The role of schooling in the maintenance and transformation of ethnic boundaries between linguistic communities: contrasting Quebec and Belgium.

McAndrew, Marie ; Janssens, Rudi

RESUME/ABSTRACT

In this article, we contrast the situation regarding the extent of common or segregated schooling in Quebec and Belgium, societies divided by a deep-rooted conflict between linguistic communities contending for majority status. The wider social and political context, especially regarding language relations, is first presented. Then, a historical overview of the role that educational structures, policies, and programs have played in the maintenance or transformation of ethnic boundaries between linguistic communities is provided. Some elements of the current situation, which may differ depending on the specificities of each society as well as the research available, are also highlighted, and their educational and social consequences discussed. Finally, each case study provides some reflections on potential future challenges to be faced by the educational system in light of a changing reality. In the last part of the article, written jointly, we try to identify the commonalities which exist between both experiences, despite contextual differences, and to suggest hypotheses on the meaning of such trends-for both societies that need to be further explored.

L'objectif de cet article est de contraster la situation et l'etendue de la scolarisation commune ou scgreguee au Quebec et en Belgique, des societes divisees par tin conflit profondement enracine entre des communautes linguistiques en competition pour le statut de majorite. Nous presentons d'abord le contexte social et politique general, particulierement en ce qui a trait aux relations linguistiques, puis un apercu historique du role joue par les structures, politiques et programmes educatifs dans le maintien ou la transforn3ation des frontieres ethniques entre les comnmnautes linguistiques. Quelques elements de la situation actuelle, qui peuvent varier selon les particularites et les recherches disponibles pour chaque societe, sont aussi presentes ainsi que leurs consequences educatives et sociales. Enfin, chaque etude de cas fournit quelques reflexions sur les defis futurs auxquels le systeme d'education sera confronte lace a une realite changeante. Dans la derniere partie de l'article, ecrite conjointement, nous tentons d'identifier les points communs des experiences quebecoise et belge, malgre les differentes contextuelles, et de suggerer des hypotheses a explorer concernant la signification de ces tendances pour les deux societes

INTRODUCTION

In societies divided by a deep-rooted conflict between linguistic communities contending for majority status, education has always played a central role, both in the cultural and linguistic reproduction of each group and in the definition of their relationship (Dunn 1990; Leman 1999; Mc Andrew and Gagnon 2000).

Traditionally, community control of a relatively homogenous and largely autonomous school system (or sub-system) has been highly valued by political leaders, citizens, and parents, all of whom are concerned with the survival of their community. The formal and hidden curriculum of schools was, and still is, considered the main vehicle to transmit language, culture (even if the latter is constantly redefined), and group allegiance to the next generation.

Notwithstanding, or perhaps because of, their relative success in this regard, segregated school systems (1) are more and more criticized, especially in countries where a latent conflict has evolved into violence. The fostering of parochial, if not stereotypical, views of the other community (especially through the teaching of history), the lack of common socialization between peers at the age when attitudes are being formed, as well as the value placed on monolingualism, in opposition to the bilingual or multilingual nature of the country, are among the sins commonly attributed to such an educational formula (Irwin 1992; McAndrew and Lemire 1996). Moreover, in a context characterized by increased migration and multiple cultural identities, the very concept of a school catering to a homogenous, historically-defined community is being challenged.

Nevertheless, the current trend among many intellectuals and experts toward the blurring of ethnic boundaries does not always translate into action on the ground. The resilience of group allegiance as a basis for identification and social organization still seems to be more often the norm than the exception, especially in education (McAndrew 2002; 2003).

In this article, we contrast the situation in Quebec and Belgium in this regard. Given the preliminary nature of our contact and the context where it developed, (2) we have chosen a bottom-top strategy, as opposed to a fully comparative endeavor following a common process and using similar data. Thus, each case study has been written from the perspective of the author's analysis of his or her own society, based on prior work each has done in their specific contexts: a realistic decision, indeed, but one which involves some limitations regarding the heuristic dimension of comparison.

Nevertheless, in writing the article, we committed ourselves to follow a rather similar plan. The wider social and political context, especially regarding language relations, is presented first, followed by a historical overview of the role that educational structures, policies, and programs played in the maintenance or transformation of ethnic boundaries between linguistic communities. Some elements of the current situation which may differ depending on the specificities of each society as well as the research available are also highlighted, and their educational and social consequences are discussed. Finally, each case study provides some reflections on potential future challenges to be faced by the educational system in light of a changing reality.

In the last, jointly written part of the article, we try to identify the existing commonalities between both experiences despite contextual differences, and to suggest hypothesis on the meaning of such trends--for both societies--that need to be further explored. In this regard, we especially stress the contradictions that our analyses reveal between the normative model of homogeneity, still valued by decision-makers and pressure groups in each society, and the reality of multiculturalism and multilingualism experienced on the ground, especially in metropolitan areas such as Montreal and Brussels.

A QUEBEC CASE STUDY

The Wider Sociological Context

Quebec, like Canada as a whole, is a society divided by a historic and linguistic conflict that raises specific challenges to the definition of a common civic project. Moreover, in the case of Quebec, notwithstanding the gradual access of the Francophone community to the status of a sociological majority following the last thirty years of governmental intervention, the complexity of the current position of both Francophones and Anglophones creates a society that can generally be characterized as having an ambiguous ethnic dominance. Indeed, the Anglophone community still enjoys a very high level of institutional completeness, even if the latter has declined since the 1960s (Guindon 1988). Thus, the two communities can be considered as subsocieties which function in a relatively autonomous manner, while intergroup relations between them are of an institutional, rather than interpersonal, nature.

Moreover, the ambiguity of the balance of power between the Francophone and Anglophone groups is increased by two phenomena. On the one hand, given the integration of Quebec society within the wider national context of Canada, each group, depending on the reference they are using, can consider itself at the political level as the majority and/or the minority. Indeed, even if Anglophones represent only 8.8 percent of Quebec's population, they are clearly the dominant group within Canada, where they represent more than 59 percent. On the other hand, even if the economic and educational gaps between both communities have been significantly reduced (Jedwab 1996), the Anglophone community cannot yet be characterized as a minority from a sociological perspective. An example of its remaining status is the significant attraction it still exerts over immigrant groups, especially when one looks at the pattern of linguistic transfers in Montreal (Comite interministeriel sur la situation de la langue francaise [CISLF] 1996).

Numerous studies in recent years cover different aspects of this partial and ambiguous redefinition of Quebec Anglophones from "majority to minority" (Daoust 1990; Levine 1990; Caldwel 1994). Within this corpus, the question of the political conflict with the Quebec state is dominant. Nevertheless, one encounters other themes such as the demographic decline of the Anglophone community and its impact on its institutional completeness, the evolution of its economic and political situation, its needs for services in different public sectors, as well as the impact of the change in its ethnocultural composition on its collective identity. But the role of schooling in the maintenance and transformation of boundaries between the two communities has not yet emerged as an important public issue or as an important area of research. This is in sharp contrast with the salience, in both communities, of the issue of adaptation to ethnocultural diversity linked to immigration.

