Geert Driessen (2002) IJER The effect of religious groups’ dominance in classrooms on cognitive...

THE EFFECT OF RELIGIOUS GROUPSrsquo DOMINANCE IN CLASSROOMS ON COGNITIVE AND NONCOGNITIVE

EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES1

GEERT WJM DRIESSEN

ITS-Institute for Applied Social Sciences University of Nijmegen

AbstractThis paper focusses on the relation between pupilsrsquo religious minority or majority position inschool on the one hand and a number of cognitive and noncognitive educational outcomes onthe other On the basis of theoretical notions about value and functional communities (Coleman)school belonging and school membership (Goodenow) and the effects of school compositionit was expected that pupils in a position of religious dominance function and perform better atschool Data from 550 Dutch primary schools and 10000 grade 2 pupils were analysed usingdescriptive and multilevel analysis techniques The results failed to con rm expectations con-cerning a position of religious dominance

Keywordsclassroom composition parental religious af liation school denomination educational out-comes value communities school belonging large-scale research multilevel analysis

1 INTRODUCTION

Since the beginning of the 20th century the principle of freedom of edu-cation has applied in the Netherlands This means inter alia that parentshave a right to establish a school and that schools may teach in accord-ance with a speci c religious belief or philosophy In addition all schoolsare entitled to equal subsidies It implies that public schools run by localgovernment receive the same funding as private schools most of whichare based on religious belief and run by private law institutions (RitzenVan Dommelen amp De Vijlder 1997) The system has led to an educationalsystem comprising three main denominations public Roman Catholic andChristian Protestant each representing some 30 of primary schools Inaddition there are 16 smaller denominations such as Islamic Hindu and Mon-tessori together constituting 7 of all schools (Van Haaften amp Snik 1999)

Over the years the number of studies of the relation between parentsrsquoreligious af liation and their childrenrsquos educational outcomes has beenlimited not only in the Netherlands but elsewhere as well (Dijkstra ampPeschar 1996 Sherkat amp Darnell 1999) The ndings of such research

International Journal of Education and Religion III1 46-68copy Koninklijke Brill NV Leiden 2002

THE EFFECT OF RELIGIOUS GROUPSrsquo DOMINANCE 47

show that by and large the effects of religious belief are minimal and ifpupilsrsquo socioeconomic background is taken into account as well they dis-appear altogether Considerably more research has been done on the rela-tion between school denomination and childrenrsquos educational outcomes(Dijkstra 1997) Such research focussed largely on cognitive outcomes atthe end of primary education noncognitive outcomes have hardly beenresearched at all The results of this kind of research have not been con-sistent sometimes they indicate effects sometimes not To the extent thateffects are noted the trend is for private schools and more particularlyRoman Catholic ones to do better than public and other private schools

Of late the relation between religion and education has attracted renewedattention (Dijkstra 1997) This is largely attributable to a process of sec-ularisation and declining church membership that started in the 1960swhich has drastically affected the role of religion in society (Felling Petersamp Schreuder 1991 Hermans amp Van Vugt 1997) Noteworthy in this regardis that despite the radically altered situation in society at large the Dutcheducation system is still organised on the basis of religious classi cation(Bax 1988 Dekker amp Ester 1996) Although only 37 of Dutch peopleregard themselves as members of a religious denomination some 65 ofschools remain private religious institutions (Becker amp De Wit 2000Dronkers 1996) This paradoxical situation makes it interesting to deter-mine what relations there are between religion denomination and educa-tional outcomes

2 MAJORITY POSITION

This article investigates three aspects pertaining to religion First I exam-ine the relation between the religious af liation of parents of children inprimary education and the denomination of the schools attended by thesechildren on the one hand and certain educational outcomes on the otherIn contrast to a lot of earlier research the value of this study is that it isrelatively large-scale (about 550 schools and 10000 pupils) is based onvery recent (1999) data involves young children analyses both cognitiveand noncognitive effect measures and uses adequate analytical techniques(multilevel analyses) A key factor in the study is the pupilrsquos position inthe school as regards religion is he or she in a majority or a minorityposition Although this theme has been researched previously those stud-ies were conducted from the angle of ethnicity and social backgroundrather than from a religious perspective

48 GEERT WJM DRIESSEN

In the Netherlands Dijkstra and Veenstra (2000) have recently initiatedresearch into the effects of pupilsrsquo religious position They conceive of aschool as a community functioning within the larger whole of a socialenvironment Here they rely on the ideas of Coleman and Hoffer (1987)about functional and value communities as well as the ecological devel-opment model of Bronfenbrenner (1979) A value community refers to thecongruence between the norms and values prevailing in the childrsquos imme-diate social environment and those observed in the school A functionalcommunity exists when the school is assimilated into a network of mutualand intergenerational relations The expectation is that schools displayingmore attributes of functional and value communities provide a morefavourable context for achieving good educational outcomes

In community theory the relation between school and environment isfocal But one can also look into relations within a school In this regardKassenberg De Vos and Dijkstra (2000) refer to notions of belonging tothe school (school belonging and school membership) developed byGoodenow (1993) School belonging is seen as a feeling that one isaccepted valued integrated and encouraged by others (teachers and fel-low pupils) and that one is an important component of class life and activ-ities Research has shown that such feelings go hand in hand with strongermotivation to achieve greater self-con dence and well-being and ulti-mately as a result better cognitive performance Signi cantly there is arelation with pupilsrsquo gender and ethnic background Goodenow and Grady(1993) and Voelkl (1996) found that girls have a stronger sense of schoolbelonging than boys In addition children from ethnic minorities feel morestrongly af liated with the school According to these researchers the lat-ter nding is attributable to the value that the relevant minority culturesassign to society and their motivation for schooling2

Motivation to learn is strongly in uenced not only by pupilsrsquo home sit-uation but also by the extent to which one can speak of functional andvalue communities Within the school motivation is a product of inter-action between teacher and pupils and among the pupils themselves(Guldemond 1994) Various socio-psychological comparison processesalso play a major role (Marsh Koumlller amp Baumert 2001) Research in thisregard is often conducted within the framework of effects of school com-position (Thrupp 1995 Westerbeek 1999) Thus such studies may exam-ine the effect on performance of a large proportion of pupils from ethnicminorities in a school The percentage of pupils from ethnic minorities isde ned as an attribute at school level

As mentioned already Dijkstra and Veenstra (2000) have pursued thisnotion regarding ethnicity into the realm of religion More particularly


they determined to what extent the religious philosophy of the school iscongruent with the pupilsrsquo religious background and whether the mea-sure of congruence has any impact on educational performance Theirstudy is an extension of the research by Coleman and Hoffer (1987) intovalue communities which also examined the congruence between thedominant religion at school and pupilsrsquo religious background Both thesestudies in fact demonstrated a relation between such congruence and edu-cational performance

With due regard to these theoretical notions I have opted for a moreor less similar approach in my research A key issue is the position occu-pied by pupils in regard to religion that is a minority or a majority posi-tion The childrsquos religious position is determined by comparing it with theproportion of classmates whose parents share the same religious af lia-tion In contrast to studies of the effects of school composition here it isseen as an attribute at the level of the pupil rather than that of the schoolThe assumption is that ldquodominant religionrdquo refers to a value and func-tional community If the child is in such a majority position there will bemore social networking between this pupilrsquos parents and other parents thanif the child is in a minority position There will also be greater corre-spondence between the norms and values observed at home and at schoolfor instance regarding the importance of education and how children shouldbehave Both factors will positively in uence the childrsquos school careermainly because there will be less need for discussion about ends and meansand greater ( joint) control and support Not only will the relation betweenschool and home be more favourable the same applies to the situation inclass Children in a majority position have more characteristics in com-mon have a stronger sense of belonging and feel more at ease They haveless dif culty asserting themselves and consequently they can devote moreenergy to actual school tasks This leads to better educational outcomes

In this article majorityminority position in regard to religion is focalWith the aid of recently collected data on grade 2 primary school pupilsI seek to answer the following question

What effect does a pupilrsquos religious majority or minority position at pri-mary school have on a number of cognitive and noncognitive educa-tional outcomes

As measures of cognitive effect I take pre-reading and pre-maths pro ciencyand as noncognitive measures I use social position sense of well-beingand self-con dence It is anticipated that membership of a dominant reli-gious group will have a positive effect on educational outcomes Becausethe children involved are so young it is also expected that at this stage


the effect on noncognitive effect measures will be greater than on cogni-tive ones This is because membership of a dominant religious group affectsprimarily their social position well-being and self-con dence and onlythen ndash largely via these noncognitive effects ndash their cognitive skills

From the research question it is evident that I am interested mainly inthe impact of religious position on educational outcomes Since a num-ber of attributes of pupils and schools are known to obscure the opera-tion of this effect they need to be taken into account in analyses Hencethe analyses will be controlled for certain relevant background featuressuch as parentsrsquo education and ethnicity and the denomination of the schoolThe upshot is that we gain insight into the net effect of religious major-ityminority position

3 METHOD

31 Sample

The data analysed here derive from a Dutch cohort study entitled ldquoPrimaryEducationrdquo (PRIMA) As part of this research project test and question-naire data on primary school pupils their parents teachers and the rele-vant school administrators have been collected biennially since the 199495school year The project involves 700 primary schools which is almost10 of the total number of Dutch primary schools and some 60000 grade2 4 6 and 8 pupils The PRIMA project is characterised by an overrep-resentation of schools with a relatively large number of minority groupstudents which permits reliable estimates of the systematic effects of fac-tors pertaining to ethnicity and social background The present analysesare based on the results of the third PRIMA measurement in the 199899school year The analyses involve 10141 grade 2 pupils from 549 pri-mary schools

32 Dependent Variables

Five effect measures are used two cognitive and three noncognitive Whatfollows is merely a brief outline for a more detailed explanation you arereferred to Driessen Van Langen and Vierke (2000)

Language pro ciency Language pro ciency was measured using theConcepts test (Begrippen) developed by CITO (National Institute forEducational Measurement) This test gives an indication of the studentrsquosachievement level in pre-reading skills The test consists of 60 multiple-choice items reliability (K-R 20) is 96 By applying a calibration pro-


cedure the scores were rescaled so as to constitute a one-dimensionalmetric pro ciency scale

Maths pro ciency Maths pro ciency was measured using the Orderingtest (Ordenen) also developed by CITO This test gives an indicationof the studentrsquos achievement level in pre-maths skills The test containsa total of 42 multiple-choice items reliability (K-R 20) is 90 The scoreson this test were also rescaled to constitute a one-dimensional metricpro ciency scale

Social position Social position was measured by means of what isknown as a pupil pro le This pro le comprises a number of statementspresented to the grade teacher to indicate their applicability to each indi-vidual pupil Social position entails four items with a reliability (Cronbachrsquosa) of 84 Two examples of items are ldquoThis pupil is popular with class-matesrdquo and ldquoThis pupil has few friends in hisher classrdquo Scores on theitems range from 1 (ldquode nitely falserdquo) to 5 (ldquode nitely truerdquo) A scalescore was computed by averaging the scores on the component itemsA low score indicates low social position a high score points to highsocial status

Well-being Well-being too was derived from the pupil pro le It com-prises three items and has a reliability (Cronbachrsquos a) of 79 Examplesof items include ldquoThe pupil feels perfectly at ease with merdquo and ldquoThepupil feels uncomfortable at schoolrdquo The scale score was calculated inthe same way as that for social position

Self-con dence Self-con dence was also measured by means of pupilpro le It entails four items and has a reliability (Cronbachrsquos a) of 75Examples of items include ldquoThe pupil is timid and anxiousrdquo and ldquoThepupil is easily upsetrdquo The scale score was calculated in the same wayas that for social position

33 Independent Variables

Predictors were identi ed at two levels pupil level and school level Keyvariables were parental religious af liation denomination of school andreligious minoritymajority position In addition some relevant backgrounddata on children and their parents were collected these served as controlvariables in the analyses (cf Scheerens amp Bosker 1997)

