The acculturation of minority
children in the Netherlands
A case study of minority children in a Dutch “black” school
Trine Larsen – ANR 806289
MANAGEMENT OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY
27-06-2012
SUPERVISOR: DR. JAN JAAP DE RUITER
SECOND READER: DR. TINEKE NUGTEREN
WORD COUNT: 32.345
ABSTRACT
The acculturation attitudes and social capital accumulation of minority children
were measured at a ‘black’ school in the Netherlands using survey and interview
tools. It was found that the children acculturate similarly to children attending
mixed schools, preferring separation in the private sphere and integration or
assimilation in the public sphere. It was also found that they are comfortable in
their dual cultural identity and that majority members were more confused about
this identity than the children. Confusion about what was “Dutch” was permanent
throughout, as was the children’s complex relationship with dominant society and
their place within it. Their personal reality seemed at odds with social reality. Social
and cultural capital accumulation was further limited, and this is attributed to their
limited frame of reference and the family’s low socio-economic position.
Key words: acculturation · minority children · segregation · social capital · the
Netherlands
2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First I would like to extend my deepest gratitude to my supervisor Dr. Jan Jaap de
Ruiter for his brainstorming sessions and helpful prodding, and for his inexhaustible
optimism and encouragement throughout the entire process.
A big thank you also goes to the school who participated in the study; to the children
who invited me to take a peek into their daily life; and to the enthusiastic and
helpful staff that assisted in data collection and who permitted me to make use of
their resources.
Finally, I would like to thank Mark de Lange for his help with the translation of
questionnaires and interviews, his helpful suggestions for statistical analyses, and
his invaluable support from start to finish.
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2
Acknowledgements................................................................................................................................................................................... 3
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 6
2. Literature review .................................................................................................................................................................................. 7
2.1 Acculturation and adaptation .................................................................................................................................................. 7
2.1.1 Acculturation strategies .................................................................................................................................................... 8
2.1.2 Child-parent acculturation strategies.......................................................................................................................... 9
2.2 Social capital................................................................................................................................................................................. 10
2.2.1 Social capital accumulation in schools ..................................................................................................................... 12
2.3 The Dutch context ...................................................................................................................................................................... 13
2.3.1 From multiculturalism to assimilation .................................................................................................................... 13
2.3.2 Minority children and the Dutch educational environment ........................................................................... 14
2.3.3 Social capital in the Netherlands ................................................................................................................................ 15
2.4 The current study....................................................................................................................................................................... 16
2.4.1 Theoretical approach....................................................................................................................................................... 17
3. Methodology ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 18
3.1 Research question...................................................................................................................................................................... 18
3.2 Questionnaires ............................................................................................................................................................................ 18
3.2.1 Questionnaire structure ................................................................................................................................................. 19
3.2.2 Procedure ............................................................................................................................................................................. 19
3.3 Interviews ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 19
3.3.1 Interviews with children ................................................................................................................................................ 19
3.3.2 Interviews with teachers ............................................................................................................................................... 20
3.4 Sampling ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 21
3.4.1 Participants .......................................................................................................................................................................... 21
3.4.2 Demographics ..................................................................................................................................................................... 21
3.4.3 Socio-economic status ..................................................................................................................................................... 22
3.5 Limitations .................................................................................................................................................................................... 22
3.5.1 Language ............................................................................................................................................................................... 22
3.5.2 Interview methods and setting ................................................................................................................................... 22
3.5.3 The limitations of acculturation research............................................................................................................... 23
4. Results .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 23
4.1 Questionnaires ............................................................................................................................................................................ 24
4.1.1 Background overview ..................................................................................................................................................... 24
4
4.1.2 Language overview........................................................................................................................................................... 25
4.1.3 AHIMSA scale ...................................................................................................................................................................... 27
4.2 Interviews - children ................................................................................................................................................................ 28
4.2.1 Belonging .............................................................................................................................................................................. 28
4.2.2 Traditions ............................................................................................................................................................................. 31
4.2.3 Social capital ........................................................................................................................................................................ 36
4.2.4 Future plans ......................................................................................................................................................................... 38
4.2.5 Family matters.................................................................................................................................................................... 40
4.3 Interviews, teachers.................................................................................................................................................................. 41
4.3.1 On being a teacher ............................................................................................................................................................ 41
4.3.2 Neighborhood and parent difficulties ...................................................................................................................... 43
4.3.3 Children and their surroundings ................................................................................................................................ 44
5. Discussion ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 45
5.1 Acculturation ............................................................................................................................................................................... 45
5.1.1 Berry’s acculturation framework ............................................................................................................................... 45
5.1.2 On belonging........................................................................................................................................................................ 47
5.1.3 Integration and separation – all at once .................................................................................................................. 48
5.2 Social capital................................................................................................................................................................................. 48
5.2.1 Bonding.................................................................................................................................................................................. 49
5.2.2 Bridging ................................................................................................................................................................................. 50
5.3 Future aspirations ..................................................................................................................................................................... 51
5.4 On being ‘Dutch’.......................................................................................................................................................................... 52
5.5 Research question conclusions ............................................................................................................................................ 54
5.5.1 Research limitations ........................................................................................................................................................ 58
6. Conclusion............................................................................................................................................................................................. 58
References ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 60
Appendix .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 65
5
1. INTRODUCTION
Multiculturalism, acculturation, and the position of minority groups have been hot topics in the last decade,
and no less so in the Netherlands. Numerous studies have been completed to uncover the effects of the
shifts in public policy-making, the effects of minority-dominated neighborhoods, the acculturation patterns
of the most dominant minority groups (Moroccans, Turks, Surinamese and Antilleans), and what
conclusions one can draw on the topic of current minority, or immigrant, status and future position in
Dutch (and European) society. These are important topics in an increasingly diverse Dutch and European
context, as the recent years’ political and public attitudes towards the country’s minority population has
become increasingly hostile. The Netherlands has undergone a transformation from a country embracing
multiculturalism and actively encouraging culture retention to a country focused on assimilation and
uniformity in values (Vasta, 2007). Much policy-work has gone into dissolving minority-heavy
neighborhoods with the assumption that ‘black’ neighborhoods lead to lower levels of interethnic contact,
and thereby perpetuating both unfavorable stereotypes and real-life economic and social situations, neither
of which are beneficial for society or minority groups (Boschman, 2012). Research on schools attended
almost exclusively minority students have shown that these have unfavorable conditions and generally
perform worse than more mixed schools (Driessen, 2002; Orfield, 2001). Phinney (1991) showed that
Black children in segregated schools generally have higher self-esteem than those attending integrated
schools, while Agirdag et al. (2011) found that minority children attending schools with high minority
concentration experienced less peer-victimization than minority children attending predominantly ‘white’
schools. In the USA, the poor academic success of Hispanics is linked to institutional segregation and parent
socio-economic status (Ryabov & Van Hook, 2007). Thus research has shown that minority children may
fare better psychologically in segregated schools, but perform worse academically.
