Does ethnic minority parents’ integration in society affect their children’s school performance ? Paper AERA 2008 New York

1. Does ethnic minority parents’
integration in society
affect their children’s
school performance ?
Dr. Geert Driessen
Dr. Frederik Smit
ITS – Institute for Applied Social Sciences
Radboud University Nijmegen
The Netherlands
Contact: www.geertdriessen.nl
Paper AERA Annual Meeting
New York City, March 24-28, 2008

2. Three categories:
• former colonies (e.g., Surinam: 333,000,
Antilles: 130,000)
• labor immigrants (e.g., Turkey: 369,000;
Morocco: 329,000)
• refugees/asylum seekers (e.g., Iran, Iraq,
Afghanistan, Somalia, Yugoslavia)
Characteristics:
• differences: language, culture, religion
(Islam)
• overrepresentation: illiterate, no or little
education, without job, on social welfare,
crime
1. Non-Western immigrants
in the Netherlands
10.6% of the Dutch population of 16.4 million

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

4. Integration
Immigrants (adults) AND their children
Theory
Notions of cultural and social capital
(Bourdieu, Coleman)
Expectations
More parental integration, i.e. 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 in society 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’)
600 or 9% of all Dutch primary schools
60,000 children in grades 2, 4, 6 and 8
Data sources: students, parents, teachers,
principals
The present study
10,680 children grade 2 (6 years of age)
and their parents
5. Data

7. Parents
Questionnaire: socioethnic background,
participation
Children
Tests: 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. Ethnicity, participation,
and effect measures
Ethnicity
Dutch Sur/Ant Tur/Mor Other eta
Participation
Labor
% paid work 87 54 49 52 .38
Religious (meetings)
% (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 test scores 987 967 952 969 .36
Math test scores 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

10. Model
0 1 2 3 4
B sig. B sig. B sig. B sig.
Ethnicity
Dutch=reference
Surinam/Antilles -15.7 ** -13.3 **
Turkey/Morocco -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=reference
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
Ethn/Ed x
Participation
.0
Student level (%) 80.9 6.4 4.3 +.9 +.7
School level (%) 19.1 54.0 36.9 +1.1 +1.3
9. Multilevel analysis
Language test scores
(mean=979; SD=37)

11. 10. Conclusions
Hypothesis: participation indication of
integration; greater parental integration
promotes a more favorable educational
position for their children.
No effects of participation on non-cognitive
outcomes: social position, self-confidence
and well-being.
Only a (small) 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.