The Turkish Minority in Germany:

The Relationship between Politics and Education in the Integration of Parallel Communities
Christine Difato
1
The Turkish Minority in Germany: The Relationship
between Politics and Education in the Integration of Parallel Communities
by Christine Difato
After World War II, the German education system was reconstructed in a climate of extreme
uncertainty. Nonetheless, Lnder ministries cooperated in order to build a structure that would
serve the needs of a new set of political and economic challenges. With the cooperation of
Lnder representatives in the Kultusministerkonferenz (KMK), the three-tiered structure of
education was instituted in a more cohesive manner across the Western regions than ever before
(Fhr 1997, 11).
1
The Basic Law guarantees the cultural sovereignty of the regions, thus granting
regional control of education policies (Grundgesetz 29(1)). While regional leaders saw the
benefits of cooperation, the structures and decisions surrounding education, particularly in terms
of language, remain deeply informed by the political complexion of the region.
In the three-tiered system, pupils are designated to one of three tracks after four years of
primary education, based on their scholastic achievement to that point.
2
The three tracks include
Hauptschule (leading to a general certificate), Realschule (leading to an intermediate
qualification), and Gymnasium or grammar school (Behrens, Tost, and J ager 2002, 108). The
Hauptschule provides general, non-academic education, normally up to the minimum school
leaving age. The Realschule programme usually lasts a total of ten years, leading to jobs in
middle management, engineering, or administration (Baumert and Kohler 1984, 367). Lasting
twelve or thirteen years, Gymnasium is the highest qualification. It prepares students for
academic or professional opportunities such as attending university or medical school. While the
Gymnasium level has expanded to include growing numbers of German students, minorities
appear to remain continuously underrepresented in higher levels of education (Heckmann 2006,
12-13).
Drawing on the experiences of regions with a fairly consistent political leaning, this paper
will trace the relationship between the German education structures and the dominant
conservative and liberal opposition parties, Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (CDU)
and Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (SPD), and how these policies informed the

1
The education structures that were implemented in the German Democratic Republic differ significantly
from those in the Federal Republic of Germany before 1990. Since emigration from Turkey was generally to
western regions, this paper focuses on the dominant trends in those regions, and Germany refers to the
western regions before 1990 and including the East after that point.
2
While children in most Lnder have four years of primary education, a few regions, including Berlin,
designate six years before dividing.
The Turkish Minority in Germany:
The Relationship between Politics and Education in the Integration of Parallel Communities
Christine Difato
2
relationship with the Turkish community.
3
While the CDU and SPD took opposing stances
regarding the three-tiered structures, recent years have demonstrated a convergence of policies
in language instruction.
Education and the Guest-Workers
In 1961, a bilateral recruitment agreement was signed between Germany and Turkey,
initiating the first wave of Turkish guest-workers to fill labor shortages in factories and foundries in
the Federal Republic of Germany (White 1997, 754; Coleman 2002, 47). Like France and the
Netherlands, Germanys migration policy was driven by the need for extra labor with
considerations of legal status and integration taking second position (Huysmans 2000, 753-754).
The young men who came in the first waves of the guest-worker programme were soon joined by
wives and children through family reunification allowances. Several decades later, Turkish-
Germans make up the largest ethnic minority in the country, about 2.5-2.6 million people (Islam
and Identity in Europe 2007). Yet, throughout this era, Germany maintained the self-conception
as not a country of immigration, a maxim in public policy that reacted to the presence of over
four million foreign workers (J oppke and Morawska 2003, 63-64; Geddes 2003, 79; J oppke 1999,
63).
In the three-tiered system, children of immigrants experienced a distinct disadvantage.
Their performance suffered because of inadequate language skills and insufficient support. In
addition, Turkish youth, in particular, had to cope with low expectations within the schools and
administration (Bommes 2000, 108). Compared with ethnically German migrants, Turkish youth
were expected to have social problems in addition to inhibited abilities to assimilate.
As far back as the 1960s, SPD party leaders began to argue against the selective school
system. They stated that it reinforced generational cycles of deprived children, cutting them off
from higher education (Fhr 1997, 128-129). However, in typically conservative regions such as
Baden-Wrttemberg or Bavaria, leadership pushed to maintain the separation of these tracks,
pointing to the fact that the three tracks should be able to adapt to changing times.
