Education systems worldwide are undergoing a fundamental transition as societies become increasingly diverse. Linguistic diversity, where students speak a home language different from the language of instruction, has become an integral part of educational realities—not only in large urban areas but across various educational contexts. Despite operating within such a multilingual society, education systems have been slow to fully adapt to this reality (Vertovec, 2007; Van Avermaet & Sierens, 2010; Crul, 2013). This discrepancy is particularly evident in the Flemish educational context (Bollen & Baten, 2010; Pulinx et al. 2017), which remains characterized by a stringent monolingual policy that prioritizes Dutch as the primary medium of instruction and interaction. However, this policy is increasingly at odds with the multilingual reality of schools and classrooms.

In the academic year 2010–2011, Pulinx, Van Avermaet, and Agirdag (2017) conducted a large-scale study on teachers' beliefs about monolingualism in three Flemish cities (Antwerp, Ghent, and Genk). Their findings revealed strong monolingual teacher beliefs: for instance, 77.3% of Flemish secondary school teachers agreed that non-Dutch-speaking students should not be allowed to use their home language at school. These results highlighted the extent to which language beliefs shaped classroom practices and teacher expectations, often reinforcing linguistic inequalities.

Since the data collection in 2010–2011, several contrasting developments have emerged. On the one hand, a growing body of international research emphasizes the cognitive, emotional, and academic benefits of home language use in education (Ascenzi-Moreno & Espinosa, 2018: Candelier, 2017; Van Der Wildt et al., 2017; Cenoz & Santos, 2020). In the Flemish context, small-scale projects and interventions have demonstrated the potential of more inclusive language practices (Sierens et al, 2013; Van Praag et al., 2016; Foster, 2023; Van Raemdonck, 2024). On the other hand, the Flemish Government’s ideas of language policies have become increasingly restrictive, reaffirming Dutch as the sole language permitted in school settings. While the importance of Dutch language proficiency for academic and societal participation is undisputed, many teachers report a tension between the government’s monolingual policy framework and the multilingual classroom reality they encounter daily (Bulté et al., 2020; Pulinx et al, 2017).

Based on the above-described dynamics of the last decade in Flanders, this study aims to replicate and expand upon the original research by investigating potential shifts in teachers’ beliefs about monolingualism. 

For this study we formulate the same research questions as in the original study conducted in 2010-2011:

1. To what extent do individual teachers adhere to the monolingual language policies as currently implemented in the Flemish education system and is there significant variation between schools? 

2. What is the relation in the Flemish context between ethnic composition and curriculum track of a school and its teachers’ beliefs about monolingualism? 

3. Can we find a relation between monolingual teachers’ beliefs and the level of teachers’ self- efficacy ant trust in their pupils?

The survey will be administered to a similar population of teachers from secondary schools in the same three cities to ensure comparability. Additionally, the new study broadens the scope by also including primary school teachers from these cities. By doing so, we aim to provide nuanced insights into teachers’ beliefs within the evolving multilingual landscape.

Our research contributes to the ongoing debate on multilingualism in education by exploring how beliefs about mono/multilingual policies have evolved and how they differ across educational levels. Ultimately, the findings will inform a renewed approach to addressing linguistic diversity in Flemish education, aiming to support inclusive practices that strengthen both Dutch language acquisition and overall academic development.

A mixed-method design is employed to ensure comparability with the original study while incorporating a broader perspective. The study is being conducted in three Flemish cities—Antwerp, Ghent, and Genk—during the 2024-2025 academic year. The data collection is ongoing and consists of an online survey and focus group discussions. The online survey is administered to teachers in both primary and secondary education to examine their beliefs about monolingualism. We replicate the structure of the 2010-2011 survey to maintain consistency, using the same 8 Likert-scale items that measure beliefs about language use in education. Where necessary, the items have been adapted to fit the context of primary education. Data is collected via Microsoft Forms, and multilevel regression analyses will be performed in SPSS to account for both individual and school-level variance. Additionally, descriptive analyses will identify trends and changes over time. In addition to the survey, we conduct six focus group discussions with teachers—one for primary and one for secondary education in each of the three cities. These focus groups provide qualitative depth and allow us to capture the nuances behind the survey responses (Mortelmans, 2020). The discussions enable us to explore how teachers experience and interpret the monolingual policies in their daily practice, including the challenges they face and the strategies they adopt to navigate linguistic diversity. By facilitating open-ended conversations, the focus groups offer insights into the contextual and emotional dimensions of teachers' beliefs that may not be fully captured in the survey data. Audio recordings are made of the focus groups (after informed consent from the respondents), and the conversations will be transcribed and processed via NVIVO. A code tree will be developed for analysis, starting from the insights gained from the survey on the one hand and the focus group discussion guides on the other. The combination of survey data and focus group insights strengthens the study by offering both breadth and depth. While the survey enables longitudinal comparability with the 2010-2011 data, the focus groups provide a richer understanding of the underlying dynamics and changes in beliefs over time. This mixed-method approach thus allows for a more comprehensive analysis of the factors shaping teachers' beliefs and their implications for educational practice in a multilingual society.

