This study analyzes data from 1995 to 2008 to examine trends in educational disadvantage among groups in Dutch primary schools. It finds that large differences exist between disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged pupils at the start of primary school, with minority pupils substantially delayed in language skills. By the 8th grade, delays have diminished somewhat but are still substantial for minority pupils. From 1995-2008, delays declined more than 40% for minority pupils, while gains were smaller for non-minority disadvantaged pupils and their relative language position deteriorated from 2003-2008.

1. Trends in educational disadvantage in Dutch primary school
Geert Driessena
* and Michael S. Merryb
a
ITS, Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands; b
Faculty of Social and
Behavioural Sciences, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
The central question in this study is whether the language and math delays of
the different socio-economic and ethnic minority groups targeted by Dutch edu-
cational disadvantage policy have diminished or not. Data are from the years
1995, 1999, 2003 and 2008. Information from a total of 90,000 pupils in Grades
2 and 8 was selected to represent the start and end points of primary education.
The conclusion is that large differences exist between disadvantaged and non-
disadvantaged pupils at the start of primary school. Minority target group pupils
have a substantial language delay. In the last year of primary school, this delay
has diminished somewhat but it is still substantial. In the period 1995–2008 the
delays of the minority target group pupils have declined by more than 40%. Part
of the non-minority target group pupils also made gains, but these are less than
those observed for the minority target group pupils. Moreover, for the period
2003–2008, the relative position of the non-minority target group pupils with
regard to their language skills can be seen to deteriorate.
Keywords: educational disadvantage policy; equality of educational opportunity;
primary school; language and math test scores; developments; the Netherlands
Introduction
Theoretical background
Around the world differences both big and small distinguish persons on the basis of
ethnicity, sex, religion, health, employment and in countless other ways. Some
differences are inalterable and may have both immediate and long-term effects.
However, other kinds of difference are thought to be remediable. Both poverty and
educational attainment fall into this category. Believing these to be remediable is
important because children born into poverty face much greater challenges in school
as well as in life beyond school. Inside of school the mechanisms for sorting and
selecting pupils on the basis of social class difference are well documented. Addi-
tionally, a nexus of narrowly focused learning objectives, dissimilar background
traits and inadequate teaching skills, as well as negative peer group effects on
intrinsic motivation all conspire to work against mitigating disadvantage. Mean-
while, outside of school, and particularly when poverty is strongly correlated with
minority status, single parenting stress, and a less stimulating home and school
environment, the severity and duration of disadvantage increases exponentially. The
challenges faced in rich countries often are more complex owing to the dissimilar
*Corresponding author. Email: g.driessen@its.ru.nl
Educational Review, 2014
Vol. 66, No. 3, 276–292, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2013.771146
Ó 2013 Educational Review
Downloaded
by
[Radboud
Universiteit
Nijmegen]
at
00:32
20
May
2014

2. life situations of immigrant and minority populations to the mainstream (Berliner
2006; Duncan and Murnane 2011; Ladd 2011; Rothstein 2004).
With respect to disadvantage, language issues play a central role. Proficiency in
the dominant language, particularly when this is the official language of instruction at
school, is of crucial importance (Cummins 1979; Driessen and Merry 2011; Trueba
1987). Children whose language use at home more closely matches that of the
instructional language used in school fare much better both in academic and social
terms. An alignment between the language used at home and at school typically
means that there are fewer difficulties with comprehension, frustration, and emotional
stress. Further, not only the language used, but also the way in which the language is
used, matters. Not only the amount and quality of verbal interaction with parents, but
also the frequency of encounters with written text, and the quality of language-related
interactions combine to make an important difference. With respect to linguistic
minorities, the use of a particular language in the home itself may inhibit or delay
proficiency in the dominant language if (a) its orthographical or grammatical structure
differs too dramatically, or (b) if children spend more time using the home language
than the one used at school (Glenn 1996; Olneck 2009; Ure 1980, 1981).
Middle-class children with proficiency in the dominant language therefore enjoy
a qualitatively different socialisation, one that generally better equips them to do
well in school for reasons that correspond to the parents’ educational attainment
levels (e.g. breadth of vocabulary) but also because of the ways in which they inter-
act with their offspring (Delpit 2002; Heath 2012; Lareau 2003). Conversely, an
abundance of research shows that children from lower socio-economic and minority
backgrounds in primary school often lag behind with regard to their language and
mathematics performance. They are also more likely to repeat a year or leave
school without a qualification. In addition, they are far more likely to be tracked
low, and accordingly are less represented in forms of higher education (Crul and
Holdaway 2009; Lucas 1999; Teese, Lamb, and Duru-Bellat 2007a, 2007b).
To believe, then, that some differences are remediable means that concrete steps
can be taken to compensate for the background conditions or circumstances of the
less fortunate. Irrespective of the proxies used to counter disadvantage, there already
is a long history of targeting school children of certain backgrounds in order to
improve their prospects in school and beyond. Attempts to counter educational dis-
advantage and “achievement gaps” take different forms and assume different guises
but arguably none has been as rhetorically persistent as the notion of equality of
educational opportunity. For decades now, equality of educational opportunity has
been the inspiring ideal and a major theme behind numerous policies in most
Western countries (for overviews, see Teese, Lamb, and Duru-Bellat 2007a;
Walraven and Broekhof 1998).
Our aim in this article is not to unpack its philosophical underpinnings nor to
explore its inherent tensions (see Jencks 1988) but rather to trace the long-term
effects of a systematic and comprehensive educational policy in a specific national
context. To that end, in this article we focus exclusively on the situation in the
Netherlands, in particular on relevant educational policies and their effects since the
mid-1980s at the primary school level. Such a focus allows us not only to examine
the effects of a remedial policy that from its inception has emphasised the improve-
ment of both language and math skill. It also allows us to examine the effects of a
policy that has allocated substantially more funding to compensate for disadvantage
while allowing for variation in its implementation at the local level.
Educational Review 277
Downloaded
by
[Radboud
Universiteit
Nijmegen]
at
00:32
20
May
2014