331 Pupil LevelAt pupil level the following variables were used Religious af liation The following question was asked with regard to

parentsrsquo religious af liation ldquoWhich church religious community or


ideological group do you and your partner subscribe tordquo The follow-ing categories were identi ed (1) none (2) Roman Catholic (RC) (3)Protestant Christian (PC) (4) Islamic or Hindu and (5) other

Parental ethnicity Parentsrsquo birthplace was used to determine ethnicityOn substantive grounds four categories were identi ed (1) Dutch (2)Surinamese or Antillean (SurAnt) (3) Turkish or Moroccan (TurMor)and (4) other minority background The fourth category includes a mix-ture of Western and non-Western immigrants

Parental education Education was taken to be an indicator of socialbackground The highest educational level in the family that of thefather or mother was used Four categories were identi ed (1) primaryeducation (PE) (2) junior secondary vocational education (JSVE) (3)senior secondary vocational education (SSVE) and (4) higher voca-tional and university education (HE)

Gender There were two categories (1) boys and (2) girls Age A relative measure standardised according to grade was taken to

provide a rough indicator of repeating a grade or delayed entrance byimmigrant children There were three categories (1) the ldquonormrdquo or amaximum of six months older than the norm (2) more than six monthsolder and (3) more than a year older

Majorityminority position To determine the pupilrsquos relative position inregard to religion we rst established which religion had the highestincidence in each class Then we checked per pupil to determine whetherhe or she belonged to the majority group To distinguish between situ-ations where there was a clear majority group (eg 90 RC 5 PC5 other) and situations where the groups were more evenly distrib-uted (eg 40 RC 30 PC 30 other) we also calculated the varia-tion in the incidence of the different religions On the basis of the medianof this distribution a distinction was made between relatively little(diverse) and relatively great (dominant) variation Thus majorityminor-ity position had three categories (1) the pupil belongs to a minoritygroup (2) the pupil belongs to the biggest group but this group is notdominant (3) the pupil belongs to the biggest group which is dominant

332 School LevelAt school level one characteristic is identi ed Denomination Information on schoolsrsquo denominations was obtained

from the Ministry of Education The following categories were identi ed(1) public (2) Roman Catholic (RC) (3) Protestant Christian (PC) and(4) other private


4 RESULTS

41 Descriptive Analyses

Table 1 shows the correlations between parental religious af liation andthe religious majorityminority position of pupils on the one hand and thecontrol variables of ethnicity education gender and age on the otherCorrelations are indicated in the form of column percentages For eachpredictor the correlation coef cient Crameacuterrsquos V is given Next table 2shows the correlations between religious af liation and position and the ve effect measures These take the form of averages and the nominalmetric correlation coef cient Eta

From table 1 we see that in the no religion RC and PC categories theDutch are represented by between 89 and 96 The IslamicHindu cate-gory comprises 75 Turkish and Moroccan pupils As for education 40of Muslim and Hindu parents have at most primary school education TheIslamicHindu category also has relatively many older pupils probablycaused by late school entry In the majority diverse category there arecomparatively many children whose parents have no religious af liationwhereas the majority dominant category has relatively many Catholics

As for the relation between religious af liation and effect measurestable 2 shows signi cant differences in language and maths performancein which regard the IslamicHindu category ndash and to a lesser extent theother religions category as well ndash deviate negatively from the other reli-gious categories These two categories also differ marginally from the otherpupils in the class in respect of social position There are no signi canttotal correlations between majorityminority position when it comes toreligious af liation and the effect measures

Table 3 gives the correlations between the schoolrsquos denomination andthe predictors at pupil level while table 4 shows the correlations betweendenomination and the effect measures

Table 3 shows that there is in fact a signi cant correlation betweenparental religious af liation and school denomination although there ismanifestly no question of a one-to-one relation clearly religious consid-erations are not the only ones in uencing the choice of a school

Table 4 indicates that the denominations do not differ in respect of thecognitive and noncognitive effect measures


Tabl

e 1

Cor

rela

tion

s of

rel

igio

n an

d re

ligi

ous

maj

ority

min

orit

y po

siti

on w

ith

ethn

icit

y e

duca

tion

ge

nder

and

age

(in

)

Rel

igio

nM

ajor

ity

min

ority

rel

igio

nN

one

RC

PC

Isla

m

Oth

erV

Min

orit

yM

ajor

ity

Maj

orit

yV

Tot

alH

indu

dive

rse

dom

inan

t

Rel

igio

nndash

22

Non

e10

00

00

032

3917

28R

C0

100

00

025

2739

32

PC

00

100

00

2214

2220

Is

lam

H

indu

00

010

00

1520

2119

O

ther

00

00

100

60

02

Eth

nici

ty5

11

2D

utch

9691

894

6372

7577

75

Sur

Ant

1

43

87

63

24

Tur

Mor

0

01

742

1016

1714

O

ther

45

713

2912

64

7 E

duca

tion

29

03

PE

34

340

910

911

10

JSV

E33

3026

3529

3232

2931

S

SV

E37

3740

1636

3233

3534

H

E28

2931

926

2625

2525

G

ende

r0

10

2B

oys

5252

5353

4854

5251

52

Gir

ls48

4847

4752

4648

4948

A

ge0

60

3N

orm

7069

7161

6567

6670

68

gt1

2 ye

ar30

3129

3834

3333

2932

gt

1 ye

ar0

00

11

00

00

N=

100

281

43

197

199

41

927

209

331

02

758

407

310

141


Tab

le 2

C

orre

lati

ons

of r

elig

ion

and

relig

ious

maj

orit

ym

inor

ity

posi

tion

with

effe

ct m

easu

res

(ave

rage

s)

Rel

igio

nM

ajor

ity

min

ority

rel

igio

n N

one

RC

PC

Isla

m

Oth

erE

taM

inor

ity

Maj

orit

yM

ajor

ity

Eta

Tota

lsd

Hin

dudi

vers

edo

min

ant

Lan

guag

e 98

698

698

595

397

73

697

997

998

10

397

937

Mat

hs56

5756

4755

28

5455

550

455

14S

ocia

l po

siti

on3

93

83

83

73

71

23

83

83

80

53

86

Wel

l-be

ing

41

41

41

40

40

07

41

41

41

02

41

5S

elf-

con

denc

e3

63

53

63

63

50

53

63

63

60

23

67


42 Multilevel Analyses

Having given a descriptive summary of the distributions and correlationsof the attributes under investigation we now offer an analysis in whichthe data are correlated in a multivariate manner To this end we make useof multilevel analysis This technique enables us to distinguish between

Table 3 Correlations of denomination with religion ethnicity education gender and age (in )

Denomination

Public RC PC Other private V

Religion 37None 47 18 25 14RC 13 58 11 28PC 10 7 52 22IslamHindu 27 16 9 34Other 2 1 3 2Ethnicity 11Dutch 68 77 85 60SurAnt 3 3 3 8TurMor 21 13 7 22Other 8 7 6 10Education 06PE 13 10 5 14JSVE 32 30 31 27SSVE 31 33 38 32HE 23 27 26 26Gender 02Boys 53 53 52 49Girls 47 47 48 51Age 03Norm 67 66 70 72gt12 year 32 33 29 28gt1 year 1 0 0 0

N=100 2905 4053 2381 802

Table 4 Correlations of denomination with effect measures (averages)

DenominationPublic RC PC Other private Eta

Language 977 981 981 974 07Maths 54 56 55 54 06Social position 38 38 38 37 04Well-being 41 41 41 41 01Self-con dence 36 36 36 36 03


different levels in the explanation of variance The underlying idea is thatvariance in say pupil performance lies partly at pupil level and partly atschool level Variance at school level is commonly known as systematicvariance School variables can only account for variance in performance thatis associated with the school level This means that a school variable whichin an ordinary one-level regression analysis including school and pupilvariables explains only a little of the total variance can still be an importantpredictor if the non-systematic (ie pupil level) part of the variance is leftout of account (cf Snijders amp Bosker 1999 Dijkstra amp Veenstra 2001)

In the multilevel analyses we test a series of models These models areconstructed step by step as follows

First we compute what is known as a null model by introducing a con-stant as predictor at both levels From this we can infer which part ofthe variance in effect measures is at pupil level and which part is atschool level

Next parental religious af liation is introduced as four dummy variablesin model 1 with the no religion category serving as reference group

In model 2 religious majorityminority position is added to the nullmodel as two dummy variables Here the majority dominant categoryis used as the reference group

In model 3 both religion and majorityminority position are added tothe null model

In model 4 the control variables ethnicity education gender and ageare added to model 3 Ethnicity entails three dummy variables with theDutch category serving as reference group for gender boys are the ref-erence group

In model 5 school denomination is added to model 4 This entails threedummy variables with public schooling serving as reference group

Finally in model 6 the cross-level interactions of religious af liationand religious majorityminority position with denomination are addedto model 5 Here one needs to determine whether the effects of religiousaf liation and position differ between schools of different denomina-tions Since no interaction proved signi cant model 6 was not includedin the tables

Tables 5 to 9 give the results of the multilevel analyses with the ve effectmeasures The tables re ect the unstandardised regression coef cients (B)and the accompanying standard errors (SE) In addition they indicate thedegree to which the estimates deviate signi cantly from zero (under p)Signi cant effects and highly signi cant effects are indicated with and respectively3


The tables are constructed as follows In the part labelled ldquovariancecomponentsrdquo the null model (model 0) gives the percentage distributionof the total variance in the effect measures according to pupil and schoollevel Then in the ensuing models we calculate which part of the vari-ance at each of these levels is ldquoexplainedrdquo by the predictors that wereintroduced For models 1 2 and 3 these variance explanations were rstcalculated in relation to the null model This indicated how much reli-gious af liation majorityminority position and religious af liation plusmajorityminority position respectively help to explain variance Then formodel 4 the explanation provided by model 3 was deducted so that underthis model the additional explanation of variance stands after the intro-duction of ethnicity education gender and age In model 5 the additionalvariance stands after the introduction of denomination

The values under x 2df are used to test whether any one model devi-ates signi cantly from another

models 1 2 and 3 are tested with reference to the null model model 4 is tested with reference to model 3 model 5 is tested with reference to model 4

Signi cant and highly signi cant effects are indicated with and respectively4

In the multilevel analyses the three noncognitive effect measures are allmultiplied by 10 since otherwise the effects and their standard errors areoften so slight that they cannot be presented in the same way as thecoef cients for language and mathematics that is by means of one decimalHence for purposes of data interpretation these effects have to be multi-plied by 10 The estimate for the general average of the effect measureshas been omitted from all the tables since as a result of centring the pre-dictors around their means (ie the individual score minus the grand mean)these are equivalent to the averages presented under ldquototalrdquo in table 2

Table 5 shows the results in regard to language pro ciency tables 6and 7 give the results for maths pro ciency and social position

From the null model in table 5 we gather that as much as 80 of thevariance in language pro ciency pertains to the pupil level and nearly20 to the school level In model 1 parental religious af liation is intro-duced as a predictor From the regression coef cients it is evident thatchildren of Catholic parents score 2 marks lower than the reference cat-egory children of non-religious parents The Protestant Christian categoryscores 4 marks lower and the IslamicHindu category no less than 276This last difference is highly signi cant amounting to three quarters ofthe standard deviation The ldquootherrdquo category scores 61 marks lower The


Tab

le 5

R

esul

ts o

f m

ulti

leve

l an

alys

es f

or l

angu

age

pro

cien

cy

Mod

el0

12

34

5B

SEp

BSE

pB

SEp

BSE

pB

SEp

RE

GR

ES

SIO

NC

OE

FFIC

IEN

TS

Rel

igio

na

RC

-2

10

-6

10

59

01

0P

C-

41

1-

51

15

10

81

1Is

lam

Hin

du-2

76

11

-2

80

11

-8

21

8

-82

18

O

ther

-61

23

-50

24

-18

23

-17

23

Pos

itio

n re

ligio

nb

Min

orit

y-

31

0-2

81

0-1

71

0-1

89

Maj

ority

div

erse

21

3-1

71

1-1

51

1-1

61

1

Eth

nici

tyc

Sur

Ant

-1

60

20

-1

60

20

T

urM

or

-18

91

9

-19

11

9

Oth

er-1

40

14

-1

41

14

Edu

cati

on

69

4

69

4

Gen

der

d7

16

7

16

A

ge7

87

7

87

Den

omin

atio

ne

RC

19

14

PC

-10

16

Oth

er p

riva

te-1

12

2

VA

RIA

NC

EC

OM

PO

NE

NT

SP

upil

lev

el (

)

