
Gogolin, I. (2002). Linguistic and Cultural Diversity in Europe: a challenge for
educational research and practice. European Educational Research
Journal, 1(1), 123-138.
Grek, S. (2009). Governing by numbers: the PISA “effect” in Europe. Journal of
Education Policy, 24(1), 23–37.
Hanushek, E. A., Link, S., & Woessmann, L. (2013). Does school autonomy make
sense everywhere? Panel estimates from PISA. Journal of Development
Economics, 104, 212–232.
Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional capital. Transforming teaching in
every school. Taylor & Francis.
Harklau, L., & Yang, A. H. (2020). Educators’ construction of mainstreaming policy
for English learners: a decision-making theory perspective. Language
Policy, 19, 87–110.
Harris, A. (2011). System improvement through collective capacity building.
Journal of Educational Administration, 49(6), 624–636.
Harris, A., & Jones, M. (2018). Leading schools as learning organizations. School
Leadership & Management, 38(4), 351–354.
Hill, H. C., Charalambous, C. Y., & Kraft, M. A. (2012). When Rater Reliability Is Not
Enough: Teacher Observation Systems and a Case for the Generalizability
Study. Educational Researcher, 41(2), 56–64.
Honig, Meredith. (2006). New directions in education policy implementation. New
York: State University of New York Press.
Hopkins, D., Stringfield, S., Harris, A., Stoll, L., & Mackay, T. (2014). School and
system improvement: a narrative state-of-the-art review. School
Effectiveness and School Improvement, 25(2), 257–281.
Hudson, B., Hunter, D., & Peckham, S. (2019). Policy failure and the policy-
implementation gap: can policy support programs help? Policy Design and
Practice, 2(1), 1–14.
Chapter 6
166
Hulstijn, J. (2005). Theoretical and empirical issues in the study of implicit and
explicit second-language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
27, 129–140.
Jaspaert, K. (2015). Creating quarter for doing things with language. European
Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3(1), 21–45.
Jaspaert, K. (2017). Visietekst. In Jaspaert, K., & C. Frijns, Taal leren. Van kleuters
tot volwassenen (pp. 15–44). Leuven: Lannoo Campus.
Johnson, D. C., & Johnson, E. J. (2015). Power and agency in language policy
appropriation. Language Policy, 14, 221–243.
Kelchtermans, G. (2018). Onderwijsvernieuwing is een werkwoord. Tijdschrift
Voor Lerarenopleiders, 39(4), 7–22.
Kotter, J. P. (2012). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
Kyriakides, L., Creemers, B., Antoniou, P., & Demetriou, D. (2010). A synthesis of
studies searching for school factors: implications for theory and research.
British Educational Research Journal, 36(5), 807–830.
Kyriakides, L., Creemers, B. P. M., Antoniou, P., Demetriou, D., & Charalambous, C.
Y. (2015). The impact of school policy and stakeholders’ actions on
student learning: A longitudinal study. Learning and Instruction, 36, 113–
124.
Kyriakides, L., Creemers, B. P. M., & Charalambous, E. (2018). Searching for
differential teacher and school effectiveness in terms of student
socioeconomic status and gender: implications for promoting equity.
School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 29(2), 171-203.
Lai, M. K., McNaughton, S., Timperley, H., & Hsiao, S. (2009). Sustaining continued
acceleration in reading comprehension achievement following an
intervention. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21,
81–100.
Levin, B. (2008). How to change 5000 schools. A practical and positive approach
for leading change at every level. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Lo Bianco, J. (2010). Language Policy and Planning. In N. H. Hornberger & S. L.
McKay (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language education (pp. 143–176).
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Limitations, implications and recommendations
167
Lo Bianco, J. (2015). Ethical dilemmas and language policy (LP) advising. In P. De
Costa (Ed.), Ethics in Applied Linguistics Research: Language Researcher
Narratives (pp. 83–100). Routledge.
Lorenzo, F., & Trujillo, F. (2017). Languages of schooling in European
policymaking: present state and future outcomes. European Journal of
Applied Linguistics, 5(2), 177–197.
März, V., Gaikhorst, L., Mioch, R., Weijers, D., & Geijsel, F. (2017). Van acties naar
interacties. Een overzichtsstudie naar de rol van professionele netwerken bij
duurzame onderwijsvernieuwing. Amsterdam/Diemen.
May, S. (2007). Sustaining Effective Literacy Practices Over Time in Secondary
Schools: School Organisational and Change Issues. Language and
Education, 21(5), 387–405.
May, S., & Wright, N. (2007). Secondary Literacy Across the Curriculum:
Challenges and Possibilities. Language and Education, 21(5), 370–376.
McDonnell, L., & Weatherford, S. (2016). Recognizing the political in
implementation research. Educational Researcher, 45(4), 233–242.
McLaughlin, M. W. (2006). Implementation research in education: lessons
learned, lingering questions and new opportunities. In Meredtih Honig
(Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation. Confronting
complexity (pp. 209–228). New York: State University of New York Press.
McNaughton, S., Kuin Lai, M., & Hsiao, S. (2012). Testing the effectiveness of an
intervention model based on data use: a replication series across clusters
of schools. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 23(2), 203–228.
Menken, K. (2013). Emergent bilingual students in secondary school: Along the
academic language and literacy continuum. Language Teaching, 46(4),
438–476.
Menken, K., & Garcia, O. (2010). Negotiating language policies in schools :
educators as policymakers. Routledge.
Muijs, D. (2015). Improving schools through collaboration: a mixed methods
study of school-to-school partnerships in the primary sector. Oxford
Review of Education , 41(5), 563–586.
Chapter 6
168
Muijs, D., Harris, A., Chapman, C., Stoll, L., & Russ, J. (2004). Improving Schools in
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Areas-A Review of Research Evidence.
School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 15(2), 149–175.
Muijs, D., Kyriakides, L., Van Der Werf, G., Creemers, B., Timperley, H., & Earl, L.
(2014). State of the art-teacher effectiveness and professional learning.
School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 25(2), 231–256.
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., & Sainsbury, M. (2016). PIRLS 2016 Reading
Framework. IEA.
Neeleman, A. (2019). The scope of school autonomy in practice: An empirically
based classification of school interventions. Journal of Educational Change,
20(1), 31–55.
OECD. (2011). Education at a Glance 2011: OECD Indicators. Paris.
Prenger, R., Poortman, C. L., & Handelzalts, A. (2020). Professional learning
networks: From teacher learning to school improvement? Journal of
Educational Change. (Online publication ahead of print).
Pulinx, R. (2017). The dynamics of teachers ’ beliefs about language , citizenship
and social interaction. Echoes of monolingualism in Flemish classrooms.
Ghent University. PhD Dissertation.
Reezigt, G. J., & Creemers, B. P. M. (2005). A comprehensive framework for
effective school improvement. School Effectiveness and School
Improvement, 16(4), 407–424.
