School Choice, Privileged Parents and Segregation in the Netherlands: A Review of the Literature
Surya Carrilho -10774491 University of Amsterdam
Bachelor thesis Educational Sciences Prof.dr.dhr.M.S. Merry
2 June 2017 Words: 11.460
Table of Contents Abstract………... 3 Introduction………... 4 Method………... 5 Theoretical framework……….. 5 Social capital………... 6 Habitus………... 6
Education as positional good………... 7
Out-group avoidance theory and ethnocentric theory………... 7
The Dutch context of free school choice and pillarization………... 8
Consumer mindset………. 10
Causes of school segregation……… 12
Residential segregation………... 12
Tracking children into different school types ……….. 12
School autonomy………... 13
Parents‟ preferences and school choice motives………..………. 14
Quality of education and pedagogical motives………... 14
„Match between home and school‟ versus „high academic standard‟………... 14
„Child-oriented approach‟ versus „school achievements‟………... 15
Search behavior of parents……… 16
Interaction with „nice and promising‟ children………... 17
Status concerns……….. 17
Privileged parents……….. 19
The moral dilemma of privileged parents………... 20
Beliefs and concerns about fairness and equal opportunity………... 20
The „right type‟ of diversity... 21
School options……….. 21
Anxieties……….………... 22
Privileged parents‟ school choice ………... 22
Avoiding the out-group………. 23
Policy interventions to counteract school segregation………... 24
Conclusion and discussion……… 26
Abstract
In the industrial world, the Netherlands scores among the highest on the school segregation index. The aim of this review of the literature is to examine both the causes of segregation and the role parents play in causing and maintaining school segregation. In political debates, the role of privileged parents in barely discussed. Therefore, special attention is paid to the role of privileged parents in maintaining segregation. Four causes of school segregation are
distinguished, namely: residential segregation, the Dutch system of tracking children into different school types, the selectivity of schools and parental motives for choosing a particular school. Further research is done on parental school choice. Qualitative and quantitative
research on parental school choice show contradictory results. This review confirms that parents are reluctant to admit the full scope of their motives when answering questionnaires, but that these motives become more apparent when qualitative methods are used. Privileged parents tend to choose a school which they believe to be the best for their child and most of the time that turns out to be a school dominated by parents „just like them‟ in terms of socioeconomic status and lifestyle. Additionally, privileged parents have the knowledge and resources to navigate the education system in ways beneficial to their interest.
School Choice and Segregation: A Review of the Literature
The Netherlands differs from most other industrialized countries with respect to its full public funding for all schools regardless of whether they are publicly or privately operated and with respect to the strong autonomy Dutch schools enjoy. This longstanding tradition of free school choice is still a basic constitutional right in the Netherlands. However, some concerns have risen, because freedom of choice often leads to segregation along group specific patters of choice. „Mixed schools‟ in terms of ethnicity, religion or social class are still an exception in the Netherlands, even in mixed neighborhoods. One third of the schools fails to reflect the population in the neighborhood and the proportion of school segregation in the Netherlands is one of the highest in the industrialized world (Karsten, Ledoux, Roeleveld, Felix, & Elshof, 2003; Merry & Karsten, 2011; Vedder, 2006). The high levels of school segregation and the longstanding traditions of free school choice are therefore interesting reasons for studying the Dutch situation.
There is a growing number of people who believe that school segregation should be counteracted, in order to increase the diversity within schools. One argument for a diverse school population is that those who grow up together and learn from each other when they are young, are bound to carry that sense of respect and cooperation with them throughout their lives. Schools are seen as a meeting place for children and parents of different nationalities, backgrounds and languages, because they have the opportunity to interact with each other and learn from each other. Despite the fact that many parents believe growing up in a diverse context would benefit their children, their school choice appears to contradict this belief. This contradiction is interesting to study, because when parents make their individual choices they inevitable lead to macro consequences in terms of school segregation (Peters &Walraven, 2011).
Parents differ in the extent of knowledge they have about the educational system and the amount of access to information they enjoy. The motives for applying to a particular school appear to be strongly related to the social class of the parents involved. According to Coleman (1988), parents with more social capital, who will be called „privileged parents‟ in this thesis, are better able to compare schools and get access to information about the schools they consider to be important. As a result, privileged parents could benefit more from the freedom of school choice than other parents.
Now while many people believe school segregation should be counteracted in order to increase the diversity within schools, exactly how school segregation should be counteracted remains unclear, especially when freedom of choice as a basic constitutional right is taken
into account. In this thesis, I am primarily concerned with the various causes of segregation and in particular the role of parental choice. Additionally, I will devote special attention to the case of „privileged parents‟ who express an interest in diversity yet whose school choices appear to contradict this. I will further explore a number of related questions, including: which motives do parents have when they choose a particular school? What are the
background characteristics of privileged parents? What are privileged parents concerns about fairness and equal opportunity and what kind of diversity do they consider to be important?
Firstly, a theoretical framework will be outlined in order to gain insight into important theories on segregation. Subsequently, the historical developments in the Netherlands
regarding school segregation are discussed. Then, several causes of school segregation will be discussed in order to gain insight into the mechanisms behind, and the complexity of, school segregation in the Netherlands. In the third section, parental motives and considerations for choosing a particular school are analyzed. Special attention is paid to the motives and considerations of privileged parents.
Method
For this thesis, primarily Dutch research focusing on the freedom of parental school choice is used. At times research outside of the Netherlands is used when this research provides an unique perspective on the Dutch situation at hand. Both theoretical, qualitative and quantitative literature is used in order to get a broader understanding of school
segregation in the Netherlands. Google Scholar is used for searching literature. The following search terms were used (including synonyms): school segregation, parents’ school choice,
habitus Bourdieu, social capital, education as positional good, out-group avoidance theory, ethnocentric theory, pillarization, article 23, residential segregation, privileged parents, school selections, Dutch education system, tracking, desegregation policies. In addition,
articles have been found through snowballing of the references. Lastly, my thesis supervisor recommended a number of articles and book readings.
Theoretical framework
As mentioned previously, this thesis pays special attention to the school choice of privileged parents. These parents have relative advantages in terms of resources and networks needed for their school choice. As a result, they are more likely to get their children into upper-middle-class or middle-class schools. The positional good perspective on education makes clear why parents search for „the best schools‟ and reject other schools. Moreover, the
out-group avoidance theory explains why privileged parents tend to choose a school which is dominated by parents „just like them‟.