Nonetheless, the SPD and the Education and Science trade union helped to initiate
various forms of comprehensive schools or Gesamtschulen in Hesse, Berlin, Bremen, and
Hamburg (Fhr 1997, 128-129). These schools offered more flexibility between subject levels.
Some subjects such as social studies or religion were taught in a general class with only slight
differentiations among students for different needs, while other subjects, including mathematics
or English, remained differentiated by level (Fhr 1997, 125).

3
For the sake of clarity, only the CDU party is mentioned as the conservative component in German politics;
however, the reader should note that in Bavaria, the CDU counterpart is referred to as CSU or Christlich-
Soziale Union.
The Turkish Minority in Germany:
The Relationship between Politics and Education in the Integration of Parallel Communities
Christine Difato
3
Lnder with conservative governments continued to argue against the Gesamtschule
even after various pilot projects had been positively evaluated. The value of the comprehensive
school for migrant youth was demonstrated in a study by Diefenbach (2005), which showed that
between 1990 and 2000, more migrant students completed Realschule and Gymnasium
certificates in the comprehensive school setting than in separated schools (cited in Heckmann
2008, 25).
The three-tiered structures supported the differentiated levels of society, putting minority
children at a distinct disadvantage next to their German peers. This deficit was revealed in the
Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) of 2003. The gap in performance between
native German pupils and pupils of a minority background was greater in Germany than most
other countries with Turkish having the lowest in comparison to their German peers (Organization
for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD] 2006). Furthermore, the increasing
prevalence of the Gymnasium qualification lessens the value of the lower qualifications. While the
education structures were not established to cope with the challenges of large numbers of
minority youth, the continued lack of accommodation seems to be a reflection of the countrys
self-conception as not a country of immigration, accentuated in conservative Lnder even more
than their SPD-led counterparts.
Language and Minority Youth
Compounding the challenges of the three-tiered system, mother-tongue instruction
served to maintain the boundaries between minority youth and their German peers. The CDU and
SPD had different justifications, but when translated into practice, language education only
maintained and perpetuated ethno-linguistic boundaries.
In the beginning of the guest-worker phase, the emphasis of language instruction was on
return migration. Given the implied temporary condition of the guest-workers stay, German
language acquisition did not seem urgent (Entzinger and Biezeveld 2003, 34). Most measures
that were taken emphasized preparation of pupils to return to their home country after the work
period of their parents ended (Faas 2007, 46; Faas 2008, 110).
In 1976, the KMK issued a recommendation called the Instruction of children of foreign
workers, which was intended to enable foreign students to learn the German language, acquire
German school-leaving certificates, and preserve and increase knowledge of their native
language (Behrens, Tost, and J ager 2002, 113). However, because of the ambiguous terms of
the recommendation, it was implemented inconsistently across the regions. Rohr-Sendlmeier
(1986) identified three tendencies of implementation in the regions (cited in Behrens, Tost, and
J ager 2002, 112-113). The first way emphasized the need to incorporate foreign youth into the
German school system by educating them alongside their German peers, only using German.
The Turkish Minority in Germany:
The Relationship between Politics and Education in the Integration of Parallel Communities
Christine Difato
4
The second way tended to support the goal of reintegration into their home culture, arranging
classes in their mother tongue, separate from their German peers. The third way put migrant
youth into classes with their German peers in addition to special classes in their mother tongue, a
dual strategy.
CDU/CSU-led states favored the separation of classes by nationality, preferring the
second option. Bavaria, for example, maintained segregated and homeland-oriented immigrant
minority language instruction for the longest period (Brubaker 2001, 537). In practice, mother-
tongue instruction meant that pupils were separated into classes by nationality and taught by a
teacher from their home country. After several years, German was introduced as a second
language with the goal of bilingualism, but in reality, the strategy was unsuccessful and supported
ethnic and social segregation above integration (Heckmann 2006, 12-13).
In the 1980s and 1990s, native language instruction with the objective of return migration
ceased for the most part and was exchanged in favor of a multiculturalist approach (Baubock
2002, 181). In the SPD-favored multiculturalist frame of reference, foreign youth had the right to
learn their mother tongue as it was part of their cultural identity. At the federal level, it was
believed that mother-tongue instruction was fundamental to pupils awareness of their cultural
identity, even while language instruction in German may be crucial to their socio-economic
success (Behrens, Tost, and J ager 2002, 115). Even though the logic of multiculturalism differed
from the conservative emphasis on preparation for return migration, the result was the same. In
essence, the multiculturalist policies in language instruction simply served to maintain the
distance and linguistic boundaries between the German and Turkish communities that were laid
in the national self-conception as not a country of immigration. Germany appears to have
perpetuated an ethnoculturally defined identity according to community of descent (Brubaker
1992, 14).
