In many Western countries the pressure exerted on immigrants to integrate has become intense in recent years. Efforts to preserve their ethnic identity through multicultural recognition has now been replaced by the requirements of active civic participation and assimilation. Of course integration is considered important not only for the immigrant parents but also for their children. The central question in this article is whether there is a relationship between the degree of integration of the immigrant parents and the generation of their children on the one hand and the level of language and numeracy achievement of the children on the other. To answer this question we use data collected in 2008 from the Dutch COOL5–18 cohort study. The information comes from more than 9000 immigrant and 16,000 indigenous children and their parents. The results show that as immigrant parents are better integrated and their children are of later generations, the language and numeracy skills of the children improve, though there remain large differences in achievement between different ethnic groups.

1. In: Journal of Education Research ISSN: 1935-052X
Volume 4, Issue 2, pp. 1–13 © 2010 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
SCHOOLAND CLASSROOM DIVERSITY EFFECTS
ON COGNITIVE AND NON-COGNITIVE
STUDENT OUTCOMES
Eddie Denessen1*
, Geert Driessen2
and Joep Bakker1
1
Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University Nijmegen, the Netherlands
2
ITS – Institute for Applied Social Sciences, Radboud University Nijmegen, the
Netherlands
Abstract
Studies on school and classroom heterogeneity in terms of students’ socioeconomic
and ethnic-cultural backgrounds generally show small but positive effects. This means
that students in mixed schools and classrooms perform somewhat better on achievement
tests and have more positive intergroup attitudes. Although methodologically research on
diversity effects has undergone major progress, mainly due to the application of multi-
level regression analysis, relations between school and classroom diversity and student
outcomes are often difficult to interpret. One reason for this is the negligence of relevant
teacher and contextual characteristics that may be of importance for the establishment of
positive diversity effects. This article provides some theoretical and empirical insights in
school and classroom diversity research and discusses teachers’ role with respect to
school and classroom composition effects on student outcomes.
Introduction
In this article, we address the effects of school and classroom diversity on students’
cognitive and non-cognitive outcomes in the Dutch education 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 article. First we will provide a brief description of the nature of school diversity in
the Dutch education system and we will outline some theoretical and methodological
issues related to the analyses of diversity effects. Then we will discuss the role of
teachers that often is being neglected in large-scale studies on effects of diversity.
*
E-mail: e.denessen@pwo.ru.nl

2. Eddie Denessen, Geert Driessen and Joep Bakker
2
Diversity in the Dutch Education System
‘Diversity’ can be defined as the extent to which students within a school or classroom
differ with respect to one or more individual characteristics, such as age, sex, and ability,
or family background characteristics, such as socioeconomic status and ethnic, cultural,
linguistic or religious background. In this article, we focus on family background
characteristics as these are the most relevant for the study of diversity effects. The related
concept of ‘segregation’ can be defined as the level of unevenness concerning the
distribution of student characteristics between schools or classes. Within schools or
classes the student population is homogenous with regard to the relevant characteristics.
Taken together this implies that high levels of segregation indicate low levels of
diversity, and vice versa (cf. Gorard and Taylor, 2002).
With respect to segregation and diversity, the following four general causes can be
identified (Driessen, 2001, 2007; Karsten et al., 2006; Kerckhoff, 2001; Gorard, Taylor
and 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 (Ladd, Fiske and Ruijs, 2009). According to
Kerckhoff (2001), 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 (also see
Willms, 2010).
In the Netherlands, comprehensive elementary education is for 4- to 12-year-old
children and thus provides 8 years of education. In secondary schools, which are for 12-
to 18-year-olds, tracks are defined according to student ability, ranging from lower
vocational training to higher levels of secondary education. This means that, in terms of
student ability, in the Dutch system, within-classroom diversity in elementary schools is
much larger than in secondary schools. In addition, the Netherlands has a system of fully
state-funded privately governed schools1
, which is the result of the constitutional right
that all religious groups may establish their own schools (Driessen and Van der Slik,
2001). Approximately 70 percent of the Dutch elementary schools are denominational
schools, with Protestant and Catholic schools as the largest groups and Jewish and
Islamic schools as some of the smaller groups (Eurydice, 2010). This system contributed
to religious school segregation, and as a result to ethnic-cultural segregation between
schools. One key element of the Dutch denominational system is that private schools,
1
Contrary to the situation in some other countries, such as the UK and US, the difference between public and
private schools in the Netherlands refers only to the way the schools are governed, and not to the way
they are financed.