School Structure and Ethnic Relations: A Historical Overview

From Canada's creation in 1867, and even before, school structures and ethnicity have been closely associated in Quebec. Although the British North American Act (BNNA) provided constitutional protection to linguistic, rather than religious (that is, Protestants in Quebec), minorities (Proulx and Woehrling 1997), a system based on a dual cleavage (Franco-Catholics/Anglo-Protestants) was set in place early because the two markers were largely congruent. Nevertheless, with the coming of different waves of immigrants who did not fit the established pattern, multiple sub-systems emerged and coexisted with very little formal relationship, at least until the modernization of education following the "Quiet Revolution" in the 1960s (McAndrew 2001). Due to a variety of factors (Juteau 1994), both internal and external to the Francophone community (high birth rate, closed mentality, poor quality of schooling in French schools, dominance of the English language in the society), the general trend was that Catholic immigrants attended Anglo-Catholic schools (a truly immigrant system), while non-Catholic immigrants were considered Protestants for tax purposes (Laferri6re 1983). Nevertheless, they were mostly relegated to specific schools where they had few contacts with White, Anglo-Saxon Protestants and did not enjoy rights to full, equal provision of educational opportunities, as confirmed by the Court. This unequal status led to the creation of ethnic religious schools, still operating today and currently funded by the government, while the creation of the Franco-Protestant sub-system was the consequence of the wave of Sephardic Francophone Jewish immigration in the 1960s.

When this system was first challenged, the focus was not (and in fact has not yet been) the French-Canadians/English-Canadians cleavage, but the immigrants' choice of schooling. In a context where the Francophone community was redefining its identity from a minority ethnic group in Canada to a territorial majority in Quebec (Juteau 1994) while experiencing a lower birth rate due to its process of modernization, the linguistic integration of immigrants to the Anglophone community, formerly considered a "natural," inevitable phenomenon, became defined as a social problem. Without describing here the controversies surrounding thirty years of language planning in Quebec and its contested evaluation (Daoust 1990; CISLF 1996), for our purposes (the school cleavage between national minorities, that is, Francophones and Anglophones), it is worth noting that by adopting various pieces of linguistic legislation, especially at the educational level, the main aim of the Francophone-dominated Quebec State was not to change the linguistic attitudes and patterns in the Anglophone community, but to compete with it as the host community for newcomers. Paradoxically, as demonstrated by Lamarre (1997), the main educational tool available to early proponents of the current bilingualization of this community can be linked to a federal policy, i.e., support for immersion programs. (3)

Thus Bill 101, establishing French as the language of schooling for all students in Quebec (Government of Quebec 1977), though it defined a series of exceptions, had very little impact, if any, on the institutional completeness of the historical English-Canadian community and the immigrants it had assimilated in the past, as well as on the degree of school segregation between Francophones and Anglophones in Quebec. What did change, though, were the overall demographic dynamism of the English school system (now limited to its historical clientele) and the very nature of French schools in Montreal, where the majority of immigrants are concentrated. The latter were transformed from traditionally homogenous institutions, the purpose of which was the cultural reproduction of the FrenchCanadian community, into pluralistic common schools. In the outlying regions, homogeneity is still largely the rule, although in recent years there has been a slight increase of immigrants owing to the government's desire to de-metropolize immigration (MEQ-Ministere de l'Education du Quebec, 1998; McAndrew 2001).

For some twenty years, due to constitutional obstacles (Proulx and Woehrling 1997), the anachronistic religious marker continued to be superimposed on a situation that was actually more and more defined by language. By 1998, the replacement of denominational boards by linguistic ones made more obvious, at the level of school structures, the transformation that happened in the society in terms of both power relationships and shifting ethnic boundaries. Although private ethnoreligious schools continue to be attended by some members of older communities, the Quebec school system is now basically dual, with "common" French schools coexisting with "minority controlled" English schools.

A few comments can be made regarding the overall evolution of school structures in Quebec in relation to the dynamic of ethnic relations in the province. First, it is obvious that, although both communities' internal markers, criteria of belonging, and relative status have been transformed and actually made closer, (4) their boundaries, socially and educationally, have proven to be extremely resilient. In fact, the new reform is even likely to enhance the "identity" function of schooling for both communities, who now control parallel structures corresponding more closely to their renewed definition, while making their structured and informal contacts less frequent than in the past, when they at least shared denominational school boards.

In some instances, school structures seem to have followed--and even lagged behind-social changes, as revealed by the slow process of adaptation to the loss of relevance of the religious marker versus the linguistic one. In others, school reform has been used in a conscious effort to change the "ethnic" order within Quebec. Nevertheless, the fact that the Francophone-dominated state defined, as the focus of its action, less socially and economically powerful groups than the dominant Anglophone community, whose institutional completeness was left virtually untouched, is a clear illustration of the specificity of majorities/minorities relationships in a context where ethnic dominance is ambiguous.

The Current Situation

As previously stated, Bill 101 has made French the common language of schooling for all students (including Francophones) since 1977 (Government of Quebec 1977), while recognizing that the historical English community and the immigrants it had assimilated in the past have the right to English language schooling within school boards it controls. (5) Although these provisions are in line with educational rights later granted to official language minorities by the 1982 Canadian Constitution (which Quebec never signed), the schooling situation of Anglophones in Quebec is generally considered much more favorable than that enjoyed by Francophone minorities in English-speaking provinces (Martel 1996). This is due, on the one hand, to the fact that the Quebec Government does not apply anywhere the numbers warrant" clause as other provinces do and, on the other, to the past economic and social dominance of the Anglophone community, which has insured it an institutional completeness up to higher education, unknown in most other national minorities (6) (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe [OSCE] 1999). In fact, some have even argued that Bill 101 is actually more detrimental to Francophones than to Anglophones, the latter being the only community in Quebec enjoying an almost total freedom of choice between the two school systems (which, as we will see later, they are using more and more).

Nevertheless, the community is facing two major structural problems in education (Chambers 1992). The first, now settled, was its division until 1998 between Protestant boards (where it represented a decreasing majority) and Catholic boards (where it had always been a minority). The second, more central, is the overall demographic shrinking of its school system under the combined pressures of decreasing birth rates, growing out-migration, and Bill 101's provisions regarding the schooling of newcomers in French. Thus, while 231,815 Quebec students were studying in English in 1971, there are now only 119,354. Although some of these trends also apply to the French sector, due to immigration, the latter has, at least, been able to maintain its numbers during the same period, from 1,178,133 to 1,003,666 (McAndrew and Eid 2003). Thus, the French sector today, where immigrants and first generation Quebecers represent around 10 percent of the clientele, caters to almost 90 percent of the total school population, while the English sector's clientele (10 percent) is in line with the actual percentage of Anglophones and past anglicized ethnic groups within Quebec. (7)

Research regarding the actual degree of school segregation between communities and its impact on the maintenance of separate identities was very limited until the Research Group on Ethnicity and Adaptation to Pluralism in Education (GREAPE) started a major research program in 2000. The program, which has thus far produced only preliminary results, aims, among other things, to evaluate the extent of inter-institutional contacts at the level of schools, school boards, or professional organizations, as well as their potential evolution following the adoption of the new linguistic school structures. From the first results of a survey carried out among Francophone and Anglophone school principals in fourteen school boards in various regions of Quebec (Smith, Mc Andrew, and Lemire 2003), certain conclusions, which need to be confirmed by deeper statistical analysis, are emerging. First, the degree of contact between schools of both linguistic communities appears extremely low, whether one looks at professional contacts or contacts between students. This tendency is especially strong for students in Francophone schools that, according to school principals, have no contact at all with the other group (levels of 88 percent for school activities and 79 percent for extracurricular activities have been noted). As one would expect from their minority status, Anglophone students have somewhat more frequent contacts (or, at least, less total absence of contact) even if the "Often" answer in their case is only 7 percent for school activities and 13 percent for extracurricular activities. Professional relationships seem similarly low in Francophone schools (except for principals, for whom the "Never" answer drops to 57 percent). In Anglophone schools, there are fewer differences between categories of personnel; overall, approximately 50 percent of respondents answer "Seldom." This slightly more positive trend, especially among teachers, can probably be partially explained by the importance of immersion programs, and thus of Francophone teachers, in Anglophone schools. (8) The answers concerning contacts between students outside school seem somewhat more frequent, the "Often" answer rising to 30 percent among Francophones regarding sports, and to 58 percent among Anglophones regarding a variety of public settings activities. These contacts are considered somewhat harmonious by 87 percent of the Francophone school principals while, here again, Anglophone school principals are more positive, 37 percent of them considering them to be very harmonious.