3. Dutch policy on educational disadvantage
In the Netherlands, for almost half a century now, many policies have been
implemented to improve the educational opportunities of children from situations of
disadvantage (Driessen 2012; Herweijer 2009). In the beginning, these policies were
heavily inspired by theoretical notions chiefly borrowed from Bernstein (1960),
Bourdieu (1997) and Coleman (1988) on language, but also culture and social
milieu, and the intergenerational transmission of educational and life chances. Over
time policies have gradually changed, particularly with regard to organisation and
funding. Moreover, new policy domains, themes, objectives and target groups have
been defined as the demographic features and political landscape of the Netherlands
continues to evolve.
In the 1970s, compensation programmes were developed and implemented to
help working-class children in a number of large cities in the Netherlands. This
local policy was later to become national policy and, eventually, additional policies
were developed to address the particular educational opportunities of minority chil-
dren. Midway through the 1980s, these two lines of policy were integrated into a
single educational disadvantage policy. Initially, this was administered by the Minis-
try of Education. It was later decentralised so that the local authorities and school
administrations might allocate funding in ways appropriate to their own needs. Spe-
cific target groups were identified among both minority and non-minority (or
native-Dutch) pupils. However, owing to a number of socio-political developments,
the ethnic component was omitted as a relevant criterion in 2006 (Driessen and
Merry 2011; Vasta 2007). Since that time, in addressing disadvantage no distinction
has been made between minority and non-minority children. Further, the focus of
policy over the years has shifted from the reduction of educational disadvantage to
the prevention of such disadvantage. Increased emphasis now is being placed on
the pre-school and early phases of education. That is to say, to the extent possible
the policy focus increasingly is placed on the prevention of learning and achieve-
ment delays among less advantaged children in play and pre-school groups.
The core of the relevant policies involves the allocation of extra financial
resources to primary schools with a specific percentage of their pupils coming from
the target groups. This policy instrument is known as “weighted pupil funding.” In
principle, the less favourable the home situation, the higher the weighting and the
more money the school receives (Ladd and Fiske 2009). The indicators used to
identify children in the target group, and thus the pupil weighting, have been chan-
ged on a number of occasions. At this point, the target group consists of parents
with little education, i.e. no more than lower secondary vocational attainment
(ISCED level 2). In terms of content, since the beginning the emphasis has been on
improving the language and math skills of disadvantaged pupils. However, in prin-
ciple the schools are at liberty to spend the extra funds received from the Ministry
of Education as they see fit. In practice this means that it is not entirely clear
whether the extra funding allocated for the intended purposes actually reaches those
it is meant to benefit.
Monitoring of disadvantage
From the outset, the Dutch educational disadvantage policy has been accompanied
by large-scale, long-term evaluations (Stevens et al. 2011). This was already the
case for the local compensation programmes in large cities and continues to be the
278 G. Driessen and M.S. Merry
Downloaded
by
[Radboud
Universiteit
Nijmegen]
at
00:32
20
May
2014

