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

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

< 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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.