School principals were also asked about their perceptions of the opportunities that their school gave to students to receive knowledge, and adequate knowledge, concerning the other community, as well as of their evaluation of the other sector's performance regarding their own community. On the whole, and quite surprisingly, both groups agreed that there were more opportunities to get to know the Francophone community in Anglophone schools than the reverse. Moreover, although each group considered that they provided a fair or pretty fair vision of the other community, there was a consensus that the Anglophone community did a slightly better job, especially in history (high schools) and social sciences (primary schools), where the differences were more pronounced than in the teaching of French or English as a second language. The discussion of the relationships between Francophones and Anglophones was also perceived by both groups as occurring more frequently in the Anglophone sector.

The new research program will also provide more data regarding the extent to which Anglophone parents or students, and especially Anglophones who enjoy almost no legal restriction in this regard, enrol in a school of the other linguistic sector (referred to as "cross-over"), as well as the reasons that motivate such choices. In Quebec as a whole, 17,412 Anglophones, i.e., 18.36 percent of the total Anglophone clientele, attend Francophone schools. A somewhat similar number of Francophones (18,104) attend Anglophone schools; however given the demographic imbalance between the two linguistic groups, this number represents only 2.08 percent of the total Francophone clientele. Moreover, the roots of this presence are very different from one sector to another. Among the Anglophones who attend French schools, only 4,839 (6 %) do so willingly: those are Anglophones who enjoy the legal right to attend an English school because at least one parent was educated in English in Canada. The others are immigrant Anglophones from various countries of the world who are subject to Bill 101, as are other immigrants. Francophones who attend English schools are, except for a small number of people benefiting from loopholes in Bill 101, descendants of individuals who attended English schools before 1977, a right that has been transmitted to their children and grandchildren. The impact of cross-over on the two sectors is also dramatically different: the 17,412 Anglophones are lost in the ocean of 1,003,166 students attending Francophone schools, where they represent only 1.74 percent of the student population. By contrast, Francophones represent 15.17 percent of the total school population of the Anglophone sector (18,104/119,354), and are therefore much more visible

Even if these numbers are small overall, given the fact that they are not distributed equally between levels of schooling and regions, they can nevertheless produce a significant local impact. For example, among the 430 elementary schools (private and public) on the island of Montreal, 105 can be considered to have a linguistically mixed (French/English) (9) school setting. The same applies in 42 of the 216 secondary schools in the same area. Among these schools, especially those belonging to the Francophone elementary sector, the other group can be as high as 40 percent. Nevertheless, one notes a sharp decline of elective cross-over in both communities at the secondary level (Mc Andrew and Eid 2003).

Thus, and as mentioned above, we need to better understand why parents and students decide to cross the linguistic boundaries. This will be the focus of an intensive ethnographic study of four schools with a high percentage of the other community currently being conducted within the GREAPE research program by Lamarre and Laperri6re. Among other things, the researchers will try to assess the respective weight in this choice of instrumental motivations (dissatisfaction with the current immersion program, proximity of the school, desire to enhance career opportunities) and of ideological motivations (e.g., the family being itself linguistically mixed or children developing a better knowledge or a wider social network within the other community). The impact of an increased presence of Anglophones, especially within French schools already challenged by the necessity of integrating immigrants, will also be assessed from the point of view of teachers and school principals, as well as the perceptions of parents and students, of the wider mid-term consequences of their schooling choices on the dynamic of interethnic relations in Quebec.

The State of the Debate Regarding the Role of Schooling in Relationships between Francophones and Anglophones

Until now, Francophones and Anglophones, through their political representatives, spokespersons, media, or professional organizations, have been much more preoccupied, when discussing the current schooling provision in Quebec, by its perceived impact on their cultural survival than by its potential consequences on intergroup relationships in the province. The dominant theme among Francophones is the extent to which Bill 101 has been a "Trojan Horse" within traditionally French-Canadian dominated schools. This is usually expressed as questioning whether the loss of ethnic homogeneity and congruence between language and culture consequent to legislation has been too high a price to pay for insuring the survival of French in Quebec (Hohl 1996). Though proponents apparently are not reassured by the volume of positive data in this regard (CISLF 1996), in a more alarmist explanation, there is some question regarding whether Bill 101 has achieved this first goal (McAndrew 2001). Among Anglophones, as mentioned before, the shrinking of their school system is the focus of most of the controversy while, within a less vocal part of the community, the capacity of English schools to insure proper bilingualism and retention of their youth in Quebec is also a concern (Chambers 1992; Norris 1999).

Currently, both communities appear to be struggling to adapt to their change of status. For the Anglophones, becoming a minority (Caldwell 1994) is obviously more difficult because it is perceived as a loss of power, though probably not to the extent to which some militants confuse loss of rights and loss of privileges. For Francophones, as well, the process has not been without challenges: they lost the cultural comfort formerly associated with their minority status. After twenty years of major changes in the educational area as well as in the field of ethnic relations, no one seems to have any interest in opening a discussion of the relevance, if not of common schools, at least of more structured educational contacts between the two communities. In a context where a precarious equilibrium has been reached and where both groups exhibit some characteristics of a "besieged mentality," revisiting the issue of school provisions would clearly appear to be a Pandora's box.

The fact that the right of official language minorities to control their educational institutions is guaranteed by the Canadian Constitution also probably contributes to the definition of school segregation between Francophones and Anglophones as a non-issue, especially given the fact that the detrimental effect of linguistic school cohabitation on the less powerful language is considered an article of faith in Canada (Martel 1996). Although the extent to which French still occupies this position in Quebec is debatable, it is clear that many Francophone political and educational leaders, as well as parents, would object to any higher presence of the English language or of Anglophones in their schools. (10) Moreover, as tensions in Quebec are often implicit rather than obvious, the necessity of rapprochement through schooling may not be perceived as a high priority.

A BELGIUM CASE STUDY

The Political Model of Language Relations

The Romance-Germanic language border divides Belgium into two main language areas. Since its foundation in 1830, language has played a crucial role in Belgian politics (Witte and van Velthoven 1999). French was the prestigious language, in contrast to the Flemish (Dutch) dialects in the North and the Walloon (French) dialects in the South. The implementation of the democratic principles of "one man, one vote" and "equal representation" increased the political power of the Dutch-speakers who are the majority in the country as a whole. After a long history of language conflicts and a continuing process of state reform, the Dutch language ousted French in Flanders. Currently, a complex political model based on the mutual recognition of the nature of both communities guarantees a fair degree of stability.

The basic idea behind the current language policy is the principle of territorialism: the official language depends on the territory on which one is standing and not on the person one is talking to. The Belgian constitution recognizes three official languages and language communities: the Flemish (or Dutch-speaking) community, the Francophone (French-speaking) community, and the German-speaking community. The ideal is a country with monolingual municipalities in which either Dutch, French, or German is the only official language. The official language of the communities and the exceptions are specified in the constitution.