807

40

04

0+

65

Sch

ool

leve

l (

)19

348

71

496

+7

8+

4x2 d

f16

6

0ns

112

12

3

1ns

Ref

eren

ce c

ateg

ory

ano

rel

igio

n b

maj

ority

dom

inan

t c

Dut

ch

dbo

ys

epu

blic

edu

catio

n ns

not

sign

ica

nt

si

gni

cant

hig

hly

sign

ica

nt (

see

Not

es 3

and

4)


Tabl

e 6

Res

ults

of

mul

tilev

el a

naly

ses

for

mat

hs p

roc

ienc

y

Mod

el0

12

34

5B

SEp

BSE

pB

SEp

BSE

pB

SEp

RE

GR

ES

SIO

NC

OE

FFIC

IEN

TS

Rel

igio

na

RC

14

-1

43

40

4P

C

64

64

74

94

Isla

mH

indu

-80

4

-82

4

-36

7

-36

7

Oth

er-

39

59

12

91

29

Pos

itio

n re

ligio

nb

Min

orit

y-

54

-14

4

-11

4-1

14

Maj

ority

div

erse

25

-3

5-

44

-4

4

Eth

nici

tyc

Sur

Ant

-43

8

-43

8

T

urM

or

-3

27

-3

37

O

ther

-32

5

-33

5

Edu

cati

on3

12

3

12

G

ende

r d

82

82

Age

38

3

38

3

Den

omin

atio

ne

RC

11

6P

C-1

27

Oth

er p

riva

te3

10

VA

RIA

NC

EC

OM

PO

NE

NT

SP

upil

lev

el (

)

808

28

02

8+

62

Sch

ool

leve

l (

)19

229

42

306

+6

1+

17

x2 df

104

5

ns73

11

2

2ns

Ref

eren

ce c

ateg

ory

ano

rel

igio

n b

maj

ority

dom

inan

t c

Dut

ch

dbo

ys

epu

blic

edu

catio

n ns

not

sign

ica

nt

si

gni

cant

hig

hly

sign

ica

nt (

see

Not

es 3

and

4)


Tab

le 7

R

esul

ts o

f m

ulti

leve

l an

alys

es f

or s

ocia

l po

siti

on

Mod

el0

12

34

5B

SEp

BSE

pB

SEp

BSE

pB

SEp

RE

GR

ES

SIO

NC

OE

FFIC

IEN

TS

Rel

igio

na

RC

-2

2-

22

-2

2-

22

PC

-1

2-

12

-1

20

2Is

lam

Hin

du-1

72

-1

82

-1

33

-1

23

O

ther

-18

4

-14

4-1

34

-12

4

Pos

itio

n re

ligio

nb

Min

orit

y-

52

-6

2

-6

2-1

03

Maj

ority

div

erse

12

02

02

-3

3

Eth

nici

tyc

Sur

Ant

-

24

-3

3T

urM

or

13

-0

3O

ther

-6

3-

63

Edu

cati

on7

1

71

G

ende

r d

71

7

1

Age

31

31

Den

omin

atio

ne

RC

23

PC

-3

3O

ther

pri

vate

-9

4

VA

RIA

NC

EC

OM

PO

NE

NT

SP

upil

lev

el (

)

888

70

7+

18

Sch

ool

leve

l (

)11

27

51

72

+8

+1

9x2 d

f25

12

21

26

1

ns

Ref

eren

ce c

ateg

ory

ano

rel

igio

n b

maj

ority

dom

inan

t c

Dut

ch

dbo

ys

epu

blic

edu

catio

n ns

not

sign

ica

nt

si

gni

cant

hig

hly

sign

ica

nt (

see

Not

es 3

and

4)


variance components indicate that 4 of the variance in language scoresat pupil level and 487 of the variance at school level are ldquoexplainedrdquoby religious af liation These differences are highly signi cant

In model 2 the effect of religious position is focal None of the cate-gories appear to be signi cant In model 3 both religious af liation andposition are introduced simultaneously In regard to religious af liationthere is hardly any change from model 1 The coef cients for position aresomewhat higher pupils in a minority position score 28 marks lower andthose in a majority diverse position score 17 marks lower than pupils ina dominant majority position These coef cients are not signi cant howeverIn model 4 some background attributes are introduced as control vari-ables As a result we get some idea of the net effect of religious af lia-tion and position hence after allowing for pupilsrsquobackgrounds The analysisindicates that all four of the background features have pronounced effectsFor instance Turkish and Moroccan children score 189 marks lower thanDutch pupils (the reference category for ethnicity) in relation to parentaleducational level pupilsrsquo language scores increase by 69 marks per levelthus between children of parents with at most primary education and thosewhose parents have higher vocational or scienti c training this differencecomes to almost 21 marks girls score 71 marks more than boys olderpupils score 78 marks more than younger ones In the case of thesecoef cients it should be kept in mind that these are effects which take intoaccount the in uence of all other variables in the model

If we look at the effects of religious af liation and position we nd thatkeeping the backgrounds constant has the result that the language pro ciencyof the IslamicHindu category in particular ldquoimprovesrdquo markedly theyhave made up their backlog by some 20 marks and the effect now is onlyslightly signi cant The ldquoother religionsrdquo category too has advanced some-what The effects of the other two religious categories and of religiousposition remain much the same When it comes to the variance compo-nents we nd that introducing background attributes explains an additional65 of the variance at pupil level and 78 of the variance at schoollevel over and above the variance already explained in model 3 In model5 denomination is added at school level Here we conclude that the RomanCatholic category fares somewhat better than the public school categoryand the Protestant Christian and other private schools category slightlyworse although none of these effects are signi cant Hence the variancecomponents indicate that the addition of denomination does not improvethe model signi cantly As mentioned already model 6 in which inter-actions between religious af liation position and denomination are speci ed


was omitted because none of these interactions proved to be signi cantHence the effect of religious af liation and position function identicallyin each of the denominations If we now calculate how much of the totalvariance in language pro ciency is explained by the nal model number5 we get the following at pupil level (4 + 65) acute 807 = 85 and atschool level (496 + 78 + 4) acute 193 = 112

The results in table 6 relate to mathematical pro ciency By and largethey are commensurate with those relating to language pro ciency Ininterpreting them it should be borne in mind that the coef cients also dif-fer because the distribution attributes of the maths scores differ from thoseof the language scores more particularly the standard deviation In model4 we observe that in maths the effect of the minority position category isslightly signi cant however this effect disappears in subsequent modelswhen pupilsrsquo backgrounds are taken into account

The results relating to social position in table 7 show a marked resem-blance to those for maths Noteworthy here is that ethnicity has no inde-pendent effects The results relating to the other two noncognitive effectmeasures well-being and self-con dence are comparable with those forsocial position For this reason these tables are not included The only realdifference is that in the case of well-being and self-con dence religiousaf liation has no independent effects whereas it does have some effect inthe case of social position here we nd that Muslim and Hindu childrenoccupy a weaker social position in the class than other pupils

5 CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION

This article explored three aspects pertaining to religion The cardinal issuewas the majority or minority position that children occupy in class byvirtue of their religion and the effects this has on a number of cognitiveand noncognitive educational outcomes It was anticipated that occupy-ing a religious majority position would have a positive effect on educa-tional outcomes In addition we explored the relation between parentalreligious af liation and the denomination of the school their children attendand educational outcomes The ndings of the analyses can be summarisedas follows

Although there is a slight trend for children who occupy a majority posi-tion at school to score marginally higher in educational outcomes thiseffect is never signi cant once one has controlled for ethnicity parentsrsquoeducation gender and age


Even when ethnicity parentsrsquo education gender and age are kept con-stant the IslamicHindu category still shows a negative effect relativeto the nonreligious category in respect of language mathematics andsocial position

Although there is also a slight trend for children at Roman Catholicschools to score somewhat better than those attending other schoolsthere is no question of any independent effect of denomination

In terms of effects denomination does not interact with religious af lia-tion and religious majorityminority position indicating that the effectsof religious af liation and position are the same in all denominations

There are independent effects of ethnicity on language and maths per-formance but not on social position self-con dence and well-being Edu-cation gender and age also have independent effects on the effect measures

The analyses show no independent effects of denomination which accordswith earlier ndings (Dijkstra 1997) Taking into account the other attrib-utes the category of school which pupils attend clearly does not do any-thing for them Undoubtedly this has to do with the steadily weakeningrelation with parental religious af liation caused by the secularisation ofsociety as emerged from the descriptive analyses as well

As for the effect of the IslamicHindu religious category this is notunexpected (cf Driessen amp Valkenberg 2000) Muslims in particular havea consistently low educational level are often unemployed or do lowlyskilled work It is known that there is a strong correlation between this kindof family-structural factors and educational prospects (Driessen 2000) Whatis alarming is that this negative effect of the IslamicHindu category per-sists even after one has controlled for ethnicity education gender and age

At all events from the analyses one can conclude that aspects relatingto religion are much less important than attributes of family structure Par-ticularly parentsrsquo education and ndash to a slightly lesser extent ndash ethnic originsappear to be decisive for young childrenrsquos educational outcomes bothcognitive and noncognitive

The ndings also imply that the anticipation that membership of thedominant religious group at school positively affects educational outcomescannot be con rmed Here a few comments are called for It should benoted for instance that the analysed sample comprised young childrenwho on average have only attended school for about two years It couldbe that such effects only manifest themselves at a later stage Hence it isrecommended that the analyses conducted in this study should be repeated


for the same children in a few yearsrsquo time This is feasible since thePRIMA cohort which we used is longitudinal and measurements of thesame pupils are made every second year

The absence of any effects of majorityminority position may also beattributable to other more conceptual factors As mentioned already therehas been virtually no research into the relation between position regard-ing religious background and educational outcomes Theorising in this eld is also in its infancy In our study we drew on Colemanrsquos concept ofvalue and functional communities which was interpreted from a religiousperspective It should be clear however that such communities are notunidimensional entities People consort with each other not only becauseof their religious background but also because of ethnic and socioeco-nomic similarities in addition these three aspects are closely interrelatedIn fact it may be expected that in the present postmodern highly indi-vidualised and secularised society religious communities have lost muchof their importance This is supported by the notions on the state of pre-sent-day Western society recently proffered by Putnam (1995) to whomsocial trust is a key concept Putnam assumes that civic engagement andsocial connectedness produce for instance better schools lower crimerates and faster economic development He points out however that inthe United States (also in other Western societies) there is a high level ofindividualisation Thus religious sentiment seems to be becoming less tiedto institutions and more self-de ned In addition Putnam concludes thatAmerican social capital in the form of civic associations has signi cantlyeroded over the last generation This means that value communities asenvisaged by Coleman in his day are far less common nowadays At mostthey will probably still occur in more traditional closed religious com-munities such as the often locally organised strictly Reformed Protestantgroups and Islamic communities in the Netherlands But it is not only atadult level that (religiously oriented) value communities have lost theirimportance this may also have ltered through to the level of childrenFuture research should therefore be aimed at rstly development withinreligious communities and secondly the signi cance of these develop-ments for children

Finally a few methodologically oriented comments The rst concernsthe operationalisation of parental religious af liation In this study it tookthe form of a question about membership of a religious community Thismay be regarded as a crude operationalisation which moreover tells uslittle about the parentsrsquo active involvement As Putnam (1995) points out


religious experience is increasingly characterised by deinstitutionalisationand individualisation Hence instead of the institutional approach to reli-gion adopted here it might be better to choose an operationalisation thatdoes more justice to active religious involvement for instance by way ofprayer church attendance and participation in activities organised by thechurch community