4. case for national policy. With the introduction of the educational disadvantage pol-
icy in 1985, the large-scale LEO (National Evaluation of the Educational Priority
Policy) cohort study was launched. A decade later, and following three biennial
measurement moments, a transition was made to the PRIMA cohort study, which
entailed six biennial measurement moments. In 2008, the PRIMA study was fol-
lowed by the COOL5–18
cohort study with the second measurement occasion held
in 2011 and the third planned for 2014. The immense amount of data collected dur-
ing the cohort studies provides not only an important part of the input for the evalu-
ation of the policy being implemented but it also is used to monitor the educational
position of the target groups (Herweijer 2009; Mulder 1996).
Prior research
In a number of studies, the trajectory of school careers for disadvantaged pupils has
been examined. To give an impression of the insights provided by the studies to
date, the most important findings can be summarised. To do this, we principally will
make use of the review provided by Ledoux and Veen (2009). In addition, we will
refer to 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.
Starting differences
In the second year of Dutch primary school (i.e. when most children are six years of
age),1
the achievement differences between target group pupils and non-target group
pupils are considerably large. In particular, pupils of Turkish and Moroccan back-
ground (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 observed. Turkish and Moroccan children, but also non-minority children of low-
educated parents, are moving towards the starting level for non-target group pupils
in both language and math. Even so, the gap between target and non-target group
pupils is still far from being bridged.
Development of minority target group pupils
During the first cohort studies, one could speak of little if any improvement in the
achievement of minority target group pupils. Later cohort studies show some pro-
gress occurring relative to the non-target group pupils during the course of primary
education. By Grade 8 (i.e. the last year of Dutch primary school), the differences in
language achievement levels have shrunk – but are still clearly present – while the
differences in math achievement levels have largely disappeared. Pupils of Moroccan
descent in particular manage to close the gap almost completely. This gain largely
seems to occur during the last years of primary school (i.e. Grades 6–8).
Development of non-minority target group pupils
A similarly positive development has not occurred for non-minority target group
pupils, i.e. the children of low-educated native Dutch parents. In fact, the achieve-
ment delays among this group of pupils relative to the group of non-target
Educational Review 279
Downloaded
by
[Radboud
Universiteit
Nijmegen]
at
00:32
20
May
2014

5. (i.e. non-disadvantaged) pupils have increased rather than decreased with the delays
in math larger than the delays in language. Compared to minority target group
pupils at this moment, non-minority target group pupils thus perform better in the
area of language but not math.
Progression to higher forms of education
There is now a significant increase in the percentage of target group pupils who pro-
gress to a higher level of secondary education. For target group pupils within a
minority group, the increase is predominantly due to the achievements of the Suri-
namese (i.e. children from a former Dutch colony) and children of Moroccan des-
cent. Non-target group pupils, i.e. non-disadvantaged children, still progress more
than twice as often to a higher level of secondary education than target group pupils.
One can thus speak of perceptible progress among target group pupils even as they
continue to lag far behind the non-target group pupils. Put differently, notwithstand-
ing important gains, children who begin their school careers with significant disad-
vantage continue to be disadvantaged relative to the typical middle-class child.
In sum
Positive gains can be observed for the language and math achievements of minority
target group children during the period 1988–2008, while they continue to have the
lowest language scores in the final year of primary school. These scores also are
lower than those for non-minority target group pupils, i.e. native Dutch children
with low socio-economic status (SES). No positive gains are observed for the pri-
mary school achievements of this group. While their starting delays are largely
made up during the course of their primary school careers and the progression to
higher forms of secondary education improves for both minority and non-minority
target group pupils, non-target group pupils still progress considerably more often
than target group pupils to higher levels of secondary education.
Definition of the problem
In the present research, we examined the language and math achievements of the
pupils targeted by Dutch educational disadvantage policy developed during the per-
iod 1995–2008. The central research question was whether the delays of specific
groups of pupils decreased with respect to a reference group of pupils during this
period. In order to answer this question, we examined developments in the language
and math skills of different groups of pupils between Grades 2 and 8. As already
noted, the weighted pupil 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 pos-
sible to trace the development of different categories of pupils in considerable detail.
Method
Sample
To map pupil gains in primary education, we used the data collected on the
different measurement occasions for the PRIMA cohort studies and the first
280 G. Driessen and M.S. Merry
Downloaded
by
[Radboud
Universiteit
Nijmegen]
at
00:32
20
May
2014

6. measurement occasion for the COOL cohort study. PRIMA started with the first
measurement occasion in 1995 and collected information on pupils in Grades 2, 4,
6 and 8. Measurement was then repeated every two years through 2005. The
Netherlands has some 7000 primary schools, and a total of some 60,000 pupils
from 600 primary schools participated in each PRIMA measurement occasion. The
PRIMA studied was followed by the COOL study in 2008 when information was
collected from some 38,000 pupils in Grades 2, 5 and 8 in 550 schools (Driessen
et al. 2009; Roeleveld et al. 2011).
There clearly is an overrepresentation of schools with many disadvantaged
pupils in the PRIMA and COOL samples. This is intentional and aimed at obtaining
sufficient numbers of pupils for smaller categories of disadvantaged pupils. Further-
more, disadvantaged pupils and particularly minority disadvantaged pupils 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 pupil. The
aim of the present research was not to obtain a representative picture of the posi-
tions of disadvantaged pupils in the Netherlands but to trace developments within
and between the groups of pupils 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 1995, 1999,
and 2003 for the PRIMA study and the year 2008 for the COOL study. The infor-
mation from pupils in Grades 2 and 8 was selected to represent the start and end
points of primary education. In Grade 2, the children receive preparatory reading
and math instruction. Grade 8 is the last year of Dutch primary school; pupils at
the age of about 12 years then proceed to secondary school.
Measurement instruments and sample characteristics
Two types of data are prominent in the present research: first, the social-ethnic
backgrounds of the pupils, and second, their language and math skills during
primary school. The information regarding the social-ethnic backgrounds of the
pupils is based upon the parental level of education and parental place of birth and
came from the school administrations. We first determined the minority versus non-
minority status of the parents on the basis of their country of birth and subsequently
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.
The language and math skills in both of the cohort studies were measured using
the standardised tests developed by the National Institute for Educational Measure-
ment (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 rel-
ative positions of the categories of pupils with respect to each other and any
changes in these over time. The tests need not measure exactly the same domains
for this, provided all the pupils in a cohort have completed the same tests (which is
the case).
Educational Review 281
Downloaded
by
[Radboud
Universiteit
Nijmegen]
at
00:32
20
May
2014

