moving language barriers

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


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




1

Introduction


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:


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


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


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


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


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).


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


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


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


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



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.






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.


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.



Education, 21(5), 387–405.



McNaughton, S., Kuin Lai, M., & Hsiao, S. (2012). Testing the effectiveness of an


of schools. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 23(2), 203–228.




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


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


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.




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


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.


51



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,


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


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


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,


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 ...


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).


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.


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


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 […].


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.


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).


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.


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.


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


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


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


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





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.



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.





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


79




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.



Flemish Inspectorate. (2015a). Onderwijsspiegel 2015. Jaarlijks rapport van de


Flemish Inspectorate. (2015b). Onderwijsspiegel 2015. Brussels.

Flemish Inspectorate. (2019). Onderwijsspiegel 2019. Brussels.


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.


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.



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.




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.


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. 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.



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




Chapter 2

82


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 :





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.





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.


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.


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.





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.




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.



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.





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.



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.


Learning. New York: Routledge.

Van der Wildt, A., Van Avermaet, P., & Van Houtte, M. (2017). Opening up towards



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.


85



taalstimuleringsmaatregelen. Gent: Steunpunt Onderwijsonderzoek.


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


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.


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?


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


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).


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,


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


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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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., 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.




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.



De Meyer, I., Janssens, R., Warlop, N., Van Keer, H., De Wever, B., & Valcke, M.

(2019). Leesvaardigheid van 15-jarigen. Vlaams rapport PISA2018.

Gent.


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.



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.



Chapter 3

112



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.



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.




McCarthy & S. May (Eds.), Language Policy and Political Issues in

Education (pp. 211–225). Cham: Springer.





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.


Opdenakker, M. C., & Van Damme, J. (2007). Do school context, student

composition and school leadership affect school practice and outcomes


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.


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.


& 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.


Cognition: Reframing and Refocusing Implementation Research.

Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387–431.




multilingualism: The impact of a school’s pupil composition. Teaching

and Teacher Education, 64, 93–104.




schools: the importance of transformational leadership, teacher

Chapter 3

114

autonomy, and teachers ’ self-efficacy. Educational Studies, 46(3), 282–

301.



multilingualism. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 28(1),

136–152.




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


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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.


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


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 &


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


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., 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.


enactments in secondary schools. Routledge.

Blommaert, J. (2011). The long language-ideological debate in Belgium. Journal

of Multicultural Discourses, 6(3), 241–256.



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.



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.



Crevits, H. (2014). Beleidsnota 2014-2019 Onderwijs. Brussel.


135


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



Galdames, V., & Gaete, R. (2010). Chilean literacy education policies and

classroom implementation. In K. Menken & O. García (Eds.), Negotiating



Education, 43(1), 277–303.

Hajer, M., & Meestringa, T. (2015). Handboek taalgericht vakonderwijs (3rd ed.).

Bussum: Uitgeverij Coutinho.



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.





Chapter 4

136






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.



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:



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.




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.




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.







30(3), 401–427.

Schmolck, P. (2014). PQMethod. Retrieved from

http://schmolck.org/qmethod/pqmanual.htm.






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.





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.





Van den Branden, K. (2010). Handboek taalbeleid lager onderwijs. Leuven: Acco.


balans en vooruitblik. In Jaspaert, K., & C., Frijns, Taal leren. Van kleuters



sterken, sterk voor de zwakken. Brussels.



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.


139



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


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.


147

References







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.









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



Education, 43(1), 277–303.



Economics, 104, 212–232.

Chapter 5

148





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.
















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.


149


interacties. Een overzichtsstudie naar de rol van professionele netwerken bij

duurzame onderwijsvernieuwing. Amsterdam/Diemen.



Education, 21(5), 387–405.










sourcebook. SAGE.


Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Areas-A Review of Research Evidence.





197–230.



30(3), 401–427.



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










autonomy, and teachers’ self-efficacy. Educational Studies, 46(3), 282–

301.




152.

Viennet, R., & Pont, B. (2017). Education Policy Implementation. OECD Publishing.

151

Chapter 6


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.


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).


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


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.


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,


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).


163

References








Bijlsma, H., van der Lans, R., & Donker, M. (2019). De betrouwbaarheid en

validiteit van leerlingpercepties van leskwaliteit. In Onderwijs Research

Dagen. Heerlen.



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.



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.



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.


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.



Flemish Inspectorate. (2015). Onderwijsspiegel 2015. Brussels



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


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.



Economics, 104, 212–232.





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.




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. (2017). Visietekst. In Jaspaert, K., & C. Frijns, Taal leren. Van kleuters




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. 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.



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.


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.



Applied Linguistics, 5(2), 177–197.


interacties. Een overzichtsstudie naar de rol van professionele netwerken bij

duurzame onderwijsvernieuwing. Amsterdam/Diemen.



Education, 21(5), 387–405.



McDonnell, L., & Weatherford, S. (2016). Recognizing the political in

implementation research. Educational Researcher, 45(4), 233–242.


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


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.



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


Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Areas-A Review of Research Evidence.





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.


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.




197–230.



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.


169



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. (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.







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.



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.


balans en vooruitblik. In Jaspaert, K., & C. Frijns, Taal leren. Van kleuters



Learning. 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.




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.




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



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)


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***


Appendices

192

Estimates of random effects model 2b SLP subjective indicators


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***


Estimates of the random effects of Model 3 (differential effects)


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***


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

moving language barriers

Documents