Reynolds, D., Sammons, P., De Fraine, B., Damme, J. Van, Townsend, T., Teddlie, C.,
& Stringfield, S. (2014). Educational effectiveness research (EER): a state-
of-the-art review. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 25(2),
197–230.
Ricento, T. K., & Hornberger, N. H. (1996). Unpeeling the Onion: Language
Planning and Policy and the ELT Professional Author. TESOL Quarterly,
30(3), 401–427.
Robinson, V. M. J., Mcnaughton, S., & Timperley, H. (2011). Building capacity in a
self-managing schooling system: the New Zealand experience. Journal of
Educational Administration, 49(6), 720–738.
Limitations, implications and recommendations
169
Ruys, I., Van Keer, H., & Aelterman, A. (2014). Student and novice teachers’ stories
about collaborative learning implementation. Teachers and Teaching,
20(6), 688–703.
Sahlberg, P. (2016). The global educational reform movement and its impact on
schooling. In K. Mundy, A. Green, B. Lingard, & A. Verger (Eds.), The
Handbook of Global Education Policy (pp. 128–144). Chicester: Wiley-
Blackwell.
Salloum, S. J., Goddard, R. D., & Berebitsky, D. (2018). Resources, Learning, and
Policy: The Relative Effects of Social and Financial Capital on Student
Learning in Schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk
(JESPAR), 23(4), 281–303.
Schelfhout, W., Sprangers, P., Vanthournout, G., Lochten, L., & Buckinx, A. (2019).
Team school. Leergemeenschappen creëren in onderwijs. Leuven: Lannoo.
Schleicher, A. (2014). Equity, excellence and inclusiveness in education. Policy
lessons from around the world. OECD Publishing.
Shohamy, E. (2006). Language Policy: Hidden Agendas and New Approaches.
Oxon/New York: Routledge.
Shohamy, E. (2010). Cases of language policy resistance in Israel’s centralized
educational system. In K. Menken & O. García (Eds.), Negotiating Language
Policies in Schools (pp. 182–197). New York: Routledge.
Slavin, R. E., Lake, C., Davis, S., & Madden, N. A. (2011). Effective programs for
struggling readers: A best-evidence synthesis. Educational Research
Review, 6, 1–26.
Sleegers, P. J. C., Thoonen, E. E. J., Oort, F. J., & Peetsma, T. T. D. (2014). Changing
classroom practices: the role of school-wide capacity for sustainable
improvement. Journal of Educational Administration, 52(5), 617–652.
Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy Implementation and
Cognition: Reframing and Refocusing Implementation Research. Review of
Educational Research, 72(3), 387–431.
Tielemans, K., Vandenbroeck, M., Bellens, K., Van Damme, J., & De Fraine, B.
(2017). Het Vlaams lager onderwijs in PIRLS 2016. Begrijpend lezen in
internationaal perspectief en in vergelijking met 2006. Leuven.
Chapter 6
170
Tielemans, Kelly, Vanlaar, G., Damme, J. Van, & Fraine, B. De. (2019). Lessen door
en voor het Vlaams begrijpend leesonderwijs. 2006-2016: tien jaar PIRLS in
Vlaanderen. Leuven.
Townsend, T. (Ed.). (2007). International handbook of school effectiveness and
improvement. Dordrecht: Springer.
Valckx, J., Vanderlinde, R., & Devos, G. (2020). Departmental PLCs in secondary
schools: the importance of transformational leadership, teacher
autonomy, and teachers ’ self-efficacy. Educational Studies, 46(3), 282–
301.
Van Avermaet, P., Van Houtte, M., & Van den Branden, K. (2011). Promoting
equity and excellence in education. An overview. In K. Van den Branden,
P. Van Avermaet, & M. Van Houtte (Eds.), Equity and Excellence in
Education. Towards Maximal Learning Opportunities for All Students (pp.
1–20). New York: Routledge.
Van den Branden, K. (2017). Taalbeleid in Vlaamse basisscholen: terugblik,
balans en vooruitblik. In Jaspaert, K., & C. Frijns, Taal leren. Van kleuters
tot volwassenen (pp. 79–100). Leuven: Lannoo Campus.
Van den Branden, K. (2019). Rethinking Schools and Renewing Energy for
Learning. Routledge.
Van Droogenbroeck, F., Lemblé, H., Bongaerts, B., Spruyt, B., Siongers, J., &
Dimokritos, K. (2019). Talis 2018 Vlaanderen. Brussel.
Vanblaere, B., & Devos, G. (2016). Exploring the link between experienced
teachers’ learning outcomes and individual and professional learning
community characteristics. School Effectiveness and School Improvement,
27(2), 205–227.
Vanbuel, M., Boderé, A., & Van Den Branden, K. (2017). Helpen talenbeleid en
taalscreening taalgrenzen verleggen? Een reviewstudie naar effectieve
taalstimuleringsmaatregelen. Gent: Steunpunt voor Onderwijsonderzoek.
Vanderlinde, R., & Braak, J. Van. (2010). The gap between educational research
and practice: views of teachers, school leaders, intermediaries and
researchers. British Educational Research Journal, 36(2), 299–316.
Vangrieken, K., Dochy, F., Raes, E., & Kyndt, E. (2015). Teacher collaboration: A
systematic review. Educational Research Review, 15, 17–40.
Limitations, implications and recommendations
171
Vanhoof, J., & Van Petegem, P. (2017). Doeltreffend schoolbeleid. Praktijkboek
beleidsvoerend vermogen in scholen. Leuven: Acco.
Vanhooren, S., Pereira, C., & Bolhuis, M. (2017). Iedereen taalcompetent! Visie op
de rol, de positie en de inhoud van het onderwijs Nederlands in de 21ste
eeuw. Den Haag.
Vaughn, M., Scales, R. Q., Stevens, E. Y., Kline, S., Barrett-Tatum, J., Van Wig, A., …
Wellman, D. (2019). Understanding literacy adoption policies across
contexts: a multi-state examination of literacy curriculum decision-
making. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 1–20.
Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of
professional learning communities on teaching practice and student
learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 80–91.
Viennet, R., & Pont, B. (2017). Education Policy Implementation. OECD Publishing.
173
Academic output related to this PhD
Articles
Vanbuel, M., & Van den Branden, K. (under review). Each school a school-based
policy for language? Examining the role of the school context in policy
implementation. Language and Education.
Vanbuel, M., & Van den Branden, K. (under review). Promoting primary school
pupils’ language achievement: Investigating the impact of school policies for
language. Submitted to School Effectiveness and School Improvement.
Vanbuel, M., & Van den Branden, K. (under review). The implementation of
school-based policies for language in mainstream primary schools: A qualitative
study. Submitted to Language Policy.
Conference proceedings
Vanbuel, M., & Van den Branden, K. (accepted). Examining the Configuration of
School Policies for Language in Effective and Ineffective Primary Schools. In
AERA conference proceedings (Peer reviewed conference proceeding). San
Francisco.
