Geert Driessen (2012) AERA Trends in Educational Disadvantage in Dutch Elementary School

Trends in Educational Disadvantage in Dutch Elementary School
Dr Geert Driessen
ITS, Radboud University Nijmegen, the Netherlands
g.driessen@its.ru.nl
www.geertdriessen.nl
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of AERA
Vancouver, BC, Canada, April 13-17, 2012
Invited session
The Cohort Study on Educational Careers in Primary en Secondary Education COOL5-18
Sponsored by
The Dutch Program Council for Education Research (PROO),
The Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO)

Geert Driessen Trends in Educational Disadvantage in Dutch School 2
Trends in Educational Disadvantage in Dutch Elementary School
Dr Geert Driessen
ITS, Radboud University Nijmegen, the Netherlands
1. Background
1.1 Current policy on educational disadvantage
For almost half a century now, policy has existed in the Netherlands to improve the educational
chances of children from situations of disadvantage (Driessen, 2012). This policy has gradually
changed with regard to predominantly organization and funding but also new policy domains, themes,
objectives and target groups have been defined.
In the 1970s, following the example of the USA, compensation programs were developed and
implemented to help working class children in a number of large cities in the Netherlands. This local
policy was later expanded to become national policy and, in addition to this policy, policy was
developed to improve the educational opportunities of minority children. Half way through the 1980s,
these two lines of policy were integrated into a single educational disadvantage policy. Initially, this
policy was steered by the Ministry of Education. It was later decentralized to the local authorities and
school administrations. Specific target groups were identified within the groups of minority and non-
minority students but, under the influence of political-societal developments, the ethnic component
was omitted in 2006 (Driessen & Merry, 2011; Vasta, 2007). Since that time, no distinction has been
made between minority versus non-minority disadvantaged children. And over the years, the focus of
policy has shifted from the reduction of educational disadvantage to the prevention of such
disadvantage. Increased emphasis is being placed on the preschool and early phases of education and
thus the prevention of delays among children in play and preschool groups.
The core of the policy involves the allocation of extra financial resources to elementary schools
with a given percentage of their students coming from the target groups. This policy instrument is
known as “weighted student funding.” The less favorable the home situation, the higher the weighting
and the more money the school receives (Ladd & Fiske, 2009). The indicators used to identify target
group children and thus the student weighting have been changed on a number of occasions. At this
point, the target group consists of parents with little education. Substantively, the emphasis has
always been on improving the language and math skills of the children. However, the schools are free
in principle to spend the extra funds received from the Ministry of Education as they see fit.
1.2 Monitoring of disadvantage
The Dutch educational disadvantage policy has been accompanied from the beginning by large-scale,
long-term evaluations (Stevens et al., 2011). This was already the case for the local compensation
programs in large cities and continued to be the case for national policy. With the introduction of the
educational disadvantage policy in 1985, the large-scale LEO (National Evaluation of the Educational
Priority Policy) cohort study was launched (van der Werf, 1995). In 1994, following three biennial
measurement moments, a transition was made to the PRIMA cohort study, which entailed six biennial
measurement moments (Driessen, Sleegers, & Smit, 2008). In 2007, the PRIMA studied was