7. Data analysis
To map the developments of the pupils, the mean scores for each of the categories
we distinguished were compared to the mean scores for a reference category, which
was the modal category of non-target pupils of parents who have more than
pre-vocational education but no higher professional education or university educa-
tion (or a maximum of senior secondary vocational education; see Appendix 1). To
gain insight into the magnitude of the differences, a so-called effect size (ES) was
calculated for each difference (Thompson 1998). ES values have the advantage of
not depending on the size of a sample and, because they involve a standardised
coefficient, indicators from different domains can be compared to each other (Coe
2002). Another advantage is that the research results can be summarised 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.”
Results
Language skill
In Figures 1 and 2, the effect sizes for language skills are presented for the Grades
2 and 8 groups of children, respectively.
Figure 1 and the following figures can be interpreted as follows. From the first
row, it can be seen that in 1995 the standardised difference (ES) between the
non-minority (i.e. native Dutch) pupils with high educated parents (N-e) and the
Table 1. Social-ethnic background categories of pupils.
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 vocationala
N-d both parents senior vocational education
Pre-vocational plusb
N-c One parent no more than pre-vocational education,
the other more
Pre-vocationalc
N-b Both parents no more than pre-vocational education
Primary plusc
N-a Both parents no more than pre-vocational education,
at least one no more than primary 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 plusb
M-c One parent no more than pre-vocational education,
the other more
Pre-vocationalc
M-b Both parents no more than pre-vocational education
Primary plusc
M-a Both parents no more than pre-vocational education,
at least one no more than primary school
a
Reference category for present analyses.
b
Group also targeted by educational disadvantage policy up until 2006.
c
Currently the group targeted by educational disadvantage policy;
282 G. Driessen and M.S. Merry
Downloaded
by
[Radboud
Universiteit
Nijmegen]
at
00:32
20
May
2014

8. reference category of non-minority pupils 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 1999,
2003, and 2008 show the size of the differences between the two categories of
pupils to remain more or less the same. The second row in the table shows the dif-
ferences between the non-minority disadvantaged category of pupils who were a
target of educational disadvantage policy up until 2006 (N-c) relative to the refer-
ence category. For 1995, the ES is –0.05, which is a very slight negative effect:
The Grade 2 language skills of the pupils previously considered disadvantaged are
minimally poorer than those of the pupils in the reference category. On the subse-
quent two measurement occasions, this effect remains stable. In 2008, 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 pupils in question to thus
lag further behind than was previously the case.
With regard to the language skills of the Grade 2 pupils across the period exam-
ined, one can hardly speak of improvement. Some minor differences can be
observed between measurement points, but these do not persist. Progress can only
be seen for the heavily disadvantaged category of minority pupils (M-a) on the last
measurement occasion with respect to previous occasions, but the question is
whether this improvement persists in later years.
All of the minority categories of pupils in Grade 8 show progress across the
period we examined with strongly positive development standing out for the
1995 1999 2003 2008
N-e
N-c
N-b
N-a
M-e
M-d
M-c
M-b
M-a
0.20
-0.05
-0.32
-0.54
-0.33
-0.50
-0.61
-0.83
-1.30
0.17
-0.08
-0.37
-0.51
-0.35
-0.81
-0.79
-0.96
-1.22
0.25
- 8
0
.
0
- 2
4
.
0
- 7
7
.
0
- 7
4
.
0
- 6
7
.
0
- 8
9
.
0
- 9
0
.
1
- 5
2
.
1
0.19
-0.14
-0.32
-0.64
-0.49
-0.84
-0.81
-0.92
-1.09
-1.40
-1.20
-1.00
-0.80
-0.60
-0.40
-0.20
0.00
0.20
0.40
Figure 1. Language skills of children in Grade 2 between 1995 and 2008 according to
social-ethnic background [effect sizes; reference category: non-minority, maximum of senior
vocational education (N-d)].
Educational Review 283
Downloaded
by
[Radboud
Universiteit
Nijmegen]
at
00:32
20
May
2014

