Olaf Beuchling

Migration, Intercultural Education, and the

Challenge of Ethnic Educational Inequality
in Germany

Die Grenzen ethnischer Präferenzpolitik

in Malaysia
Paper presented at the international conference of the Comenius
International Slavic Academy of Education on “Polycultural Education in a
Modern World” at the University of Bryansk/Russia, 26.-27. October 2007.
Dr. Olaf Beuchling (University of Magdeburg / Germany)

Migration, Intercultural Education, and the

Challenge of Ethnic Educational Inequality in
Germany1

Introduction
In recent years, intercultural education (also called multicultural education in North
America or polycultural education in the Slavic world) has become an influential
perspective for working in culturally diverse classrooms, communities and countries.
This paper provides an overview on the development and the status of intercultural
education in Germany. It starts by describing demographic changes and challenges
resulting from processes of migration and globalization in Germany which gave an
important impulse for reconsidering school practice and organization. It continues with
sketching recent developments in the field of intercultural education. The last part of
this article will focus especially on the important problem of ethnic inequalities in the
German educational system and some analytical questions concerning the ethnic
variability of educational opportunities. As this is an overview presentation, it goes
without saying that it is exhaustive neither in breadth nor depth. Anyway, it may offer
some interesting statistical, conceptual and analytical information that can be useful to
reflect upon in other national contexts.

Migration as an Aspect of Demographic Change in Germany

Since the 1950s migration has become an important aspect of the population
development in Germany and the country has become one of main immigration
destinations worldwide. Especially in the early 1990s, Germany accepted higher
absolute numbers of immigrants than all other member states of the European Union

1A version of this paper was presented at the international conference of the Comenius International
Slavic Academy of Education on “Polycultural Education in a Modern World” at the University of
Bryansk/Russia, 26.-27. October 2007. The author would like to thank his Russian colleagues for their
impressive hospitality, especially the vice-president of the Russian Academy of Education, Prof. V. P.
Borisenkov.

[2]
and more refugees and asylum seekers than the so-called classical immigration societies
that is, the post-settler societies like Australia, Canada or the United States.

Over the years, a part of these immigrants naturalized. As a consequence, they are
regarded legally as Germans in the official statistics and are no longer identifiable by
their former nationality. Thus, the number of persons with a migration background is
much higher than the number of foreigners in Germany. Similarly, Germany`s four
officially acknowledged national minorities (Friesians, Sorbs, the Danish minority and
the Sinti and Roma) do have German citizenship and are not specifically identifiable in
the official statistics. The contexts of immigration to Germany are diverse: labor
migration from Mediterranean countries, asylum and refuge, the remigration of ethnic
Germans from Eastern Europe and Central Asia, migration for educational purpose,
migration from other member states of the European Union, immigration of highly
skilled professionals, family reunion or illegal migration all had their share and
contributed to a highly diverse immigrant population. The largest number of immigrants
comes from the former labor force sending countries like Turkey, Italy, Spain, Greece,
Portugal and the former Yugoslavia. Since the transformation processes in East and
Central Europe starting in 1989, they were followed by new migration movements,
namely the immigration of refugees and asylum seekers from Southeast Europe, the
emigration of ethnic Germans from Poland, Romania, Kazakhstan or the Russian
Federation. Furthermore, there seems to be a growing number of persons who move
back and forth between states. In the case of such processes of transnational migration,
documentation is difficult. The same holds true for illegal immigrants, whose number in
Germany is estimated between 0.5 and 1.5 million.

[3]
 Table 1: 20 most frequent foreign nationalities in Germany, 2004
Nationality Absolute In %
Turkey 1.877.661 25,6
Italy 601.258 8,2
Serbia & Montenegro 568.240 7,7
Greece 354.630 4,8
Poland 326.882 4,5
Croatia 236.570 3,2
Austria 189.466 2,6
Russian Federation 173.480 2,4
Bosnia 167.081 2,3
Portugal 130.623 1,8
Spain 125.977 1,7
Netherlands 118.680 1,6
United Kingdom 113.578 1,5
France 113.023 1,5
USA 112.939 1,5
Romania 89.104 1,2
Vietnam 88.208 1,2
Iraq 83.821 1,1
Iran 81.495 1,1
Morocco 79.794 1,1
Source: Federal Statistical Office Germany

For decades, immigration to Germany was officially documented by means of the legal
concept of citizenship (nationality). Following this approach, persons with a foreign
passport were regarded as migrants, while those immigrants who were naturalized
were no longer included in the migration statistics. With a growing number of
naturalizations, this approach became more and more problematic, since the “foreigner
concept” could no longer represent the real number of immigrants. Furthermore,
empirical studies collecting data on naturalized as well as non-naturalized persons from
individual immigrant groups have shown that information on both legal status groups
are necessary to allow a realistic integration balance. Thus, in 2005 the micro-census (an
official representative population survey) introduced a new concept, which also asked
for the nationality of the preceding generations, the country of birth of the parents and
grandparents, naturalization and migration experience. While the old concept was a
legal one, the new concept is more sociological orientated and gives more accurate
insights into the migration background, whether the person has immigrated to Germany
by themselves or was born in Germany to immigrant parents.

