The relationship between ethnic school composition, school diversity climate and students’ competences in dealing with differences

Figures & data

Table 1. Definition of dealing with differences based on the particular components.

Components	Knowledge	Attitudes	Skills	Reflection
Social Task	Knowing, understanding, insight	Thoughts, desires, willingness	Estimate of what one can do	Contemplation of topics
Dealing with differences Handling of social, cultural, religious, and outward differences.	A young person with such knowledge is familiar with cultural differences, has knowledge of rules of behaviour in different social situations, knows when one can speak of prejudice or discrimination.	A young person with such attitudes has a desire to learn other people’s opinions and lifestyles, has a positive attitude towards differences.	A young person with such skills can adequately function in unfamiliar social situations, adjust to the desires or habits of others.	A young person with such reflection thinks about the nature and consequences of the differences between people and cultural backgrounds for behaviour and processes of inclusion and exclusion.

Note: This is one part of a larger table taken from Ten Dam et al. (2011) on citizenship competences (see their publication for the full table).

Table 2. Descriptive statistics for variables.

Variables	$\overline{\mathrm{X}}$, proportion or %
Outcome variables (n = 4042)
DD – knowledge	.79 (1.29)
DD – attitude	2.71 (.66)
DD – reflection	1.97 (.66)
DD – skills	3.01 (.46)
School level (n = 62)
Ethnic school diversity	.32 (.22)
Diversity climate
Teachers’ diversity-related goals	4.38 (.18)
Teachers’ diversity-related practices	3.43 (.22)
SES composition
Proportion low SES	.12 (.08)
Degree of urbanisation	3.55 (1.33)
School type
Vocational	32%
School size	846 (521)
Individual level (n = 4042)
Ethnic background (migrant)	22.8%
Gender
Female	51.6%
SES
Low	11.7%
missing	18.1%
Educational track
Vocational	44.2%

Note. Standard deviations are in parentheses.

Table 3. Correlations between individual level variables (n = 4042).

Measures	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. SES	1	−.17**	.01	.16**	.003	−.11**	−.08**	−.04*	−.004**
2. SES missing	−.17**	1	.12**	.22**	.05**	−.16**	−.07**	−.06**	−.04*
3. Ethnic background	.01	.12**	1	.12**	−.01	−.10**	.16**	.13**	−.02**
4. Educational track	.16**	.22**	.12**	1	.05**	−.41**	−.13**	−.02	−.08**
5. Gender	.003	.05**	−.01	.05**	1	−.16**	−.25**	−.09**	−.08**
6. DD-knowledge	−.11**	−.16**	−.10**	−.41**	−.16**	1	.21**	−.06**	.18**
7. DD-attitude	−.08**	−.07**	.16**	−.13**	−.25**	.21**	1	.30**	.27**
8. DD-reflection	−.04*	−.06**	.13**	−.02	−.09**	−.06**	.30**	1	.14**
9. DD-skills	−.004**	−.04*	−.02**	−.08**	−.08**	.18**	.27**	.14**	1

Note: Pearson’s correlation coefficients are reported for the correlation between continuous and dichotomous variables and Phi coefficients are reported for the correlation between dichotomous variables.

*p ≤ .05.

**p ≤ .01.

Table 4. Correlations between school level variables (n = 62).

Measures	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. Ethnic school diversity	1	.16	.25*	−.09	−.13	.60**	.15
2. Teachers’ diversity goals	.16	1	.36**	.10	−.19	.06	.00
3. Teachers’ diversity practices	.25*	.36**	1	.14	.02	.15	.09
4. School size	−.09	.10	.14	1	−.37**	.22	−.64**
5. SES composition	−.13	−.19	.02	−.37**	1	−.37**	.40**
6. Degree of urbanisation	.60**	.06	.15	.22	−.37**	1	−.10
7. School type	.15	.00	.09	−.64**	.40**	−.10	1

*p ≤ .05.

