Frederik Smit & Geert Driessen (2007) JET Parents and schools as partners in a multicultural, multireligious society

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2007 DOI: 10.1163/157092507X188557
Parents and Schools as Partners in a Multicultural,
Multireligious Society
Frederik Smit and Geert Driessen
Institute for Applied Social Sciences (ITS) of the Radboud University Nijmegen
f.smit@its.ru.nl
g.driessen@its.ru.nl
Received 20 December 2006; accepted 30 January 2007
Summary
In recent years Dutch society has had to deal with an influx of large and highly divergent migrant
groups. Dutch education faces the task of accommodating these differences. Parental involve-
ment and participation are increasingly seen as important elements in the interplay of upbring-
ing and informal and formal education. In this respect it appears that immigrant parents’
involvement and participation lag behind that of Dutch parents. This article deals with recent
trends in the relationship between schools and parents, its significance for children’s develop-
ment and how it links up with aspects like norms and values, religious education and identity
development. The article presents the results of an extensive empirical study conducted in Rot-
terdam, a city which for some time now has been confronted with the aforementioned demo-
graphic phenomena on a massive scale and tries to allow for it in its educational policy. The study
focuses particularly on differences and similarities in ideas about the parents-school relationship
among ten ethnic groups.
Keywords
parental participation, education, multicultural, multireligious
Introduction
In recent years Dutch society has had to deal with an influx of large and highly
divergent migrant groups. They differ particularly in regard to culture, lan-
guage and religion (Driessen, 2002) and Dutch education faces the task of
accommodating these differences. In practice that is not always easy (Klaassen
et al., 2005; Smit et al., 2004a). Parental involvement and participation are
increasingly seen as important elements in the interplay of upbringing and
informal and formal education (Smit, Doesborgh & Van Kessel, 2001). But in
Journal of Empirical Theology 20 (2007) 1-20 www.brill.nl/jet
Journal of
Empirical Theology
JET 20,1_f2_1-20.indd 1JET 20,1_f2_1-20.indd 1 4/20/07 9:58:54 PM4/20/07 9:58:54 PM

2 F. Smit, G. Driessen / Journal of Empirical Theology 20 (2007) 1-20
this respect it appears that immigrant parents’ involvement and participation
lag behind that of Dutch parents. This article deals with recent trends in the
relationship between schools and parents, its significance for children’s devel-
opment and how it links up with aspects like norms and values, religious
education and identity development.
In this context we report on the results of an extensive empirical study
conducted in Rotterdam, a city which for some time now has been confronted
with the aforementioned demographic phenomena on a massive scale and tries
to allow for it in its educational policy. The study focuses particularly on
differences and similarities in ideas about the parents-school relationship among
ten ethnic groups. Finally we present some conclusions and recommendations.
Theoretical background
Developments in parents-school relationship
There has been growing interests in parents’ role and influence in education in
recent times. Internationally the accent is increasingly on parental and com-
munity involvement as a strategy to make education more effective (Klaassen
& Smit, 2001; Sleegers & Smit, 2003).
Epstein (1992) maintains that children perform better at all levels, have
more positive attitudes towards school and expect more from school if their
parents are concerned and enthusiastic about it and involved in their children’s
schooling. This is borne out by a lot of research: giving parents opportunities
to participate in their children’s education positively influences both the cog-
nitive development and performance of learners and their parents’ attitudes
towards school (Driessen, Smit & Sleegers, 2005). Accordingly closer integra-
tion of the activities of schools, parents and local communities is advocated so
as to eliminate the widespread phenomenon of separation between the school
and the outside world.
Despite the importance attached to parental involvement in education, the
actual nature of that involvement is by no means clear. The term is used to
indicate diverse parental activities, ranging from conscious involvement with
their children’s learning and well-being at school to parents’ evenings organ-
ised by the school and formal participation in school boards and participation
councils (Smit, 1991). In addition there appear to be different ‘practices’,
experiments and experiences arising from the various forms of parental
participation in schools (Sleegers & Smit, 1999; 2003).

F. Smit, G. Driessen / Journal of Empirical Theology 20 (2007) 1-20 3
Epstein (1995) offers a useful and widely applied classification of six types
of parental participation:
1. Parenting: Helping all families establish home environments that sup-
port children as students and helping schools understand families.
2. Communicating: Designing and conducting effective forms of twoway
communication about school programs and children’s progress.
3. Volunteering: Recruiting and organizing help and support for class-
rooms, school functions and student activities.
4. Learning at Home: Providing information, ideas and opportunities to
families about how to help students at home with academic decisions,
homework, and curriculum-related activities.
5. Decision-making: Including families in various aspects of school
governance.
6. Collaborating with Community: Strengthen and support schools, stu-
dents and their families, and from schools, families and students to sup-
port the community.
Parents and education
Parents are the parties primarily responsible for their children’s sustenance and
education. Government does not concern itself with the contents of educa-
tion. International treaties such as the European Declaration of Human Rights
(art. 2, protocol 1), as well as church documents like the Codex Iuris Canonici
and the papal encyclical Gravissimum Educationis (1968), confirm parents’
prerogative in education and in choosing the most suitable education for their
children. Good rapport between education (and upbringing) at school and
what parents provide at home is a basic premise of freedom of education (Smit
& Claessen, 1997).
An important element of harmonising the activities of school and parents is
the way teachers, parents and learners regard the teacher’s ‘upbringing’ task
and the parents’ ‘educative’ task (Cutler, 2000; Onderwijsraad, 2003). In the
Netherlands, as noted already, the primary responsibility for upbringing rests
on the parents. On the whole the division of tasks is clear. The school teaches;
parents do the upbringing. Studies by the Onderwijsraad (2003) and Smit
et al. (2004a) show that responsibility for inculcating norms and values rests
primarily on parents. Intellectual development is seen as the school’s task. But
this ‘general’ view is not shared or practised by everybody to the same extent.