This new statistical approach shows significant changes in both the scale and the
structure of the population with a migrant background. According to the new mode of
counting, the number of persons with a migration background is 15.3 million. In other
words: A fifth (18.6 %) of the whole population in Germany has a migrant background.
The former way of recording immigrants had systematically under-estimated the size of
[4]
the migration population and also tended to downplay the challenges of migration in the
educational system.

Table 2: Two ways of estimating immigration in Germany, 2005

Method of estimation: Absolute number: Percentage:
Citizenship/nationality 7,3 million with a foreign Ca. 8,8 percent of total
concept passport population
Migration background 15,3 million with migration 18,6 percent of total
concept background population

To differentiate the population with a migrant background, the First National Education
Report presents a typology of migrants, grouping them together in five migratory
constellations according to their quantitative significance (Konsortium Bildungsbericht
2006):

1. Migrants from Turkey as the largest immigrant group from a single country of
origin

2. Migrants from other former labor sending countries

3. Migrants from 15 countries of the European Union

4. Migrants from other states

5. Ethnic German remigrants (resettlers; “Aussiedler”)

In geographical terms, the distribution of the population with a migration background is

extremely uneven. Most immigrants live in densely populated areas of the city-states of
Berlin, Bremen and Hamburg, conurbations like the Rhine-Main area, the industrial area
in the Rhine-Neckar district, or the commercial area around Stuttgart. The most striking
aspect of the regional distribution of immigrants is the difference between the western
federal states of the old Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) and the five “new” federal
states on the territory of the former German Democratic Republic (GDR). Because of the
restrictive migration policy in the former GDR, the recent percentage of immigrants
remains low at around 3 percent. Furthermore, there are some significant demographic,
economic and social differences. Generally spoken, because of historical circumstances,
existing ethnic networks and occupational perspectives, the eastern federal states of
Germany remain less attractive for immigrants than the western federal states, even 17
years after the reunification.

[5]
Intercultural Education
Intercultural education, both a field of research as well as a practical perspective,
became established in West Germany in the early 1980s as a pedagogical reaction on the
educational and societal challenges of growing heterogeneity. To a certain degree it took
the place of an earlier approach labelled “Ausländerpädagogik” (literally: “pedagogy for
foreigners”), whose target group of that time where the children of “guest workers” and
their teachers. After a decade, critics from within and outside the “Ausländerpädagogik”
began to question the adequacy of the theoretical underpinnings and practical work of
this approach. Criticized features were – beside others – its underlying assimilation
assumptions and a superficial labelling of cultural differences and migration experiences
as potential problems for individual development. Furthermore, in the course of the
1980`s, it became evident that immigration in Germany could no longer be treated as a
temporary phenomenon. Correspondingly, educational science underwent a change of
perspective and began calling for an intercultural education for all children – both native
and newcomer. Although intercultural education it is not undisputed in detail, the
impact of globalization, European unification and socio-cultural diversification of
everyday life, led to a broad acceptance of an inter-culturalization of schooling. Recent
introductory textbooks from different perspectives may provide a good overview on the
discussion (see Auernheimer 2005; Gogolin & Krüger-Potratz 2006; Mecheril 2004)

Nowadays, intercultural education is well institutionalized at several levels:

a.) Academic Sphere

 Intercultural education is professionally organized in the “German Society of

Education” (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Erziehungswissenschaft - DGFE) / Section
of International and Intercultural Comparative Education.
 There are extensive empirical research activities (both qualitative and
quantitative) and a broad spectrum of publication activities, ranging from
historical works, case studies, comparative studies, theoretically reflections to
publications for educational practice.
 It is an important aspect of teacher education at the educational departments of
all German universities.

b.) Educational Policies and School Sphere

 In 1996, the conference of all education ministers of the German federal states
(“Kultusministerkonferenz”) published a paper in which it is strongly suggested
to adapt an intercultural perspective in the schooling process; today,
intercultural learning is explicit or implicit part of the curricula in all 16 federal
states.

