Successful students from ethnic minorities in secondary education
their orientation towards and participation in Dutch society
I. van der Veen[*]
Paper presented at the Annual European Educational Research Association Conference, Ljubljana, September 1998
Abstract
Often, in studies about the school career of Turkish and Moroccan students, the factors that underlie their unsuccessful school-career have been studied, because mostly they perform less well than native Dutch students. However, a number of Turkish and Moroccan students in secondary school is successful. This paper focuses on Moroccan and Turkish students who attend a school of higher general secondary education or pre-university education. The level of school success is related to the orientation towards and participation in Dutch society of the students and their parents. Successful Turkish and Moroccan students had to be traced carefully because there are not many of them. Therefore data about the chool careers of over 5000 children has been used that was gathered to evaluate a policy of the Dutch government directed at favouring pupils with parents of a low socio-economic status. Turkish, Moroccan and native Dutch students have been selected who were successful in both primary and secondary school and students who were successful in primary school, but did not continue their success in secondary school. 100 students aged 17 and their parents have been interviewed. Results are discussed with regard to the following fields: the peer group, individual and the parents.
Suggested key terms
secondary education, adolescents, etnic minorities, academic success, cultural orientation, community-participation
1 Introduction
The literature devoted to the school career of Turkish and Moroccan students in Dutch society reports that these students do not perform as well as native Dutch students. Researchers often examined the factors that underlie this less successful school career. However, a number of Turkish and Moroccan students in secondary school are successful. This paper focuses on successful Moroccan and Turkish students: Moroccan and Turkish students who attend a school of higher general secondary education or pre-university education. The reasons for the success of these students will be investigated. The main focus will be on the level of participation in and orientation towards the Dutch society of the students and their families. A relationship between migrant parents’ orientation to Dutch society and their attitude towards the education of their children and their children’s school success has been found (Van der Hoek & Kret, 1992; Klatter-Folmer, 1996). For example, in an in-depth investigation of 21 Turkish children in the transitional period from primary to secondary school, Klatter-Folmer found that children with parents who were more oriented and adapted to the Dutch society on average had children with a higher level of education. The theoretical background will be discussed with regard to the following fields: At first the peer group and individual characteristics and secondly the parents. But before examining the literature, the minority groups in the Netherlands will be discussed in greater depth.
Ethnic minorities in the Netherlands
Since the sixties, several minority groups have settled in the Netherlands. Three main groups can be distinguished: at first groups from the former colonies, secondly guest workers and third asylum seekers and refugees. In 1996 2,6 million ethnic minorities lived in the Netherlands, that is about 17 percent of the total population (CBS 1997: pp 32 and 36). Groups from the former colonies are Moluccans, Surinamese and people from the Antilles and Aruba. Most of them have grown up with strong ties with the Dutch language and culture and already had the Dutch nationality in their country of origin. In 1996 this group existed of 376000 people. The guest workers, from Southern Europe, Morocco and Turkey, were encouraged to come to the Netherlands, because due to fast economic growth there was a lack of workmen for low and unskilled labour. Although most guest workers were planning to return to their country, a lot have stayed in the Netherlands. The Turks and Moroccans who have come since, have nearly all stayed. Because of the economic crisis at the beginning of the eighties, the social status of the migrants deteriorated. Many lost their job for good and newcomers had great difficulties finding a job. In 1996 272000 Turks and 225000 Moroccans lived in the Netherlands.
Ethnic minorities clearly attain a lower level of education than the native Dutch (Tesser & Veenman, 1997). Although the second-generation ethnic minorities are better educated than those of the first generation, they still are considerably less well educated than the native Dutch. Almost half of the second-generation Moroccan youth has left school without a diploma, almost a quarter of the second-generation Turkish youth and approximately 7 percent of the native Dutch youngsters. Relatively many Turkish youngsters go to a school for lower vocational or general secondary education. In 1996 90 percent of the children from ethnic minorities younger than 16 years old were of the second generation.
2 Theoretical background
The theoretical background will be discussed in two parts: At first subjects involving the peer group and individual characteristics and secondly subjects related to the parents.
2.1 The peer group and individual characteristics
In this paragraph cultural orientation, participation, ethnic identity, motivation and autonomy will be discussed with regard to the students themselves. The relationship with school success will be examined.
