VMBO students and their future selves : an exploratory study of young people's educational choices in the Netherlands

(1)

VMBO students and their Future Selves: an

exploratory study of young people's educational

choices in the Netherlands

by

Hester Hinloopen (UvA ID: 10811249)

Supervisor: Kobe de Keere Second reader: Bowen Paulle

Graduate School of Social Sciences University of Amsterdam

August 15, 2018 Word count: 23.970

(2)

(3)

3

(4)

(5)

5

Acknowledgments

Six months ago, I started this project to fulfill the graduation requirements of the Social Problems and Social Policy track at University of Amsterdam (UvA) for the master program in Sociology. The project was partially undertaken at the request of the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (in Dutch abbreviated as OCW), where I carried out an internship during the months March to July 2018 which I combined with the writing of my master thesis. As the research topic is in line with my bachelor’s thesis ‘Appels, dichtbij én ver van de boom. Een kwalitatieve studie naar de percepties van vmbo-leerlingen en hun ouders omtrent de stigmatisering van het vmbo’ (on the stigmatization of VMBO and vocational education in general), I see this project as a nice way of completing my academic career at UvA and demonstrating my interest in the field of educational sociology. Altogether, it has been a process marked by successes and failures (on balance, however, successful), thought-provoking conversations, new insights, and lots of self-reflection. It was an extremely educational and interesting experience, from which I have learned a lot. As a researcher and colleague in the first place, but also as an individual person.

Several people have contributed with support - both academically and practically - to this master’s thesis. Therefore, I would firstly like to thank my UvA supervisor Kobe de Keere for his excellent guidance and fruitful feedback throughout the process. Additionally, I am thankful to my second reader Bowen Paulle for shedding his light on the proposal, allowing me to start my research project with a positive mindset. My sincere thanks also go to all of my OCW colleagues from ‘Directie Kennis’, and especially to my tutor Tim Schokker for the interesting talks over coffee, for always being available to help and for letting me participate in the

Ministry’s daily running. I am very grateful for having had this opportunity.

Furthermore, without the input of all thirty-two students, I would not have been able to succeed with this research project. Thank you all for entrusting me with your stories and for sharing your jokes - I had a blast, Hester Hinloopen

(6)

(7)

7

Summary

Education segregation, growing social inequality, and a polarized society. Education might not be a ‘great equalizer’, as social class, up to this day, still affects education enrolment: children of higher socioeconomic backgrounds more often enroll in academic tracks, and children from less advantaged backgrounds in vocational tracks (Gamoran & Mare 1989; Lucas 2000). Statistics of the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science show that this problem applies for the Netherlands as well and is worth research (Van Engelshoven & Slob, 2018). Although this study’s topic and research question are partly commissioned by, and in the interest of the Ministry, this thesis should be seen as an independent research project.

This exploratory study investigates the problem - educational inequality - by narrowing it down and by focusing on school ‘choice’, or school enrolment, being an essential part of the problem (Van de Werfhorst, 2003). This study investigates decision-making processes amongst Dutch youngsters using a micro-sociological approach and therefore offers a contribution to what we already know from statistics. To be more specific: thirty-two third year VMBO students from four different schools were interviewed, in order to gain a greater understanding of their educational decisions (HAVO or MBO) and the justifications they use to support them.

In this research, the focus was on two type of factors that potentially influence school choice among Dutch youngsters: sociocultural factors (the student’s socioeconomic background) and institutional factors (the school’s environment and organization). It has been found that both types of factors are important in influencing student choice. When it comes to sociocultural factors, it has been found that VMBO students from a higher family background more frequently choose an extra subject as a long-term investment that secures them a place in HAVO. Secondly, VMBO students from higher-status parents often have more parental resources they benefit from which increases the change they will choose for HAVO. When it comes to institutional factors, it has been found that the possibility of a plus class provides VMBO students with more self-confidence, which increases the chance they will opt for HAVO. Secondly, a positive learning climate, where students are not ashamed of admitting to aspiring to good grades results in more students choosing for HAVO. Lastly, an active approach to career guidance and more attention being paid to HAVO as a possible next step, makes VMBO students more informed about their possibilities and increases the chance a VMBO student chooses for HAVO.

Looking back, interviews might not have been the best way to detect the transferring of cultural capital within families; ethnography probably would have been a better choice. This forms the study’s biggest limitation. The micro-sociological approach, large sample size, and the addition of rich, in-depth qualitative data to what is already known from statistics are the study’s main strengths.

The study closes off with recommendations for future research, and with some suggestions for education policy directed at the Ministry’s knowledge department ‘Directie Kennis’.

Hester Hinloopen, Graduate School of Social Sciences, University of Amsterdam, Nieuwe Achtergracht 166, 1018 WV Amsterdam, The Netherlands

(8)

(9)

9

Chapter 1: Introduction

“Segregation in education: the classroom is a bubble of equals” (Volkskrant, 2018), “A good school should be against social segregation” (NRC, 2018), “Make equal opportunities top priority” (Parool, 2017), “The ‘dichotomy’ in education has grown” (Trouw, 2017). These are five recent Dutch media headlines, illustrating the problems that we, as Dutch society, have been dealing with for quite some time now: increasing educational inequality, especially when it comes to social class. The education gap between the rich and poor is growing wider and wider; students from a higher social background more often end up at the higher education levels, whereas their lower-class counterparts more often enroll in vocational tracks (Trouw, 2016). This makes currents classrooms in the Netherlands a ‘bubble of equals’. In April 2018, OCW published its yearly rapport De staat van het onderwijs, presenting some international comparative research findings and a concerning conclusion: in the Netherlands, ethnic segregation decreases, however, social class segregation strongly increases (OCW, 2018: 5).

§1.1 Polarization and the illusion of meritocracy

We all know that a doctor who has a large salary, has probably received more and different education than a plumber, who is less financially well-off. At first sight, this may seem fair; you get awarded based upon what you deserve. The meritocratic ideal presumes a shift from ‘ascription’ to ‘achievement’: competencies, intelligence, ambition and discipline are replacing sex, race, and religion. Therefore, school diplomas are distributed based on individual achievements and not on one’s wealthy family name, which was very common in the past (De Graaf & Luijx, 1995: 31). However, from the 1960s onwards, social scientists started to question to what extent our current education system can be considered as ‘meritocratic’ (Hayek 1960; Johansson 1998). In the past decades, several educational sociologists, among which is Bourdieu, have looked into this matter, and in line with the news headlines mentioned above, have come to agree that meritocracy and equal opportunities are nothing more than an illusion: education is not a ‘great equalizer’. In fact, looking at the Dutch context, even today, social class (or more specific; parental educational attainment) still determines educational attainment (OCW, 2018) which results in growing segregation: a problem with great social relevance, that deserves further study and analysis.