The current context is relevant for the country’s entire minority population, but perhaps increasingly so for
the second- and third-generation minority youths. They grow up in a society which busies itself telling
them how they should think and behave, and decides which of their family’s cultural values and traditions
are undesirable or even a threat to Dutch social cohesion and values. Placed between a Dutch context that
demands assimilation and their family’s desire to preserve a measure of their home culture, the youths may
find themselves conflicted or comfortable with having a foot in each camp. This thesis attempts to uncover
the perception of position in society for children aged 11 to 13, as well as their everyday practices and
contact with the majority population, and what this might mean for the youths’ future success. The study
takes its starting point in a so-called ‘black’ school located in a poor socio-economic neighborhood in a
large, Dutch city. The study will also attempt to uncover to what extent the children’s surroundings
encourage or impede their social and educational mobility, and will draw on similar Dutch and European
studies to support the findings. Maykel Verkuyten’s extensive work is well-known for its juxtaposition of
minority groups and Dutch majority members and what this may mean for one group’s attitude towards
the other, or what this says about the groups’ relative position in society, but to this author’s knowledge
very little, if any, research has been performed in ‘black’ schools in the Netherlands.
The thesis is structured as follows. In chapter 2, the literature review will approach the general themes in
this thesis, such as acculturation and social capital. These constructs will then be observed in a Dutch
context. In chapter 3, the methodology section, the research questions concluded on the basis of this
literature review will be outlined, and following that is the description of the methods used to obtain the
data, an overview of the informants and the limitations to the study. Chapter 4 will thoroughly describe the
results of the data collection from both surveys and interviews, and the implications of these results will be
discussed in chapter 5. The research questions will also be answered in this section. Finally, chapter 6 will
deal with the implications of this discussion and suggest alternative courses for further research.
6
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 ACCULTURATION AND ADAPTATION
The concept acculturation is employed to refer to the cultural changes resulting
from […] group encounters, while the concepts of psychological acculturation and
adaptation are employed to refer to the psychological changes and eventual
outcomes that occur as a result of individuals experiencing acculturation. (Berry,
1997)
Acculturation has become a hot topic over the past decades in political and academic circles as especially
European countries have turned the political focus to (re-)establishing a national identity, where certain
minority groups stick out like a sore thumb. Policy-work in these countries therefore attempts to minimize
the differences between majority and minority groups, rewarding those who have assimilated quietly
(usually minorities with post-colonial ties) and scolding those who have not. The latter group is often
identified as the Muslim minority whose values and norms are incompatible with a liberal, modern society
(Linde-Laursen, 2007; van Nieuwkerk, 2004). Much academic research has gone into studying how, if and
when minority groups acculturate, and what the attitudes towards acculturation are on the part of the
majority and minority groups. Berry’s (1997, 2005, 2006, 2009) theory on acculturation is one of the most
influential approaches to the study of acculturation. It explains how groups who come together with
different cultural backgrounds attempt to negotiate a way in which to co-exist peacefully. While
acculturation is a neutral term, the process takes place within one group more than another (1997, p. 7),
also known as the “acculturating group”. It also happens to different extents within a group and within
individuals, as not all individuals will participate equally in their group’s cultural changes. Berry notes that
integration is a two-way process; for it to be successfully implemented, both parties have to
accommodating. This means that the minority group must adopt the values of larger society, while the
majority group must be ready to adapt national institutions to the needs of the minority group (Berry, 1997
p. 11).
Adaptation to the host country happens within individuals or groups, and over short- or long-term periods,
in response to environmental demands where individuals change or update their cultural repertoire to suit
that of the host country (Berry, 1997). The ease with which adaptation takes place is also dependent on the
attitude towards immigrants from the larger society. Most often a good ‘fit’ is found between the
acculturating individual and the new environment. However, a bad ‘fit’ between the individual and the new
environment may occur when the individual is unable to change their cultural repertoire, leading to
acculturative stress (Berry, 1997; 2006). There is further a distinction between psychological adaptation,
socio-cultural adaptation and economical adaptation. The first refers to an individual achieving a clear sense
of personal and cultural identity, good mental health and a sense of satisfaction over personal
achievements. The second refers to external factors, such as the ability to deal with problems in daily life,
particularly in terms of family, work and school. The third refers to the extent to which the individual can
find work and achieve satisfaction from it (Berry, 1997 p. 14).
Figure 1 (displayed below) shows the acculturation framework used by Berry. In this framework, the
process of acculturation is explained. It is made up of two parts. The left side concerns the cultural
7
FIGURE 1 (SOURCE: BERRY, 2009)
backgrounds of the groups and it is necessary to understand the key features of these groups, both the
dominant and the subordinate. Essentially, there is contact between a new set of cultural and psychological
features, brought by the immigrants, and an existing set of features provided by the host country. The
circumstances of this contact (center) are also important to understand, as the relationship between the
host country and the immigrant group may be positive, negative or neutral, with varying expressions of
power and dominion. The right side of Figure 1 explains the psychological and cultural changes taking part
in both groups, as both groups will certainly be affected. It is important here to remember that all
individuals adapt differently, and that these adaptations may be relatively small, e.g., in manner of speech
or dress, or more significant changes to one’s identity on the psychological level, which may lead to
acculturative stress (Berry, 1997, 2006, 2009). It is important to note here that acculturation and ethnic
identity are not the same, but rather complementary constructs that explain and define an individual’s
relation to self, in- and out-groups and the cultural differences and expectations all groups possess (e.g.