Vanbuel, M., Van den Branden, K. (2019). Alle scholen een taalbeleid? De invloed
van de schoolcontext op taalbeleidsimplementatie. Presented at the Onderwijs
Research Dagen (ORD), 26-28 June, Heerlen.
174
Other
Conference abstracts
Vanbuel, M. (2020). Examining the Configuration of School Policies for Language
in Effective and Ineffective Primary Schools. AERA, 17-21 April 2020, San
Francisco (Canceled by organization).
Vanbuel, M., & Van den Branden, K. (2019). Task-based language learning outside
the language classroom? Presented at TBLT, 19-21 September, Ottawa.
Vanbuel, M. (2019). Taalbeleid implementeren: gemakkelijker gezegd dan
gedaan? Presented at the Forumdag Taalbeleid Hoger Onderwijs, Kortrijk, 28
May 2019. (Plenary)
Vanbuel, M. (2018). Effectief leesonderwijs in het basisonderwijs. Presented at
Het Schoolvak Nederlands (HSN), 16-17 November, Brussels (Invited
presentation).
Vanbuel, M., Van den Branden, K. (2018). Improving Elementary School Pupils'
Reading Skills: Investigating the Link Between Policy and Practice. Presented at
AAAL, 24-27 March.
Reports
Vanbuel, M., Vandommele, G., & Van den Branden, K. (2020). Taalstimulerende
maatregelen in de praktijk. Case-studies naar talenbeleid in secundaire scholen.
Gent: Steunpunt Onderwijsonderzoek.
Vanbuel, M., & Van den Branden, K. (2020). Talenbeleid en taalscreening in
secundaire scholen: Praktijk, implementatie en impact. Gent: Steunpunt
Onderwijsonderzoek.
Vanbuel, M., & Van den Branden, K. (2019). Taalstimulerende maatregelen in de
praktijk. Case-studies naar talenbeleid in lagere scholen. Gent: Steunpunt
Onderwijsonderzoek.
175
Vanbuel, M., Vandommele, G., Verheyen, S., & Van den Branden, K. (2018).
Taalstimulering in de praktijk: lager onderwijs. Kwantitatieve
onderzoeksresultaten. Gent: Steunpunt Onderwijsonderzoek.
Vanbuel, M., Verheyen, S., Vandommele, G., & Van den Branden, K. (2017).
Leerkrachtenvragenlijst 2017: technisch rapport. Gent: Steunpunt
Onderwijsonderzoek.
Vanbuel, M., Boderé, A., Van den Branden, K. (2017). Helpen talenbeleid en
taalscreening taalgrenzen verleggen? Een reviewstudie naar effectieve
taalstimuleringsmaatregelen. Gent: Steunpunt voor Onderwijsonderzoek.
Science outreach and non-peer reviewed book chapters
Vanbuel, M. & Van den Branden, K. (2020). Taalbeleid uit de kast gehaald?
Strategieën voor succesvolle implementatie. Gent: Steunpunt
Onderwijsonderzoek.
Vanbuel, M. & Van den Branden, K. (2019). Taalbeleid implementeren:
gemakkelijker gezegd dan gedaan? In D. Berckmoes, P. Bonne, J. Heeren, M.
Leuridan, I. Mestdagh, J. Vrijders (Eds.), Taalbeleid & taalondersteuning: wat
werkt? Inspiratie en praktijkvoorbeelden uit het hoger onderwijs (pp. 29-36).
Leuven: Lannoo Campus.
Vanbuel, M. (2019). Hoe ziet effectief begrijpend lezen eruit? Netwerk Didactiek
Nederlands & SOL (10/10/2019).
Vanbuel, M. (2019). Effectieve stimulering van tekstbegrip. Voorjaarsconferentie
Vereniging van Taalspecialisten (10/05/2019).
Vanbuel, M. (2019). Helpen talenbeleid en taalscreening taalgrenzen verleggen?
Netoverschrijdend overleg taalbegeleiders Antwerpen (25/03/2019).
Vanbuel, M. (2019). Hoe ziet effectief begrijpend leesonderwijs eruit? POV
(15/03/2019).
176
Vanbuel, M., Ysenbaert, J., & Van Mieghem, A. (2018). Het belang van schoolbeleid
voor taalstimulering, evaluatie en M-decreet. Brussel: SONO-studiedag
(3/10/2018).
Vanbuel, M., Vandommele, G., Van den Branden, K. (2017). Effectieve
taalstimulering? Naar een succesvolle implementatie van taalbeleid en
taalscreening. Impuls, 48(2), 78-84.
177
Samenvatting
Al decennialang trachten beleidsmakers, onderzoekers en schoolteams
taalonderwijs te verbeteren. Taalvaardigheid in de instructietaal is immers een
van de belangrijkste voorwaarden voor een succesvolle deelname aan onderwijs
en samenleving. Ons taalonderwijs lijkt echter nog altijd niet goed afgestemd te
zijn op de complexe taalvaardigheid die de huidige kennissamenleving vraagt.
Steeds meer leerlingen bereiken het minimumniveau niet in nationale en
internationale peilingen. Bovendien zijn onderwijskansen niet gelijk verdeeld
over verschillende groepen van leerlingen. Specifieke aandacht gaat daarom naar
de taalvaardigheidsontwikkeling van leerlingen met een andere thuistaal en
leerlingen met een lagere sociaaleconomische status.
Omdat eerdere pogingen om het taalonderwijs te verbeteren en de kloof
tussen kansarme en kansrijke leerlingen te verkleinen niet zo succesvol bleken
als gehoopt, voerde de Vlaamse overheid in 2007 taalbeleid in: een structureel
en strategisch plan waarmee schoolteams samen de (taal)ontwikkeling van alle
leerlingen proberen te verhogen door hun onderwijs af te stemmen op de noden
van leerlingen. Elke school die door de overheid gefinancierd of gesubsidieerd
wordt, is sindsdien verplicht om een taalbeleid uit te werken en te
implementeren.
Hoewel taalbeleid vanuit theoretisch standpunt en op basis van een klein
aantal interventiestudies een erg doeltreffende manier lijkt om de
taalvaardigheid van leerlingen te verbeteren, is er weinig onderzoek beschikbaar
dat nagaat of taalbeleid doeltreffend is wanneer het op grotere schaal wordt
geïmplementeerd. Er zijn wel enkele studies die aantonen dat de implementatie
van een taalbeleid – en van onderwijsbeleid in het algemeen – een erg complexe
onderneming is voor schoolteams. In dit proefschrift gingen we na of er
voldoende empirisch bewijs is om te kunnen stellen dat taalbeleid de
taalvaardigheid van alle leerlingen verhoogt.
