“I do not want my child to grow up
in an unrealistic bubble”
A qualitative study about the influence of neighborhood perceptions on school choice Master’s thesis in Sociology
Urban Sociology Track
Femke Goossens 10194010
femkegoossens93@gmail.com Supervisor: Yannis Tzaninis Second reader: Willem Boterman University of Amsterdam
Foreword
I would like to thank all involved in this research, including my thesis supervisor Yannis Tzaninis, second reader Willem Boterman and internship supervisors Lotje Cohen and Merel van der Wouden from Onderzoek, Informatie en Statistiek. Furthermore, I would like to thank all respondents and preschools who helped me gather my data; without them this thesis would not have been possible.
Abstract
This thesis consists of a qualitative study that assesses how the perception that parents have of the social environment of their neighborhood might influence their desired social environment of a primary school for their children. In-depth interviews with parents from neighborhoods the Baarsjes and the Indische Buurt in Amsterdam focused on the perception of parents of their neighborhoods and primary school and the mixing of children from different ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds in schools. The interview findings show that the perception of the parents influences the desired social environment of the school in such a way that they want the primary school of choice to connect with the neighborhood on different grounds. Especially social diversity and the availability of social networks from the neighborhood are elements that the respondents wanted to match with the neighborhood they are living in.
Table of contents
Foreword
Abstract
2
3
1. Introduction
5
2. Cultural capital, schools and neighborhoods
8
3. Methods and approach
20
4. Neighborhoods
24
5. School choice and diversity
34
6. Conclusion
44
7. Discussion
Summary
52
53
Bibliography
55
Annexes
57
1. Introduction
1.1. Research topic and relevance
Primary school choice can be a difficult and stressing task for parents in Amsterdam. Parents may want to apply for, in their perception, the best school possible. However, this is not always realistic. Some schools in more privileged neighborhoods may be difficult to enroll in because of their popularity, whereas other schools may struggle with a shortage of applications. Sometimes schools that are closest to the place where one lives are not the most desired schools, because they do not have the characteristics that parents are looking for. Dissatisfaction with a school is often related to the socioeconomic and ethnic characteristics of the student population (DMO 2003: 29). It is well known that primary schools in Amsterdam Zuid and Centrum are among the most popular and parents from other parts of the city may commute every morning to bring their child to school in these neighborhoods (OIS 2015: 11-13). However, not all parents have the resources and information to choose a highly desired school outside their neighborhood and might send their children to a school that is close to home instead (DMO 2003: 25). The difference between parents who search for schools outside the neighborhood and parents who choose schools near home, due to lack of information or interest, may result in segregated student populations on primary schools in terms of socioeconomic or ethnic background (OIS 2015: 11-13).
An interesting phenomenon are the parents who consciously choose to live in a neighborhood with different characteristics from the popular school areas, but end up enrolling their child in a school in popular areas nonetheless (Boterman 2013: 1135). Literature suggests that these parents, who usually live in gentrified multicultural areas, choose a school in areas that are not diverse in terms of origin, such as Amsterdam Zuid, where there is a majority of people with a native Dutch background. The parents perceive the otherwise attractive social diversity of the home neighborhood as threatening for the education of the child. According to them, socially diverse neighborhoods lead to socially diverse schools and some parents perceive social diversity as a cause for lower quality education and language deprivation. The most popular explanation behind this is that more attention may go out to the children with a non-native background, because they may have difficulty with learning the language, with the neglect of children from a native Dutch background as a result (Boterman 2013:
1130). Therefore, neighborhoods with schools with a majority of children from a native Dutch background seem to be a safer option to these parents because there may be fewer differences between the students.
A multitude of research has been done on neighborhoods and school choice by both governmental organizations, such as the municipality of Amsterdam (DMO 2003), and non-governmental research institutes (Kohnstamm Instituut 2002). Motives for school choice are a particularly popular field of research. On the one hand, research by the Kohnstamm Instituut shows that parents prefer schools that have a matching social environment with the home situation of the child (Kohnstamm Instituut 2002: 76). On the other hand, Boterman (2013) suggests that parents may choose a school with a different social environment than the neighborhood (Boterman 2013: 1130). This poses the question whether not only the own home environment, but also the neighborhood could be linked to the school choice, specifically on the grounds of the social environment of the desired schools. And if so, what do parents in gentrified multicultural areas think about choosing a school in completely different neighborhoods?
In this thesis I study this concept by focusing on the influence of neighborhood perceptions of parents and how these can influence their desired social environment for primary schools. I aim to contribute to the existing literature on the link between school choice and neighborhoods. The recent change in admission policy for primary schools in Amsterdam has made school choice a much-discussed topic within the municipality and with parents (OIS 2016). This research has the additional merit of providing much needed insight to policies on school choice.
1.2. Research question and sub questions
The research question for this thesis is: “How does the neighborhood perception of parents influence their opinions on the desired social environment of the primary school for their children?”
During the research, this question was studied with the following sub-questions: -‐ Which characteristics do parents use to describe their neighborhood?
-‐ To what extent would parents like the elements they used to describe their neighborhood to be present in the living environment for their child(ren)?
-‐ To what extent would parents like the elements they used to describe their neighborhood to be present in the primary school of choice for their child(ren)? -‐ What do parents from the neighborhoods the Baarsjes and Indische Buurt think
of schools with a mixed student population (concerning students from privileged and underprivileged backgrounds)?
In the second chapter, a theoretical framework will be presented to guide the reader through previous research on school choice and neighborhoods and to frame the research topic. Hereafter, the methods and research approach are discussed in chapter three. Finally, chapter four and five present the findings of the study and in chapter six the author tries to connect the research findings with the theoretical framework.
2. Cultural capital, schools and neighborhoods
In this chapter I elaborate on previous studies on cultural capital, school choice, neighborhoods and social diversity to introduce the topic of study to the reader.
