Cognitive and non-cognitive effects of diversity in Dutch elementary schools Paper AERA 2010 Denver

1. 1
Cognitive and non-cognitive effects of diversity in Dutch elementary schools
Eddie Denessen, Geert Driessen & Joep Bakker
Radboud University Nijmegen
Paper presented at the Annual Conference of AERA, Denver 2010
As part of the symposium organized by the Dutch Educational Research Association, entitled
Social, cultural and ethnic diversity in Dutch education: Sociological consequences and
pedagogical possibilities
Abstract
Effects of school and classroom diversity on student outcomes in general show small positive effects
of classroom heterogeneity in terms of students’ socioeconomic and ethnic cultural backgrounds on
student performance and students’ intergroup attitudes. Although methodologically, research on
diversity effects has undergone major progress, mainly due to the application of multi-level regression
analyses, relations between classroom diversity and student outcomes are difficult to interpret. This is
suggested to be caused by the absence of relevant teacher variables that may be of importance for the
establishment of positive diversity effects. In this paper, we will provide some theoretical and
empirical insights in classroom diversity research and we will discuss teachers’ role with respect to
classroom composition effects on student outcomes.
Introduction
In this paper, we address the effects of diversity on students’ cognitive and non-cognitive
outcomes in the Dutch educational context. Since the nature of diversity within the Dutch
education system is rather idiosyncratic, results from Dutch studies on diversity effects may
differ from findings from other countries. We will discuss Dutch research outcomes in
comparison to studies from other countries later on in this paper. First we will provide a brief
description of the nature of school diversity in the Dutch education system (a full description
of diversity in the Dutch education system is provided by Herweijer, 2010, presented at this

2. 2
conference) and we will outline some theoretical and methodological issues related to the
analyses of diversity effects. At the end of this paper, we will discuss the role of teachers that
often is being neglected in large-scale studies on effects of diversity.
Diversity in the Dutch Education system
In the literature, diversity is defined as the extent to which children within a school or
classroom differ with respect to student characteristics, such as age, sex, and ability, and
family background characteristics, such as al socioeconomic status and ethnic and cultural
background. In this paper, we focus on family background characteristics since these have
been suggested to be most relevant for the study of diversity effects. In contrast, the concept
of segregation can be defined as the level of unevenness concerning the distribution of student
characteristics between schools or classes (Gorard & Taylor, 2002). This implies that high
levels of segregation indicate low levels of diversity and vice versa.
With respect to segregation and diversity, the following four general causes can be
identified (Driessen, 2001, 2007; Kerckhoff, 2001; Gorard, Taylor, & Fitz, 2003):
1 Features of the education system
Schools may be segregated with respect to their student composition in terms of
socioeconomic and ethnic-cultural background due to institutionalized differentiation
mechanisms such as the coexistence of public and private schools, the degree of tracking (or
the comprehensiveness of education), and stratification, specificity and standardization within
the education system (see Kerckhoff, 2001). According to Kerckhoff, systems with a large
number of private schools, that sort students in ability tracks, with high levels of stratification,
specificity, and standardization show high levels of school segregation and, thus low levels of
within-school diversity.
In the Netherlands, comprehensive elementary education is provided until grade 6
(students of approximately 12 years of age). In secondary schools, tracks are defined in terms
of student ability, ranging from lower vocational training to higher levels of secondary
education or so-called gymnasia (Mijs & Van de Werfhorst, 2010). This means that, in terms
of student ability, in the Dutch system, within-classroom diversity in elementary schools is
larger than in secondary schools. In addition, the Netherlands has a system of fully state-
funded privately governed schools, which is the result of the constitutional right that all
religious groups may establish their own schools (Driessen & Van der Slik, 2001).