Summary in Dutch
178
Taalbeleid en taalvaardigheid
De eerste studie onderzocht in welke mate er een verband is tussen taalbeleid en
de prestaties van leerlingen op taalvaardigheidstoetsen. Data werden verzameld
in een gestratificeerde toevalssteekproef van 3000 leerlingen in het eerste, derde
en zesde leerjaar, 200 leerkrachten en 77 zorgleerkrachten en directeurs
verspreid over 28 lagere scholen in heel Vlaanderen. Leerlingen maakten een
toets voor technisch en/of begrijpend lezen, en leerkrachten en directeurs
vulden een vragenlijst in over het taalbeleid van hun school.
Uit de resultaten blijkt dat taalbeleid gedeeltelijk gelinkt is aan technische
leesvaardigheid: leerlingen scoren beter op technische leesvaardigheidstoetsen
wanneer schoolteams een hoger reflectief vermogen rapporteren over
taalontwikkeling en leerkrachten dus over het algemeen meer open lijken te
staan voor gezamenlijke reflectie op de doeltreffendheid van hun taalonderwijs.
Die bevinding stemt overeen met ander onderzoek naar effectieve
schoolkenmerken. We vonden daarentegen geen effect van reflectief vermogen
op begrijpend lezen. Ook voor de andere indicatoren van taalbeleid (de
aanwezigheid van een taalbeleidsplan- of team, samenwerking tussen
leerkrachten, ondersteuning, prioriteit voor taal) vonden we geen verband met
technisch of begrijpend lezen. Mogelijke verklaringen daarvoor zijn dat
taalbeleid niet zo’n grote invloed op de ontwikkeling van complexere
vaardigheden als begrijpend lezen, taalbeleid niet goed geïmplementeerd
geraakt tot op de klasvloer voor complexere vaardigheden, of dat we taalbeleid
en de effecten ervan onvoldoende goed in kaart konden brengen aan de hand van
vragenlijsten en leesvaardigheidstoetsen; begrijpend lezen is immers een
vaardigheid die sterk wordt beïnvloed door individuele leerlingkenmerken.
Configuraties van taalbeleid
Om de resultaten van de eerste studie beter te kunnen kaderen, onderzocht de
tweede studie aan de hand van kwalitatieve methodes op welke manier zes
schoolteams uit de eerste studie hun taalbeleid vormgeven en implementeren.
Summary in Dutch
179
Focusgroepgesprekken met taalbeleidsleden en leerkrachten werden gevoerd
om een beter zicht te krijgen op het taalbeleid van de scholen. Die gesprekken
werden aangevuld met informatie verzameld via klasobservaties, informele
gesprekken, verslagen van de onderwijsinspectie en focusgroepen met
leerlingen.
De resultaten wijzen uit dat maar weinig scholen erin slagen om een
taalbeleid uit te werken dat volgens onderzoek naar schoolbeleid en
onderwijseffectiviteit als doeltreffend kan worden bestempeld. Taalbeleid omvat
in de meeste gevallen klasexterne maatregelen zoals de uitbouw van een
schoolbib of boekenhoek, extra leesprogramma’s zoals kwartierlezen, en
spelling-, woordenschat- en technisch leesremediëring voor leerlingen die zwak
scoren op die onderdelen. Schoolteams voorzien professionalisering voor
leerkrachten op het gebied van taalstimulering, maar die is niet altijd afgestemd
op de taalbeleidsdoelen en/of noden van leerkrachten en leerlingen.
Taalbeleidsmaatregelen gaan in veel mindere mate over de klaspraktijk van
leerkrachten: leerkrachten krijgen vaak haast volledige autonomie om te
beslissen hoe ze de taalvaardigheid van hun leerlingen stimuleren tijdens de
lessen. Ze worden daarin niet altijd ondersteund, terwijl uit onderzoek naar
schoolvernieuwing blijkt dat ondersteuning en autonomie het best samengaan.
Verder vonden we vooral samenwerking tussen leerkrachten in hetzelfde
leerjaar, en minder op schoolniveau. Schoolteamleden blijken in beperkte mate
op de hoogte van wat er in andere klassen gebeurt, of wat de effecten zijn van de
maatregelen die ze op schoolniveau nemen. De moedertaal van leerlingen die het
Nederlands niet als thuistaal hebben wordt enkel ingezet indien het niet anders
kan (bijvoorbeeld bij anderstalige nieuwkomers, of heel gericht het leerproces in
het Nederlands te ondersteunen), al wordt er in sommige scholen ook nagedacht
over mogelijkheden om thuistalen breder in te zetten. Met andere woorden:
taalbeleid lijkt in de meeste scholen niet te leiden tot een verregaande
verbetering in taalvaardigheidsonderwijs zoals oorspronkelijk bedoeld was bij
de invoering van taalbeleid in het Vlaamse onderwijsbeleid.
De tweede studie wijst tot slot uit dat een gebrek aan een doeltreffend
uitgewerkt taalbeleid niet noodzakelijk een probleem hoeft te betekenen voor de
taalontwikkeling van leerlingen. In sommige gevallen lijkt het (voorlopig) te
Summary in Dutch
180
volstaan om leerlingen op te vangen via het zorgbeleid, of via gemotiveerde,
effectieve leerkrachten. Verder onderzoek moet uitwijzen of dat ook op langere
termijn doeltreffend en haalbaar blijft.
De invloed van de schoolcontext op taalbeleidsimplementatie
De derde studie ging na in welke mate de schoolcontext de implementatie van
een schooltaalbeleid beïnvloedt. Recente, vaak kwalitatieve studies naar
school(taal)beleid wijzen uit dat onder andere de schoolcultuur, de aanwezige
materialen, technologie en infrastructuur de implementatie ervan sterk kunnen
bevorderen of verhinderen. De Vlaamse onderwijsinspectie stelde op basis van
een onderzoek dat ze voerde tussen 2010 en 2014 ook al vast dat scholen gelegen
in een centrumstad over het algemeen verder staan met hun taalbeleid dan
scholen in minder verstedelijkte regio’s. Bovendien blijkt uit de tweede studie
dat niet elke school erin slaagt om een effectief taalbeleid te implementeren.
Omdat kwalitatieve onderzoeksresultaten niet zonder meer veralgemeend
kunnen worden naar andere contexten, gebruikten we in de derde studie een
combinatie van kwalitatieve en kwantitatieve gegevens om te onderzoeken of dat
verband ook geldt in een grotere groep van scholen.
De percepties van leerkrachten en taalbeleidsleden over de
implementatie van taalbeleid uit de eerste studie werden gekoppeld aan
administratieve schoolcontextgegevens. Uit multiniveauregressieanalyses blijkt
dat de socio-culturele compositie van de leerlingenpopulatie een invloed heeft op
de mate van prioriteit die het talenbeleidsteam geeft aan taalbeleid. De
schoolgrootte en de gemiddelde onderwijservaring van leerkrachten
beïnvloeden de mate van samenwerking en ondersteuning die leerkrachten voor
taalstimulering ervaren op hun school. De implementatie van taalbeleid is dus
niet voor elke school gelijk.
