VU Research Portal

Educational Pluralism - a historical study of so-called "pillarization" in the , including a comparison with some developments in South African education Sturm, J.C.; Groenendijk, L.F.; Kruithof, B.; Rens, J.

published in Comparative Education 1998 DOI (link to publisher) 10.1080/03050069828144 document version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record

Link to publication in VU Research Portal

citation for published version (APA) Sturm, J. C., Groenendijk, L. F., Kruithof, B., & Rens, J. (1998). Educational Pluralism - a historical study of so- called "pillarization" in the Netherlands, including a comparison with some developments in South African education. Comparative Education, 34(3), 281-297. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050069828144

General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.

• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal ?

Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

E-mail address: [email protected]

Download date: 27. Sep. 2021 ComparativeEd ucation Volume34N o. 31998pp.2 81±297

EducationalPluralismÐahistorical studyofso-called`pillarization’in theNetherlands,includinga comparisonwithsome developmentsinSouthAfrican education JOHANSTURM,LEENDERTGROENENDIJK, BERNARDKRUITHOF&JULIALETRENS

ABSTR ACT Recently,modern democraticgove rnments haveb eenfa cingreligio usand otherm inori- tiesde manding statefundin gof separatesc hools. Asystem of completelyequaltreatmentof bothsta te and denominationalschools has existedin the N etherlandssince1 920and is® rmlyrooted inthe Dutchhistory of theprevious centuries.It m aybeof interest to know how thisplural isticsystem of `pillars’Ðas ith as beencalledin D utchh istoriographyÐ cameinto beinga nd how itha sfunctioned eversince, eve nuntilthe p resentda y, when`pillarization’is still a prominentfe atureof theD utch educationaldomain, despitestrong secularising and post-modern tendencies.T hispap erde scribesthe historicalroots of theDutchpilla rizededuc ationalsystem,i.e.of thisrem arkablesub cultural segmentation of educationÐ and of societyin genera lÐon theba sis of different religious or philoso- phicalview s. In theprocess of pillarizationa crucialpartw as played byD utchProtest ants. With South Africabeing h eavilyin¯ uenced by th eseProtest ants and South Africaneducationalh istory runningpartlypa rallelto Dutche ducationalh istory during the1 9thcentur y, itseem sworthwhileto examinew hypillarisation did not occurin thesouthe rnhemisphere.In order tounderstand theprocess of pillarization itis nece ssary to look wellinto theh istory of theNetherlands sincethe 1 7thcentur y. Relevantsim ilaritiesb etweenth eSouth Africanand theDutchdeve lopments up to 1900are presentedas well.A tthetim ewhenthe D utchsystem of educational`pillar s’Ðor `voluntary ’as itha srecentlybe enca lledÐ fully developed towards theend ofthe19thc entury,South Africaneducationalhistory, however, took acompletelydiffere nt course towards compulsory racial apartheid.T hepresent revolutionarych anges inS outh Africa,however,seem to entailsom enew interesting parallelsbetw eenth eeducationalsituations inb othc ountries. Tosubstantiatethis, the paperh ighlights somerelevant featuresof 20thcentur ySouth Africaneducationaldevelopments, beforeana lysing thepresentDutchsituat ion and givingthe rea sons for thepermanent strengthofthe pillars. Not only arethe old pillars stillsta nding ®rmly,but new m inoritiesof immigrantshavealso discoveredtheuses of thesystem of pillarizationfor identity-building and culturalemancipation. To conclude, thepap era ddressesthequestionof whetherpillarization ineduca tion can and should be adoptedoutside theN etherlands.

Correspondenceto: JohanSturm ,VrijeU niversiteit,Van derBoechorststraat1, 1081BTAmsterdam,TheNetherlands. e-mail: k [email protected] l

0305-0068/98/030281-17$7.00 Ó 1998CarfaxPublishin gLtd 282 J. Sturm et al.

Introduction

Onlyshortl yafterthe endof the of® cialsystem of racialse gregationinSou th Africa, universallykn ownbythe originallyD utchword apartheid,the Britishphilo sopherof edu- cation,Mark Halstead,usedthis veryterm to designate an educationalpolicywhichm odern democraticgo vernments facingre ligiousorother minoritiesthat demand state funding of separate schools,sh ouldco nsider.Inthe 1995volumeofthe JournalofPhilosophyofEducation Halsteadlabelledthese minority wishes`voluntary apartheid’(Halstead,1995).However, Halsteaddidn ot meanto proposea criterionfo rpreferentialtreatm ent of any groupwithin society.A ccordingto him,state expenditureon schoolsshouldbe e quallyd istributedam ong allpe ople.It issurpri singthat Halstead has chosenthe phrase `voluntary apartheid’to advertisehis proposal for the best and most equitablew ayto organizeeducation.Thehisto ry of educationalan dother through the of® cialsyste mof racialaparth eidin the Republico fSouth Africahas demonstratedwhat gross inequalitymight ensuefrom a policy of educationalfavo uritism.Fromthe 1950sto the1980sthe expenditureon education of eachwhitechild w as always around10timesthe expenditureon the educationofan African child(U nterhalter,19 91,p.52).Despitea considerablele sseningof racialin equalitiesin recentyears,white students arestill heavil yfavoured(Enslin,1994;L emon,1 995,p. 111; Motala, 1995)[1 ].So whychooseth eword`aparthe id’,whichstan ds for inequality?So me of his readersm ay bepu tonthe wrongtrack. Tous,how ever,H alstead’schoicehas been achallenge to make acomparisonbetw eenthe educationalhistor iesof the Netherlandsand South Africa,whichare re latedto eacho therandyetso different.Letus®rst followHalstead inhis analysis,an dthensee if it c an bepu tto usefor ourpurposes as historians. Halsteadinsiststhat membersofallcu lturaland religious groups shouldbe ed ucated in suchawaythat they willall be ab leto participate equallyan dfullyas citizensina democratic society.A tthe sametime,h owever,he d oesadvocatese gregatedschools,albeit un derthe conditionthat noparents shouldbe force dto sendtheirc hildrento aspeci®c school,eve n ifit is fou ndedfo rthe bene®t of the culturalgro up they belong to.Thisn ew educational apartheidm ust bevolu ntary. Halsteadproposesa publiclyfun dedvariedsystem of schools with acommon syllabus,whic hat the sametimewouldallo wminoritiesto preservethe ir distinctidentities.Su chan educationalsystem involvesgeneraled ucationfordemocratic citizenship (includingeducation for cross-culturalun derstanding),whic hisc ommonacross allsc hools,and educationfor aspeci®c culturalattac hment, whichis diffe rentind ifferent schools.A llsch oolssho uldre ceivee qual publicfun ding, accordingto theprincipleof proportionality.Q ualityleve lssho uldbe sim ilaran dguaranteed. Surely,this isan interestinganalysiso fhow liberald emocraticsoc ietiesm ay cope with the tricky dilemmabetweeneq ualityo feducationalo pportunities,the promotionof cross- culturalu nderstandingan dfullpoliti calpartic ipationofallc itizens on the onehan dandthe right forminoritiesto foster aspeci®c culturalan dpedagogicalid entity and the freedomof educationalch oicefor eachp arent onthe other.R ecentexperiencesw ith the heavily centralizede ducationalsystem inF ranceor the mono-ethnictraditi onan dthe educationof minority youth inG ermany demonstrate that somedegreeof acknowledgement of multi- culturalan dpluralisted ucationald iversity seemsto beinevitableif growingtensionsbetween minoritiesand the majority inW esternc ountriesareto beavo ided(Sm olicz,1 990;G rant, 1997).Voluntary apartheidm ightoffera viableso lutionto someofthe problemsposedby modernc ulturalplural ism. Thereis, how ever,a problemwith Halstead’sapproach.Asaphilosopherof education, hehas madean analysisw hichis pu relyth eoretical.R eferenceto empiricale vidence,e .g. the Dutcheducationalsystem andits history, wouldhave providedhim w ith aunique EducationalPluralism 283 opportunity to test his ideasin realit y. Tocompensate,this articleloo ks intothe historyand the presentstate ofeducationalaffairs inth eNetherlands,w herevolu ntary apartheid,or verzuiling (literally`pillari zation’)as ithas beencalled in D utch historiography,has existed since1 920(Kruithof, 1990,pp. 238ff.),notmerelywith respectto schools,bu tas a prominentfeature ofDutchsociety ingen eral(W intle,1 987;B ax, 1988;DeSwaan,1988; Post, 1989).Pillarizationinge neralis the institutionalarran gement whichenablesmutually interdependent socialan dpoliticalgro ups to maintain theirauto nomyto aperceived optimum,without adistinctgeographicalbasis andwithinthe frameofnationalsovereignty, ensuringthe integration of thesegro ups to aminimalde greewhilepre ventingthe national identity orth esocialord erfrom bein gjeopardized(Bax, 1988,p.82). Although pillarizationwith respectto schools has beenthe legal situationin the Netherlandssincethe endof the so-called`SchoolWar’(c. 18 30±1920),pillarizationas ageneralaspec tof Dutchsociety has amuchlon ger history, as willbe comeclear inthis article. TheD utchpillarizeded ucationalsyste m,i.e.this remarkablesubculturalse gmentation orc ompartmentalization of education onthe basis of differentreligiousorp hilosophical Weltanschauungen (WorldV iews),can be trace dback to developments inthe 17th century. Hence,the articlestarts byanalysingthese historicalroots, notably the positiono fthe Dutch Protestants, whohave playeda crucialpart inthe processofpillarization.AsSouth Africaw as alsoheavil yin¯uencedby theseD utchProtestants andSouth African educationalhistoryran partly parallelto Dutch educationalhisto ry duringthe 19th century, itsee msworthwhileto examinew hy pillarizationdidn ot occurin the southern hemisphere.Th erefore,re levant similaritiesbetw eenthe South Africanand the Dutchdevelopments up to 1900arepre- sented.Atthe timewhenthe Dutch systemofvoluntary apartheidfully d evelopedto wards the endof the 19th century, South Africane ducationalhisto ry tookacompletelyd ifferent coursetow ards racialaparth eid.T hepresentrevolutionary changesinSouth Africa,however, seemto entailsom enewinterestingparallelsbe tweenthe educationalsituati onsinboth countries.T osubstantiate this, this articlehighli ghts somerelevant featureso f20th century South African educationald evelopments. Inth eNetherlands,volun tary apartheidis still the organizationalfram ework of the educational® eld,notwithstandingstrong secularizing and `depillarizing’te ndenciesinpost-m odernso ciety.T his articleexploresthe reasonsforthis paradoxicalph enomenon.Notonlyare the oldpillar sstillstan ding®rmly,bu tnewminorities of immigrantshave alsod iscoveredthe usesof the systemof voluntary apartheidfor identity buildingandculturale mancipation.