Thus parents often consider behavioural problems as the school’s responsibil-
ity (Van Oord & Schieven, 2003), whereas schools hold parents responsible
for deviant behaviour (Krumm &Weiss, 2000). There are also major differences
between the manner and extent to which Dutch and immigrant parents
assume responsibility for their children’s education. In addition there is con-
siderable variation among immigrant parents, relating inter alia to their reli-
gious background, orientation to the Western world and integration with
Dutch society (Driessen, 2003; Driessen & Doesborgh, 2003; Driessen &
Smit, 2005; Pels, 2000). Immigrants moreover tend to distinguish between
different ‘spheres of life’: the school is responsible for everything that happens
at school, parents for what happens at home, and the police for what happens
on the streets (Driessen & Bezemer, 1999).
In recent years statutory measures have been taken to strengthen parents’
position (Epstein, 2003; Smit, 1991;Vermeulen & Smit, 1998). Since 1981
the Wet Medezeggenschap Onderwijs (Education Participation Act, EPA) has
provided a formal basis for regulated control. The fact that the EPA assigns the
parental group a place on the participation council may be seen as recognition
of their educational responsibility (Akkermans, 1987; Smit & Claessen,
1995).
Parental involvement
Parents play a role in the school in various capacities. According to Vermeulen
and Smit (1998) a meaningful analytical distinction can be made between
parents as co-shapers or constituents of education (school founders, managers,
members of participation councils) and as consumers of education (critical
customers, rightful clients) who can demand certain products from schools
(Laemers, 2002).
Growing numbers of working mothers and single-parent homes mean that
schools will increasingly function in inter-organisational networks of welfare
institutions, churches, school clusters, forms of pre- and after-school care with
homework supervision and the like. The concept of parental participation has
broadened: parents are seen as part of a ‘social community’. Exchange of expe-
rience between school and (religious) community entails identification of
community resources and services and integrating them with existing school
programmes, educative practices at home and child instruction. The underly-
ing idea is that schools cannot meet children’s needs on their own, indepen-
dently of the community in which these children live.
Internationally the term ‘partnership’ is increasingly used to express the
notion of meaningful cooperative relations between schools, care institutions,

parents and local communities (Epstein, 2001; Ravn, 2003; Smit, Moerel &
Sleegers, 1999; Smit et al., 2005). Such partnership entails a process in which
the parties are intent on assisting each other and optimally harmonising their
contributions with a view to enhancing children’s learning, motivation and
development (Davies & Johnson, 1996).
Seeing parents and school as ‘educative’ partners means two-way communi-
cation. On the one hand it requires greater parental involvement in school
affairs, on the other schools should provide more family-oriented reinforce-
ment of parental skills. It has to be a process in which the partners set out to
enhance each other’s skills and help each other so the results will benefit learn-
ers (Epstein, 2001).
This process comprises diverse activities which, whilst all contributing to the
partnership, differ greatly from each other. They range from schools offering
parents assistance at home, parents’ assisting with learning activities in the
classroom (e.g. ‘reading mothers’, i.e. mothers assisting the teacher during
reading lessons), parents’ evenings and helping out at school functions (e.g.
religious services) to parents’ formal participation in school boards and partici-
pation councils and offering integrated services to the local community — all
these fall under partnership. There are also various activities by parents-school
collaborative ventures arising from the different forms of parent involvement
(Sleegers & Smit, 2003; Smit et al., 2000). At the same time there are obstacles
to good partnership in regard to values and norms, educative style, manner of
parental support, and parents’ and children’s linguistic proficiency (Grozier,
2001; Lopez, 2001; Pels, 2000).
Values and norms
Society is becoming more and more pluralistic. Differences between popula-
tion groups manifest themselves in all sorts of areas from day-to-day lifestyle
to fundamental values, norms and beliefs (Hermans, 1997). Cardinal values in
Dutch society are: people’s equality irrespective of religion, race or sex; indi-
vidual autonomy; personal development; and freedom of expression. Some of
these key values are entrenched in the constitution. The Education Participa-
tion Act stipulates the norms that members of participation councils, directors
and managers have to satisfy. That provides some sort of guideline to the
behaviour required of people in certain positions. Parent training in participa-
tion councils is largely aimed at providing them with the necessary skills to
play their roles on the council adequately.
A norm is the articulation of a value that serves as a guideline for human
conduct. The Education Participation Act lists a number of norms that

