This document summarizes a study on the effects of minority parents' participation in society on their children's educational outcomes. The study used data from 10,680 children in the Netherlands to analyze relationships between parental ethnicity, education, participation in different domains (e.g. labor, religion), and children's language, math and social skills. The results showed a consistent positive effect of parents' cultural participation (e.g. attending concerts) on children's language and math abilities, supporting the idea of cultural capital. However, the hypothesis that greater parental integration would more broadly promote children's education received only partial confirmation. Higher expectations for immigrant children's chances may need to be more realistic.

1. Integration, participation,
and education: effects of
minority parents’ societal
participation on their
children’s cognitive and non-
cognitive competencies
Dr. Geert Driessen
ITS, Radboud University Nijmegen
Contact: www.geertdriessen.nl
Paper ERCOMER seminar
6 November 2006, Utrecht

2. Three categories:
• former colonies (e.g., Surinamese: 332,000,
Antillean: 130,000)
• labor immigrants (e.g., Turkish: 364,000;
Moroccan: 323,000)
• refugees/asylum seekers (e.g., Iran, Iraq,
Afghanistan, Somalia, Yugoslavia)
Characteristics:
• differences: language, culture, religion
(Islam)
• illiterate, education, jobless,
social welfare, crime
1. Ethnic minorities in the Netherlands
Non-Western immigrants 10.5% of the Dutch
population of 16.3 million

3. > 1980s: ‘integration with maintenance of
own culture’
> 2001 (9/11): negative view on immigration
Assimilation: compulsory integration;
one’s own responsibility
Goal: shared citizenship immigrants and
native Dutch
Actively contribute to society and
participate in all facets of society:
• education (diploma)
• labor market (job)
• social (membership in associations)
• political (voting)
• cultural
• societal (volunteer work)
• sports
2. Integration policy in the NL

4. Integration: immigrants and their children
Better integrated parents →
more favorable educational and societal
opportunities children
Integration policy emphasizes the
responsibility of immigrant parents.
Expectations: notions of cultural and social
capital (Bourdieu, Coleman)
Thesis: more parental participation →
greater cultural and social capital →
positively influences child-rearing situation,
educational and societal opportunities of
their children
3. Participation, capital, and
educational opportunity

5. Study of immigrant background,
participation, and educational results in
conjunction with each other
What relations exist between parental
participation and the cognitive and non-
cognitive educational outcomes of their
children?
Answer → empirical support position Dutch
government ‘participation as capital’?
4. Research question

6. PRIMA
Cohort study Primary Education (‘PRIMA’)
Since 1994/95, repeated every two years
600 or 9% of all Dutch primary schools
60,000 children in grades 2, 4, 6 and 8
Data sources: pupils, parents, teachers,
schools (principals)
The present study
10,680 children grade 2 (6 years of age)
and their parents
Data collection: 1999
5. Data

7. Parents: questionnaire, socioethnic
background, participation
Children: tests, preparatory language and
math skills
Teachers: evaluation list, non-cognitive
position children
Schools: questionnaire, information on
parents
6. Instruments/Variables

8. 7. Model
Family structural
 parental ethnicity
 parental education
 parental length of
residence
Aspects of participation
 labor
 religious
 political
 societal
 social
 cultural
Cognitive outcome measures
 language skill
 math skill
Non-cognitive outcome measures
 social position
 self-confidence
 well-being

9. 8. Parental ethnicity and education
Ethnicity
Education Dutch Surinamese/
Antillean
Turkish/
Moroccan
Other Total
Primary 3 10 47 17 11
Vocational 24 27 18 13 23
Professional 47 54 29 40 44
College 26 9 5 30 22
n=100% 7,797 431 1,651 801 10,680

10. 9. Ethnicity, participation,
and effect measures
Ethnicity
Dutch Sur/Ant Tur/Mor Other eta
Participation
Labor
% paid work 87 54 49 52 .38
Religious
% (practically) never 58 36 15 45 .31
% few times a year 24 44 17 25 .11
% 1-3 times a month 9 13 20 13 .12
% 1 times a week 9 7 48 16 .39
Political (voting)
% no times 21 45 43 58 .28
% one time 12 17 26 17 .14
% two times 67 38 30 25 .33
Societal
% volunteer work 28 12 12 14 .16
Social (membership)
% 0 48 63 48 65 .10
% 1 47 32 42 30 .11
% 2 5 5 9 5 .06
Cultural
% never 14 15 73 24 .49
% <1 a year 42 60 18 47 .20
% 1 a year 30 16 8 21 .19
% 2 a year 13 9 1 9 .14
Effect measures
Language 987 967 952 969 .36
Math 57 50 47 52 .28
Social position 3.8 3.7 3.7 3.7 .12
Self-confidence 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 .02
Well-being 4.1 4.0 4.0 4.0 .05