A nal point regarding the structure of the analyses In regard to thenested nature of the data (pupils within schools and both pupil and schoolattributes) we used multilevel analysis As a result also through the intro-duction of all sorts of control variables we obtained insight into the neteffect of majorityminority position In the process however we ratherlost sight of the interrelationship between these variables In follow-upanalyses it may be advisable to disentangle the complexity of interactivevariables differently perhaps by means of a Lisrel analysis5

NOTES

1 The author would like to thank J Doesborgh for his help with the multilevel analysesGrateful acknowledgment also to the Netherlands Organisation for Scienti c Research (NWO)for funding the project on which this paper is based The research was supported by grant 411-20-005 from NWOrsquos Social Science Research Council

2 It is questionable whether this applies in every respect According to Ogbu (1988) thereis an oppositional and resistance culture growing among ethnic minorities especially in innercity schools They set themselves up against the WASP ideal which sets great store by a goodeducation These minorities lack motivation to go to school and perform academically for thevery reason that it implies con rmation of the majority culture

3 The degree of signi cance can be derived by calculating a z score namely z = BSE Theexact meaning of signi cant and highly signi cant in terms of z scores depends on the num-ber of units (here schools) in the analysis (cf Cohen 1988) For N lt 120 schools an effect isgenerally assumed to be just signi cant when the p value lt 10 in keeping with a z value gt165 For N = 200 schools just signi cant is p lt 05 or z gt 196 For N = 500 schools justsigni cant is p lt 001 or z gt 329 In keeping with this the following holds for N = 549 schools 35 gt z lt 47 z gt 47

4 The value obtained is an x2 value calculated by subtracting the x 2 value for the model tobe examined from the x2 for the reference model to see if they differ signi cantly The differ-ence in the x2 values is then divided by the difference in the degrees of freedom for the twomodels For N = 549 schools and df = 1 a x2 df gt 12 indicates a just signi cant difference

5 In such a one-level analysis it would be better to omit the school variable ldquodenominationrdquo

REFERENCES

Bax E (1988) Modernization and Cleavage in Dutch Society A Study of Long Term Economicand Social Change Groningen University of Groningen

Becker J amp De Wit J (2000) Secularisatie in de jaren negentig Kerklidmaatschap veran-deringen in opvattingen en een prognose Den Haag SCP


Bronfenbrenner U (1979) The Ecology of Human Development Experiments by Nature andDesign Cambridge MA Harvard University Press

Cohen J (1988) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences Hillsdale NJ ErlbaumColeman J amp Hoffer T (1987) Public and Private High Schools The Impact of Communities

New York Basic BooksDekker P amp Ester P (1996) Depillarization Deconfessionalization and De-ideologization

Empirical Trends in Dutch Society 1958-1992 Review of Religious Research 37 325-341Dijkstra A (1997) Onderwijskansen en richting van de school In A Dijkstra J Dronkers amp

R Hofman (Eds) Verzuiling in het onderwijs Actuele verklaringen en analyse (pp 144-184) Groningen Wolters-Noordhoff

mdashmdash amp Peschar J (1996) Religious Determinants of Academic Attainment in the NetherlandsComparative Education Review 40 47-65

mdashmdash amp Veenstra R (2000) Functionele gemeenschappen godsdienstigheid en prestaties in hetvoortgezet onderwijs Mens amp Maatschappij 75 129-50

mdashmdash amp Veenstra R (2001) Do Religious Schools Matter Beliefs and Life-Styles of Stu-dents in Faith-based Secondary Schools International Journal of Education and Religion2 192-206

Driessen G (2000) The Limits of Educational Policy and Practice The Case of Ethnic Minor-ity Pupils in the Netherlands Comparative Education 36 55-72

mdashmdash amp Valkenberg P (2000) Islamic Schools in the Netherlands Compromising BetweenIdentity and Quality British Journal of Religious Education 23 15-26

mdashmdash Van Langen A amp Vierke H (2000) Basisonderwijs Veldwerkverslag leerlinggegevensen oudervragenlijsten Basisrapportage PRIMA-cohortonderzoek Derde meting 1998-1999Nijmegen ITS

Dronkers J (1996) Dutch Public and Religious Schools between State and Market A Balancebetween Parental Choice and National Policy In D Benner A Kell amp D Lenzen (Eds)Bilding zwischen Staat und Markt (pp 51-66) Weinheim und Basel Beltz Verlag

Felling A Peters J amp Schreuder O (1991) Dutch Religion The Religious Consciousness ofthe Netherlands After the Cultural Revolution Nijmegen ITS

Goodenow C (1993) Classroom Belonging Among Early Adolescent Students Relationshipsto Motivation and Achievement Journal of Early Adolescence 13 21-43

mdashmdash amp Grady K (1993) The Relationship of School Belonging and Friendsrsquo Values to Acad-emic Motivation among Urban Adolescent Students Journal of Experimental Education 6260-71

Guldemond H (1994) Van de kikker en de vijver groepseffecten op individuele leerprestatiesLeuvenApeldoorn Garant

Hermans C amp Van Vugt J (Eds) (1997) Identiteit door de tijd Re ecties op het confessionelebasisonderwijs in een geseculariseerde en multiculturele samenleving Den HaagNijmegenABKOKatholiek Studiecentrum

Kassenberg A De Vos H amp Dijkstra A (2000) Gemeenschap binnen en rond scholen voorvoortgezet onderwijs en het gevoel lsquobij de school te horenrsquo Paper 27e Onderwijs ResearchDagen 24-26 mei 2000 Leiden

Luyten H Cremers-Van Wees L amp Bosker R (2001) Mattheus-effecten voor taal rekenenen non-verbaal IQ Verschillen tussen scholen lichtingen en leerlingen Enschede TwenteUniversity Press

Marsh H Koumlller O amp Baumert J (2000) Reuni cation of East and West German SchoolSystems Longitudinal Multilevel Modeling Study of the Big-Fish-Little-Pond Effect onAcademic Self-Concept American Educational Research Journal 38 321-350

Ogbu J (1988) Class Strati cation Racial Strati cation and Schooling In L Weis (Ed)Class Race and Gender in American Education (pp 163-182) Albany State University ofNew York Press

Putnam R (1995) Bowling Alone Americarsquos Declining Social Capital Journal of Democracy6 65-78

Rasbash J amp Woodhouse G (1996) MLn Command Reference Version 10a London Universityof London


Scheerens J amp Bosker R (1997) The Foundations of Educational Effectiveness OxfordPergamon

Sherkat D amp Darnell A (1999) The Effect of Parentsrsquo Fundamentalism on Childrenrsquos Educa-tional Attainment Examining Differences by Gender and Childrenrsquos Fundamentalism Journalfor the Scienti c Study of Religion 38 23-35

Snijders T amp Bosker R (1999) Multilevel Analysis An Introduction to Basic and AdvancedMultilevel Modeling London Sage

Thrupp M (1995) The School Mix Effect The History of an Enduring Problem in EducationalResearch Policy and Practice British Journal of Sociology of Education 16 183-203

Van Haaften W amp Snik G (1999) Onderwijsvrijheid voor en tegen Pedagogisch Tijdschrift24 1-15

Voelkl K (1996) Measuring Studentsrsquo Identi cation with School Educational and PsychologicalMeasurement 56 760-770

Westerbeek K (1999) The Colours of my Classroom A Study into the Effects of the EthnicComposition of Classrooms on the Achievement of Pupils from Different Ethnic BackgroundsRotterdam CED

Address for correspondenceDr Geert WJM DriessenITS ndash Institute for Applied Social SciencesUniversity of NijmegenPO Box 90486500 KJ NijmegenNetherlandsltGDriessenitskunnlgt


show that by and large the effects of religious belief are minimal and ifpupilsrsquo socioeconomic background is taken into account as well they dis-appear altogether Considerably more research has been done on the rela-tion between school denomination and childrenrsquos educational outcomes(Dijkstra 1997) Such research focussed largely on cognitive outcomes atthe end of primary education noncognitive outcomes have hardly beenresearched at all The results of this kind of research have not been con-sistent sometimes they indicate effects sometimes not To the extent thateffects are noted the trend is for private schools and more particularlyRoman Catholic ones to do better than public and other private schools

Of late the relation between religion and education has attracted renewedattention (Dijkstra 1997) This is largely attributable to a process of sec-ularisation and declining church membership that started in the 1960swhich has drastically affected the role of religion in society (Felling Petersamp Schreuder 1991 Hermans amp Van Vugt 1997) Noteworthy in this regardis that despite the radically altered situation in society at large the Dutcheducation system is still organised on the basis of religious classi cation(Bax 1988 Dekker amp Ester 1996) Although only 37 of Dutch peopleregard themselves as members of a religious denomination some 65 ofschools remain private religious institutions (Becker amp De Wit 2000Dronkers 1996) This paradoxical situation makes it interesting to deter-mine what relations there are between religion denomination and educa-tional outcomes

2 MAJORITY POSITION

This article investigates three aspects pertaining to religion First I exam-ine the relation between the religious af liation of parents of children inprimary education and the denomination of the schools attended by thesechildren on the one hand and certain educational outcomes on the otherIn contrast to a lot of earlier research the value of this study is that it isrelatively large-scale (about 550 schools and 10000 pupils) is based onvery recent (1999) data involves young children analyses both cognitiveand noncognitive effect measures and uses adequate analytical techniques(multilevel analyses) A key factor in the study is the pupilrsquos position inthe school as regards religion is he or she in a majority or a minorityposition Although this theme has been researched previously those stud-ies were conducted from the angle of ethnicity and social backgroundrather than from a religious perspective















3 METHOD

31 Sample

























4 RESULTS









Tabl

e 1

Cor

rela

tion

s of

rel

igio

n an

d re

ligi

ous

maj

ority

min

orit

y po

siti

on w

ith

ethn

icit

y e

duca

tion

ge

nder

and

age

(in

)

Rel

igio

nM

ajor

ity

min

ority

rel

igio

nN

one

RC

PC

Isla

m

Oth

erV

Min

orit

yM

ajor

ity

Maj

orit

yV

Tot

alH

indu

dive

rse

dom

inan

t

Rel

igio

nndash

22

Non

e10

00

00

032

3917

28R

C0

100

00

025

2739

32

PC

00

100

00

2214

2220

Is

lam

H

indu

00

010

00

1520

2119

O

ther

00

00

100

60

02

Eth

nici

ty5

11

2D

utch

9691

894

6372

7577

75

Sur

Ant

1

43

87

63

24

Tur

Mor

0

01

742

1016

1714

O

ther

45

713

2912

64

7 E

duca

tion

29

03

PE

34

340

910

911

10

JSV

E33

3026

3529

3232

2931

S

SV

E37

3740

1636

3233

3534

H

E28

2931

926

2625

2525

G

ende

r0

10

2B

oys

5252

5353

4854

5251

52

Gir

ls48

4847

4752

4648

4948

A

ge0

60

3N

orm

7069

7161

6567

6670

68

gt1

2 ye

ar30

3129

3834

3333

2932

gt

1 ye

ar0

00

11

00

00

N=

100

281

43

197

199

41

927

209

331

02

758

407

310

141


Tab

le 2

C

orre

lati

ons

of r

elig

ion

and

relig

ious

maj

orit

ym

inor

ity

posi

tion

with

effe

ct m

easu

res

(ave

rage

s)