competent authorities have to take into account in decision making (Smit,
2006), for instance that pedagogic, personal and material interests should be
considered when deciding on school funds. Major resolutions, for instance on
mergers or closing down a school, may not be taken without first dealing with
the consequences of the decision for staff, parents and learners.
Attention to values, norms and identity of the school
In the view of many parents on boards and participation councils attention
to the school’s values, norms and identity is being eroded. Expansion has
meant that (parents on) boards are bypassed and governing bodies take
complete charge of quality control (including issues of identity). In discus-
sions with participation councils governing bodies put the accent on the
significance of the school’s denominational identity for its practice (‘what’
issues), whereas members of participation councils and school executive
boards (i.e. the principals who manage the school on a daily basis) would
prefer to discuss schooling concepts and courses (‘how’ issues), for instance
how the school community’s perception can colour that identity. A large
proportion of parents experience expansionary operations as an ‘expropria-
tion project’ when it comes to their ability to help shape school identity at
an executive level. Central executive bodies put common interest first and
regard the interests of individual schools as derivatives of that. On the other
hand the consequences of mergers can be far-reaching. One parent recounts
that since their school merged with two other schools issues of identity
(e.g. basic religious needs) are once again tackled explicitly at board level
and old traditions like hanging Advent wreaths have been reinstated.
Source: Smit et al. (2000).
Insofar as schools pay attention to values and norms they have a choice between
putting the accent on transmitting subject matter or on learners’ needs, sup-
posed or otherwise. The first may be called subject matter-oriented and the
second learner-oriented worldview-related education (Claassen & Mooij,
1995). Presentation of values and norms can be differentiated into an unbi-
ased (‘teaching’) and a biased (‘preaching’) approach by the teacher (Imelman
et al., 1986). If we combine the two dimensions, we get a typology of value
transmission (see scheme 1). The contents of the four cells are based on the
distinction made by Van der Ven (1985) into value transmission (learning and

especially recognising values and norms, e.g. banning racism); value communi-
cation (incorporating pluriform values and norms into the education process);
value development (a process in which learners appropriate norms and values);
and value clarification (learners’ questions about life and its meaning, which
teachers treat objectively and neutrally).
Scheme 1: Typology of dealing with values in schools
preaching teaching
subject matter-oriented value transmission value communication
learner-oriented value development value clarification
Parents and religious/worldview-related education
Cooperation between school and parents in regard to religious/worldview-
related education is considered a ‘basic duty’, which promotes communica-
tion on norms and values at school. Teachers try as far as possible to give
the school’s worldview-related identity concrete shape in conjunction with
parents. Schools devote special attention to parents-school partnership in
the area of religious/worldview-related education. In primary education
the emphasis in dealing with values is generally on value transmission and
development (‘preaching’) and in secondary education on value communi-
cation and clarification (‘teaching’).
Function of identity
The institution’s identity comprises the specific, distinctive features of its con-
cept of education. Its worldview-related dimension consists in images, values
and norms deriving from a particular religious tradition. That tradition
includes not just religious images and church rituals but also a certain lifestyle.
In addition to a worldview-related dimension identity has others, for instance
a pedagogic dimension (e.g. adopting a stance on norms of dress and criminal-
ity), a didactic dimension (e.g. a learner-centred learning climate), an organi-
sational dimension (e.g. a climate of co-determination) and a societal
dimension (e.g. active participation in society).

In the case of worldview-related identity we make the following distinction:
– narrow identity (identity-specific aspects): the way the worldview-related
identity of the institution is manifested in specific worldview-related pro-
grammes, sub-programmes, themes, courses, et cetera, for example morn-
ing assembly, religious services, religious education, catechesis, pastoral
work.
– broad identity (identity-integrating aspects): the way the worldview-related
identity permeates every aspect of policy implementation in the institution,
such as goals, tasks, climate, organisation, management, design of the build-
ing, personnel policy and finance (Van Oers & Gelauf, 1992).
Most school boards/governing bodies formulated or reformulated their iden-
tity at the turn of the last century (Smit et al., 2000).
Contributing to upbringing and education in the area of identity
Christian parents usually consider it important that their children should
acquire a particular Christian attitude to life without themselves explicitly
conveying it in their upbringing. In a number of Catholic primary schools
a few parents have taken over the pastor’s task. They organise and prepare
children for their first communion and confirmation. As a rule they can use
school facilities free of charge. The parish assists parents in initiating learn-
ers into the customs and rituals of the Catholic denomination. The teachers
concerned sometimes fail to attend ceremonies (over weekends), which is
experienced negatively. The same parents are often active in running the
youth choir and (family/children’s) services so as to initiate children into
the Christian faith as transmitted and taught by the Catholic Church. On
the whole the approach to religious/worldview-related education is mono-
religious (traditional). In secondary education a handful of parents (two to
five) lend a hand with liturgical services and worldview-related workshops
(one-day or one-week), in which they usually opt for a modern religious
approach to the tradition.

Factors conducive to parental involvement in aspects of worldview-related
identity
The following factors help to improve parents-school cooperation in iden-
tity construction in relation to both the school’s denominational affiliation
and learners’ education and moulding in the field of identity:
1. parents as educators: the extent to which parents initiate children into
the Catholic culture;
2. information furnished to parents by the school: the extent to which the
school informs parents about formulated Catholic identity and the edu-
cation of learners in this regard;
3. parental supportive activities at school: the extent to which parents con-
tribute to identity at the school and group level;
4. parental assistance with learning activities at home: the extent to which
parents help to educate their children’s identity in the home;
5. formal avenues for participation: the avenues open to parents for influ-
encing identity policy and the actual process of constructing learners’
identity;
6. parental functioning in management: the extent to which parents influ-
ence school identity and the substance of lessons at executive level;
7. cooperation of parents, school and community: the extent to which
parents, school and (religious) community cooperate in developing
learners’ identity.
A study in a multicultural city
Research problem and design
As a result of secularisation, individualisation, fragmenting value systems and
an increasingly multicultural society many West European countries, more
specifically cities, are focusing anew, both politically and socially, on the peda-
gogic and socialising function of the school, the transmission of values and
norms, and educative tasks relating to this.
In primary schools upbringing and personality development are usually
regarded as a joint responsibility of parents and schools (Smit et al., 2005).