9. category of heavily disadvantaged pupils (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; hence they were catching up to the pupils in the reference category. In
Grade 8, this is found to be the case for more of the minority categories of pupils
and then between the next-to-last and last measurement occasions in particular.
Math skill
In Figures 3 and 4, the ES values are presented for the math skills of the pupils in
Grades 2 and 8, respectively.
Once again, the position of the heavily disadvantaged minority children in Grade
2 (M-a) can be seen to have markedly improved during the period under study.
What stands out for the math skills of the pupils in Grade 8 during the period
under study is improvement in the relative positions of both the minority and
non-minority disadvantaged categories of pupils (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 occurs for the math skills of
the Grade 2 pupils and particularly the Turkish pupils across the period under study.
In Grade 8, especially the gains in the category of other non-Western disadvantaged
pupils stand out.
Reduction of language and math delays
For purposes of the present study, we compared categories of pupils formed on the
basis of the criteria used to determine weighted pupil funding. Given that these
1995 1999 2003 2008
N-e
N-c
N-b
N-a
M-e
M-d
M-c
M-b
M-a
0.27
-0.23
-0.53
-0.85
-0.26
-0.68
-0.83
-1.01
-1.57
0.31
-0.19
-0.51
-0.70
-0.29
-0.61
-0.78
-0.98
-1.35
0.33
-0.14
-0.49
-0.65
-0.13
-0.47
-0.64
-0.83
-1.12
0.39
-0.24
-0.57
-0.72
0.01
-0.40
-0.45
-0.75
-0.76
-2.00
-1.50
-1.00
-0.50
0.00
0.50
Figure 2. Language skills of children in Grade 8 between 1995 and 2008 according to
social-ethnic background [effect sizes; reference category: Non-minority, maximum of senior
vocational education (N-d)].
284 G. Driessen and M.S. Merry
Downloaded
by
[Radboud
Universiteit
Nijmegen]
at
00:32
20
May
2014

10. criteria have changed on a number of occasions over the years, we adopted a highly
differentiated set of 10 categories. In Dutch educational disadvantage policy, certain
objectives are formulated in terms of a reduction in the delays of target group
pupils relative to non-target group pupils (MinOCW 2010). By the end of primary
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 reduc-
tion in Grade 8 for delays in the language skills of the disadvantaged groups of
pupils. The relative differences in the ES values 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 Table 2. The
changes for the entire target group (i.e. minority plus non-minority pupils) 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 1995 and 2008, on the one hand, and 2003 and 2008, on
the other hand, that is, the full period under study here and the most recent period
under study here, respectively.
Inspection of the upper part of Table 2 shows major reductions in the delays of
the total target group relative to the non-target group for the period 1995–2008. For
their language skills, the target group has gained 21% on the non-target group. For
their math skills, the gain (24%) is even larger than for their language skills. In the
period 2003–2008, 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 pupils, a much more differentiated picture presents
1995 1999 2003 2008
N-e
N-c
N-b
N-a
M-e
M-d
M-c
M-b
M-a
0.18
-0.17
-0.43
-0.63
-0.23
-0.51
-0.60
-0.81
-1.07
0.20
-0.10
-0.38
-0.57
-0.18
-0.59
-0.58
-0.72
-0.93
9
2
.
0
-0.04
-0.36
-0.63
-0.25
-0.49
-0.60
-0.73
-0.78
4
2
.
0
-0.12
-0.31
-0.52
-0.23
-0.56
-0.49
-0.64
-0.66
-1.20
-1.00
-0.80
-0.60
-0.40
-0.20
0.00
0.20
0.40
Figure 3. Math skills of children in Grade 2 between 1995 and 2008 according to social-
ethnic background [effect sizes; reference category: Non-minority, maximum of senior
vocational education (N-d)].
Educational Review 285
Downloaded
by
[Radboud
Universiteit
Nijmegen]
at
00:32
20
May
2014

11. itself. The minority target group has made major gains: a minimum of 40% for the
period 1995–2008 and more than 27% for the period 2003–2008. For the non-
minority target group, however, the developments are not nearly so favourable. In
the period 1995–2008, their language skills have either hardly improved or, worse
still, declined relative to the non-target group; in the period 2003–2008, a deteriora-
tion 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
1995–2008 and almost 20% gain in the period 2003–2008.
1995 1999 2003 2008
N-e
N-c
N-b
N-a
M-e
M-d
M-c
M-b
M-a
0.19
-0.16
-0.50
-0.81
-0.23
-0.52
-0.54
-0.73
-0.98
0.32
-0.17
-0.50
-0.72
-0.02
-0.34
-0.56
-0.76
-0.73
0.34
-0.18
-0.52
-0.74
0.07
-0.35
-0.40
-0.66
-0.69
0.35
-0.16
-0.42
-0.48
0.13
-0.32
-0.25
-0.56
-0.44
-1.20
-1.00
-0.80
-0.60
-0.40
-0.20
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
Figure 4. Math skills of children in Grade 8 between 1995 and 2008 according to social-
ethnic background [effect sizes; reference category: non-minority, maximum of senior
vocational education (N-d)].
Table 2. Differences in the Grade 8 language and math skills of target versus non-target
group pupils in 1995, 2003, and 2008 (effect sizes), reduction of delays between 1995 and
2008, and reduction of delays between 2003 and 2008 (in %).
Categories 1995 2003 2008 1995–2008 2003–2008
Total target versus 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 versus non-target
Language skill –0.50 –0.47 –0.53 –6% –13%
Math skill –0.49 –0.55 –0.45 8% 18%
Minority target versus non-target
Language skill –1.24 –0.96 –0.67 46% 30%
Math skill –0.82 –0.67 –0.49 40% 27%
286 G. Driessen and M.S. Merry
Downloaded
by
[Radboud
Universiteit
Nijmegen]
at
00:32
20
May
2014