Concepts and Figures

AstheDutch educationalsystemisthe point ofdeparturefor this historicaland comparative study, itsee msnecessary to clarifysomekeyco ncepts and to have somestatisticsat hand regardingthe Dutchsituation.A lthough the Dutchcaseof voluntary apartheidin ed ucation isc learlya specialo ne(Ide nburg, 1968;James,1 984;Koelman,1987,pp. 90f.; G lenn, 1992),religioussegmentation within nationaled ucationalsystem sisnotuncommon.Inmost European countriesan delsewhere,de nominationalscho olshave existed for alongtime, with orwitho ut ®nancialaid by theirgo vernments (cf.D eKwaasteniet,1 990,pp. 18ff., pp. 229ff.;G lenn,1 992).Yetsuc hschools donotforman integralpart ofÐ nord othey occupy an equal placewithinÐthe publiced ucationalsystem,as theydoin the Netherlands. Then umericalsu periorityof denominationalsch oolsand the great varietyof ideologies, religiousorphilos ophicalas wellas pedagogical,are u niquehallmarks of the Dutch system as well. 284 J. Sturm et al.

Inthis articlewe speak of `public’schools,n ot inthe Britishb ut inthe Americanse nse of the term,meaningthe Dutch openbare (literally`pu blic’)schools ownedandoperatedby somepublicautho rity,no tably municipalities.Su chsc hools have to keepto `neutrality’Ðas the Dutch law callsitÐ in m atters of religiono rpolitics,alth ough theymay adopt aspeci®c pedagogicalbasis, for instanceM ariaM ontessori’sideas.T heo ther majorcategoryofDutch schoolsis c alled bijzonder (literally`particu lar’o r`extraordinary’);inthis articlew eusein thesec asesthe terms`private’,`independent’ or`d enominational’sc hools.T hey areow ned and operatedby differenttypesof localorgani zations,e .g. associations of parents, whichis usuallythe casew ith Protestantschools,o rthe Churchand other religiousbodiesinthe case of Roman Catholicscho ols.Su chloc alp rivatesc hoolbo ardsarefully co mpensated by the governmentforalle xpenses,inpropo rtionto the numbero fstudents attendingthe different schools,on exactly the samefootingas the publicon es(Ide nburg, 1968).Nearlyall of these private schoolsare ind eeddenominational. Atpresent, 35%o fthe primary schools arepub lic,an dtherefore`ne utral’scho ols,3 0% areR oman Catholic,30%ared ifferentProtestant onesof aremarkablevariety ofdenomina- tionsand5% areprivate non-denominationalw ith differentpedagogicalide ntities, suchas Waldorfschools basedon theeducationalide as ofRudolfSte iner(mored etailedstatisticsare providedinD eKwaasteniet(1990)).Inse condary education,on ly1 7%of allschoo lsare public.A llprivatescho olsare fully sup ported by state funds,bu tarefree fro mgovernmental educationalpo liciesinim portantrespects,aside from a commonco rec urriculumandother constraints as willbe d iscussedbelow (cf.K arsten,1994,pp. 212f.).Som eoftheselegal restrictionsÐ notably ontuitionfees,extra allowancesfor teachers,c apital investmentsÐ have causedthe Dutch provisionof schoolsto bee xtremelye galitarian:prestigiousschools for sociale Âlitesareve ry rarein the Netherlands(Dronkers,1 996,p. 54).

TheFirst Phase oftheD utchS choolWar

Calvinismhas lefta strongmark onDutchculture.C alvinists occupiedm ost ofthe important positionsinthe religious,cu ltural,social,politic aland economiclife of the Netherlands,from the late16 th century onwards and wellin to the 20th century,alw ays leaving, however,rather agreat dealofrooman dfreedomfor dissentinggroups. Although nevero f® cially,the Dutch Reformed(i.e.C alvinist) Churchwasvirtuallythe state churchin the Republico fthe United Netherlands(1588±1795)an dstilld uringthe ®rst decadesof theKingdom of the Nether- landsafter the Orange Restoration,i.e. fro m1813onwards.H owever,the state andthe Dutch ReformedChurchhave beenof® ciallysepara tedsincethe Frenchinvasion (1795). Consequently,the Netherlandsgraduallyc hangedinto amodernlibe ralsoc iety, whereasthe in¯uenceofthe Calvinists withered,andsimpletraditi onalbelievers seemedto becomerelics of ancienttimes,view edby theliberalopin ionleadersas backward and evendan gerous reactionaries. Asaresult,the state nolongerwan tedpu blicscho olsto bebiasedina Calvinist direction (Dodde&Lenders,19 91,p.168).Nevertheless, the progressivelymindedKingdomofthe Netherlandsstillc onceivedofitselfas aProtestantnation,implyingthat allscho olshad to be Christianschools.T his meant prayersand psalmsinthe classroom,storiesaboutJesusas a modelof moralityand learningto honourthe WiseC reator.A tthe sametime,the national governmentwantedthe schoolsto betru lyope npublicscho olsin the sensethat neitherthe Roman Catholics,M ennonites,Je wsand ,northe different streamswithin ReformedProtestantismitselfc ouldbe o ffendedby anythingtheteachers saidor did. T he Calvinist Heidelberg catechisman dtraditionaltextbo oks had to beban nedfromthe new liberaland tolerantChristianpublicsc hools.T hen ewschoolas wellas the modernized EducationalPluralism 285

Dutch ReformedChurchw erem eant to beun ifyingforcesinthe newnationstate (cf. Schama, 1970). Meanwhile,som eanti-rationalistand anti-liberalintell ectualsas wellas severalsm all groups oforthodox Calvinists began to feelveryun comfortablewith the enlightenedan d Latitudinarianclim ate ofopinion,dominant withinth eDutch ReformedChurchand the new schools.In the 1830ssomeofthemdecidedto confrontauthority andleavethe high Church, startingtheiro wnSegregated ( Afgescheiden )orChristianReformedC hurch. Inreje cting rationalistthe ology and the optimisticide alsof aliberalC hristiancivilizationandabourgeois moralityw ithout the dogmasofhumanweaknessan dthe needfor spiritualregenerationfrom above,theywereexplic itlyh arkingbackto the 17th and18th centuries.Alongsidetheirlo w churches,the yfoundedfundamentalist Segregatedschoolsin o rderto protecttheir ch ildren frome nlightenedin¯ ue nces.T his growingorthodox Calvinist awarenessmarkedthe starting pointof the so-called schoolstrijd (`SchoolW ar’[2]), w hichwas to dividetheNetherlands for about80years, an dwhichin ce rtainre spects isstill a hot politicalite mtoday, as willbe demonstrated. Thegove rnment ofthe Kingdomof theNetherlands retaliatedfuriouslyagain st the anti-modernan danti-liberalin subordination bythe members ofthe SegregatedC hurch.The illegalschoolsan dchurchesw eresee nas expressionsof areactionary attempt to benight the mindsof the population andto frustratenatio nale fforts towards amodernC hristiansociety notdividedby dogmaticdiffer ences.Aunitedand centrally-governedstate and a¯ourishing economywerethe chiefpo liticalaim sat thetime.T herewas noroomfor disagreement on educationalgo alsand for theologicalh air-splitting. Partly becauseof the threat of the `spectreof revolution’whichwas hauntingEuropein 1848,ademocraticfac tionsud denlygain edthe upperh and,`overnight’ as itw as saidat the time.In that veryyear o frevolutionin E uropethese democrats providedthe Netherlands with aliberalcon stitution determiningth epoliticalo rganizationandcultureof the Nether- landsuntilthe presentday. Thecoreo fthis constitutionw asthe recognitionofthe civilrights and liberties,ofwhichfreedomofassociation,religionand education arepartic ularlyre levant to thehistoryof the SchoolW ar.It impliedthat the Segregatedchurchesandschoolsco uld apply to theauthoritiesfo rrecognition.F orth epublicscho olsthe new state of affairs meant that they wereb ecomingin creasingly lessC hristianthan before,althou gh different religious groups werestill gran tedthe opportunity to provideextracurricularre ligiouseducationto students whosepare nts so wished.F rom18 48on,publicsch oolswe rec loselysu pervisedto makesu rethat therew as nore ligious bias.T heen dof this ®rst phase ofthe SchoolWar, then,wascharacterizedbystrictre ligiousneutralityinpu blicsc hools and the freedomto start private schools. Generallyspeaki ng, organizationsorpersons owningan independent schoold idn ot set great store by®nancialsupp ort fromthe government duringthe ®rst decadesafte r1848, particularlybe causethe ywereappre hensiveof governmentinvolvement inthe contentand colourof education inexch ange forsubsidy. Andthe government, too,w as of theopinion that peoplep referringed ucationoutsidethe regularpub licscho olssho uldprovid ethe ®nancingthem selves.