Parents are concerned about the excessive supply orientation in education,
insufficient attention to value transmission and increasing diversity of learners
(Smit et al., 2005; Klaassen & Leeferink, 1998). In their turn teachers, espe-
cially in large cities, have to deal with ‘new’ kinds of families and are increas-
ingly seen by parents as problem solvers, partners, co-educators and caregivers
(Smit & Driessen, 2002).
The questions in this study seek to gain insight into the (influence of) vari-
ations in educative responsibility between home and school in different cul-
tures, and the concomitant (desirable) changes in child-raising and educational
practices.
The research problem is the following:
– What are the causes of differences in responsibility with regard to education
and upbringing experienced by (groups of immigrant) parents and schools/
educational institutions?
– What control mechanisms could be used to harmonise the contributions of
(immigrant) parents and schools to learners’ development of norms, values
and social competencies?
Rotterdam is an example of a community very much engaged in the education
of its residents. In this regard the position of disadvantaged groups has always
been a focus of attention. The city’s population comprises more than 175
nationalities, language groups and cultures. As much as 60 percent of primary
school children are from foreign backgrounds and many have severe learning
deficits. Rotterdam’s integration policy regarding ethnic minorities is aimed at
creating a society in which residents who belong to these minorities will have
equal access, both individually and as groups, to developmental opportunities.
More especially it seeks equal participation by ethnic minorities in the areas of
education, the labour market, income generation and social activities.
In collaboration with Rotterdam migrant organisations 900 interviews were
conducted with immigrant parents of primary pupils. Both long-standing and
new migrant groups were approached, including parents from Turkey,
Morocco, Suriname, the Antilles, Cape Verde, Pakistan, the former Yugosla-
via, Somalia and Russia. A hundred parents from each country were inter-
viewed. In addition 100 Dutch parents were interviewed to determine
differences and similarities with immigrant parents.

Research results
Consultation
Virtually all immigrant parents attach great importance to consultations with
teachers about their children’s progress. The majority say they are not kept
properly informed by the school. To recently arrived immigrant parents con-
tact with the school is a major factor in their adaptation to the new culture.
Especially those with a poor command of the Dutch language feel it is a
deficiency that schools make so little effort to strengthen the links with them.
When teachers, parents and learners need to arrange matters between them
they can negotiate. Negotiation would be one of the strategies to achieve
this goal. For (groups of) immigrant parents consulting with teachers may
be less of an option, because it is not necessarily permissible in their coun-
tries of origin and because they have only lived in the Netherlands for a
fairly short time (Lindo, 1996). Another major factor, of course, is that
many immigrant parents have had little education themselves and have a
poor command of Dutch. Religio-cultural factors may also enter into it, for
instance the fact that Muslim mothers are not permitted to speak to male
teachers.
Big differences
The study revealed big differences between groups of immigrant parents and
Dutch parents as regards their ideas about and expectations of education. Basi-
cally all parents want their children to have the best education possible and
want them to be happy at school. The parents’ own education, faith and tradi-
tional culture are the principal frame of reference for their upbringing of their
children. On the whole immigrant parents are more self-critical regarding
their role as educators than Dutch parents. Most parents see upbringing and
education as a task shared by themselves and the school. Often they are not
sure about the exact responsibilities each party has or should have. For instance,
many parents would like to play an active role in their children’s education,
but are put off by teachers, because they are either unwilling or unable to dis-
cuss issues of education and child raising with them. Newcomers from Paki-
stan, former Yugoslavia, Somalia and Russia in particular consider it important
to be able to have a say in the values and norms that are transmitted at school.

To them the training provided is a less important condition or threshold than
it is to long-standing immigrants from places like Turkey, Morocco, Suriname,
the Antilles, Cape Verde and Pakistan.
These groups differ among themselves. Cape Verdian, Surinamese and Pak-
istani parents find it frustrating that they cannot have a say at school because
they cannot speak Dutch well enough. Many Moroccan mothers have hardly
any real contact with the school because they cannot read or speak Dutch.
Surinamese parents are somewhat exceptional, because they can’t see the point
of exchanging information about upbringing and education. They don’t want
to devote time to it. A possible explanation may be their educative ideal:
become Dutch but remain Surinamese. This would suggest than in their heart
of hearts they prefer their own cultural background and want to transmit it to
their children. Another interpretation is that in their private domain (e.g. at
home, in the family, in their community) they live according to their own
culture, whereas in the public domain (including the school) they observe
Dutch norms and values. Within these separate domains everyone has her or
his own responsibility and exchanging information about it is not deemed
necessary. Clearly living in two cultures could be problematic for the children
concerned.
We found that poorly educated, long-standing immigrants in particular are
more hesitant about assisting in the classroom. In this respect Moroccan, Cape
Verdian and Pakistani parents beat everyone else. Poorly educated newcomers,
by contrast, are much less inhibited and may even be more active in the class-
room than highly educated newcomers.
Parents across the board attach great value to learning to observe rules. Their
main educational goals are sticking to the right path and being honest, fol-
lowed by taking responsibility and the equality of men and women. Only a
tiny group of Dutch parents consider it important that their children should
obey religious rules. By contrast most Moroccan and Pakistani parents find
observance of these rules important, because they give their children a reli-
giously oriented upbringing. Cape Verdian parents correspond with Surinam-
ese and Pakistani parents in that they have high aspirations for their children’s
school careers and want them to excel. Somalian parents consider it very
important that their children should learn that men and women are equal. The
same applies to the predominantly Muslim Turks and Pakistanis. The (Catho-
lic) Antillians and Cape Verdians likewise endorse this educational goal. Dutch
parents set the greatest store by the goal that their children should learn to
cooperate.