3. 3
Approximately 70 percent of the Dutch schools are so-called denominational schools, with
Protestant and Catholic schools as the largest groups and Jewish and Islamic schools as some
of the smaller groups. This system contributed to religious school segregation, and as a result
to ethnic cultural segregation between schools.
2 Demographic factors (neighborhood characteristics)
Since most children attend schools in their own neighborhood, existing housing segregation
between communities adds to the degree of school segregation.
In the Netherlands, especially in the large cities, demographic segregation leads to
neighborhood schools with large proportions of students from lower socioeconomic and
especially ethnic-cultural minority backgrounds.
3 Parental school choice policies and practices
In systems with freedom of choice, parental choice may lead to segregation, especially when
parents from higher socioeconomic backgrounds choose a school that they expect to be most
beneficial for their child, which usually is a school with a large high status student population
(cf. Ladd, Fiske & Ruijs, 2009).
In principle, the Dutch system is a system of total freedom of choice. Is has been
shown that parental choice contributes to school segregation, because high status parents tend
to choose high status schools. Also, some form of self segregation occurs, which means that
minorities choose a school that is populated by a large proportion of minority students.
Religious inspired reasons for school choice (i.e. Muslims choosing an Islamic school) may
also contribute to minorities’ self segregation (see Denessen, Driessen, & Sleegers, 2005;
Merry & Driessen, 2009).
4 School policies
Finally, schools may opt for ability grouping. Such school policies may contribute to
between-classes segregation within schools, especially when student ability is confounded
with students’ background characteristics.
As mentioned before, the Dutch system is comprehensive at the elementary school
level. Secondary schools, however, provide specific tracks, based on students’ ability levels.
Figures indicate students from lower status families are strongly over represented in the lower
tracks of secondary schools (Driessen, Sleegers & Smit, 2008).

4. 4
Since these four explanations differ from one country to the other, effects of comparative
studies on diversity should be interpreted cautiously. Below we will outline research on
diversity effects and we will present some findings from studies in the Netherlands.
Analysis of diversity effects
When addressing the effects of diversity in educational studies, two lines of analyses can be
followed. First, an analysis can be made of between-school variation in student outcomes that
can be related to school composition characteristics. With those analyses it is possible to
reveal the level of between-school segregation in a defined area. From the 2006 PISA-studies
it can be shown that between-school variability of student outcomes is strongly related to the
level of institutional differentiation within school systems (Ministerie van OCW, 2005).
Those results, for instance, show that between-school variability is very high in systems with
separate tracks compared to comprehensive school systems. Given the fact that the Dutch
school system can be characterized as a comprehensive elementary and a non-comprehensive
secondary school system, it is no surprise that between-school differences in Dutch secondary
schools are much larger than between-school differences in Dutch elementary education. In
Dutch elementary education, between-school diversity has been shown to have decreased
between 1988 and 2002, mostly due to an increase in overall school performance of student
from non-native Dutch origin (Gijsberts, 2006).
To further disentangle effects of diversity, analyses are aimed at the assessment of
within-school effects of diversity. These analyses are necessary because between-school
variability can be attributed to either aggregated individual student background characteristics
(for example, schools with large proportions of low status students perform worse than
schools with large proportions of high status students) or to differential effects of school
composition on student outcomes (for example, low status students may profit from large
proportions of high status classmates). Such analyses are commonly referred to as peer effect
studies. Peer-groups are discerned on the basis of relevant student characteristics that are
found to relate to the degree of diversity, usually defined in terms of student characteristics,
such as age, sex, and ability, and student family background characteristics, such as
socioeconomic status and ethnic and cultural background. The numbers of classmates that
share such student characteristics constitute the classroom context in terms of diversity. In
other words, a single sex-school lacks sex diversity, whereas a multicultural school can be

5. 5
defined as a context with a high level of diversity in terms of students’ ethnic-cultural
background.
From an equal opportunity perspective, high levels of diversity and low levels of
school segregation are strived for, because it is assumed that the educational careers of
minority students are hindered when they are placed at schools with a large number of
minority students. Also, high levels of diversity are expected to contribute to students’ moral,
social, and citizenship education. Diverse classroom contexts are expected to increase
opportunities to teach students to cooperate with students with various backgrounds, to
discuss differences and to cope with diverse norms and values (Banks, 2008). From a
‘citizenship for multicultural society’-perspective diverse classroom contexts are expected to
contribute to favorable student attitudes towards classmates’ ethnic cultural backgrounds.
In the Netherlands, recent national and local policy initiatives to promote desegregation
within the Dutch educational system focus at cognitive as well as non-cognitive student
outcomes. The Dutch government departs from the assumption that desegregation (i.e. the
increase of ethnic diversity within schools1
) enhances minority students’ achievements, and
that desegregation promotes favorable intergroup attitudes which are seen as a precursor for
societal integration.
To test the above-mentioned assumptions, analyses mostly aim at the assessment of
classroom composition effects on student outcome measures. With respect to such measures,
most studies on cognitive outcomes use standardized language and math test scores as
dependent variables, whereas studies on non-cognitive outcomes mainly focus on students’
intergroup attitudes (Mickelson, 2008). Both lines of research stem from different traditions.
Studies on cognitive outcomes mainly are rooted in research related to effective schools and
educational inequality, whereas research on non-cognitive outcomes is rooted in research on
the development of prejudice and sociometric status positions of children. As a consequence,
few studies focus on cognitive and non-cognitive outcomes simultaneously. In the following,
therefore, we will present studies on cognitive and non-cognitive outcomes separately.
Diversity effects on cognitive student outcomes
1
This is the official message, but what it boils down to in practice is devising all sorts of strategies to persuade
(or more or less force) white parents to sent their children to so-called black schools.