§1.2 A short introduction to the Dutch education system

In order to better understand how these processes of social inequality play out within education work, I would like to focus on the Dutch education system as institution. Within the field of educational sociology, education in general can be seen as having four central functions in contemporary societies (Peschar & Wesselingh 1999, Van Kenemade 1981; Fend 1974) First; education needs to prepare youth for the labour market, second; it should efficiently sort students into tracks according to their talents and interests, third; it should socialize citizens into active civic engagement, and lastly; it should provide equal opportunities to children from different backgrounds in terms of ethnicity and socioeconomic status (Van de Werfhorst, 2014: 124-126). The last function, the equal opportunities function, is what I will focus on in this thesis. Alongside these four functions, four main

characteristics, or ‘institutions’ of an education system are to be distinguished: (1) the standardization of the system in terms of accountability and centralization, (2) the differentiation of the school system into different tracks or school types, (3) the vocational orientation of the system; and (4) the extent to which students can move between tracks or school types, or student ‘choice’ (Van de Werfhorst, 2011: 4). Looking at these characteristics, the Dutch education system is generally seen as highly differentiated. This refers to the existence of different educational programs at the same time point in an educational trajectory. Also, these programs are hierarchically ranked, with a clear idea of which one is considered as the ‘higher’, and which one the ‘lower’ (Bol & Van de Werfhorst, 2013: 286). The following diagram gives an impression of the highly stratified Dutch educational structure:

(13)

13 Figure 1: Diagram Dutch education system

(EP-Nuffic, 2015)

The Dutch education system is divided into three levels: primary, secondary, and higher education. Primary education is intended for children in the age group 4-12 years. Secondary education is intended for children in the age group 12-18 years and is divided into two types: (1) general secondary education which consists of HAVO (senior general secondary education) and VWO (pre-university education), and (2) preparatory secondary vocational education (VMBO). In contrast to HAVO and VWO, generally considered the more ‘general’ and theoretical levels, the VMBO trajectory is vocationally oriented and lasts four years. The VMBO is divided into four tracks, the ‘highest’ and most theoretical tracks VMBO-gl and VMBO-t provide admission to the HAVO after completion. The others do not provide admission to HAVO and are a preparation for senior secondary vocational orientation (MBO). Senior secondary vocational education, MBO, follows on from the VMBO, and prepares pupils for work. The MBO is, similar to VMBO, divided into four tracks, and the highest one, MBO-4, provides admission to the higher professional education (HBO). Admission to the third level of Dutch education, higher education, is only possible with a MBO-4 diploma, HAVO diploma or VWO diploma. Dutch higher education is divided into two types: research universities (WO), and universities of applied sciences, or ‘professional education’ (HBO). A MBO-4 diploma only provides admission to HBO. A VWO diploma and a HBO diploma requires admission to WO.

The highly differentiated Dutch education system strongly contrasts with, for example, the Swedish education system, which has hardly any differentiation, and a more social mix in terms of ‘cognitive capacities’ and social class (Wolfensberger, 2015). Secondly, as is shown in the figure above, Dutch education is generally seen as vocation orientated, with vocational tracks at both secondary and higher educational levels (VMBO and MBO) (Van de Werfhorst, 2014). Thirdly, the Dutch education system is relatively flexible in its linkages between the structural locations at successive stages of attainment (Kerkhoff, 2001: 8). It should be relatively easy to switch from one trajectory to another. Theoretically, it is possible to start at the VMBO level and

(14)

14

eventually attain a university degree. However, as we will see later, in practice this often turns out differently, and this is the point where it becomes problematic.

§1.3 School ‘choice’ as part of the problem

All final year Dutch primary school pupils (‘groep 8’) are obliged to do the Dutch Cito exam in February, a national independent assessment involving multiple choice questions testing their Dutch and comprehension skills, biology, history, geography, and mathematic skills (Expatica, 2018). Based on these test results and the pupil’s school history, the students receive an ‘advice’ from their primary school on which high school educational trajectory they should go to (VMBO, HAVO, or VWO). I deliberately write advice between brackets, because in fact, as it is binding, it is not really an advice. A pupil who for example receives a HAVO advice, is allowed to go to HAVO or to a ‘lower’ VMBO track. The pupil however is not allowed to go to VWO. This mechanism is called ‘tracking’, often conceptualized as the practice of allocating students into school programs or classes that are homogeneous in term of cognitive ability (Oakes 2005; Marks 2005; Horn 2009). The tracking mechanism, or ‘early selection’, as the final year primary school pupils are being selected around age 12, is largely critiqued by the academic world (social scientists) and policy makers: tracked education systems are found to increase social inequalities, primarily because tracking magnifies the impact of socio-economic status on educational achievement and attainment (Marks 2005; Horn 2009). It affects the inequality of educational opportunity by two key mechanisms (Bol et al., 2013). The first mechanism is the social selection mechanism: socioeconomic background plays a more significant role in the allocation of students to different tracks, especially when tracking occurs at a younger age. One’s social background has a greater effect on one’s success at a younger age and declines with age (Shavit & Blossfeld, 1993). The second mechanism argues that tracking affects the inequality of educational opportunity after students are selected into different tracks.

Relevant factors include socio-psychological aspects, means of introduction, resources available, and peer effects (Marks, 2005). An example of the latter factor is the book Toxic Schools, written by Paulle (2013). In summary, it is hypothesized that the more tracked an education system is, the more student performance is affected by social background. So why did we introduce tracking to our education system? One important motivation for increasing the level of tracking is allowing a heterogeneous student population to choose the education that best matches their interests and learning abilities, thereby maximizing the average student achievement (Hanushek & Wössmann, 2006).

So, whilst being efficient, tracking affects the equal opportunity function of education. This also explains the increasing social segregation in Dutch education, as the news headlines at the start of this chapter show. During the tracking process at age 12, children from higher status parents more often end up at the VWO level because at that time, the parent’s social background has a great influence on their children’s education career. A concrete example is extra tutoring. Rich parents are able to afford this extra tutoring, which results in a higher score at the Cito exam (Korthals, 2016). Even though tracking is introduced from a meritocratic line of thinking, as the sorting of pupils based on their cognitive abilities seems fair at first sight, the more advantaged children benefit more from the tracking system compared to the less advantaged. This, obviously, is not fair at all.

Social advantage is reproduced from parents to children through education (Blau & Duncan, 1967; Breen, 2004; Shavit & Blossfeld, 1993), a theoretical discussion I will later elaborate upon in the theoretical framework. Additionally, social class also affects education enrolment; children of higher socioeconomic backgrounds more often enroll in academic tracks, and children from less advantaged backgrounds in vocational tracks (Gamoran & Mare 1989; Lucas 2000). As I have mentioned earlier, this idea applies for the Netherlands as well, and it is a plausible thought that the tracking mechanism is not helping in solving this problem. In summary: in differentiated education systems, with early tracking, children are more influenced by their socioeconomic background. In Scandinavian countries, where this selection takes place at a later age, the differences in educational attainment between students from different social backgrounds are smaller (Jæger & Holm, 2007). Differentiation, therefore works only in favour of the opportunities for children who already start their education with an advantage.