Most parents feel that communication with teachers about worldview-related
education is moderate. In their view teachers know little or nothing about their
views on the subject, since there is (almost) no discussion about it.
Muslim parents assign religious education goals priority. They consider it
important that children should obey religious precepts both at home and at
school. In addition they set store by conformist educational goals and concern
for norms and values. They also believe that migrant organisations should play
a bigger role in parents-school relations.
Muslim schools
The majority of newcomers are Muslims. In the highly secularised Dutch
society they are conspicuous for the importance they attach to their reli-
gion and their active practice of it. Dissatisfaction with the perfunctory
attention or total disregard of their faith in existing schools led them to
establish almost 50 Muslim schools in a fairly short time. In these schools
children are given an opportunity to perform religious rituals like prayer
and fasting. They also have religious lessons completely devoted to Islam
and the Qur’an (Driessen & Bezemer, 1999). A recent study found, how-
ever, that whereas such schools devote a lot of attention to confessional
forms of religious education (cf. ‘preaching’), some Muslim schools pay
only limited attention to the statutorily mandatory teaching of religious
movements (cf. ‘teaching’) (Inspectie van het Onderwijs, 2002). This sub-
ject is explicitly aimed at introducing children to a broader spectrum of
spiritual trends than just Islam, Judaism and Christianity. Knowledge of
different trends enables children to make their own choice.
By and large the educational goals of immigrant families differ greatly from
those of Dutch families. Uprooted from their own traditions, many foreign
migrants tend to maintain a strict regime for their children and to create a
world of their own in this, to them, alien environment. Their limited com-
mand of Dutch, if any, reinforces this attitude. The lack of adequate orienta-
tion to society produces all sorts of fuel for conflict. Thus they fail to understand
the way teachers deal with their children, especially when they misbehave. In
this respect Somalian parents are conspicuous. They tend more than other
parents to report constant problems with schools about educational goals,
teachers’ use of language, and gender differences between parent and teacher.

Impediments
There are various obstacles to a good partnership between parents and teach-
ers. Immigrant parents are often regarded as a single, homogeneous group
with a traditional mentality and orientation. Parents maintain that teachers
have a poor regard for their educationally supportive behaviour. They experi-
ence it as a deficiency that teachers do not keep them informed about the
school’s objectives and methods. They would like to be told how the educative
ideas of the school can be harmonised with those in the home. Moroccan
parents, for instance, consider it vitally important that their children should
not get involved in crime. They would like to discuss it with the school, but
feel they are not taken seriously.
Participation
Dutch parents, at any rate those in the upper social echelons, are accustomed
to having a say in school affairs. Negotiation is something they learned from
childhood. Parents often experience it as a culture shock to encounter the
Dutch ‘polder model’ (i.e. decision making based on negotiation and consen-
sus) mentality. They observe that their children have a say at school, whereas
they receive little or no information to enable them to join in the exchange.
Hence immigrant parents across the board are not satisfied with the degree of
co-determination they have in regard to the norms and values that the school
transmits. As much as two thirds of these parents want to know more about
prevailing norms and values. Turkish, Antillean and Pakistani parents are more
inclined to stress their desire to be better informed about ways in which they
can exert an influence. Immigrant parents would also like teachers to devote
more attention to religious issues. In this respect Muslim parents are particu-
larly concerned. They feel they are taken more seriously if their children attend
a Muslim school.
Self-help organisations
Most immigrant groups in the Netherlands have established self-help organi-
sations to look after their common interests. Newcomers in particular con-
sider it a major task of these organisations to improve communication between
immigrant groups and schools. This is complicated, however, by the differences
between and within the various groups. It means that the input and function-
ing of these organisations are not always effective or efficient.