SomeSimilaritiesandDifferenceswith South Africa

Thed evelopment inthe LowCountriesde scribedso far showsremarkableparallelsw ith the earlyhisto ry of educationat the Cape. There,too, popularscho olsre mainedCalvinist until Napoleonictim esbe causethe ywereun derthe tutelage of the Dutch UnitedE ast-India Companyandthe localR eformedchurches (Biewenga, 1994;Randall,19 95).Thesch ool- 286 J. Sturm et al. masters weree xplicitly forcedto conformto the religiousandmoralp recepts of aCalvinist societyby the educationo rdinanceo fgovernorDeChavonnesin 1 714(Atkinson,1978). Thepe riod1652±1795thuswitnessedthe establishmentof asystem of Christiannational education inSo uth Africa. Achange camewith the schoolordin anceof DeMist in18 04,whichdeclaredthat the monopolyo neducation,enjoyedby the Calvinist churchsinc etheearlydays of the Cape Colony, was notto bec ontinued.Theen actment heraldeda muchm orelib eralapproa chto the educationalsystem .This developmentwas reinforcedby the arrivalof the English in 1806.Likethe Dutch kinginthe sameperiod,the English administrationw as strivingfor a generaland denominationallym ixedpo pularsch ool.L ordC harlesSomersetin troducedne w legislationinlin ewith these liberalid eas ofDeMist,transfe rringthe responsibilityfor education fromthe churchto the state (Behr,19 88).Aswas the case with regard to the Netherlands, we can establishlikewisethat inSo uth Africathe de-Christianizationof education had advancedso far by the middleof the 19th century that the Biblewas to be bannedfrom the regularlesson sasprincipaltextbo ok, `to securethe advantagesofthe public schoolequallyto all’(c itedby Venter,(1 929,p.29);cf.B adenhorst, 1955,p.41).This processo fsecularizationand anglicizationofthe schoolsw as further implementedthrou gh the arrivalof the ®rst Britishte achers,w ho wererequ iredto teachandgivereligi ous instructionwithoutreferringto denominationalm atters (Behr,1 984,p. 6f.). Becauseof this, privatedenominationalsc hools¯ ourished,an unusualand interesting exampleo fwhichistheschooloftheDutch-basedsociety` TotNutvan’tAlgemeen ’ (`For the PublicW elfare’).Twoimportant characteristicsof this schoolwerethe prominencegivento religiousinstructionan dthe advancementofthe Dutch mothertongue (Coetzee,1958, p.49).Moreover,as inthe Netherlands,th evariousreligiouscommunitiesw erep ermittedto provideextracurricularreligi ouseducationin p ublicsch oolbu ildings.H owever,in the eyes of orthodox AfrikanerCalvinists this was ultimately niem eeras ’ndoekiev irdie bloei va ndie wond nie (`nothing morethan sorry plasterfor ableedingwound’)(Venter,19 29,p.77).A further reactionto the policyof anglicization[3]was the start of the Groot Trek to the northeastaway fromthe Britishau thorities,d uringwhichchildr enw ereed ucated by their parents orby ateacherw ho was onthe trek as well [4]. InSo uth Africa, too,c ontinualatte mpts werebe ingmadein the courseof the 19th century at are-Christianizationof the increasingly neutral state school,i.e .to make it Calvinist oncem ore.W henthis provedu nsuccessful,peo plec ontinuedto foundprivate Reformedschoolshavingcloserlinkswith the religious climate athome,in spite o fconsider- able® nancialdif® cu lties.Su che fforts werem adeespec iallyin the twoso-called Boererepub- lieke,the Transvaal andlaterthe Orange RiverC olony(McKerron,1 934,p. 39).The so-calledC .N.O.movement ( ChristelikN asionaleO nderwys ,ChristianNationalE ducation) aroseou tofthe fear that the Afrikaneridealsan dthe wouldbe co mpletely suppressed.Strong relationswith Dutch Calvinists stille xisted,theprovisionof educationin the TransvaalR epublicbe ingto someextentacopy of the Dutchsystem and notafew teachers inTran svaal beingDutch immigrants (Schutte,1986,pp. 105ff.,1 39f., p. 181). However,w ewant to emphasizeonestrikingdifferencebetweenthe developments inthe south andthe north duringthe 19th century [5].Calvinist Afrikanersd idn ot onlycritic ize the secularizationof education,like the irD utchkindredspirits,butthey alsofe ltstro ngly against Anglicization.Suchoppositionexiste dinthe two Boererepublieke ,e.g. whenth e Boers voicedtheirindignationabou tthe legislationof thePresidentT.F.Burgers,w hichwas aimed at the secularizationof populared ucationand the removal of dogmaticin structionfromthe schoolsand against thelegislation ofGeneralJ.C .Smuts in1 907,wh ichdidno tput the Dutchand the English languageson an equalfoo ting(Atkinson,1978,p. 135).Some EducationalPluralism 287

Boers,partly onthe groundsof both thesegrieva nces, evenadvocatedthat the government shouldc ompletelywithdrawfromeducation.A®nancialargum entplayeda roleas well, Afrikaners believingthat they werebein gputat adoubledisadv antage,becauseR eformed parents paid forthe privateschoolsou tof theirow npockets as wellas forthe publicscho ols via taxation.In the Netherlands we frequently encountereda similarargu mentinde nomina- tionalcircle saroundthe turnof the century. Thegovernmentinthe Cape Colonycontinuedto operate neutral andAnglicizedpub lic schoolsin spite of allthe criticisman dopposition.Therew as asigni®c ant reductioninthe authority of the denominationalc lergy andnopupilc ouldbe fo rcedto attendreligious instructionwithoutthe consentof theirparen ts orgu ardians.S till,it shouldbe stresse dthat the strongest Calvinist churchinte rmsof numbers,the NederduitseG ereformeerdeK erk (Dutch ReformedC hurch),continuedinformallyto have agood dealo fin¯uenceonthe natureand structureo fpubliced ucationin the Cape Colonyas wellasinthe Boer republics, partly becausequite a few schoolinspectors belonged to that church(Badenhorst, 1955, p.179).Again thereis a strongparallelw ith the relations betweenthe high churchan dthe educationalsyste minth eNetherlands,even thou gh thestrivingfor neutralitywithinpub lic education wasclearlystron ger there.M embersof the variouschurchgro ups inboth countries continuedto foundtheirprivate schoolsalon gsidethe publicscho ols.