Arends-Tóth & Van De Vijver, 2004; Phinney et al., 2001). Ethnic identity becomes especially salient during
the process of acculturation.
2.1.1 ACCULTURATION STRATEGIES
Berry (1997, 2005) defined four acculturation strategies that societies and immigrants might follow, based
on the issues of cultural maintenance and contact and participation. Below is Berry’s two-dimensional
acculturation model (Figure 2) displaying the four strategies from the point of view of the minority, or
ethnocultural group, and from the point of view of larger society.
8
FIGURE 2 (SOURCE: BERRY, 2005)
The model reveals that the strategies, and the methods used to apply them, may be perceived differently by
the minority and majority groups. The strategies of the minority group are applied when this group can
freely choose for itself which strategy it wishes to apply. Contrarily, if a particular strategy is forced upon
the minority group, for example via legislation, they are the strategies of larger society. The differences in
strategies are therefore quite large and have a great impact on the minority group. It has been proven that
the variables of cultural maintenance and of contact and participation are both empirically and
conceptually independent of each other (Berry, 2009), thus an individual may seek contact and
participation with the majority group or society while still maintaining his or her culture (e.g. Huijnk,
Verkuyten & Coenders, 2012). These choices result in the above strategies, which are called
integration/multiculturalism,
assimilation/melting
pot,
separation/segregation,
and
marginalization/exclusion. Only the former labels will be used in this thesis as these are the most
commonly used terms when discussing acculturation. Integration refers to a high degree of participation in
the dominant society while maintaining one’s cultural background to a high degree. Assimilation refers to a
high degree of participation but showing less interest in maintaining one’s cultural background. Separation
refers to a high maintenance of one’s cultural heritage but seeking little participation in the dominant
society, and finally marginalization refers to low maintenance of cultural heritage and low participation in
the dominant society. Different strategies may be preferred in different domains (Arends-Tóth & Van De
Vijver, 2004), for example by preferring assimilation at school or at work while preferring a separationist
strategy in the home, thus differentiating between the public and the private sphere.
2.1.2 CHILD-PARENT ACCULTURATION STRATEGIES
Berry notes that acculturation happens at different speeds and at different levels for both groups and
individuals, including families (2005:700). This is interesting in terms of the integration of children – if they
adapt faster (or on a higher level) than their parents, it may bring conflict and stress within family relations
and in the child’s relations to peers and other in- and outgroup members. Children may also choose to
acculturate differently than their parents, which may also provoke tension (Berry, 2009). Van Geel &
Vedder (2009) found that a stronger sense of family obligations were positively correlated with school
9
adjustment, meaning that children from cultural backgrounds where a strong sense of duty and obligation
towards the family was present received better grades and behaved better than peers with a weak sense of
family obligations. In their study, many Dutch students had a weak sense of family obligations compared to
their peers, of which most had a Turkish or Moroccan background. However, Phalet & Schönpflug (2001)
showed that ethnic retention, in this case collectivist values, was negatively correlated with academic
success and academic opportunities, meaning that in families where cultural retention was very important,
the children fared worse academically. This was particularly the case in Turkish families, where the
importance of collectivistic values is higher than in Moroccan families. Thus researchers are unable to
conclude whether cultural retention is beneficial or not for minority children in terms of their future
success, as there are a multitude of factors influencing them such as environment, parent socio-economic
status and the political stance on acculturation (Andriessen & Phalet, 2002; Driessen, 2002; Huijnk,
Verkuyten & Coenders, 2012; Sam et al., 2008; Van Geel & Vedder, 2009; Van Laar & Sidinius, 2001).
Moroccans and Turks have acculturated in different ways (Crul & Doomernik, 2003), and there are several
differences between and within the groups that affect how the groups manage in society. For example,
Turks are generally more well-educated than Moroccans (though this only means a higher percentage of
literate individuals holding elementary school diplomas), and Moroccans are to a higher degree invisible in
neighborhoods compared to the wealth of Turkish shops and organizations in the larger cities (Crul &
Doomernik, 2003). However, Moroccans have in the recent years been more vocal about bettering their
position in society than Turks, who prefer to keep to themselves. This creates more malice towards
Moroccans than Turks (Bishop, 2004). Turks are experiencing polarization within the group, as some young
Turks become very successful academically and professionally, while others drop out of school and
continue their parents’ poor socio-economic legacy. In both groups, the first-generation parents are less
likely to have mastered the Dutch language compared to their children, which excludes the parents from
certain activities with their children, such as helping with homework. It also forces the children to for
example act as translators and intermediaries during meetings at school. In general, Turkish and Moroccan
families are less likely to endorse socio-cultural adaptation than for example Antillean or Surinamese
families (Huijnk, Verkuyten & Coenders, 2012), and their lower level of adaptation is linked to language use
and religious affiliation. The infrequent use of Dutch in the home coupled with high levels of attendance at
religious institutions, such as mosques, act as barriers to integration.
The problems that may arise for second-generation immigrants, such as the children in the current study, is
the wish to integrate farther into Dutch society while still maintaining a close link with their cultural
backgrounds and, particularly, their family (Stevens et al., 2004). This may be especially prominent for
girls, where adherence to their cultural heritage may mean stricter rules for girls than for boys. Thus, by
emancipating themselves from strict bonds of behavior and expectations they distance themselves from
their family’s cultural heritage. There is a tendency in Dutch society to believe that most parents with
immigrant backgrounds are not equipped with enough cultural and educational capital or language use to
raise their children in a manner compatible with larger Dutch society, and that this will hinder the children
in participating and achieving fully in school (Driessen & Dekkers, 2009). Several studies support this
theory as an explanation for migrant children’s poor academic success (De Graaf & Van Zanderen, 2009;
Kalmijn & Kraaykamp, 2003).