Conclusions
This research report indicates, in the first place, that there are major differences
between the various ethnic groups, but also that the majority of parents are
interested in the education their children receive. They claim to be concerned
about it and want to participate in it. Many of the problems encountered have
to do with communication between parents and schools. Compared with
Dutch parents, immigrant parents are more concerned about actual commu-
nication than about its contents. This applies particularly to immigrants with
a poor command of Dutch. In their view the communication is mainly one-
way: the schools provide some information but are not sufficiently open to
immigrant parents’ specific ideas, wishes and expectations. According to them
matters relating to their religious beliefs, emphasis on cognitive as opposed to
socio-emotional educational goals, and disparities between the pedagogic
approaches at home and at school are hardly discussed, not even unilaterally,
let alone by the two parties together. Very often schools and parents are not at
all clear about each other’s practices and ideas.
Proper contact between parents and schools and close parental involvement
are vital to put the school’s identity on the agenda and break the ‘spiral of
silence’. Communication about norms, values and matters of interpretation
can help clarify uncertainties and enable the parties to jointly realise the values
cherished by the entire school community — staff, parents and learners.
The study does not make the causes for the lack of proper communication
quite clear. The problem is not confined to immigrant parents but applies to
Dutch parents as well (Vogels, 2002). Undoubtedly a major reason lies with
the parents themselves: their generally poor command of the Dutch language,
their poor education and unfamiliarity with the Dutch educational system. It
also seems likely that not all teachers have the specific communication skills to
deal with the heterogeneity of foreign languages and cultures. Hence initial
teacher training and refresher courses should devote more attention to this
aspect. Another reason is probably that it is unusual to speak about, let alone
discuss norms and values and the pedagogic and didactic approach to these.
That approach is implicit in the choice of a particular school with a particular
educational slant. In the days of homogeneous Dutch learner populations it
probably wasn’t an issue at most schools, but the advent of large numbers of
immigrants with a huge diversity of languages, cultures and religions has
changed all that. As a result good, two-way communication has become cru-
cial (Smit et al. 2004b). That the endeavour to improve communication is not
a redundant luxury is evident from the first evaluation of the output and

use of the complaints mechanism instituted in schools (Vermeer & Wiersma,
2000).
Recommendations
On the basis of this study several recommendations can be made. Although
the study was conducted in Rotterdam, the results probably apply to other
communities with immigrant components (cf. Denessen et al., 2001; Smit &
Driessen, 2005; Smit, Driessen & Sleegers, 2001; Smit et al., 2003).
– Schools have to take explicit account of the backgrounds, desires and expec-
tations of parents from diverse ethnic groups.
– Immigrant parents should be regarded as serious partners rather than mere
suppliers of children, partners that the school needs to ensure that learners
are happy and perform well.
– Schools have to regard immigrant parents as partners who make a distinc-
tive input in education and the transmission and development of values.
– Schools could indicate to parents clearly what is expected of them in regard
to education and value transmission.
– It is essential that teachers and parents should be open to each other, take
cognisance of each other’s cultural and religious backgrounds (communica-
tion and clarification of values), and that education and upbringing be
regarded as a joint task and responsibility.
– The involvement of immigrant parents in education should be higher on
the policy agenda of school boards and schools.
– Schools could try to break the ‘radio silence’ on questions of meaning
between parents and staff and should make parents-school cooperation in
religious/worldview-related education an important component of their
task load. That entails devoting explicit attention to the parents-school
partnership in religious/worldview-related education. Partnership could be
incorporated into the school’s mission. In addition schools could invest in a
search for innovative contacts with parents tailored to their life worlds. That
means proceeding step by step, constantly gauging the feelings of all parties
about how cooperation can be effected.
– In cooperating with parents in religious/worldview-related education the
school’s premise for dialogue should be the inability and embarrassment of
parents and teachers to communicate about religion. They should initiate

discussions on conventions and behavioural rules at home and at school
and what values and norms from (religious) traditions feature in these.
– Immigrant parents could be challenged more explicitly to help improve the
quality of the school and thus shoulder their responsibility for the school
and society.
Bibliography
Akkermans, P. (1987). Medezeggenschap van ouders en de invloed van de maatschappij. In
Vrijheid van onderwijs, nu en morgen. Verslag van een studiedag van de Onderwijsraad op
3 juni 1986 ter gelegenheid van het afscheid van prof. dr. I.A. Diepenhorst als algemeen voorzit-
ter van de Onderwijsraad (pp. 9-18). Zwolle: Willink.
Claassen, A. & Mooij, T. (1995). Kwaliteit in onderwijs. Begrippen vanuit levensbeschouwelijk
perspectief. Nijmegen: ITS.
Cutler, W. (2000). Parents and schools: the 150-year struggle for control in American education.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Davies, D. & Johnson, V. (eds.) (1996). Crossing boundaries with action research: a multina-
tional study of school-family-community collaboration. International Journal of Educational
Research, 25, (1), 75-105.
Denesen, E., Driessen, G., Smit, F. & Sleegers, P. (2001). Culture differences in education:
implications for parental involvement and educational policy. In F. Smit, K. van der Wolf
& P. Sleegers (eds.), A bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents, schools and com-
munities (pp. 55-65). Nijmegen/Amsterdam: ITS/SCO-Kohnstamm Instituut.
Driessen, G. (2002). Ethnicity, forms of capital, and educational achievement. International
Review of Education, 47, (6), 513-538.
. (2003). Family and child characteristics, child-rearing factors, and cognitive compe-
tence of young children. Early Child Development and Care, 173, (2/3), 323-339.
Driessen, G. & Bezemer, J. (1999). Islamitisch basisonderwijs. Schipperen tussen identiteit en kwa-
liteit? Nijmegen: ITS.
Driessen, G. & Doesborgh, J. (2003). Gezinsomstandigheden, opvoedingsfactoren, en cognitieve en
niet-cognitieve competenties van jonge kinderen. Nijmegen: ITS.
Driessen, G. & Smit, F. (2005). Integration, participation and education. Effects of minority
parents’ societal participation on their children’s cognitive and non-cognitive competencies.
In R.-A. Martínez-Gonzáles, Ma del Henar Pérez-Herrero & B. Rodríguez-Ruiz (eds.),
Family-school-community partnerships merging into social development (pp. 171-190). Oviedo:
Grupo SM.
Driessen, G., Smit, F. & Sleegers, P. (2005). Parental involvement and educational achievement.
British Educational Research Journal, 31, (4), 509-532.
Epstein, J. (1992). School and family partnerships, Encyclopedia of Educational Research. New
York: Macmillan.
. (1995). Perspectives and previews on research and policy for school, family, and com-
munity partnerships. In A. Booth & J. Dunn (eds.), Family-school links: how do they affect
educational outcomes? Hillsdal, N.J.: Erlbaum.
. (2001). School, family and community partnerships. Preparing educators and improving
schools. Boulder, Con.: Westview.