12. Conclusions and discussion
Conclusions
Throughout the period we have examined, the position of the children’s language
skills in Grade 2 remain virtually unchanged. In Grade 8, however, the minority tar-
get group pupils showed 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 primary school, we examined the extent to which
the delays of the target groups were reduced. This indeed happened in both the
periods 1995–2008 and 2003–2008. 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 1995–
2008 and more than 25% in the period 2003–2008. However, the development of
the non-minority target group is less inspiring. In the period 1995–2008, very little
progress and even a slight decline in the group’s language skills was observed. In
the period 2003–2008, there is an almost 15% decline. With respect to the group’s
math skills, positive gains can be seen: almost 10% for the period 1995–2008 and
almost 20% for the period 2003–2008.
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 (Mulder et al. 2005; van Langen and Suhre 2001; Vogels and
Bronnemans-Helmers 2003). In short, the conclusion is that large differences exist
between disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged pupils at the start of primary school.
Minority target group pupils have a substantial language development delay. In the
last year of primary school, this delay has diminished somewhat but it is still sub-
stantial. The delays of the minority target group pupils declined over the years and
in the period 1995–2008 by more than 40%. Part of the non-minority target group
pupils also made gains, but these are less than those observed for the minority
target group pupils. Moreover, for the period 2003–2008, the relative position of
the non-minority target group pupils with regard to their language skills can be
seen to deteriorate.
Discussion
Motivated by equal educational opportunity, for decades now the Netherlands has
been a trend setter in attempting to counter the negative effects of poverty and other
types of disadvantage on educational attainment. There has been some success,
though only partly owing to the complexity of variables bearing upon pupil disad-
vantage, this success has been rather modest. Various explanations can be offered
for the gains made by minority target group pupils. To start with, there is the fact
that the length of residence in the Netherlands for minority pupils 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 their children (Driessen and
Merry 2011; Van Tubergen and Kalmijn 2009). Second, minority parents from later
generations also tend to be more educated than minority parents from earlier gener-
ations. They can thus be expected to have greater “cultural capital” at their disposal,
Educational Review 287
Downloaded
by
[Radboud
Universiteit
Nijmegen]
at
00:32
20
May
2014

13. be better acquainted with Dutch society, and be able to give their children more
support with respect to school matters than first-generation immigrant parents (Crul
2009). Third, it is also the case that teachers have gained more experience in inter-
acting with minority pupils and have learned to better adapt their teaching to the
specific situations of these pupils. Teachers also may have raised their expectations
for disadvantaged pupils over the years (Van den Bergh et al. 2010). Fourth, part of
the explanation may also be found in the effects of educational disadvantage policy
itself, but convincing evidence for this is still lacking. Particularly those pro-
grammes utilised within the framework of Pre-school and Early Childhood Educa-
tion, and especially those aimed at improving the language skills of minority target
group pupils, presumably play a role.
It remains very much the question whether the positive developments observed
over the years for minority target group pupils will continue in the coming years.
The changes made in weighted pupil funding in 2006 have done away with the eth-
nic component of the equation. With respect to 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 that matters now is the level of parental education. Recent analy-
ses show that for nearly 10% of the schools this has resulted in a substantial
decrease in extra funding, especially for schools with many minority pupils in the
larger cities (Claassen and Mulder 2011). 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 pupils, the develop-
ment of the non-minority target group pupils proceeds less successfully and one can
even speak of a relative decline. It is also regularly asked by policy experts whether
all of the policy attention for minority target group pupils does not occur at the
expense of attention to non-minority – native Dutch – target group pupils. For
Vogels and Bronnemans-Helmers (2003), this is a reason to refer to the latter as the
“forgotten group.” These authors offer some other possible explanations for the rel-
ative decline in the school achievement of non-minority disadvantaged pupils,
although it should be noted that it would be very difficult to test their claims empir-
ically.
Nevertheless, one rather controversial explanation might be that there is an
under-utilisation or insufficient use of the talents and potential of minority pupils
due to their immigrant histories while the reservoir of unused or potential talent
among non-minority disadvantaged pupils is simply more limited to begin with.
According to this explanation, the previously unused talent among non-minority dis-
advantaged pupils has now been used to its full extent: thus 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 stark contrast to the high – but often unrealistic – level of ambition among
minority parents located in urban areas of the country (Driessen, Smit, and Klaassen
2011). But even if these explanations are plausible, they cannot explain everything.
Research shows a large variation in the achievement levels of rural pupils
depending on location: while they invariably perform poorly in the northern prov-
inces (Friesland, Groningen, Drenthe) they do comparably well in the southern
province of Limburg. 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
288 G. Driessen and M.S. Merry
Downloaded
by
[Radboud
Universiteit
Nijmegen]
at
00:32
20
May
2014