Apart from these three communities, Belgium is divided into three regions as well: the Brussels Capital Region, Flanders, and Wallonia. The three language communities do not fully correspond to the three regions: Flanders is a monolingual region where all citizens are considered to speak Dutch, Wallonia is monolingually French-speaking apart from a small area where German is spoken, and the Brussels Capital Region is a bilingual region where both Dutch and French have the status of official languages, although its individual citizens are not considered as bilinguals but as members of either the Flemish or Francophone community. Bilingualism here refers to the fact that there is always a Dutch-speaking and French-speaking alternative in official contacts with the government and in education and other public services. But the choice made by the individual citizen in a particular situation does not predetermine the choice he or she makes in another one.

Each region and each community has its own competencies, (11) jurisdiction, and elections, parliament, government, and administration. For Brussels, it implies that the regional matters are the responsibility of the Brussels Regional Government, while the Flemish and the Francophone Communities decide community matters. Since no such thing as a "Brussels Community" exists, schools in Brussels are linked either to the Flemish or to the Francophone educational system. This equilibrium between both language communities and the inherently complex political model is due to the fact that the overall majority of Belgians are Dutch-speaking, while Dutch-speakers are a minority in Brussels. At the national level, French-speakers are guaranteed equal political representation, whereas a comparable mechanism protects the rights of the Dutch-speaking minority in Brussels. If the balance of power in Brussels changes, it affects the whole country. As a consequence, the educational system in Brussels must be seen as a key element in a complex machinery with various players from different parts of the country. (12)

Language Policy and Education: A Historical Overview

Flanders and Wallonia: Toward Monolingualism

In the nineteenth century, the language policy in Wallonia and Flanders differed, based solely on the fact that French was the more prestigious language spoken by the higher social classes and most politicians. This was also reflected in educational policy. It resulted in a dual situation where, in Wallonia, language politics in education were based on the "jus soil" principle (all education on Wallonian territory was in French), while in Flanders the "jus personae" principle was stressed (the language of education depended on the language of the head of the family). For example, in Antwerp alone in 1932, in seventy-five classes the language of instruction was French, while there were no Dutch-speaking classes for the children of the substantial number of Dutch-speaking Flemish laborers working in the mining and steel industry in Wallonia (Lindemans et al. 1981). The battle for a Dutch-speaking educational system in Flanders was at the same time a language (Dutch versus French), social (lower versus higher classes), and political one. (13)

In 1932, the language of the region finally became the language of instruction in the "official" education system organized by the state, although not in the Catholic school network that was at least as important as the official one. However, there was a mechanism to allow the provision of education in the other language (at that time, it meant French in Flanders). Thus, when there was local demand for it, municipalities there could organize primary education in French. At the secondary education level, so called "transmutation classes" were made possible, officially as French-speaking classes created for French-speakers to adapt to the regional language but actually used to organize French-speaking secondary education in Flanders. Around Brussels, these classes even became an instrument to "Frenchify'" Dutch speakers. But in 1963, the principle of education in the regional language was expanded to all schools at primary and secondary education levels and also to the Catholic ones, while the transmutation classes were abolished. After the language troubles at the University of Leuven in 1968, Dutch became the only language of instruction in higher education in Flanders as well.

Since then, Belgium has evolved as a political ideal toward a federal state with monolingual regions. The official language is the sole language of instruction at school. (14) As a consequence, all schools in Flanders and Wallonia are monolingual in the sense that other languages can only be presented as a separate course, except for a few "'experiments" of bilingual education mainly situated in Wallonia, where the legislation is interpreted less rigidly. In both regions, pupils cannot always attend the school they prefer. According to the law of 1963, one has to follow primary and secondary education in the regional language, unless the head of the family declares officially that the home language is not the regional one. So if you live in Flanders, you have to attend a Dutch-speaking school; if you live in Wallonia you have to attend a French-speaking school. If the pupil who wants to register at a given school does not have the same "home language" (proved by a declaration of the parents) as the language of instruction of the school, it is possible to enrol at another school.

One exception to this monolingual approach in Flanders and Wallonia is represented by "municipalities with language facilities" (Koppen et al. 2002). A restricted number of municipalities, situated mainly around the linguistic border and around Brussels, offer language facilities for the speakers of another official language. It implies that they can use their native tongue in their contacts with the government and as their language of instruction in kindergarten and at primary school. Let us take a municipality in Flanders as an example. According to the law of 1963, if sixteen heads of Families in such a municipality ask for education in French, the Flemish community has to provide it. The intention of the law is the integration of these children within a Dutch-speaking community. As a result, only French-speaking children of this municipality are allowed to attend this school, while children from outside the municipality, even if their home language is French, are not accepted. The Flemish community is responsible for the control of all administrative requirements at these schools, including the competence of the teachers in Dutch. The pedagogical aspects, on the other hand, are the responsibility of the Francophone community. The fact that both communities are involved is an illustration of the atmosphere of distrust and the conflicting political intentions of the Flemings and Francophones. Where the main area of confrontation was previously Brussels, the focus has shifted toward these municipalities around the capital region, situated in Flanders but with a French-speaking majority. Where Francophones use the exception clause in the legislation on language of education as a step toward bilingualism or toward a fusion with Brussels, Flemings stress the integration of Francophones into the Flemish community. A second exception is provided by private, international, and European schools which do not fall under the jurisdiction of the Flemish or Francophone community.

In Flanders and Wallonia, the only possibility of "crossing" is when the head of the family declares that the family language is not the same as the regional one. In practical terms, unless one lives near the linguistic border, there is no alternative to sending children to the school using the language of the region. However, monolingualism in Wallonian or Flemish schools only refers to the language of instruction, not to the background of the pupils. Although limited research is published on home languages in these monolingual regions, classes with children from different linguistic backgrounds are not exceptional. However these children are a minority in most schools.

Education in Brussels: Monolingual Bilingualism

Brussels is a different story. In the new Belgian state, the majority of the inhabitants of the capital were initially speaking a Flemish dialect. Although a Flemish city, its language policy has always differed from that of Flanders. Its educational policy was much more flexible and orientated toward the "Frenchification" of the population. The idea behind this policy was not to make it too difficult for French-speakers and make Dutch-speakers bilingual so that Dutch would become redundant after a while (van Velthoven 1981). Although the freedom of choice of the head of the family was abolished in Brussels in 1932, the home language was still used as the language of instruction. This was reconfirmed in 1963. Transmutation classes were not oriented toward an integration of French-speakers into a Dutch-speaking city, but were used as transition classes for Dutch-speakers to adapt to an environment where the most prestigious language was French. This policy reversed the linguistic balance such that the majority of the city became French-speaking.

In the constitutional revision of 1971, the freedom of choice of the head of the family, a demand of the Francophones, was reintroduced in Brussels. As compensation, the Dutch-speaking schools obtained greater support from the government, for instance, permission to have smaller classes subsidized so that they became more attractive. Where the Francophone majority expected an increase of Dutch-speakers in French-speaking schools because the constitution offered them the choice, in fact more and more Dutch-speaking schools attracted French speakers. Their choice was influenced by two events: an active recruitment campaign, "The Future Belongs to Bilinguals," launched by the Flemish authorities and stressing the importance of learning Dutch and becoming bilingual, and the fact that more and more immigrants were attending French-speaking schools, such that French speakers themselves were looking for "White" schools in the Dutch-speaking sector.