6. 6
As mentioned before, research on effects of school- and classroom composition effects on
student performance is rooted in school effectiveness and in educational inequality traditions.
From both traditions, some hypotheses concerning the effects of classroom diversity can be
formulated, albeit with contradictory expectations regarding the results of these analyses.
Increased classroom diversity is expected to be beneficial for students from
disadvantageous backgrounds. Some suggest that teachers tend to slow down the pace of
instruction in classrooms with large proportions of low status students and they also lower
their expectations of such students. As a result, these students may lag behind compared to
classes with higher status students (Driessen, Ledoux, Van der Veen, & Vergeer, 2003).
In particular, students who speak a different language at home are expected to profit
from a rich linguistic context at school, due to the presence of classmates who are proficient
in the national language. Also, high status students may function as role models for low status
students. From a social comparison theory perspective, the presence of high status students
may motivate low status students to strive for higher levels of cognitive functioning.
Opposed to presumed positive effects of classroom diversity, also negative effects of
classroom diversity can be hypothesized. Diverse classrooms appeal to teacher competences
with respect to classroom differentiation. Homogeneous classrooms make it easier for
teachers to deliver whole class instruction. To teach heterogeneous classes appears to be very
challenging for many teachers. In addition, schools with large proportions of low status
students receive considerable additional funding from the Dutch government. As a result
classrooms with large proportions of low status - including minority - students are
significantly smaller than the average classroom (Driessen, 2001). These smaller classes
enable teachers to give more attention to individual students, from which these students may
benefit.
Findings from a review study of classroom composition effects on cognitive student
outcomes in Dutch elementary schools point to no or only very small positive effects
(Driessen, 2007). Student outcomes seem only weakly to be related to classroom composition
characteristics. From an analysis of school composition effects in a longitudinal study
between 1988 and 2002, Gijsberts (2006) found that only 10 per cent of the total variance in
language performance and 4 per cent in math performance could be explained by ethnic
school composition. These effects were larger in schools with more than half of the students
being from a non-native Dutch background. Also, she found that school composition effects
have decreased significantly between 1988 and 2002.

7. 7
Diversity effects on non-cognitive student outcomes
Presumed effects of classroom diversity on students’ non-cognitive outcomes are largely
based on Allport’s contact hypothesis, which states that intergroup contact, at least under
certain conditions, may lead to a reduction of prejudice. Many studies have provided some
empirical confirmation of Allport’s contact hypothesis. However, with respect to outcomes of
diversity in terms of prejudiced attitudes, contradictory hypotheses can be formulated. From a
social identity development theory perspective, it can be assumed that intergroup contact may
lead to an increase in prejudiced attitudes. Nesdale, Durkin, Maass, and Griffiths (2005), for
example, stated that the presence of out-group classmates may be perceived as a threat, which
may result in a stronger focus on in-group members and less favorable out-group attitudes.
Outcomes of Dutch studies on classroom composition effects on students’ out-group
attitudes have shown that positive effects of classroom diversity on out-group attitudes could
not be empirically confirmed (Bakker, Denessen, Veneman, & Lageweg, 2007). Bakker et al.
found that out-group attitudes of 2nd to 6th grade students were not affected by class
composition characteristics in terms of percentages classmates from various ethnic cultural
backgrounds. In addition, Verkuyten and Thijs (2002) found minority students in
heterogeneous classrooms frequently to be victims of ethnic bullying, which points at the
existence of racial tensions at heterogeneous schools.
International comparison of findings from the Netherlands
International - especially European - studies on effects of classroom diversity share similar
outcomes as studies in the Netherlands (Ammermüller & Pischke, 2006; Thrupp, Lauder, &
Robinson, 2002). In general, peer effects on student outcomes show no or only weak positive
effects. This means that larger proportions of high status and non-minority students only
marginally affect student outcomes. Ammermüller and Pischke (2006), who performed a
European comparative peer effects study based on data from the Progress in International
Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS), showed modest peer effects to be present in European
countries, with only small differences in effects across countries. They found effects to be
stronger for students with high social backgrounds in France and the Netherlands, and
stronger effects for students with low social backgrounds in Sweden and Norway. Based on
analyses of data from PISA 2006, Marks (2006), draws the conclusion that students’ socio-
economic background does not account for differences between or within schools.