Social capital
Bourdieu published in 1986 'The Forms of Capital‟. He wrote about the interaction of three sources of capital: economic, cultural and social. Bourdieu defined social capital as: „the aggregate of actual or potential resources linked to possession of a durable network of
essentially institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition.‟ (as cited in Dika & Singh, 2002, p.33).
Social capital exist of connections or social obligations and is in certain conditions convertible into economic capital. The volume of social capital depends on the size of the network of connections that one can mobilize and on the volume of economic and cultural capital possessed by each person to whom one is connected. In short, social capital is the social connection that allows the person to claim resources owned by the group of which one is a member and the quantity and quality of these resources (Dika & Singh, 2002). Social capital can be seen as access to existing or potential resources embedded in social
relationships and connections. In the case of school choice, resources can be information and experiences about particular schools. The quality of relationships determines how much of the potential access to resources can be realized. Social capital can be seen as a key mechanism in collecting information about school choice options. Besides the formal channel used by schools, such as brochures and websites, parents can use ties with other parents as a source of information and advice (Goldring & Phillips, 2008).This social capital gives privileged parents a relative advantage in terms of resources and networks needed for school choice. Habitus
According to Dumais (2012) many studies have ignored another crucial component of Bourdieu's theoretical model of practice: habitus. Bourdieu (1990) brings social groups and social classes in connection with the concept of habitus. The habitus is a collection of
socialized norms or tendencies that guide behavior and thinking and it influences the identity, actions and choices of the individual. Habitus should be defined broadly. It includes one's way of speaking, clothing, pronunciation, position, attitude and manners, etc. Habitus describes the way we know who we are and „our place‟ within the larger context. According to this theory, people with the same habitus are pulling towards each other, which explain why privileged parents choose more often for middle-class and upper-middle-class schools. Therefore, school segregation is broader than ethnic segregation and is much more about the students and parents manners, values, behavior, clothes and lifestyle.
Education as positional good
The overall quality of Dutch schools is good and Dutch students outperform their peers in many other developed countries on international tests such as PISA and TIMMS (Ladd, Fiske, & Ruijs, 2010). As mentioned previously, privileged parents have a relative advantage in terms of resources and networks needed for school choice. However, why do parents care which school their child attends?
The positional good perspective on education makes clear why parents search for „the best schools‟ and reject schools that are not good enough. The positional good perspective on education, argues that employers do not know very well which knowledge and skills
employees bring with them to the labor market, let alone how these competencies affect productivity. As a result, employers look for crude signals that are associated to groups of employees. Certain characteristics of groups of applicants form a signal towards the employee about the potential value of an employee. Education is an important characteristic: a college degree gives broad information about the plausible productivity of anyone holding such qualification. Employers use these qualifications to screen applicants (Van de Werfhorst, 2011). As a result, education can be seen as an instrument to jobs and money that goes with them. What matters is not how much education one has, or how good it is, but how good it is and how much one has relative to others with whom one is competing for jobs. Therefore, education can be seen as a zero-sum game: the better educated you are, the worse for me and vice versa (Swift, 2004).
Out-group avoidance theory and ethnocentric theory
The out-group avoidance theory and the ethnocentric theory both explain why privileged parents tend to choose a school which is dominated by parents „just like them‟. The out-group theory holds that individuals who identify themselves as belonging to higher status groups avoid places occupied by persons whom they perceive to be of lower status (Saportino, 2003). According to this theory, high status parents are afraid that low status students will have a negative impact on their children. As a consequence, high status parents attempt to maintain their superior social position and the social position of their children by avoiding schools occupied by groups of lower social class (Ladd et al., 2010). The more individuals perceive that members of an out-group lag behind their own group, the greater the objection to contact with that group (Bobo & Zubrinsky, 1996). According to the out-group avoidance theory, school segregation can be attributed to the school choice of high status groups. This theory has little to say about choice patterns among members of lower status
groups. Whereas the ethnocentric theory states that not only high status groups can attribute to school segregation.
The ethnocentric theory states that people of each social group prefer the company of people from their own group over contact with people from other groups. This theory can be applied to all kinds of groups. According to the ethnocentric theory, school choice will increase segregation because parents of all kinds of groups seek for educational environments where their children can be with students of similar backgrounds. In contrast to the out-group avoidance theory, it predicts that segregation will be driven as much by lower status or minority groups as by high status parents (Bifulco, Ladd, & Ross, 2009). For privileged parents, the school choice behavior associated with this motivation would be indistinguishable from that associated with the out-group avoidance motivation. Therefore, both theories
explain the high levels of school segregation.
The Dutch context of free school choice and pillarization
The Netherlands has a long history of school segregation. From around 1880 to 1970, public life was primarily divided along religious and ideological lines. This unique system of fragmentation in society is known as pillarization. There were four pillars: Catholic,
Protestant, Socialist and Liberal. The Socialist and Protestant pillars were largely the result of strong organization among Catholics and Protestants (Bakker, Denessen, Peters, & Walraven, 2011). Almost all sectors of life were organized within those pillars: sport and leisure,
newspapers, health, political parties and education. This model of voluntary segregation was seen as a uniquely Dutch and as a promising transition towards modernity.
During the second half of the nineteenth century, an increasing number of private Catholic and Protestant schools were set up. This was accompanied by growing pressure on the government to subsidize these private schools. The school dispute, as it was called, ended in 1917, when private and public schools were given equal state funding (Ritzen, Van
Dommelen, & Vijder, 1997). As a result, the Netherlands is in the unique situation of having fully funded religious schools and schools based on educational philosophies such as
Montessori, Dalton, Jenaplan and Steiner. These schools are called bijzonder (literally „particular‟ or special), but in this thesis I use the term private education, because these schools are equal funded but administered and governed by a private school board as an outcome of the school dispute (Ritzen et al., 1997).
Freedom of education is still a basic civic right in the Netherlands which is included in the 23rd article of the Dutch Constitution. This freedom allows fully state funded schools
based on their own system of beliefs to exist. The quality levels of public and private schools should be similar and guaranteed, but private schools enjoy more freedom in deciding their own didactic approaches, how attainment targets will be reached, which pupils to admit on the basis of religious adherence, cultivating a distinctive school climate and extra allowance for teachers (Merry & Karsten, 2011). Municipal governments have historically operated the public schools, but since 2006 the operating authority for public schools was turned over to independent boards, in order to make them more comparable to the privately operated schools and to preclude any temptation by municipalities to favor public schools (Ladd et al. 2010).