Rel

igio

nM

ajor

ity

min

ority

rel

igio

n N

one

RC

PC

Isla

m

Oth

erE

taM

inor

ity

Maj

orit

yM

ajor

ity

Eta

Tota

lsd

Hin

dudi

vers

edo

min

ant

Lan

guag

e 98

698

698

595

397

73

697

997

998

10

397

937

Mat

hs56

5756

4755

28

5455

550

455

14S

ocia

l po

siti

on3

93

83

83

73

71

23

83

83

80

53

86

Wel

l-be

ing

41

41

41

40

40

07

41

41

41

02

41

5S

elf-

con

denc

e3

63

53

63

63

50

53

63

63

60

23

67





Denomination



N=100 2905 4053 2381 802
























Tab

le 5

R

esul

ts o

f m

ulti

leve

l an

alys

es f

or l

angu

age

pro

cien

cy

Mod

el0

12

34

5B

SEp

BSE

pB

SEp

BSE

pB

SEp

RE

GR

ES

SIO

NC

OE

FFIC

IEN

TS

Rel

igio

na

RC

-2

10

-6

10

59

01

0P

C-

41

1-

51

15

10

81

1Is

lam

Hin

du-2

76

11

-2

80

11

-8

21

8

-82

18

O

ther

-61

23

-50

24

-18

23

-17

23

Pos

itio

n re

ligio

nb

Min

orit

y-

31

0-2

81

0-1

71

0-1

89

Maj

ority

div

erse

21

3-1

71

1-1

51

1-1

61

1

Eth

nici

tyc

Sur

Ant

-1

60

20

-1

60

20

T

urM

or

-18

91

9

-19

11

9

Oth

er-1

40

14

-1

41

14

Edu

cati

on

69

4

69

4

Gen

der

d7

16

7

16

A

ge7

87

7

87

Den

omin

atio

ne

RC

19

14

PC

-10

16

Oth

er p

riva

te-1

12

2

VA

RIA

NC

EC

OM

PO

NE

NT

SP

upil

lev

el (

)

807

40

04

0+

65

Sch

ool

leve

l (

)19

348

71

496

+7

8+

4x2 d

f16

6

0ns

112

12

3

1ns

Ref

eren

ce c

ateg

ory

ano

rel

igio

n b

maj

ority

dom

inan

t c

Dut

ch

dbo

ys

epu

blic

edu

catio

n ns

not

sign

ica

nt

si

gni

cant

hig

hly

sign

ica

nt (

see

Not

es 3

and

4)


Tabl

e 6

Res

ults

of

mul

tilev

el a

naly

ses

for

mat

hs p

roc

ienc

y

Mod

el0

12

34

5B

SEp

BSE

pB

SEp

BSE

pB

SEp

RE

GR

ES

SIO

NC

OE

FFIC

IEN

TS

Rel

igio

na

RC

14

-1

43

40

4P

C

64

64

74

94

Isla

mH

indu

-80

4

-82

4

-36

7

-36

7

Oth

er-

39

59

12

91

29

Pos

itio

n re

ligio

nb

Min

orit

y-

54

-14

4

-11

4-1

14

Maj

ority

div

erse

25

-3

5-

44

-4

4

Eth

nici

tyc

Sur

Ant

-43

8

-43

8

T

urM

or

-3

27

-3

37

O

ther

-32

5

-33

5

Edu

cati

on3

12

3

12

G

ende

r d

82

82

Age

38

3

38

3

Den

omin

atio

ne

RC

11

6P

C-1

27

Oth

er p

riva

te3

10

VA

RIA

NC

EC

OM

PO

NE

NT

SP

upil

lev

el (

)

808

28

02

8+

62

Sch

ool

leve

l (

)19

229

42

306

+6

1+

17

x2 df

104

5

ns73

11

2

2ns

Ref

eren

ce c

ateg

ory

ano

rel

igio

n b

maj

ority

dom

inan

t c

Dut

ch

dbo

ys

epu

blic

edu

catio

n ns

not

sign

ica

nt

si

gni

cant

hig

hly

sign

ica

nt (

see

Not

es 3

and

4)


Tab

le 7

R

esul

ts o

f m

ulti

leve

l an

alys

es f

or s

ocia

l po

siti

on

Mod

el0

12

34

5B

SEp

BSE

pB

SEp

BSE

pB

SEp

RE

GR

ES

SIO

NC

OE

FFIC

IEN

TS

Rel

igio

na

RC

-2

2-

22

-2

2-

22

PC

-1

2-

12

-1

20

2Is

lam

Hin

du-1

72

-1

82

-1

33

-1

23

O

ther

-18

4

-14

4-1

34

-12

4

Pos

itio

n re

ligio

nb

Min

orit

y-

52

-6

2

-6

2-1

03

Maj

ority

div

erse

12

02

02

-3

3

Eth

nici

tyc

Sur

Ant

-

24

-3

3T

urM

or

13

-0

3O

ther

-6

3-

63

Edu

cati

on7

1

71

G

ende

r d

71

7

1

Age

31

31

Den

omin

atio

ne

RC

23

PC

-3

3O

ther

pri

vate

-9

4

VA

RIA

NC

EC

OM

PO

NE

NT

SP

upil

lev

el (

)

888

70

7+

18

Sch

ool

leve

l (

)11

27

51

72

+8

+1

9x2 d

f25

12

21

26

1

ns

Ref

eren

ce c

ateg

ory

ano

rel

igio

n b

maj

ority

dom

inan

t c

Dut

ch

dbo

ys

epu

blic

edu

catio

n ns

not

sign

ica

nt

si

gni

cant

hig

hly

sign

ica

nt (

see

Not

es 3

and

4)




























NOTES






REFERENCES


















































3 METHOD

31 Sample

























4 RESULTS









Tabl

e 1

Cor

rela

tion

s of

rel

igio

n an

d re

ligi

ous

maj

ority

min

orit

y po

siti

on w

ith

ethn

icit

y e

duca

tion

ge

nder

and

age

(in

)

Rel

igio

nM

ajor

ity

min

ority

rel

igio

nN

one

RC

PC

Isla

m

Oth

erV

Min

orit

yM

ajor

ity

Maj

orit

yV

Tot

alH

indu

dive

rse

dom

inan

t

Rel

igio

nndash

22

Non

e10

00

00

032

3917

28R

C0

100

00

025

2739

32

PC

00

100

00

2214

2220

Is

lam

H

indu

00

010

00

1520

2119

O

ther

00

00

100

60

02

Eth

nici

ty5

11

2D

utch

9691

894

6372

7577

75

Sur

Ant

1

43

87

63

24

Tur

Mor

0

01

742

1016

1714

O

ther

45

713

2912

64

7 E

duca

tion

29

03

PE

34

340

910

911

10

JSV

E33

3026

3529

3232

2931

S

SV

E37

3740

1636

3233

3534

H

E28

2931

926

2625

2525

G

ende

r0

10

2B

oys

5252

5353

4854

5251

52

Gir

ls48

4847

4752

4648

4948

A

ge0

60

3N

orm

7069

7161

6567

6670

68

gt1

2 ye

ar30

3129

3834

3333

2932

gt

1 ye

ar0

00

11

00

00

N=

100

281

43

197

199

41

927

209

331

02

758

407

310

141


Tab

le 2

C

orre

lati

ons

of r

elig

ion

and

relig

ious

maj

orit

ym

inor

ity

posi

tion

with

effe

ct m

easu

res

(ave

rage

s)

Rel

igio

nM

ajor

ity

min

ority

rel

igio

n N

one

RC

PC

Isla

m

Oth

erE

taM

inor

ity

Maj

orit

yM

ajor

ity

Eta

Tota

lsd

Hin

dudi

vers

edo

min

ant

Lan

guag

e 98

698

698

595

397

73

697

997

998

10

397

937

Mat

hs56

5756

4755

28

5455

550

455

14S

ocia

l po

siti

on3

93

83

83

73

71

23

83

83

80

53

86

Wel

l-be

ing

41

41

41

40

40

07

41

41

41

02

41

5S

elf-

con

denc

e3

63

53

63

63

50

53

63

63

60

23

67





Denomination



N=100 2905 4053 2381 802
























Tab

le 5

R

esul

ts o

f m

ulti

leve

l an

alys

es f

or l

angu

age

pro

cien

cy

Mod

el0

12

34

5B

SEp

BSE

pB

SEp

BSE

pB

SEp

RE

GR

ES

SIO

NC

OE

FFIC

IEN

TS

Rel

igio

na

RC

-2

10

-6

10

59

01

0P

C-

41

1-

51

15

10

81

1Is

lam

Hin

du-2

76

11

-2

80

11

-8

21

8

-82

18

O

ther

-61

23

-50

24

-18

23

-17

23

Pos

itio

n re

ligio

nb

Min

orit

y-

31

0-2

81

0-1

71

0-1

89

Maj

ority

div

erse

21

3-1

71

1-1

51

1-1

61

1

Eth

nici

tyc

Sur

Ant

-1

60

20

-1

60

20

T

urM

or

-18

91

9

-19

11

9

Oth

er-1

40

14

-1

41

14

Edu

cati

on

69

4

69

4

Gen

der

d7

16

7

16

A

ge7

87

7

87

Den

omin

atio

ne

RC

19

14

PC

-10

16

Oth

er p

riva

te-1

12

2

VA

RIA

NC

EC

OM

PO

NE

NT

SP

upil

lev

el (

)

807

40

04

0+

65

Sch

ool

leve

l (

)19

348

71

496

+7

8+

4x2 d

f16

6

0ns

112

12

3

1ns

Ref

eren

ce c

ateg

ory

ano

rel

igio

n b

maj

ority

dom

inan

t c

Dut

ch

dbo

ys

epu

blic

edu

catio

n ns

not

sign

ica

nt

si

gni

cant

hig

hly

sign

ica

nt (

see

Not

es 3

and

4)


Tabl

e 6

Res

ults

of

mul

tilev

el a

naly

ses

for

mat

hs p

roc

ienc

y

Mod

el0

12

34

5B

SEp

BSE

pB

SEp

BSE

pB

SEp

RE

GR

ES

SIO

NC

OE

FFIC

IEN

TS

Rel

igio

na

RC

14

-1

43

40

4P

C

64

64

74

94

Isla

mH

indu

-80

4

-82

4

-36

7

-36

7

Oth

er-

39

59

12

91

29

Pos

itio

n re

ligio

nb

Min

orit

y-

54

-14

4

-11

4-1

14

Maj

ority

div

erse

25

-3

5-

44

-4

4

Eth

nici

tyc

Sur

Ant

-43

8

-43

8

T

urM

or

-3

27

-3

37

O

ther

-32

5

-33

5

Edu

cati

on3

12

3

12

G

ende

r d

82

82

Age

38

3

38

3

Den

omin

atio

ne

RC

11

6P

C-1

27

Oth

er p

riva

te3

10

VA

RIA

NC

EC

OM

PO

NE

NT

SP

upil

lev

el (

)

808

28

02

8+

62

Sch

ool

leve

l (

)19

229

42

306

+6

1+

17

x2 df

104

5

ns73

11

2

2ns

Ref

eren

ce c

ateg

ory

ano

rel

igio

n b

maj

ority

dom

inan

t c

Dut

ch

dbo

ys

epu

blic

edu

catio

n ns

not

sign

ica

nt

si

gni

cant

hig

hly

sign

ica

nt (

see

Not

es 3

and

4)


Tab

le 7

R

esul

ts o

f m

ulti

leve

l an

alys

es f

or s

ocia

l po

siti

on

Mod

el0

12

34

5B

SEp

BSE

pB

SEp

BSE

pB

SEp

RE

GR

ES

SIO

NC

OE

FFIC

IEN

TS

Rel

igio

na

RC

-2

2-

22

-2

2-

22

PC

-1

2-

12

-1

20

2Is

lam

Hin

du-1

72

-1

82

-1

33

-1

23

O

ther

-18

4

-14

4-1

34

-12

4

Pos

itio

n re

ligio

nb

Min

orit

y-

52

-6

2

-6

2-1

03

Maj

ority

div

erse

12

02

02

-3

3

Eth

nici

tyc

Sur

Ant

-

24

-3

3T

urM

or

13

-0

3O

ther

-6

3-

63

Edu

cati

on7

1

71

G

ende

r d

71

7

1

Age

31

31

Den

omin

atio

ne

RC

23

PC

-3

3O

ther

pri

vate

-9

4

VA

RIA

NC

EC

OM

PO

NE

NT

SP

upil

lev

el (

)