(15)

15 §1.4 Research question

Since the relationship between educational institutions and inequality is a complex issue, in this thesis I would like to narrow it down by focusing on the specific part of the problem that Van de Werfhorst et al., (2003) and multiple other scholars (Gamoran & Mare 1989; Lucas 2000) have pointed out: social class and school ‘choice’. To be more precise, I am going to investigate school choice among Dutch youngsters, whereby I will take two type of factors into account (I will explain this in more detail later). Interesting is how, whilst tracking and early selection is what mainly characterizes the Dutch education system, the idea of climbing (‘stapelen’) is being considered as the system’s key feature as well. As mentioned before, the tracking system is introduced by the thought that it should be relatively easy to switch from one track to another. Again, theoretically, it should be possible to start at the lowest VMBO track and end up with an university degree. It is interesting to investigate to what extent climbing in practice actually happens. This is what I aim to focus on in my research. To research final year Dutch primary pupils would not be the most interesting approach, as their tracked high school enrollment is in no way to be seen as a choice. One could see these final year primary pupils as actors with zero agency (Giddens, 1979). Instead, I have decided to focus on a student cohort within the Dutch education system that, theoretically seen, does have a ‘choice’, for who it is possible to ‘climb’: third year VMBO students. In this third year, VMBO students have to decide whether they want to go to HAVO, the theoretical path that might lead them to university, or MBO, the vocationally oriented path, after they have graduated (see paragraph 1.5 for more information about this). However, I keep write choice between brackets, because despite the fact that this group of students do not receive a binding advice, and theoretically speaking can decide for themselves which type of education they want to go to, there are obviously some (external) relevant factors that might influence this decision.

With my research, I want to investigate how autonomous these third year VMBO students actually are: what ‘external’ factors influence their choice? As mentioned before, I am focusing on two main type of factors that might influence school ‘choice’ among third year VMBO students: factors on the sociocultural level (the choice is being influenced by multiple background processes that have played a role prior to the decision) and on the institutional level (in which those background processes are ‘imbedded’). With respect to the latter

institutional factors, examples are the influence of the school’s organizational structure, or destructive peer dynamics in the school buildings. To investigate the influence of these two type of factors on school choice among third year VMBO students, I have formulated the following research question:

How do youngsters frame their choice for theoretical or vocational education? What justifications are used by them to support this school choice?

§1.5 Policy context

Social class influences school enrollment, statistics from the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (OCW) provide some empirical evidence for this statement: in 2017, 17,8% of the VMBO-t students continued their educational career at the HAVO level; the theoretical path that might lead to an university degree, whereas the majority of 80,6% chose MBO; the vocational trajectory (Van Engelshoven & Slob, 2018). Despite the fact that this student cohort should theoretically be more autonomous compared to final year primary school students (as they don’t deal with barriers such as a binding advice) in reality ‘only’ 17,8% climbs and goes to HAVO. Additionally, another research report by the Ministry illustrates that VMBO students with higher-educated parents significantly more often enroll in theoretical tracks (HAVO) after their VMBO exams (Monitor Gelijke Kansen, 2018). Whereas academics are actively working on the latter issue, Dutch politicians are trying to find solutions as well to stimulate the equal opportunities function of education.

A recent initiative from OCW for example is ‘Sterk Beroepsonderwijs’ a program aimed at breaking the stigmatization of vocational schooling (MBO) in the Netherlands. The upcoming years, the Ministers of

Education are planning to work on the recognition and a positive image of vocational education. They aim to profile MBO as education with perspective. Both students and teachers in MBO should be proud of practice based learning, instead of ashamed. The program’s main goal is to offer qualitative and accessible education at the VMBO and MBO level in every region in the Netherlands (Sterkberoepsonderwijs, 2018). In order to improve the transition between VMBO to MBO, and to better prepare VMBO students for MBO level education,

(16)

16

the Ministers want to reduce the number of VMBO tracks and are planning to merge the VMBO-gl and VMBO-t tracks into one education type. As a result, every VMBO student, regardless of the track he is in, will be doing a practical subject alongside their theoretical courses (in the past, VMBO-t students only did theoretical subjects which did not prepare them optimally for the MBO) (Van Engelshoven & Slob, 2018). Another initiative is ‘Het Doorstroomrecht’, a policy that allows every VMBO-gl and VMBO-t student to enroll in HAVO after their graduation; from 2019 onwards, extra entry enrolments will no longer exist. In the past, only VMBO graduation students with a GPA of 6,8 (out of 10) could to go to HAVO. Since 2016, HAVO schools were allowed to make their own rules. Some schools decided to stick with the GPA of 6,8 policy, whereas other introduced an intake interview and motivation letter, or organised a complementary exam (Sariwating, 2018). With ‘Het

Doorstroomrecht’, the Ministers aim to improve equal education opportunity, as graduated VMBO-gl and VMBO-t students no longer can be rejected by HAVO schools. The only requirement is that the VMBO graduation student has chosen an extra theoretical course at the end of his third year, which will be one of his central exam subjects in their fourth (and final) year as well. VMBO students that want to go to HAVO, already have to decide this a year earlier, in their third year, by choosing an extra subject (Dekker, 2017).

The Education Council (‘Onderwijsraad’), an independent governmental advisory body which advises the Minister, Parliament and local authorities (Onderwijsraad, 2018) has delivered its opinion on ‘Het

Doorstroomrecht’ on the 25th_{of June this year. The Council agrees that ‘Het Doorstroomrecht’ will stimulate the}

equal treatment of students. As tracking (and early selection) increases social inequality, and only works in the favour of the advantaged students, it is important to make climbing (‘stapelen’) possible at a later stage in the education career of the student. However, the Council also has a few comments. First, ‘Het Doorstroomrecht’ only formally gives access to HAVO, but does not guarantee success. Therefore, the council doesn’t think of the requirement of choosing an extra subject as a good predictor for actual success at the HAVO level. There is still a realistic change that the students drop out at the HAVO level, since VMBO students are currently not always being optimally prepared for HAVO. The switch from VMBO to HAVO therefore should be better organised, for example by means of special programs that prepares students for the difference in education quality (Ibid.). Second, the Council argues that the career guidance in VMBO schools should not only focus on vocational education (MBO) and the job market, but should also pay more attention to the possibility of doing HAVO after their VMBO exam. Career guidance should provide more insight in the required qualities and in policy around this switch (choosing an extra subject) (Ibid.).