As already mentioned, the organization of education is the responsibility of the communities. Since no such thing as a "Brussels community" exists, public schools in Brussels are organized under the authority of either the Flemish or the Francophone community. For both communities, the Brussels situation is exceptional, given its bilingual framework and its multilingual population. On the Brussels level itself, two intermediary structures are created, one for each com-munity: the Francophone Community Commission (COCOF) and the Flemish Community Commission (VGC). In relation to education, their major concerns are school transportation and the acquiring, administering, and disposing of property assigned to state education. These restricted responsibilities illustrate their relative unimportance, the main power being situated at the level of the Flemish and Francophone communities.

The Current Situation in Brussels: A Dual Model for a Multilingual Population

Bilingualism as a political concept in Brussels is based on a system of segregation rather than integration. This is reflected in the educational system: two separate institutional networks based on language communities operate completely independently of each other. Every inhabitant is seen as a member of one of the traditional communities and, by creating a dual structure, members of the Flemish or Francophone community in Brussels have the same rights and opportunities as their fellow members in Flanders and Wallonia. In that respect, the language of education can be considered a group right and a means of integrating of the individual into his or her language community. But whereas in Flanders and Wallonia the language of education is based on territorial rights, the inhabitants of Brussels have an individual right to choose.

An example illustrates the complexity of these different points of departure. Someone living in Wallonia in a village where the official language is French is supposed to speak French at home. If that pupil wants to attend a school in Brussels, as an inhabitant of a monolingual French-speaking area, he or she is obliged to attend a French-speaking school unless the head of the family officially declares that the home language differs from the regional language. This declaration can be the subject of inspection by the administrative authorities and, if that pupil is registered in a Dutch-speaking school in Brussels and it seems to be the case that the home language is French, he or she will be dismissed from school. If living in Brussels, that same pupil has the right to attend a Dutch-speaking school. So Brussels is characterized by a very liberal school system. Every resident has the right to choose the language of education for his or her children, and has the right to re-evaluate this choice every year for each child.

There is no clear, practical criterion that defines community membership in Brussels. The most obvious one in the context of education is the home language(s). A recent scientific estimation (Janssens 2001) resulted in the following data: about 10 percent of the adult population grew up in a homogeneous Dutch-speaking family, 50 percent in a French-speaking one, 10 percent combined both languages at home, while another 10 percent combined French with a language other than Dutch, and 20 percent grew up in a family where neither Dutch nor French was spoken. Based on the home language of the family the citizen grew up in, only 60 percent can be labelled as members of either the Flemish or Francophone community, while 10 percent are traditional bilinguals. In the political debate on Brussels, these bilinguals are seldom mentioned because they do not fit the traditional dichotomy. Apart from Belgian citizens, about 30 percent of the inhabitants have a non-Belgian nationality. In a study on deprived migrant communities in Brussels, Ackaert and Deschouwer (I 999) concluded that about 30 percent of these poorer migrants could identify themselves as Belgians, but that almost none of them consider themselves a member of the Flemish or Francophone community, even if they use French in their daily communication. Given this context, it is difficult to say who crosses the linguistic boundary and who does not.

Brussels has about 200,000 pupils in kindergarten, primary, and secondary education, approximately 15 percent attending Dutch-speaking schools. While 20 percent of the children go to a kindergarten where Dutch is the language of instruction, this figure drops to about 14 percent in primary and secondary school. Given the fact that only 10 percent of Brussels' population originates from monolingual Dutch-speaking families, the linguistic composition of the clientele of Dutch-speaking schools has to be heterogeneous. But as only 50 percent of the Brussels inhabitants have a monolingual French background, the same can be said even more forcefully about the French-speaking schools. Unfortunately data about the home language of pupils attending French-speaking schools is not available, but recent public figures of the VGC illustrate the multilingual nature of the pupils in the Dutch-speaking educational system, as is demonstrated in Table 1.

Children of monolingual, Dutch-speaking families are a minority within the Flemish educational system in Brussels. In kindergarten, only one out of three families uses Dutch at home, and the majority use it in combination with French. This figure rises to 48 percent in primary education and to 75.3 percent in secondary education. This evolution can be explained by the fact that the younger the pupils from monolingual French-speaking families are, the more likely they are to attend Dutch-speaking schools. However there is a significant difference between "public" schools (governed by the local municipality or the Flemish Community) and "Catholic" schools (governed by a private board of administrators joining a Catholic umbrella organization), which have the opportunity to select their children (de Schutter 2001) although not all of them use this option. Nevertheless the following figures illustrate the effect: in kindergarten, public schools have 29.7 percent Dutch speakers (children from monolingual Dutch-speaking families or bilingual families) and Catholic schools 40.9 percent. In primary schools the proportions are 42.6 percent versus 52.7 percent, while in secondary education, they are 70.2 percent versus 78.8 percent. At the same time, Catholic schools also attract significantly more children of monolingual Dutch-speaking families from outside Brussels.

Crossing language borders in education is a natural phenomenon in Brussels, though children from Dutch-speaking families very rarely attend French-speaking schools. In a representative survey of 2,500 inhabitants of the Brussels capital region (Janssens 2001), none of the respondents currently involved in a monolingual Dutch-speaking family had children in a French-speaking school. French speakers, on the other hand, tend to cross this border more and more. The younger the French-speaking parents are, the more they send their children to Dutch-speaking schools, especially at the start of their school career. This is a recent phenomenon and is, according to the parents, based on the belief that bilingualism is needed to obtain a good job.

Regarding the current immigration pattern and the future enlargement of the European Union, we might expect that the number of monolingual Dutch- or French-speaking citizens could drop further. So, for both educational networks, dealing with linguistic diversity will be the key challenge. An additional problem is the selection of migrant children: a high percentage of children from highly qualified and well-paid, non-Belgian parents attend private or European schools, while those children of low-qualified, poor, mainly Muslim families go to Belgian schools. The language problems in education are no longer linked to the confrontation between traditional language communities. French-speaking children in Dutch-speaking schools or vice versa are no longer considered a problem. Dealing with multilingual and multicultural classrooms is the key issue, especially when the language of instruction is seldom used outside the school and often not even understood by the parents.

The Role of Education in the Confrontation between Flemings and Francophones

The gradual evolution of the educational system in Belgium is the result of the outcome of complex political negotiations. This confrontation has taken place in both Flanders and Brussels. The influence of the French language on the education of Dutch-speakers was considerable in the past. It is only in the last forty years that education in Flanders has been exclusively in Dutch. Rigid language laws smoothed the political landscape. With the principle of territoriality as the sole point of reference, Francophones in Flanders became quasi-invisible, just as the Flemings have always been in Wallonia. Education is a reflection of how both communities live in separate worlds. The fact that French courses in Dutch-speaking schools cannot even be taught by a native speaker from Wallonia is a perfect illustration of this "segregation" option. In Flanders, crossing the linguistic border in education only occurs in municipalities with language facilities.

Both communities react differently, however (Janssens 2002). The French-speaking population make the same choices as the Francophones in Brussels. Although the majority send their children to French-speaking schools, some younger parents send their children to Dutch-speaking schools, especially at kindergarten and primary school levels. Most of them later switch to French-speaking schools. If Dutch-speaking parents opt for French-speaking schools, they maintain that choice till their children's educational cycle is finished. Remarkably, the percentage of Dutch-speaking children attending French-speaking schools is much higher in communities on Brussels' periphery than it is in Brussels itself. The fact that the problem of the language of instruction at school is solved by a policy of bilingual monolingualism, as is the case in the Brussels Capital Region, maintains the gap between both communities.