2.1. Cultural capital and school choice among middleclass
Capital, elaborated on by Bourdieu (1984) in his article The Forms of Capital, is “accumulated labor […] which, when appropriated on a private, i.e., exclusive, basis by agents or groups of agents, enables them to appropriate social energy in the form of reified or living labor” (Bourdieu 1986: 15). Bourdieu distinguishes three forms of capital: social capital, financial capital and cultural capital. The latter is especially applicable in studies on school choice. Cultural capital consists of social resources that can be used to reproduce social class or create social mobility. Cultural capital exists in three different forms: the embodied state, the objectified state and the institutionalized state. An example for the embodied state could be found in a certain mindset or in personal values, an example of the institutionalized state can be found in educational achievement and an example of the objectified state could be found in cultural goods such as books, instruments and art (Bourdieu 1986: 17).
An interesting take on cultural capital and school choice can be found in the article It’s not just a question of taste: gentrification, the neighborhood, and cultural capital by Bridge (2006). The author explores the considerations middleclass inner-city dwellers make to retain and reproduce their cultural capital. For middleclass parents living in urban gentrified areas, cultural capital can be gained from multiple sources: institutional cultural capital can be reproduced via the educational system, embodied cultural capital can be reproduced by living in neighborhoods where middleclass values are not at risk and objectified cultural capital can be gained by living in valuable houses in gentrified areas that support middleclass consumption norms (also called the ‘gentrification aesthetic’) (Bridge 2006: 1967). Sometimes, a mismatch between housing and education realms can result in a tradeoff between objectified and institutionalized cultural capital (Bridge 2006: 1976). Parents may choose, on the one hand, to move to a different neighborhood with less prestigious housing because the primary schools there have better scores. On the other hand, parents may also choose to stay in their
gentrified neighborhood and compensate with institutionalized cultural capital by choosing a school in their own area that might have lower scores.
The above-mentioned literature serves as the theoretical foundation for my research. As Bridge’s article shows, many of the decisions people make can be traced back to cultural capital. The cultural capital theory also helps us understand that there might be a distinct difference between middleclass and lower-class parents when it comes to their desire to reproduce class via the educational system, as middleclass parents want to ensure their children will receive the right education to retain their class and lower-class parents appear less aspiring and tend to send their children to schools that are close by or where kids in the neighborhood are going to, which can also be lower quality schools (Kohnstamm Instituut 2002:79, 101).
The findings by Bridge could be enriched by the study of another national context. The school admission policy in Bristol is different than the one in Amsterdam. Parents in the United Kingdom are bound to schools in their own neighborhood, whereas parents in Amsterdam can also choose schools outside their neighborhood, even though they have a better chance at getting placed at a school close to their house (Gemeente Amsterdam 2016). This may make the tradeoff between objectified and institutionalized cultural capital less drastic in Amsterdam. I would like to contribute to this literature by exploring how parents in Amsterdam deal with a possible mismatch between the housing and education market in their neighborhood and connect this to cultural capital.
2.2. School and neighborhood choice
Several studies have been performed on school and neighborhood choice within and outside the Netherlands. Schoolkeuze in een multi-etnische samenleving by the Kohnstamm Instituut (2002) discusses primary school choice in Amsterdam. According
to this report, both parents with a native Dutch1 and a non-native Dutch2 background
see schools with a majority of students with a non-native Dutch background as an undesirable option for their own children. Most of the parents with a non-native Dutch background express a preference for mixed schools. However, most of the parents with a native Dutch background would prefer a school where the majority of students are
1
See Methods and Approach chapter on page 22.
2
also from a native Dutch background (Kohnstamm Instituut 2002: 65). Higher educated3 parents with a native Dutch background look for primary schools outside their own neighborhood more often than parents who are from a non-native Dutch background or have received lower education (Kohnstamm Instituut 2002: 74).
Parents decide on primary schools based on multiple factors. Parents with a native Dutch background primarily choose a school based on the ‘match’ between the school and home social environment (based on culture, ideology, socio-economic background, etc.). Parents with a non-native background most often base their decision on the quality of the school and its ability to differentiate attention between students (Kohnstamm Instituut 2002: 76).
Lower educated parents predominantly base their decision on the distance between home and school, the quality of the school and the ability of the school to divide attention between students. Higher educated parents primarily base their decision on the match between the school and home social environment (Kohnstamm Instituut 2002: 79).
Research on why parents do not choose certain schools reveals that both parents with a native and non-native Dutch background from all educational levels say that a ‘mismatch’ between the home and school social environments is the main reason they do not choose a certain school. Together with bad quality, the inability of a school to divide attention between students is regarded as a reason not to choose a certain school. (Kohnstamm Instituut 2002: 84).
The article by the Kohnstamm Instituut (2002) claims the main factor in school choice to be a match between the school and the home social environment. But when one looks at the article by Bridge (2006), it becomes evident that some middleclass parents will move out of their neighborhood to get their children on a school with the appropriate characteristics, such as good scores, to make sure that the school represents the social environment of their own home, by performing a certain cultural capital habitus. The home social environment mentioned in the findings by the Kohnstamm Instituut (2002)
3
‘Higher education’ refers to a completed hbo or university degree. This also includes master’s degrees, PhD’s and other university degrees.
could therefore be interpreted as the forms of cultural capital Bridge (2006) is addressing in his article.
Clark and Ledwith (2007) discuss neighborhood choice in their article How much does income matter in neighborhood choice? They explore how personal characteristics of people with a Hispanic background and people with a Caucasian background in Los Angeles influence their neighborhood choice. The authors found that income, education and race have a large influence on neighborhood choice (Clark & Ledwith 2007: 145). Not everyone moves houses as often. Mobility is highly influenced by age and family status. Whereas students move often, home owning families will not. In general, when people move they do so to acquire more space and better quality of housing (Clark & Ledwith 2007: 147). Income highly impacts the range of houses people can choose from (Clark & Ledwith 2007: 148).
People often choose for neighborhoods that house people of the same ethnicity. Segregation in multicultural cities between people with a Caucasian background and people with a minority background is mainly influenced by socio-economic status. With every increase in income and education both people with a Caucasian background and non-Caucasian backgrounds are more likely to choose a neighborhood with a majority of inhabitants with a Caucasian background (Clark & Ledwith 2007: 148).