A more positive image around vocational trajectories (the ‘Sterk Beroepsonderwijs’ program) might be helpful, as well as a more favourable situational context when it comes to switching to HAVO level education. The latter policy initiative, ‘Het Doorstroomrecht’, will most probably help the equal treatment of students. However, there is still some sort of a paradox around this policy, therefore I have some remaining questions around this initiative. At first sight, ‘Het Doorstroomrecht’ seems meritocratic and fair: every VMBO student that chose an extra theoretical course in his third year, is allowed to go to HAVO. However, approaching this topic ‘sociologically’, the decision to choose an extra subject or not in the third year is influenced by several external factors. It seems plausible to me that, for example, some students have the cognitive capabilities to do an extra course that others have not. Or that some students, regardless of their IQ, are more disciplined than others, which makes them choosing an extra course or not. Or that some students have parents that stimulate them to choose an extra course, whereas other students are not blessed with these parental resources. Looking at it this way means, one could argue, that we still deal with the problem of social inequality. And more indirectly (since there is not a binding advice), we still deal with the mechanism of tracking. This is paradoxical in the sense that, ideologically seen, a choice is being proposed, while in reality, this choice is not for every student an option. Again, as explained in paragraph 1.4, it is exactly this paradox that makes it interesting to study this particular group of third year VMBO students.

§1.6 Scientific contribution

The Dutch educational context is much investigated by scholars as Van de Werfhorst (2007; 2011; 2014) and Bol (2011; 2013; 2017). However, most of these studies are done on the macro-level, and have a quantitative, (sometimes international) and comparative character. This research has been very important in demonstrating the problem and in creating awareness: education is no ‘great equalizer’. In fact, our differentiated education system actually reproduces unequal opportunities, and social class is still a determining factor in this. However, no

(17)

17

qualitative research projects aimed at investigating school choice among Dutch youngsters, and more specific, the group of third year VMBO students, have been done yet, while school enrollment, as Van de Werfhorst et al. (2003) have pointed out, is an essential part of the problem. We know that children from advantaged

backgrounds are more likely to enroll in theoretical education trajectories, and the Ministry’s statistics are supporting this statement. However, more in-depth information about the specific motivations for choosing an educational trajectory is still lacking. Additionally, never before has this specific group of students, third year VMBO students, been the prior focus of a qualitative research project. With my thesis, I hope to provide some qualitative insights on what we already know from statistics. This research therefore contributes to a more thorough understanding of school choice among VMBO students in the Netherlands, and to the discussion on educational inequality as a whole.

§1.7 Reader’s guide

In this thesis, I am investigating school choice and social class by the means of thirty-two interviews with Dutch youngsters. To be more specific: VMBO students in year three. These in-depth interviews will provide valuable data and will be analyzed in the light of several sociological theories. As explained in paragraph 1.5, school choice among third year VMBO students could be seen as somewhat paradoxical because of the student’s limited agency. Therefore, it is important to know that in this research, school choice actually refers to school enrollment. Secondly, it is important to note that the student’s behaviour, school enrollment, will be studied from a sociological point of view, which focuses on the sociocultural context. This study is therefore not about individual psychological processes. Thirdly, since this is an individual qualitative research project, and I am the only person interpreting the literature and empirical results, there can be a bias towards what I consider to be most important, and to what my conclusions are.

In this thesis, I will firstly present the theoretical framework which has a two-folded structure. Firstly, I will discuss several sociological theories to outline the complex relationship between socioeconomic status (SES) and educational inequality. The second part of the theoretical chapter will address some factors on the institutional level. Examples are the school’s organizational structure and environment, and deconstructive peer dynamics. The work of Paulle (2013) has a central place here. The theoretical framework will be followed upon by the methodology chapter, in which I will discuss the research set-up and the choices I have made

methodology-wise. The next four sections will present and analyse the main research findings. In the last chapter, I will present the main conclusions, reflect on the study’s strengths and limitations, and close of with some recommendations for future research and some suggestions for education policy directed to ‘Directie Kennis’, OCW’s knowledge department.

(18)

(19)

19

Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework

In this study, I am going to investigate educational inequality as a social problem, by specifically focusing on school enrollment. Generally, there are two ways to approach this topic: looking at it from a structural level (taking the socioeconomic factors into account) and looking at the more institutional, or ‘situational’ level (taking factors such as the school’s structure and organization into account) in which the structural factors are ‘embedded’. The structure of this chapter is therefore two-fold. I will firstly take a closer look at the relationship between socioeconomic status (SES) and education attainment. I will do this by (1) discussing Bourdieu’s ideas around capital and educational reproduction, (2) looking at processes of stigmatization and symbolic boundary drawing, (3) taking the influence of family background and parenting styles into account, (4) focusing on processes of self-selection in terms of attitudes and views towards education, and (5) connecting SES to future orientations and time perspectives. When studying the relationship between educational systems and the

inequality of educational opportunity, it is also important to consider school context. Classroom composition and peer interactions may have different effects in tracked and comprehensive systems for students from different social backgrounds (Richer 1976; Hoxby 2000; Wilkinson et al. 2002; Entorf & Lauk 2008). In the second part, I will therefore discuss several institutional factors that are also potentially relevant.

§2.1 Bourdieu’s reproduction thesis

Within the field of sociology of education, the reproduction of social advantage from parents to children through education is a central theme (Blau & Duncan, 1967; Breen, 2004; Shavit & Blossfield, 1993). Pierre Bourdieu is probably the most cited scholar on this, with his ideas around education as a means of social and cultural reproduction (Bourdieu, 1970; Bourdieu, 1971; Bourdieu, 1974; Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990). To be able to fully understand his reproduction thesis, it is important to briefly clarify his key concept of ‘capital’ first. According to Bourdieu (1986), an individual’s position within a field is determined by the amount and relative weight of the capital he possesses. He defines capital as follows: “Capital is accumulated labour 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 labour” (Bourdieu, 1986: 46). He discusses four types of capital an individual can benefit from in life: economic capital (money, property), cultural capital, (education, general knowledge), social capital (network, connections), and symbolic capital (honour, prestige) (Ibid., 47). However, in my thesis, I will focus mainly on cultural capital. According to Bourdieu, two ways of transferring cultural capital can be distinguished.