Even though Dutch society has slowly been depillarized in many respects during the last quarter of the 20th century, private education continues to be a dominant feature of the Dutch educational system and the market of religious education has remained almost constant, with a market share of 67% (Dronkers, 1995; Driessen & Merry, 2006). Nowadays, 33% of all primary schools are public schools, 30% are Catholic, 26% are Protestant and there are some schools of other religious denominations including Jewish, Islamic and Hindu schools. Besides religious schools, there are fully state funded schools based on educational
philosophies (8 percent) such as Montessori, Dalton, Jenaplan and Steiner. Parents can apply their children to a school of their choice (Driessen & Merry, 2006). Catholic and Protestant schools have an increasingly heterogeneous pupil population with a majority of pupils who do not have an active religious background (Donkers, 1995). The teachers of these schools have also become more and more diverse. For most schools, the Catholic or Protestant identity has become a trademark that can be used when necessary (Leeman, 2008).
However, since the influx of immigrants in the 1960s and the 1970s and the
establishment of Islamic and Hindu schools, the Dutch have become increasingly aware of how segregated their schools are, especially in the big cities (Ladd et al., 2010). Especially opponents of Islamic schools fear that these schools will lead to isolation and segregation and that no real justice is done to the Dutch norms and values. They argue that voluntary
separation within the educational system leads to permanent isolation and claim that some religious schools will not succeed in providing quality education, because the high
concentration of students with a low socioeconomic status. Moreover, terrorist incidents in the past decade have hardened attitudes against Islamic schools.
Meanwhile, others argue that voluntary separation may better facilitate and promote equality of education opportunity better than other available options for these groups. For instance, Merry and Driessen (2012), examined the reasons for the establishment of Hindu schools and they argue that these schools can assist children in being proud of their cultural
and religious background and securing a stronger identity can enable students to defend themselves against prejudice. These students have to learn first to be equal members of their „own‟ community and only then they can become an equal member within the broader society. In the past, the establishment of Catholic and Protestant schools turned out to be beneficial to the emancipation and integration of these groups. So, Islamic and Hindu schools may have the same integrating effect (Gramberg, 1998).
Summing up, since the influx of immigrants in the 1960s and 1970s, the Dutch have become increasingly aware of how segregated the schools are and the traditionally favored freedom of education is nowadays a subject of debate. There is a growing number of people and political parties who argue that the state should only fund the „common‟ public schools, with a neutral curriculum that is accessible to all (Merry &Karsten, 2011). In particular the idea of religious schools are subject of debate, with opponents arguing that these schools lead to permanent isolation and that no real justice is done to the Dutch norms and values.
However, the Dutch segregation debate tends to focus on ethnic and religious
segregation and the establishment of new religious schools. In contemporary research, there is little concern for the school choice of privileged parents and their influence on school
segregation and the existence of middle-class and upper-middle-class schools in the Netherlands.
Consumer mindset
According to Ladd et al. (2010) the secularization in the society permitted the development of a consumer mindset among parents who now make their school choice primarily on perceptions of educational quality or non-educational characteristics rather than simply on religion. Additionally, even though the Netherlands has slowly been depillarized in many respects, private education continues to be a dominant feature of the Dutch educational system. Therefore, the distribution of pupils over the schools with a specific religious
background is not as strict as it used to be. For example, students with a liberal background (former public school population) may attend private schools and religious students may attend schools of another religion or a public school (Peters &Walraven, 2011). This implies that parents have interpreted the freedom of education differently than previous generations. From an neo-liberal point of view, one may argue that the Dutch educational system has incorporated market mechanisms. In this quasi-market, the product to be sold is
education. Parents can be seen as consumers of this public good, with the freedom to choose a school they prefer. Schools are the suppliers of this public good. They have a large amount of autonomy to profile themselves. Proponents of the market mechanisms in education claim that
this results in higher quality, increased efficiency and effectiveness of schooling as a result of the increased competition among schools (Walford, 1996). Additionally, they argue that schools will become more responsive to parents, resulting in educational practice that better meets parental needs and preferences. This viewpoint assumes that poorly performing schools will drop in favor of better performing schools, because parents are willing to transfer their children to better performing schools (Denessen, Driessen & Sleegers, 2005). The positional good perspective on education makes clear why parents search for search for „the best schools‟ and reject schools which are not good enough.
Opponents of market mechanisms in education stress the danger of schools with increasingly unequal quality, unequal access to high quality schools and as a consequence, segregation (Waslander, Pater &Van der Weide, 2010). Herweijer and Vogels (2004) argue that market mechanisms in education can lead to increased school segregation, because the freedom of school choice allows that parents with the same considerations and beliefs find each other in their school choice. According to these authors, parents can make certain
considerations, which have little to do with the quality of education. They argue that profiling of schools can increase the level of segregation, because the profile of the schools will attract certain parents and will restrain other parents from enrolling their child. Moreover, freedom of school choice allows parents to choose or avoid schools with a certain composition.
Some scholars have questioned whether this neoliberal view on school choice holds true in practice. Waslander et al. (2010) found that the effects of market mechanisms in education are relatively small or absent. Their study showed that some schools do not want to grow, but rather may wish to utilize their market power by improving their status.
Additionally, schools often do not have the potential to grow, even if many parents wish their children to attend, because the local government is responsible for their school buildings. School choice is not a rational market process and parents and schools can also be seen as partners in education as opposed to simply being consumers and suppliers (Peters & Walraven).
Nevertheless, the dipillarization of the society has caused a change in the amount of options that parents have. Nowadays, parents are willing to consider schools that do not belong to their pillar. This willingness to consider the full range of options is what will be called a consumer mindset. However, these considerations are not always done through the rational market processes that are expected in the neoliberal perspective. Therefore, the neoliberal point of view on education has limited explanatory power in the case of school segregation. In the next section, several causes of school segregation are identified.
Causes of school segregation
While this thesis focuses on parental choice as a mechanism behind school segregation, there are several causes of school segregation that can be identified. In this section, these causes will be discussed in order to gain insight into the mechanisms behind, and the complexity of school segregation in the Netherlands.
Residential segregation
First, residential segregation is an important cause of school segregation, particularly in primary education. Due to the housing market, parents with more or less the same level of income often live in the same neighborhood, because parental income largely affects where families are able to live. As a result, children with low-income parents are more likely to go to school with low-income peers. So, school segregation is largely a result of wider residential segregation (Taylor & Gorad, 2001).