In the context of increasing concerns regarding the development of parallel communities
and national security, however, language competency and ethno-linguistic boundaries have risen
to the fore of integration discussions (Entzinger and Biezeveld 2003, 20). A parallel society is a
politically framed term that suggests that immigrant communitys actively and deliberately
segregate, not using state programs to help them acquire basic language or vocational skills,
leading to high rates of unemployment (Cyrus 2005, 16). In a rush to confront fears of terrorism
from within its borders, Germany kept pace with its multiculturalist policy-affirming neighbors like
Sweden and the Netherlands by identifying language and expanding opportunities for
naturalization to close the socio-economic gap between its minority and native community
(J oppke and Morawska 2003, 2; Geddes 2003, 4). The first integration summit was held in J uly
2006 under the Grand Coalition. The main focus of this summit was to discuss educational
opportunities for minorities as well as German language-learning programs (Faas 2008, 108). In
The Turkish Minority in Germany:
The Relationship between Politics and Education in the Integration of Parallel Communities
Christine Difato
5
the National Integration Plan, extra funding was designated for schools with high minority
population in order to employ more teaching staff and social workers (Heckmann 2008, 42).
Yet, it was not long before language requirements were tied to residency. Germany
offered a quicker track to an unlimited residence or work permit to those who passed a German
language test or added delays to family reunification to those who did not learn German (Geddes
2003, 89). On the one hand, this logic is reasonable as language seems to limit interaction and
participation in civil society; however, many are wary of such strategies. Some see it as a reaction
to the loosening citizenship regulations and further evidence of the shift away from
multiculturalism (Kostakopoulou 2008). For example, when the citizenship law of 1999 lowered
the residency requirement from fifteen to eight years, it was accompanied by a tightening
language requirement, and in some states like Bavaria, it became extremely difficult to pass the
language tests (J oppke and Morawska 2003, 19). The responses to the CDUs wish to include
German as the national language in the constitution demonstrate the tension between the notion
that language will encourage integration but also might serve only to protect ethnolinguistic
components of the national identity.
Conclusion
The challenges of minority integration throughout Western Europe highlight the tensions
within national identities. For Germany, a nation founded on a community of descent with strong
ethnolinguistic ties, the influx of guest-workers at a time when the German nation itself was
divided, deeply influenced the political self-conception as not a country of immigration. This
rhetoric was translated into support for the three-tiered education system, especially by CDU
policy-makers. In terms of language education, however, there appears to be a convergence
between the goals of return migration and multiculturalist policies when translated into practice,
effectively maintaining ethno-linguistic boundaries. Though stemming from different justifications,
this convergence persisted even as the language of minority accommodation shifted from
multiculturalism to incorporation. This parallel demonstrates the need to explore the way that the
presence of a large minority community challenges core components of German national identity
in addition to reinforcing the value of examining the implementation, interpretation, and translation
from policy to practice.
The Turkish Minority in Germany:
The Relationship between Politics and Education in the Integration of Parallel Communities
Christine Difato
6
List of References
Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany (Grundgesetz), 1949-1993. trans.
Inter Nationes, http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/GG.htm.
Baubock, Rainer. 2002. Cultural Minority Rights in Public Education: Religious and
Language Instruction for Immigrant Communities in Western Europe. In West European
Immigration and Immigrant Policy in the New Century: A Continuing Quandary for States
and Societies, ed. Anthony Messina, 161-189. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press/Praeger
Publishers .
Baumert, J urgen, and Helmut Kohler. 1984. Trends and Perspectives of Secondary
Education in West Berlin. European Journal of Education 19, 4: 365-384.
Behrens, Ulrike, Sabine Tost, and Reinhold J ager S. 2002. German Policy on
Foreigners and the Education of Immigrants in the Federal Republic of Germany. In
Education and Immigration: Settlement Policies and Current Challenges, ed. Pirkko
Pitkanen, Devorah Kalekin-Fishman, and Gajendra K. Verma, 96-123. London:
Routledge.