Firstly, the best hidden investment, which is the domestic transmission of cultural capital. Children from high-class parents are, from an early age, raised in a ‘high culture’ environment. This is a natural process and ‘invisible’ to outsiders (Bourdieu, 1986: 245). The second way of transferring cultural capital is via education, which is not a natural or invisible process: cultural capital is explicitly being taught to children in classrooms (Ibid., 247). Examples include the required literature list, or some influential paintings that are discussed in art history lessons. So, to summarize Bourdieu: every individual in society possesses a certain amount of capital, which determines his position in a certain field. Now, back to Bourdieu’s theory of reproduction. Education for Bourdieu is seen as a mechanism through which cultural capital is being indirectly transferred. In their work ‘Reproduction’ in Education, Society and Culture, Bourdieu and Passeron (1990) show how culture helps to maintain structural inequality. According to Bourdieu, the educational system in western industrialized countries, functions in a way that legitimates class inequalities (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990: 203). This is because success in the educational system is facilitated by the possession of cultural capital. And, as explained earlier, parents endow their children with a certain amount of cultural capital, which embodies investments in aesthetic choices, practices and dispositions. Looking at the research question of this thesis, the latter could also be related to school choice. However, cultural capital is not distributed equally within society, which results in class fractions and ‘higher’ and ‘lower’ individual positions within a field. Education is a problematic mechanism in this, because it ‘mirrors’ these inequalities: in schools, teachers promote the cultural capital of the dominant class by rewarding students who possess such capital and by penalizing others who do not (Ibid., 35). This results in a cause for concern: our current meritocratic education system can be seen as unfair because at this point, success and failure in the educational system is seen as being due to individual gifts. However, children from

(20)

higher-20

class backgrounds have more cultural capital to benefit from, and therefore have higher educational achievement in comparison to their lower-class counterparts (Ibid., 148). This theory is potentially useful in understanding school choice; it might be that children who possess more cultural capital than others are more likely to opt for theoretical trajectories (HAVO), as, in terms of school engagement, they are more likely to engage in scholarly culture. Since school engagement is seen as a key to success in school (Gillis et al., 2010), this might be a relevant aspect to focus on.

§2.2 Social boundaries and processes of stigmatization

Diane Reay is an influential scholar on social class as a central concern within education, and as a powerful aspect of wider social identities. In her work The Zombie Stalking English Schools: Social Class and Educational Inequality, Reay (2006) argues that social inequalities arising from social class have never been adequately addressed within schooling; in England, and this idea applies for the Netherlands as well; there is a growing recognition of the salience of class processes within health. However, within education training and policy, classrooms are routinely presented as classless. In line with the idea of meritocracy as a powerful myth that helps maintain social hierarchies, by using qualitative research, she discusses ways in which class is

influenced in classrooms by serving the middle-class interests. Her work shows why it is relevant to research this topic, both socially and scientifically. In a more recent article, Reay (2011) addresses another problematic consequence concerning the social class-polarization in terms of education enrolment: the stigmatization of vocational trajectories.

As the work of Van Daalen (2010) displays, in the UK, as well in the Netherlands, academic and vocational tracks coexist in different social contexts. Vocational education has a long history of stigmatization – stereotyped and devalued as education that is desired by and more suitable for the working class. Therefore, Reay (2011) argues for an education system that reduces the social distance between people rather than, as the current systems do, exacerbate them: a situation where tracks can be chosen on the basis of interests and

inclinations, not social class and perceived academic ability. Then, ideally, both vocational and academic courses will be mixed in terms of social class and ethnicity. However, according to Reay (Ibid., 303), it is not merely a question of totally rethinking and overhauling the educational system but more importantly, of changing the national psyche.

Reay’s plea for a new system in fact has to do with breaking symbolic boundaries, boundaries between ‘us’ and ‘them’, between the high and low-educated, and between different educational trajectories. Sociologist Michelle Lamont (2002) is most famous for her work on symbolic boundaries, in which she pays attention to the processes that put people into groups and creates feelings of unity and group membership. This categorization of groups leads to the segmentation of ‘us’ and ‘them’, which influences the way in which a person perceives himself and the other (Ibid., 168). For my thesis, Lamont’s ideas on social boundaries is helpful in understanding school choice among youngsters, as cultural differences constitute a basis for symbolic boundaries within classes. Therefore, it is interesting to note that students in different class positions (high-SES parents or low-SES parents) might draw symbolic boundaries between us and them in terms of ‘educational’ taste (i.e. educational preferences). Is boundary drawing being practiced by students from different social classes, and is that influencing their views on school choice and different educational tracks?

§2.3 Family background and parenting styles

Many scholars have drawn upon the idea of education as a reproduction mechanism of social inequality, arguing that generally, the lives of young people are to a great extent influenced by their family background. In this paragraph, I would like to focus on the specific parenting styles associated with social class, that might influence choice among students.

As we have seen so far, education primarily serves the interest of the middle-class. Differential treatment on the basis of perceived ability can easily become a form of what Bourdieu and Passeron (1979) call “class racism”: the process by which the middle class’s socially determined taste for legitimate culture is passed off as a marker of inherent moral and intellectual superiority and by extension, the working class inherent inferiority (1979: 214). Lareau (2003) brought this idea to life in her study of the concerted cultivation of children’s academic success in American middle-class homes. Her influential book Unequal Childhoods is an analysis of the influence of social class on work outcomes. According to her, middle-class families have

(21)

21

financial and knowledge resources that their working-class counterparts have not. This was seen firstly as students worked their way through high school either successfully or not, and secondly in the student’s decision-making processes around further education: whether to attend college or not, what institutions to attend, and what courses to take. An influencing factor on these processes, as she concludes, are different parenting styles. Middle-class parents take a different approach to interventions in their children’s lives than working class parents do, and continue to play this support role and supervise as their children aged (which she calls the ‘concerted cultivation parenting style’). On the contrary, working-class parents tended to stop once their children were around 16-18 years old, when they felt their children were old enough to make their own decisions (she calls this the ‘accomplishment of natural growth parenting style’). The latter ‘method’ prepares the children for a job in the working or poor-class jobs and allows the children to become independent at a younger age.

Interesting is how she theorises that parenting styles might also affect the children’s views on education. Secondly, and very much in line with Lareau (2003), is the work of Kusserow (2004) American Individualisms: Child Rearing and Social Class in Three Neighborhoods. Kusserow’s research shows how parents of middle-class families prepare their children for ‘the real world’ in a different way than their working-class counterparts. Whereas middle-working-class parents assume that their children are ‘delicate flowers’, that need to be cultivated to grow and reach their potential, whereby they often encourage their children to prioritize their individual needs, to express themselves, and to influence the world, working-class parents often prepare their children for a world that is relatively materially constrained, and thus more unstable, unpredictable, and risky. Additionally, to thrive in contexts with these conditions, children need to develop selves that orient their behaviour towards hard interdependence. According to Kusserow (2004), working-class families assume that their children possess hard fortress-like selves that need to be self-protective, tough, strong, and resilient, so that children are not easily beaten down and are able to persist in the face of adversity. Although these differences in individualism might not directly say anything about attitudes towards schooling, I still consider this study very relevant for my own research project, as I believe that the way your parents have taught you to ‘face’ life, undoubtedly shapes your view on the potential role of education.