The aforementioned studies give important background information that help understand my research better. Especially the finding by the Kohnstamm Instituut that states that parents search for a match between their own social environment and the school is very interesting for this thesis. This finding leads to the question if parents will also look for a match between the school social environment and the neighborhood social environment. However, as Clark and Ledwith state: income, education and race have a large influence on neighborhood choice. Therefore, people do not always have free choice on where to live. This could mean that parents do not necessarily live in a neighborhood that matches the home social environment. I would like to contribute to the literature by exploring how the neighborhood social environment matches that of the school of choice, whilst taking into consideration that not everyone can choose where they live.
The report by the Kohnstamm Instituut could be critiqued for its lack of looking into parents’ perceptions, aspirations and desires on the matter of school choice. It also does not specify how parents would like the composition of a student body to be when they are in favor of mixed schools. In order to find out why parents want a mixed school, it is important to know what they perceive as a mixed school. I would like to fill this gap in the literature by focusing on what parents perceive as a good mix.
The fact that the study by Clark and Ledwith is country-specific poses a problem for the translation to the situation in the Netherlands. This study focuses on a city in the United States, which has other housing rules and facilities than the Netherlands. In the Netherlands, people may get access to subsidized housing when their income is below a certain point. Some cities in the Netherlands deliberately create neighborhoods with a mix of subsidized housing and self-owned housing, which may cause people from different socio-economic backgrounds to live next to each other instead of separately as Clark and Ledwith stated. Still, the article can be an interesting contribution to the study because even though some neighborhoods have both social and owner-occupied housing, there are still differences between neighborhoods when it comes to the distribution of people with a native Dutch or a non-native Dutch background.
2.3. Contact, ethnocentrism and conflict
Within the field of social diversity research two well-known theories are the contact theory and the conflict theory. In Intergroup Contact Theory Pettigrew (1998) describes Allport’s (1954) intergroup contact hypothesis, where positive effects of intergroup contact occur, such as the reduction of prejudice, when there are four conditions present: equal group status within the situation; common goals; intergroup cooperation; and the support of authorities, custom, and law (Pettigrew 1998: 66).
The condition of equal group status states that it is important that both groups expect and perceive each other’s status as equal. The condition of common goals states that positive effects of intergroup contact require an active, goal oriented effort, such as the winning of a match in a sports team (Pettigrew 1998: 66). The condition of intergroup cooperation states that in order to attain common goals there must be an interdependent effort without intergroup competition. Finally, social sanctions and laws make intergroup contact more readily accepted and increase positive effects. Especially
support by military, business and religious authorities can establish norms of acceptance towards intergroup contact (Pettigrew 1998: 67).
Based on recent research on the intergroup contact hypothesis, Pettigrew suggests the addition of four processes that operate through intergroup contact and mediate attitude change: learning about the outgroup, changing behavior, generating affective ties, and in-group reappraisal (Pettigrew 1998: 70).
The process of learning about the outgroup suggests that negative views of the outgroup can be corrected when learning new things about them. This new information can improve the negative in-group attitudes and stereotypes towards the outgroup. On the other hand, ignorance about the outgroup can promote prejudice and negative attitudes (Pettigrew 1998: 71). The process of changing behavior suggests that the change of behavior towards an outgroup is often the precursor of a change of attitude. New situations require the adaptation to new expectations and behavior. If acceptance of the outgroup is included in these expectations, the change in behavior may produce attitude change as well (Pettigrew 1998: 71). The process of generating affective ties suggests that when intergroup contact arouses positive emotions, the effects of intergroup contact can be mediated. Especially intergroup friendships have a strong positive effect. On the other hand, when intergroup contact arouses negative emotions this can promote anxiety. Finally, the process of in-group reappraisal suggests that that new perspectives gained by intergroup contact can reshape the view of the in-group and outgroup (Pettigrew 1998: 72). In-group customs and norms may no longer be the only perspective on the social world and can be complimented by elements from the outgroup perspective. Pettigrew’s evaluation of Allport’s intergroup contact hypothesis shows that intergroup contact effects are influenced by both individual differences and societal norms (Pettigrew 1998: 80).
The evaluation on Allport’s intergroup contact hypothesis by Pettigrew shows an interesting perspective on social contact in multicultural societies. Pettigrew’s view suggests that people who have more contact with the outgroup and thus learn more about them than people who are not will experience more positive effects of intergroup contact and hold less prejudice against them. The drawback of this article lies in the lack of situational context. The author speaks of intergroup contact in general. It would be interesting to find out how the theories of Allport and Pettigrew play out in school choice
and how the neighborhood situation may differ from the situation at school in terms of intergroup contact.
In Social Identity, Intergroup Conflict, and Conflict Reduction Ashmore et al (2001) describe Sumner’s (1906) ethnocentrism theory as a characteristic of human social groups whereby the in-group contrasts itself from the outgroup. The in-group is perceived as superior and the center of everything, whereas the outgroup is criticized with reference to the in-group and perceived with antipathy (Sumner 1906 in Ashmore et al 2001: 18). According to Ashmore et al, characteristics of ethnocentrism include negative attitudes towards the outgroup and at the same time positive feelings about the in-group. When solidarity with the in-group increases, antipathy and hostility towards the outgroup may increase as well (Ashmore et al 2001: 18).
Sumner’s theory of ethnocentrism consists of four different propositions: the social categorization principle, the in-group positivity principle, the intergroup comparison principle, and the outgroup hostility principle. The social categorization principle states that human social groups can be divided into in-groups and outgroups. The in-group positivity principle states that members of the in-group perceive their group as positive and keep up positive and symbiotic relationships with other members of the in-group. The intergroup comparison principle states that in-group positivity is improved by comparing the in-group characteristics with characteristics of the outgroup and evaluating the in-group characteristics as superior. Finally, the outgroup hostility principle states that opposition, conflict and mutual disrespect characterize intergroup relationships between the in-group and the outgroup (Ashmore et al 2001: 19).