2.2 SOCIAL CAPITAL
Social capital has recently become a quite popular concept explaining and understanding how social
resources can benefit social actors (Li, 2004). However, the actual meaning of the term remains vague, and
it has been used to define a multitude of social connections and resources on a personal, communal and
national level. A brief explanation of the founding schools of thought on this topic will provide the
10
background of the construct, and then individual aspects of the construct will be presented in order to
round out the understanding of what social capital is and how it is applicable in this study. In short, social
capital can be summed up thus:
First, social capital represents a form of resource that an individual may mobilize as
a result of being attached to a social group. Second, the resourcefulness of social
capital depends on the intensity and extensity of social ties (or attachments) present
in the group, as well as the class-based advantages and resources of the group.
Third, the production or acquisition of social capital requires an individual to invest
in and maintain social relations; thus the investment involves a cost, and the use of
social capital represents a benefit. (Li, 2004)
The ‘founding fathers’ of social capital, namely Pierre Bourdieu, James S. Coleman and Robert D. Putnam,
have each contributed different approaches to understanding and developing social capital (Athnias, 2007;
Portes, 1998). Bourdieu’s alpha omega is economic capital, and how the different sources of capital
(cultural, symbolic and social) each contribute to gathering economic capital. However, due to inequalities
in society, not everyone has equal access to these capitals. The same goes for social capital – social ties are
not a given, and must be cultivated (preferably ‘upwards’) if one is to get maximum value. The donor of
capital may be a single person or it may be a group to which the recipient belongs or has contacts to. In
order to gain social capital one must invest economic and cultural resources. Social exchanges are a giveand-take game, and thus the accumulation of capital or resources may bear a considerable cost to the
individual (Li, 2004). Coleman, on the other hand, describes social capital as a collection of normative rules
and obligations to one’s family and/or community. It is only obtainable through dense networks, with
special emphasis on family and kin. Putnam, finally, considers social capital through civic engagement. A
healthy society (or city, or country) has a sizeable stock of social capital, according to Putnam, and
deterioration of social capital through loss of voluntarism and civic spirit leads to the deterioration of
society. Both Coleman and Putnam stress the collective good that comes from trust, cooperation and
reciprocity, and the necessity of this to facilitate social capital, while Bourdieu stresses economic capital as
the “fundamental resource in capitalist societies” (Holland, Reynolds & Weller, 2007 p. 98), with social
capital being one of the contributors to the accumulation of such. The Coleman/Putnam approach to social
capital opens up for criticism of social capital as a negative influence on society through what is called
negative social capital where actors feel obligated to fulfill their duties towards other members of their
family or community. This may have a negative impact on their individual, but also their professional,
advancement. These include the exclusion of outsiders, excess burdens and claims on group members, the
restriction of individual freedom and the degradation of norms (Portes, 1998). The Coleman/Putnam
coalition has further been accused of being ethnocentric and gender blind, failing to take into account the
different position disadvantaged groups have in society (Holland, Reynolds & Weller, 2007). For a
comprehensive analysis of the various authorities on social capital and their individual strengths and
weaknesses, please see Schaefer-McDaniel (2004) and Portes (1998).
Scholten & Holzhacker (2009) draw on Putnam’s (2000) concepts of bonding and bridging in social capital
when describing the current situation of immigrants in the Netherlands. Bonding refers to in-group
socializing and trust-building, where bridging refers to socializing and trust-building with other social and
cultural networks, and enjoying the cultural and economical capital that these may provide. The
consequences of these different forms of trust-building and capital-generation can be different
developments of identity – where bridging may expand and broaden the perception of one’s own identity,
11
bonding may narrow this perception (Scholten & Holzhacker, 2009 p. 83). The terms of bonding and
bridging may however be problematic, as they assume static, bounded groups with no confusion as to who
is part of which group (Anthias, 2007). Further, the accumulation of social capital through bridging requires
that the dominant group, in this case the Dutch majority, is willing to establish networks and facilitate the
exchange of resources and capital (Li, 2004). This may not always be the case due to barriers such as
culture, religion, language, ethnicity and class. While immigrants have more limited access to sources of
social capital than the majority members of the host country, what little they do have is stronger than most
majority members’ due to a shared history and sentimental attachment to the home country (Kao, 2004).
Especially immigrant children are better at using their sources for social capital than their majority peers.
The approach to social capital in this study draws on Anthias’ (2007) distinction of only comprising those
ties which further social advancement and growth of other resources. Otherwise social capital becomes a
synonym for networks and community ties (Anthias, 2007 p. 789). Unlike for example economical capital,
social capital can be described as something everyone has access to which may then lead to expansion or
accumulation of other capitals. The terms bridging and bonding are here also employed with the awareness
that groups are not bounded and static. In this thesis, bonding occurs with people with the same ethnic or
religious background, while bridging occurs with people from other ethnic groups, particularly the Dutch
majority.
2.2.1 SOCIAL CAPITAL ACCUMULATION IN SCHOOLS
Several studies have examined under which circumstances social capital is accumulated and distributed in
schools. A relevant selection will be discussed here. Devine’s (2009) study examines the way social capital
is gathered among children with minority backgrounds and how this social capital is accepted by their
surroundings. Further, she explores the necessary recognition provided by the environment for this capital
to function. If social capital is not recognized by those who participate in the exchange of capital in general,
and by those with the power to negate this capital (such as teachers), it may lead to frustration and
confusion on the part of the minority children. Her study at schools in Ireland showed the complications
that arose when minority children participated in activities that made them feel more Irish (such as Irish
dance, sports and language classes). While the minority children felt confirmed in their Irish identity
through these activities, their teachers and majority member classmates did not recognize this feeling of
belongingness, and the minority children experienced racial slurs and being put down if they did better
than the majority children. Some even lowered their academic performance in order to fit in. Thus, the
majority children and their teachers controlled when and whether the minority children’s own sense of
belongingness in Irish society was recognized.