2.1.1 Cultural orientation
The relationship between the school success of students from ethnic minorities and their cultural orientation is rather ambiguous. A strong orientation of migrant students towards the Dutch society is not necessarily beneficial to school success. Rather, a strong orientation towards the culture of origin can be beneficial to school success. The successful young men in the investigation of Buijs (1993), for example, were more oriented towards the Islam than the less successful. At the same time they made an effort at school, so were adapting to the Dutch society. This corresponds to the most successful acculturation style of Berry (1992;1997), namely integration (see also 2.2.2).
The strength of the wish to remigrate is considered to be an indicator for cultural orientation. It is presumed that as the wish to remigrate is stronger, one is more oriented to the country of origin. But also in this case there is an ambiguous relationship with school success. A migrant student who wants to return to the country of origin may, for example work very hard at school, because he wants to be somebody in the country of origin. Another student who wants to return may not try hard, because a high education is not essential in the country of origin. The school career of minority students may be influenced negatively when the wish to remigrate of parents and children differ. Hofman (1993) found evidence of this.
The degree of contact with native Dutch or migrant peers has often been seen as another indicator for cultural orientation. This is not necessarily the case. For example, it has been found that successful students from ethnic minorities have more contacts with native Dutch peers than less successful students (e.g. Brassé, 1989; Merens & Veenman, 1992; Buijs, 1993). Probably this is the consequence, rather than the cause of the success. After all, relatively little students from ethnic minorities attend a school of higher general secondary education or pre-university education compared to native Dutch students. Contacts with peers at one’s leisure probably are a better indicator for cultural orientation than contacts with peers at school.
2.1.2 Ethnic identity
Ethnic identity has often been defined as ethnic self-definition, the ethnic group a person thinks he or she belongs to. Rumbaut (1994) investigated the ethnic identity of 5127 Caribbean, Asian and Latin American 14-15 year olds in the United States. He found large differences between and within ethnic groups. Among others relationships with gender, language and experiences with discrimination were found. Even when two people define themselves as members of the same ethnic group that does not have to mean the same. Timmerman (1995) compared Turkish girls attending elite schools with Turkish girls attending concentration schools. Both groups identified themselves as Turks. For the girls attending the concentration schools this was related to traditional Turkish culture including gender differences, while for the girls attending elite schools this implied gender equality.
When one defines oneself as for example Turkish, this does not mean that this is important to the individual. When one identifies with an ethnic group, this means that ethnic identity constitutes an important part of the self-concept. The social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986) assumes that group membership is motivated by a need for a positive self-esteem as a group member. Central to social identity theory is the distinction between the social and personal identity, two aspects of the self-concept. The theory posits that individuals strive to maintain both a positive personal and collective identity. To the extent that one’s social groups are valued and compare favourably with relevant comparison groups, one’s collective identity is positive. Because individuals strive to maintain a positive self-image one’s own group will be valued more positively than other groups. The evaluation of one’s ethnic identity is context-dependant (Verkuyten, 1988; Kinket & Verkuyten, 1997).
In American literature a relationship has been found between the ethnic group students identify with and their academic achievement. Ogbu (1993) differentiates between voluntary and involuntary minorities. Voluntary minorities are people who have moved more or less voluntarily to the United States. Involuntary minorities are people who were originally brought into the United States against their will, through slavery, conquest, colonisation or forced labour. African-Americans and Mexican-Americans involuntarily came to the United States. Involuntary minorities have the most difficulties with academic achievement. This stems from their responses to years of oppression: They have formed an oppositional cultural frame of reference, aimed against the dominant group. A cultural frame of reference refers to the correct or ideal way of behaving within a culture. The dominant group, European-Americans, value academic achievement. Voluntary minorities strive to participate in the cultural frame of reference of the dominant group without fear of losing their own culture.
According to Fordham (1988) racelessness, a denial of one’s ethnic identity, is the only way for African-Americans to be academically successful. In Hemmings’ (1996) view, African-American students all react in their own way to conflicts between how they want to be and how they are expected to be. According to her, this reaction is not necessarily racelessness. Matute-Bianchi (1986) compared 35 Mexican-descent students with 14 Japanese students. She distinguished between five categories of Mexican-descent students and found differences between Mexican-descent students in the extent to what they value education. Especially the Cholos and Chicanos resist certain features of the school culture, especially the behavioural and normative patterns required for scholastic achievement. The identity of the other groups was not threatened by attending school and high academic achievement. The Chicanos in Rumbaut’s (1994) investigation generally achieved less well and had lower occupational and educational ambitions. School-success could lead to identity problems.
