| Name of the reform | Bekendtgørelse nr. 31 af 19. januar 2006 (Denmark’s Executive Order on Primary and Lower Secondary School Teaching in Danish as a Second Language) |
| Country | Denmark |
| Year | 2006 |
| Educational level | ISCED 1, 2 |
| Kind / type | Laws / regulation of access reform |
| Coverage | National |
Summary
Denmark’s 2006 Executive Order on Danish as a Second Language (Bekendtgørelse nr. 31 af 19. januar 2006) established the legal framework for language support for bilingual students in primary and lower secondary schools (folkeskolen). The regulation defined bilingual students as children whose mother tongue is not Danish and who learn Danish only through contact with society or school. Under this order, school management became responsible for assessing all incoming bilingual students to determine their exact language support needs.
Agenda Setting
Context:
The 2006 Executive Order on Primary and Lower Secondary School Teaching in Danish as a Second Language was introduced during a period of increasing focus on the integration of migrant and bilingual children within the Danish public school system. It was part of a broader political effort to standardise how municipalities handled second-language acquisition, ensuring that language learning was treated as a formal educational requirement rather than an informal support measure. By establishing explicit guidelines, the Danish Ministry of Education sought to integrate language development directly into the structure of the folkeskole, ensuring that schools across the country followed a uniform approach to student integration.
Aim:
The primary objective of Denmark’s Executive Order on Primary and Lower Secondary School Teaching in Danish as a Second Language was to ensure bilingual students acquired the Danish language proficiency needed to participate fully in regular classroom instruction on equal terms with native speakers. It aimed to bridge the communication gap quickly through intensive initial training, while preventing long-term academic stagnation by offering ongoing linguistic support during standard subject lessons. Ultimately, the order was designed to foster academic success, prevent social isolation within the school environment, and prepare bilingual youth for further education and long-term societal integration.
Target Groups
The specific target group consisted of bilingual children of school age whose native language was not Danish and who had not yet acquired sufficient Danish skills through their everyday environment to follow mainstream schooling. This included newly arrived migrant and refugee children requiring immediate, intensive intervention, as well as children born in Denmark who grew up in households where Danish was not the primary language. Additionally, the order directly targeted school administrators and local educational authorities, outlining their legal obligation to identify, assess, and accommodate these specific students.
Formulation and Implementation
Legislative documents:
BEK nr 31 af 20/01/2006: Bekendtgørelse om folkeskolens undervisning i dansk som andetsprog:
https://www.retsinformation.dk/eli/lta/2006/31
Key actions / main measures:
School principals were required to immediately assess newly enrolled bilingual students to determine their language support needs. Authorities established specialised reception classes and intensive groups for initial language acquisition, while teachers continuously monitored student progress to support mainstream integration. Local municipalities were obligated to organise and fund these programs, including student transport when necessary. The order implemented full-time reception classes (modtagelsesklasser) for intensive, introductory Danish instruction. It also introduced supplementary support (supplerende undervisning) within regular classrooms so that bilingual students could keep up with standard subjects. These measures were supported by adapted educational materials, targeted teacher training, and standardised language screening tools.
Evaluation and Sustainability
The primary body responsible for evaluating the impact of the order was the Danish Evaluation Institute (EVA). Shortly after the executive order was enacted, EVA launched nationwide studies to inspect how municipalities and schools organised their second-language teaching (Evaluation Report). Their evaluations found major inconsistencies in how different municipalities interpreted the 2006 guidelines, particularly revealing that many schools lacked teachers with formal qualifications in Danish as a Second Language. Municipalities held primary legal responsibility for maintaining the quality, funding, and structural availability of language programs within their districts. Local school boards and municipal authorities had to ensure that schools possessed adequate teaching staff and specialised pedagogical resources for second-language learners.
To maintain standards and hold local systems accountable, the state required municipalities to compile regular quality reports (kvalitetsrapporter) that explicitly detailed how second-language teaching was performing in their area. Additionally, external evaluation bodies, such as the Danish Evaluation Institute (Danmarks Evalueringsinstitut), conducted national reviews to identify gaps in teacher qualifications and ensure consistency across the country.
Sustainability:
The 2006 Executive Order on Primary and Lower Secondary School Teaching in Danish as a Second Language was supplanted in 2016. This meant a shift toward strict integration timelines combined with operational flexibility for municipalities. The most critical change introduced in 2016 was a maximum two-year time limit for basic instruction in reception classes, whereas the 2006 framework left the duration open-ended based on individual school assessments.
Transferability Potential
Mandatory integration of language learning into regular academic courses and the introduction of a strict two-year cap on separate reception classes are valuable legislative tools to prevent long-term student segregation. However, the policy’s success relies heavily on a highly decentralised municipal funding model and a robust pipeline of specialised, formally trained teachers, making it difficult to replicate in centralised states or regions facing chronic educator shortages. Furthermore, its rigid focus on rapid domestic language assimilation often treats a student’s native mother tongue as an academic barrier, which may conflict with the pedagogical goals of countries favouring explicitly plurilingual or multicultural educational models.