Schmitt (2010) in her study found great variance of the notion of belonging and the gathering of social
capital in Canadian and German schools. Where in Canada there was no question as to whether you were
Canadian, and children freely dubbed themselves according to race or group belonging, this was not the
case in Germany. Citizenship, or true ‘German-ness’ was not something an individual could achieve over a
lifetime, but something that might come over generations, and it depended on others’ recognition of this
self-labeling. Furthermore, while in Canada no students expressed a wish of not wanting to be a ‘true’
Canadian, in Germany several students expressed not wanting to be a ‘true’ German because they would
have to give up their cultural background. In Canada, one could be either or, or they could be both, while in
Germany you could never be truly German and would not be recognized as such unless you had the proper
‘credentials’. The difference between Canada and Germany is undoubtedly their approach to being a
multicultural society, and the country’s past immigration patterns. Where Canada is a country made up of
immigrants, such as USA and Australia, Germany is not.
12
Holland, Reynolds & Weller (2007) discovered that the topic of children and the accumulation of social
capital is complex. In their study, they found that bonding and bridging (cf. Putnam, 2000) are important in
the context of children and social capital, in that they enable negotiations of transitions to adulthood or
secondary school. Their studies, conducted in the UK, pointed to complex structures of accumulation of
social capital. Some children gained it by building strong community ties, through bonding, either with their
local community where they had grown up or through ethnic/cultural groups, such as black/Caribbean
gatherings and activity groups. Others felt restricted in their transition in these cases, and gained capital by
using their existing networks to bridge into others, for example by attending schools with several former
classmates or family members, and thereby gaining new friends and contacts through these.
At the time of Bourdieu, Putnam and Coleman, children were considered passive recipients of their parents’
social capital accumulation. The emphasis was on the parents’ obligation to involve themselves in their
children’s education and daily doings in order for the child to benefit, and in this way disregarding any
networks that the child itself may be part of. Where children are mentioned in relation to social capital, it is
mostly as the future beneficiaries of their parents’ networks and accumulated capital. This has often been
criticized, and children are now often considered to be active producers of their own capital (Holland,
Reynolds & Weller, 2007). Social capital is here investigated in terms of the children’s networks and
connections in both immediate familial ties and the larger society (cf. Bourdieu, 1986). It ties in with
acculturation where the level of acculturation may have an effect on the availability of sources of social
capital.
2.3 THE DUTCH CONTEXT
2.3.1 FROM MULTICULTURALISM TO ASSIMILATION
As has been observed, the Netherlands (along with many other European countries) has been reluctant to
admit or concede to being a country of immigration and a multicultural nation (Crul & Doomernik, 2003;
Scholten & Holzhacker, 2009). The first large groups to emigrate to the Netherlands were former colonists
from the Dutch East-Indies. Public policy focused on rapid assimilation ensured that these “repatriates”
were spatially distributed in the Netherlands, and within a decade most had “silently merged into society”
(Scholten & Holzhacker, 2009 p. 87). The large influx of guest workers from the Mediterranean area and
other Dutch colonies in the 1960s and ‘70s made it more difficult; indeed, they were called “guest workers”
instead of “immigrants” as their stay was assumed to be temporary. When the contrary was proven, and the
guest workers settled down and sent for their families to join them, new policies were adapted to allow the
various ethnic groups to preserve their cultural backgrounds. The policy was influenced by the
Netherlands’ previously pillarized organization of religious and political movements (Crul & Doomernik,
2003). It provided them with language and culture education for their children in order to maintain a link
with the family’s home culture. This policy was put in effect to prevent bridging between the ethnic
minority groups and the Dutch majority, as it was thought this would enable the minority groups to more
easily return to their home countries (Scholten & Holzhacker, 2009).
However, since the 1990’s the current situation changed from a position of a multicultural society and
relatively little focus on a Dutch national identity, to the admiration of a homogeneous nation state and
emphasis on a national identity. There is an increased emphasis on citizenship and the individual’s duty to
his country, for example through participating in and learning the Dutch language and the Dutch culture
(Crul & Doomernik, 2003). This has brought resistance to allowing minority groups to retain certain
cultural markers, such as language and religious customs, especially those that are seen as incompatible
with Dutch values (Van Nieuwkerk, 2004). The position of the Dutch government to impose an
assimilationist strategy came about after an increasing opinion that the Dutch people had set aside
13
important liberal values in order to accommodate the values of minority groups, and the result was feared
to be the destruction of social cohesion (Vasta, 2007). Here, Muslims are seen to bear the largest share of
the blame, in particular those from the Turkish and Moroccan groups. Their seeming refusal to embrace
Dutch culture, values and norms together with the lax Dutch attitude towards cultural diversity are seen as
the reasons why multiculturalism as a strategy has failed in the Netherlands (Vasta, 2007). Indeed, in the
academic world as well there have been conflicting findings regarding whether assimilationism or
multiculturalism is the best strategy for a diverse nation. The reaction of minority groups to imposed
acculturation strategies varies. In countries with a high demand of assimilation, minorities may either try to
hide or downplay their ethnic identity, while others may feel an increased pride in their identity and
attempt to maintain it more determinedly than if the society was pluralist (Phinney et al., 2001). However,
there may be different reasons to demand assimilation. Verkuyten (2011) discusses that the assimilationist
approach may have merits if it is induced from a ‘melting pot’ point of view. That is, the strategy is put into
effect in order to create a new hybrid identity, a sort of color-blindness that focuses on the individual
instead of on his or her group membership. Conversely, if the strategy is chosen in order to obliterate
minority group features and force the minority group to adopt a majority group identity, the strategy may
be harmful to minority members and stimulate negative out-group feelings among majority members who
are higher level majority group identifiers (Verkuyten, 2011). Berry (2005) argues that multiculturalism is
the most beneficial approach for both groups, as it stimulates positive feelings and growth. However,
multiculturalism has also been linked to greater suspicion between groups as the majority group may feel
threatened by the minority group, or feel unfairly treated if it appears the minority group is seen as getting
an advantage due to their minority group membership (for example through positive discrimination,
affirmative action programs, and so on; Verkuyten, 2011).