De delen uit de focusgroepen uit de tweede studie waarin schoolteams
rapporteerden over de factoren die het taalbeleidsproces op hun school in gang
zetten en beïnvloeden, werden gebruikt om de verbanden tussen schoolcontext
en taalbeleidsimplementatie te duiden. De kwalitatieve analyses tonen aan dat
Summary in Dutch
181
taalbeleid in deze scholen dient om te compenseren voor de zwakke
taalvaardigheid van leerlingen: schoolteamleden geven aan dat taalmethodes te
moeilijk zijn voor hun leerlingen, of dat leerlingen zwakker scoren op
gestandaardiseerde proeven en daarom extra taalstimulering nodig hebben. Een
advies van de onderwijsinspectie, een schoolfusie of een nieuwe directie kunnen
ook (nieuwe) impulsen geven aan taalbeleid. Schoolteams geven daarentegen
wel aan dat druk van andere, soms meer dringende, schoolvernieuwingen die
moeten gebeuren (bijvoorbeeld het M-decreet), of de schoolgrootte het moeilijk
maakt om gefocust te blijven op taalbeleid. De aanwezigheid van smartboards,
taalmethodes, extra leerkrachten, ondersteuning van ouders en externen, en een
gemotiveerd leerkrachtenteam worden ervaren als factoren die de
implementatie van een taalbeleid bevorderen. Deze resultaten bevestigen dus
dat de schoolcontext niet zomaar een ‘achtergrond’ is bij allerlei
schoolvernieuwingsprocessen maar een cruciale rol speelt in de wijze waarop
taalbeleid vorm krijgt. Meer onderzoek is bovendien nodig naar de invloed van
schoolteamkenmerken en –dynamieken op taalbeleidsprocessen om de overige
verschillen tussen scholen te kunnen verklaren. Recent onderzoek naar
algemene schoolvernieuwings- en ontwikkelingsprocessen wijst uit dat ook dat
een belangrijke piste is.
De percepties van stakeholders over taalbeleidsimplementatie
Om de kloof tussen taalbeleid zoals het oorspronkelijk bedoeld werd in officiële
beleidsteksten en taalbeleid in de praktijk verder te onderzoeken, gaf de vierde
en laatste studie het woord aan 43 stakeholders die betrokken zijn bij de
implementatie van taalbeleid in scholen: beleidsmakers en
onderwijsinspecteurs, pedagogisch begeleiders, onderzoekers, lerarenopleiders,
leerkrachten en directeurs kregen elk de vraag op welke manier een
schooltaalbeleid volgens hen helpt om de (taal)ontwikkeling van leerlingen te
stimuleren. Internationale, doorgaans kwalitatieve studies tonen aan dat
leerkrachten (taal)onderwijsbeleid interpreteren en implementeren vanuit hun
eigen onderwijservaringen en –percepties. Deze studie nam naast leerkrachten
Summary in Dutch
182
ook andere stakeholders mee en gebruikte een onderzoeksmethode die
kwalitatieve en kwantitatieve gegevens combineert (Q-methodologie), zodat
meer systematische vergelijkingen tussen stakeholders mogelijk waren.
We vonden vier verschillende perspectieven op
taalbeleidsimplementatie:
1) taalbeleid moet vooral leiden tot samenwerking tussen leerkrachten;
2) taalbeleid gaat over nieuwe opvattingen over taalontwikkeling, maar
om daar verandering in te brengen hebben schoolteams
ondersteuning nodig;
3) taalbeleid is effectief als schoolteams een visie uitwerken, een plan
opstellen en dat plan ook zichtbaar maken in de school;
4) taalbeleid kan ondersteuning bieden, maar moet vooral haalbaar zijn
en enkel ingezet worden indien nodig.
Opvallend was dat die perspectieven grotendeels samenvielen met de
professionele achtergrond van de deelnemers: er tekende zich een duidelijk
verschil af tussen schoolexterne stakeholders zoals onderzoekers en
beleidsmakers die voornamelijk betrokken zijn bij de invoering en opvolging van
het beleid (perspectief 1 en 3), en schoolinterne stakeholders die het beleid in de
praktijk moeten brengen (perspectief 2 en 4).
Conclusie
Over het algemeen tonen de studies in dit proefschrift dat er weinig garanties zijn
dat een taalbeleid in elke school de taalvaardigheid Nederlands van alle
leerlingen verhoogt. Taalbeleidsmaatregelen die echt tot op de klasvloer geraken
blijven schaars, terwijl dat net de maatregelen zijn die voor een blijvende
verandering kunnen zorgen. Een van de voornaamste verklaringen voor dat
gebrek aan verregaande verandering is de autonomie die leerkrachten krijgen
(en willen) om zelf te beslissen hoe ze taalontwikkeling stimuleren in de klas.
Autonomie is belangrijk, maar werkt enkel wanneer er voldoende afstemming en
Summary in Dutch
183
ondersteuning is binnen het schoolteam. De samenwerkingscultuur die een
effectief taalbeleid vraagt, is in scholen echter nog geen vanzelfsprekendheid.
Schoolteams blijken ook niet altijd goed te weten hoe ze complexere
taalvaardigheden zoals begrijpend lezen of schrijven het best kunnen stimuleren.
Bovendien speelt de schoolcontext geen onbelangrijke rol bij de invoering van
een taalbeleid. Schoolteams hebben voor de invoering van een doeltreffend
taalbeleid waarschijnlijk langdurige, gerichte en schoolspecifieke ondersteuning
nodig die nu niet altijd voorhanden is. De laatste studie toont aan dat overleg
tussen verschillende stakeholders nodig is om te verduidelijken welke doelen
taalbeleid kan en moet nastreven, en op welke manier taalbeleid wel haar doel
kan bereiken. Een combinatie van taalbeleid met maatregelen die inzetten op
veranderingen in onder andere taaldidactiek, schoolcultuur, schoolleiderschap
en relaties tussen leerkrachten en leerlingen is waarschijnlijk nodig om
taalonderwijs echt te kunnen veranderen.