However, that school segregation is not only an issue of homogenous neighbourhoods is reflected by the fact that one third of the Dutch schools fails to reflect the population of their neighbourhood. In other words, housing policy is not the only cause of school segregation, because schools in mixed neighborhoods are not always „mixed‟ and „white schools‟ have more native Dutch parents than can be expected based on the composition of the neighborhood. Consequently, mixed neighborhoods are a necessary but not a sufficient condition for mixed schools (Peters & Walraven, 2011).
Tracking children into different school types
Residential segregation plays an important role in segregation in primary education, while the academic selectivity of the school system is more important when children go to secondary education. The Dutch educational system is characterized by an early selection of children into different school types. After primary education, at the age of twelve, children and their parents face an important transition. Advised by their primary schools, children have to select the type and level of secondary education (De Graaf, De Graaf, & Kraaykamp, 2000). Minority students, particularly children from former guest workers, colonial subjects, asylum seekers and refugees often get a lower school advice than white Dutch peers. Teachers with and without frequent contact with minority students, have lower secondary track
expectations of minority students. Moreover, they believe these students are more disruptive, more inattentive and less likely to complete homework than their white Dutch peers (Agirdag, Van Avermaet, & Van Houtte, 2013). Regardless of test scores, teachers disproportionately recommend minority student to vocational secondary tracks. As a consequence, two thirds of Moroccan, half or Turkish and one third of Surinamese and Antillean students are educated in
the lowest secondary tracks, compared to 20% of the Dutch students (Weiner, 2016).Whereas nearly 20% of the Dutch students pursue university, compared to 10% of Surinamese and Antillean and between 5% and 7% of Turkish and Moroccan students.
Additionally, this early and strong selection at the age of twelve made the growth of extremely selective secondary schools and tracks possible. For example, gymnasia schools are extremely segregated. In conclusion, the Dutch system of early tracking leads to increased levels of segregation in secondary school and further education (Van de Werfhorst & Van Tubergen, 2007).
School autonomy
As mentioned previously, the Dutch educational system is characterized by the strong autonomy of schools and especially the autonomy of private schools. While public schools must accept all children, private schools are able to limit the admissions to pupils whose parents match the particular identity of the school (Ladd et al., 2010). Most schools do not apply such criteria, but some school boards linked to small conservative church communities allow only children who are members of their community (Vedder, 2006).
Despite the fact that most schools do not apply such criteria, schools may still have a preference for a specific pupil population. Schools can try to influence their school population by profiling itself and by applying strict admission policies. For example, schools can profile themselves as multicultural schools with good language education for bilingual students or they can ask high parental contributions making their school less attractive for low income families (Leeman & Veendrick, 2002).
Karsten et al., (2003) found some examples of schools that tried to „keep out‟ particular groups of parents and children. Some schools asked for a very high parental fee, used waiting lists for certain groups, limited the number of second language learners or advised parents to go to another school „because they will probably feel more at home there.‟ These forms of „gatekeeping‟ were often practiced by white schools.
In conclusion, residential segregation is an important mechanism behind school segregation, but does not explain the amount of schools that fail to reflect the population of their neighborhood. An important cause of segregation in secondary education is the Dutch system of selecting children into different school types. Teachers often have lower
expectations of minority students and these students often get a lower school advice than their white Dutch peers. As a result, the Dutch system of early tracking leads to increased levels of segregation in secondary school. Thirdly, schools can try to influence their school population
by profiling itself and by handling strict admission policies. Parental school choice as a cause of school segregation is analyzed in the next section.
Parents’ preferences and school choice motives
As mentioned before, the Dutch government fully funds and supervises a school system with dozens of varieties. Most schools are open to everybody as long as one respects the character of the school. However, freedom of choice can lead to segregation along group specific patterns of choice, because parents have different motives in choosing a school. These motives and considerations for choosing a particular school are analyzed in the following paragraphs.
Quality of education and pedagogical motives
Denessen et al. (2005) examined patters of group-specific reasons for school choice. Their study is based on a questionnaire for parents. In total 11.362 parents filled in the questionnaire. The results show that the most important motives for choosing a particular school were the „quality of education‟, „the „school climate‟ and „the attention the school pays to each child.‟ The least important motives for choosing a particular school were that „there was no other school available‟, „the possibility to come into contact with other cultures‟ and „the other parents are our kind of people.‟ Therefore, school population characteristics seem to be less important reasons for parents‟ school choice
The researchers found that Protestant parents rated the denomination of the school as being more important than the parents from other religious groups. Muslim parents rated „the possibility to come into contact with other cultures‟ as a more important reason for school choice than other parents, while Protestant parents rated this reason least important. However, for each religious group, the quality of education remains the most important reason for school choice.
In conclusion, research of Denessen et al. (2005) showed that especially the quality of education and pedagogical reasons played a major role in parents‟ school choice. It is striking that Denessen et al. (2005) found no differences between parents with different levels of education and that non-educational characteristics of the school such as school composition, barely played a role in parents‟ school choice.
‘Match between home and school’ versus ‘high academic standard’
In contrast to the research of Denessen et al. (2005), Karsten et al. (2003) found some differences between educational background of parents and their motives for their school choice. Their results are based on data from 931 parents, who filled in a questionnaire about
their school choice. The research of Karsten et al. (2003) showed that white Dutch parents were more interested in a „match between home and school‟ and the pupil composition of schools than ethnic minority parents. Moreover, white Dutch parents and better educated parents looked more often for alternative schools outside their neighborhood and the higher their level of education, the more likely they were to consider a school outside the district.
Minority parents preferred a school with a good reputation and a high academic standard. The degree of differentiation, the academic standard of the school and the distance to the school were the most important motives for parents who had little schooling. These motives became less important as the level of education of the parents increased.
Additionally, the authors found that 40 percent of the parents visited multiple schools. White Dutch parents made more visits to schools than ethnic minority parents and high educated parents made more visits to schools than less educated parents.
The study of Karsten et al. (2003) also asked to explicitly evaluate schools that they had not chosen. The responses clearly showed that the non-white schools were often judged as unsuitable both by white Dutch parents and ethnic minority parents, whereas white schools were often judged to be suitable. When the parents were asked why they considered a particular school as unsuitable for their child, white Dutch parents gave a mismatch between home and school as the most important reason, followed by poor academic standards and the school‟s reputation. Lower educated parents gave curriculum and facilities as an important reason for not choosing a school. Among ethnic minority parents, the academic standard of the school, the reputation and insufficient differentiation played a more important role than among white Dutch parents. A mismatch between home and school played a significantly less important role for Turkish and Moroccan parents‟ school choice.