followed by the COOL5-18
cohort study (Driessen & Merry, 2011) with the second measurement
occasion held in 2007 and the third planned for 2013.
The immense amount of data collected during the cohort studies provides not only an important
part of the input for the evaluation of the policy being conducted but is also frequently used to
monitor the educational position of the target groups (Driessen, 2009; Herweijer, 2009; Mulder,
1996).
1.3 Prior research
In an extended series of studies, the development of the school careers of disadvantaged students has
been examined. To give you an impression of the insights provided by the studies to date, the most
important findings can be summarized briefly. To do this, we will make use of primarily the review
provided by Ledoux and Veen (2009). In addition, we will call upon the studies by Mulder (1996),
van Langen and Suhre (2001) and Dagevos and Gijsberts (2009). All of these studies are based on
analyses of the databases from the LEO, PRIMA, and COOL cohort studies or — in other words —
large-scale national studies of the school careers and achievement of students in elementary education
across the period 1988–2007.
1.3.1 Starting differences
In the second grade of Dutch elementary school (i.e. when the children are 6 years of age),1
the
achievement differences between target group students and non-target group students are large. In
particular, Turkish and Moroccan students (i.e., children of so-called “guest workers” in the
Netherlands) start their school careers with large delays in both the areas of language and — to a
lesser degree — math. In the most recent cohorts, however, a reduction in the initial differences can
be seen. Turkish and Moroccan children but also non-minority children of low-educated parents are
moving towards the starting level for non-target group students in both the areas of language and
math. The gap between target and non-target group students is nevertheless far from being bridged.
1.3.2 Development of minority target group students
During the first cohort studies, one could speak of no or at most marginal development in the
achievement of target group students. Later cohort studies show some catching up to occur relative to
the non-target group students during the course of elementary education for the minority target group
students. By grade 8 (i.e., the last grade of Dutch elementary school), the differences in language
achievement levels have shrunk — but are still clearly present — while the differences in math
achievement levels have largely disappeared — with particularly Moroccan students catching up
almost completely. This gain is largely achieved in the upper levels of elementary school (i.e., grades
6 - 8).
1. Dutch elementary schools are for 4- to 12-year-olds and consist of 8 grades. In grades 1 and 2, play takes a central
place, but also pre-reading, pre-math, and pre-writing activities commence. In grade 3, formal instruction in reading,
math, and writing starts. After the last grade in elementary school, grade 8, the students move on to secondary
school. Depending on their attainment levels, they continue in one of the following four tracks of secondary school:
special needs education, pre-vocational education, senior general education, or pre-university education (MinOCW,
2007). For an overview, see Appendix 1.

1.3.3 Development of non-minority target group students
A similarly positive development is not seen to occur for non-minority target group students (i.e., the
children of low-educated native Dutch parents). In fact, the achievement delays among this group of
students relative to the group of non-target students have increased rather than decreased with the
delays in math larger than the delays in language. Compared to minority target group students at this
moment, non-minority target group students thus perform better in the area of language but not math.
1.3.4 Progression to higher forms of education
One can speak of a major increase in the percentage of target group students who progress to a higher
level of secondary education. For minority target group students, the increase is predominantly due to
the achievements of Surinamese students (i.e., children from a former Dutch colony) and Moroccan
students. Non-target group students still progress more than twice as often to a higher level of
secondary education than target group students. One can thus speak of perceptible progress among
target group students but little catching up to the non-target group students.
1.3.5 In sum
Positive gains can be observed for the language and math achievements of minority target group
children across the period 1988–2007, but they still have the lowest language scores in the final year
of elementary school — scores which are lower than those for non-minority target group students. No
positive gains are observed for the elementary school achievements of non-minority target group
students. While their starting delays are largely made up during the course of their elementary school
careers and the progression to higher forms of secondary education improves for both minority and
non-minority target group students, non-target group students still progress considerably more often
than target group students to higher levels of secondary education.
2 Definition of the problem
In the present research, we examined how the language and math achievements of the students
targeted by Dutch educational disadvantage policy developed during the period 1994–2007. The
central question was whether the delays of specific groups of students decreased with respect to a
reference group of students during this period. We examined developments in the language and math
skills of different groups of students between grades 2 and 8 in order to answer this question. As
already noted, the weighted student funding criteria and the target groups distinguished using this
information have changed on a number of occasions over the years. With the use of a separate set of
groups identified specifically for the present research, it was possible to trace the development of
different categories of students in considerable detail.
3 Method
3.1 Sample
To map student gains in elementary education, we used the data collected on the different
measurement occasions for the PRIMA cohort studies and the first measurement occasion for the
COOL cohort study. PRIMA started with the first measurement occasion in 1994 and collected