3. School and Classroom Diversity Effects on Cognitive and Non-Cognitive Student… 3
though fully funded by the state, may refuse students while public schools must accept all
students.
2. Demographic Factors
Since most children attend schools in their own neighborhood, existing residential or
housing segregation between communities adds to the degree of school segregation
(Jencks and Maier, 1999; NESSE, 2008).
In the Netherlands, especially in the large cities, demographic and housing
segregation leads to neighborhood schools with large proportions of students from lower
socioeconomic and especially ethnic-cultural minority backgrounds (Gramberg, 1998).2
In elementary education, a total of 13 percent of the students is of non-Western origin. In
the four largest cities (Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague and Utrecht) this percentage
varies from 33 to 54, however. In secondary education, 14 percent of the students are of
non-Western origin; in the four largest cities the percentage varies from 36 to 51 (CBS,
2009). This concentration of disadvantaged students in neighborhood schools is being
reinforced by the fact that recently a number of municipalities have made it their official
policy that each child should visit the nearest elementary school available (cf. Ladd,
Fiske and Ruijs, 2009). Though this may sound appealing and in fact is intentioned to
prevent white students from fleeing to white schools in the suburbs a consequence is that
low-socioeconomic and minority students are sentenced to stick to their neighborhood
school.
3. Parental School Choice
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. Herweijer, 2009; Vedder, 2006).
In principle, the Dutch system is a system of complete freedom of choice. It has been
shown that parental choice contributes to school segregation, because high
socioeconomic status parents tend to choose high-status schools. In addition to such
segregation along socioeconomic lines, forms of self-segregation or self-separation along
religious lines occur. While since the 1960s the waning influence of the church can be
seen in most Dutch social institutions and organisations, the denominational education
system has remained largely intact. This means that most of the native-Dutch parents
choose a religious school for their children, and thus self-segregate into either a Catholic
or Protestant denomination. Ethnic minorities often choose a school that is populated by a
large proportion of fellow-minority students, often public or non-denominational schools.
2
In the Netherlands, most non-western immigrants are from former colonies (e.g., Surinam and the Antilles)
and so-called guest workers (e.g., Turks and Moroccans). Many of these immigrants have had little or no
education and are in low-paid jobs or on social welfare. As a consequence, for many of the immigrants
ethnic minority status and a low socioeconomic status coincide (Driessen and Smit, 2007).

4. Eddie Denessen, Geert Driessen and Joep Bakker
4
As a consequence, minorities are strongly over-represented in public schools (Driessen et
al., 2003). Religious inspired reasons for school choice (e.g., Muslims choosing an
Islamic school and Hindus choosing a Hindu school) also contribute to minorities’ self-
segregation (see Denessen, Driessen and Sleegers, 2005; Merry and Driessen, 2009).
4. School Policies
As mentioned before, Dutch denominational schools may refuse students for reasons of
incompatibility of religion. For instance, Christian schools, with an all-white student
population, may not admit (Turkish and Moroccan) Muslim students. It should be
remarked, however, that in practice this probably hardly ever happens – at least not
openly (Patrinos, 2009). What does occur, however, is that religious schools (both
Protestant and Islamic) refuse to admit students because they are not from the same
religious branch or do not adhere to the same degree of orthodoxy.
Finally, schools may also opt for ability grouping. Such school policies may
contribute to between-classes segregation within schools, especially when student ability
is (indirectly) 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 ethnic minority (and thus low socioeconomic
status) families are strongly overrepresented in the lower tracks of secondary schools
(Driessen, Sleegers and Smit, 2008; Herweijer, 2009).
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. Firstly, an analysis can be made of between-school variation in student
outcomes that can be related to school composition characteristics. With such analyses it
is possible to identify the level of between-school segregation in a defined area. The 2006
PISA studies demonstrate that between-school variability of student outcomes is strongly
related to the level of institutional differentiation within school systems (Ministerie van
OCW, 2005; Willms, 2010). The results 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 or tracked 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,