Bommes, Michael. 2000, National Welfare State, Biography and Migration: Labour
Migrants, Ethnic Germans and the Re-ascription of Welfare State Membership. In
Immigration and Welfare: Challenging the Borders of the Welfare State, ed. Michael
Bommes and Andrew Geddes, 90-108. London: Routledge.
Boukhars, Anouar. 2007. The Threat of Islamist Terrorism to Germany. J amestown
Foundation 5, 7, http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2373324.
Brubaker, Rogers. 1992. Citizenship and nationhood in France and Germany, Cambridge, Mass.
London : Harvard University Press.
Brubaker, Rogers. 2001. The Return of Assimilation? Changing Perspectives on
Immigration and its sequels in France, Germany, and the United States. Ethnic and
Racial Studies 24, no. 4, 531-548.
The Turkish Minority in Germany:
The Relationship between Politics and Education in the Integration of Parallel Communities
Christine Difato
7
Coleman, David. 2002. Mass Migration to Europe: Demographic Salvation, Essential
Labor or Unwanted Foreigners? In West European Immigration and Immigrant Policy in
the New Century: A Continuing Quandary for States and Societies, ed. Anthony Messina,
47-75. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press/Praeger Publishers .
Cyrus, Norbert. 2005. Active Civic Participation of Immigrants in Germany. Country
Report prepared for the European research project POLITIS, Oldenburg, http://www.uni-
oldenburg.de/politis-europe/download/Germany.pdf.
Entzinger , Han and Renske Biezeveld. 2003. Benchmarking in Immigrant
Integration. European Commission Report,
http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/funding/2004_2007/doc/study_indicators_integration.pdf.
Faas, Daniel. 2007. The Europeanisation of German Ethnic Identities: the Case of
German and Turkish Students in Two Stuttgart Secondary Schools. International Studies
in Sociology of Education 17, 1: 45-62.
Faas, Daniel. 2008. From Foreigner Pedagogy to Intercultural Education: An
Analysis of the German Responses to Diversity and Its Impact on Schools and Students.
European Educational Research Journal 7, 1: 108-123.
Fredriksson, Ulf. 2003. Changes of Education Policies within the European Union in
the Light of Globalisation. European Educational Research Journal 2, 4: 521-546.
Fhr, Christoph. 1997. The German Education System since 1945. Outlines and
Problems. Bonn: Inter Nationes.
Geddes, Andrew. 2003. The Politics of Migration and Immigration in Europe.
London: SAGE.
Heckmann, Friedrich. 2006. Education for Integration: An Overview on Structures,
Measures and Programmes. In Immigrant Integration and Education: The Role of State
and Civil Society in Germany and the U.S., ed. Friedrich Heckmann and Richard Wolf, 9-
16. Bamberg: Europisches Forum Fr Migrationsstudien (EFMS).
The Turkish Minority in Germany:
The Relationship between Politics and Education in the Integration of Parallel Communities
Christine Difato
8
Heckmann, Friedrich. 2008. Education and Migration Strategies for Integrating
Migrant Children in European Schools and Societies: A Synthesis of Research Findings
for Policy-Makers. NESSE network of experts,
http://www.nesse.fr/nesse/nesse_top/activites/education-and-migration.
Huysmans, J eff. 2000. The European Union and the Securitization of Migration.
Journal of Common Market Studies 38, 5: 751-777.
Islam and Identity in Germany. 2007. Europe Report 181.
J oppke, Christian. 1999. Immigration and the Nation-state : the United States,
Germany, and Great Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
J oppke, Christian and Ewa Morawska. 2003. Integrating Immigrants in Liberal
Nation-States: Policies and Practices. in Toward Assimilation and Citizenship: Immigrants
in Liberal Nation-states, ed. Christian J oppke and Ewa Morawska, 1-36. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Kostakopoulou, Theodora. 2008. Matters of Control: Integration Tests and
Naturalisation Reform in Western Europe. Paper presented at Centre of International
Studies, University of Cambridge, 9 May, in Cambridge, England.
Mueller, Claus. 2006. Integrating Turkish Communities: a German Dilemma.
Population Research and Policy Review 25, 5-6: 419-441,
http://www.springerlink.com/content/0842318k42m7234v/fulltext.html.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 2006. Where
Immigrant Students Succeed: A Comparative Review of Performance and Engagement
in PISA 2003. Pans: OECD.
White, J enny B. 1997. Turks in the New Germany. American Anthropologist New
Series 99, 4: 754-769.