8. 8
Compared to Dutch studies, studies from the US, in general, seem to show somewhat
stronger peer effects on student cognitive outcomes (Mickelson, 2008, Benson & Borman,
2010), as well as on student intergroup attitudes (Mickelson, 2008, Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006).
However, also in US studies, some variation in study outcomes exists, with some studies
reporting the absence of peer effects (Mickelson, 2008).
The question is how we can interpret the results of diversity effects studies from different
educational contexts. This is an extremely difficult question, because numerous answers could
be provided. Below, we will address some of those answers.
Accounting for results of diversity effects studies
As stated in the beginning of this paper, results from peer effects from different contexts
should be interpreted with caution, because there are many possible causes for these
differences. First, it should be noted that student backgrounds in terms of socioeconomic and
socio-cultural family characteristics have different meanings in different countries. In Europe,
for example, ethnic diversity is strongly related to socioeconomic diversity, which means that
effects of socioeconomic and ethnic backgrounds are difficult to identify (Van de Werfhorst
& Van Tubergen, 2007). Many studies report problems caused by collinearity of those two
background variables (Driessen, 2007). Also, in the European context, ethnic background
coincides with religious background, because most ethnic minorities are Muslims (in the
Netherlands, mainly originating from Turkey and Morocco). The increase of religious
tensions in western European countries strongly impacts studies on intergroup attitudes in
heterogeneous schools. It can be assumed that the political climate in a country will affect
student attitudes, which could explain less positive out-group attitudes in heterogeneous
Dutch elementary schools (Bakker et al., 2007).
Second, the different levels and types of school segregation may affect the interpretation
of different results across countries. It may be the case that student outcomes in contexts of
institutionalized school segregation differ from those in contexts of school segregation that is
the result of parental choice practices. In the Netherlands, for example, some groups of mostly
highly educated native Dutch parents actively seek to contribute to less ethnic cultural
segregation, by taking the initiative to send their children to schools with large proportions of
ethnic minority students. Classroom heterogeneity in such schools may function differently
than those in mixed urban area contexts in a system with less freedom of choice.

9. 9
Third, there are some methodological problems with peer effects studies that may cause
difficulties with respect to the interpretation of results. Although the number of large scale
data collections has increased since the 1990s and the use of advanced statistical techniques is
omnipresent (almost all studies report the use of multi-level regression analyses), in large-
scale survey studies, effects within individual schools or within classes may remain hidden.
When studies report weak peer effects, this may be due to the fact that in all schools similar
effects are present. However, these findings could as well be the result of contradictory effects
across schools that can not be identified due to large sample sizes (even when cross-level
interaction effects are tested). Differences in peer effects between individual classes and
schools may be attributable to the extent to which teachers create a classroom context from
which positive peer effects may result. Especially the role of teachers has not received full
attention in large-scale peer effects studies. Below we will outline some relevant topics
related to teachers that have been found to be of importance for the realization of positive
diversity effects.
Teachers’ role in diverse classrooms
Teachers are expected to play a key role in creating conditions for positive effects of
classroom diversity. First, teachers seem to differ with respect to the level of culturally
responsiveness. For teachers to positively contribute to academic success and successful
integration of students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, they need, for
example, to understand students’ background cultures, to build cross-cultural communication,
and to deliver culturally responsive instruction (Brown, 2007). The level of teachers’
competences to engage in these types of classroom practices should be included in peer
effects studies. Moreover, teachers’ level of culturally responsiveness largely depends on their
attitudes towards diversity. Banks (2008), for example, challenges the liberal assimilation
conception of citizenship that has dominated citizenship education and pleas for classrooms
‘in which students from diverse groups interact and deliberate in equal-status situations’
(Banks, 2008, p. 135). Banks explicitly links teachers’ classroom behavior with their
conception of multiculturalism, which means that teachers’ level of responsiveness is not just
a matter of behavior, but also a matter of attitudes. Teachers’ racial attitudes may affect their
classroom behavior and specifically teacher-student interaction processes. In a recent Dutch
study, Van den Bergh et al. (in press) have found larger ethnic achievement gaps to exist in
classrooms of teachers with strong prejudiced attitudes. The relation between teacher attitudes