[6]
  Although there are still certain deficits in early language promotion programmes,
there are growing (but still too small) numbers of bilingual schools, especially at
the primary level.
 Nevertheless, the status of intercultural learning in everyday practice in schools
varies widely.

c.) Informal and non-formal Education Sphere

 Non-school based programmes, trainings and activities (like intercultural and

anti-racism trainings or cultural festivals) are common, although it is not possible
to make any sound evaluation concerning their quality, their effectiveness or
sustainability.

Some Debates in Intercultural Education

While there is agreement that societal changes brought about by migration,
globalization and a diversification of life styles should be reflected in educational
organisation and pedagogy, intercultural education is also accompanied by theoretical
criticism. One critical argument points at the political dimension: the reinterpretation of
socio-structural problems as cultural and pedagogical ones disguises unsolved political
tasks. By making ethnic and cultural differences to the central theme, intercultural
education – contrary to its own intention – may back up those patterns of differentiation
which function as resources of discrimination in the wider society. According to another
critique, the aim of emancipation, of self-responsible individuality, is in contrast to an
emphasis on collective identities. According to this argument, there would be a need to
weaken ethnic ties in favour of cosmopolitan orientations. The status of the culture
concept remains disputed. Processes of disintegration (as observed for some segments
of immigrants) interpreted by some authors as resulting from structural and
interactional discrimination; others questioning this perspective and emphasise the role
of different cultural and economic resources within immigrant communities.

The Educational Situation of Children with Immigrant Background

There is a strong agreement that education plays a central role for the life chances and
the integration processes of immigrants and minorities. Even if good educational
qualifications are no guarantee for lasting and well paid professional careers, they
constitute a pre-disposition for the access to a variety of social positions and those
privileges connected with them. But also beyond direct financial consequences,
education has also significant impact on the self-esteem of individuals, their
participation in civil society and their cognitive potential for reflexivity.

[7]
For describing, measuring and analysing the educational participation of immigrants
and ethnic groups in Germany, three groups of statistical indicators or are necessary:

a.) Educational participation: This indicator shows if certain ethnic groups are more
often enrolled in certain types of schools (for example, frequent enrollment in
high schools indicates a relatively good educational participation). Also, rates of
school absenteeism belong to this group of indicators.

b.) Educational achievement: Data on the achievement of pupils and students of

diverse ethnic backgrounds is captured by regional, national and international
tests, as well as by data on the achieved grades. It informs us about the actual
competencies in certain subjects (for example, mathematical, science or linguistic
literacy as measured by OECD`s Programme for International Student
Assessment – PISA).

c.) Educational success: Data on the percentage of successful school leavers and the
quality of their school leaving certificates are necessary, because enrollment in a
certain type of school does not mean automatically, that these students are also
finishing their educational careers successfully (for example, the percentage of
school drop-outs among immigrants is higher than among German students).

Figure 1: A model of statistical indicators for the school integration of immigrants in

Germany

Educational Participation

Relative enrollment rate in different types of

school by ethnicity

Educational Achievement Educational Success

Subject specific competencies and Percentage and quality of school

performances leaving certificates

Unfortunately, all three indicators provide strong evidence that pupils and students with
an immigrant background as a category are educationally in a less favourable position
[8]
than non-immigrant pupils and students in Germany. Despite a trend towards higher
qualifications and better education participation rates since the 1980s, pupils with
foreign passports are still disadvantaged in the education and training system. They are
over-represented at lower secondary and special schools, and accordingly under-
represented at intermediate and high schools. The average educational achievement of
15-year old students with an immigrant background, as measured for example by the
international comparative PISA studies in 2000, 2003 and 2006, is lower than the
average achievement of their non-immigrant peers. The share of immigrants leaving
school without certificates is still almost twice as high as the one corresponding to
German school leavers. The stagnation of the school education of young people of
foreign origin observed since the early 1990s has a significant impact on their vocational
qualifications. While only 8% of German young people and adults remain without
training, the rate of unskilled Turkish young people is five times higher at about 40%.

A further striking feature is the variability of educational participation of different

immigrant groups. In contrast to some authors, who focus on the educational deficits of
immigrant students in general, all statistical data and sound empirical research shows
that the differences between certain ethnic groups are larger than the differences
between immigrant students as a category and non-immigrant students. For instance,
two of the largest immigrant groups in schools –Turkish and Italian children – can be
found to a significant lower percentage at high schools than German students. Yet, the
educational standard of German students is surpassed by immigrant children from
Greek, Iranian, Korean, Chinese, Russian Jewish or Vietnamese background. In numbers:
While roughly 9 % of all immigrant students in the school system attending a high
school, the percentage for children with a German passport is about 28%, while almost
50% of Koreans attending high school. This striking ethnic variability in educational
performance has to be taken into account when interpreting the data (Beuchling 2003).
Thus, for example, the concept of cultural distance could be questioned, since it is not
convincing that Italian youngsters should be culturally more “distanced” from German
mainstream culture than Korean or Iranian ones.