In An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict Tajfel and Turner (1979) state that realistic group conflict theory describes a situation in which the claim of different groups on access to scarce resources such as power, prestige or wealth promotes ethnocentrism and friction between these groups (Tajfel & Turner 1979: 37). The theory hypothesizes that an unequal distribution of these scarce resources may cause opposition between the dominant group and the groups that appear inferior to them. This can only happen when the latter groups dismiss the status quo of resource distribution and consensually accepted image as being the inferior group and build on a new positive group identity (Tajfel & Turner 1979: 38). The reaction of the dominant group on these transitions either include trying to maintain the existing distribution of
resources or attempts to create new differentiations between the groups that will affirm their position as dominant (Tajfel & Turner 1979: 38).
The articles by Ashmore et al (2001) and Tajfel and Turner (1979) both show the opposite side of intergroup relations as compared to the intergroup contact theory described by Pettigrew (1998). When the hypothesis of competition for resources with ethnocentrism and conflict as a result is applied to neighborhoods and school choice one could think of resources as scarce spaces on popular primary schools or the achievement of cultural capital. People can perceive the outgroup as threatening to securing a place at a popular primary school or attaining the right amount of cultural capital.
These articles are useful for finding explanations behind the hesitation parents may experience when having to interact with members of the outgroup. However, both articles are not fully convincing that people will feel threatened by members of the outgroup alone. When one looks at competition for primary school placement, it could be that parents feel competitive with not only members of the outgroup but also members of their in-group. I would like to elaborate on this theory by finding out if parents feel threatened by members of the outgroup only, or also by members of their in-group.
2.4. Social diversity
Social diversity in a neighborhood is something people may avoid or seek out. Blokland and Van Eijk (2010) discuss the difference between people who claim to prefer social diversity and people who do not in their article Do People Who Like Diversity Practice Diversity in Neighborhood Life? Neighborhood Use and the Social Networks of ‘Diversity-Seekers’ in a Mixed Neighborhood in the Netherlands. Furthermore, they try to uncover if people who claim to be attracted to diversity also contribute to this diversity by interacting with other social groups.
They suggest that when people live close to members of other ethnic groups or social classes this will not necessarily help overcome racial, ethnic and social class divisions in social networks. Moreover, neighborhoods with mixed income groups will not create social networks consisting of people with different incomes (Blokland & Van Eijk 2010: 315). The authors claim that people who are attracted to diversity do not in fact practice
social diversity in a different way than people who do not have such a preference (Blokland & Van Eijk 2010: 316).
A neighborhood where one lives may become part of one’s social identity and a way to distinguish oneself from others. In this way, living in a socially diverse neighborhood may contribute to the social image of a person and distinguish them from those who do not inhabit such a neighborhood (Blokland & Van Eijk 2010: 316). However, some diversity advocates do not engage with the social diversity in their surroundings, for example by choosing schools in other areas that are less socially diverse, which may result in exclusion (Blokland & Van Eijk 2010: 316-317). Middle class residents in socially diverse neighborhoods may celebrate the diverse nature of the area, but do not engage with it. Rather, they see the diversity of the neighborhood as something that can enrich their knowledge about other cultures. Residents of the working class and people of a different ethnic background are sometimes more seen as ‘study objects’ than people the middle class would like to engage with (Blokland & Van Eijk 2010: 317). Survey results show that diversity advocates made more use of local facilities, but did not show more engagement with local, social and political events than others in a diverse neighborhood (Blokland & Van Eijk 2010: 324). The authors conclude that “a desire for diversity does not affect the likelihood of having network diversity, in the neighborhood or elsewhere” (Blokland & Van Eijk 2010: 326).
Boterman (2013) continues to speak about this topic in Dealing with Diversity: Middle-class Family Households and the Issue of ‘Black’ and ‘White’ Schools in Amsterdam by stating that diversity may be a favorable characteristic of a neighborhood for some middleclass city-dwellers, but is perceived as a threat once they decide to get children (Boterman 2013: 1130). Respondents in this study made clear that diversity in different settings is not always appreciated in the same way. Some immigrant groups are perceived more negatively than others and are associated with conflict. Furthermore, diversity regarding the city in general was seen as something positive, while diversity regarding settings that involve children, such as daycares and preschools, was seen as something undesirable (Boterman 2013: 1136-1137).
The educational system is of great importance in maintaining one’s own class and keeping the class differences in place (Boterman 2013: 1132). Therefore, to reproduce one’s own social status, most middleclass parents greatly prioritize high-quality
schooling (Boterman 2013: 1132). Some middleclass parents fear that the diversity of multicultural inner-city neighborhoods may expose their children to low-quality education, wrong types of socialization and victimization (Boterman 2013: 1131).
According to the author, the threat perceived by middleclass parents in diverse urban settings is often related to the socio-economic and ethnic diversity of the schools. This can be explained by arguing that middleclass people may associate ethnic diversity with economic disadvantage, while native Dutch ethnicity is associated with social and economic benefit (Boterman 2013: 1133).
Middleclass parents often look for a match between home and school regarding their cultural capital, which for them is mediated by ethnicity, values, rules and educational approach. Higher educated parents may intend to send their children to ethnically diverse schools more often than lower educated parents, but frequently end up not doing so (Boterman 2013: 1135). Some of the respondents expressed that too many students of a minority background in a school could result in their own children feeling left out. Another concern of the respondents was a possible negative effect on the development of language skills (Boterman 2013: 1140).
These articles discuss the issue of diversity and how different people react to it and can be connected to Bourdieu’s The Forms of Capital (1984). They show that parents struggle with practicing diversity whilst still having to maintain optimal conditions for the transfer of cultural capital to their children. Often, the focus will be on the transfer of cultural capital and not on practicing diversity.
It is especially interesting for my research that both studies confirm that so-called diversity advocates may not always value diversity in the same way as they are saying. This is something that has to be addressed critically when conducting the research because it may lead to socially desirable answers. I aim to find if the respondents are generally in favor of diversity or if they only allow it in settings that will not involve their child.