5. School and Classroom Diversity Effects on Cognitive and Non-Cognitive Student… 5
mostly due to an increase of overall school performance of ethnic minority students
(Gijsberts, 2006).
To further disentangle effects of diversity, another line of analysis aims 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 group effect studies’ (Hattie, 2002; Hoxby, 2000;
Wilkinson et al., 2000). 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-cultural background (Driessen,
2007). The numbers of classmates that share such 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 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 positively to
students’ moral, social, and citizenship education. Diverse classroom contexts are
expected to increase opportunities to teach students to cooperate with students from
different backgrounds, to discuss differences, and to cope with different 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 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 schools3
) enhances minority students’
achievements, and 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
mathematics achievement 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 are
3
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 (cf.
Herweijer, 2009; Ladd, Fiske and Ruijs, 2009).

6. Eddie Denessen, Geert Driessen and Joep Bakker
6
largely rooted in research related to effective schools and educational inequality, whereas
research on non-cognitive outcomes finds its origins 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
As mentioned before, research on effects of school- and classroom composition on
student performance is rooted in school effectiveness and 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 et al., 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 is
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 recent review study of classroom composition effects on cognitive
student outcomes point to no or only very small positive effects in Dutch elementary
schools (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 mathematics performance
could be explained by school composition in terms of proportion of minority students.
These effects were larger in schools with more than half of the students being from an

7. School and Classroom Diversity Effects on Cognitive and Non-Cognitive Student… 7
ethnic minority background. Also, she found that school composition effects have
decreased significantly between 1988 and 2002.
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 this 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, concluded 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 and Lageweg (2007)
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 – and especially European - studies on effects of classroom diversity share
similar outcomes as studies in the Netherlands (Driessen, 2007; Hattie, 2002; Thrupp,
Lauder, and 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.
Compared to Dutch studies, studies from the US, in general, seem to show somewhat
stronger peer effects on student cognitive outcomes (Mickelson, 2008, Benson and
Borman, 2010), as well as on student intergroup attitudes (Mickelson, 2008, Pettigrew

8. Eddie Denessen, Geert Driessen and Joep Bakker
8
and Tropp, 2006). However, also in US studies, 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 Contradictory Results
As stated in the beginning of this article, comparing results from peer effect studies from
different contexts should be done with caution, because there are multiple causes for
possible effects. First, it should be noted that student backgrounds in terms of
socioeconomic and socio-cultural family characteristics can 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 isolate (Van de Werfhorst and Van Tubergen, 2007). Many
studies report problems caused by statistical collinearity of those two student background
variables (Driessen, 2007; Stevens, Clycq, Timmerman and Van Houtte, in press). Also,
in the European context, ethnic background often coincides with religious background,
because most ethnic minorities are Muslims (in the Netherlands, mainly originating from
Turkey and Morocco). The recent 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 various levels and types of school segregation may affect the
interpretation of different results across countries. Student outcomes in contexts of
institutionalized school segregation may 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 (Ladd, Fiske and Ruijs, 2009).
Classroom heterogeneity in such schools may function differently than those in mixed
urban area contexts in a system with less freedom of choice.
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 also be the result of contradictory effects across schools that cannot 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

9. School and Classroom Diversity Effects on Cognitive and Non-Cognitive Student… 9
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
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 such 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, 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. (2010) have found
larger ethnic achievement gaps to exist in classrooms of teachers with strong prejudiced
attitudes. The relation between teacher attitudes 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 (cf. Radstake,
2009). 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 (cf. Willms, 2010). In addition, 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.