Secondly, the socio-economic status (SES) of the students` families as one of the most
important factors of educational achievement cannot account for all ethnic differences.
Statistical research has demonstrated that ethnic inequalities in the educational system
remain, even if SES-variables (profession, income, education) are statistically controlled
(Diefenbach 2007).

Thirdly, theoretical approaches focussing on discrimination are not sufficient in

explaining these ethnic educational inequalities. It is not convincing that schools should
be more discriminatory against (for example) Italian students than against Korean
students, to mention only two groups with significant educational differences.

Thus, there is much more empirical evidence and analytically plausibility to argue that
ethnic differences in educational performances in Germany are to a large degree
ethnically specific, resulting from differences in the migration context, socio-structural
[9]
aspects and cultural models of education and societal success. Specifically the cultural
dimension of educational inequality – although rather unpopular in the German
pedagogical discourse and disputed by many authors – seems to remain a central factor
in understanding ethnic inequality.

Conclusion
1. Nowadays, intercultural education in Germany is no longer regarded as a concept
directed at immigrant children, but as an approach looking for constructive ways to deal
with diversity or heterogeneity per se.

2. Its influence on the schooling process varies regionally and locally, according to
demographic developments and the teachers experiences in educating heterogeneous
student populations.

3. Intercultural practice has to take into account the regional and local contexts, the
variations of socio-economic, demographic and educational prerequisites.

4. Accordingly, it is not a coherent theoretical approach, but much more a perspective of

shaping learning processes in a plural society, fostering democratic values and
tolerance, and to take up the cultural resources of society, communities, families and
individuals to prepare students for life in a world of increasing co-operation between
people of different cultural backgrounds, biographies and experiences.

5. Several central aspects are empirically and theoretically still open to further research.
As sketched in this article, the ethnic variability of educational performance is still an
unsolved and heatedly disputed phenomenon. It is highly probable that it will remain
one of the central challenges for intercultural education in Germany for the next years to
come.

References
Auernheimer, Georg (2005): Einführung in die Interkulturelle Pädagogik. Darmstadt:
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

Auernheimer, Georg (Eds.) (2006): Schieflagen im Bildungssystem. Die Benachteiligung

der Migrantenkinder. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.

Baumert, Jürgen, Petra Stanat & Rainer Watermann (Eds.) (2006): Herkunftsbedingte
Disparitäten im Bildungswesen. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.

[10]
Beuchling, Olaf (2001): Cultural and Religious Diversity in the Federal Republic of
Germany. In: Cok Bakker & Karin Griffioen (Eds.) Religious Dimension in Intercultural
Education. Theory and Good Practice. Tilburg: Dutch University Press, pp.61-67.

Beuchling, Olaf (2003): Vom Bootsflüchtling zum Bundesbürger. Migration, Integration

und schulischer Erfolg in einer vietnamesischen Flüchtlingsfamilie. Münster: Waxmann.

Diefenbach, Heike (2007): Kinder und Jugendliche aus Migrantenfamilien im deutschen

Bildungssystem. Erklärungen und empirische Befunde. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.

Gogolin, Ingrid & Marianne Krüger-Potratz (2006): Einführung in die Interkulturelle

Pädagogik. Opladen: Verlag Barbara Budrich.

Gogolin, Ingrid, Ursula Neumann & Hans-Joachim Roth (2003): Förderung von Kindern
und Jugendlichen mit Migrationshintergrund. Bund-Länder-Kommission für
Bildungsplanung und Forschungsförderung, Bonn.

Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (1996):

Empfehlung "Interkulturelle Bildung und Erziehung in der Schule". Beschluss der
Kultusministerkonferenz vom 25.10.1996. Sekretariat der Ständigen Konferenz der
Kultusminister der Länder in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland.

Konsortium Bildungsberichterstattung (2006): Bildung in Deutschland. Ein

indikatorengestützter Bericht mit einer Analyse zu Bildung und Migration. Bielefeld:
Bertelsmann Verlag.

Mecheril, Paul (2004): Einführung in die Migrationspädagogik. Weinheim: Beltz Verlag.

[11]