. (2003). No contest: why preservice and inservice education are needed for effective
programs of school, family and community partnerships. In S. Castelli, M. Mendel &
B. Ravn (eds.), Family and community partnership in a world of differences and changes
(pp. 190-208). Gdansk: University of Gdansk.
Gravissimum Educationis (1968). Verklaring van de Christelijke opvoeding in de plechtige zitting
van het Tweede Vaticaanse Concilie van 28 oktober 1965 goedgekeurd en afgekondigd. Trans-
lated from Latin by M.H. Mulders & J. Kahmann. Hilversum: Gooi en Sticht. Reeks:
Ecclesia Docens, 193.
Grozier, G. (2001). Excluding parents: the decentralisation of parental involvement. Race, Eth-
nicity and Education, 4, (4), 329-341.
Hermans, C. (1997). Secularisering en multiculturalisering als maatschappelijke krachten in het
veranderingsproces van confessioneel onderwijs. In C. Hermans & J. van Vugt (eds.), Iden-
titeit door de tijd. Reflectie op het confessionele basisonderwijs in een geseculariseerde en multi-
culturele samenleving (pp. 5-27). The Hague/Nijmegen: ABKO/Katholiek Studiecentrum.
Imelman, J., Meijer, W., Ploeg, P. van der & Wissink, R. (1986). Tussen leuren en leren.
Kampen: Kok.
Inspectie van het Onderwijs (2002). Islamitische scholen en sociale cohesie. Utrecht: Inspectie van
het Onderwijs.
Klaassen, C. & Leeferink, H. (1998). Partners in opvoeding in het basisonderwijs. Ouders en docenten
over de pedagogische opdracht en de afstemming tussen gezin en school. Assen: Van Gorcum.
Klaassen, C. & Smit, F. (2001). Tussen gezin en school. Verschuivingen in opvoedingsdenken en
opvoedingspraktijken. In Raad voor Maatschappelijke ontwikkeling, Aansprekend opvoeden.
Balanceren tussen steun en toezicht (pp. 179-258). The Hague: Raad voor Maatschappelijke
Ontwikkeling.
Klaassen, C., Smit, F., Driessen, G. & Vroom, X. de (2005). Minority parents, integration and
education in a changing society. In R.-A. Martínez-Gonzáles, Ma del Henar Pérez-Herrero
& B. Rodríguez-Ruiz (eds.), Family-school-community partnerships merging into social devel-
opment (pp. 373-389). Oviedo: Grupo SM.
Krumm, V. & Weiss, S. (2000). Ungerechte Lehrer: Zu einem Defizit in der Forschung über
Gewalt und Schulen. Psychsozial, 23, (1), 57-73.
Laemers, M. (2002). Ontwikkelingen in de positie van ouders in het primair en voortgezet
onderwijs. In D. Mentink (ed.), Jaarboek onderwijsrecht 1997-2001 (pp. 51-63). The
Hague: Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Onderwijsrecht en Onderwijsbeleid.
Lindo, F. (1996). Maakt cultuur verschil? De invloed van groepsspecifieke gedragspatronen op de
onderwijsloopbaan van Turkse en Iberische migrantenjongeren. Amsterdam: Spinhuis.
Lopez, G. (2001). On whose terms? Understanding involvement through the eyes of migrant parents.
Paper AERA annual meeting, Seattle WA.
Oers, J., van & Gelauf, J. (1992). De identiteit van de katholieke school. Schoolbesturen en een eigen
beleid. The Hague: KBO.
Onderwijsraad (2003). Tel uit je zorgen. Onderwijszorgen van leerlingen, ouders, leraren en het
bredere publiek. The Hague: Onderwijsraad.
Oord, L. van, & Schieven, P. (2003). Onderwijsmeter 2003. The Hague: Ministerie van OCW.
Pels, T. (ed.). (2000). Opvoeding en integratie. Een vergelijkende studie van recente onderzoeken
naar gezinsopvoeding en de pedagogische afstemming tot gezin en school. Assen: Van Gorcum.
Ravn, B. (2003). Cultural and political divergences in approaches to cooperation between home,
school and local society in Europe. In S. Castelli, M. Mendel & B. Ravn (eds.), School,
family, and community partnership in a world of differences and changes (pp. 9-18). Gdansk:
University of Gdansk.