**p ≤ .01.

Table 5. Associations between ethnic school composition, school diversity climate and dealing with differences – knowledge.

	Model 1: control variables	Model 2: + ethnic composition	Model 3: + diversity climate	Model 4: + ethnic school composition x diversity climate
Fixed
Intercept	1.62(.25)***	1.48(.21)***	1.48(.22)***	1.47(.21)***
School level
Ethnic composition
(Herfindahl index)
B		−.44(.31)	−.33(.31)	−.34(.28)
β		−.27	−.20	−.21
School size
B	.00(.00)*	.00(.00)	.00(.00)*	.00(.00)*
β	.29	.25	.31*	.34*
Degree of urbanisation
B	.02(.04)	.06(.03)	−.05(.04)	−.05(.04)
β	.07	.23	.19	.18
School type (vocational)
B	−.15(.12)	−.13(.12)	−.09(.12)	−.11(.12)
β	−.41	−.36	−.25	−.31
SES composition
(proportion low)
B	−.98(.76)	−.99(.71)	−1.10(.75)	−1.07(.73)
β	−.22	−.22	−.25	−.24
School diversity climate
Diversity goals
B			−.25 (.24)	−.43(.25)
β			−.13	−.22
Diversity practices
B			−.20(.15)	−.06(.16)
β			−.12	−.04
Indirect effect
Ethnic
composition=>
Diversity goals
B			−.03 (0.04)
β			−.02
Ethnic
composition=>
Diversity practices
B			−.05 (.04)
β			−.03
Ethnic composition
x
diversity goals
B				−1.88(1.08)
β				−.20
Ethnic composition
x
diversity practices
B				1.42(.74)
β				.18
Individual level
Gender
B	−.37(.05)***	−.37(.05)***	−.37(.05)***	−.37(.05)***
β	−.31***	−.31***	−.31***	−.31***
Ethnicity
B	−.07(.05)	−.06 (.05)	−.05 (.05)	−.06 (.05)
β	−.06	−.05	−.05	−.05
Vocational track
B	−.70(.11)***	−.70(.11)***	−.70(.11)***	−.70(.11)***
β	−.59***	−.59***	−.59***	−.59***
SES low
B	−.16(.06)**	−.16(.06)**	−.16(.06)**	−.16(.06)**
β	−.14**	−.14**	−.14**	−.14**
SES missing
B	−.17(.05)***	−.17(.05)**	−.17(.05)***	−.17(.05)**
β	−.14**	−.14**	−.14**	−.14**
Random
σ^2e (residual individual variance)	1.23(.04)***	1.23(.04)***	1.23(.04)***	1.23(.04)***
σ^2v0 (residual school variance)	.08(.03)**	.08(.02)**	.07(.02)***	0.07(.02)**
TRd	229.09***	2.51	50.45***	9.41
Δdf	9	1	8	4
ICC level 2	0.08	0.08	0.08	0.08

Notes. Standard errors are in parentheses.

In model 4, the diversity climate as a mediator (from model 3) was removed and included as a moderator. Thus, both models 3 and 4 are compared with model 2.

ICC of the null-model: 0.22

*p < .05.

**p < .01.

***p <.001.

Table 6. Associations between ethnic school composition, school diversity climate and dealing with differences – attitude.