While the Flemish government has maintained and even reinforced a strict monolingual policy over the past decade and a half, we hypothesize that teachers’ beliefs may have evolved in a more nuanced way. Although some teachers may continue to strongly adhere to monolingual policies, others are likely to have developed a more flexible stance towards multilingualism. This shift may be attributed to several factors, including the increasing linguistic diversity in classrooms, which forces teachers to navigate multilingual realities in their daily practice, regardless of official policy constraints. Additionally, sustained efforts from academic institutions and educational organizations to disseminate research on the benefits of multilingualism may have contributed to a gradual change in perceptions. By extending the survey to primary school teachers, this study provides a more comprehensive picture of monolingual beliefs within the Flemish teaching profession. The inclusion of both primary and secondary education allows us to examine potential differences across educational levels, shedding light on how early language learning contexts shape teachers’ beliefs. This research contributes to the growing body of literature on multilingualism and language ideologies in education by offering an updated analysis of beliefs over a 15-year span. Insights from this longitudinal study can inform policymakers about the potential shifts in teachers' beliefs and support the development of language policies that better align with the multilingual realities of contemporary classrooms. Recommendations will emphasize the need for teacher professionalization that acknowledges the benefits of functional multilingual learning.

Ascenzi-Moreno, L., & Espinosa, C. (2018). Opening up spaces for their whole selves: A case study group’s exploration of translanguaging practices in writing. NYS Tesol Journal, 10-29. Bollen, K., & Baten, K. (2010). Bilingual education in Flanders: policy and press debate (1999-2006). MODERN LANGUAGE JOURNAL, 94(3), 412–433 Bulté, B., Martens, L., & Surmont, J. (2020). CLIL in Vlaanderen: Eindrapport praktijkgericht wetenschappelijk onderzoek. UCLL. Cenoz, J., Santos, A., Implementing pedagogical translanguaging in trilingual schools, System (2020) Cenoz, J., Santos, A., Implementing pedagogical translanguaging in trilingual schools, System (2020) Cenos, J., & Santos, A. (2020). Implementing pedagogical translanguaging in trilingual schools. System, 92, 102273. Cenoz, J., Santos, A., Implementing pedagogical translanguaging in trilingual schools, System (2020) Cenoz, J., Santos, A., Implementing pedagogical translanguaging in trilingual schools, System (2020) Curl, M. e.a. Superdiversiteit. Een nieuwe visie op integratie. VU University Press. 2013. Foster, E., Van Avermaet, P., & Auger, N. (2023). Negotiating and navigating plurilingual classroom citizenship: social cohesion and functional multilingual learning. In E. Meletiadou (Ed.), Handbook of research on fostering social justice through intercultural and multilingual communication (pp. 245–266). Mortelmans, D. (2020). Handboek kwalitatieve onderzoeksmethoden. 3e uitg. Leuven: Acco. Pulinx, R., Van Avermaet, P., & Agirdag, O. (2015). Silencing linguistic diversity: the extent, the determinants and consequences of the monolingual beliefs of Flemish teachers. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 20(5), 542–556. Sierens, S., Ramaut, G., & Van Avermaet, P. (2013). Thuistalen in de Vlaamse basisschool: een hefboom voor het leren? WELWIJS (LEUVEN), 24(4), 29–32. Van Avermaet, P., & Sierens, S. (2010). Diversiteit is de norm: er mee leren omgaan de uitdaging: een referentiekader voor omgaan met diversiteit in onderwijs. In Handboek beleidvoerend vermogen (pp. 1–48). Brussel: Politeia. Van Der Wildt, A., Van Avermaet, P., & Van Houtte, M. (2017). Multilingual school population: ensuring school belonging by tolerating multilingualism. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM, 20(7), 868–882 Van Praag, L., Stevens, P., & Van Houtte, M. (2016). “No more Turkish music!” the acculturation strategies of teachers and ethnic minority students in Flemish schools. JOURNAL OF ETHNIC AND MIGRATION STUDIES, 42(8), 1353–1370. Van Raemdonck, M. (2024). Beyond one language: an intervention study in supporting teachers to create multilingual policies in secondary classrooms. Ghent University. Faculty of Arts and Philosophy, Ghent, Belgium. Vertovec, Steven. Superdiversity and its implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies. 2007.