In conclusion, research of Karsten et al. (2003) showed that white Dutch parents are more interested in a match between home and school and the pupil composition of the schools. Whereas minority parents preferred schools with a good reputation and quality standard. ‘Child-oriented approach’ versus ‘school achievements’
Research by Herweijer and Vogels (2004) showed that low educated parents rate school achievements as the most important motive for choosing a school, whereas high educated parents prefer schools with a child-oriented educational approach. The authors give the explanation that low educated parents acknowledge the value of education for school success and social opportunities but at the same time realize that a high level of achievement and a successful school career for their child is not self-evident. Whereas high educated
parents have more confidence in the school career of their child, considering their own experience.
The results of this study are based on data from 1200 parents, who filled in a questionnaire. The researchers found that the most important motives for choosing a particular school were: „a good atmosphere, „good training for secondary school‟ and „the attention paid to social skills‟. The item that refers most directly to denomination: „the school should suit our belief system‟ was not very important to the majority of parents from this sample. Only two criteria were mentioned even less frequently than this one: „the school should be attended by children from families with a similar background to ours‟ and „daycare after school hours‟. A somewhat different picture emerged when parents were asked which three considerations were decisive in their choice for the school that is now attended by their children. In the end the most decisive motives for a particular school were: „the school climate‟, „accessible on foot‟ and „good reputation‟. Initially, not much attention is paid to whether a school is within walking distance, however, this factor is in the end one of the most decisive factors.
According to the researchers, it is difficult to identify whether parents deliberately avoid schools with a high number of ethnic minority students. Parents would not like to admit this and they would rather use other arguments for not choosing schools with many ethnic minority students.
Search behavior of parents
Schneider & Buckley (2001) have attempted to transcend the bias in survey research toward socially acceptable response patterns. They analyzed the search behavior of
approximately 1200 parents when they accessed information from an Internet site that
provided extensive data on all public schools in Washington DC, in order to get an even better idea of parental preference. The site provided a host of information in each school, including location, test scores, student demographics, mission statement and academic programs. The visitors of the site had to fill out a short set of questions to gain access to the site. They were asked for their status (parent, student other), their education level, the persons frequency or Internet use and the site from which the person was signing on (home, work, school etc.).
The results show that there was a strong information need among the parents for the race of class composition if the students body, which is in contrast with research based on surveys. Additionally, the authors found that high educated parents were more interested in information about the school composition than lower educated parents.
Interaction with ‘nice and promising children’
According to Zeldenrijk (2010), parental school choice is not a rational decision making process. To a high extent, parents are being influenced by the beliefs, values and attitudes of the community of which they are part. Zeldenrijk (2010) researched parental school choice in the district Amsterdam North. The researcher interviewed 36 parents for their motives of choosing a particular school. One of the schools was in the neighborhood known as a „white elite school‟, this school had both a Jenaplan and Catholic denomination. The parents of this school indicated that they were not very excited about Jenaplan education and sometimes even criticized this concept. However, their arguments for choosing this school were that their children would interact with other 'nice and promising children' and because it was a decent school. Additionally, they would not send their child to an ethnic minority school because they were afraid that they would not have „a single connection‟ with the parents of ethnic minority schools who „not even completed primary education‟. Some parents said they felt more comfortable with other high educated parents. Moreover, the parents of this „white elite‟ school depicted native Dutch children at an ethnic minority school as „coarse‟ and „from low educated families‟. Hence the education level of parents seems to be an important factor for high educated parents when they choose a school.
Low educated parents based their school choice mainly on advice from other parents and especially the recommendations of neighbors. In addition, low educated parents and working class parents tend to choose a school with a small distance between school and home. Another important factor for school choice was whether the child received early childhood education and care (Voor- en Vroegschoolse Educatie). Socioeconomically disadvantaged children with a risk of language deficiency attend these schools. However, not all schools offer this program and it is likely that parents apply for primary school on the school where the child followed the early childhood education and care program. As a result, it seems that the current system of early childhood education and care reduces the actual parental school choice for many low educated parents and thus promotes the segregation between children of higher and lower educated parents (Zeldendijk , 2010).
Status concerns
Holme (2002) used qualitative methods to explore parental school choice of upper-middle-class parents who used their financial resources to buy a home in what they believed was the best school district they could afford. The researcher conducted 42 in-depth
interviews with mostly American upper-middle-class parents. Holme (2002) found that parents based their judgments about school quality primarily on information of other
high-status individuals, including their friends and coworkers. However, these individuals did not provide information about a school‟s curricula or instructional quality, but talked in terms of „good‟ and „bad‟ schools. Parents often judged a school‟s quality by the status of the families it served. They considered a school as good if parents from their social network applied to that school. Conversely, parents considered a school as bad if a school or district was avoided by other high-status parents in the neighborhood.
Holme (2002) found that status concerns were far more salient to these parents than a school‟s curriculum or instructional quality, which they knew little about before they moved to another district. Parents explained their rejection of lower income and minority schools by stating that they believed that students in these schools had more learning difficulties and overall lower levels of achievement. Additionally, these upper-middle-class parents were afraid that the large number of second language learners would hold their children back. They believed that children in „good schools‟ were more academically able and who had more positive social values. This study indicates that upper-middle-class parents will not
necessarily choose schools that have the most appropriate curriculum and instruction for their child but they are more likely to choose a school with a upper-middle-class student
population.
In conclusion, research of Schneider and Buckley (2001), Zeldenrijk (2010), and Holme (2002) shows that school composition does play an important role in parental school choice. This is in contrast with the previous discussed research of Denessen et al. (2005), Karsten et al. (2003), and Herweijer and Vogels (2004). Following these studies, we would conclude that high educated parents are more interested in a match between home and school and tend to choose a school which fits the best with their child‟s interest. However, the qualitative research and the research of Schneider and Buckley (2001) on parental school choice shows that parents definition of „quality‟ is not objective and school composition does play an important role in parental school choice.
Besides the different motives in choosing a school, some parents have more knowledge and savvy to navigate the school system and find information about schools. Parents with a relative advantage in terms of resources and networks needed for school choice are more likely to get their children into upper-middle-class and middle-class schools. These parents are called privileged parents (Roda & Wells, 2012).
Privileged parents
Privileged parents are not all alike and can have different beliefs or intentions, but a few background characteristics can be distinguished, namely: income level, educational background and their network.