14. marked and one can even speak of a positive effect of speaking the dialect in the
province of Limburg. According to the Dutch Education Inspectorate (Inspectie van
het Onderwijs 2001), the achievement differences between the northern and south-
ern 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. In addition to this, there is often little opportunity
to provide sufficient extra attention, such as remedial teaching and pupil guidance,
for those pupils who need it in such small schools. But it is precisely in these
schools that more remediation is needed because there are also fewer opportunities
for special education and thus chances for referral.
A final explanation offered by Vogels and Bronnemans-Helmers (2003) is the
limited extra resources allocated to rural schools in terms of weighted pupil fund-
ing. In 2006, steps were taken to deal with this critique and extra resources were
made available for rural areas throughout 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 disadvan-
taged pupils without this happening at the expense of minority disadvantaged
pupils. Each of these explanations offers insight into the challenges one is con-
fronted with in attempting to compensate for disadvantage. Just as no single expla-
nation is adequate to understanding successes and failures, no single policy is
adequate to the solution. What the Dutch case also illustrates is that it also remains
an open question whether extra financial resources allocated to remediate disadvan-
tage can directly translate into higher academic achievement.
Note
1. Dutch primary schools serve 4- to 12-year-olds and consist of eight 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 primary school, Grade 8, the pupils move on to secondary school. Depend-
ing on their attainment levels, they continue in one of the following four tracks of second-
ary school: special needs education, pre-vocational education, senior general education, or
pre-university education (MinOCW 2007). For an overview, see Appendix 1.
References
Berliner, D. 2006. “Over Impoverished View of Educational Reform.” Teachers College
Record 108 (6): 949–995.
Bernstein, B. 1960. “Language and Social Class.” The British Journal of Sociology 11:
271–276.
Bourdieu, P. 1997. “The Forms of Capital.” In Education: Culture, Economy, and Society,
edited by A. Halsey, H. Lauder, P. Brown, and A. Wells, 40–58. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Claassen, A., and L. Mulder. 2011. Een afgewogen weging? De effecten van de gewijzigde
gewichtenregeling in het basisonderwijs. Nijmegen: ITS.
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, September 12–14.
Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Coleman, J. 1988. “Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital.” The American Journal
of Sociology 94: S95.
Educational Review 289
Downloaded
by
[Radboud
Universiteit
Nijmegen]
at
00:32
20
May
2014

15. Crul, M. 2009. “Educational Progress of Children of Turkish Descent in the Netherlands.”
International Journal of Multicultural Societies 11: 195–211.
Crul, M., and J. Holdaway. 2009. “Children of Immigrants in Schools in New York and
Amsterdam: The Factors Shaping Attainment.” Teachers College Record 111:
1476–1507.
Cummins, J. 1979. “Linguistic Interdependence and the Educational Development of
Bilingual Children.” Review of Educational Research 49: 222–251.
Dagevos, J., and M. Gijsberts, eds. 2009. Jaarrapport integratie 2009. WODC/SCO/CBS.
Den Haag: SCP.
Delpit, L. 2002. The Skin That We Speak: Thoughts on Language and Culture in the Class-
room. New York: The New Press.
Driessen, G. 2012. “Combating Ethnic Educational Disadvantage in the Netherlands. An
Analysis of Policies and Effects.” In The Politics of Education. Challenging Multicultur-
alism, edited by C. Kassimeris and M. Vryonides, 31–51. New York: Routledge.
Driessen, G., and M. Merry. 2011. “The Effects of the Integration and Generation of
Immigrants on Language and Numeracy Achievement.” Educational Studies 37:
581–592.
Driessen, G., F. Smit, and C. Klaassen. 2011. “Connecting Ethnic Minority Parents to
School. From Empirical Research to Practical Suggestions.” Journal of Education
Research 4: 9–20.
Driessen, G., L. Mulder, G. Ledoux, J. Roeleveld, and I. van der Veen. 2009. Cohortonder-
zoek COOL5-18
. Technisch rapport basisonderwijs, eerste meting 2007/08. Nijmegen:
ITS/Amsterdam: SCO-Kohnstamm Instituut.
Duncan, G., and R. Murnane. 2011. Whither Opportunity? Rising Inequality and the Uncer-
tain Life Chances of Low-income Children. New York: Russell Sage.
Glenn, C. 1996. Educating Immigrant Children: Schools and Language Minorities in Twelve
Nations. New York: Garland.
Heath, S. 2012. Words and Work and Play: Three Decades in Family and Community Life.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Jencks, C. 1988. “Whom Must We Treat Equally for Educational Opportunity To Be
Equal?” Ethics 98: 518–533.
Ladd, H. 2011. “Education and Poverty: Confronting the Evidence.” Duke Sanford School
of Public Policy Working Paper Series SAN11-01. http://sanford.duke.edu/research/
papers/SAN11-01.pdf
Ladd, H., and E. Fiske. 2009. The Dutch Experience with Weighted Pupil Funding: Some
Lessons for the U.S. Durham, NC: Duke University.
Lareau, A. 2003. Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race and Family Life. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
Ledoux, G., and A. Veen. 2009. Beleidsdoorlichting onderwijsachterstandenbeleid. Periode
2002–2008. Amsterdam: SCO-Kohnstamm Instituut.
Lucas, S. 1999. Tracking Inequality: Stratification and Mobility in American High Schools.
New York: Teachers College Press.
MinOCW. 2007. The Education System in the Netherlands 2007. Den Haag: Ministerie van
OCW.
MinOCW. 2010. 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., J. Roeleveld, I. van der Veen, and H. Vierke. 2005. Onderwijsachterstanden tus-
sen 1988 en 2002: Ontwikkelingen in basis- en voortgezet onderwijs. Nijmegen: ITS/
Amsterdam: SCO-Kohnstamm Instituut.
Olneck, M. 2009. “What Have Immigrants Wanted from American Schools? What Do They
Want Now? Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on Immigrants, Language and
American Schooling.” American Journal of Education 115: 379–406.
290 G. Driessen and M.S. Merry
Downloaded
by
[Radboud
Universiteit
Nijmegen]
at
00:32
20
May
2014