	Model 1: control variables	Model 2: + ethnic composition	Model 3: + diversity climate	Model 4: + ethnic school composition x diversity climate
Fixed
Intercept	3.20(.07)***	3.27(.07)***	3.27(.07)***	3.27(.07)***
School level
Ethnic composition (Herfindahl index) B β		.22(07)** .46**	.24(.07)** .50**	.25(.08)** .52**
School size B β	.00(.00)* −.44**	.00(.00)* −.36*	.00(.00) −.32	.00(.00) −.33
Degree of urbanisation B β	.04(.01)** .48**	.02(.01) .21	.02(.01) .19	.02(.01) .19
School type (vocational) B β	−.06(.05) −.60	−.07(.05) −.65	−.06(.05) −.59	−.07(.05) −.62
SES composition (proportion low) B β	−.29(.23) −.23	−.27(.22) −.21	−.29(.22) −.23	−.28(.23) −.22
School diversity climate Diversity goals B β Diversity practices B β Indirect effect Ethnic composition=> Diversity goals B β Ethnic composition=> Diversity practices B β			−.04(.08) −.07 −.04(.07) −.09 −.01(.01) −.01 −.01(.02) −.02	−.03(.09) −.06 −.03(.07) −.06
Ethnic composition x diversity goals B β Ethnic composition x diversity practices B β				−.19(.42) −.07 −.08(.36) −.03
Individual level
Gender B β	−.32(.02)*** −.49***	−.32(.02)*** −.49***	−.32(.02)*** −.49***	−.32(.02)*** −.49***
Ethnicity B β	.23(.02)*** .36***	.21(.03)*** .33***	.21(.03)*** .33***	.21(.03)*** .33***
Vocational track B β	−.10(.03)** −.15***	−.10(.03)*** −.16***	−.10(.03)** −.16**	−.10(.03)** −.16***
SES low B β	−.14(.03)*** −.21***	−.14(.03)*** −.21***	−.14(.03)*** −.21***	−.14(.03)*** −.21***
SES missing B β	−.12(.02)*** −.18***	−.12(.02)*** −.18***	−.12(.02)*** −.18***	−.12(.02)*** −.18***
Random
σ^2e (residual individual variance)	.38(.01)***	.38(.01)***	.38(.01)***	.38(.01)***
σ^2v0 (residual school variance)	.01(.002)***	.01(.002)**	.01(.002)**	.01(.002)**
TRd	427.55***	5.21*	47.01***	1.51
Δdf	9	1	8	4
ICC level 2	0.02	0.03	0.03	0.03

Notes: Standard errors are in parentheses.

In model 4, the diversity climate as a mediator (from model 3) was removed and included as a moderator. Thus, both models 3 and 4 are compared with model 2.

ICC of the null-model: 0.06

*p < .05.

**p< .01.

***p <.001.

Table 7. Associations between ethnic school composition, school diversity climate and dealing with differences – reflection.

	Model 1: control variables	Model 2: + ethnic composition	Model 3: + diversity climate	Model 4: + ethnic school composition x diversity climate
Fixed
Intercept	2.04(.09)***	2.13(.08)***	2.14(.08)***	2.15(.08)***
School level
Ethnic composition (Herfindahl index) B β		.29(.10)** .48***	.26 (.10)** .43**	.29(.10)** .48***
School size B β	.00(.00)* −.29*	.00(.00) −.21	.00(.00)* −.27*	.00(.00)* −.28
Degree of urbanisation B β	.05(.02)** .53***	.02(.02) .24	.03(.02) .25	.03(.01) .25
School type (vocational) B β	.00(.06) .003	−.01(.06) −.07	−.02(.05) −.14	−.03(.05) −.21
SES composition (proportion low) B β	−.30(.27) −.19	−.28(.24) −.17	−.28(.26) −.17	−.24(.24) −.15
School diversity climate Diversity goals B β Diversity practices B β Indirect effect Ethnic composition=> Diversity goals B β Ethnic composition=> Diversity practices B β			.03 (.10) .04 .09(.06) .14 .004(.01) .01(.02) .02(.02) .04(.03)	.04(.12) .06 .14(.08) .23
Ethnic composition x diversity goals B β Ethnic composition x diversity practices B β				−.67(.60) −.20 −.18(.49) −.06
Individual level
Gender B β	−.10(.03)*** −.16**	−.10(.03)*** −.16**	−.10(.03)*** −.16***	−.10(.03)*** −.16**
Ethnicity B β	.12(.03)*** .18***	.10(.03)** .15**	.10(.03)** .15**	.10(.03)** .15**
Vocational track B β	.02(.04) .02	−.01(.04) .02	.01(.04) .02	.01(.04) .02
SES low B β	−.08(.03)* −.12*	−.08(.03)* −.12*	−.08(.03)* −.12*	−.08(.03)* −.12*
SES missing B β	−.13(.03)*** −.21***	−.13(.03)*** −.21***	−.13(.03)*** −.21***	−.13(.03)*** −.21***
Random
σ^2e (residual individual variance)	.41(.01)***	.41(.01)***	.41(.01)***	.41(.01)***
σ^2v0 (residual school variance)	.01(.004)*	.01(.004)*	.01(.003)*	.01(.003)*
TRd	70.33***	10.43***	47.83***	5.82
Δdf	9	1	8	4
ICC level 2	0.04	0.04	0.04	0.04