2.5. Desegregation
One of the governmental responses to school segregation is the introduction of desegregation projects. There are many options for desegregation projects. One of
these options is called Controlled Choice. In the report Evenwicht in West, Bowen Paulle (2008) reports on the possible implementation of controlled choice in Amsterdam. Controlled Choice is a type of desegregation project focused on mixing children from different socio-economic backgrounds on schools. In the report, the author claims that schools with a majority of children from underprivileged backgrounds will result in poor educational achievement for the whole student body (Paulle 2008: 9, 12). In this case, segregation based on socio-economic background shows a greater negative effect than segregation based on ethnicity (Paulle 2008: 9).
Desegregation projects in the United States have shown that schools with 60 to 70% children from privileged backgrounds can successfully integrate 30 to 40% children from underprivileged backgrounds without any significant negative effects on educational achievement, resulting in a positive effect on educational achievement for the underprivileged children (Paulle 2008: 4). Controlled Choice distinguishes itself from other desegregation projects by creating a network of schools with rules concerning the rates of privileged and underprivileged students. Collaboration between parents and schools is very important.
Amsterdam has been experiencing a flight of native Dutch or privileged parents from neighborhoods with mostly schools with a majority of non-native Dutch children to privileged neighborhoods like Amsterdam Zuid and Centrum (Paulle 2008: 36-39). Controlled Choice may be able to reduce this, although not all neighborhoods meet the requirements. According to the author, Controlled Choice could be implemented in neighborhoods in Amsterdam with the optimal combination of middle-class and lower-class parents. Oud-West would be the preferred neighborhood to start a Controlled Choice pilot. However, since this research was performed in 2008, the situation could have changed.
The report mentioned above gives a clear overview of controlled choice and which areas in Amsterdam would be best suited as a pilot area. The details about how desegregation projects work and their supposed effects are helpful for this research, especially in answering the sub-question about desegregation on schools. However, the drawback of this research is its one-sided view on the subject. The author does not critically analyze the idea of desegregation and takes its effects for granted. Within the study there is an absence of robust proof that such desegregation projects may work in
the Netherlands. Furthermore, the research on the perspective of the parents was incomplete. In my study I attempt to be more critical regarding this concept and give voice to the parents themselves regarding their perspectives on such desegregation projects.
3. Methods and approach
In this chapter I elaborate on the research methods and approach used for this study. I will also operationalize the main concept used in this thesis.
3.1. Research area selection
The data used for this research was mainly collected from the neighborhoods the Baarsjes in the western district of Amsterdam and the Indische Buurt in the eastern district of the same city. These two areas were chosen because they are comparable in terms of socioeconomic status and the distribution of inhabitants with a native Dutch or a non-native Dutch background (Gebiedsanalyse Oud-West/De Baarsjes 2016) (Gebiedsanalyse Oostelijk Havengebied/Indische Buurt 2016).
To answer questions about mixed schools it was important that the social diversity of the neighborhood was evenly distributed among socioeconomic background and ethnicity in order to make the concept of mixed schooling resonate with the respondents. A neighborhood with a majority of inhabitants from one particular background would not work in this scenario because mixed schooling would not be able to take place in such a neighborhood. Based on findings by Onderzoek, Informatie & Statistiek both the Baarsjes and the Indische Buurt have schools that are not as diverse as the neighborhood population because parents either go out of the neighborhood to find a school or parents from other neighborhoods come to schools in these neighborhoods, which makes the mixing of schools an interesting topic to research in both areas (OIS 2015: 11, 18). Furthermore, literature used for the theoretical framework of this study mainly focuses on socially diverse neighborhoods, which makes it interesting to compare both cases to assess whether there are overlapping results. It must be noted that the neighborhoods are not exactly the same. Whereas the distribution of lower educated people with low income is similar in both neighborhoods, the Indische Buurt has a higher percentage of inhabitants from a non-Western background than the Baarsjes. However, the Indische Buurt is still a mixed neighborhood in the sense that there is not one group of a specific ethnic background that is the clear majority (Gebiedsanalyse Oud-West/De Baarsjes 2016) (Gebiedsanalyse Oostelijk Havengebied/Indische Buurt 2016).
3.2. Data gathering and interview sample
The respondents used for this research are all parents who have either enrolled their child in a primary school for the coming year or have a child that already goes to primary school. Most of the respondents had a child that had just started at a primary school. Most of the respondents have been found via a survey about the new admission policy for primary schools in Amsterdam that was done by the municipality a year prior. These respondents already signed up for follow-up research on primary school choice in Amsterdam last year and were then selected by neighborhood. The rest of the respondents have been contacted via their preschool in one of researched neighborhoods or through the author’s internship at the municipality. The total respondent sample consists of 16 parents, with whom a total of 15 in-depth interviews have been done of approximately 60 minutes.
Location Higher educated Lower educated Native Dutch
background Non-native Dutch background Total De Baarsjes 7 1 6 2 8 Indische Buurt 4 2 4 2 6 Other 1 1 1 1 2 Total 12 4 11 5 16
Table 1: Respondent characteristics.
Table 1 shows that among the 16 respondents, 12 of them had achieved higher education and five were from a non-native Dutch background. In total, eight respondents lived in the Baarsjes, while six respondents lived in the Indische Buurt. The two remaining respondents lived in other neighborhoods. Other preschools and survey respondents were also approached for cooperation but did not respond.
Via data from Onderzoek, Informatie & Statistiek the socioeconomic status of the schools that were mentioned by the respondents during the interviews could be analyzed. None of the schools were classified as predominantly low socioeconomic status or predominantly high socioeconomic status schools. All schools are part of the middle group in which higher and lower socioeconomic status groups are mixed (Gemeente Amsterdam 2013). However, it should be noted that not all schools mentioned by the respondents have the same distribution of socioeconomic status, which fluctuates between schools. Furthermore, the socioeconomic status of the schools may have changed in the meantime because more recent data about the
socioeconomic status of primary schools in Amsterdam is not available. The names of the schools will not be mentioned to assure anonymity of the respondents.
3.3. Data analysis
The interviews were transcribed and later coded with MAXQDA. The coding system relied on both the questionnaire and research sub-questions. The coding consisted out of two larger coding trees, one for neighborhood characteristics and one for school characteristics. Separate coding trees were made for ‘mixed schooling’ and the school choice process. After the coding, each sub-question was analyzed per separate interview by looking at the codes. After which all the interviews were compared to each other to get to the overall results for each sub-question.