information on students in grades 2, 4, 6 and 8. Measurement was then repeated every two years
through 2004. The Netherlands has some 7000 elementary schools, and a total of some 60,000
students from 600 elementary schools participated in each PRIMA measurement occasion (Driessen
et al., 2006). The PRIMA studied was followed by the COOL study in 2007 when information was
collected from some 38,000 students in grades 2, 5 and 8 in 550 schools (Driessen et al., 2009;
Roeleveld et al., 2011).
One can speak of an overrepresentation of schools with many disadvantaged students in the
PRIMA and COOL samples. This is intentional and aimed at obtaining sufficient numbers of students
for smaller categories of disadvantaged students. Furthermore, disadvantaged students and
particularly minority disadvantaged students tend to be concentrated in particular schools. The over-
representation of these schools in a sample thus provides a “typical” picture of the minority
disadvantaged student. The aim of the present research was also not to obtain a representative picture
of the positions of disadvantaged students in the Netherlands but to trace developments within the
groups of students targeted by educational disadvantage policy, which means that over-representation
is not a problem.
For the present analyses, we used the data collected in the years 1994, 1998, and 2002 for the
PRIMA study and the year 2007 for the COOL study. The information from students in grades 2 and
8 was selected to represent the start and end points of elementary education. In grade 2, the children
receive preparatory reading and math instruction. Grade 8 is the last year of Dutch elementary school;
students at the age of about 12 years then proceed to secondary school.
3.2 Measurement instruments and sample characteristics
Two types of data stand central in the present research: namely, the social-ethnic backgrounds of the
students and their language and math skills during elementary school.
The information regarding the social-ethnic backgrounds of the students is based upon the
parental level of education and parental place of birth. We first determined the minority versus non-
minority status of the parents on the basis of their country of birth and then their levels of education.
Within the group of low-educated minority parents, we next distinguished the largest countries of
origin: Turkey, Morocco (former guest worker countries for the Netherlands); Suriname and the
Dutch Antilles (former colonies of the Netherlands); and other non-Western countries. An overview
of the categories used in this study is presented in Table 1.

Table 1 - Social-ethnic background categories of students
Categories Labels Indicators
Non-minority
Senior vocational plus N-e both parents more than pre-vocational education, at least one higher
professional or university education
Senior vocational*** N-d both parents senior vocational education
Pre-vocational plus** N-c one parent no more than pre-vocational education, the other more
Pre-vocational* N-b both parents no more than pre-vocational education
Elementary plus* N-a both parents no more than pre-vocational education, at least one no more
than elementary school
Minority
Senior vocational plus M-e both parents more than pre-vocational education, at least one higher
professional or university education
Senior vocational M-d both parents senior vocational education
Pre-vocational plus** M-c one parent no more than pre-vocational education, the other more
Pre-vocational* M-b both parents no more than pre-vocational education
Elementary plus* M-a both parents no more than pre-vocational education, at least one no more
than elementary school
* Currently the group targeted by educational disadvantage policy.
** Group also targeted by educational disadvantage policy up until 2006.
*** Reference category for present analyses.
The language and math skills in both of the cohort studies were measured using the standardized tests
developed by the National Institute for Educational Measurement (CITO). The test results are
expressed as so-called skill scores for language and math. In the period we studied, the exact same
tests were not always used on each measurement occasion. This does not constitute a problem for our
analyses, however, as we did not compare actual test scores across cohorts but, rather, the relative
positions of the categories of students with respect to each other and any changes in these over time.
The tests need not measure exactly the same for this, provided all the students in a cohort have
completed the same tests (which is the case).
3.3 Data analysis
To map the developments of the students, the mean scores for the categories of students we
distinguished were compared to the mean scores for a reference category, which was the category of
non-target students of parents who both have more than a high school but no college education (i.e.,
some form of vocational education). To gain insight into the magnitude of the differences, a so-called
effect size (ES) was calculated for each difference (Thompson, 1998). Effect sizes have the advantage
of not depending on the size of a sample and, because they involve a standardized coefficient,
indicators from different domains can be compared to each other (Coe, 2002). Another advantage is
that the research results can be summarized concisely. In its most simple form, an ES is the difference
between the means (i.e., test scores here) for two groups divided by the pooled standard deviation;
this ES is referred to as the Cohen’s d. With regard to the interpretation of an ES, the rule of thumb
provided by Cohen (1988) is usually followed, namely that a coefficient with a value of 0.20 is