11. Model
0 1 2 3 4
B sig. B sig. B sig. B sig.
Ethnicity
Dutch=ref.
Sur/Ant -15.7 ** -13.3 **
Tur/Mor -25.4 ** -21.4 **
Other -15.7 ** -12.1 **
Education
Primary -17.1 ** -12.1 **
Vocational -12.8 ** -9.0 **
Professional -6.7 ** -4.5 **
College=ref.
Participation
Labor 6.9 ** 3.7 *
Religious -3.2 ** -.7
Political 3.6 ** 2.0 **
Societal 4.2 ** 2.3
Social .2 .4
Cultural 5.2 ** 2.4 **
Interactions E/E x P .0
Pupil level (%) 80.9 6.4 4.3 +.9 +.7
School level (%) 19.1 54.0 36.9 +1.1 +1.3
10. ML Language - total sample

12. Model
0 1 2 3 4
B sig. B sig. B sig. B sig.
Ethnicity
Dutch=ref.
Sur/Ant -5.4 ** -4.6 **
Tur/Mor -6.7 ** -5.5 **
Other -4.6 ** -3.3 **
Education
Primary -7.4 ** -5.4 **
Vocational -5.4 ** -3.8 **
Professional -3.3 ** -2.4 **
College=ref.
Participation
Labor 2.5 ** 1.4 *
Religious -0.7 ** 0.0
Political 1.2 ** 0.7 *
Societal 1.7 ** 1.1 *
Social 0.3 0.4
Cultural 1.9 ** 1.0 **
Interactions E/E x P
Student level (%) 80.8 5.2 3.9 +1.1 +0.2
School level (%) 19.2 35.1 27.4 +1.5 +0.0
11. ML Math - total sample

13. Model
0 1 2 3 4 5
B sig
.
B sig
.
B sig
.
B sig
.
B sig
.
Ethnicity
Sur/Ant 0.0 -1.1 -2.4
Tur/Mor -10.7 ** -8.4 ** -9.5 **
Other=ref.
Education
Primary -13.1 ** -9.4 ** -10.8 **
Vocational -8.7 * -6.2 -8.1 *
Professional -5.7 * -4.3 -5.5
College=ref.
Participation
Labor 3.5 * 3.1 2.9
Religious -2.8 ** -1.6 * -1.4
Political 1.3 1.6 0.9
Societal 0.8 -0.3 -0.6
Social -0.8 -0.5 -0.7
Cultural 5.8 ** 3.0 * 3.0 *
Interactions E/E x P
T/M x labor -12.8 **
Length of residence 2.1 **
Student level (%) 83.2 3.5 2.8 +1.0 +2.3 +1.9
School level (%) 16.8 32.2 ** 29.9 ** +5.4 * +4.4 +0.9 **
12. ML Language - immigrant only
sample

14. Model
0 1 2 3 4 5
B sig. B sig. B sig. B sig. B sig.
Ethnicity
Sur/Ant -1.2 -1.4 -1.7
Turk/Mor -2.8 ** -2.6 ** -2.8 **
Other=ref.
Education
Primary -4.7 ** -3.6 ** -3.9 **
Vocational -2.4 * -1.6 -2.1
Professional -2.3 * -1.9 -2.1 *
College=ref.
Participation
Labor 1.8 ** 1.6 * 1.6 *
Religious -0.5 -0.2 -0.1
Political 0.1 0.2 0.1
Societal 1.5 1.0 1.0
Social -0.2 -0.1 -0.1
Cultural 1.5 ** 0.6 0.6
Interactions E/E x P
Length of residence 0.5 *
Student level (%) 81.9 3.0 1.9 +0.7 +3.0 +0.2
School level (%) 18.1 14.2 15.6 +4.2 +0.0 +1.4
13. ML Math - immigrant only
sample

15. 14. Conclusions and discussion
Hypothesis: participation indication of
integration; greater parental integration
promotes a more favorable educational
position for their children.
Only a consistent effect of cultural
participation on language and math skills.
‘High brow’ cultural participation: regular
attendance of concerts, films, and museums.
Confirmation of cultural capital thesis.
Assumption with regard to chances of
immigrant children receive only partial
confirmation. Expectations have been
stretched too high and greater realism is
called for.