In the European literature not much evidence for the relationship between ethnic self-identification and academic achievement has been found. Education in the own culture and language sometimes is thought to promote scholastic achievement. The strength of this relationship is subject to debate. In this paper the relationship between ethnic self-identification and academic achievement will be examined.
Migrants having doubts about what ethnic group they belong to have a chance to be less successful in school. Ledoux (1997) compared successful with non-successful native Dutch, Turkish, Moroccan and Surinam pupils in primary school with a low socio-economic status and found indications for this.
2.1.3 Motivation and autonomy
Holen en Verleye (1992) compared the motivation of migrants from Algeria, Greece, Italy, Morocco, Portugal, Spain, Tunisia and Turkey with that of Belgian students in secondary school. The migrants in their investigation felt much less responsible for achieved results than the Belgians. They attributed failure and success more to bad luck, luck or other persons. Students who feel more responsible for their own academic achievement, who think they are capable of performing a task, are more likely to persist at a task than students who think they are not capable of performing that task. Probably ethnic minority students with parents who are more oriented towards the dominant society feel more responsible for their achieved academic results.
It has been found that students who are independent have a better chance of achieving well at school than less independent students, because a certain degree of independence is expected at school. Some migrant students were forced to be independent, because they had to take care of a lot of things themselves because their parents could not help them due to among other things language problems. In other families, perhaps in the ones more oriented towards the Dutch society, autonomy is stimulated more.
2.2 Parents
The motivations for migrating and whether parents lived in the country or in a city in the country of origin affects the degree to which parents participate in and are oriented towards the Dutch society. A stronger orientation towards the Netherlands may be reflected in the child-rearing practices of the parents and in the degree they stimulate their children to do well at school.
2.2.1 Motivation for migrating
The degree of participation in the new society is, among others, likely to be affected by motivations for migrating (Berry, 1992). A distinction can be made between push- and pull-motivations. Those with a push-motivation, migrated because there were no prospects in the country of origin. Their motivation for migrating is, as it were, involuntary. Often, they remain oriented to the country of origin and make no effort to let their children succeed in the new country. Migrants with a pull-motivation chose to migrate to improve their socio-economic position. They want to succeed in the new country and are trying hard to accomplish that. Their motivation for migrating can be called voluntary.
Buijs (1993) studied the motivations for migrating of the parents of twenty Moroccan youngsters. He found a relationship with the boys’ school success. In five of the twenty families there was question of a pull-motivation and all five young men from these families were successful.
In a number of studies it has been noted that children with parents who lived in a rural area in the country of origin achieve less well at school than children with parents originating from a city (e.g. Pels, 1991; Dagevos & Veenman, 1992). Mostly the reason that is given, is that parents who lived in a city are more used to the modern society. Crul (1994) didn’t find this relationship for second-generation Moroccan and Turkish students. Often, families move from the country to a city in their country of origin (Pels, 1991; Buijs, 1993). Perhaps because they are preparing for their migration.
2.2.2 Acculturation
Acculturation refers to culture change in an individual who has developed in one cultural context and moves to another one (Berry, 1992; 1997). The individual has to deal with the issue of how to acculturate. Two issues must be considered by the individual: the value of maintaining one’s identity and characteristics and the value to maintain relationships with the larger society (Berry, 1992; 1997). Berry mentions four acculturation strategies resulting from the two issues: integration, assimilation, separation/segregation and marginalisation. From the point of view of non-dominant groups, an individual adapts to the new society by way of integration when he or she retains his or her cultural identity and at the same time participates in the dominant society. When individuals value holding on to their original culture while avoiding interaction with the dominant society, the separation strategy is defined. The assimilation strategy implies not wishing to maintain ones cultural identity while valuing participation in the larger society. Finally, the marginalisation strategy is defined when there is little interest in ones original cultural identity and when one avoids interaction with the dominant society. Berry (1997) reports that the integration strategy is usually the most successful, the marginalisation option the least and the assimilation and separation strategies are intermediate successful. The reasons for this are not clear according to Berry.