888

70

7+

18

Sch

ool

leve

l (

)11

27

51

72

+8

+1

9x2 d

f25

12

21

26

1

ns

Ref

eren

ce c

ateg

ory

ano

rel

igio

n b

maj

ority

dom

inan

t c

Dut

ch

dbo

ys

epu

blic

edu

catio

n ns

not

sign

ica

nt

si

gni

cant

hig

hly

sign

ica

nt (

see

Not

es 3

and

4)




























NOTES






REFERENCES
























































4 RESULTS









Tabl

e 1

Cor

rela

tion

s of

rel

igio

n an

d re

ligi

ous

maj

ority

min

orit

y po

siti

on w

ith

ethn

icit

y e

duca

tion

ge

nder

and

age

(in

)

Rel

igio

nM

ajor

ity

min

ority

rel

igio

nN

one

RC

PC

Isla

m

Oth

erV

Min

orit

yM

ajor

ity

Maj

orit

yV

Tot

alH

indu

dive

rse

dom

inan

t

Rel

igio

nndash

22

Non

e10

00

00

032

3917

28R

C0

100

00

025

2739

32

PC

00

100

00

2214

2220

Is

lam

H

indu

00

010

00

1520

2119

O

ther

00

00

100

60

02

Eth

nici

ty5

11

2D

utch

9691

894

6372

7577

75

Sur

Ant

1

43

87

63

24

Tur

Mor

0

01

742

1016

1714

O

ther

45

713

2912

64

7 E

duca

tion

29

03

PE

34

340

910

911

10

JSV

E33

3026

3529

3232

2931

S

SV

E37

3740

1636

3233

3534

H

E28

2931

926

2625

2525

G

ende

r0

10

2B

oys

5252

5353

4854

5251

52

Gir

ls48

4847

4752

4648

4948

A

ge0

60

3N

orm

7069

7161

6567

6670

68

gt1

2 ye

ar30

3129

3834

3333

2932

gt

1 ye

ar0

00

11

00

00

N=

100

281

43

197

199

41

927

209

331

02

758

407

310

141


Tab

le 2

C

orre

lati

ons

of r

elig

ion

and

relig

ious

maj

orit

ym

inor

ity

posi

tion

with

effe

ct m

easu

res

(ave

rage

s)

Rel

igio

nM

ajor

ity

min

ority

rel

igio

n N

one

RC

PC

Isla

m

Oth

erE

taM

inor

ity

Maj

orit

yM

ajor

ity

Eta

Tota

lsd

Hin

dudi

vers

edo

min

ant

Lan

guag

e 98

698

698

595

397

73

697

997

998

10

397

937

Mat

hs56

5756

4755

28

5455

550

455

14S

ocia

l po

siti

on3

93

83

83

73

71

23

83

83

80

53

86

Wel

l-be

ing

41

41

41

40

40

07

41

41

41

02

41

5S

elf-

con

denc

e3

63

53

63

63

50

53

63

63

60

23

67





Denomination



N=100 2905 4053 2381 802
























Tab

le 5

R

esul

ts o

f m

ulti

leve

l an

alys

es f

or l

angu

age

pro

cien

cy

Mod

el0

12

34

5B

SEp

BSE

pB

SEp

BSE

pB

SEp

RE

GR

ES

SIO

NC

OE

FFIC

IEN

TS

Rel

igio

na

RC

-2

10

-6

10

59

01

0P

C-

41

1-

51

15

10

81

1Is

lam

Hin

du-2

76

11

-2

80

11

-8

21

8

-82

18

O

ther

-61

23

-50

24

-18

23

-17

23

Pos

itio

n re

ligio

nb

Min

orit

y-

31

0-2

81

0-1

71

0-1

89

Maj

ority

div

erse

21

3-1

71

1-1

51

1-1

61

1

Eth

nici

tyc

Sur

Ant

-1

60

20

-1

60

20

T

urM

or

-18

91

9

-19

11

9

Oth

er-1

40

14

-1

41

14

Edu

cati

on

69

4

69

4

Gen

der

d7

16

7

16

A

ge7

87

7

87

Den

omin

atio

ne

RC

19

14

PC

-10

16

Oth

er p

riva

te-1

12

2

VA

RIA

NC

EC

OM

PO

NE

NT

SP

upil

lev

el (

)

807

40

04

0+

65

Sch

ool

leve

l (

)19

348

71

496

+7

8+

4x2 d

f16

6

0ns

112

12

3

1ns

Ref

eren

ce c

ateg

ory

ano

rel

igio

n b

maj

ority

dom

inan

t c

Dut

ch

dbo

ys

epu

blic

edu

catio

n ns

not

sign

ica

nt

si

gni

cant

hig

hly

sign

ica

nt (

see

Not

es 3

and

4)


Tabl

e 6

Res

ults

of

mul

tilev

el a

naly

ses

for

mat

hs p

roc

ienc

y

Mod

el0

12

34

5B

SEp

BSE

pB

SEp

BSE

pB

SEp

RE

GR

ES

SIO

NC

OE

FFIC

IEN

TS

Rel

igio

na

RC

14

-1

43

40

4P

C

64

64

74

94

Isla

mH

indu

-80

4

-82

4

-36

7

-36

7

Oth

er-

39

59

12

91

29

Pos

itio

n re

ligio

nb

Min

orit

y-

54

-14

4

-11

4-1

14

Maj

ority

div

erse

25

-3

5-

44

-4

4

Eth

nici

tyc

Sur

Ant

-43

8

-43

8

T

urM

or

-3

27

-3

37

O

ther

-32

5

-33

5

Edu

cati

on3

12

3

12

G

ende

r d

82

82

Age

38

3

38

3

Den

omin

atio

ne

RC

11

6P

C-1

27

Oth

er p

riva

te3

10

VA

RIA

NC

EC

OM

PO

NE

NT

SP

upil

lev

el (

)

808

28

02

8+

62

Sch

ool

leve

l (

)19

229

42

306

+6

1+

17

x2 df

104

5

ns73

11

2

2ns

Ref

eren

ce c

ateg

ory

ano

rel

igio

n b

maj

ority

dom

inan

t c

Dut

ch

dbo

ys

epu

blic

edu

catio

n ns

not

sign

ica

nt

si

gni

cant

hig

hly

sign

ica

nt (

see

Not

es 3

and

4)


Tab

le 7

R

esul

ts o

f m

ulti

leve

l an

alys

es f

or s

ocia

l po

siti

on

Mod

el0

12

34

5B

SEp

BSE

pB

SEp

BSE

pB

SEp

RE

GR

ES

SIO

NC

OE

FFIC

IEN

TS

Rel

igio

na

RC

-2

2-

22

-2

2-

22

PC

-1

2-

12

-1

20

2Is

lam

Hin

du-1

72

-1

82

-1

33

-1

23

O

ther

-18

4

-14

4-1

34

-12

4

Pos

itio

n re

ligio

nb

Min

orit

y-

52

-6

2

-6

2-1

03

Maj

ority

div

erse

12

02

02

-3

3

Eth

nici

tyc

Sur

Ant

-

24

-3

3T

urM

or

13

-0

3O

ther

-6

3-

63

Edu

cati

on7

1

71

G

ende

r d

71

7

1

Age

31

31

Den

omin

atio

ne

RC

23

PC

-3

3O

ther

pri

vate

-9

4

VA

RIA

NC

EC

OM

PO

NE

NT

SP

upil

lev

el (

)

888

70

7+

18

Sch

ool

leve

l (

)11

27

51

72

+8

+1

9x2 d

f25

12

21

26

1

ns

Ref

eren

ce c

ateg

ory

ano

rel

igio

n b

maj

ority

dom

inan

t c

Dut

ch

dbo

ys

epu

blic

edu

catio

n ns

not

sign

ica

nt

si

gni

cant

hig

hly

sign

ica

nt (

see

Not

es 3

and

4)




























NOTES






REFERENCES





































Tabl

e 1

Cor

rela

tion

s of

rel

igio

n an

d re

ligi

ous

maj

ority

min

orit

y po

siti

on w

ith

ethn

icit

y e

duca

tion

ge

nder

and

age

(in

)

Rel

igio

nM

ajor

ity

min

ority

rel

igio

nN

one

RC

PC

Isla

m

Oth

erV

Min

orit

yM

ajor

ity

Maj

orit

yV

Tot

alH

indu

dive

rse

dom

inan

t

Rel

igio

nndash

22

Non

e10

00

00

032

3917

28R

C0

100

00

025

2739

32

PC

00

100

00

2214

2220

Is

lam

H

indu

00

010

00

1520

2119

O

ther

00

00

100

60

02

Eth

nici

ty5

11

2D

utch

9691

894

6372

7577

75

Sur

Ant

1

43

87

63

24

Tur

Mor

0

01

742

1016

1714

O

ther

45

713

2912

64

7 E

duca

tion

29

03

PE

34

340

910

911

10

JSV

E33

3026

3529

3232

2931

S

SV

E37

3740

1636

3233

3534

H

E28

2931

926

2625

2525

G

ende

r0

10

2B

oys

5252

5353

4854

5251

52

Gir

ls48

4847

4752

4648

4948

A

ge0

60

3N

orm

7069

7161

6567

6670

68

gt1

2 ye

ar30

3129

3834

3333

2932

gt

1 ye

ar0

00

11

00

00

N=

100

281

43

197

199

41

927

209

331

02

758

407

310

141


Tab

le 2

C

orre

lati

ons

of r

elig

ion

and

relig

ious

maj

orit

ym

inor

ity

posi

tion

with

effe

ct m

easu

res

(ave

rage

s)

Rel

igio

nM

ajor

ity

min

ority

rel

igio

n N

one

RC

PC

Isla

m

Oth

erE

taM

inor

ity

Maj

orit

yM

ajor

ity

Eta

Tota

lsd

Hin

dudi

vers

edo

min

ant

Lan

guag

e 98

698

698

595

397

73

697

997

998

10

397

937

Mat

hs56

5756

4755

28

5455

550

455

14S

ocia

l po

siti

on3

93

83

83

73

71

23

83

83

80

53

86

Wel

l-be

ing

41

41

41

40

40

07

41

41

41

02

41

5S

elf-

con

denc

e3

63

53

63

63

50

53

63

63

60

23

67





Denomination



N=100 2905 4053 2381 802
























Tab

le 5

R

esul

ts o

f m

ulti

leve

l an

alys

es f

or l

angu

age

pro

cien

cy

Mod

el0

12

34

5B

SEp

BSE

pB

SEp

BSE

pB

SEp

RE

GR

ES

SIO

NC

OE

FFIC

IEN

TS

Rel

igio

na

RC

-2

10

-6

10

59

01

0P

C-

41

1-

51

15

10

81

1Is

lam

Hin

du-2

76

11

-2

80

11

-8

21

8

-82

18

O

ther

-61

23

-50

24

-18

23

-17

23

Pos

itio

n re

ligio

nb

Min

orit

y-

31

0-2

81

0-1

71

0-1

89

Maj

ority

div

erse

21

3-1

71

1-1

51

1-1

61

1

Eth

nici

tyc

Sur

Ant

-1

60

20

-1

60

20

T

urM

or

-18

91

9

-19

11

9

Oth

er-1

40

14

-1

41

14

Edu

cati

on

69

4

69

4

Gen

der

d7

16

7

16

A

ge7

87

7

87

Den

omin

atio

ne

RC

19

14

PC

-10

16

Oth

er p

riva

te-1

12

2

VA

RIA

NC

EC

OM

PO

NE

NT

SP

upil

lev

el (

)

807

40

04

0+

65

Sch

ool

leve

l (

)19

348

71

496

+7

8+

4x2 d

f16

6

0ns

112

12

3

1ns

Ref

eren

ce c

ateg

ory

ano

rel

igio

n b

maj

ority

dom

inan

t c

Dut

ch

dbo

ys

epu

blic

edu

catio

n ns

not

sign

ica

nt

si

gni

cant

hig

hly

sign

ica

nt (

see

Not

es 3

and

4)