10. 10
and student performance seemed to be established via differential teacher expectations.
Highly prejudiced teachers systematically showed lower levels of expectations of minority
students than less prejudiced teachers. These results point at the risks of self-fulfilling
prophecy effects in heterogeneous classrooms of teachers with highly prejudiced attitudes.
Teachers, thus, play an important role with respect to student performance and out-group
attitudes in heterogeneous classrooms. Relevant teacher characteristics, such as their attitudes,
their expectations of students and their classroom behaviors are likely to contribute to
positive, but also to negative effects of classroom diversity. These factors, which largely
remain hidden in the black box between classroom composition and student outcomes, should
be included in classroom diversity studies, in order to get an idea of the meaning of relations
that result from large scale multi-level studies. Also small-scale qualitative observation
studies are called for to identify classroom interaction processes that are relevant for our
understanding of the impact of classroom diversity on students’ development.
Conclusion
Studies on classroom diversity on students’ cognitive and non-cognitive outcomes have
methodologically improved during the past decades. Many large-scale multi-level designs
have been developed, which lead to methodologically sound analyses of diversity effects. In
general, results from studies on classroom diversity effects report weak positive effects of
larger proportions of high status and non-minority students in classrooms, although in some
studies no effects have been found. From these results it seems not very wise to invest in
school desegregation policies, because little benefits are to be expected from these policies.
However, studies on effects of classroom diversity tend to neglect the important role
that teachers play in this respect. In order to formulate meaningful policy advices, we need to
gain more insight in effects of teacher attitudes and behavior in desegregated schools. When
indeed more positive effects can be identified in classrooms with culturally responsive
teachers, education policy may not only be aimed at changing classroom composition, but it
should also include teacher backgrounds and interventions in order to let all students, low
status and minority students as well as high status and non-minority students, profit from
classroom diversity.
References

11. 11
Ammermüller, A., & Pischke, J. (2006). Peer effects in European primary schools: Evidence from
PIRLS.Institute for the Study of Labor. IZA: Discussion Paper 2077.
Bakker, J.T.A., Denessen, E.J.P.G., Pelzer, B.J., Veneman, M.H.J., Lageweg, S. (2007). De houding
jegens klasgenoten: etnisch gekleurd? Een onderzoek naar factoren van invloed op de attitude van
basisschoolleerlingen jegens klasgenoten van verschillende etnische herkomst [Students’ attitudes:
A study on predictors of students’ attitudes towards classmates from diverse ethnic backgrounds].
Pedagogiek, 27, 201-219.
Banks, J. A. (2008). Diversity, group identity, and citizenship education in a global age. Educational
Researcher, 37(3), 129-139.
Benson, J, & Borman, G. (2010). Family, neighborhood, and school settings across seasons: When do
socioeconomic context and racial composition matter for the reading achievement growth of
young children? Teachers College Record, 112(5), 5-6.
Brown, M.R. (2007). Educating all students: Creating culturally responsive teachers, classrooms, and
schools. Intervention in School and Clinic, 43(1), 57-62
Denessen, E., Driessen, G., & Sleegers, P. (2005). Segregation by choice? A study of group-specific
reasons for school choice. Journal of Education Policy, 20(3), 347 – 368.
Driessen, G. (2002). School composition and achievement in primary education: A large-scale
multilevel approach. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 28(4), 347-368.
Driessen, G. (2007). ‘Peer group’ effecten op onderwijsprestaties. Een internationaal review van
effecten, verklaringen en methodologische aspecten [Peer group effects on student performance.
An international review of effects, explanations, and methodological aspects]. Nijmegen: ITS.
Driessen, G., Doesborgh, J., Ledoux, G., Van der Veen, I., & Vergeer, M. (2003). Sociale integratie in
het primair onderwijs. Een studie naar de relatie tussen sociale, etnische, religieuze en cognitieve
schoolcompositie en prestaties en welbevinden van verschillende groepen leerlingen. Analyses bij
het PRIMA cohort onderzoek, derde meting [Social integration in primary education. A study into
the relation between the social, ethnic, religious, and cognitive composition of schools on the one
hand and achievement and well-being of various groups of students on the other. Analyses of the
PRIMA cohort study, third measurement]. Nijmegen/Amsterdam: ITS/SCOKohnstamm Instituut.
Driessen, G., & Slik, F. van der (2001). Religion, denomination, and education in the Netherlands:
Cognitive and noncognitive outcomes after an era of secularization. Journal for the Scientific
Study of Religion, 40(4), 561-572.
Driessen, G., Sleegers, P., & Smit, F. (2008). The transition from primary to secondary education:
Meritocracy and ethnicity. European Sociological Review, 24(4), 527-542.
Gorard, S. & Taylor, C. (2002) What is segregation? A comparison of measures in terms of strong and
weak compositional invariance, Sociology, 36(4), 875-895.