Sleegers, P. & Smit, F. (1999). De relatie tussen school en ouders: ervaringen met formele ou-
derparticipatie. Handboek Schoolorganisatie en Onderwijsmanagement (pp. 7720-1-7720-
24). Alphen a/d Rijn: Samsom/H.D. Willink.
. (2003). Samenwerking tussen leraren en ouders: Variatie, opbrengsten en knelpunten.
In Handboek Schoolorganisatie en Onderwijsmanagement (pp. 4300-1-4300-20). Alphen aan
den Rijn: Samsom/H.D. Willink.
Smit, F. (1991). De rol van ouderparticipatie in het onderwijs. Een onderzoek naar vorm, inhoud en
effecten van ouderparticipatie in het basisonderwijs. Nijmegen: ITS.
Smit, F. (ed.) (2006). Surfen op de golven van medezeggenschap in het onderwijs. MR- stand van
zaken 2006. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer.
Smit, F. & Claessen, J. (1995). Medezeggenschap in het onderwijs. Nijmegen: ITS.
Smit, F. & Claessen, J. (1997). Hebben ouders invloed op de identiteit van de school? In
C. Hermans & J. van Vugt (eds.), Identiteit door de tijd. Reflecties op het confessionele
basisonderwijs in een geseculariseerde en multiculturele samenleving (pp. 105-129). The
Hague/Nijmegen: ABKO/Katholiek Studiecentrum.
Smit, F. & Driessen, G. (2002). Allochtone ouders en de pedagogische functie van de basisschool.
Nijmegen: ITS.
. (2005). Parent-school-community relations in a changing society: Bottlenecks, pitfalls
and solutions. In R.-A. Martínez-Gonzáles, Ma del Henar Pérez-Herrero & B. Rodríguez-
Ruiz (Eds.), Family-school-community partnerships merging into social development (pp. 171-
190). Oviedo: Grupo SM.
Smit, F., Doesborgh, J. & Kessel, N. van (2001). Onderzoek naar het functioneren van de relatie
ouders en basisschool. Ouderparticipatie: een nieuw missie-statement? Nijmegen: ITS.
Smit, F., Driessen, G. & Doesborgh, J. (2004a). Opvattingen en wensen van allochtone ouders:
tussen wens en werkelijkheid. Een inventarisatie van de verwachtingen en wensen van ouders ten
aanzien van de basisschool en educatieve activiteiten in Rotterdam. Nijmegen: ITS.
Smit, F., Driessen, G. & Sleegers, P. (2001). The relationships between parents of ethnic minor-
ity children, the schools and supporting institutions in the local community. Some ideas for
the future. In F. Smit, K. van der Wolf & P. Sleegers (eds.), A bridge to the future. Collabora-
tion between parents, schools and community (pp. 255-258). Nijmegen/Amsterdam: ITS/
SCO-Kohnstamm Instituut.
Smit, F., Moerel, H. & Sleegers, P. (1999). Experiments with parent participation in the Nether-
lands. In F. Smit, H. Moerel, K. van der Wolf, & P. Sleegers (eds.), Building bridges between
home and school (pp. 37-42). Nijmegen/Amsterdam: ITS/SCO Kohnstamm Instituut.
Smit, F., Driessen, G., Sleegers, P. & Hoop, P. (2003). Ethnic minority parents and schools:
strategies to improve parental involvement and participation. In S. Castelli, M. Mendel &
B. Ravn (eds.), School, family, and community partnership in a world of differences and changes
(pp. 105-118). Gdansk: University of Gdansk.
. (2004b). Expectations and wishes of ethnic minority parents regarding education and
schooling. Paper 12th International Roundtable on School, Family, and Community Part-
nerships (INET), San Diego, CA, 12 April 2004.
Smit, F., Mensink, J., Doesborgh, J. & Kessel, N. van (2000). Een extra klontje roomboter. Onder-
zoek naar de rol van ouders bij de levensbeschouwelijke identiteit op katholieke scholen, de
houding van ouders ten opzichte van schoolbesturen en de behoefte aan bijscholing van alterna-
tieve besturen van openbare scholen. Nijmegen: ITS.
Smit, F., Driessen, G., Vrieze, G., Kuijk, J. van, & Sleegers, P. (2005). Opvoedings- en opvangac-
tiviteiten van scholen in het primair en voortgezet onderwijs. Een inventarisatie van
de stand van zaken met betrekking tot de relatie onderwijs-opvoeding-opvang in het

Nederlandse onderwijs. In Onderwijsraad (ed.) , Onderwijs in thema’s (pp. 159-228). The
Hague: Onderwijsraad.
Ven, J. van der (1985). Vorming in waarden en normen. Kampen: Kok Agora.
Vermeulen, B. & Smit, F. (1998). De veranderende positie van ouders in het primair en voort-
gezet onderwijs. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Onderwijsrecht en Onderwijsbeleid, 27-37.
Vermaas, J. & Wiersma, H. (2000). De klachtenregeling in het primair en voortgezet onderwijs:
spiegel of bliksemafeleider? Tilburg: IVA.
Vogels, R. (2002). Ouders bij de les. Betrokkenheid van ouders bij de school van hun kind. The
Hague: SCP.

Frederik Smit & Geert Driessen (2007) JET Parents and schools as partners in a multicultural, multireligious society

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Frederik Smit & Geert Driessen (2007) JET Parents and schools as partners in a multicultural, multireligious society

Similar to Frederik Smit & Geert Driessen (2007) JET Parents and schools as partners in a multicultural, multireligious society (20)

More from Driessen Research

More from Driessen Research (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Frederik Smit & Geert Driessen (2007) JET Parents and schools as partners in a multicultural, multireligious society