Tabl

e 6

Res

ults

of

mul

tilev

el a

naly

ses

for

mat

hs p

roc

ienc

y

Mod

el0

12

34

5B

SEp

BSE

pB

SEp

BSE

pB

SEp

RE

GR

ES

SIO

NC

OE

FFIC

IEN

TS

Rel

igio

na

RC

14

-1

43

40

4P

C

64

64

74

94

Isla

mH

indu

-80

4

-82

4

-36

7

-36

7

Oth

er-

39

59

12

91

29

Pos

itio

n re

ligio

nb

Min

orit

y-

54

-14

4

-11

4-1

14

Maj

ority

div

erse

25

-3

5-

44

-4

4

Eth

nici

tyc

Sur

Ant

-43

8

-43

8

T

urM

or

-3

27

-3

37

O

ther

-32

5

-33

5

Edu

cati

on3

12

3

12

G

ende

r d

82

82

Age

38

3

38

3

Den

omin

atio

ne

RC

11

6P

C-1

27

Oth

er p

riva

te3

10

VA

RIA

NC

EC

OM

PO

NE

NT

SP

upil

lev

el (

)

808

28

02

8+

62

Sch

ool

leve

l (

)19

229

42

306

+6

1+

17

x2 df

104

5

ns73

11

2

2ns

Ref

eren

ce c

ateg

ory

ano

rel

igio

n b

maj

ority

dom

inan

t c

Dut

ch

dbo

ys

epu

blic

edu

catio

n ns

not

sign

ica

nt

si

gni

cant

hig

hly

sign

ica

nt (

see

Not

es 3

and

4)


Tab

le 7

R

esul

ts o

f m

ulti

leve

l an

alys

es f

or s

ocia

l po

siti

on

Mod

el0

12

34

5B

SEp

BSE

pB

SEp

BSE

pB

SEp

RE

GR

ES

SIO

NC

OE

FFIC

IEN

TS

Rel

igio

na

RC

-2

2-

22

-2

2-

22

PC

-1

2-

12

-1

20

2Is

lam

Hin

du-1

72

-1

82

-1

33

-1

23

O

ther

-18

4

-14

4-1

34

-12

4

Pos

itio

n re

ligio

nb

Min

orit

y-

52

-6

2

-6

2-1

03

Maj

ority

div

erse

12

02

02

-3

3

Eth

nici

tyc

Sur

Ant

-

24

-3

3T

urM

or

13

-0

3O

ther

-6

3-

63

Edu

cati

on7

1

71

G

ende

r d

71

7

1

Age

31

31

Den

omin

atio

ne

RC

23

PC

-3

3O

ther

pri

vate

-9

4

VA

RIA

NC

EC

OM

PO

NE

NT

SP

upil

lev

el (

)

888

70

7+

18

Sch

ool

leve

l (

)11

27

51

72

+8

+1

9x2 d

f25

12

21

26

1

ns

Ref

eren

ce c

ateg

ory

ano

rel

igio

n b

maj

ority

dom

inan

t c

Dut

ch

dbo

ys

epu

blic

edu

catio

n ns

not

sign

ica

nt

si

gni

cant

hig

hly

sign

ica

nt (

see

Not

es 3

and

4)




























NOTES






REFERENCES





































Tab

le 2

C

orre

lati

ons

of r

elig

ion

and

relig

ious

maj

orit

ym

inor

ity

posi

tion

with

effe

ct m

easu

res

(ave

rage

s)

Rel

igio

nM

ajor

ity

min

ority

rel

igio

n N

one

RC

PC

Isla

m

Oth

erE

taM

inor

ity

Maj

orit

yM

ajor

ity

Eta

Tota

lsd

Hin

dudi

vers

edo

min

ant

Lan

guag

e 98

698

698

595

397

73

697

997

998

10

397

937

Mat

hs56

5756

4755

28

5455

550

455

14S

ocia

l po

siti

on3

93

83

83

73

71

23

83

83

80

53

86

Wel

l-be

ing

41

41

41

40

40

07

41

41

41

02

41

5S

elf-

con

denc

e3

63

53

63

63

50

53

63

63

60

23

67





Denomination



N=100 2905 4053 2381 802
























Tab

le 5

R

esul

ts o

f m

ulti

leve

l an

alys

es f

or l

angu

age

pro

cien

cy

Mod

el0

12

34

5B

SEp

BSE

pB

SEp

BSE

pB

SEp

RE

GR

ES

SIO

NC

OE

FFIC

IEN

TS

Rel

igio

na

RC

-2

10

-6

10

59

01

0P

C-

41

1-

51

15

10

81

1Is

lam

Hin

du-2

76

11

-2

80

11

-8

21

8

-82

18

O

ther

-61

23

-50

24

-18

23

-17

23

Pos

itio

n re

ligio

nb

Min

orit

y-

31

0-2

81

0-1

71

0-1

89

Maj

ority

div

erse

21

3-1

71

1-1

51

1-1

61

1

Eth

nici

tyc

Sur

Ant

-1

60

20

-1

60

20

T

urM

or

-18

91

9

-19

11

9

Oth

er-1

40

14

-1

41

14

Edu

cati

on

69

4

69

4

Gen

der

d7

16

7

16

A

ge7

87

7

87

Den

omin

atio

ne

RC

19

14

PC

-10

16

Oth

er p

riva

te-1

12

2

VA

RIA

NC

EC

OM

PO

NE

NT

SP

upil

lev

el (

)

807

40

04

0+

65

Sch

ool

leve

l (

)19

348

71

496

+7

8+

4x2 d

f16

6

0ns

112

12

3

1ns

Ref

eren

ce c

ateg

ory

ano

rel

igio

n b

maj

ority

dom

inan

t c

Dut

ch

dbo

ys

epu

blic

edu

catio

n ns

not

sign

ica

nt

si

gni

cant

hig

hly

sign

ica

nt (

see

Not

es 3

and

4)


Tabl

e 6

Res

ults

of

mul

tilev

el a

naly

ses

for

mat

hs p

roc

ienc

y

Mod

el0

12

34

5B

SEp

BSE

pB

SEp

BSE

pB

SEp

RE

GR

ES

SIO

NC

OE

FFIC

IEN

TS

Rel

igio

na

RC

14

-1

43

40

4P

C

64

64

74

94

Isla

mH

indu

-80

4

-82

4

-36

7

-36

7

Oth

er-

39

59

12

91

29

Pos

itio

n re

ligio

nb

Min

orit

y-

54

-14

4

-11

4-1

14

Maj

ority

div

erse

25

-3

5-

44

-4

4

Eth

nici

tyc

Sur

Ant

-43

8

-43

8

T

urM

or

-3

27

-3

37

O

ther

-32

5

-33

5

Edu

cati

on3

12

3

12

G

ende

r d

82

82

Age

38

3

38

3

Den

omin

atio

ne

RC

11

6P

C-1

27

Oth

er p

riva

te3

10

VA

RIA

NC

EC

OM

PO

NE

NT

SP

upil

lev

el (

)

808

28

02

8+

62

Sch

ool

leve

l (

)19

229

42

306

+6

1+

17

x2 df

104

5

ns73

11

2

2ns

Ref

eren

ce c

ateg

ory

ano

rel

igio

n b

maj

ority

dom

inan

t c

Dut

ch

dbo

ys

epu

blic

edu

catio

n ns

not

sign

ica

nt

si

gni

cant

hig

hly

sign

ica

nt (

see

Not

es 3

and

4)


Tab

le 7

R

esul

ts o

f m

ulti

leve

l an

alys

es f

or s

ocia

l po

siti

on

Mod

el0

12

34

5B

SEp

BSE

pB

SEp

BSE

pB

SEp

RE

GR

ES

SIO

NC

OE

FFIC

IEN

TS

Rel

igio

na

RC

-2

2-

22

-2

2-

22

PC

-1

2-

12

-1

20

2Is

lam

Hin

du-1

72

-1

82

-1

33

-1

23

O

ther

-18

4

-14

4-1

34

-12

4

Pos

itio

n re

ligio

nb

Min

orit

y-

52

-6

2

-6

2-1

03

Maj

ority

div

erse

12

02

02

-3

3

Eth

nici

tyc

Sur

Ant

-

24

-3

3T

urM

or

13

-0

3O

ther

-6

3-

63

Edu

cati

on7

1

71

G

ende

r d

71

7

1

Age

31

31

Den

omin

atio

ne

RC

23

PC

-3

3O

ther

pri

vate

-9

4

VA

RIA

NC

EC

OM

PO

NE

NT

SP

upil

lev

el (

)

888

70

7+

18

Sch

ool

leve

l (

)11

27

51

72

+8

+1

9x2 d

f25

12

21

26

1

ns

Ref

eren

ce c

ateg

ory

ano

rel

igio

n b

maj

ority

dom

inan

t c

Dut

ch

dbo

ys

epu

blic

edu

catio

n ns

not

sign

ica

nt

si

gni

cant

hig

hly

sign

ica

nt (

see

Not

es 3

and

4)




























NOTES






REFERENCES








































Denomination



N=100 2905 4053 2381 802
























Tab

le 5

R

esul

ts o

f m

ulti

leve

l an

alys

es f

or l

angu

age

pro

cien

cy

Mod

el0

12

34

5B

SEp

BSE

pB

SEp

BSE

pB

SEp

RE

GR

ES

SIO

NC

OE

FFIC

IEN

TS

Rel

igio

na

RC

-2

10

-6

10

59

01

0P

C-

41

1-

51

15

10

81

1Is

lam

Hin

du-2

76

11

-2

80

11

-8

21

8

-82

18

O

ther

-61

23

-50

24

-18

23

-17

23

Pos

itio

n re

ligio

nb

Min

orit

y-

31

0-2

81

0-1

71

0-1

89

Maj

ority

div

erse

21

3-1

71

1-1

51

1-1

61

1

Eth

nici

tyc

Sur

Ant

-1

60

20

-1

60

20

T

urM

or

-18

91

9

-19

11

9

Oth

er-1

40

14

-1

41

14

Edu

cati

on

69

4

69

4

Gen

der

d7

16

7

16

A

ge7

87

7

87

Den

omin

atio

ne

RC

19

14

PC

-10

16

Oth

er p

riva

te-1

12

2

VA

RIA

NC

EC

OM

PO

NE

NT

SP

upil

lev

el (

)

807

40

04

0+

65

Sch

ool

leve

l (

)19

348

71

496

+7

8+

4x2 d

f16

6

0ns

112

12

3

1ns

Ref

eren

ce c

ateg

ory

ano

rel

igio

n b

maj

ority

dom

inan

t c

Dut

ch

dbo

ys

epu

blic

edu

catio

n ns

not

sign

ica

nt

si

gni

cant

hig

hly

sign

ica

nt (

see

Not

es 3

and

4)


Tabl

e 6

Res

ults

of

mul

tilev

el a

naly

ses

for

mat

hs p

roc

ienc

y

Mod

el0

12

34

5B

SEp

BSE

pB

SEp

BSE

pB

SEp

RE

GR

ES

SIO

NC

OE

FFIC

IEN

TS

Rel

igio

na

RC

14

-1

43

40

4P

C

64

64

74

94

Isla

mH

indu

-80

4

-82

4

-36

7

-36

7

Oth

er-

39

59

12

91

29

Pos

itio

n re

ligio

nb

Min

orit

y-

54

-14

4

-11

4-1

14

Maj

ority

div

erse

25

-3

5-

44

-4

4

Eth

nici

tyc

Sur

Ant

-43

8

-43

8

T

urM

or

-3

27

-3

37

O

ther

-32

5

-33

5

Edu

cati

on3

12

3

12

G

ende

r d

82

82

Age

38

3

38

3

Den

omin

atio

ne

RC

11

6P

C-1

27

Oth

er p

riva

te3

10

VA

RIA

NC

EC

OM

PO

NE

NT

SP

upil

lev

el (

)