Privileged parents are generally economically successful people with a high income (Roda & Wells, 2012). Although most schools in the Netherlands are free at the point of entry, Karsten et al. (2003) found that some schools „keep out‟ particular groups of parents and children by asking very high voluntary parental fees. Additionally, high income parents generally live in better neighborhoods and are willing to travel further to a school (Denessen et al. 2005). Consequently, these children are more likely to go to upper-middle-class or middle-class schools.
Secondly, privileged parents are generally high educated and therefore have more knowledge about the educational system. Alexander, Entwisle and Bedinger (1994) found that parents with an high educational background had beliefs and expectations about their
children‟s performance that correlate with their actual school performance, whereas low income parents and low educated parents had high expectations and performance beliefs that did not correlate well with their children‟s actual school performance. This result suggests that parents with an high educational background are better informed about what their children do at school and how they perform. Parents can use their knowledge about the educational system when they choose a school or when they make important educational decisions.
Finally, privileged parents have more social capital. They can easily use their social and formal network when making a school choice. Social networks can be seen as a set of social relationships and linkages one person has with other individuals. Parents can use ties with other parents as a source of information and advice (Sheldon, 2002). The second type of network is publicly available information such as brochures, websites, public meetings, published results of test scores and so on. This type of network is called the „formal network‟. Although this information is available to all, not all parents know where to find it and how to use the information (Goldring & Phillips, 2008). For example, not all parents know how to interpret school results and comparisons. Low income and minority parents have little access to information because of unstable social networks whereas higher status parents have better social networks and can act as more efficient sources for information about schools (Goldring & Phillips, 2008).
The moral dilemma of privileged parents
As we have seen, privileged parents have more information, resources and knowledge than minority or lower educated parents. As a result, privileged parents are more likely to get their children into upper-middle class or middle-class schools. Additionally, they tend to choose a school which fits best with their child‟s interest and more often they look for alternative schools outside their neighborhoods. However, privileged parents do not deny the potential benefits of a diverse school population and they think it is important for their children to attend a diverse school. This suggests that privileged parents are saying one thing about school diversity and doing another when it comes to actually choosing a particular school (Roda& Wells, 2012). In the section below, this moral dilemma is examined. Beliefs and concerns about fairness and equal opportunity
Jongejan and Thijs‟(2010) research showed that high educated parents were more positive about diversity, while they were less likely to enroll their child in an ethnically diverse school in the neighborhood. This indicates that parents say they care about diversity, but do not select a diverse school for their own child when it actually comes to choosing one. Additionally, several white privileged parents in the research conducted by Roda and Wells (2012) explained they were rearing their children in New York City and not in a white suburb as evidence of their openness to living and educating their children in more diverse context. Nevertheless, most of these parents were enrolling their children in white segregated schools. So, they express an interest in diversity and want their child to grow up in a diverse world but their school choice appears to contradict their beliefs and concerns.
The parents in Roda and Wells (2012) study said they valued more racially and ethnically diverse classrooms but were afraid to put their children in a minority position. Holme (2012) found the same considerations, one of the parents said in an interview: “…I want public schools for diversity. I want my child to be in a really diverse environment, but I want her to not feel like she‟s … only got a small number that are like her. So, I want the best of both. Don‟t we all?” (Holme, 2012, p.20).
The Dutch parents of the „white elite‟ school in Zeldenrijk‟s (2010) research agreed that mixed schools would be better in the „ideal world‟, but some parents thought that their children would not play with „other‟ kids, even if they went to the same school. Additionally, they agreed that it is maybe not the best for disadvantaged children to „put them all in one school‟, however for their own children they preferred a school with a lot of „nice and promising‟ children. So, privileged parents in Zeldenrijk‟s research believed that diverse
schools could be favorable for disadvantaged children, but they do not believe that enrolling in a diverse school ultimately would be beneficial for their own child.
The ‘right type’ of diversity
Several privileged parents in Holme‟s (2012) research said they did not mind diversity in their child‟s school, as long it was the „right type‟ of diversity. They believed that large numbers of minority students in their schools were acceptable if those students were
motivated to achieve. Additionally, several parents said they were comfortable sending their child to a middle or high school with large numbers of minority students as long as the school had a separate gifted or magnet program for children like theirs. These findings signal that privileged parents believe that children from high status families were more academically able and motivated to achieve than minority students.
However, in the end especially social class seemed to play a role in parental school choice. One of the parents said she wanted to expose her children to the „right kind of culture‟ and not the „lower class‟ culture, because she thought that these children act more violently and lacked discipline. In short, parents in Holme‟s study preferred a school with the „right type of diversity‟ and the „right kind of culture‟, which was not that much about the students color but more about their social class.
Zeldenrijk‟s (2010) research showed that privileged parents mainly talked about ethnic and cultural differences between schools, but eventually, social class was decisive for their choice. These parents did not have any problems with children of different ethnicities as long as they were part of the same social class. For example, one of the privileged parents said he talked sometimes with the high educated Iranian mother on the school square, but never with the Moroccan mother of the 'street children‟. The privileged parents of this „white elite‟ school rejected the coarse language of parents and children of minority schools and strongly criticized their upbringing. According to one of the interviewed privileged parents, these children spend the whole day watching TV, while all parents know reading to children is much better for their child‟s development. Despite the fact that privileged parents actually talked about differences in social class, they found it uncomfortable and „outdated‟ and preferred talking in terms of „black‟ and „white‟ schools.
School options
As mentioned previously, the Dutch education system is characterized by the variety of options and privileged parents look more often for alternative schools outside their neighborhood. Therefore, privileged parents have plenty of options. Privileged parents rate schools with a certain educational philosophy higher than low educated parents (Leeman &
Veendrick, 2002). Despite the fact that schools are open to everybody, schools with a specific educational philosophy such as Montessori or Jenaplan have an higher percentage of children with high educated parents. According to Zeldenrijk (2010) these schools can be seen as implicit „elite schools‟ for children of high educated parents. Additionally, Zeldenrijk (2010) found that a school‟s population characteristics were far more salient to privileged parents than the denomination of the school.
Anxieties
Privileged parents tend to avoid schools that would place their children in a minority position and Holme‟s (2012) and Zeldenrijk‟s (2010) research showed that privileged parents are afraid that the large number of second language learners would hold their children back. They explained their rejection of lower income and minority schools by stating that they believed that students in these schools had more learning difficulties and overall lower levels of achievement. Therefore, privileged parents are likely to accept diversity only if there are no perceived costs in terms of academic opportunities for their own children (Roda & Wells, 2012). Choosing for a diverse school can be seen as a sacrifice, because privileged parents have the freedom to choose alternative settings that they feel would better satisfy their
children‟s interest (New & Merry, 2014). According to Peters and Walraven (2011) individual parental school choice is like an assurance game: you avoid taking risks with your own
precious child. Therefore, privileged parents tend to choose for upper-class or middle-class school whereas they might prefer a diverse school for their children.