In Brussels the situation is hardly comparable with the rest of the country. First of all, one may conclude that the historical desire of the Flemish community to provide the opportunity for the Flemish inhabitants of Brussels to attend Dutch-speaking schools from kindergarten to university has been accomplished. While the first objective of the dual educational system in Brussels was to provide education for Dutch speakers in their native tongue, meanwhile decreasing the "Frenchification" process, Dutch-speaking schools are currently no longer only recruiting Dutch-speaking citizens. About twenty years ago, the overwhelming majority of the children came from Dutch-speaking families. Now French-speakers are the dominant group in kindergarten. In primary education, the groups are more or less equally divided, while pupils from Dutch-speaking families are the most prominent group only at the secondary school level.

The main issue in Brussels is the problem of managing diversity among the pupils. Language problems in education no longer refer to the Flemish versus Francophone community, but to the confrontation between Belgians and non-Belgians. This is not only a linguistic, but also a cultural confrontation. The question is how to deal with this inevitable consequence of multiculturalism. In the Dutch-speaking schools, it means that in many classes only a few pupils speak Dutch at home, and a lot of them only use Dutch inside the school walls. For French-speaking schools, the problem is that most of their pupils technically speak French, but they use different forms of French. In the coming years, schooling and the exclusion of youngsters because of problems at school will be high on the political and social agenda in Brussels. Simple solutions do not exist, though the area is likely to develop a different attitude toward language education compared to Flanders and Wallonia. Among both Belgians and non-Belgians, more than 70 percent favor bilingual education (Janssens 2001).

Probably because of the historical sensitivity in Flanders to French as a language of instruction, the time is not yet ripe for it. Perhaps education will not change the attitude of Flemings toward Francophones and vice versa, but it will be at the centre of the debate on living together in a multilingual environment and will be a priority in Brussels in the coming decades. (15) This issue aside, the question of how to deal with other non-official languages at school, and multilingualism in general, will also be posed (see, for example, Byram and Leman 1990; Leman 1993; Medhoune 2000). Given the different linguistic situation in Flanders and Wallonia, on the one hand, and Brussels on the other, and the complexity of the political system as a whole based on an equilibrium between Brussels and the two main language communities, changing language laws will not be a sinecure. Politicians will have to leave the dual framework behind and start to think in terms of a multicultural and multilingual society.

CONCLUSION

These parallel case studies of the role of schooling in the maintenance or the transformation of boundaries between two national, competing linguistic communities in Belgium and Quebec reveal major differences, as well as striking commonalities, especially when one transcends political and administrative frameworks to focus on grass-roots phenomena. Nevertheless, even when one considers this first dimension, the two experiences are not unrelated, especially at the national or provincial level (i.e., outside the two main metropoli).

Indeed, and this constitutes a first conclusion emerging from the comparison, state regulations regarding common schooling of either Francophones and Anglophones in Quebec or Flemings and Francophones in Belgium share a common preference for restrictions in this area. Within Flanders, Wallonia, or Quebec, each linguistic group has tight control over its school system, either on a territorial basis (Belgium) or on the grounds of the recognition of a collective right of the minority (in Quebec). These differences in rationales, nevertheless, clearly impact on the possibility of cross-over in each context. In Belgium (as a whole), the latter is, at the same time, almost impossible for the majority and almost mandatory for the minority within either territory, due to the quasi-absence of facilities in the "other" language. But given the high territorialization of each group, in practice it remains extremely limited. In Quebec, on the contrary, schooling in the "other" language would be available everywhere if a tight governmental restriction had not limited access to English schooling. Thus, one of the paradoxical consequences of Bill 101 is that only the formerly dominant English minority currently enjoys the freedom to choose either system, and is doing so in a limited, but significant, manner.

Nevertheless, even in this "free market" situation, loyalty to one's "own" system is clearly the preferred choice, a fact that shows that, even without governmental restrictions for Francophones in Quebec or for both groups in Wallonia and Flanders, community control of education would probably continue to be highly valued. This is exemplified, among other things, by the emotive nature of the debates concerning changes in educational language policy or its implementation. Any concession to the "other" group's concerns is almost always analyzed, in both contexts, from a win-lose perspective. Even changes in economic and political power relationships which have positively affected, although to a different extent, the status of the formerly dominated group does not seem to have significantly altered its besieged mentality, which, unfortunately, appears to have also been transmitted to the formerly dominant group.

Moreover, one can assume, given the overall similarity of schooling frameworks (though this would need to be verified through further research) that data on the extent to which Francophone and Anglophone youth in Quebec are raised without formal contact through schooling and with little contact outside school, as well as conclusions regarding limited opportunities to learn adequately about the other community through the curriculum, would also hold for Francophone and Fleming youth in Belgium. Indeed, let us recall that strict institutional segregation in schooling is even higher in Belgium than in Quebec.

But, as a second major conclusion, one must note that political administrative frameworks diverge radically when one looks at the metropolitan centres. Montreal does not enjoy any "special" status within Quebec even though its grass-roots reality, both in terms of the concentration of the English minority and of its multicultural character, creates a much more complex situation than in the outlying regions. Brussels, on the contrary, as a free market, is a fascinating place to observe the variety of strategies that social actors use to pursue their own personal goals in matters of schooling, in harmony or in contradiction with collective interest as defined by political elites or pressure groups. In this regard, the context of competition between linguistic sectors to attract clienteles, which has prompted the Brussels Dutch-speaking schools to put forward innovative multilingual and intercultural strategies, is reminiscent of the situation that prevailed in Montreal in the 1970s.

Other realities in Brussels are more in tune with the current context where traditional linguistic inequalities have been, if not erased, at least redefined. For example, the fact that the popularity of" Dutch-speaking schools among Francophones in Brussels is partly motivated by their desire to flee their own multiethnic system could be echoed although to a lesser extent, given the class-balanced and selective nature of immigration in that context among Francophones in Montreal, whose only option in this regard is to choose private schools. Moreover, as with the Anglophones in Montreal, when the Francophones in Brussels do cross-over, it seems to be for essentially instrumental and not integrative motives, as revealed by the common tendencies, in both contexts, to cross-over at the elementary level and to come back to their "own" system at the secondary level. (16)

The Brussels case study also reveals that even in unregulated markets, the formerly dominated linguistic group seems to find it much more difficult to opt for schooling in the "other" language, as if instrumental motives within such groups were competing with a stronger collective loyalty or a greater fear that both concerns cannot be reconciled. The status of French is much higher in Montreal than is Dutch in Brussels, and no one can predict with certainty how Francophones would react if the choice of schooling in English was available to them. Indeed, given the international status of English, there might be a greater impetus in that context to cross-over than in Brussels, where the attraction of Dutch (or of French) is likely to be linked to other factors. But research data regarding, for example, the manifestation of greater resistance to multilingualism and to increased contacts with the other community among Francophone students and school principals could indicate, at least, that there might be some commonalities in the reactions of the two formerly dominated linguistic groups in Brussels and Montreal.

Finally, notwithstanding the resilience of some of the heritages of the past, it is clear that both systems, especially but not exclusively within the two metropoli, are now facing the same challenge of a diversit]cation of their student population that has little to do with the traditional conflict that divided their societies. In both contexts, one can hope that the increased presence of students of immigrant origin with a wide variety of mother tongues will have a depolarizing effect on the relationship between the two traditionally competing, linguistic communities. Indeed, schools nominally identified as Dutch-speaking, French-speaking, or English-speaking now rarely closely correspond to their historical clientele. They are, more and more, multilingual and multicultural. In the longer run, this evolution could also bring a greater dissociation between language, now a common good shared by a variety of groups, and culture, especially among formerly dominated communities that previously maintained close links between both.