considered “small,” one with a coefficient of 0.50 “medium,” and one with a coefficient of 0.80
“large.”
4 Results
4.1 Language skill
In Figures 1 and 2, the effect sizes for language skills are presented for the grade 2 and 8 groups of
children, respectively.
Figure 1 - Language skills of children in grade 2 between 1994 and 2007 according to social-ethnic
background (effect sizes; reference category: Non-minority, maximum of senior vocational education
(N-d))
1994 1998 2002 2007
N-e 0,20 0,17 0,25 0,19
N-d -0,05 -0,08 -0,08 -0,14
N-b -0,32 -0,37 -0,42 -0,32
N-a -0,54 -0,51 -0,77 -0,64
M-e -0,33 -0,35 -0,47 -0,49
M-d -0,50 -0,81 -0,76 -0,84
M-c -0,61 -0,79 -0,98 -0,81
M-b -0,83 -0,96 -1,09 -0,92
M-a -1,30 -1,22 -1,25 -1,09
-1,40
-1,20
-1,00
-0,80
-0,60
-0,40
-0,20
0,00
0,20
0,40
This figure and the following figures can be interpreted as follows. From the first row, it can be seen
that in 1994 the standardized difference (ES) between the non-minority (i.e., native Dutch) students
with high educated parents (N-e) and the reference category of non-minority students who have
parents with no more than a senior vocational education (N-d) is 0.20. This is a small positive effect:
The language skills of the children of non-minority, high educated parents are slightly better than
those of the children in the reference category. The figures from 1998, 2002, and 2007 show the size
of the differences between the two categories of students to remain more or less the same. The second
row in the table shows the differences between the non-minority disadvantaged category of students

who were a target of educational disadvantage policy up until 2006 (N-c) relative to the reference
category. For 1994, the ES is -0.05, which is a very slight negative effect: The grade 2 language skills
of the students previously considered disadvantaged are minimally poorer than those of the students
in the reference category. On the subsequent two measurement occasions, this effect remains stable.
In 2007, however, the negative effect has increased to -0.14. Apart from the fact that the difference is
quite small, this finding shows the difference with respect to the reference category to have increased
and the language skills of the grade 2 students in question to thus lag further behind than was
previously the case.
With regard to the language skills of the grade 2 students across the period examined, one can
hardly speak of improvement. Some minor differences can be seen to occur between measurement
points, but these do not persist. Progress can only be seen for the heavily disadvantaged category of
minority students (M-a) on the last measurement occasion with respect to previous occasions, but the
question is whether this improvement persists in later years.
Figure 2 - Language skills of children in grade 8 between 1994 and 2007 according to social-ethnic
(N-d))
1994 1998 2002 2007
N-e 0,27 0,31 0,33 0,39
N-d -0,23 -0,19 -0,14 -0,24
N-b -0,53 -0,51 -0,49 -0,57
N-a -0,85 -0,70 -0,65 -0,72
M-e -0,26 -0,29 -0,13 0,01
M-d -0,68 -0,61 -0,47 -0,40
M-c -0,83 -0,78 -0,64 -0,45
M-b -1,01 -0,98 -0,83 -0,75
M-a -1,57 -1,35 -1,12 -0,76
-2,00
-1,50
-1,00
-0,50
0,00
0,50
All of the minority categories of students in grade 8 show progress across the period we examined
with strongly positive development standing out for the category of heavily disadvantaged students
(M-a) in particular: During the period under study, their delay with respect to the reference group
decreased by 50%.

When further subdivided according to country of origin, the grade 2 difference between the
Turkish children and the reference category decreased across the period under study; they were thus
catching up to the students in the reference category. In grade 8, this is found to be the case for more
of the minority categories of students and then between the next-to-last and last measurement
occasions in particular.
4.2 Math skill
In Figures 3 and 4, the effect sizes are presented for the math skills of the students in grades 2 and 8,
respectively.
Figure 3 - Math skills of children in grade 2 between 1994 and 2007 according to social-ethnic
(N-d))
1994 1998 2002 2007
N-e 0,18 0,20 0,29 0,24
N-d -0,17 -0,10 -0,04 -0,12
N-b -0,43 -0,38 -0,36 -0,31
N-a -0,63 -0,57 -0,63 -0,52
M-e -0,23 -0,18 -0,25 -0,23
M-d -0,51 -0,59 -0,49 -0,56
M-c -0,60 -0,58 -0,60 -0,49
M-b -0,81 -0,72 -0,73 -0,64
M-a -1,07 -0,93 -0,78 -0,66
-1,20
-1,00
-0,80
-0,60
-0,40
-0,20
0,00
0,20
0,40
Once again, the position of the heavily disadvantage minority children in grade 2 (M-a) can be seen to
have markedly improved during the period under study.

