Research questions of Chapter 5
Educational attainment is an important determinant for economic self-suffi ciency, social class and life-long earnings. The educational integration of ethnic minority groups is therefore a good indicator of the level of structural integration of these ethnic groups. This book’s core focus lies on the explanation of ethnic hostility. Ethnic hostility among ethnic minorities, which I regarded as an important aspect of their cultural integration, was the subject of Chapter 7. But by fi rst addressing my attention to the trends in, and explanations for, the educational integration of minorities, I offered a more complete picture of the integration of ethnic minorities in the Netherlands. Moreover, the results of both Chapters 5 and 6 served as a foundation for the argumentation laid out in Chapter 7.
Although previous research on ethnic stratifi cation patterns in the Dutch educational system reveals that the educational distribution of minority groups do not resemble that of the native Dutch, up to now the precise extent of ethnic inequality in educational opportunities and how these have changed over successive birth cohorts had remained unclear. The question I set out to answer in Chapter 5 was:
What are the birth cohort trends across ethnic groups in fi nal educational attainment and school transition decisions, and to what extent does social background explain these differences?
According to the modernisation proposition, in modern societies the economies and concomitant occupational structures dictate selection processes based on achieved characteristics of individuals (Blau & Duncan, 1967). In Western modern societies, selection criteria not based on achieved
characteristics are morally sanctioned; ascribed characteristics not only cannot, but also should
not play an important role in selection processes (Parsons, 1951). As the Netherlands is becoming
an ever-more meritocratic society with regard to the ascribed characteristics of social origin and gender, I also expected the ethnic inequality of educational opportunities to have decreased at all levels and for all tracks. On the other hand, comparative empirical research on educational inequality among social strata has shown that with respect to educational opportunities, meritocratisation is not a universal process among modernised countries (Breen & Jonsson, 2005). As argued by Raftery and Hout, and summarised in their Maximally Maintained Inequality (MMI) proposition, at times of educational expansion educational inequality will only decrease at educational levels where enrolment of the elite stratum has been saturated (1993). Based on the MMI proposition I expected inequality to be maintained between ethnic groups within secondary education, yet a reduction in ethnic inequality in the odds of enrolling in tertiary education between students of different ethnic origins who successfully completed higher general secondary education in the Netherlands. Once saturation has been reached at a given educational level, inequalities of attaining that level may be replaced by inequalities in enrolment in the more selective track, according to Lucas (2001). The more selective tracks in the Netherlands are the general tracks (as opposed to vocational tracks). This would imply that at the tertiary educational level, ethnic inequality will have decreased for the less selective vocational track and increased for the more selective general track.
Results of Chapter 5
Ethnic educational inequality did not decrease at all levels and all tracks. Ethnic differences in fi nal educational attainment are maintained; the underrepresentation of ethnic minority members with a degree in tertiary education remained more or less stable. Within secondary education, inequality is maintained quantitatively as well. Moreover, pupils of Dutch descent opt more often than immigrants to continue their educational career after higher general secondary education, and even under a condition approaching saturation pupils of ethnic minority groups do not seem able to close the gap in enrolment rates.
Based on my results, it seems that inequality is also established qualitatively within tertiary education: in recent years the choice for university gained in importance, apparently more so for native Dutch than for ethnic minority groups. However, due to a lack of statistical power I have to make the last conclusion with some caution. I urge others (and myself) to replicate this fi nding when suitable data becomes available.
The unfavourable social background of many students with an ethnic minority heritage partly explained the ethnic educational differentials, as predicted, but an ethnic penalty still remained after controlling for social position. Moreover, the social background composition of ethnic minority groups was not the reason for an absence of a general trend towards ethnic educational equality.
Conclusion of Chapter 5
were class-based and sex-based educational differentials have been diminishing, educational inequality is not generally declining between non-Western minority groups and the native Dutch. Clearly, we have to refute the hypotheses derived from the modernisation proposition; ethnic educational inequality did not decrease at all levels and all tracks. But is modernisation theory
wrong?4 Is a selection process based on ethnicity economically ineffi cient within educational
institutions? Not if it is harder to judge the achievements and potential of minorities and there are suffi cient other perfect (or suitable) candidates without an ethnic minority background for the same position to choose from. And are selection criteria based on ethnicity (morally) sanctioned, not only de jure but also de facto? These are questions that need to be addressed in the future.
In Chapter 5, I also showed that trends in ethnic educational inequality differ profoundly between ethnic groups. This illustrates the importance of a multi-ethnic group perspective. Based on my results it is not to be expected that inequality among second generation ethnic minorities and native Dutch will disappear at the secondary and tertiary educational levels for successive birth cohorts. Third generation ethnic minorities are now starting to attend school. Whether the third generation is going to perform better or worse than their second and fi rst generation counterparts remains to be seen. My results should temper the optimism of those who expect ethnic differences to dissolve for later generations or in due time.
Even under a condition of saturation, the ethnic inequality in transition rates from secondary education to tertiary education did not diminish. This is a puzzling fi nding and needs further research attention. The detailed description of patterns of association between attained educational level and ethnicity also showed that ethnic inequality and cohort trends in it take different forms across vocational and general educational tracks of the same level. In line with the Effectively Maintained Inequality proposition, inequality is established qualitatively within tertiary education.
Chapter 5 raised the question of how decisions of individual students contribute to the ethnic inequality observed. This question led to the study described in Chapter 6.