Nevertheless, one cannot conclude on a fully optimistic note in this regard. In both societies, immigrants have also been used as scapegoats in older conflicts, mostly of a political nature in Belgium, while their schooling choices were especially central in Quebec. As long as societies and school systems still work on a dualistic model--and we have seen, in each case study, how much political resistance revisiting this issue may engender-the impact of third groups on the transformation of ethnic boundaries, although significant, will not fully manifest itself. It is still, then, the responsibility of the two historically competing linguistic communities to critically examine their relationships, especially as they relate to schooling arrangements, and see that the latter comes to terms with the changing and evolving reality.

Table 1

Home Language Dutch-speaking Schools; Brussels, September 2002

Home Kindergarten Primary Education
Language (in percent) (in percent)

Dutch 12.0 19.5
Dutch/French 21.5 28.4
French 36.2 29.1
Other Language(s) 29.5 23.0

Home Secondary Education
Language (in percent)

Dutch 48.7
Dutch/French 26.6
French 13.5
Other Language(s) 11.2

Source: VGC

NOTES

(1.) The latter can be considered the negative "'side" of community control, a fact that clearly illustrates that a choice of words is also a choice of values.

(2.) As stated in the introduction of this special issue, a joint meeting between researchers and decision makers interested in pluralism in education attempted to identify potential areas of collaboration.

(3.) These are special programs inside the English sector where Anglophone students are primarily schooled in French during the first years of their schooling, while the place of English in the curriculum gradually increases as their mastery of French develops. Although highly linguistically successful (Rebuffot 1993; Johnson and Swain 1997), it is generally agreed that these programs have a limited impact on interethnic attitudes and, as is obvious from their design, they have no impact on the degree of segregation between Francophones and Anglophones and the development of social networks between them.

(4.) Both are now highly secular (language having replaced religion as the main ethnic marker) and pluralistic (with a decreasing congruence between language and culture, even if at a lower rate in the Francophone community). Moreover, their economic and educational gap has been almost bridged, although some disadvantages exist for the Francophone community (Levine 1990).

(5.) The educational clauses within the Charter of the French Language made enrolment in French schools compulsory for all pupils, with the exception of children who were already attending English schools when the law was adopted, their brothers and sisters, as well as those whose parents had received their primary education in English in Quebec and, more recently, in Canada (following several Supreme Court rulings). Exemptions also apply to Native children, handicapped children, or those only temporarily living in Quebec.

(6.) In Montreal, for example, two out of four universities are Anglophone institutions. Moreover, it must be remembered that at this level, as well as at the college level (two years alter the end of compulsory education), no linguistic restrictions apply, i.e., tree choice is the rule for Anglophone, Francophone, and Allophone students.

(7.) In Montreal, where both the Anglophone and Allophone communities are concentrated, 70 percent of students attend French schools where the immigrant origin population represents over 30 percent, while 30 percent are schooled in highly multiethnic English schools with few newcomers (MEQ 1999).

(8.) In a somehow surprising manner, school principals did not report significant changes in the rate and nature of contacts between the two linguistic communities following the creation of the new linguistic boards. One must nevertheless remember, in this regard, that the reform was very recent when we conducted the survey and that many school boards had established a moratorium concerning the redefinition of recruitment pools of schools formerly belonging to Protestant or Catholic sectors.

(9.) Defined here as schools where the clientele is comprised of at least 10 percent of the other group, notwithstanding the frequent presence of a much higher percentage of students whose mother tongue is neither French nor English.

(10.) In this regard, some of the open commentaries from Francophone school principals in the questionnaire referred to above (Smith, McAndrew, and Lemire 2003) were extremely revealing. Among other things, the Francophone respondents made a clear difference between what they considered appropriate means in general to promote relationships between Anglophones and Francophones through schooling and appropriate means for their own schools, where they showed much greater reserve.

(11.) The competencies of the communities center on culture, education, so-called personalized matters (such as health, welfare, youth protection, minority policies, etc.), scientific research, and international relations. The regions are responsible for the economy; employment; agriculture; environment; water policy; energy; urbanism; transport; foreign trade; supervision of provinces municipalities, and interurban companies; and scientific research relating to these specific issues.

(12.) See also Witte and van Veldhoven (1999), Witte, Alen, Dumont, and Ergec (1999), Martiniello and Swyngedouw (1998), and Glenn (1999).

(13.) It could only be achieved within a system of universal, single vote suffrage.

(14.) For a brief introduction, see Medhoune and Lavallee (2000).

(15.) We like to refer interested readers to the following literature on this topic: Braun (1991 and 1992), Dewaele (1995), and van de Craen (1999).

(16.) Here again, further comparative research should be developed to identity more clearly the common and different factors which are at stake in both contexts, on the model of the work currently being developed in Montreal, referred to above.

REFERENCES

Ackaer, L., and K. Deschouwer. De Relatie Tussen Taal en ldentiteit bij Brusselse Migranten. In Minderheden in Brussel. Sociopolitieke Houdingen en Gedragingen, ed. M. Swyngedouw, K. Phalet, and K. Deschouwer, 215-44. Brussels: Vrije Universiteit Brussel Press (hereafter VUB), 1999.

Braun, A. immersion Scolaire de Francophones en Classe Neerlandophone. Incidence sur la Langue Maternelle. Brussels: Plantyn, 1991.

--. Immersion Scolaire et Langue Maternelle. Des Francophones a l'Ecole Flamande. Communaute francaise, Service de la langue francaise. Direction generale de la Culture et de la Communication. Francais et Societe 5 (1992): 3-60.

Byram, M., and J. Leman. Bilingual and Trilingual Education: The Foyer Model in Brussels. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters, 1990.

Caldwell, G. La Question du Quebec Anglophone. Quebec: IRQC (Institut quebecois de la recherche sur la culture), 1994.

Chambers, G. Task Force on English Education. Report to the Minister of Education of Quebec. January 1992.

Comite interministeriel sur la situation de la langue francaise (CISLF). Le Francais Langue Commune, Enjeu de la Societe Quebecoise. Brian de la situation de la langue francaise au Quebec en 1995. Rapport du Comite, 1996.

Daoust, D. A Decade of Language Planning in Quebec: A Socio-Political Overview. In Language Policy and Political Development, ed. B. Weinstein, 108-30. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1990.

de Schutter, A. Taalpolitiek en Multiculturalisme in het Brussels Nederlandstalig Onderwijs. In 19 keer Brussel, ed. E. Witte and A. Mares, 375-421. Brusselse Thema's 7, Brussels: VUB, 2001.

Dewaele, J.-M. L'Immersion Scolaire des Francophones a l'Ecole Flamande Represente-t-elle le Sacrifice de la Langue Maternelle et de la Culture Francaise? La Langue et l'Homme 30, 1 (1995): 5-13.

Dunn, S. A History of Education in Northern Ireland since 1920. In Fifteenth Report on the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights (SACHR). London: HMSO (Her Majesty's Stationary Office), 1990.

Glenn, C.L. The Belgian Model of Peace-making in Educational Policy. In Het Schoolpact van 1958. Ontstaan, Grondlijnen en Toepassing van een Belgisch Compromis/Le Pacte Scolaire de 1958. Origines, Principes et Application d'un Compromis Belge, ed. E. Witte, J. De Groof, and J. Tyssens, 685-713. Brussels: VUB, 1999.