Figure 4 - Math skills of children in grade 8 between 1994 and 2007 according to social-ethnic
(N-d))
1994 1998 2002 2007
N-e 0,19 0,32 0,34 0,35
N-d -0,16 -0,17 -0,18 -0,16
N-b -0,50 -0,50 -0,52 -0,42
N-a -0,81 -0,72 -0,74 -0,48
M-e -0,23 -0,02 0,07 0,13
M-d -0,52 -0,34 -0,35 -0,32
M-c -0,54 -0,56 -0,40 -0,25
M-b -0,73 -0,76 -0,66 -0,56
M-a -0,98 -0,73 -0,69 -0,44
-1,20
-1,00
-0,80
-0,60
-0,40
-0,20
0,00
0,20
0,40
0,60
What stands out for the math skills of the students in grade 8 during the period under study is
improvement in the relative positions of both the minority and non-minority disadvantaged categories
of students (N-a, N-b, M-a, M-b).
When we further subdivided the data from the minority children according to country of origin,
a slight decrease in the disadvantage can be seen to occur for the math skills of the grade 2 students
and particularly the Turkish students across the period under study. In grade 8, the gains in the
category of other non-Western disadvantaged students stand out in particular.
4.3 Reduction of language and math delays
For purposes of the present study, we compared categories of students formed on the basis of the
criteria used to determine weighted student funding. Given that these criteria have changed on a
number of occasions over the years, we adopted a highly differentiated set of ten categories. In
educational disadvantage policy, certain objectives are formulated in terms of a reduction in the
delays of target group students relative to non-target group students (MinOCW, 2010). By the end of
elementary school in the period 2002–2014, for example, language delays should be reduced by 40%;
in the period 2008–2011, this should be 20%.

In Table 2, we present the results of our analyses showing the degree of reduction in grade 8 for
delays in the language skills of the disadvantaged groups of students. The relative differences in the
effect sizes for the first and final measurement occasions were calculated for this purpose. For the
sake of completeness, we also did this for their math skills. Different comparisons are presented in the
table. The changes for the entire target group (i.e., minority plus non-minority students) relative to the
non-target group are shown, for example. We then split the total target group into minority versus
non-minority disadvantaged groups. And we examine the size of the changes between 1994 and 2007,
on the one hand, and 2002 and 2007, on the other hand, that is, the full period under study here and
the most recent period under study here, respectively.
Table 2 - Differences in the grade 8 language and math skills of target versus non-target group
students in 1994, 2002, and 2007 (effect sizes), reduction of delays between 1994 and 2007, and
reduction of delays between 2002 and 2007 (in %).
Categories 1994 2002 2007 1994–2007 2002–2007
Total target vs. non-target
Language skill -0.77 -0.71 -0.61 21% 14%
Math Skill -0.62 -0.61 -0.47 24% 23%
Non-minority target vs. non-target
Language skill -0.50 -0.47 -0.53 -6% -13%
Math skill -0.49 -0.55 -0.45 8% 18%
Minority target vs. non-target
Language skill -1.24 -0.96 -0.67 46% 30%
Math skill -0.82 -0.67 -0.49 40% 27%
Inspection of the upper part of the table shows major reductions in the delays of the total target group
relative to the non-target group for the period 1994–2007. For their language skills, the target group
can be seen to have gained 21% on the non-target group. For their math skills, the gain is even larger
than for their language skills, namely 24%. In the period 2002–2007, which obviously is shorter, the
gain for language skills is more limited with 14% but still 23% for math skills.
When the total target group is subdivided into the categories of minority versus non-minority
disadvantaged students, a much more differentiated picture presents itself. The minority target group
has made major gains: a minimum of 40% for the period 1994–2007 and more than 27% for the
period 2002–2007. For the non-minority target group, however, the developments are not nearly so
favorable. In the period 1994–2007, their language skills have either hardly improved or — worse yet
— declined relative to the non-target group; in the period 2002–2007, a deterioration of 13% relative
to the non-target group can be seen. For their math skills, in contrast, some positive developments can
be seen: an almost 10% gain in the period 1994–2007 and almost 20% gain in the period 2002–2007.