Appendices
185
Appendices
Appendix I – Factor analyses
Component loadings teacher questionnaire
Component loadings (n= 219)
Collaboration Commitment Support
ST4 (-) .80 .12 -.15
ST5 (-) .72 -.03 .10
ST3 .72 .01 .08
ST7 .65 -.13 -.03
AV1 .53 -.06 .32
O5 .45 .16 .31
O7 .43 -.03 .38
ST1 .42 -.11 .39
ENG2 -.13 .83 .13
ENG5 -.07 .75 .15
ENG1 (-) .14 .72 -.12
ENG4 -.06 .71 -.02
ENG3 .35 .67 -.10
AV4 -.06 .24 .72
O2 .07 -.05 .71
O4 .03 -.01 .70
O6 (-) .36 .13 .44
Eigenvalue 3.55 2.95 2.62
Explained
variance
21% 17% 15%
Cronbach’s alpha .82 .81 .75
Appendices
186
Component correlations teacher questionnaire
Collaboration Commitment Support
Collaboration 1.00
Commitment .24 1.00
Support .44 .17 1.00
Component loadings management team questionnaire
Component loadings (n = 77)
Reflective
capacity
Team
commitment
Turbulence
ENG4 .81 -.02 -.03
RV7 .71 .04 -.01
RV2 (-) .68 -.07 .30
RV6 (-) .61 .07 -.03
RV4 .57 .28 -.17
ENG2 -.03 .85 .11
ENG1 -.01 .82 -.05
ENG3 .06 .80 .00
TT3 (-) .12 .01 .79
TT2 (-) .02 .03 .78
TT4 (-) -.16 .08 .67
Eigenvalue 2.43 2.21 1.84
Explained
variance
22% 20% 17%
Cronbach’s alpha .81 .79 .75
Appendices
187
Component correlations management team questionnaire
Reflective
capacity
Team
commitment
Turbulence
Reflective
capacity
1.00
Team
commitment
.34 1.00
Turbulence .18 .31 1.00
Appendices
188
Appendix II – Questionnaires: scales and items
Teacher questionnaire
Scale: teacher engagement
Item
number
Item wording
ENG2 I fully agree that in all my classes I also have to work on the school
language development of the students.
ENG4 I consider it as my task in all my classes to also be concerned with the
school language development of my students.
ENG5 I fully agree that in all my classes (in addition to subject-specific
objectives) I also have to pay attention to language-related objectives.
ENG3 I do everything to ensure that in all my classes I pay attention to the
school language development of my students.
ENG1 (-) In my opinion it is unnecessary to pay attention to the school language
development of my students in all classes.
Scale teacher collaboration
Item
number
Item wording
ST3 In my opinion, all members of the school team are aware of the
agreements on language promotion in our school.
ST4 (-) I have the feeling that language promotion initiatives in our school take
place independently of each other.
ST1 There are sufficient opportunities at our school to exchange materials
(e.g., lessons, books) in order to promote students’ language skills.
ST7 All members of our school team agree on the agreements on language
promotion in our school.
O7 I have sufficient resources (e.g., teaching materials) available to promote
the school language development of my students.
AV1 My school asks for my opinion on how we promote the language
development of students.
Appendices
189
ST5 (-) In our school more collaboration in the promotion of the language
development of our students is needed.
O5 I feel that I can turn to colleagues with questions about promoting
language development.
Scale: teacher support
Item
number
Item wording
O2 I have sufficient access to initiatives (e.g., refresher courses) where I can
find information or training on promoting language development.
AV4 I have the feeling that there are possibilities at my school to experiment
with ways in which to promote the language development of my students
in my lessons.
O4 The school management / the language (policy) team provides ample
opportunities to experiment in which ways I can support the language
development of my students.
O6 (-) I feel that I am on my own when it comes to language stimulation.
Principal questionnaire
Scale: team engagement
Item
number
Item wording
ENG3 All members of our team are fully committed to the fact that all classes
must also work on the school language development of the students.
ENG2 All members of our team fully agree that they should also pay attention
to linguistic goals in all their lessons (in addition to subject-specific
objectives).
ENG1 The members of our team consider it as their task to be concerned with
the language development of the students in all classes.
Appendices
190
Scale: turbulence
Item
number
Item wording
TT3 (-) Our school team is currently busy with too many other things to set up
joint actions to stimulate the language development of our students.
TT2 (-) In our school there are currently other priorities than language policy
implementation.
TT4 (-) The integration of language policy into our school policy would be easier
if the school team did not have much to do.
Scale: Reflective team capacity
Item
number
Item wording
RV4 In our school, people are willing to question their own functioning
concerning the promotion of students’ language skills.
RV7 In our school there is a positive attitude towards joint reflection on
promoting students’ language skills.
RV2(-) The prospect of evaluating the effectiveness of our measures to promote
language development provokes resistance in members of the school
team.
RV6(-) In our school, identifying areas for improvement in the field of language
instruction is perceived as threatening.
ENG4 Our team is fully committed to collectively think about how we can
promote the language development of students.
Appendices
191
Appendix III – Estimates of random effects
Estimates of the random effects of the Basic Model (1)
1st grade 3rd grade dec 3rd grade
compr
6th grade
School level
1st grade 16.344** .88 .68 .28
3rd grade
dec 14.674** 17.088** .56 .41
compr 7.777* 6.538 7.971* .49
6th grade 3.316 4.879 3.988 8.417*
Pupil level
1st grade 185.862***
3rd grade
dec -,- 204.622*** .38
compr -,- 74.402*** 183.957***
6th grade -,- -,- -,- 175.985***
dec = decoding skills, compr = reading comprehension; -,- not estimated, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
Estimates of random effects model 2a SLP objective indicators
1st grade 3rd grade dec 3rd grade com 6th grade
School level
1st grade 15.418** .87 .73 .30
3rd grade
dec 13.558* 15.863** .57 .42
compr 6.978* 5.507* 5.969* .48
6th grade 3.586 3.529 9.180*
Pupil level
1st grade 185.815***
3rd grade
dec -,- 204.700*** .38
compr -,- 74.392*** 183.919***
6th grade -,- -,- -,- 176.066***
dec = decoding skills, compr = reading comprehension; -,- not estimated, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
Appendices
192
Estimates of random effects model 2b SLP subjective indicators
1st grade 3rd grade dec 3rd grade
compr
6th grade
School level
1st grade 9.418** .82 .70 .28
3rd grade
dec 9.172* 13.408** .50 .43
compr 5.822* 4.909* 7.274* .48
6th grade 2.552 3.800 8.623*
Pupil level
1st grade 185.724***
3rd grade
dec -,- 204.670*** .38
compr -,- 74.390*** 183.954***
6th grade -,- -,- -,- 176.009***
dec = decoding skills, compr = reading comprehension; -,- not estimated, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
Estimates of the random effects of Model 3 (differential effects)
1st grade 3rd grade dec 3rd grade
compr
6th grade
School level
1st grade 9.214* .82 .72 .29
3rd grade
dec 9.028* 13.456** .50 .43
compr 5.884* 4.641 7.272* .48
6th grade 2.599 3.809 8.508*
Pupil level
1st grade 185.873***
3rd grade
dec -,- 204.582*** .38
compr -,- 74.341*** 183.949***
6th grade -,- -,- -,- 176.007***
dec = decoding skills, compr = reading comprehension; -,- not estimated, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
Appendices
193
Appendix IV – Interview protocols
Interview policy management team
Opening
(brief introduction of myself and the research)
We would like to get a more detailed picture of the way in which
schools work around language and implement their SLP.
(Ask them to briefly introduce themselves)
Introduction
(5 min)
Last school year, (some of) you filled out a questionnaire; and
pupils completed a reading test. (cf. are they aware of het results
from the school feedback report? If not, do not give any details; it
is not important for the conversation; if yes, ask them whether
the results match their expectations)
Transition
(5 min)
If you hear the word ‘SLP’, what comes to mind? And school-
based languages policy? Do you consider both terms equivalent?