Government of Quebec. Charter of the French Language, Title 1, Chapter 8, adopted 26 August, 1977. Quebec: Editeur officiel, 1977.

Guindon, H. The Modernization of Quebec and the Legitimacy of the Canadian State. In Quebec Society: Tradition, Modernity and Nationhood, ed. H. Guindon, 60-95. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1988.

Hohl, J. Resistance a la Diversite au Sein des Institutions Scolaires. In Pluralisme, Citoyennete et Education, ed. F. Gagnon, M. McAndrew, and M. Page, 337-47. Montreal/Paris: L'Harmattan, 1996.

Irwin, C. L'Education Integree: De la Theorie a la Pratique dans des Societes Divisees. Perspectives 22, 1 (1992): 75-89.

Janssens, R. Taalgebruik in Brussel. Taalverhoudingen, Taalverschuivingen en Taalidentiteit in een Meertalige Stad. Brusselse Thema's 8, Brussels: VUB, 2001.

--. Taalgebruik in de Faciliteitengemeenten. In Taaljaciliteiten in de Rand. Ontwikkelingslijnen, Conflictgebieden en Taalpraktijk, ed. J. Koppen, B. Distelmans, and R. Janssens, 283 339. Brusselse Thema's 9, Brussels: VUB, 2002.

Jedwab, J. English in Montreal. A Layman's Look at the Current Situation. Montreal: Les Editions Images, 1996.

Johnson, R.K., and M. Swain, Eds. Immersion Education: International Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.

Juteau, D. The Production of the Quebecois Nation. Humbolt Journal of Social Relations 19, 2(1994):79 101.

Koppen, J., B. Distelmans, and R. Janssens. Taalfaciliteiten in de Rand. Ontwikkelingslijnen, Conflictgebieden en Taalpraktijk. Brusselse Thema's 9, Brussels: VUB, 2002.

Laferriere, M. L'Education des Groupes Minoritaires au Quebec: De la Definition des Problemes par les Groupes eux-memes a l'Intervention de l'Etat. Soecologie et Societes 15, 2 (1983): 117-32.

Lamarre, R A Comparative Analysis of the Development of Immersion Programs in British Columbia and Quebec: Two Divergent Socio-political Contexts. Ph.D. Thesis. University of British Columbia, Faculty of Education, Department of Educational Study, 1997.

Leman, J. Les Politiques d'Education Interculturelle dans les Communautes Francaise et Flamande de Belgique. Recherches en Education. Theorie et Pratique 15 (1993): 33-40.

--. School as a Structuring Force in Interethnic Hybridism. International Journal of Educational Research 31, 8 (1999): 341-53.

Levine, M.V., Ed. The Reconquest of Montreal: Language Policy and Social Change in a Bilingual City. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1990.

Lindemans, L., R. Renard, and J. Vandevelde. De Taalwetgeving in Belgie. Leuven: Davidsfonds, 1981.

Martel, A. Official Language Minority Education Rights in Canada: From Instruction to Management. Ottawa: Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, 1996.

Martiniello, M., and M. Swyngedouw, Eds. Ou va la Belgique? Montreal/Paris: L'Harmattan, 1998.

McAndrew, M. Immigration et Diversite a l'Ecole. Le Debat Quebecois dans une Perspective Comparative. Montreal: University of Montreal Press, 200l.

McAndrew, M. Ethnic Relations and Education in Divided Societies: Belgium, Catalonia, Northern Ireland, Quebec. Kolor, Journal on Moving Communities 1 (2002): 4-19.

--. Should National Minorities/Majorities Share Common Institutions or Control their Own Schools? A Comparison of Policies and Debates in Quebec, Northern Ireland and Catalonia. In The Social Construction of Diversity: Recasting the Master Narrative of Industrial Nations, ed. C. Harzig and D. Juteau (S. Schmilt, coll.), 369-424. Oxford/New York: Berghahn Books, 2003.

Mc Andrew, M., and F. Lemire. Models of Common Schooling and Interethnic Relations: A Comparative Analysis of Policies and Practices in the USA, Israel, and Northern Ireland. Compare 26, 3 (1996): 333-45.

McAndrew, M., and F. Gagnon, Eds. Relations Ethniques et Education dans les Societes Divisees: Quebec, Irlande du Nord. Catalogne. Belgique. Montreal/Paris: L'Harmattan, 2000.

McAndrew, M., and P. Eid. La Traversee des Frontieres Scolaires par les Francophones et les Anglophones au Quebec: 2000 2002. Cahiers Quebecois de Demographie 32, 2 (2003): 223-53.

Medhoune, A. L'Ethnicisation des Rapports Sociaux dans l'Espace Scolaire: Le Cas de Bruxelles. In Relations Ethniques el Education dans les Societes Divisees: Quebec, Irlande du Nord. Catalogne, Belgique, ed. M. McAndrew and F. Gagnon, 309-22. Montreal/Paris: L'Harmattan, 2000.

Medhoune, A., and M. Lavallee. Le Systeme Scolaire en Belgique: Clivages et Pratiques. In Relations Ethniques et Education dans les Societes Divisees: Quebec, Irlande du Nord. Catalogne, Belgique, ed. M. McAndrew and F. Gagnon, 147-69. Montreal/Paris: L'Harmattan, 2000.

MEQ (Ministere de l'education du Quebec). Une ecole d'avenir. Politique en matiere d'integration scolaire et d'education interculturelle. Quebec: Government of Quebec, 1998.

--. La Situation Linguistique dans le Secteur de l'Education en 1997-1998. Bulletin statistique de l'education 10, March 1999: n/a.

Norris, A. The New Anglo. A Nine-day Series. Gazette. May 29/June 6 1999.

Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). Report on the Linguistic Rights of Persons Belonging to National Minorities in the OSCE Area. The Hague: Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, High Commissioner on National Minorities, 1999.

Proulx, J.P., and J. Woehrling. La Restructuration du Systeme Scolaire Quebecois et la Modification de l'Article 93 de la Loi Constitutionnelle de 1867. Revue Juridique Themis 31, 2 (1997): 399-510.

Quebec Minister of Education. Une Ecole d'Avenir Politique en Matiere d'Interation Scolaire et d'Education Interculturelle. Quebec: Government of Quebec, 1998.

Rebuffot, J. Le Point sur l'Immersion au Canada. Quebec: CEC (Centre educatif et culturel), 1993.

Smith, W., M. McAndrew, and F. Lemire. Education and Francophone-Anglophone Relationships in Quebec: The Perceptions of School Admin-istrators. Working paper. Montreal: GREAPE, 2003.

van de Craen, R Reinforced and Bilingual Language Education in Dutch-Speaking Schools in Brussels. In The Construction of Knowledge, Learner Autonomy and Related Issues in Foreign Language Learning, ed. B. Missler and U. Multhaup, 203-11. Thubingen: Stauffenburg Verlag, 1999.

van Velthoven, II. Taal en Onderwijspolitiek te Brussel, 1878-1914. Taal en Sociale Integratie 4 (1981): 261-88.

Witte, E., and H. van Velthoven. Language and Politics. The Situation in Belgium in an Historical Perspective. Brussels: VUB, 1999.

Witte, E., A. Alen, H. Dumont, and R. Ergec, Eds. Het Statuut van Brussel/Bruxelles et son Statut. Brussels: De Boeck and Larcier, 1999.