5 Conclusions and discussion
5.1 Conclusions
Throughout the period we studied, the position of the grade 2 children’s language skills went virtually
unchanged. In grade 8, however, the minority target group students show major gains in the position
of their language skills relative to the non-minority reference category. And similar major gains are
seen for the math skills of the minority target group in both grades 2 and 8.
For the situation in grade 8 of elementary school, we examined the extent to which the delays
of the target groups were reduced. This indeed happened in both the periods 1994–2007 and 2002–
2007. The results of our analyses nevertheless point to large differences between the minority and
non-minority target groups. The minority target group made major gains: a minimum of 40% in the
period 1997–2007 and more than 25% in the period 2002–2007. The development of the non-
minority target group less rose colored. In the period 1994–2007, one can speak of hardly any
progress and even a slight decline in the group’s language skills. In the period 2002–2007, there is a
deterioration of almost 15%. With respect to the group’s math skills, positive gains can be seen:
almost 10% for the period 1994–2007 and almost 20% for the period 2002–2007.
The central question in this study was whether the delays of the different groups targeted by
Dutch educational disadvantage policy during the past decades have diminished or not. The results
presented here are in line with those of previous overviews (Driessen, 2009; Mulder et al., 2005; van
Langen & Suhre, 2001; Vogels & Bronnemans-Helmers, 2003). In short, the conclusion is that large
differences exist between disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged students at the start of elementary
school. Minority target group students have a substantial language delay. In the last year of
elementary school, this delay has diminished somewhat but it is still substantial. The delays of the
minority target group students have declined over the years and in the period 1994–2007 by more
than 40%. Part of the non-minority target group students also made gains, but these are less than
those observed for the minority target group students. Moreover, for the period 2002–2007, the
relative position of the non-minority target group students with regard to their language skills can be
seen to deteriorate.
5.2 Discussion
Various explanations can be offered for the gains made by the minority target group students. To start
with, there is the fact that the length of residence in the Netherlands for the minority students has
increased and many of them belong to the second or even third generation of immigrants (cf. Mulder,
1996). Such demographic developments generally exert a positive effect on the Dutch language skills
of not only parents but also children (Driessen & Merry, 2011). Second, minority parents from later
generations also tend to be higher educated than minority parents from first generations. They can
thus be expected to have greater “cultural capital” at their disposal, know Dutch society better, and be
able to give their children more support with respect to school matters than first-generation immigrant
parents. Third, it is also the case that teachers have gained more experience with interacting with
minority students and learned to better adapt their teaching to the specific situations of these students.
Teachers may have raised their expectations for such students over the years (van den Bergh et al.,
2010). Fourth, part of the explanation may also lie in the effects of educational disadvantage policy,
but convincing evidence for this is still lacking. Particularly those programs conducted within the