Whatever the underlying reasons for favoring one over the other, it is becoming increasingly apparent that
the Dutch strategy is currently favoring majority members at the expense of minority groups, and this has
an effect on the socio-economic status of these minority groups. The demand that children should be
treated and taught equally whatever their background has been linked with minority children’s low
educational achievements. For example, language classes are rarely tailored to the students’ individual
needs, thus leaving those children behind who need more or different help to master the Dutch language
(Vasta, 2007). This in turn may lead to an aversion to the Dutch educational system, which may explain why
minority children are generally performing worse than average Dutch children (Kalmijn & Kraaykamp,
2003). Verkuyten (2004) found conflicting positions towards multiculturalism and assimilation among the
Dutch, where individuals would simultaneously claim they found multiculturalism an enriching feature for
society, but would worry about the threat that certain groups, particularly Muslim groups (Turks and
Moroccans) posed to the endurance of Dutch society. What is important to note here is that the Dutch
generally appear ignorant of their own role in the difficulties of assimilation of minority groups, preferring
to blame the migrants for unwillingness to assimilate (Vasta, 2007; Verkuyten, 2004).
2.3.2 MINORITY CHILDREN AND THE DUTCH EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENT
It is important in the context of this thesis to understand the educational framework which the minority
children operate in. Minority children must overcome more obstacles than the average Dutch child in order
to reach the same goal – to get an education – and minority children fail to reach this goal more often.
Kalmijn & Kraaykamp (2003) found that minority children are far more prone to drop out of secondary
school than the Dutch children, despite the ‘security net’ constructed by the multitrack educational system.
Minority children were also found to be more likely to be downwardly mobile than Dutch children, though
in general minority children tended to drop out where Dutch children would mobilize downward. Kalmijn
and Kraaykamp (2003) found that the high drop-out rates were the result of social milieu (parental
14
involvement, family structure), while downward mobility was the result of cognitive abilities (test scores,
parental education).
The academic gap between Dutch and minority students has long been a problem for Dutch society. Many
have sought to uncover what causes this gap, and there is a tendency to blame the ethnicity or cultural
background of the child for these gaps. Language skills are underdeveloped in most of the children, setting
them back considerably behind their Dutch peers (Driessen, 2001). However, most often their
mathematical skills are on par with the rest of their classmates. Studies have shown that the socioeconomic status of minority parents affects the children’s academic achievements (e.g. Ryabov & Van Hook,
2007). Van Laar & Sidanius (2001) suggest that the academic gap has several causes, among them the
parent’s ability to accumulate economic, cultural and social capital, discriminatory practices on the part of
individuals and institutions (such as schools), and the minority individuals’ own behavioral and cognitive
patterns. That is, in an effort to protect oneself from “the ego-damaging effects of subordination” (Van Laar
& Sidanius, 2001 p. 251), the individual will remove itself completely from the academic equation, even if
he or she has positive experiences. Tendencies to dissociate oneself with the white majority have also been
observed, with academic success being ‘something White people do’. Rejecting an academic career and
instead dropping out of school is thus a way to identify oneself as the minority, but in such a way that the
individual takes charge of the situation instead of being the passive recipient of the negative stereotype of
uneducated minority youths. Needless to say, this only serves to strengthen the stereotype at no particular
benefit to the youth, perhaps aside from identification with in-group members. There has been discussion
as to whether the children are victims of discrimination (van Laar & Sidanius, 2001), though it has been
suggested that any discrimination would lead to downward academic mobility, not dropping out of school
entirely (Kalmijn & Kraaykamp, 2003).
Furthermore, literature on acculturation and academic success suggests that children who adopt
assimilationist or integrationist attitudes are more likely to succeed in school as they should experience
less problems relating to their classmates and their teachers (Andriessen & Phalet, 2002). It would appear
that children tend to express these attitudes in the public sphere, such as at school, while they are more
likely to adopt separationist attitudes in the private sphere. In other words, at school children would act
more ‘Dutch’ while at home they would prefer their family’s home culture. Andriessen & Phalet (2002)
found this to be the case, and especially that Turkish children are more likely to maintain their family’s
cultural heritage where Moroccans are more conformist (see also Phalet & Schönpflug, 2001). Interestingly,
the teachers marked ‘difficult behavior’ for the children who adopted an integrationist attitude as they
move into a social space traditionally dominated by the Dutch.
2.3.3 SOCIAL CAPITAL IN THE NETHERLANDS
It is generally found that neighborhoods are important for one’s social capital accumulation, and that these
influence access to resources and other forms of capital. Especially low-status neighborhoods and
neighborhoods with large concentrations of ethnic minorities are considered at risk of not improving the
social conditions of its inhabitants (Friedrichs, Galster & Musterd, 2003). In the Netherlands, as in many
other European countries, certain areas in larger cities have become largely populated by minority or
immigrant groups from a low socio-economic background, and this is considered a great problem
(Boschman, 2012; Dekker, 2007). The Dutch government has attempted to break up these ghetto-like
neighborhoods by for example attracting middle-class families to these areas by replacing the social-rented
housing with owner-occupied homes (Dekker, 2007). Further, policies have been implemented to increase
safety and growth, and to encourage citizens to feel responsible for their neighborhoods. Dekker (2007)
found that neither socio-economic status nor ethnic background nor family composition nor gender
predicted actors’ participation in their neighborhood activities, which is contrary to popular belief. Rather,
15
age was a better predictor, with older citizens being more active within their neighborhood compared to
younger citizens. Social capital also explained participation in one’s neighborhood, as having friends in the
area or wanting to be a ‘good neighbor’ made citizens more inclined to participation. Karsten (2011)
further found that children’s accumulation of social capital has dwindled since the 1950’s in segregated
neighborhoods in Amsterdam. Especially in multi-ethnic neighborhoods fewer children play together on
the street, and due to the nature of the neighborhoods, outside play is dangerous or difficult due to the lack
of facilities. There is further little trust between neighbors, who prefer to keep their children inside and to
only socialize with in-group members and family. Similarly, Boschman (2012) found that trust is an
important factor in neighborhood participation and interethnic contact.