808

28

02

8+

62

Sch

ool

leve

l (

)19

229

42

306

+6

1+

17

x2 df

104

5

ns73

11

2

2ns

Ref

eren

ce c

ateg

ory

ano

rel

igio

n b

maj

ority

dom

inan

t c

Dut

ch

dbo

ys

epu

blic

edu

catio

n ns

not

sign

ica

nt

si

gni

cant

hig

hly

sign

ica

nt (

see

Not

es 3

and

4)


Tab

le 7

R

esul

ts o

f m

ulti

leve

l an

alys

es f

or s

ocia

l po

siti

on

Mod

el0

12

34

5B

SEp

BSE

pB

SEp

BSE

pB

SEp

RE

GR

ES

SIO

NC

OE

FFIC

IEN

TS

Rel

igio

na

RC

-2

2-

22

-2

2-

22

PC

-1

2-

12

-1

20

2Is

lam

Hin

du-1

72

-1

82

-1

33

-1

23

O

ther

-18

4

-14

4-1

34

-12

4

Pos

itio

n re

ligio

nb

Min

orit

y-

52

-6

2

-6

2-1

03

Maj

ority

div

erse

12

02

02

-3

3

Eth

nici

tyc

Sur

Ant

-

24

-3

3T

urM

or

13

-0

3O

ther

-6

3-

63

Edu

cati

on7

1

71

G

ende

r d

71

7

1

Age

31

31

Den

omin

atio

ne

RC

23

PC

-3

3O

ther

pri

vate

-9

4

VA

RIA

NC

EC

OM

PO

NE

NT

SP

upil

lev

el (

)

888

70

7+

18

Sch

ool

leve

l (

)11

27

51

72

+8

+1

9x2 d

f25

12

21

26

1

ns

Ref

eren

ce c

ateg

ory

ano

rel

igio

n b

maj

ority

dom

inan

t c

Dut

ch

dbo

ys

epu

blic

edu

catio

n ns

not

sign

ica

nt

si

gni

cant

hig

hly

sign

ica

nt (

see

Not

es 3

and

4)




























NOTES






REFERENCES
























































Tab

le 5

R

esul

ts o

f m

ulti

leve

l an

alys

es f

or l

angu

age

pro

cien

cy

Mod

el0

12

34

5B

SEp

BSE

pB

SEp

BSE

pB

SEp

RE

GR

ES

SIO

NC

OE

FFIC

IEN

TS

Rel

igio

na

RC

-2

10

-6

10

59

01

0P

C-

41

1-

51

15

10

81

1Is

lam

Hin

du-2

76

11

-2

80

11

-8

21

8

-82

18

O

ther

-61

23

-50

24

-18

23

-17

23

Pos

itio

n re

ligio

nb

Min

orit

y-

31

0-2

81

0-1

71

0-1

89

Maj

ority

div

erse

21

3-1

71

1-1

51

1-1

61

1

Eth

nici

tyc

Sur

Ant

-1

60

20

-1

60

20

T

urM

or

-18

91

9

-19

11

9

Oth

er-1

40

14

-1

41

14

Edu

cati

on

69

4

69

4

Gen

der

d7

16

7

16

A

ge7

87

7

87

Den

omin

atio

ne

RC

19

14

PC

-10

16

Oth

er p

riva

te-1

12

2

VA

RIA

NC

EC

OM

PO

NE

NT

SP

upil

lev

el (

)

807

40

04

0+

65

Sch

ool

leve

l (

)19

348

71

496

+7

8+

4x2 d

f16

6

0ns

112

12

3

1ns

Ref

eren

ce c

ateg

ory

ano

rel

igio

n b

maj

ority

dom

inan

t c

Dut

ch

dbo

ys

epu

blic

edu

catio

n ns

not

sign

ica

nt

si

gni

cant

hig

hly

sign

ica

nt (

see

Not

es 3

and

4)


Tabl

e 6

Res

ults

of

mul

tilev

el a

naly

ses

for

mat

hs p

roc

ienc

y

Mod

el0

12

34

5B

SEp

BSE

pB

SEp

BSE

pB

SEp

RE

GR

ES

SIO

NC

OE

FFIC

IEN

TS

Rel

igio

na

RC

14

-1

43

40

4P

C

64

64

74

94

Isla

mH

indu

-80

4

-82

4

-36

7

-36

7

Oth

er-

39

59

12

91

29

Pos

itio

n re

ligio

nb

Min

orit

y-

54

-14

4

-11

4-1

14

Maj

ority

div

erse

25

-3

5-

44

-4

4

Eth

nici

tyc

Sur

Ant

-43

8

-43

8

T

urM

or

-3

27

-3

37

O

ther

-32

5

-33

5

Edu

cati

on3

12

3

12

G

ende

r d

82

82

Age

38

3

38

3

Den

omin

atio

ne

RC

11

6P

C-1

27

Oth

er p

riva

te3

10

VA

RIA

NC

EC

OM

PO

NE

NT

SP

upil

lev

el (

)

808

28

02

8+

62

Sch

ool

leve

l (

)19

229

42

306

+6

1+

17

x2 df

104

5

ns73

11

2

2ns

Ref

eren

ce c

ateg

ory

ano

rel

igio

n b

maj

ority

dom

inan

t c

Dut

ch

dbo

ys

epu

blic

edu

catio

n ns

not

sign

ica

nt

si

gni

cant

hig

hly

sign

ica

nt (

see

Not

es 3

and

4)


Tab

le 7

R

esul

ts o

f m

ulti

leve

l an

alys

es f

or s

ocia

l po

siti

on

Mod

el0

12

34

5B

SEp

BSE

pB

SEp

BSE

pB

SEp

RE

GR

ES

SIO

NC

OE

FFIC

IEN

TS

Rel

igio

na

RC

-2

2-

22

-2

2-

22

PC

-1

2-

12

-1

20

2Is

lam

Hin

du-1

72

-1

82

-1

33

-1

23

O

ther

-18

4

-14

4-1

34

-12

4

Pos

itio

n re

ligio

nb

Min

orit

y-

52

-6

2

-6

2-1

03

Maj

ority

div

erse

12

02

02

-3

3

Eth

nici

tyc

Sur

Ant

-

24

-3

3T

urM

or

13

-0

3O

ther

-6

3-

63

Edu

cati

on7

1

71

G

ende

r d

71

7

1

Age

31

31

Den

omin

atio

ne

RC

23

PC

-3

3O

ther

pri

vate

-9

4

VA

RIA

NC

EC

OM

PO

NE

NT

SP

upil

lev

el (

)

888

70

7+

18

Sch

ool

leve

l (

)11

27

51

72

+8

+1

9x2 d

f25

12

21

26

1

ns

Ref

eren

ce c

ateg

ory

ano

rel

igio

n b

maj

ority

dom

inan

t c

Dut

ch

dbo

ys

epu

blic

edu

catio

n ns

not

sign

ica

nt

si

gni

cant

hig

hly

sign

ica

nt (

see

Not

es 3

and

4)




























NOTES






REFERENCES





































Tabl

e 6

Res

ults

of

mul

tilev

el a

naly

ses

for

mat

hs p

roc

ienc

y

Mod

el0

12

34

5B

SEp

BSE

pB

SEp

BSE

pB

SEp

RE

GR

ES

SIO

NC

OE

FFIC

IEN

TS

Rel

igio

na

RC

14

-1

43

40

4P

C

64

64

74

94

Isla

mH

indu

-80

4

-82

4

-36

7

-36

7

Oth

er-

39

59

12

91

29

Pos

itio

n re

ligio

nb

Min

orit

y-

54

-14

4

-11

4-1

14

Maj

ority

div

erse

25

-3

5-

44

-4

4

Eth

nici

tyc

Sur

Ant

-43

8

-43

8

T

urM

or

-3

27

-3

37

O

ther

-32

5

-33

5

Edu

cati

on3

12

3

12

G

ende

r d

82

82

Age

38

3

38

3

Den

omin

atio

ne

RC

11

6P

C-1

27

Oth

er p

riva

te3

10

VA

RIA

NC

EC

OM

PO

NE

NT

SP

upil

lev

el (

)

808

28

02

8+

62

Sch

ool

leve

l (

)19

229

42

306

+6

1+

17

x2 df

104

5

ns73

11

2

2ns

Ref

eren

ce c

ateg

ory

ano

rel

igio

n b

maj

ority

dom

inan

t c

Dut

ch

dbo

ys

epu

blic

edu

catio

n ns

not

sign

ica

nt

si

gni

cant

hig

hly

sign

ica

nt (

see

Not

es 3

and

4)


Tab

le 7

R

esul

ts o

f m

ulti

leve

l an

alys

es f

or s

ocia

l po

siti

on

Mod

el0

12

34

5B

SEp

BSE

pB

SEp

BSE

pB

SEp

RE

GR

ES

SIO

NC

OE

FFIC

IEN

TS

Rel

igio

na

RC

-2

2-

22

-2

2-

22

PC

-1

2-

12

-1

20

2Is

lam

Hin

du-1

72

-1

82

-1

33

-1

23

O

ther

-18

4

-14

4-1

34

-12

4

Pos

itio

n re

ligio

nb

Min

orit

y-

52

-6

2

-6

2-1

03

Maj

ority

div

erse

12

02

02

-3

3

Eth

nici

tyc

Sur

Ant

-

24

-3

3T

urM

or

13

-0

3O

ther

-6

3-

63

Edu

cati

on7

1

71

G

ende

r d

71

7

1

Age

31

31

Den

omin

atio

ne

RC

23

PC

-3

3O

ther

pri

vate

-9

4

VA

RIA

NC

EC

OM

PO

NE

NT

SP

upil

lev

el (

)

888

70

7+

18

Sch

ool

leve

l (

)11

27

51

72

+8

+1

9x2 d

f25

12

21

26

1

ns

Ref

eren

ce c

ateg

ory

ano

rel

igio

n b

maj

ority

dom

inan

t c

Dut

ch

dbo

ys

epu

blic

edu

catio

n ns

not

sign

ica

nt

si

gni

cant

hig

hly

sign

ica

nt (

see

Not

es 3

and

4)




























NOTES






REFERENCES





































Tab

le 7

R

esul

ts o

f m

ulti

leve

l an

alys

es f

or s

ocia

l po

siti

on

Mod

el0

12

34

5B

SEp

BSE

pB

SEp

BSE

pB

SEp

RE

GR

ES

SIO

NC

OE

FFIC

IEN

TS

Rel

igio

na

RC

-2

2-

22

-2

2-

22

PC

-1

2-

12

-1

20

2Is

lam

Hin

du-1

72

-1

82

-1

33

-1

23

O

ther

-18

4

-14

4-1

34

-12

4

Pos

itio

n re

ligio

nb

Min

orit

y-

52

-6

2

-6

2-1

03

Maj

ority

div

erse

12

02

02

-3

3

Eth

nici

tyc

Sur

Ant

-

24

-3

3T

urM

or

13

-0

3O

ther

-6

3-

63

Edu

cati

on7

1

71

G

ende

r d

71

7

1

Age

31

31

Den

omin

atio

ne

RC

23

PC

-3

3O

ther

pri

vate

-9

4

VA

RIA

NC

EC

OM

PO

NE

NT

SP

upil

lev

el (

)

888

70

7+

18

Sch

ool

leve

l (

)11

27

51

72

+8

+1

9x2 d

f25

12

21

26

1

ns

Ref

eren

ce c

ateg

ory

ano

rel

igio

n b

maj

ority

dom

inan

t c

Dut

ch

dbo

ys

epu

blic

edu

catio

n ns

not

sign

ica

nt

si

gni

cant

hig

hly

sign

ica

nt (

see

Not

es 3

and

4)




























NOTES






REFERENCES































































NOTES






REFERENCES




































Geert Driessen (2002) IJER The effect of religious groups’ dominance in classrooms on cognitive...

Education

Transcript of Geert Driessen (2002) IJER The effect of religious groups’ dominance in classrooms on cognitive...