TheSecondPhase oftheDutchSchoolWar

Duringthe®rst decadesfollowingthe constitutionof1848Protestantschoolsand agrowing numberof Roman Catholicscho olsh ad beenfu llyself-su pporting. Thede nominational schoolshad beenappreh ensiveo fgovernmentinvolvementintheir e ducationalfree domas a sideeffectof possiblegove rnment subsidy. Notwishing`to bebo undby silvercords’,they wouldrathe rwork with thrift, donationsand,with aviewto thepoor,the lowest tuition. Fromthe 1870son wards,the legislatorimposed increasingly costly demandson all schoolsw ith respectto the qualityof education,schoolbuildi ngs, teachingstaff andeduca- tionaltools. T hesem easures,w hichalso applie das conditions for beingpermittedto found and maintainaprivateschool,brou ght manyof theseu nsubsidizedschoolsinto d irestraits . Forthis reason,the ybegan to offerstron goppositionto the newlegal requirements, notably through alarge-scalep opularpetitio nin1 878.N evertheless, parliamentadopted the chal- lengedmeasurefor the improvementofeducation.Underthe forceo fthesecircu mstances, the supportersofindependenteducation began to strivefo r®nancialsup port by the state. This revivedthe SchoolW ar,w hichthen entereda secondphase, the ultimate goal beingthe `® nanciale qualization’(Idenburg, 1968)ofboth publican dprivate primary education.This was achievedthrough the`peacetre aty’ of 1920. Thegrow ingcosts of the modernsc hoolswe ren ot the onlyreason sforthe changingof denominationalthin king inthe Netherlands concerning® nancialsu pport fromthe state for Christianeducation,anotherfactor beingthat educationwas increasingly considereda vital socialgood inthe courseo fthe19th century (Braster &Dodde,1994).Thescho olsw ere havingmorero lesto play, at the cost of theirtraditi onaltask ofpreparingyoungpeoplefo r churchand religiouslife.They alsohad to providesocial,m oral,c ivil,hygie nicand national education,andlateronphysical,cu lturaland aestheticed ucationas well.T heschoolhad also beencalledin for professionaltrain ingandgeneralsocial qu ali®cation s.O nallsid esit had beenarguedth at every childsh oulde njoy regulared ucation.H owever,no tallwe reof the opinionthat the state shouldbe allo wedto introduceco mpulsorye ducation.This was consideredas unjusti® edinte rferenceinth eresponsibilitiesandrights ofparents incircle sof denominationale ducation.N ot until1 900,later than ina numberof comparablecountries, 288 J. Sturm et al. was compulsoryed ucation adopted bytheDutch parliament, with onlya onevote majority. Thein troductionofcompulsoryed ucation,givingstrongimpulsesto the clamourof private schoolsfor state subsidy, had,therefore,beenanother important causeo ftheendof the SchoolWar in1 920.

Voluntary Apartheid in DutchE ducation

Anunintentionalsideeffec tcausedbythe secondphase ofthe SchoolW ar,i.e. the organized oppositionagains teducationalinn ovationfromthe 1870sonwards,had beenthat the differentdenominationalstream sinthe Netherlands werebe comingmoreaw areo ftheir interests andquantitativemight. Theac tiongro upsofthe schoollaw oppositionin 1 878 continuedtoexist inthe aftermath aspowerfulpressuregroups(cf.K uyper,s.a.). T his ishow the ®rst well-organizedpoliticalpartie sarosein the Netherlands,the mostimportant ofwhich werethe neo-Calvinist, i.e.ina religious sensestrictl yorthodoxbutina socialse nseq uite liberaland modern[6 ]andRoman Catholicpartie s.T hesepartie swerethe crystallization points for the ideologicallyin tegratednetworks ofdifferent functionalorgani zations,w hich wouldm uchlaterbe called zuilen (pillars)inD utch historiography.Fromarou nd1 880to around1970,publiclife in the Netherlandswasprimarilyd ividedalon gideologicallin esand the differentpillarsw ereharm oniously`livin gapart together’(B ax, 1988;Wintle,1996)in a `consociationald emocracy’(L ijphart, 1968).Notonlyvariou sreligiousgroups, but alsothe emergingsociald emocraticlabou rmovementdevelopedintoa pillar,w ith its ownoutlookon life,media,artform s,yo uth organizations, oldage homes,sport andculturalclubs, so cial interest organizations, housing associations,insura nceco mpanies, health institutions, etc., comparableto the denominationalpillars .Eachpillarbu iltup its ownfamiliarand isolated culture,inw hicha great dealof energy andattentionw as devotedto educatingadedicated cadrewith leadership abilities.A llpillarsmaintainedtheiro wn schoolsas well,e xcept forthe socialde mocraticon ebecauseof theirprefe rencefor thereligiouslyn eutral publicscho ol. TheN etherlands thus developedinto a society of carefullykept checksandbalances betweenthese different ideologicalsu bcultures, isolatedfromeac hother,bu tworking togetherratherharmoniouslyon anationallevel:a multiculturalsyste m,whichhas beenaptly called`con sociationalde mocracy’and `the politicso faccomodation’( Lijphart, 1968,1985) or`eq uitablepublicplural ism’(Skillen,1996).Thestate accommodatedto the citizen’s differentideologiesby pluralizingthe servicesitc ontrolsan d®nancesas wellas by incorpo- ratingthe differingworldview sinto the publico rder(Carlson-Thies,1 996).State subsidies werealloc ated through the pillarsÐ these ideologicalnetworksÐ accordingto the principleof proportionality.In th isw ay, the presenceof an intermediatelayer of ideologicallybase d private organizations,d istributingpublicm oneyfo reducationalas wellassocialand cultural purposes,has becomeasalientfeatureo fthe Dutchwelfarestate inthe courseof the 20th century (DeKwaasteniet,19 90,p.17).Pillarization was acradle-to-graveplural isticorgani - zationo fsocietyin w hichfunctionaldiffe rentiationwas overlaidby worldview diffe rences (Carlson-Thies,19 96).Duringalargepart of the20th century this extraordinaryfo rmof pillarizedsocialc ohesionp rovidednumerousDutchmenwith amoreprom inentandstronger markerof theiride ntities(Grant, 1997)than, for instance,soc io-economic,functionalo r regionalform sofsolidarity orinsom ecasesevenkinship. Thep henomenonofpillarizationof the publicsphe re,wh ichhad beendevelopingsince the middleof the 19th century,was undoubtedlythe mainre ason whytheDutch parliament decidedin 1 920to allowthe government to ®nancefully all prim ary schoolsinc ludingthe private oneso nexactly thesamefooting. This resultedin an enormous increasein the numberofdenominationalsc hools of widelyd ivergent kinds,at thecost of publicsc hools. EducationalPluralism 289

Aftera coupleof years, the denominationalprimary schoolsalre ady outnumberedthe neutral publicon es,an dthat has remainedso up to thepresent day, as the ®guresmentionedin the Introductionsho w(cf.D eKwaasteniet,1 990,p p.95ff.)[7]. In the secondhalf of the centuryothertypes ofeducationhave graduallyc ometoreceive1 00%® nancingbythe Dutch governmentas well,re gardless of whetherthey arepu blico rindependent, fromde nomina- tionalK indergartensto denominationalun iversities.F orin stance,in th eNetherlands one encounters vocationaled ucationorspec ialsc hools forhandicappedchildrenin at leastthre e variants: state non-denominational,privat eProtestantand private Roman Catholic,allof whicharefu llyfu ndedfromtaxe s.E venthe contemporary extensivestru ctureof education support servicesandpedagogicalcounsellingserviceshas beend ividedalon gdenominational linesfrom th everystart. This means that the entireD utch educational® eldhas been pillarized.Ofcourse,this peculiarhisto ricaldevelopmentisfacilitatedby, andstrongly rooted in,the fact that the Netherlandsisa smallan dveryd enselyp opulatedcountry. Admittedly,socie tal divisionalong the linesof differentphilosophiesoflifeis no tan exclusivelyD utch phenomenon(cf.R ighart, 1986;Hellemans,1 988,1990).Wedo ®nd,for instance,in B elgiumorin A ustria importantChristianpoliticalpartie sas wellas large numbers ofChristianprivate schools.H owever,co mparisonshowsthat pillarizationhas been morethorou gh, complexandfar reaching inthe Netherlands,whe repillar izationwas an emancipatory process fordifferentculturalm inorities,w herethe very fabrico fsociety has becomepillarized,wherethe publicfun dsofthe modernwe lfarestate aredistrib utedthrough an intermediatelaye rof different kindsof pillarizedbod iesandwherepeo pleused to regard themselvesprimarilyas amemberof acertainpillar (c f.D ijkstra et al.,1997,p.47f.). Regardingthe educationald omain,c entral to ourpresent argument, wewouldlik eto point to the factthat, as opposedto comparableWesternco untries,the Dutch privateschoolsd o forman integral part of the publice ducationalsystem .Thisartic lese eksto show that the historyandorganizationofthe educationaldo mainin the Netherlandsareu nparalleledin this sense.