12. 12
Gorard, S., Taylor, C., & Fitz, J. (2003). Schools, markets and choice policies. London:
RoutledgeFalmer
Gijsberts, M. (2006) De afnemende invloed van etnische concentratie op schoolprestaties in het
basisonderwijs, 1988-2002 [The decreasing effect of ethnic concentration on student performance
in primary schools]. Sociologie, 2(2), 157-177.
Kerkhoff, A.C (2001). Education and social stratification processes in comparative perspective.
Sociology of Education, 74, 3-18.
Ladd, H., Fiske, E., Ruijs, N. (2009). Parental choice in the Netherlands: Growing concerns about
segregation. Paper National Conference on School Choice, Vanderbilt University, October 2009.
Marks G.N. (2006). Are between- and within-school differences in student performance largely due to
socio-economic background? Evidence from 30 countries. Educational Research, 48(1), 21-40.
Merry, M., & Driessen, G. (2009). Islamic schools in the US and Netherlands: Inhibiting or enhancing
democratic dispositions? In P. Woods & G. Woods (Eds.), Alternative education for the 21
st
century: Philosophies, approaches, visions (pp. 101-122). New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.Mickelson, R.A. (2008). Twenty-First century social science on school racial diversity
and educational outcomes. Ohio State Law Journal, 69, 1173-1228.
Ministerie van OCW (2005). Onderwijsprofiel van Nederland: Analyse en samenvatting van
Education at a Glance 2005 [Education profile of the Netherlands: Analysis and summary of
Education at a Glance 2005]. The Hague: Ministerie van OCW.
Mijs, J., & Van de Werfhorst, H. (2010). Educational differentiation and inequality. The Netherlands
in comparative perspective. Retrieved 7 March, 2010 from http://www.equalsoc.org/
uploaded_files/publications/Mjis.pdf.
Nesdale D., Durkin, K., Maass, A., & Griffiths, J. (2005). Threat, group identification, and children's
ethnic prejudice. Social Development, 14(2) 189 – 205.
Pettigrew, T.F., & Tropp, L.R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751-783.
Thrupp, M., Lauder, H, & Robinson, T. (2002). School composition and peer effects. International
Journal of Educational Research, 37, 483-505.
Van den Bergh, L., Denessen, E., Hornstra, L., Voeten, M, & Holland, R.W. (in press). The implicit
prejudiced attitudes of teachers: Relations to teacher expectations and the ethnic achievement gap.
American Educational Research Journal.
Van de Werfhorst, H., & Van Tubergen, F. (2007). Ethnicity, schooling, and merit in the Netherlands.
Ethnicities, 7, 416-444.
Verkuyten, M., & Thijs, J. (2002). Racist victimization among children in The Netherlands: The effect
of ethnic group and school. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 25(2), 310-331