Lastly, in the ethnographic study Learning to Labour, Willis (1977) aims to uncover the question of how and why working-class kids get working-class jobs, therefore he observed twelve ‘lads’ (working class kids who named themselves ‘lads’) in school and during their first months at work in Birmingham, England. The study’s most important finding is that the lads were completely uninterested in school. In contrast to their middle-class counterparts who showed confirmative behaviour, they saw school as ‘having a laff’, rather than a means to get qualifications. Additionally, their approach to school was to ‘survive’, to do as little work as possible, and to have as much fun as possible by pushing the boundaries of authority as far as they could. The reason behind this behaviour: the lads did not value school because they expected to get factory jobs, which did not require any formal qualifications; therefore, they saw school as something for middle-class kids. At the same time, they were prizing manual labour as superior to and more authentic than mental labour.

§2.4 Education views, attitudes, and self-selection

So far, in the literatures discussed above, I have focused on parental SES, and its effect on the lives of young children and their educational careers. However, students themselves may also hold certain views and attitudes towards education, which might influence their school choice. Therefore, in this paragraph I am taking a closer look at the processes of self-selection in terms of school choice.

In their research project, Spruyt et al. (2016) contribute to the theoretical discussion around social reproduction in education, by focusing on the general views youngsters hold towards education and attending school. They distinguish three primary types of youngster’s motivations for, or attitudes towards, school attendance: (1) attending school as an obligation, (2) education as an investment in terms of a successful career and material wealth, otherwise known as instrumental investment, and (3) education as a means of self-accomplishment, also known as ‘intrinsic investment’. These three primary attitudes can be seen as ‘status markers’ and are based on the distinction between an instrumental view, whereby the importance of education derives from its capacity to grant access to a decent job, material prosperity, and prestigious positions in adult life. However, education itself is not valued, but rather the skills and knowledge instilled in people that allows them to find a rewarding occupation, and between a non-instrumental view, whereby school is valued as an end in itself. School is not primarily seen as being relevant for ‘everyday needs’, but instead is considered a source of

(22)

22

personal perfection, self-realization, and self-actualization. The researchers firstly hypothesize a positive relationship between youngsters following vocational education and an instrumental view on education, and secondly a positive relationship between people from more materially deprived social backgrounds and an instrumental view on education (as education for the socially disadvantaged often forms the only way for social mobility, they are more inclined to opt for fields of study that prepare them for financially rewarding jobs (for instance law or economics)), and thirdly, on the contrary, a relationship between youngsters possessing a lot of cultural capital and a non-instrumental view on education. Their analysis confirms that pupils with higher levels of economic capital more strongly endorse the instrumentalist view on education, whereas youngsters with more cultural capital were more inclined to see education as an end in itself. The latter finding might be an interesting one to focus on in my own research.

The findings of Spruyt et al. are similar to Kinloch’s (1986) research on social class and attitudes towards education. Here, a positive relationship between social class and an emphasis on the non-instrumental functions of educations was hypothesized. The results reflect a highly positive relationship between social class and parental emphasis on ideals, critical thinking, and the development of ‘special abilities’, rather than

knowledge or obtaining a better job. Overall: middle-class families indicated more interest in the expressive (i.e. non-instrumental) function, rather than the instrumental function of education. For my thesis, it could be very relevant to focus on these two views of education, as mentioned in the research by Spruyt et al. (2016) and Kinloch (1986), and to see if these ideas around views on education, social class, and school choice apply to Dutch youngsters as well.

§2.5 Social class and future orientations

Based on the influence of parental-SES, it is argued that advantaged students are more likely to choose HAVO compared to their lower-class counterparts. As the above-mentioned literatures have shown, this is due to the cultural resources that help students succeed at school, parenting styles that effect their children’s view and attitudes on education, and processes of self-selection among students. However, there is another potential explanation which I would like highlight in the following paragraph: the relationship between social class (SES) and future orientations and time perspectives. Several scholars have attempted to establish relationships between time perspectives and social type, social subgroups, and personality characteristics (Kluckhon & Strodtbeck 1961; Mönks 1967; Barndt & Johnson 1955). A frequent assumption has been that social and cultural conditions affect a person’s time perspective, as well as his social behaviour.

In their research on sex and social class as determinants of future orientation in adolescents, Lamm and Trommsdorff (1976) focus on how dimensions of future orientation are influenced by sex and social class, that is, by special social roles that have become effective as a result of certain socialization experiences (Lamm & Tromssdorff, 1976: 317). Their quantitative analysis shows that middle-class adolescents are more long-term directed in their future orientation than lower-class adolescents, and these hopes and fears are related to private as well as public concerns. Additionally, the researchers found that middle-class adolescents are more

intensively concerned with developments and processes in the public domain, and the lower-class adolescents in general mainly focus on the private sector in regard to their future orientation (Ibid., 324).

In another study on social class and social time perspectives, O’Rand and Ellis (1974) found evidence for the conformation of the commonly assumed effect of social class on the development of future time perspectives. Their findings support the idea of a more ordered temporal outlook among middle-class youth engaged in the tasks of preparing themselves for middle-class careers, and also the advantage the middle class has over the lower class; being its greater capacity to use coherent means-ends chains for apprehending and organizing future behaviour (O’Rand & Ellis, 1974: 58). Additionally, based on their analysis the authors argue firstly that persons who do poorly in performing their roles tend to be persons with relatively constricted time perspectives, and secondly that trainees who drop out from a study program have a more constricted notion about their future than trainees who remain in the program (Ibid., 59-60). For my own research, it is interesting to see if these hypotheses on social class and future orientations also apply to Dutch youngsters and their school choice. Are students from high-SES parents more able to see HAVO (which means: two more years in high school) as an ‘investment’, based on their ways of organizing their future behaviour?

(23)

23 §2.6 Institutional (or ‘situational’) factors

Regardless of one’s socioeconomic background, there are other potential, institutional, factors that might be relevant in order to understand school enrollment among Dutch youngsters. Every school has a certain

reputation, a public image (Bentley et al, 2009; Hollingworth & Archer 2009). As mentioned before in paragraph 2.2, in the UK as well in the Netherlands, vocational education has a long story of stigmatization (Reay, 2011). Additionally, the Dutch educational system deals with ethnic segregation: the government classifies schools with more than 60% of people from a non-western background as ‘black’ (Ensie, 2016). Just like vocational education in general, these ‘black schools’ deal with stigmatization processes as well (Rothstein, 2004). In this last

paragraph, I will therefore zoom in on the institutional factors, in which the so far discussed structural factors are embedded. I will start by discussing Paulle’s work Toxic Schools (2013). Other topics to be covered in this last paragraph are: the school’s organizational structure and environment, career guidance, and the peer group decisions and opinions on school choice.

