By Daniel Faas

2008 has been designated as the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue. A series of projects and debates is underway where people from diverse cultural and religious backgrounds can learn about, and meet, each other. Indeed, at a time of increasing societal heterogeneity characterised by globalisation, migration and European integration, one of the most pressing questions facing policy-makers and politicians is how to combine diversity with inclusion and cohesion. The field of education is seen as crucial for the promotion of cultural awareness and expression as a key competence for successful participation in our knowledge society.

Policy-makers and politicians have long been promoting a European dimension in education. In 1988, a powerful resolution by the European Ministers of Education aimed at strengthening a sense of European identity and citizenship in young people. It was also intended to explain the values of European civilisation and of the foundations on which the European peoples intended to base their development. Three years later, the Council of Europe (an international organisation comprising 47 countries) hinted at the necessity of combining a European and intercultural dimension in education. It stated that schools should encourage awareness of Europe's geographical diversity, the political and social structures, as well as the multilingual nature and the cultural wealth this represents. In 2003, the European Ministers of Education, meeting within the Council of Europe, requested that new strategies are embraced which encourage countries in Europe to introduce the intercultural dimension in their policies, in order to enable consideration of dialogue between cultures. Despite these efforts to take intercultural dialogue into account in curriculum and policy development, there has been no EU institutional resolution advocating intercultural education. The 2008 European Year of Intercultural Dialogue has, in many ways, brought to the fore this dimension.

In several European countries, 10% or more of the student population now has an immigrant background; and some countries are facing this phenomenon for the very first time. Dealing effectively with the increasing migration-related diversity in schools, and in society at large, thus presents challenges. There is growing concern that students with an immigrant background perform lower than their native peers. For example, results from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) surveys, show that, on average, fifteen-year-olds with a migrant background have an educational deficit of about one year of study compared with their native peers. It is thought that migrant students may be subject to less favorable treatment than the rest of the population and may suffer inequalities in access to, and benefits from, education. Against this backdrop, the European Commission Directorate-General for Education and Culture is currently drafting a Green Paper on the links between migration and education. This unprecedented policy initiative, to be published in late spring this year, not only addresses the underperformance of many migrant students but also the early school drop-out rates of those from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds. Rather than a one-size-fits-all solution, nation-states should draw on this paper to review their own policies.

In Greece, for instance, for a school to be classified as intercultural, at least 45% of its student population must be non-Greek, but not all schools which pass this threshold are classified as intercultural. In several countries, it is also common to refer to minority ethnic people as ‘foreigners' or ‘foreign citizens' rather than acknowledging their multidimensional identities as Greek Bulgarians, German Turks and so forth. Another problem is the gap between monocultural teaching staff and multicultural student bodies. In Germany, for instance, only 1% of teachers have a migrant background compared with over 18% of the total population. The quota policy in Spain (also known as ‘busing' in other countries), whereby only a certain percentage of immigrant students are admitted to a school, may be seen as discriminating against those pupils over their native peers. These are just some of the practices likely to be counterproductive to fostering intercultural dialogue and integration. In contrast, there are, of course, also numerous examples of best practice. The ‘1001 Actions' campaign by the Anna Lindh Euro-Mediterranean Foundation is just one example of the regional promotion of intercultural dialogue, knowledge and respect. There are also national projects in all 27 EU countries, several of which focus on the nexus between migration and education. The jury is still out on the long-lasting impacts of these coordinated European and national efforts.

However, it would already mark a big step forward if this year's project events and policy initiatives would address the absence of a common definition of what intercultural dialogue, or interculturalism, actually means. It is hardly surprising that, in a recent public opinion survey, about a third of the EU population could not make sense of these terms. This is further complicated by the fact that some countries including the United Kingdom prefer to use the term multiculturalism. Arguably, the dialogue between the proponents of interculturalism and multiculturalism could be facilitated by clarifying what kind of ‘culturalism' it is that we are talking about. Is it a pluralistic multiculturalism which celebrates diversity, or an inclusive multiculturalism which promotes both integration and diversity, and thus combines the two perspectives? Some of the latest research has revealed that ‘cultural pluralism' approaches are associated with more rather than less ethnic tension within schools. In contrast, education and policy approaches that involve not only the promotion of cultural awareness and diversity but also integration via common language and citizenship, contribute to social cohesion.

Future EU enlargements ultimately also need to be seen in this framework. An ethnocentric view of Europe which undermines cultural and religious diversity would be an affront to all those, often young, citizens who believe that ethnic and religious diversity is an asset - indeed 72% according to a European public opinion poll. If the events in 2008 can contribute to the development of policies and education systems allowing for diversity whilst also promoting cohesion, then the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue will be a successful one.