The perceived dangers of large concentrations of minority groups in certain neighborhoods have also
become a problem for the Dutch government in the sense that it is assumed to hinder majority-minority
contact and thus limit the opportunities offered by majority group connections, such as social and
economical capital and networking. This is another reason to break up the ghetto-like areas in order to
bring in more ethnic Dutch citizens to ‘black’ neighborhoods. As it is, there has been a ‘white flight’ from
these neighborhoods, and thereby also the schools. It is an important Dutch value to preserve parental
choice in educational institutions, meaning that majority parents choose to send their children to schools
where the majority of the students are ‘real’ Dutch (Ladd, Fiske & Ruijs, 2010). This severely limits minority
children’s contact with majority members, both at school and in their neighborhood. Children are more
dependent on their neighborhood to make friends than adolescents who attend secondary school, or than
adults in general, as their networks expand through their educational institution and/or work (Boschman,
2012). While Boschman’s study showed that minority groups who lived in larger cities, such as the one in
this thesis, had less contact with Dutch people, this may be because the concentration of Dutch people is
generally smaller in these cities than in smaller cities. Further, it was not found that people aged 15-65
suffered from living in neighborhoods with large concentrations of minority groups, as contact was
facilitated through extra-curricular activities, work and school. The level of contact with Dutch people
eventually came down to a person’s individual characteristics, not their ethnic background or
neighborhood composition. However, Boschman found that Surinamese and Antillean groups had more
contact with Dutch people than Turks and Moroccans, and this may be due to the history of these groups.
2.4 THE CURRENT STUDY
This study focuses on minority children who are growing up in the Netherlands. The Dutch government is
determined to force assimilation on its minority groups, and to break up ghetto-like areas in order to
encourage interethnic contact and development of low socio-economic status neighborhoods. At the same
time, the equal determination to uphold liberal, modern values such as the right to parental choice of
educational institutions of their children, and the minority groups’ own growing voicing of discontent and
demands for equal civil rights (such as freedom to maintain their cultural heritage) makes the current
situation difficult to navigate. The minority children growing up in this environment are bombarded from
all sides with contradicting messages about how they should act, feel and think. They stand between
greater Dutch society and their family, each of which may have conflicting expectations of the children. The
parents’ low socio-economic status, as well as the depressing statistics for minority children’s academic
success, are likely to hinder the children in fulfilling their future aspirations and breaking the cycle (cf.
Karsten, 2011). The main focus of this thesis is therefore to study how children handle being in this
position as they are on the brink of their transition into adulthood, right before they take their first steps
into making their own decisions about their lives. The emphasis is on their own perception of their
situation, that is, examining their everyday lives through their eyes. Their teachers’ input will be used to
examine whether the children’s perceptions resemble their social reality. The study further investigates the
16
children’s environment, and how this may be contributing positively or negatively to their current and
future position. This includes their parents, their neighborhood, their teachers, and the children’s
participation in activities with these groups.
The current study took place at a so-called ‘black’ school in a large city in the Netherlands. The situation is
made further interesting by the fact that no Dutch students attend the school because this provides the
children with a different frame of reference than has been observed in the studies on children discussed in
the previous sections. The conditions at the school make it ideal for examining the results of the Dutch
approach towards multiculturalism. As mentioned previously, to this author’s knowledge there has not
been conducted similar research in the Netherlands. The recent years’ policy changes in education,
neighborhood development and integration will have affected the children’s surroundings and their daily
lives. Their understanding of Dutch society is limited to what they see and hear on TV, their scarce contact
with majority group members, such as teachers at school and friends met through playing outside or
attending after-school activities, and what they experience through the actions and behavior of their family,
teachers, friends and neighbors.
2.4.1 THEORETICAL APPROACH
As Chirkov (2009) has shown, while many studies on acculturation employ quantitative methods of
measuring the acculturative level, this may not be the best approach to such a complex and multifaceted
subject. Both quantitative and qualitative research methods were opted for in the current study. A
questionnaire was produced in order to measure the children’s acculturative level, and to gain an
understanding of their everyday life through questions about their general well-being, their after-school
activities and their parents’ involvement in their schoolwork. Qualitative methods, in this case interviews
and observation, allowed for more in-depth and contextual research in order to understand the children’s
relationships with their families, their sense of belonging and their future hopes and dreams. By utilizing
several methods of data collection and verification, methodological and data triangulation (Arksey &
Knight, 1999) is possible and will help avoid bias.
Berry’s four acculturation levels are used in this thesis as a starting point, but qualitative methods have also
been applied in order to accumulate in-depth information on the children’s situation. Similar studies, such
as that of Holland, Reynolds & Weller (2007), Devine (2009), Schmitt (2010), and Karsten (2011) have
been used for the same purpose, in order to compare methods and results. With the criticisms of
acculturation psychology studies in mind (see section 3.5.3), the approach taken in this thesis is one of
universalist position, considering that all humans share basic socio-cultural attributes but that these are
shaped and expressed differently in various cultures (Berry, 2009). It is further acknowledged that Berry’s
four acculturation strategies are presented in their ideal form, and that there may be cases where the
children do not fit into one standard category (Stevens et al., 2004).
Children in the age range of 11 to 13 have been chosen for this study as they are on the verge of
adolescence and will therefore soon, if not already, experience the difficulties that come with being a
teenager. Also, they have started developing their own identity, but are not old enough to have started the
more intricate identity development that often leads them to explore their own political opinion and
morality (Eccles, 1999). While these children are not old enough to have fully formed their own opinions
about the world, some opinions expressed during the interviews hold value in that they may mimic what
they have heard at home and at school. This should provide an insight into the way in which conversations
take place at home, and the children’s reactions to these conversations.
17
2.4.1.1 Ethnographic research
Blommaert & Dong’s (2010) guidelines for carrying out ethnographic research were used predominantly
throughout the research period. This included site visits, participation in everyday activities and
observations of the everyday functions of the school. Information was predominantly collected by notetaking during class observations and during conversations with the teachers in the break room.