16. Roeleveld, J., G. Driessen, G. Ledoux, J. Cuppen, and J. Meijer. 2011. Doelgroepleerlingen
in het basisonderwijs. Historische ontwikkeling en actuele situatie. Amsterdam:
SCO-Kohnstamm Instituut/Nijmegen: ITS.
Rothstein, R. 2004. Class and Schools: Using Social, Economic and Educational Reform to
Close the Black-White Achievement Gap. New York: Teachers College Press.
Stevens, P., N. Clycq, C. Timmerman, and M. Van Houtte. 2011. “Researching Race/Ethnic-
ity and Educational Inequality in the Netherlands: A Critical Review of the Research
Literature between 1980 and 2008.” British Educational Research Journal 37: 5–43.
Teese, R., S. Lamb, and M. Duru-Bellat, eds. 2007a. International Studies in Educational
Inequality, Theory and Policy. Volume 1. Educational Inequality: Persistence and
Change. Dordrecht: Springer.
Teese, R., S. Lamb, and M. Duru-Bellat, eds. 2007b. International Studies in Educational
Inequality, Theory and Policy. Volume 2. Inequality in Education Systems. Dordrecht:
Springer.
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, CA, April 13–17.
Trueba, H. 1987. Success or Failure? Learning and the Language Minority Student. New
York: Newbury House.
Ure, J. 1980. “Bilingualism and Achievement in School.” Journal of Multilingual and
Multicultural Development 1: 253–260.
Ure, J. 1981. “Mother Tongue Education and Minority Languages: A Question of Values
and Costs.” Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 2: 303–308.
Van den Bergh, L., E. Denessen, L. Hornstra, M. Voeten, and R. Holland. 2010. “The
Implicit Prejudiced Attitudes of Teachers Relations to Teacher Expectations and the
Ethnic Achievement Gap.” American Educational Research Journal 47: 497–527.
Van Langen, A., and C. Suhre. 2001. Ontwikkelingen in de schoolloopbanen van achter-
standsleerlingen. 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.
Van Tubergen, F., and M. Kalmijn. 2009. “Language Proficiency and Usage among
Immigrants in the Netherlands: Incentives or Opportunities?” European Sociological
Review 25: 169–182.
Vasta, E. 2007. “From Ethnic Minorities to Ethnic Majority Policy: Multiculturalism and the
Shift to Assimilationism in the Netherlands.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 30: 713–740.
Vogels, R., and R. Bronnemans-Helmers. 2003. Autochtone achterstandsleerlingen: een
vergeten groep. Den Haag: SCP.
Walraven, G., and K. Broekhof, eds. 1998. An International Comparative Perspective on
Children and Youth at Risk. Leuven: Garant.
Educational Review 291
Downloaded
by
[Radboud
Universiteit
Nijmegen]
at
00:32
20
May
2014

17. Appendix 1. An overview of the Dutch education system
Primary 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
Special
primary
education
Special
secondary
education
Practical
training
(PRO)
292 G. Driessen and M.S. Merry
Downloaded
by
[Radboud
Universiteit
Nijmegen]
at
00:32
20
May
2014