Privileged parents’ school choice
According to Denessen et al. (2005) four general reasons for school choice can be distinguished. Parents can have ideological reasons for choosing a particular school, like religious or pedagogical reasons. The geographical distance between home and school can play a role. The quality of education can be a reason for choosing a particular school and
non-educational characteristics of the school, such as the school population can play a role. These
four general reasons for school choice are used in order to analyze privileged parents school choice.
To a high extent, the school choice of parents is influenced by the believes, values and attitudes of the community they are part of. Parental motives for choosing a particular school are not always rational and especially non educational characteristics of the school, such as school population, seem to play an important role in school choice of privileged parents.
Qualitative research of Zeldenrijk (2010), Holme(2012) and Roda and Wells (2012) showed that privileged parents often judged a school‟s quality by the status of families it
served and parents considered a school good if parents from their social network applied to that school. Despite the fact that privileged parents have the capabilities and social capital to get access to quality reports and resources and information, especially their own social network seems to be an important source of information. Privileged parents are willing to bridge larger distances when the preferred school is in another district. So geographical
distance seem to be less important for privileged parents, as long as the school fits their
child‟s „best interest‟. Holme‟s study showed that privileged parents are even willing to move to a „better‟ school district, in order to enroll their child to a suitable school.
Privileged parents are more likely to choose for a school with a specific educational philosophy such as Montessori or Jenaplan, however these schools are characterized by the high percentage of children with high educated parents. Thus, it may be questionable whether privileged parents have ideological reasons for choosing a school with a specific
denomination or their school choice is strongly related to the school population of these schools. Zeldenrijk (2010), found that a school‟s population characteristics were far more salient to these parents than the Jenaplan and Catholic denomination of the school. Some of the parents even criticized the Jenaplan concept and their arguments for choosing this particular school were mainly about the families the school served. Additionally, Holme found that status concerns were far more salient to privileged parents than a school‟s curriculum or instructional quality. Consequently, of the four motives for school choice, especially non-educational characteristics of the school and in particular school population seem to play a role in privileged parents school choice.
Avoiding the out-group
According to the out-group avoidance theory, high educated parents are afraid that lower class children and parents will have a negative impact on their own children. This is in line with Holme‟s (2012) and Zedenrijk‟s (2010), results, because privileged parents in these studies were afraid that a large number of second language learners would hold their children back. Additionally, they were afraid that the high number of students with learning difficulties and their overall lower levels of achievement will have a negative impact on their own
children. Privileged parents were looking for „the right kind of diversity‟ and believed that large numbers of students of color were acceptable if those students were motivated to achieve. Despite the fact that many privileged parents talked in terms of color or ethnicity of the students, especially social class seem to play an important role in their school choice. Therefore, „the out-group‟ can be seen as children and parents from a lower social class. The
more privileged parents perceive that members of the out-group lag behind their own group, the greater the objection to contact with that group.
Moreover, differences in habitus were important signals for privileged parents to reject certain schools. Differences in values, behavior, clothes, attitude, manners and lifestyle played a major role in the school choice of privileged parents. For example, privileged parents
rejected the „coarse language‟ of parents and children of minority schools and strongly criticized their upbringing. The privileged parents reported that they felt more comfortable with other high educated parents and behavior of the lower class was rejected, like smoking on the playground.
However, Zeldenrijk‟s (2010) found that some low educated parents separated themselves from the „elitist parents with their cargo bikes‟ and said that they felt
uncomfortable in the company of these parents. The ethnocentric theory states that all people of each social group prefer the company of people from their own group. However, the research of Schneider and Buckley (2001) showed that lower educated parents cared less about the school composition characteristics. Moreover, Denessen et al. (2005) found that minority parents rated „the possibility to come into contact with other cultures‟ as a more important reason for school choice than other parents. Therefore, especially privileged parents seem to play an important role in causing school segregation.
Policy interventions to counteract school segregation
While it may be true that there is increasingly attention paid to the segregation in Dutch schools, desegregation policies are no longer on the national political agenda. The previous Dutch Minister of Education, Maria van Bijsterveldt said in an interview that preventing segregation in Dutch schools is no longer a government priority and declared that school segregation is simply „a fact.‟ This view is reflected by the lack of governmental policies (Walraven & Peters, 2011). Although there is no national policy against school segregation, on the municipal level there have been several desegregation interventions and the Dutch minister of education decided to fund a scheme for some pilot projects to promote desegregation (Peters &Walraven 2011). These pilot are supported by the National
Knowledge Center of Mixed Schools. However, the government has limited legal resources to intervene in the behavior and decisions of school boards.
Some municipalities restricted school choice and changed the rules of application and acceptance to ensure that children go to a school in their own neighborhood. Nijmegen and
Deventer are two cities that attempted to restrict parental choice (New & Merry, 2014). The system in these cities allowed parents to rank several schools in order of preference, with a set of rules of priority in accepting students for a specific school. The essential rule for
counteracting school segregation was that children who live closest to the school got the priority. Of the remaining applications, students whose acceptance would contribute to the goal of 30 percent disadvantaged students and 70 percent advantaged students in the school, were accepted (Peters & Walraven 2011).
In practice, 95 percent of the children were placed at the school of their parents‟ first choice accepted (Peters & Walraven 2011). This high percentage of children placed on their first choice seems positive, but it is questionable whether this high percentage indicates that parents make good informed choices and taking this new rules into account or that the set of rules is too limited and not strict enough to change the school composition. On the other hand, Merry and Karsten (2011) forecast that if rules around school choice are too strict, some additional residential segregation might be evoked, because nothing will prevent determined parents from moving elsewhere. Poor parents may be less able to move than wealthy parents and parents who do not have enough reliable information available about school quality, will be disadvantaged (Merry & Karsten, 2011). Some other cities have discussed these kind of policies, but have encountered difficulties in building consensus between local authorities and school boards (Peters &Walraven 2011).