3.4. Operationalization
Native Dutch background
This term is used to describe persons whose parents and grandparents are native to the Netherlands. This means people whose parents and grandparents were born in the Netherlands. In this case, people with a Surinamese-Dutch or Indonesian-Dutch background are not native Dutch because their parents or grandparents are originally not from the Netherlands, even though they may have lived here for a long time.
Non-native Dutch background
This term is used to describe persons whose parents or grandparents are not native to the Netherlands. This means people whose parents or grandparents are originally from a different country than the Netherlands. In this case, this also includes people with parents or grandparents who are originally from Indonesia or the Dutch Antilles, even though they may have lived in the Netherlands for a long time.
Neighborhood
During the interviews a questionnaire and a map of Amsterdam were used. Aided by the map, the interviewer asked the respondents to define their neighborhood by drawing a circle. This was done to gain more insight and understanding in the neighborhood perception of the respondents and the location of the school of choice within the neighborhood and its relation to the location of the home. However, because the
operationalization of neighborhood depends on the respondent, this concept cannot be generalized and must be treated as something fluid.
Social diversity
This term is used to describe a heterogeneous composition of people from different ethnic backgrounds, educational level, ideology, gender, sexual preference and age. During the interviews the understanding of social diversity varied between respondents, therefore it should be taken into account that answers may vary as well.
Social environment
This term is used to describe the social composition in a specific area regarding the ethnic background, educational level, income, values and norms of people.
Mixed neighborhood
This term is used to describe neighborhoods whose population is socially diverse in terms of socioeconomic status and ethnic background. These neighborhood populations typically consist of people from both native Dutch and non-native Dutch backgrounds and people from higher and lower socio-economic status. Additionally, these neighborhoods do not have one particular group in terms of socio-economic status or ethnic background that forms a dominant majority.
Mixed schools
This term is used to describe schools with a student body that is socially diverse in terms of socio-economic status and ethnic background. These student bodies typically consist of children from both native Dutch and non-native Dutch backgrounds and children from higher and lower socio-economic status. Additionally, there is an absence of one particular group within the school in terms of socioeconomic status or ethnic background that forms a dominant majority.
4. Neighborhoods
In this chapter the findings of the in-depth interviews are discussed. The chapter shows the results on the first two research questions regarding neighborhood characteristics and the upbringing of children. The results are divided into two sections, each representing a different research sub-question.
Depending on the quote, the neighborhood location, educational level and ethnic background are described. Quotes that may hold sensitive wording or information are not referenced with neighborhood location to protect the respondent.
4. 1. Results
1. Which characteristics do parents use to describe their neighborhood?
During the interviews respondents were asked to give a general description of their neighborhood and were then later on asked to elaborate on topics such as social contact, appearance of the neighborhood, safety and diversity. The point of asking first for a general description was to see if parents considered some elements more important or conspicuous than others.
A changing neighborhood
Both respondents from the Baarsjes and the Indische Buurt often described their neighborhood as changing. This change mostly included a change in population from mainly non-native Dutch to a mix between non-native Dutch and native Dutch. According to some respondents the highly educated native Dutch citizens are starting to become a majority in this mix, whereas people with a Moroccan or Turkish background used to be the majority before this change. The respondents also mentioned that the increase of the native Dutch population was due to social housing being sold for high prices, which only richer people can afford. The change sometimes also included an increase in ‘nice’ and ‘hip’ facilities such as coffee shops and pop-up stores and a decrease in old cafes and Moroccan and Turkish shops.
“The past few years a lot has changed. There has been an increase of nice shops for example. And to put it this way, people used to say things like: “Oost? Well I would not
want to live there”. And the reason for that was because there were more non-native Dutch people here. It was a very multicultural neighborhood. And well, since a couple of years, especially after the neighborhood got more attention, more native Dutch people moved here. There are more students now; the neighborhood has increased in popularity. You can also notice that when looking at the selling prices for houses. All empty homes are sold within no time. There has been invested a lot in this neighborhood. I think that is very good” (lower educated respondent with a non-native Dutch background from the Indische Buurt).
Investment in the neighborhood was seen as a good thing by many of the respondents. As the respondent above describes, the change caused the neighborhood to become more popular for business owners. This led to the increase of facilities and the neighborhood becoming attractive for visitors and home owners.
The following respondent describes that the change and investment in the neighborhood also caused for a decrease in crime. Areas that were seen as unsafe before have been renovated and feel safer now.
“Well it used to be a deprived urban area and people would rather not get near the square. Because it was dangerous and there was a lot of crime. Well, that has decreased a lot over time. I think they invested a lot in the area. And they are still investing in the Jan Evertsenstraat. You notice that there are more nice places to go now. This coffee shop for example. This used to be a Dutch pub, a very shady place. I feel that everything is nicer and safer now” (lower educated respondent with a non-native Dutch background from the Baarsjes).
Most respondents from a native Dutch background said that they had mixed feelings about the change. On the one hand they said that it was pleasant that more people like them were moving to the neighborhood and that there was an increase in facilities they liked, but on the other hand they were also concerned about the change of the neighborhood ambiance. Some respondents from a native Dutch background were also concerned that the change of the neighborhood would start the rise of a higher educated native Dutch monoculture.
“Well, on the one hand it is fun and it is also advantageous for me because more of my friends are moving to this neighborhood. So that is fun. But on the other hand it is also a pity. Because it used to be… sometimes when I was sitting in the tram I got to talk to moms with a Turkish background and that is something that I also like. You used to talk more to people with a different background” (higher educated respondent with a native Dutch background from the Baarsjes).
The respondent mentioned above says that the changing neighborhood brings positive elements for her as a person, but the social contact she had with people from different backgrounds is now getting less. She experiences this as a disadvantage.
The following respondent explains that the mix between people from different socioeconomic and ethnic backgrounds makes the neighborhood exciting. When this mix of people gets out of balance and one group becomes the majority the excitement might go away.