10. Eddie Denessen, Geert Driessen and Joep Bakker
10
Conclusion
Studies into effects of classroom diversity on students’ cognitive and non-cognitive
outcomes have methodologically greatly 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 such 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 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
[1] Ammermüller, A. and Pischke, J. (2009). Peer effects in European primary schools:
Evidence from PIRLS. Journal of Labor Economics, 27(3), 315-348.
[2] Bakker, J., Denessen, E., Pelzer, B., Veneman, M. and 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 towards classmates. A study on
predictors of students’ attitudes towards classmates from diverse ethnic
backgrounds]. Pedagogiek, 27, 201-219.
[3] Banks, J. (2008). Diversity, group identity and citizenship education in a global age.
Educational Researcher, 37(3), 129-139.
[4] Benson, J. and 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.
[5] Brown, M. (2007). Educating all students: Creating culturally responsive teachers,
classrooms and schools. Intervention in School and Clinic, 43(1), 57-62.
[6] CBS (2009). Bevolking [Population]. Retrieved November 11, 2009, from
http://statline.cbs.nl.
[7] Denessen, E., Driessen, G. and Sleegers, P. (2005). Segregation by choice? A study
of group-specific reasons for school choice. Journal of Education Policy, 20(3),
347 – 368.

11. School and Classroom Diversity Effects on Cognitive and Non-Cognitive Student…11
[8] Driessen, G. (2002). School composition and achievement in primary education: A
large-scale multilevel approach. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 28(4), 347-368.
[9] 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.
[10] Driessen, G. and Smit, F. (2007). Effects of immigrant parents’ participation in
society on their children’s school performance. Acta Sociologica, 50(1), 39-56.
[11] Driessen, G. and Van der Slik, F. (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.
[12] Driessen, G., Sleegers, P. and Smit, F. (2008). The transition from primary to
secondary education: Meritocracy and ethnicity. European Sociological Review,
24(4), 527-542.
[13] Driessen, G., Doesborgh, J., Ledoux, G., Van der Veen, I. and 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 [Social integration in elementary
education. A study into the relation between the social, ethnic, religious and
cognitive composition of schools and achievement and well-being of various
groups of students]. Nijmegen/Amsterdam: ITS/SCO Kohnstamm Instituut.
[14] Eurydice (2010). Organisation of the education system in the Netherlands 2008/09.
Retrieved May 2, 2010, from www.eurydice.org.
[15] Gorard, S. and Taylor, C. (2002). What is segregation? A comparison of measures
in terms of strong and weak compositional invariance, Sociology, 36(4), 875-895.
[16] Gorard, S., Taylor, C. and Fitz, J. (2003). Schools, markets and choice policies.
London: RoutledgeFalmer.
[17] Gijsberts, M. (2006). De afnemende invloed van etnische concentratie op
schoolprestaties in het basisonderwijs, 1988-2002 [The declining effect of ethnic
concentration on student performance in primary schools]. Sociologie, 2(2), 157-
177.
[18] Gramberg, P. (1998). School segregation: The case of Amsterdam. Urban Studies,
35(3), 547-564.
[19] Hattie, J. (2002). Classroom composition and peer effects. International Journal of
Educational Research, 37, 449-481.
[20] Herweijer, L. (2009). Making up the gap. Migrant education in the Netherlands.
The Hague: SCP.
[21] Hoxby, C. (2000). Peer effects in the classroom: Learning from gender and race
variation. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
[22] Jencks, C. and Mayer, S. (1990). The social consequences of growing up in a poor
neighborhood. In L. Lynn and M. McGeary (Eds.), Inner-city poverty in the United
States (pp. 111-186). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