Notes. Standard errors are in parentheses.

In model 4, the diversity climate as a mediator (from model 3) was removed and included as a moderator. Thus, both models 3 and 4 are compared with model 2.

ICC of the null-model: 0.06

*p < .05.

**p < .01.

***p < .001.

Table 8. Associations between ethnic school composition, school diversity climate and dealing with differences – skills.

	Model 1: control variables	Model 2: + ethnic composition	Model 3: + diversity climate	Model 4: + ethnic school composition x diversity climate
Fixed
Intercept	3.22(.06)***	3.18(.06)***	3.18(.06)***	3.18(.06)***
School level
Ethnic composition (Herfindahl index) B β		−.12(.07) −.37*	−.10 (.07) −.31	−.09(.07) −.27
School size B β	.00(.00) −.31	.00(.00)* −.35*	.00(.00) −.30	.00(.00)* −.31
Degree of urbanisation B β	.00(.01) .01	.01(.01) .22	.01(.01) .19	.01(.01) .18
School type (vocational) B β	−.04(.04) −.55	−.04(.03) −.49	−.03(.03) −.39	−.03(.04) −.42
SES composition (proportion low) B β	−.33(.20) −.36*	−.33(.19) −.37*	−.36(.20) −.39*	−.34(.20) −.37*
School diversity climate Diversity goals B β Diversity practices B β Indirect effect Ethnic composition=> Diversity goals B β Ethnic composition=> Diversity practices B β			−.05(.06) −.12 −.04(.05) −.12 −.01(.01) −.02 −.01(.01) −.03	−.03(.06) −.08 −.03(.06) −.09
Ethnic composition x diversity goals B β Ethnic composition x diversity practices B β				−.14(.35) −.07 −.14(.29) −.09
Individual level
Gender B β	−.07(.02)*** −.15***	−.07(.02)*** −.15***	−.07(.02)*** −.15***	−.07(.02)*** −.15***
Ethnicity B β	−.002(.02) −.01	.01(.02) .02	.01(.03) .02	.01(.03) .02
Vocational track B β	−.03(.03) −.07	−.03(.03) −.07	−.03(.03) −.07	−.03(.03) −.07
SES low B β	.02(.03) .04	.02(.03) .04	.02(.03) .04	.02(.03) .04
SES missing B β	−.02(.02) −.04	−.02(.02) −.04	−.02(.02) −.04	−.02(.02) −.04
Random
σ^2e (residual individual variance)	.21(.01)***	.21(.01)***	.21(.01)***	.21(.01)***
σ^2v0 (residual school variance)	.004(.002)**	.004(.001)**	.004(.001)**	.004(.001)**
TRd	33.82***	4.33*	49.04***	2.88
Δdf	9	1	8	4
ICC level 2	0.03	0.03	0.03	0.03

Notes. Standard errors are in parentheses.

In model 4, the diversity climate as a mediator (from model 3) was removed and included as a moderator. Thus, both models 3 and 4 are compared with model 2.

ICC of the null-model: 0.03.

*p < .05.

**p < .01.

***p <.001.

Ten Dam, G., F. Geijsel, R. Reumerman, and G. Ledoux. 2011. “Measuring Young People's Citizenship Competences.” European Journal of Education 46 (3): 354–372.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar