Effects of school quality, school citizenship policy, and student body composition on the acquisition of citizenship competences in the final year of primary education

Abstract

This study examines the effects of general educational quality of schools, school citizenship policy, and ethnic homogeneity of the student body on the acquisition of citizenship competences in the final year of primary education. The theoretical framework is based on developmental, psychological, and sociological studies into effects of social context on educational outcomes and research into effective schools. The effects of school quality, school policy, and student population were analysed using 2-level (students, school) multilevel models. The results show that differences in citizenship competences between students and schools are mainly explained by factors at student level. Although the school also appeared to play a role, the school variables used in the analysis did not offer sufficient explanation for these differences. In order to further investigate the relationship between school factors and students’ citizenship, more insight is needed into characteristics of citizenship practices of schools.

Keywords:

• citizenship
• youth
• effective schools
• student body composition
• ethnic diversity

Notes

1. The formula used to calculate the school’s ethnic diversity is: Diversity = 1 − ((proportion ethnic background₁)² + (proportion ethnic background₂)² + … + (proportion ethnic background_n)²). For example, the Herfindahl index for a school with 60% students of Dutch descent and 40% of students of Turkish descent is 1 − (.60)² − (.40) ²) = .48. But for a school where 60% of the students are of Dutch descent, 10% of Turkish descent, 20% of Moroccan descent, and 10% of Surinam descent, the diversity is 1 − (.60)² − (.10)² − (.20)²− (.10) ² = .60. Both schools have the same percentage of students of Dutch descent, but the latter school is more ethnically diverse.

2. As is shown in the Analyses section, except for the variables in Tables 1 to 4, none of the school variables measuring subject matter, teaching timing, educational approaches, and strategies used by teachers, tailoring the teaching to students’ needs, students’ attitudes to learning, school climate and the school’s quality assurance system, did show a significant effect.

3. For example, the effect size of being a boy compared to being a girl in Table 3 (Model 5) is: (1–0)*−0.063/√0.028 = −0.38.

4. Model information (Schools n = 91; Students n = 1,730; and number of units on dependent variable level 6,901)

Table

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Anne Bert Dijkstra

Anne Bert Dijkstra is professor by special appointment (chair Supervision and Socialisation in Education) at the University of Amsterdam and programme coordinator at the Education Inspectorate of The Netherlands (this article has been written in a personal capacity and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Education Inspectorate).

Femke Geijsel

Femke Geijsel is professor by special appointment (chair Educational Leadership) at the Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences of the University of Amsterdam and director of the Netherlands Academy of Leadership in Education.

Guuske Ledoux

Guuske Ledoux is Director of Research at the Kohnstamm Institute of the University of Amsterdam.

Ineke van der Veen

Ineke van der Veen is senior researcher at the Kohnstamm Institute of the University of Amsterdam.

Geert ten Dam

Geert ten Dam is full professor of education at the University of Amsterdam.