12. Eddie Denessen, Geert Driessen and Joep Bakker
12
[23] Karsten, S., Felix, C., Ledoux, G., Meijnen, W., Roeleveld, J. and Van Schooten, E.
(2006). Choosing segregation or integration? The extent and effects of ethnic
segregation in Dutch cities. Education and Urban Society, 38(2), 228-247.
[24] Kerkhoff, A. (2001). Education and social stratification processes in comparative
perspective. Sociology of Education, 74, 3-18.
[25] Ladd, H., Fiske, E. and Ruijs, N. (2009). Parental choice in the Netherlands:
Growing concerns about segregation. Paper National Conference on School
Choice, Vanderbilt University, October 2009. Retrieved December 2, 2009, from
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/schoolchoice/conference/papers/Ladd_COMPLETE.pdf.
[26] Marks, G. (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.
[27] Merry, M. and Driessen, G. (2009). Islamic schools in the US and Netherlands:
Inhibiting or enhancing democratic dispositions? In P. Woods and G. Woods (Eds.),
Alternative education for the 21st
century: Philosophies, approaches, visions (pp.
101-122). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
[28] Mickelson, R. (2008). Twenty-first century social science on school racial diversity
and educational outcomes. Ohio State Law Journal, 69, 1173-1228.
[29] 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.
[30] Nesdale, D., Durkin, K., Maass, A. and Griffiths, J. (2005). Threat, group
identification and children's ethnic prejudice. Social Development, 14(2) 189 – 205.
[31] NESSE (2008). Education and migration. Strategies for integrating migrant
children in European schools and societies. A synthesis of research findings for
policy-makers. Retrieved May 2, 2010, from http://www.nesse.fr/nesse/activities/
reports/activities/reports/education-and-migration-pdf.
[32] Patrinos, H. (2009). Private education provision and public finance: The
Netherlands. Paper National Conference on School Choice, Vanderbilt University,
October 2009. Retrieved December 2, 2009, from http://www.vanderbilt.edu/school
choice/conference/papers/Patrinos_COMPLETE_with%20page%20numbers.pdf.
[33] Pettigrew, T. and Tropp, L. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact
theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751-783.
[34] Radstake, H. (2009). Teaching in diversity. Teachers and pupils about tense
situations in ethnically heterogeneous classes. Antwerpen/Apeldoorn: Garant.
[35] Stevens, P., Clycq, N., Timmerman, C. and Van Houtte, M. (in press). Researching
race/ethnicity and educational inequality in the Netherlands: A critical review of the
research literature between 1980 and 2008. British Educational Research Journal.
[36] Thrupp, M., Lauder, H. and Robinson, T. (2002). School composition and peer
effects. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 483-505.
[37] Van den Bergh, L., Denessen, E., Hornstra, L., Voeten, M and Holland, R. (2010).
The implicit prejudiced attitudes of teachers: Relations to teacher expectations and

13. School and Classroom Diversity Effects on Cognitive and Non-Cognitive Student…13
the ethnic achievement gap. American Educational Research Journal, 47(2), 497-
527.
[38] Van de Werfhorst, H. and Van Tubergen, F. (2007). Ethnicity, schooling and merit
in the Netherlands. Ethnicities, 7, 416-444.
[39] Vedder, P. (2006). Black and White schools in the Netherlands. European
Education, 38(2), 36-49.
[40] Verkuyten, M. and 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.
[41] Wilkinson, I., Hattie, J., Parr, J., Townsend, M., Fung, I., Ussher, C., Thrupp, M.,
Lauder, H. and Robinson, T. (2000). Influence of peer effects on learning outcomes:
A review of the literature. Auckland, New Zealand: Auckland UniServices Limited.
[42] Willms, J. (2010). School composition and contextual effects on student outcomes.
Teachers College Record, 112(4), 1008-1037.