DuringandAfterApartheid in South Africa

South Africaisa muchlargercountry and circumstanceshave becomeincreasingly different fromthose inthe Netherlands.C onsequently,e ducationaldevelopments onboth sidesofthe equator began to divergeco nsiderablyd uringthe 20th century (cf.Sc hutte, 1987).Inthe Netherlands,a system cameintobein ginw hichthe state started to ®nancefully p rivate denominationalscho olsand placeallsc hoolson an equalfoo ting. Inthe southernhem i- sphere,fo rmaldivers ity and racialdiscri mination prevailed.Thefour self-governingc olonies controlledthe irow neducationalp rovisions, evenw ellafte r1910,whenthe new and more centralizedU niono fSouth Africastill grante dthe provincesameasureof localc ontrolin certainm atters(Behr,19 84,p.20).However,someinitiativesweretakento establishamore homogeneouseducationalsyste m.In1 953,an InterchurchC ommissiononEducationwas foundedwhichprese ntedseveralm emorandato the government duringthe period19 54± 1962,stressingthe needfor anationalsystem of educationand the endingofthe divided controlovereducation( Behr,1 988,p.98). However,So uth Africadidn ot onlysuppo rteducationalhe terogeneity amongwhitesin aregionaland ina denominationalse nse.Ed ucationfor non-whites had mainlybe enthe responsibilityof the missionaries.Graduallythe provincialgo vernment departments of education subsidizedm issionsc hoolsand thenestablisheddifferent typesofpublicscho ols for differentethnicgro ups. TheB antu EducationActof 1953con®rmeddiscrimination 290 J. Sturm et al. through the raciallysegreg atedstate schoolsyste muntilthe endofthe apartheide ra (Havighurst 1968;Unterhalter1991,p .56f.;R andall,19 95). Allthe same,duringthe apartheidera som eattempts werebein gmadeto enlargethe roleo freligionin p ublice ducation.TheN ationalE ducationP olicyA cto f1967(A ct 39/1967)de terminedthat educationinthe schoolsm aintainedandmanagedby the state, shouldhave aChristiancharacter,albe itthat differentreligious convictions ofparents and pupilsshou ldb erespectedregard ingreligiousinstructionan dceremonies(B ehr, 1984, p.39).Inth emeantime,ed ucationalaparth eidan dthe Christiancharacterofnational education werein creasingly criticized.In1 981,an investigationwas launchedinrespon seto the crisisof boycotts andriotsby blackpupilsw ho demonstratedtheirdiscon tent with the systemofapartheidand with the low standardsofBantu Education.Theresult sof this investigationwerepublis hedasthe DeLange Report, whichproposedanew dispensationfor South Africa, namely,e qual opportunitiesand standards for all(C ollins& Gillespie,1984; Buckland& Hofmeyr,1 993,p.25).However,it was notuntil1 992that this becameareality inS outhAfricawith the announcementthat thereshouldbe onesinglee ducationd epartment onthe nationalle velandprovincialde partments with considerablepo wer.In 1 993the ANC’sDraft Billof Rights was published,article5of whichde alsw ith the `Rights of association,religi on,language andculture’.Accordingto this article,`the reshall be fre edom of worshipand toleranceof allreligi ons,an dnostate orof® cialre ligionshallbe e stablished’ and furthermore`place sassociatedwith religiousobservanceshallbe respe cted,an dno-one shallbe barre dfromen teringtheseo ngrounds of race’.Thesed evelopments make itc lear that thereis no longeraChristianmonopoly instate schools,as has alreadybeenthe case in the Netherlands sincethe middleof the 19th century. Atthe sametime,however,it is a fact that inge neralparen ts have beengrantedmuch morein ¯uenceinth estate schools.T heH unterR eport of August 1995,forinstance,state s that parental rights shouldbe re¯ ec tedin the recommendedcompositiono fapublicsc hool’s governingbody whereth eparentconstituencyhas to benu mericallythe strongest (Hunter 1995,p.43).This meansthat suchagoverningbodyalsohas the powerto determinethe identity, i.e.the ethos andcharacter,o fthe school.T heon lyprec onditionis that discrimi- nation againstany individualon an yground,w illno tbetolera ted.Theintro ductionof state-aidedscho ols(the so -calledM odelCschools)in creasestheparental participationin schoolaffairs as well.P arents alsohave the right, accordingto the new Constitution,to start private schoolsfro mtheirow nfunds. Towardsthe endof the 20th century, then,parallelsbetweenthe South Africanan dthe Dutch provisionof educationse emto developagain .However,the speedof the develop- ments, aswellas the complexity thereof,de fy any attemptatamorethoro ugh analysisas yet. Asystem of educationalvolun tary apartheidor verzuiling might bean answerto someof the educationalproble msinthe newSouth Africa.T oourm inds,anyw ay, the redistributionof education fundingtospread resourcesinamoree quitablefashio nisvitalfo rthe development of amoreharm onious andjust educationalsystem inSou th Africa(c f.M otala, 1995).

Old and NewPillars in theNetherlands

Eventhough Dutch cultureand society have slowlybu tsurelybe end epillarizedinm any respects duringthe last quarterofthe 20th century dueto secularizationand the growing post-modernd isbeliefinall-en compassingideologies,volun tary apartheidc ontinuesto bea dominantfeature of the Dutcheducationalsyste m(cf.D ijkstra et al.,1997).Although it often seemsveryhard,ifnotimpossible,for private denominationalscho olboards to indicate inw hat respects theirscho oldiffe rs fromthe state schoolne xt door,the pillarshave been EducationalPluralism 291 successfulinsafe guardingtheiro wnstate-maintainedindependentschools(c f.R ens&Van derWalt,1 995). Meanwhile,critic ismhas beengrowing. First,th ereis a ®nancial±e conomicargu ment. Thepresen tdesign ofcompartmentalization ofprimary educationresultsinad ditional expenditure,m ainlydu eto the fact that insparse lypopu latedareas differentsmallscho olsof differentdenominationsmust bem aintainedby the state instead of fewerlargerones[8 ]. Compartmentalizationof secondary and higher educationis probab lye venm orec ostly. In general,th erecenteconomicaln eedfor cut-backsinoverallgo vernmentexpenditurean dthe callsfor moreef® cie ncyandlargersc alesgivestre ngth to this ®nanciallyinspir edc riticism. Inrec entyears,the Dutch government has, therefore,severaltim espresentedplansfora drasticin creaseof the minimumnumberof students aschoolm ust have ifit w ishesto be eligiblefor funding.Othertypes of criticismhave beenrevivedof lateas well.S incethe 19th centurythechampionsofauniformp ublicsc hoolsystem have beenaccusingdenominational schoolsof notfullyen dorsingcivilvirtu es,de mocraticvalu esand cross-culturalto lerance(c f. Koelman, 1987,pp.88ff.).N otablysom efundamentalists withinand without Christianity don ot subscribeu nconditionallyto the fundamental rights of modernd emocracies,su chas the freedomofspeechfor alland the principlesof non-discrimination and tolerance.T he questionof whetherm easuresshou ldbe taken to preventgroups professingsuchview sfrom havingtheirow nschoolsw hilehavin gthe state pay themfor indoctrinatingtheirstu dents is averyc omplexand contestedonein the Netherlandsdueto the historicalde velopments sketchedabo ve.Nowadays, itisbroadlyac ceptedthat allyou ngpeoplene edto learnto cope with andfullyacc ept ideologicaldiversity intod ay’sopenandmulticulturalso ciety.It seems veryo ddin the light of the pervasivesecularizationo fmoderncu lturethat so manychildren arestill be ingse nt to schoolsprofe ssing onlyon eparticularc onception ofgood,evenif all teachersin an yschoolarere quiredby law to introduceall stu dents to differentideas and cultures.A llcitize nsshouldrespe ctan dvalue,or learn to respectand value,multiformity, and nostu dentought to bec on®n edto the self-imposed ghetto of adenominationalscho ol, say the advocates of auniformpub licm ulticulturalscho olsyste m.Allthese objections have beencompellingreasonsfor agrowingnumberof Dutch peopleto reconsiderseriouslythe muchacclaimedfreed omof educationalc hoicefor parents warrantedby pillarizationor educationalplural ism. Nevertheless, the majority of Members ofParliament appear to attach enormousvalue of this voluntary apartheidlaid do wninthe Dutch Constitution.U ndoubtedly,th ish as a great dealto dowith the fact that so many peoplein the Netherlands arede pendentonthe private educationalse ctorfor theirliveli hood.A notherim portantfactor isthat attempts to affectthepositionof powerofthe Christianeducationalinterestorganizationsareco mpletely non-negotiablefo roneof the fourlargestpoliticalpartie sinthe Netherlands,th eChristian (cf.D eKwaasteniet, 1990,pp. 180ff.).In a sensethe Dutch educationalsystem andDutch politicshave beenbased onthe authority,in ¯uenceandintermediatero leo fsuchorgani za- tions,as ism uchof Dutchsocietyin gen eral.T owish to put an endto that wouldm ean an enormous break with the past. Furthermore,for manyparents, Christianeducationhas the reputation offunctioningbetter than publiced ucation,oneofthe reasonsfor thisprestigious- ness being,webelieve,th atChristianschoolsare gen erallybetter equippedgiven th efact that theyreceiveexactl ythe sameamountofmoneyfromthe state asthepublicsc hools,bu talso have additional® nancialre sources,su chasÐ rathersmallÐextra tuition,donationsand capitalfromthe past. Christianschoolsalso have areputation of beingmoreo rderly, thorough and effective,i.e. the yarebeliev edto deliverstu dents to ahigher levelsoonerthan theirpublic co unterparts. Independent schoolsalle gedlyperfo rmbe tterthan publicon es. Educationalresearch,however,has cast serious doubts onthis claim(D ijkstra,1992,p.154; 292 J. Sturm et al.

Roeleveld,1994,p.203):ifsyste maticd ifferencesine ducationale ffectivenessc an beob- servedat allbe tweenpublican dprivateschools,they wouldbe explai nedbetter by pointing tothecircumstancethat inregion swherethe reisstrongcompetitionbetweenschoolsfornew students, schoolsare natu rallyen couraged to performbetterandbem oree ffectivein o rder to enrole nough students to survive,this beingchie¯yachallenge for Christiansch oolsthat shownomajor differencesregardingbeliefsand viewscomparedwith publicon esinthe same region(cf.R oeleveld,1 994,p.225)[9].Finally,manyparents seemto thinkthat somekind ofreligious educationin scho olcan notharm theirc hildren,evenifsu chpare nts donothave strong religiousconvictions themselves.P ublicschoo lshave tendedto avoid religiousand moralissu es.D enominationalsc hools,then ,areo ftenconsideredto bethe right choiceby parents who carefo ravalue-orientedtype ofeducation,e venm oreso sincemost ofthe Christianschoolsh ave becomelessand less orthodox inrec entyears (cf.D ronkers,1 996, p. 57). Allthis doesnot alterthe fact that the majority of Christianscho olsin the Netherlands have beengoing through aseriousidentity crisis,whethertheyadmitthisopenlyornot.They tendto play downtheirre ligious roots. Inth isre spectw ecanspeak of ahollowing-out of voluntary apartheid,akindof `depillarization’fromw ithin.In ad dition,schoolso fvarious denominationsarebeing thre atenedintheirexistenceinaveryspeci®c way becausefor along timeithas beendoubtfulwhetherthey can count ona constantandsuf® cientin¯ow of students fromtheirow ncrumblingran kand ®le.M any independent schoolstry to escape fromthis predicament andfromthe iride ologicalshyn essin a depillarizingenvironmentby advancingide ologicallyirrele vantfeatures,su chas the dubiousclaimof effectiveness men- tionede arlieran dbytrying toenrolstudents fromthe newreligiousminorities,i.e .Muslims. Inc ontrastto this depillarizationfromwithin,new pillarshave arisenin re cent years. Duringthe past 20years,variou ssmallfu ndamentalist,traditi onalistand pietisticstre ams withinD utch Calvinismhave beenexpe riencingaremarkablegrowth, whichisalso re ¯ected inthe proliferationofnewpillarizeded ucationalinstitu tions,sep arate fromand partly in oppositionto the establishedProtestantones. Inadd ition,im migrant groups,sizeab lein the majorDutchcities,in partic ularthose with an Islamicor H indureligi ousbackground,have recently begun to utilizethe consti- tutionalfree domof educationby founding theirow nprimary schools on areligiousbasis (Sietaram,1992).Likeothe rprivate schools,these educationalinstitu tions canco untonfull governmentfunding, providedtheymeetthe normalle gal conditions(cf.D eKwaasteniet, 1990,pp. 209ff.).It isa requirement, for instance,that an association wishing to start an Islamicprim ary schoolmust demonstrate that the legalm inimumnu mbero f200students willbe realizedwithin5 years.M oreover,the teaching staff shouldpo ssessthe normalpowers and quali®cation s.T hescho olm ust provideregular primary education,as requiredby law. Thelessonsmust thereforebe foc usedon the abilityto functionadequatelyin D utch society, whichmeans,fo rinstance,that suf® cientattentionispaid to the Dutch language,that the students arefam iliarizedwith the variousreligiousandculturalstream swithinD utch culture and that they arep repared for the multiculturalc haracterof the Netherlands.A nimportant requirementisalso that the exitle velsof theprimary schoolssho uldd ovetailw ellw ith the differenttypesof secondary education.Inre cent years,seve rald ozensof suchim migrant schoolshave comeinto existencean ditw ouldsee mthat severalne wpillarsare b eingbu ilt (Driessen,19 96). Suchp rivate,yet publiclyfun dedMuslimo rHinduschools,how ever,shou ldnot be confusedw ith arelated,butfundamentallyd ifferent phenomenonw hichis n ot at allin lin e with the intentionsbehindD utch educationalplu ralism.Inthe Netherlands,as inothe r comparableco untries,so-cal led`black’and `white’schoolshave developeddu ringthe past EducationalPluralism 293 fewyears (cf.Sietar am,1992;Karsten,1 995).Particularlyin the major cities,a numberof schools,pu blicas wellas private,have beenturningin to `black’sch ools.Suc hschoolsare primarilyatte ndedby childrenofpoorimmigrantfamiliesinthe neighbourhood.W hite families,n otably whitem iddle-class families,livin gnear the schoolare in clinedto sendthe ir childrento a`white’school,eve nifit is loc ated muchfarth eraw ay fromth eirhom es.T his behaviourleadsto theprejudicethat `black’scho olshave alowerlevelo feducation. Conversely,im migrant parents arein clined,accordingto recentresearch (Van derW ouw, 1994,p.156),to sendtheirc hildrento schoolsw hichare atte ndedby an above-average percentage of immigrant children[10 ].Naturally,this informalform o f(voluntary?)apart- heidon an ethnicbasis isco nsideredu ndesirablein wid ecirclesand certainlyby the Dutch government. This grass-roots ethnicsegreg ation doesnot inan yway runparallelwith the ideologicalsegreg ation betweenpublicand private educationre gulatedbylaw, as described above.Ofcourse,the segregation of `black’and `white’scho olsis d iametricallyoppo sedto the notionof themulticulturalsoc iety that isbase don pluralism,equality,m utualco ntacts and respect,a notionalm ost unanimouslyac cepted,atleast inEu rope(G rant, 1997).Dutch municipalau thoritieshave beenatte mptingto reversethis ethnicco mpartmentalizationof late,although this turnsoutto bee xtremelydif® cu ltbec auseo fthe fundamental and historicalfree domof choicewith respectto schoolsin the Netherlands.

Conclusion:alessonfromhistory?

Educationald evelopments inS outh Africaand the Netherlands have shownlittlem utual resemblancein the 20th century. Although racialaparth eidwas asalient featureo fmuchof 20th century South Africa,voluntary apartheidhas notbeena viableoption there,ifonlyfo r reasonsof the extremelyhigh costs ofsucha systemandthe lowpopulationd ensity inthat huge country. Still,the reis a qualityoffairness aboutthe Dutch educationalsystemwhichm ight beof interesttoother societies.W ebelieveto have demonstrated that voluntary apartheidin D utch history,u nderthe speci®c conditionsofplaceand time,has helpedcu lturalm inoritiesto work themselvesupfromadisadvantageouspositiontow ards equality,whileprom otingsocial harmony, solidarity andcommitmentonthe nationallevel (Stu rm,1993;Knippenberg, 1996).What was essentialto this emancipatory process of gainingpoliticalstren gth and culturalse lf-reliancethrough socialisolati onÐaptly phrased`sovereignty inon e’sowncircle’ or`’ (Kuyper,1880)Ðwasthattheseminoritieswereb eingm oreand more ®nanciallysu pportedby the governmentandwere® nallyac cepted as ®rmand vitalpillar sof societyas awhole.T hepillar swereno tmerelyprivate organizations,but theywerepivo tal parts ofthe state systemwith equivalentlegalstan ding(Carlson-Thies,1990).Obviously,the constitutionallygu aranteedequaltreatmentofthe varioussubculturesinD utch history isthe big differencew ith the apartheidpolicy vis-a Á-vis the differentethnicgrou ps inSou th African history,w heresocialc ompartmentalization impliedinequalityand discrimination.Incontrast, the isolatedpillarcu lturesinD utchhistoryofferedm inoritiesoppo rtunitiesfor cultivating theiro wn cadreo fleadersand fordevelopingamorepo sitiveself-i mage.With self-reliance increasing, the pillarsbegan to showcracksan dholes,throu gh whichdifferent cultural in¯uencesco uldpen etrate.Hence,subculturesanddominantculturegrad uallyap proached eachotherand ®nallyinte grated.InD utchhistorythis was acircuitous and costly, but nevertheless democraticand effectivem eansofemancipatingmembersof minoritygroups into full-¯ed ged and equal citizensofacomplex society. Inretrospect,the convictionimposes itselfon the present authors that inthis way seriousfrictions betweendo minantculturean d culturalm inoritieswerepre vented.This isprobab lythe reasonwhy thetensionsthat 294 J. Sturm et al. normallyarise from the experienceofinequalityan dunjust treatment have had less oppor- tunity to developinpillar izedDutchsociety.H ence,the feelingisstron gamongthe Dutch that asimilar`pillar izing’ approachto the problemofthe presentday migrantgroups, e.g.the Muslims,ispreferableto both policiesw hichre gard immigrantseitherasjust normalcitizens, as seemsto beth ecasein A ustralia,oras temporary residents, as seemsto bethe casein Germany (Smolicz,1 990). Recently,it has beenargu edthat the state shouldback off fromthe provisionof education completely(T ooley, 1996).T hem arketissuppo sedto offerbetter guaranteesfo r equalityof opportunitiesfor all.In deed,aswehave mentionedabove,th eDutch state seems to beunableto preventaracially-basedsystem of`black’and `white’sc hools fromde veloping withinthe otherwiserather fairsyste mofpillarizededucation.However,itwouldseemrathe r doubtful whetherleavingeducationto the freemarket wouldprom otecu lturalp luralisman d ethnice qualitym oreeffec tively,e speciallyin cou ntrieswith alargeextrem elypoor and powerlesspo pulation. Although voluntary apartheidin the NetherlandsÐ educationalpillar izationÐw as ini- tiallyn ot the intentiono fthe promoters ofthis type of educationalfre edom,butthe unexpectedoutcomeof the longhistoricalproc esssketc hedabove, itse emsworthwhile ponderingonthe questionwhetherthe system couldor shou ldbe ado pted elsewhere.If this societalform o f`livingapart together’was to bebroughtintopracti cetoday, e.g. inG ermany, Franceor So uth Africa,c ircumstanceswouldbe differ ent, and nodo ubt developments over timewouldshow that the outcomewouldine vitably not bewh at peoplehad inm indwhen startingthe process.Y etif a renewal inthin king oneducation,plu ralism,multiculturalism, emancipationan dequity isc alledfo r,Halstead’spleafo rvoluntary apartheidin combination with the Dutch historicale xperienceswith educationalplu ralismde servescloseatten tion,as wehope to have demonstrated.

NOTES

[1]This inequalitycould beanalysedfroma classperspec tiveas well, South Africanschools nolonger being racially segregated.H owever,m iddle-classschools still caterm orefor white children. [2]English languagerenditionsoftheDutch School Warcanbe found in Carlson-Thies (1990,pp. 186ff.; 1996), De Kwaasteniet(1990,pp. 73ff.), Bax(19 88,pp. 89ff.), De Swaan(1988 ,pp. 99ff.), Vander W alt(1994), Idenburg(1968),Van den H oek(1 987,pp. 6),Kruithof (1990,pp. 265ff), Braster& Dodde (1994). [3]Highlight ing featuresoftheSouth Africanhistory of educationrelevantfora comparisonwith theDutch situation, weleave aside the B ritish educationalpolicy atthe tim e. [4]Som eschoolingfornon-w hites wasprovide dbym issionarysocieties(Biew enga,1 994,Randall, 1995 ). [5]Focusin gona comparisonbetwee nSouth Africanand Dutch educationalhistory, we m ustadm it toneglectin g other`striking differenc es’betw eenthe tw ocountries, notablythe South Africanhistory of educationfrom the British andthe non-wh iteperspec tives. [6]An overvie wof thecontribu tionof Calvinist ideologyto the building of pillarized Dutch societyis providedby Skillen (1996);cf.Sturm& Groenendijk(1998).Bratt(19 96)givesm oreaboutDr AbrahamKuyper(1 837±1920), theleader of Dutch neo-Calvinism andone of thegodfath ersof pillarization. [7]In addition ,moreand m oreprivate schools havebeen foundedbeing notdistinct from the public onesin beliefs andview s,but in pedagogical conceptions, e.g.M ontessori,W aldorf,Dalton and Jena schools. [8]Accordi ngto thoroug hcalculations (James,198 4;K oelman,1987). For obvious reasons this is averydelicate issue in Dutch political debates. [9]Probably as a resultof thehistory of Dutch pillarized education,class does not seem to be animporta ntfactor atall, when it comesto analysin gdifferencesbetwee npublic andprivate (denom inational) schools. [10]Typical for the Dutch situationseem stobe thatno majordifferenc eshave been demonstratedwith regardto the distribution of`black’and `w hite’ schools amongpublic andprivate ones, com parableto the fact that social class doesnotseemto playan importantrole in thecomposition ofthepopulationofpublic asopposed toprivateschools. Oddly enough,differen tProtestantandCatholic school boardsseem to beveryeager to attractpupils fromIslam ic orHindu background,apparen tlyacting on the notion that adheren ceto any religion binds people together. EducationalPluralism 295

REFERENCES

ATKINSON, N. (1978) Teaching South Africans. Ahistory of educationalpolicy in South Africa (Universityof Rhodesia, Facultyof Education). BADENHORST,L.H.(1955) Die aandeel van die kerk in die opvoeding spesiaal in die Kaapprovin sie (Amsterdam,Swets& Zeitlinger). BAX,E.H.(1988) Modernizationand Cleavage in Dutch Society. Astudyof long term economic and social change (Groningen,Rijksun iversiteit.). BEHR,A.L.(1984) New Perspectivesin South African Education (Durban,Butterworths). BEHR,A.L.(1988) Education in South Africa. Origins, issuesand trends: 1652± 1988 (Pretoria,Academ ica). BIEWENGA,A.W.(1994)K erk,arm enzorg,onderw ijs enzending aande Kaap165 2±1 732.Een overzic htvan de stand vanhet onderzo ek:resultat enen leem ten, Journal for the History of Dutch Missions and Overseas Churches , 1, pp. 1± 22. BRASTER, J.F.A. & DODDE,N.L.(1994)C ompulsoryeducati onin TheNetherla nds:a problem in theninetee nth centuryand a solution in thetw entiethcentury ,in: J.A.M ANGAN (Ed.) ASigni® cant Revolution. Cross-cultural aspects of the evolution of compulsory education ,pp. 21±35 (Londo n,W oburnPress). BRATT,J.D.(1996)In the shadow of Mt.K uyper.A surveyof the® eld, Calvin Theological Journal ,31,pp. 51±66. BUCKLAND, P. & H OFMEYR, J. (1993) Education Governance in South Africa .EDUPOLResourceDocum entSeries 1, no.11 (Johann esburg,Edupol). CARLSON-THIES,S.W.(1990)System-threatening orsystem -transforming? The signi® canceof `Verzuiling’,in: M. BRUIJN LACY (Ed.) The Low Countries . Multidisciplinary studies .Publications of theAm ericanAssocia tionfor Netherlandic Studies, 3,pp. 183±194.(Lanham ,UniversityPress of America). CARLSON-THIES,S.W.(1996)The meaning of Dutch segmentationfor m odernAm erica,in: G.H ARINCK & H. KRABBENDAM (Eds) Sharing the Reformed Tradition. The Dutch± North American exchange , 1846± 1996,pp. 159±175 (Amsterdam,VrijeUnivers iteit). COETZEE, J.C HR (1958) Onderwysin Suid-Afrika 1652± 1956 (Pretoria,J.L. vanSchaik). COLLINS, C.B. & GILLESPIE,R.R.(1984)Movingeducatio nforwardto keepsociety back. T he South African De Lange Report reevaluated, Comparative Education Review ,28,pp. 625±638. DIJKSTRA,A.B.(1992) Dereligieuze factor . Onderwijskansen en godsdienst: een vergelijkend onderzoek naar gereformeerd- vrijgemaakt escholen (Nijmegen,Instituu tvoorT oegepasteSociale Wetenschappen). DIJKSTRA, A.B., DRONKERS, J. & H OFM AN,R.(Eds) (1997) Verzuiling in het onderwijs . Actuele verklaringen en analyse (Groningen,W olters-Noordhoff). DODDE, N.L. & LENDERS,J.H.G.(1991)Reform ,reorganisationund stagnat ion. Derschulunt errichtin dennieder- landenund Belgien 1750±1825,in: W.S CHMALE & N.L. DODDE (Hrsg) Revolution desW issens?E uropa und seine Schulen im Zeitalter der AufklaÈrung (1750± 1825). Ein Handbuch zur europaÈischen Schulgeschichte ,pp. 137±178 (Bochum,Winklerm). DRIESSEN,G.(1996)De gezinssituatievan leerlinge nop islamitische basisscholen.Een verkenn ing vanhun achter- gronden, NederlandsTijdschrift voor Opvoeding, Vorming en Onderwijs ,12,pp. 247±265. DRONKERS,J.(1996)Dutch public andreligious schools betweenstate and m arket.A balancebetwee nparentalchoice andnationa lpolicy? in: D.B ENNER, A. KELL & D. LENZEN (Hrsg) Bildung zwischen Staat und Markt . BeitraÈge zum 15. Kongreû der Deutschen Gesellschaftfu ÈrErziehungswissenschaft vom 11± 13. MaÈrz 1996 in Halle an der Saale . Zeitschrift fuÈrPaÈdagogik,35,Beiheft, pp. 51±60 (W einheim,Beltz). ENSLIN,P.(1994)Educat ion, equalityand differenc e, Koers,59,pp. 293±301. GLENN, CH.L.(1992)HetN ederlandseonderw ijsbestel: eenbenader ing vanuitde Angelsaksische wereldin: J.S. VAN DEN BERG, J DE B RUIN, K. DE JONG , H. KLIFMAN & G. VERHEIJ (Eds) `Eenonderw ijsbestel met toekomst ¼’.75 jaar onderwijspaci® catie 1917± 1992 ,pp. 163±173 (Am ersfoort,Unie voor C hristelijk Onderwijs). GRANT,N.(1997)Someproblemsofidentityand educatio n:acomparativeexaminationof multiculturaleducati on, Comparative Education ,33,pp. 9±28. HALSTEAD,M.(1995)Volunta ryaparthe id? problemsof schoolingforreligious andother m inorities in democratic societies, Journal of Philosophy of Education ,29,pp. 257±272. HAVIGHURST,R.J.(1968)T he stateand educati oninSouth Africa,in: R.J.H AVIG HURST (Ed.) ComparativePerspectives on Education ,pp. 178±205 (Boston ,Little, Brown& Co). HELLEMANS,S.(1988)Verzuilingenontzuilin gvande katholiekenin BelgieÈenNederland.Een historisc h-sociologis- che vergelijking, Sociologische Gids ,35,pp. 43±56 . HELLEMANS, S. (1990) Strijd om de moderniteit.Sociale bewegingenen verzuiling in Europa sinds1800 .KADOC-studies 10(Leuven ,UniversitairePers). HOEK, C.M. VAN DEN (1987)A brief discussionof theD utcheducati onalsituation from a Christianview point, in: EducationalChallenges in Southern Africa in aChristian-Reformational Perspective .Wetenskaplike BydraesofthePU forCH E,Series F,30,pp. 54±7 8.(Potche fstroom,PotchefstroomU niversityforChristia nHigher Education). 296 J. Sturm et al.