When it comes to these potentially relevant institutional factors, such as a school’s reputation, Paulle’s book Toxic Schools (2013) adds a valuable contribution to the debate. Based on six years of ethnographic research of similar profiled high schools in The Bronx, New York, and in the Bijlmer, Amsterdam, Paulle offers an analysis of life inside these troubled, what he calls “toxic”, schools, whereby he focuses on the micro-level daily interactions between students, their peers, and their teachers. Both schools serve low-income,

predominantly minority populations. However, Paulle actively dismisses education reform theories based on ethnicity and minority status. Instead, he points to poverty and the lack of relationships with stable adults. In his argument to not make it a racialized problem, Paulle criticizes scholars that characterize deviant behavior as a reflection of oppositional culture. Although the micro-interactions patterns do have specific gendered elements, the part played by race is much less significant according to the author. In this respect, Paulle’s book could be seen as a new and alternative view on the matter, compared to scholars who foreground ethnicity in their analysis and explanations of failings schools. Theoretically, Paulle draws on Bourdieu, and conceptualizes schools as relatively autonomous fields in which students are habituated into shared understandings of ‘social scoring’. In practice, this means the constant micro-interactional fights over the symbolic resources of the ‘thug life’. The students constantly worked to maintain appearances in order to maintain the respect of their peers. Providing detailed examples, Paulle shows the different positions along the gangster (the dominating) to nerd (the dominated) status spectrum in both settings. This constant need to establish and maintain social status was a primary stressor for many students, it distracts them from learning, and causes toxicity. When it comes to the latter term, Paulle refers to the “hazardous” effects of these schools for the mental and physical health of everyone involved. He concretely highlights the importance of somatic experiences of being bodily exposed to the violence, aggression, and anxiety in these schools. Alongside the much debated equal opportunities problem, Paulle points out something else that is problematic as well: the major health consequences as a result of chronic distress. The chapter in which Paulle describes cases of students that were able to succeed, despite overwhelming odds, is probably the most interesting one, looking at my own research. He finds that students with stronger support networks outside of schools, such as stable parents, were better able to avoid the detrimental aspects of seeking the ‘fabulous’ lifestyle. And he takes his analysis a bit further in arguing that the exact mechanisms through which the students maintained success are emotional stability and social control, which leads to physical and emotional self-discipline that helped them to ‘escape’ from the toxic power dynamics. Lastly, an interesting finding is that many of the students, regardless of one’s socioeconomic background, expressed desires to obtain an education. Despite their deviant behavior, most of the students do find school important. An interesting component of his book obviously is the comparison of different welfare contexts and educational institutions. Daily life in the Dutch case appeared to be less damaging than in the Bronx. Looking at my own research, I should consider very carefully whether the schools included in my sample classify as toxic environments too. Additionally, the Dutch school Paulle focused on educates students on the lowest vocational track of Dutch education, whereas in my research, I focus specifically on VMBO-t students who are theoretically seen able to go to HAVO after their graduation. Nevertheless, the work of Paulle is very useful as an example in analyzing the institutional settings of the schools included in my sample. What kind of schools are they? Are they dealing with a stigma? Which social and geographical factors come into play? How is the ‘vibe’ inside the buildings? What does the student populations look like in terms of ethnic background? And, based on what the respondents tell me, what kind of impressions do I get of the peer group dynamics? As I am not doing ethnography, I will

(24)

24

never be able to detect processes of peer group dynamics the way Paulle has done. However, I hope that addressing the topic during the interviews with my respondents will provide some valuable insights as well.

Alongside the micro-interaction processes between students, their peers, and their teachers, the school’s organizational structure as a whole can be relevant as well, when it comes to school choice. Generally, there are three types of VMBO schools in the Netherlands (Onderwijsinspectie, 2017). There are schools with a specific thematic vocational profile (‘beroepsgericht’); for example, Jefferson College in Rotterdam with a curriculum that focuses on careers in the harbour. Secondly, there are VMBO schools that are part of a larger structure, the comprehensive school (‘scholengemeenschap’); for example, Lincoln College in Woerden, which offers multiple education trajectories at the VMBO, HAVO and VWO levels. In most cases, all trajectories are located in the same building. When a student wants to switch from VMBO to HAVO, it is possible to stay in the same school environment. Lastly, there are categorical VMBO schools (‘categorale vmbo’); for example, Roosevelt College in Heemskerk. Very often, these are small schools that offer one specific VMBO track, for example VMBO-t (the theoretical track). This organizational structure can be a relevant factor when it comes to school choice. A VMBO student that goes to Jefferson College for example, might be more likely to choose for vocational education (MBO) as the school’s curriculum is focused on that. On the other hand, a VMBO student that goes to Lincoln College, might be more likely to opt for HAVO, as the switch can be a lower threshold (the student stays in the same building). Another reason why a school’s organizational structure might be relevant, is whether the school provides a ‘plus class’; a more advanced trajectory alongside the regular VMBO education. VMBO students in a plus class are able to do some extra work that will be assessed on the HAVO level. For example, a student can choose to do maths at the HAVO level and the other subjects at the VMBO level. This prepares students that plan to go to HAVO for the difference in education quality (Dekker, 2014).

A third important institutional factor is the providence of career guidance (‘loopbaanbegeleiding’) at VMBO schools. In the Netherlands, secondary schools are obliged to provide career guidance to their students. This is an extra course alongside their regular subjects that aims to prepare students for their further educational career, and for the labour market. It helps them in discovering their personal interests, talents, and provides insight in the possibilities when it comes to further studies. Looking back at the equal opportunity function of education, as is explained in the introduction chapter, career guidance can tackle social class differences as children from less advantaged background are usually not well informed about educational trajectories and labor market perspectives (Bussemaker & Dekker, 2016). Schools in the Netherlands however are quite autonomous in how they concretely shape their career guidance course. Some schools only let their students take a career orientation test online (most schools use ‘Qompas Studiekeuze’ as a method for this (Qompas, 2018)), or let them have an individual conversation on this topic with their tutors. Other schools are approaching it more actively by organizing ‘career markets’, for which they invite MBO schools to introduce their students to different possibilities and routes. It is a plausible thought that students from schools with a more active approach, are benefitting more from career guidance compared to children in schools where less attention is being paid to the subject (Bussemaker & Dekker, 2016).

Lastly, another possible influencing factor on school enrollment might be the views and behaviours of peers. The work of Paulle (2013) has already showed the general influence of peer group dynamics on

adolescents. However, multiple studies have shown that adolescents are explicitly being influenced by their friends and classmates when it comes to school choice (Thomas & Webber 2009; Jonnson & Mood 2008; Speckesser and Hedges 2017). For my thesis, I consider these findings important in my approach to the field, however I think that the ways peers affect educational choice among youngsters is research worthy of its own time, and therefore I will not delve too deeply into this debate.

(25)

(26)

26

Chapter 3: Methods

In this chapter, I will elaborate upon the research’s methodology. It includes a review of the chosen research set-up, and a brief discussion of the research population, theoretical concepts operationalization, data collection and analysis processes. Before I delve more into this study’s methodology, it is important to mention that I have combined my thesis with a graduate

research internship at the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (in Dutch abbreviated as OCW), which is based in The Hague, the Netherlands. More specifically; from March to the end of July 2018, I have worked at the Ministry’s knowledge department ‘Directie Kennis’. This department is responsible for policy and scenario development on the terrain of education, culture, and science. The team, mostly consisting of

economists, sociologists, and pedagogics, connects scientific knowledge to experiences in the field, evaluates policy, and meets the demands from politicians (OCW, 2018). During my internship, I was supervised by Dr. Tim Schokker, Senior Policy Advisor at ‘Directie Kennis’. The research topic and question are partly

commissioned by, and in the interest of, the Ministry but are for the most part derived from my personal interest as a sociology student. This thesis is therefore to be seen as an independent research project.

§3.1 Research set-up Strategy

For my thesis, I have formulated the following research question:

How do youngsters frame their choice for theoretical or vocational education? What justifications are used by them to support this choice?

Since I was looking for the underlying perceptions, motivations, or, as stated in the research question, “ways of framing”, I have chosen to conduct a qualitative-based study, with a main method of in-depth and

semi-structured interviews. This, in contrast to a quantitative approach, enabled me to really engage with the field, and to “see through the eyes of the people being studied” (Bryman, 2012: 399). It was, after all, my goal to gain a wider understanding of my research population’s world. Important here, is Weber’s concept ‘Verstehen’ (Ibid., 322). As mentioned earlier in the introduction, we already know a lot about structural educational inequality on macro-levels (Schmidt, 2015; Shavit, 2007; Jonsson & Erikson, 2000). Therefore, my research adds a valuable contribution to this discussion by taking a more micro-sociological approach to the field, Dutch youngsters and their school choice, as I have been focusing on processes of self-selection, decision-making among youngsters, and the interaction with their social environments. Additionally, as my thesis is party commissioned by OCW, I consider a qualitative approach more likely to result in useful insights for policy makers than much of the empirically (statistically) driven research that currently drives urban educational policy (Paulle, 2013). Lastly, this study has an explorative character, as I have literally been exploring the field.

Instruments

In order to reach the above-mentioned goal, I have used two research instruments: a literature review and interviews. The literature study has served as the base for my topic list, which I have used as a guide during the interviews (see Appendix A). The interviews were in-depth and semi-structured; I had outlined some overarching themes and questions beforehand, which allowed me to gain similar and detailed information about each respondent. At the same time, this method saved enough space for new topics, depending on the

respondent’s input. Interviews are an appropriate tool to use in order to gain a wider understanding of the research population’s world (Bryman, 2012) but there are some implications as well. Most importantly, when interviewing, you never get to fully know the real ‘experience’, but a representation of it (Silverman, 2011). This is why I have paid attention to the student’s body language and ways of self-presentation during the interviews as well. Directly after the interviews, I have noted down this ‘extra’ information.

(27)

27 §3.2 Research population

Profile respondents

I have interviewed Dutch youngsters, to be more specifically: VMBO students in year three. This third year is an important moment as students must decide whether they take an extra course or not. As mentioned in the introduction, an extra course in their fourth (graduation) year enables VMBO students to go to HAVO, the theoretical path, after their exams. No extra course automatically leads them to MBO, the vocational path. This is therefore a moment where processes of self-selection (Spruyt et al., 2016) take place. You might wonder why I did not choose to interview pupils in the last grade of high school (‘groep 8’). This is because the ‘advice’ pupils in the 8th_{grade is binding, and the level of education they go to is therefore not really a choice (tracking).}

However, as we have seen in the previous chapter, for VMBO students in year three, their next step (HAVO or MBO) might be not that much of a choice either, due to several factors on the structural and institutional level. Though, the latter group students does not receive a binding advice, which makes them more autonomous in their decision to go to HAVO or MBO, and a more interesting group to focus my research on.

Sample

Initially, my plan was to interview around twenty VMBO students in total. To make a comparison possible between the justifications respondents used that plan to go to HAVO and respondents that go to MBO, I strived to a balance of ten VMBO students of each group (HAVO or MBO). Moreover, my ideal sample

included an equal gender representation, and a distribution of seven respondents per school. Even though I was interested in the relationship between a student’s socioeconomic background and their school choice, I decided not to pre-select based on social class due to ethical reasons. My fingers were crossed that my sample would include respondents from varying social backgrounds, something I could only find out during the interviews. To get access to the field, I contacted multiple schools from all three different types of VMBO schools (as outlined in the theoretical framework). For practical reasons (travel distance etc.), only schools in the Randstad area were approached (see Appendix B). Additionally, for my research it was not essential to have schools located in cities and countryside equally represented. After gauging their students interest in participating in my study, my contacts (mostly third year coaches or school principals) replied telling me that more students were interested and willing to participate than I initially asked for. Therefore, I ended up interviewing thirty-two respondents in total. In order to guarantee the respondent’s privacy, all names are anonymized through the use of pseudonyms. For an overview of all respondent’s characteristics, see Appendix B.

Even though a representative sample is not a priority in qualitative research (Bryman, 2012), it was important to have all three school types included in my sample as I wanted to investigate the institutional, or ‘situational’ factors as well. In total, ended up visiting four schools (for this research purposes are the school names pseudonymized as well, whereby I have used four American president’s names) of which two are comprehensive schools: Lincoln College and Wilson College. The latter school, however, is different in that it is a religious (Protestant) school. Since only four respondents from this school were interviewed, this input should be seen as ‘extra’ and complementary to the information I have gathered from interviewing Lincoln College respondents. For more information about the sample, such as frequency distribution tables, see Appendix B. §3.3 Operationalization theoretical concepts

In this paragraph, I will not elaborate on the whole topic list, as some concepts are ‘obvious’ and speak for themselves. Examples are school engagement (operationalization: ‘How are you liking school?’ and ‘Do you like your teachers?’), or institutional factors such as career guidance (‘What did you think of career guidance?’ and ‘Has it been helpful for you?’). However, some theoretical concepts are less clear and do need an explanation. Socioeconomic status (SES)

For my thesis, I have used the following definition of SES: “One’s access to financial, social, cultural, and human capital resources. Traditionally a student’s SES has included, as components, parental educational attainment, parental occupational status, and household or family income, with appropriate adjustment for household or family composition. An expanded SES measure could include measures of additional household, neighbourhood, and school resources” (NCES, 2012: 30). Historically, SES has been measured in multiple ways. In most cases, it has been defined as a combination of family income, parental educational attainment, and

VMBO students and their future selves : an exploratory study of young people's educational choices in the Netherlands