framework of Preschool and Early Childhood Education and especially those aimed at improving the
language skills of minority target group students presumably play a role.
It is very much the question if the positive developments observed over the years for minority
target group students will continue through the coming years. The changes made in weighted student
funding in 2006 have done away with the ethnic component of the equation. For the allocation of
extra resources to schools, it no longer matters if the child’s parents were born in a foreign country;
the only criterion is now the level of parental education. The consequences of this for special
attention to the relevant children in the class are thus as yet unclear.
Compared to the development of the minority target group students, the development of the
non-minority target group students proceeds less successfully and one can even speak of a relative
decline. It is also regularly asked if all the policy attention for minority target group students does not
occur at the cost of attention for non-minority target group students. For Vogels and Bronneman-
Helmers (2003), this is a reason to refer to the latter group as the “forgotten group.” These authors
offer some other possible explanations for the relative decline in the school achievement of non-
minority disadvantaged students although it should be noted that it would be very difficult to test
these empirically. One explanation might nevertheless be that one can speak of underutilization or
insufficient use of the talents and potential of minority students due to their immigrant histories while
the reservoir of unused or potential talent among non-minority disadvantaged students is simply more
limited to start with. The previously unused talent among non-minority disadvantaged students has,
according to this explanation, now been used to its maximum: A ceiling has been reached with regard
to inherited capacities and talent. Another explanation for the relative decline points to the marginal
level of ambition among low educated non-minority parents in rural areas of the Netherlands (van
Ruijven, 2003). This stands in shrill contrast to the high — but often unrealistic — level of ambition
among minority parents located in urban areas of the country (Driessen, Smit, & Klaassen, 2011). If
this is indeed the case, it can nevertheless only be part of the explanation. Research shows, namely,
large variation in the achievement levels of rural students depending on location: they invariably
perform poorly in the northern provinces (Friesland, Groningen, Drenthe) but well in the southern
province of Limburg (Driessen & Withagen, 1999). One explanation that is frequently offered for this
variation points to the possibly negative effects of speaking a dialect. Once again, however, there is
only very weak empirical evidence for this: The regional variation is quite marked and one can even
speak of a positive effect of speaking the dialect in the province of Limburg (cf. Driessen, 2005).
According to the Dutch Education Inspectorate (Inspectie van het Onderwijs, 2001), the achievement
differences between the northern and southern rural areas of the Netherlands stem primarily from
differences in the quality of the instructional materials, which are often quite limited in the small rural
schools located in the northern provinces (also see van Ruijven, 2003). In addition to this, there is
often little opportunity to provide sufficient extra attention, such as remedial teaching and student
guidance, for those students who need it in such small schools. But it is precisely in these schools that
more care is needed because there are also fewer opportunities for special education and thus chances
for referral. A final explanation offered by Vogels and Bronneman-Helmers (2003) is the limited
extra resources allocated to rural schools in terms of weighted student funding. In 2006, steps were
taken to deal with this critique and extra resources were made available for rural areas of the
Netherlands. We must nevertheless wait to see what the consequences of these measures are for

actual educational practice and whether it is really possible to turn the tide for non-minority
disadvantaged students without this happening at the cost of minority disadvantaged students. And
underlying all of this is the question of the extent to which extra financial means directly translate
into better achievement (cf. Mulder, 1996).
References
Coe, R. (2002). It’s the effect size, stupid! What effect size is and why it is important. Paper presented
at the British Educational Research Association annual conference, Exeter, 12-14 September,
2002.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dagevos, J., & Gijsberts, M. (Eds.) (2009). Jaarrapport integratie 2009. WODC/SCO/CBS. Den
Haag: SCP.
Driessen, G. (2005). In Dutch? Usage of Dutch regional languages and dialects. Language, Culture
and Curriculum, 18(3), 271-285.
Driessen, G. (2009). Prestaties, gedrag en houding van basisschoolleerlingen. Stand van zaken in
2008 en ontwikkelingen sinds 2001. Nijmegen: ITS.
Driessen, G. (2012). Combating ethnic educational disadvantage in the Netherlands. An analysis of
policies and effects. In C. Kassimeris & M. Vryonides (Eds.), The politics of education
Challenging multiculturalism (pp. 31-51). New York: Routledge.
Driessen, G., & Merry, M. (2011).The effects of the integration and generation of immigrants on
language and numeracy achievement. Educational Studies, 37(5), 581-592.
Driessen, G., & Withagen, V. (1999). Language varieties and educational achievement of indigenous
primary school pupils. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 12(1), 1-22.
Driessen, G., Sleegers, P., & Smit, F. (2008). The transition from primary to secondary education:
Meritocracy and ethnicity. European Sociological Review, 24(4), 527-542.
Driessen, G., Smit, F., & Klaassen, C. (2011). Connecting ethnic minority parents to school. From
empirical research to practical suggestions. Journal of Education Research, 4(1), 9-20.
Driessen, G., van Langen, A., & Vierke, H. (2006). Basisonderwijs: Veldwerkverslag,
leerlinggegevens en oudervragenlijsten. Basisrapportage PRIMA-cohortonderzoek. Zesde meting
2004-2005. Nijmegen: ITS.
Driessen, G., Mulder, L., Ledoux, G., Roeleveld, J., & van der Veen, I. (2009). Cohortonderzoek
COOL5-18
. Technisch rapport basisonderwijs, eerste meting 2007/08. Nijmegen: ITS/ Amsterdam:
SCO-Kohnstamm Instituut.
Herweijer, L. (2009). Making up the gap. Migrant education in the Netherlands. Den Haag: SCP.
Inspectie van het Onderwijs (2001). Onderwijsverslag over het jaar 2000. Utrecht: Inspectie van het
Onderwijs.
Ladd, H., & Fiske, E. (2009). The Dutch experience with weighted student funding: Some lessons for
the U.S. Durham, NC: Duke University.
Ledoux, G., & Veen, A. (2009). Beleidsdoorlichting onderwijsachterstandenbeleid. Periode 2002-
2008. Amsterdam: SCO-Kohnstamm Instituut.
Min OCW (2007). The education system in the Netherlands 2007. Den Haag: Ministerie van OCW.