Key questions
(10 min)
- How would you describe your school’s SLP?
o What are your school’s planned actions to promote
student language development?
How did these actions come about?
What would you like to achieve?
To what extent are you convinced these
measures will be effective?
To what extent are these actions being
implemented? Why is that?
Are there explicit measures regarding the
evaluation of language?
About home languages of students? About
language in other subjects?
Are there things you would still like to try
out?
o Who is involved with these measures?
Who came up with them?
Who executes them?
To what extent does someone evaluate the
actions?
What is your task?
Appendices
194
(25 min)
(8 min)
What do you think of the task allocation at
your school?
In other schools, some teachers indicate that
there is a lack of support to implement the
actions. How about your school?
To what extent do you get the chance to try
out different actions?
Does your school have an SLP coordinator?
What is her task?
- According to you, what are the factors that affect your
school’s SLP?
o Why did you start with it?
o How did you get ahead?
o What is your task?
o What helps you and your team to implement SLP?
o What hinders you? Why is that?
o Do you support to implement an SLP?
- You have made several agreements on language at your
school. How does this translate into practice?
o Did you manage to implement the actions? Why is
that?
o What makes it easier/more difficult to implement the
actions effectively?
How do teachers respond to the policy?
What is your role?
To what extent are you supported with SLP
implementation?
o Are you happy with your SLP? What is successful?
What is more difficult?
o Are there things you would like to try out in the
future?
- To what extent does the SLP has an impact, according to you?
Why is that?
o Do you manage to implement the actions?
o What is the most successful action of the moment?
Appendices
195
o Some schools indicate that their SLP actions have
little impact on the language development of their
pupils. Do you experiences this as well, or not at all?
o What should an SLP help to achieve?
Conclusion
(2 min)
Wrap up the conversation; check whether everything is
interpreted correctly.
If you were to make a suggestion to other schools on how to
implement an SLP, what would it be?
Is there something else you would like to tell regarding the
topic? Something that didn’t come up during the conversation?
Focus group teachers
Opening
(5 min)
(brief introduction of myself and the research)
We would like to get a more detailed picture of the way in which
schools work around language and implement their SLP.
(Ask them to briefly introduce themselves)
Introduction
(5 min)
Last school year, (some of) you filled out a questionnaire; and
your pupils completed a reading test. (cf. are they aware of het
results from the school feedback report? If not, do not give
details; it is not important for the conversation)
Transition
(5 min)
If you hear the word ‘SLP’, what comes to mind? And school-
based languages policy? Do you consider both terms equivalent?
Key questions
- Actions and agreements about language at school
o Write down the three most important planned
actions to promote student language development at
your school
How did these actions come about?
What would you like to achieve?
To what extent are you convinced these
measures will be effective?
To what extent are these actions being
implemented? Why is that?
Appendices
196
Are there explicit measures regarding the
evaluation of language?
About home languages of students? About
language in other subjects?
Are there things you would still like to try
out?
o Who is involved with these measures?
Who came up with them?
Who executes them?
To what extent does someone evaluate the
actions?
What is your task?
What do you think of the task allocation at
your school?
In other schools, some teachers indicate that
there is a lack of support to implement the
actions. How about your school?
To what extent do you get the chance to try
out different actions?
Does your school have an SLP coordinator?
What is her task?
- According to you, what are the factors that affect your
school’s SLP?
o Why did you start with it?
o How did you get ahead?
o What is your task?
o What helps you and your team to implement SLP?
o What hinders you? Why is that?
o Do you support to implement an SLP?
- To what extent does the SLP has an impact, according to you?
Why is that?
o Do you manage to implement the actions?
o What is the most successful action of the moment?
o Some schools indicate that their SLP actions have
little impact on the language development of their
pupils. Do you experiences this as well, or not at all?
Appendices
197
o What should an SLP help to achieve?
Conclusion
(2 min)
Wrap up the conversation; check whether everything is
interpreted correctly.
If you were to make a suggestion to other schools on how to
implement an SLP, what would it be?
Focus group pupils
Opening
(5 min)
- Short presentation of myself and the conversation
- Ask to write their name on paper card and present themselves
shortly (e.g., age, grade)
Introduction
(2 min)
What were you doing in your classroom?
Transition
(3 min)
What is your favorite subject?
What do you think of the subject ‘language’? Do you like it? Or not
so much?
Key questions
(10 min)
- Place of language at school
o Do you have good grades for language? (cf.
associations of the word ‘language’; how do they
interpret ‘language’?)
o What do you think you should know of language at
the end of 6th grade?
o How important is being good at language for you?
o How important do you think your teacher considers
the language subject? Why do you think that is?
o What do you think of your teacher’s opinion on
language?
o How much time do you spend on language in class?
Order the next ten subjects in terms of importance at
school: Dutch, French, mathematics, music, gym,
science and technology, ICT, social skills, study skills,
humans & society)
Appendices
198
(20 min)
(8 min)
- Every pupil has a ‘place-mat’ with 4 locations: the classroom,
canteen, playground, hallway. They write down how language
is involved at each of the locations.
o Ask them to elaborate upon what they wrote down
o How are the language classes organized? What skills
do they spend most time on?
o Are there instances of collaborative learning? Peer
feedback?
o In some schools, some pupils get other tasks during
language class dependent on how ‘good’ they are at
the subject. Does that happen in your school as well?
- How does your teacher know whether you have learned /
acquired the things you should know?
o If the teacher administers a language test, how does it
look like?
What do you have to know? Is it easy?
Difficult?
Do you get feedback afterwards?
- Do you speak other languages than Dutch?
o Which ones?
o Do you sometimes use this/these language(s) at
school? Why (not)?
o What is your opinion on the use of home languages at
school?
Conclusion
(2 min)
Short summary of the conversation
If you were to give a suggestion to your teacher, or to the school
principal on how to best promote student language development,
what would you recommend? Is there something else you would
like to tell me?