HUNTER,A.P.(1995)(Ed.) Report of the Committee to Review the Organisation,Governance and Funding of Schools , (Garsfontein, Suid-AfrikaanseStigting virOnderw ysen Opleiding ). IDENBURG, PH.J(1968)Financialequalizationin theN etherlands,in: R.J.H AVIG HURST (Ed.) Comparative Perspectives on Education ,pp. 270±275 (Boston ,Little, Brown& Co). JAMES,E.(1984)B ene®ts and costs of privatizedpublic services:lessonsfrom the D utcheducati onalsystem , Comparative Education Review ,28,pp. 605±6 24. KARSTEN,S.(1994)Policy onethnic segregationin asystemof choice: thecase of theNetherla nds, Journal of Education Policy ,9,pp. 211±225. KARSTEN,S.(1995)Concen tratieen segrega tiein hetNederla ndsebasisond erwijs, PedagogischTijdschrift , 20, pp. 33± 55. KNIPPENBERG,H.(1996)Nationale integratieen de`etnisering’van katholie kenen protesta nten:de rolvan onderw ijs, in: H. TE V ELDE & H. VERHAGE (Eds) Deeenheid &de delen. Zuilvormin g, onderwijs en natievorming in Nederland, 1850± 1900,pp. 177±196 (Am sterdam,HetSpinhuis) . KOELMAN,J.B.J.(1987) Kosten van verzuiling. Een studie over het lager onderwijs (Costsof Compartmentalization) (Rotterdam,ErasmusU niversity). KRUITHOF, B. (1990) Zonde en deugd in domineesland. Nederlandseprotestant en en problemen van opvoeding, zeventiende tot twintigste eeuw (Groningen,W olters-Noordhoff). KUYPER, A. (1880) Souvereiniteit in eigen kring (Amsterdam,Kruyt). KUYPER, A. (S.A.) Calvinism.Six Stone-Lectures (Amsterdam,HoÈveker& Wormser)[1 899]. KWAASTENIET, M. DE (1990) Denomination and Primary Education in the Netherlands. Aspatial diffusion perspective . NetherlandsG eographical Studies 117(Am sterdam,Koninklijk NederlandsAardrijkskundig Genootschap). LEMON,A.(1995)Educat ion in post-apartheidSouth-A frica.Som elessonsfrom Zim babwe, Comparative Education , 31,pp. 101±114. LIJPHART, A. (1968) The Politics of Accomodation. Pluralism and democracy in the Netherlands (Berkeley,U niversityof California Press). LIJPHART, A. (1985) Power-sharing in South Africa .Policy papersin InternationalA ffairs,24 (Berkele y,Institut eof InternationalStudies) . M CKERRON,M.E.(1934) AHistory of Education in South Africa (1652± 1932) (Pretoria,J.L. vanSchaik.) . M OTALA,S.(1995)Survivin gthesystem :acriticalappraisa lof someconventionalw isdomsin primaryeducati onin South Africa, ComparativeEducation ,31,pp. 161±179. POST, H. (1989) Pillarization. Ananalysis of Dutch and Belgian society (Aldershot,A vebury). RANDALL,P.(1995)T he church,schooling andsegrega tionin colonial South Africa,in: A.N OVOÂ A, M. D EPAEPE & E.V. JOHANNINGMEIER (Eds) The Colonial Experiencein Education.Historical issuesand perspectives . Paedagogica Historica,SupplementarySeries, Vol. 1,pp. 139±152 (G ent,C.S.H.P .). RENS, J.A. & VAN DER W ALT,J.L.(1995)Die Nederlandseskoolide ntiteitshandhawing endie betekenis daarvanvir Suid-Afrika, Koers,60,pp. 445±457. RIGHART, H. (1986) De katholieke zuil in Europa. Een vergelijkend onderzoek naar het ontstaan van verzuiling onder katholieken in Oostenrijk, Zwitserland, BelgieÈen Nederland (Amsterdam,Boom). ROELEVELD, J. (1994) Verschillen tussenscholen . Kenmerken,effectiviteit en stabiliteit van onderwijsinstellingen in Nederland . SCO-rapport36 1(Amsterdam,SCO-KohnstammInstituutvoorOnderw ijsresearch). SCHAMA,S.(1970)Schools andpolitics in theNetherla nds,1 796±1814, The Historical Journal ,13,pp. 589±61 0. SCHUTTE,G.J.(1986) Nederland en de Afrikaners:adhesie en aversie. Over stamverwantschap, Boerenvrienden, Hollander- haat, Calvinismeen apartheid (Franeker,W ever). SCHUTTE,G.J.(1987)The Netherlands,cradle of apartheid?, Ethnic and Racial Studies ,10,pp. 392±414 . SIETARAM,K.(1992)D eonderwijspaci® catiein dem ulti-etnische enm ulticulturelesamenle ving,in: J.S. VAN DEN BERG, J. DE BRUINN, K. DE JONG, H. KLIFM AN & G. VERHEIJ (Eds) `Een onderwijsbestel met toekomst ¼’.75 jaar onderwijspaci® catie 1917± 1992 ,pp. 149±161 (Am ersfoort,Unie voor C hristelijk Onderwijs). SKILLEN,J.W.(1996)Fromcovena ntofgraceto equitabl epublic pluralism.TheDutch Calvinist contribution, Calvin Theological Journal ,31,pp. 67±96. SM OLICZ,J.J.(1990)Them ono-ethnic traditionandthe educatio nof minorityyouth in WestGerm anyfrom an Australian multiculturalperspec tive, Comparative Education ,26,pp. 27±4 3. STURM,J.C.(1993)Education betweenindoctri nationand em ancipation, Religious Education ,88,pp. 40±51. STURM, J.C. & GROENENDIJK,L.F.(1998)Gender educatio nandthe transfo rmationof Calvinism in theNetherla nds, 1870± 1970, Journal of Beliefs &Values ,19,pp. 83±96. SW AAN, A. DE (1988) InCare of the State. Health care, education and welfare in Europe and the USAin the modern era (Cambridge,Polity Press). TOOLEY, J. (1996) Education without the State (London,Instituteof Economic Affairs). UNTERHALTER, E., W OLPE, H., BOTHA, T., B ADAT, S., DLAMINI, T. & KHOTSENG, B. (1991) Apartheid Education and Popular Struggles (London,Zed.). EducationalPluralism 297

VENTER,E.L.J.(1929) Die verband tussenkerk en skool in Suid-Afrika (Amsterdam,VanB ottenburg/). W ALT, J.L. VAN DER (1994)Die 19de-eeuseNederla ndseskoolstr ydin ’n®loso® eseen ideologiesekragve ld, Koers, 59, pp. 99± 115. W INTLE, M. (1987) Pillars of Piety . Religion in the Netherlands in the nineteenthcentury (1813± 1901) (Hull, University Press). W INTLE,M.(1996)Natievorming, onderwijs engodsdienstin Nederland,1850 ±1900,in: H. TE VELDE & H. VERHAGE (Eds) Deeenheid &de delen . Zuilvorming ,onderwijs en natievormingin Nederland , 1850± 1900, pp. 13± 28 (Amsterdam,HetSpinhuis ). W OUW, B.A.J. VAN DER (1994) Schoolkeuzetussenwensen en realiseringen.Een onderzoek naar verklaringen voor ve- randekringen in schoolkeuzepatronen vanuit het perspectief van etnische segregatie (Beek-Ubbergen,TandemFelix).