MinOCW (2010). Rijksbegroting 2010. VIII Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap. Den Haag:
Ministerie van OCW.
Mulder, L. (1996). Meer voorrang, minder achterstand? Het Onderwijsvoorrangsbeleid getoetst.
Nijmegen: ITS.
Mulder, L., Roeleveld, J., van der Veen, I., & Vierke, H. (2005) Onderwijsachterstanden tussen 1988
en 2002: ontwikkelingen in basis- en voortgezet onderwijs. Nijmegen/Amsterdam: ITS/SCO-
Kohnstamm Instituut
Roeleveld, J., Driessen, G., Ledoux, G., Cuppen, J. & Meijer, J. (2011). Doelgroepleerlingen in het
basisonderwijs; historische ontwikkeling en actuele situatie. Amsterdam/Nijmegen: SCO-
Kohnstamm Instituut/ITS.
Stevens, P., Clycq, N., Timmerman, C., & Van Houtte, M. (2011). Researching race/ethnicity and
educational inequality in the Netherlands: A critical review of the research literature between 1980
and 2008. British Educational Research Journal, 37(1), 5-43.
Thompson, B. (1998). Five methodology errors in educational research: The pantheon of statistical
significance and other faux pas. Invited address AERA annual meeting, San Diego, US, April
1998.
Vasta, E. (2007). From ethnic minorities to ethnic majority policy: Multiculturalism and the shift to
assimilationism in the Netherlands. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30(5), 713-740.
Vogels, R., & Bronnemans-Helmers, R. (2003). Autochtone achterstandsleerlingen: een vergeten
groep. Den Haag: SCP.
Van den Bergh, L., Denessen, E., Hornstra, L., Voeten, M., & Holland, R. (2010).The implicit
prejudiced attitudes of teachers relations to teacher expectations and the ethnic achievement gap.
American Educational Research Journal, 47( 2), 497-527.
Van der Werf, M. (1995). The Educational Priority Policy in the Netherlands. Content,
implementation and outcomes. Den Haag: SVO.
Van Langen, A., & Suhre, C. (2001). Ontwikkelingen in de schoolloopbanen van
achterstandsleerlingen. Vergelijkende analyses van een aantal leerlingcohorten in basis- en
voortgezet onderwijs. Nijmegen: ITS.
Van Ruijven, E. (2003). Voorsprong of achterstand? Onderzoek naar het onderwijsniveau van de
Friese leerlingen in het basisonderwijs en het voortgezet onderwijs. Ljouwert: Fryske Akademy.

Appendix 1 - An overview of the Dutch education system
Elementary education
Pre-
university
education
(VWO)
Senior general
secondary education
(HAVO)
Pre-vocational secondary
education (VMBO)
Senior secondary vocational
education (MBO)
Higher professional
education (HBO)
University
(WO)
Basic secondary education
Age 4
Age 12
Age 18
Specialelementary
education
Specialsecondary
education
Practical
training
(PRO)

Geert Driessen (2012) AERA Trends in Educational Disadvantage in Dutch Elementary School

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (17)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (17)

Similar to Geert Driessen (2012) AERA Trends in Educational Disadvantage in Dutch Elementary School

Similar to Geert Driessen (2012) AERA Trends in Educational Disadvantage in Dutch Elementary School (20)

More from Driessen Research

More from Driessen Research (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Geert Driessen (2012) AERA Trends in Educational Disadvantage in Dutch Elementary School