“I think that this is the tipping point of a gentrifying neighborhood. It creates a dynamic between people without having one dominant group. Everyone co-exists in peace and that creates a pleasant dynamic in the neighborhood. This is also why it is so nice to live here. But you have to be careful that it does not carry on too far. You do not want a neighborhood with only highly educated people from a native Dutch background because that would be boring. We think that the diversity keeps the neighborhood exciting” (higher educated respondents with a native Dutch background from the Indische Buurt).
Some respondents also expressed worry about the change of the neighborhood population and how this could promote inequality between the different income groups.
“The neighborhood is getting whiter. There are more young highly educated people moving here and less people from a Moroccan or Turkish background. So that is something that really worries me. Where do all those people have to go? All the people who used to live here, I mean. I do not know the exact numbers, but I think that the people with less money, so the more vulnerable people, are getting pushed to the periphery of the city. And there arise some kind of ghettos where no yuppie would want to live. I think that is just not right. I mean, you want to mix, but this is getting out of
control” (higher educated respondent with a native Dutch background from the Indische Buurt).
Most respondents from a non-native Dutch background said that they liked the change. Some of them also felt that it would be good for their children to mingle more with children from a native Dutch background.
“I do not think it is good for a neighborhood to have only non-native Dutch inhabitants. It should be a mix between native Dutch and people with a Moroccan, Turkish or Surinamese background. I think that would be very, very good for the neighborhood. Especially for the children. So they will also get to know native Dutch people. And people from all other ethnic backgrounds. Not only people from a Moroccan, Turkish or Surinamese background” (lower educated respondent with a non-native Dutch background from the Indische Buurt).
The Baarsjes: different street, different identity
Especially in the Baarsjes neighborhood descriptions varied between streets. Some respondents talked about the Baarsjes as a whole, while others clearly made the distinction between their own street and the neighborhood altogether.
“If I really talk about my own neighborhood I would say it only consists out of these couple of streets. But if I look at the city as a whole, then my neighborhood would be bigger” (higher educated respondent with a native Dutch background de Baarsjes). Multiple respondents said that social diversity differs between streets because some streets predominantly exist of social housing and other streets have more owner-occupied homes.
“I think it differs between streets. In some streets there is a lot of poverty but in other streets there are people who earn a lot of money” (higher educated respondent with a native Dutch background from the Baarsjes).
Neighborhood ambiance and social contact
In both the Baarsjes and the Indische Buurt respondents said that their neighborhood felt cozy or ‘village-like’. They argued that it felt this way because people recognize each
other and local shop owners try to make conversation when the respondents went shopping. Some respondents thought that having children contributed to this village-like feeling because it made them more recognizable and approachable for other neighborhood inhabitants.
The following respondent mentioned that her neighborhood has a village-like ambiance and further explains this feeling to the interviewer.
“Well, that [the village-like feeling] is especially because of the local shop owners and also because of the people in the neighborhood whom you like. Everyone greets you and chats with you, and that has increased since our child was born because he talks to everyone. Before he was born it was also a bit like that. Especially with the shops that have been here for a while. Those shops really have that authentic thing of making conversation with customers. When you have been to a shop twice they [the shop owners] will recognize you, chat with you, greet you on the street and wave by the window. You feel very welcome when you are open for things like that” (higher educated respondent with a native Dutch background from the Indische Buurt).
The following respondent argues that children make it easier to get into contact with other people in the neighborhood they would normally not interact with.
“What I find very funny is that our children, especially our daughter, very often make contact with everyone. So all the old ladies from a Turkish background wave and smile at your daughter, even though normally you could not have a good conversation with them if you wanted to. Or when our daughter almost hit a man from a non-native Dutch background with her little bike. Then you make contact every time. And that is the funny thing about this street being a shopping street. Because of the children you have contact with other people all the time, either because they are annoyed or irritated or because they really like it. Children break the ice” (higher educated respondent with a native Dutch background from the Indische Buurt).
Most respondents said that the mix of different groups of people in the neighborhood contributed to a cozy neighborhood ambiance. However, not all respondents actively engaged with people from other groups. Some respondents said that different groups
did not necessarily have to mingle, it was more important that they tolerated each other and lived together peacefully.
Safety
In both neighborhoods the respondents claimed to feel very safe. Most of the respondents mentioned stories about shootings and gang-related crime. However, none of the respondents said that these happenings actively influenced their feeling of safety. The most common argument for this was that the respondents felt like the crime was targeted at a specific group they do not belong to and it was ‘part of the city’. Break-ins were mentioned very often. Most respondents claimed to feel annoyed by them, rather than unsafe.
“Well, I am not personally a target of the crime incidents. It does not happen in front of my doorstep. This sort of crime does not confront you every day and usually the ambiance in the neighborhood is nice and pleasant. When something happens you usually hear about it the next day. And these kind of things just happen in large cities” (higher educated respondent with a native Dutch background from the Baarsjes). Raw and exciting
The elements most often used in the general description included: a socially diverse neighborhood; an increase of yuppies; and a changing neighborhood. A remarkable element that multiple respondents used in their general description was that they saw the neighborhood as cozy or village-like but still a bit ‘raw’. When they were asked to elaborate on this most of the respondents said that the neighborhood felt safe and like home while still staying excited because sometimes there occurred incidents of crime, which they felt contributed to the urban feel of the neighborhood.
“It is very lively and things happen sometimes. It is also still a bit raw. Not like Oud-West where everything is regulated and nothing happens. There are things still happening on the streets here” (higher educated respondent with a native Dutch background from the Baarsjes).
The following respondent explains that the criminal incidents in the neighborhood contribute to some kind of image of the neighborhood. An image that shows the neighborhood is not yet clean and under control but still has an exciting spark to it.
“Sometimes the police evacuates shops. They will find a cannabis plantation inside or a stash of cocaine. Those kind of things happen sometimes. On the one hand I think that’s something I like. Because it shows that it’s not all clean” (higher educated respondent with a native Dutch background from the Baarsjes).
2. To what extent would parents like the elements they used to describe their neighborhood to be present in the living environment for their child(ren)?
During the interviews respondents were asked to describe their neighborhood and their opinion on these neighborhood characteristics. To analyze this sub-question respondent’s perceptions of neighborhood elements in regards to raising a child were used.