Groups of parents have also attempted to counteract school segregation through parental initiatives. The parental initiative is an initiative whereby a group of high educated parents applies to a school in their neighborhood that performs well but has a majority of disadvantaged students. By applying together, they hope to avoid the risk that their child becomes a minority in their classroom. Parents involved in initiatives usually want to discuss many topic of schools policies and practice, in order to realize a mixed school in the
neighborhood (Peters & Walraven, 2011). Initially, these initiatives improved the diversity of the school that were being applied to. However, some of the schools slowly became white schools. An explanation for this development is that the extracurricular cultural and artistic activities that were being set up mainly attract privileged parents, who subsequently attract even an even higher number of privileged parents (Walraven & Peters, 2012).
Other policy interventions, like bussing in Gouda and postal code or double waiting lists, are employed in some other cities. These short-lived interventions had very little effect. Part of the reason for this, is the fact that most parents enjoy the constitutional right to choose a school they believe to be the best for their child and the interventions do not prevent
determined parents from changing their address or navigate the system in other ways advantageous to their interest (New & Merry, 2014).
Conclusions and discussion
As mentioned previously, In the industrial world, the Netherlands scores among the highest on the school segregation index. The aim of this thesis was to examine both the causes of segregation and the role parents play in causing and maintaining school segregation.
School choice of privileged parents as a cause of school segregation is barely discussed in political debates, therefore special attention is paid to the role of privileged parents in maintaining school segregation.
The first research question was: what are the causes of school segregation? Four causes of school segregation were distinguished, namely: residential segregation, the Dutch school system of tracking children into different school types, the selectivity of schools and parental motives for choosing a particular school.
The second research question focused on parental choice: which motives do parents have when they choose a particular school? Studies focused on parental choice showed different and sometimes contradictory results. Studies based on survey research generally show that high educated white parents were more interested in a „match between home and school‟ and schools with a „child-oriented approach‟, whereas low educated and minority parents prefer schools with a high education standard and a good reputation. Motives about the school population characteristics were al rated low in questionnaires. However, research on search behavior of parents on the Internet showed that there is a strong information need among, especially high educated parents for the race and class composition of the schools, which is in contrast with research based on surveys. Additionally, Zeldenrijk (2010) and Holme (2012) showed that parents definition of „quality‟ is far from objective and primarily based on school composition characteristics.
The third research question focused on privileged parents: what are the background characteristics of privileged parents? Privileged parents are not all alike but a few background characteristics can be distinguished, namely: income level, educational background and their network. Privileged parents are generally economically successful people with a high income. Additionally, privileged parents are generally higher educated and have more knowledge about the education system. Parents can use their knowledge about the education system when they face important educational decisions or when they are making their school choice.
network when making a school choice. As a result, parents have more information, resources and knowledge when they make a school choice and are more likely to get their children into upper-middle-class or middle-class schools.
However, privileged parents do not deny the potential benefits of a diverse school population and they think it is important for their child to attend a divers school. This suggest that parents are saying one thing and doing another when it comes to actually choosing a school. In order to understand this moral dilemma, the fourth research question was: what are privileged parents‟ concerns about fairness and equal opportunity and what kind of diversity do they consider to be important? Privileged parents say they care about diversity and want their child to grow up in a diverse context. Furthermore, they believe that diverse schools can be beneficial for disadvantage children. However, privileged parents fear that their child will be in a minority position when they apply their child to a diverse school. Moreover, they are afraid that a large number of second language learners and children with learning difficulties will hold their children back. Furthermore, privileged parents rejected the coarse language of parents and children of minority schools and strongly criticized their upbringing. Therefore, privileged parents were looking for „the right kind of diversity‟, which was not that much about students‟ color, but more about their social class. Privileged parents seem to prefer company of parents with similar habitus and to a high extent, the school choice of parents is influenced by the believes, values and attitudes of the community they are part of. As a result, privileged parents tend to choose a school which they believe to be the best for their child, which most of the time turns out to be a school dominated by parents „just like them‟ in terms of socioeconomic status and lifestyle.
Concluding the results of these research questions, it can be assumed that free
parental school choice in the Netherlands leads to increased levels of school segregation. The secularization of society permitted the development of a consumer mindset among parents who now base their school choice primarily on perceptions of educational quality or non-educational characteristics rather than simply on religion. Several municipalities tried to curtail parental choice in order to counteract school segregation. However, these interventions had very little effect, because building consensus between local authorities and school boards was hard to realize. Moreover, nothing prevents determined parents from changing their address or navigate the system in other ways advantageous to their interest.
This thesis led to some interesting results. Firstly, depending on the research method, studies on parental school choice showed contradictory results. School population
questionnaire. A possible explanation is that parents are not rating such aspects of choosing a school in a questionnaire. Bagley (1996) found that qualitative findings contrasted markedly with quantitative evidence of parental school choice. This implies that parents do not rate school composition factors as being of importance when they fill in a questionnaire. Parents would not like to admit this and they would rather use other arguments for not choosing schools with many ethnic minority students. Therefore, it is difficult to identify whether parents deliberately avoid schools with a high number of ethnic minority students.
However, school population characteristics turned out to be an important school choice motive, especially for high educated parents, in the research of Schneider and Buckley (2001). These authors have attempted to transcend the socially desirable response patterns by analyzing search behavior of parents. The results show that there was a strong information need among the parents for the race and class composition of the students body, especially among privileged parents. This result is in line with the research of Holme (2002) and Zedenrijk (2010), they used qualitative methods and found that school composition
characteristics of the school were an important motive for parents school choice. Therefore, this review confirms that parents are reluctant to admit the full scope of their motives when answering questionnaires, but that these motives become more apparent when qualitative methods are used.
Moreover, this thesis is an interesting contribution to the school choice literature and segregation debate, because segregation of privileged parents is barely discussed in political debate. One of the central policy concerns became the concern that school segregation might keep immigrants from successfully integrating into Dutch society. Therefore, the high concentrations of immigrants in certain schools and the establishment of Islamic schools are popular topics in political debate (Ladd et al., 2010). Less attention is paid to school
segregation caused by privileged parents. This review of the literature shows that privileged parents are likely to choose a school dominated by parents „just like them‟ in terms of socioeconomic status and lifestyle. When these privileged parents choose for an
upper-middle-class or upper-middle-class school outside the neighborhood, their choice inevitable leads to macro consequences in terms of school segregation. Additionally, schools with a specific educational philosophy such as Montessori, Steiner or Jenaplan are often highly segregated in terms of upper-middle-class or middle class school compensation, but in public debate this is often not considered to be a matter of concern. Moreover, the secularization in the society permitted the development of a consumer mindset among parents who make their school