Appendices
199
Appendix V – Coding template
1. Motivation SLP implementation
a. Deficiency
b. Ambition to improve
c. Contextual changes
d. Obligation and external pressure (e.g., Inspectorate, parents, school
district)
2. Policy implementation
a. Planned actions
i. Teaching & learning (and improvement of)
1. Classroom practice
2. Learning opportunities (e.g. school library)
ii. Learning environment (and improvement of)
1. teacher collaboration (e.g., consultation, co-teaching)
2. support (resources, technology, extra staff)
3. partnerships (e.g., community, parents, external
experts)
b. Policy evaluation
3. Impact of implementation
a. Pupil level
i. Improve
ii. Change in attitude (i.e., motivation, well-being)
iii. No/little improvement
b. Teacher level
i. Structural change in practice, beliefs, attitude, engagement
ii. Resistance and frustration
iii. Insecurity or chaos
iv. Scattered change
c. School level
i. School’s reputation
ii. Shared leadership
iii. Parental involvement
4. Determinants of SLP implementation
a. Teacher beliefs, skills, personality
b. School context (e.g., resources, staff, school climate, student population)
Appendices
200
c. Implementation strategy (e.g., communication, task allocation)
d. External factors (e.g., policies of other instances)
e. Policy itself (e.g., complexity, feasibility, confirmation)
Appendices
201
Appendix VI – SLP interventions per school
Overview SLP interventions per school (classification of Neeleman, 2019)
Education Organization Staff
pedagogy
new
teaching
materials
new
programs
school
culture,
structures
Parental/
community
involvement
remedial
teaching support assessment
Recruitment,
employment
67* X X X X X
23 X X X X X
63 X X X X X
28 X X X X X X
45* X X X
52* X X X X X
* effective schools
Appendices
202
Appendix VII – Q-Statements
# Statement wording
1 Every teacher needs to know how language acquisition occurs. (SH)
2 Pupils should be asked what they think of certain measures, goals, actions or
plans. (SH)
3 It should be avoided that teachers’ own beliefs and habits reappear after a
while. (SH)
4 You should prevent teachers from seeing SLP as 'you do nothing, you are not
concerned with that language'. (SH)
5 It is important that SLP is supported by the entire team, that everyone is
enthusiastic. (SH)
6 SLP needs to fit in with the overall school policy, to be in line with current
practices. (C)
7 Schools want to do everything well, music, science … but they need to stay
focused on SLP. (C)
8 SLP requires an environment in which teachers feel safe, are allowed to
experiment, and are not afraid to share their concerns with others. (C)
9 If there are many students with a migrant background, you already take that
into account. (C)
10 It is important that pupils’ well-being increases. (C)
11 The teaching environment should become so strong in terms of language
promotion that low-achieving pupils are automatically supported, that the
teacher does not have to do anything extra anymore. (P)
12 It’s important that teachers feel that they can fall back on something. (P)
13 It is stimulating when you notice that students really benefit from it. (P)
14 Policy is a big word. There should be initiatives and actions for language, but to
really say 'there has to be a policy' ... (P)
15 SLP must be about accuracy and the use of Standard Dutch: it is important for
every pupil and for non-native pupils in particular. (P)
16 The teacher should not be forced into the role of mere executor of the policy.
(S)
17 It is important that the director / coordinator carries the SLP. (C)
18 It’s important to have a strong vision that ensures that all the actions of the SLP
do not get lost over the years. (S)
Appendices
203
19 It is important that the number of goals is not be too large, just to make sure it
remains attainable. (S)
20 Help from external experts helps, it works better. (S)
21 Teachers need sufficient freedom. You cannot simply enforce them to change
certain practices. (SH)
22 Teachers should not be too easily satisfied with what you can achieve in terms
of language. (SH)
23 Teachers should be sufficiently aware of their own language teaching practices
in which improvement is possible. (SH)
24 The teaching practice of teachers should improve (SH).
25 Teachers should learn to deal with the home languages of pupils, learn to
accept them and learn to use them as an asset. (SH)
26 Schools with few non-native students have to feel responsible to implement
SLP as well. (C)
27 SLP will be of use as soon as parents, too, change things. (C)
28 SLP ensures an even concentration of pupils in all schools. (C)
29 Language is important, but it must remain realistic and achievable. (C)
30 It is important all stakeholders work together (management team, teachers,
parents, pupils ...). (C)
31 SLP must certainly become sufficiently concrete. (P)
32 SLP should not be too much about home languages. (P)
33 It must be clear what SLP is about. Is SLP about the languages that can be
spoken at school? About the language course? About other languages? (P)
34 It should be about ‘common language practices’ rather than ‘policy’. (P)
35 The changes to current, traditional educational practice cannot be too big. (P)
36 At first, it is better to focus only on the team members who do want to join. (S)
37 It is important to think carefully about the language needs of the school. (S)
38 A language policy plan is essential to implement an effective policy. (S)
39 The government should make an SLP compulsory in every school. (S)
40 Investing in SLP primarily means to invest in the professionalization of
teachers. (S)
41 Every team member needs to know about the SLP. (SH)
42 It’s important that parents see that the school is doing an effort to promote the
language development of pupils. (SH)
43 SLP is teambuilding. (C)
44 It is important to know in what the team invests time. (C)
Appendices
204
45 The school management / coordinator must check whether the SLP actions are
taking place. (S)
46 Language tests should be part of SLP. (P)
47 SLP should be linked to methods and techniques. (P)
48 Implementing an SLP simply requires a lot of time. (S)
49 In-service training organizations, pedagogical counseling services and teacher
trainers must develop tools to support schools in developing an SLP. (S)
50 The language coach or coordinator should keep the SLP alive. (S)
51 Schools should evaluate their SLP. (S)
52 SLP should not linger in one-off campaigns. (P)
SH = stakeholders, S = strategy, P = policy design, C = context
Appendices
205
Appendix VIII – Factor loadings Q-sorts
Factor loadings
Q-sort Factor 1 Factor2 Factor3 Factor4
SLP01 .57 .51 .37 -.13
SLP02 .44 .31 .36 .02
SLP03 .75 .35 .05 .11
SLP04 .36 .32 .58 .27
SLP05 .31 .48 .36 -.05
SLP06 .23 .22 .57 .01
SLP07 .21 .24 .48 -.11
SLP08 .16 .35 .54 -.01
SLP09 .14 .27 .48 .19
SLP10 .00 .38 .27 .06
SLP11 .33 .19 .42 .26
SLP12 .34 .29 .73 .03
SLP13 -.01 .00 .11 .36
SLP14 .06 .33 .55 .09
SLP15 .23 .51 .13 .21
SLP16 .41 .43 .18 .02
SLP17 .51 .17 .20 .07
SLP18 .02 .11 .64 .16
SLP19 .00 .21 .64 .16
SLP20 .54 .45 .36 .03
SLP21 .64 .03 .52 .11
SLP22 .66 .20 .37 .01
SLP23 .28 .39 .53 -.22
SLP24 .36 .48 .50 -.13
SLP25 .63 .05 .31 .07
SLP26 .27 .20 .45 -.31
Stud1 .02 .46 .36 .39
Stud2 .13 .62 .07 .06
Stud3 .27 .59 .32 .21
Stud4 .18 .54 .33 .03
Stud5 .13 .64 .20 .27
Appendices
206
Stud6 .06 .66 .14 -.00
Stud7 .11 .16 .07 .61
Stud8 .28 .38 .19 .16
Stud9 -.17 .22 .06 .45
Stud10 .50 .07 -.05 -.11
Stud11 .13 .72 .18 .19
Stud12 .33 .63 .14 .22
Stud13 .12 .62 .34 .03
Stud14 .18 .71 .27 .13
Stud15 .20 -.02 .32 .08
Stud16 .31 .44 -.23 .56
Stud17 .23 .18 .60 .37
Eigenvalue 14.34 2.45 1.82 1.58
% variance 11 16 15 5
Cronbach’s
α .98 .99 .98 .92