Entertainment and peers
The element that occurred in most interviews was that respondents seemed to attach great value to the entertainment options for children their neighborhood has to offer. Especially the presence of other children in the neighborhood was of importance. Other entertainment options such as playgrounds, gardens and parks were also mentioned. Multiple respondents said that they also considered it important that some of the other children in the neighborhood went to the same school as their children so they could walk to school together when they are older.
Some of the respondents also argued that it would be nice if their children could play with their schoolmates outside school. Therefore it was important to them that there were also children in the neighborhood who went to the same school as their child. The following respondent also uses this argument.
“But this was also important for our school choice. […] We went to visit a school that is further away, that was a really nice school but it used to be located in a neighborhood where only children from a different area can go to school, and it is still a bit like that. So then I thought that it would not be nice for my child if his friends lived in another neighborhood instead of only a couple of streets away. Now he is still a bit young but it would be nice if he could easily play together with his friends without parents. So that is important to me” (higher educated respondent with a native Dutch background from the Baarsjes).
Social diversity
Multiple respondents also mentioned that the diversity of the neighborhood was an important factor in the living environment of their child. A recurring argument was that they considered it important to raise their children in an environment that represented Amsterdam, the world or Dutch society. Another argument was that diversity promotes tolerance and openness towards others and by exposing children at a young age to diversity this could be realized.
The following respondent explains how, according to her, the people you get into contact with influence your world view and why she thinks it is important that these people also include those who are different from you.
“Well, that is what the world looks like. The world has become very close by. And that makes me think that it’s very important that other cultures and values are also present here. So you look at the world in a different way than only with your own point of view. I mean, when I was little I only came into contact with people who had the same values as I had. But that is not what reality looks like. That was only my own reality. And I think it is very important for the generation of my children to look at the world with an open mind. Especially now that the Internet has made the rest of the world so easily accessible” (higher educated respondent with a native Dutch background from the Baarsjes).
Some respondents with a non-native background also argued that they deemed it important that their children were raised in an environment that also included people from a native Dutch background because they thought it was necessary to show them that there were also people that did not have the same cultural background as them. The following respondent explicitly addresses this.
“I think it would be better for the neighborhood ambiance and the tolerance towards each other. Otherwise it would get too one-sided. For instance, if there are a lot of people from a Turkish or Moroccan background living here… That’s also the kind of background my children are growing up in at home, so they will only see one side of society. And I would like it if my children would see that there are many different kinds of people and that that is okay” (lower educated respondent with a non-native Dutch background from the Baarsjes).
Safety
Lastly, some respondents were concerned about the safety in their neighborhood. Especially busy traffic and the presence of drug users and “hangjongeren” or “loitering youths” in the playgrounds were topics respondents were concerned about. They would rather have the municipality close off the street for car traffic or suggested that police surveillance could fix the problem of nuisance in the playgrounds.
4.2. Summary
The research sub-questions discussed in this chapter gave insight in the perception parents have of their own neighborhood. The questions covered both the opinion of the parents with regard to their personal values and their opinion of the neighborhood when it comes to raising their children.
Change seemed to be one of the most emphasized topics when the respondents described their neighborhoods. Most descriptions of the change included the transition from a neighborhood with predominantly inhabitants from a non-native Dutch background, mostly social housing, few exciting shops and bars and unsafe criminalized areas to a neighborhood with a mix between inhabitants from a native Dutch and non-native Dutch background, more owner-occupied homes, “hip” shops and bars and a safer street scene. This transition was also the reason why some respondents deemed the neighborhood exciting. They valued the newer shops more and felt that the increase in diversity among the inhabitants created a nicer atmosphere. However, according to the respondents, a few elements of the old neighborhood were still present, which contributed to the urban character of the neighborhood. This was one of the reasons why they valued their neighborhood more than other neighborhoods that were in a further stage of gentrification, such as Oud-West or Westerpark.
Interestingly, when the respondents talked about the neighborhood in relation to the upbringing of their children they mentioned elements such as safety and the presence of peer groups in a context that was mainly focusing on the already transitioned neighborhood characteristics, as some respondents said that the change also brought an increase in young families with children and street safety. Whereas parents who talked about how they themselves appreciated the neighborhood mainly focused on the mix between old and gentrified elements. This means that there was a distinct
difference in how the parents appreciated the neighborhood in terms of personal values and the upbringing of their children.
Lastly, the presence of social diversity within the neighborhood was something that most respondents valued. The diversity was one of the reasons why they liked living in their neighborhood or they claimed it to be an important and necessary element in the upbringing of their children. Respondents said that it was not always necessary for different groups to mingle, as long as they lived together peacefully. The most important reason to advocate diversity was that they wanted their children to grow up in a neighborhood that represented the world, the Netherlands, or the city.
5. School choice and diversity
In this chapter the findings of the in-depth interviews are discussed. The chapter shows the results on the last two research questions regarding school choice and mixed schooling. The results are divided into two sections, each representing a different research sub-question.
5.1. Results
3. To what extent would parents like the elements they used to describe their neighborhood to be present in the primary school of choice for their child(ren)? After describing their neighborhood, the respondents were asked to describe the primary school they enrolled their child in. To better understand the relation between the living environment and primary school choice the neighborhood characteristics were compared to the school characteristics to see if there were any overlapping elements. The opinions and values of the respondent on both the school and the neighborhood characteristics were taken into account to see if they addressed importance to any of these elements.
Social contact
The analysis shows that the neighborhood elements that overlapped the most with respondents’ perception of the school are social contact and diversity. Most respondents who claim to have a lot of social contact in their neighborhood also perceive their schools as socially active and see this as something necessary or important. The most common argument for this was that social contact within the school could be convenient when the respondent was in need of someone to watch their child and it could improve the social life of the children. However, it should be noted that some respondents are still a bit new to the school and have not yet interacted with other parents so it may have been difficult for them to describe the social contact within the school.
Most of the parents who do not have much social contact in their neighborhood or who do not think it is necessary to have much social contact seem less interested in social contact within the school than parents who have much social contact within the neighborhood.