The author spent several days at the school in order to allow the children to become accustomed to the
author’s presence. Time was spent observing several classrooms of different ages in order to better
understand the method of teaching and the manner in which the teachers interact with the children. These
were lessons in a whole class of approximately 24 students and smaller, special-needs classes of
approximately 8 students.
Furthermore, the author participated in parent-teacher meetings in which the parents were oriented about
the children’s options for applying for secondary schools. The point of this was, aside from obtaining
consent for the interviews, to observe the children in a situation where they were placed between their
teachers and their parents, as they might display certain types of behavior during these meetings that
would not appear in everyday classroom settings.
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1 RESEARCH QUESTION
Based on the literature described in the previous section, and the conditions of the school in question, the
research question has been formulated as:

How do minority children negotiate the norms, values and expectations held and influenced by the
families’ home culture in their everyday experiences of Dutch society?
The sub-questions are:

How do minority children place themselves in relation to their peers of both minority and majority
backgrounds and to Dutch society in general?

How does the accumulation of social capital happen in minority children’s homogenous and
underprivileged environments?

How do the parents’ socio-economic background influence minority children’s adaptation to Dutch
society?
3.2 QUESTIONNAIRES
First, a Dutch questionnaire was passed out to all the children (N = 24) in the class. It contained in total 44
items. This questionnaire has been dubbed The Multi-Item Minority Student Acculturation Survey (MIMSAS).
The full questionnaire can be seen in the appendix. Part of the questionnaire in this thesis assesses where
minority children place themselves within Berry’s four acculturation strategies in order to assess their level
of acculturation within Dutch society. The interviews further explore the minority children’s affiliation with
the Netherlands and their family’s home country and to which extent they personally feel integrated into,
and part of, Dutch society.
18
3.2.1 QUESTIONNAIRE STRUCTURE
The questionnaire was structured as follows:




Background information: Questions sought to uncover information about the children’s socioeconomic backgrounds and that of their parents, their linguistic capabilities (Extra & Yagmur,
2011) and their religious backgrounds, and what the children do in their spare time. This part
contained 19 items.
Well-being: Questions about the children’s general well-being at school, at home and with friends
were adapted from the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ; Goodman, 1997). This part
contained 8 items.
Acculturation: Part of the questionnaire focused on the children’s acculturative level. The questions
were inspired by and adapted from Unger et al.’s (2002) Acculturation, Habits and Interests
Multicultural Scale for Adolescents Acculturation Scale (AHIMSA) and Mooren et al.’s (2001)
Lowlands Acculturation Scale (LAS). This part contained 9 items.
Parental relationship and involvement: Finally, questions about the children’s relationship with
their parents and the parents’ involvement were developed by studying general outlines of
questionnaires (e.g. van Geel & Vedder, 2009). This part contained 8 items.
3.2.2 PROCEDURE
The questionnaire was first written in English, then translated to Dutch and translated back to English to
ensure reliability. The contact person from the school was also consulted in the phrasing of the questions to
make sure that the questions would not be too difficult to understand for the children. The questionnaires
were numbered by the class teacher in correspondence with a name list for identification during the
interviews. The data from the questionnaires were processed using SPSS.
The children completed the questionnaires in the classroom under the supervision of the contact person
and the author. The contact person was present to explain how to complete the questionnaire, answer any
questions and keep the children focused. Two questionnaires were completed outside of the classroom due
to illness, and were completed in the presence of the contact person.
3.3 INTERVIEWS1
3.3.1 INTERVIEWS WITH CHILDREN
3.3.1.1 Procedure
Of the 24 children, 20 consented to participate in the interviews. On the day itself, two children were sick.
Therefore 18 semi-structured interviews of approximately 10 to 15 minutes each were conducted. Consent
was obtained during a parent-teacher meeting (‘rapportavond’) at which both the author and the contact
person were present. This was deemed the easiest way of obtaining consent, as many of the parents have
little proficiency in Dutch and would not be able to read the information and consent letters. Therefore,
obtaining consent at the parent-teacher meeting allowed the contact person to fully explain the scope and
the procedure of the project, and allowed the parents to ask questions if they had any concerns.
Due to the length of the transcripts, these will not appear in the appendix. However, curious readers are
welcome to approach the author for an English copy of the transcripts.
1
19
The contact person for this project conducted the interviews in Dutch while the author followed the
conversation and posed follow-up questions in English. This method was decided on in collaboration with
the contact person, as she has taught the students in younger grades and is currently working as a teacher’s
aide for this particular class. She therefore has a good and trusting relationship with the children, and she
believed that the author’s presence would not be disturbing for the interviews or hinder the children’s
openness. The contact person was instructed in correct interview procedures, and the procedure was
constantly adapted throughout the interview sessions in order to pose relevant follow-up questions and
probes. After the interviews were carried out, the interviews were translated and transcribed by a Dutchspeaking colleague. In order to secure validity, the transcripts were cross-referenced with the author’s own
notes on the experiences of the interviews. The transcripts were then coded and categorized for the final
analysis of data (Arksey & Knight, 1999).
3.3.1.2 Interview guideline
The interview guideline was created to be as simple and concise as possible. The topics included the
children’s social networks (amount of Dutch friends, involvement in neighborhood activities), their position
between the culture of their family and the Dutch culture (perception of differences and importance of
family’s home culture values), and their future plans (educational aspirations and summer holidays). The
guideline contained 11 items with follow-up questions. Items were added as they became relevant
throughout the conversation, such as “do you feel more Dutch or more Turkish/Moroccan?”.
3.3.2 INTERVIEWS WITH TEACHERS
3.3.2.1 Procedure
Two teachers were asked to participate in an interview. The interviews took approximately 45 minutes and
focused on the teachers’ experiences with the children and the challenges presented by working with
children from minority backgrounds. The interviews were conducted in English, with occasional
supplementing in Dutch where certain expressions were difficult to translate. Certain topics were
elaborated by e-mail following the interviews.
One was the teacher of the interviewed classroom and was chosen as he is in contact with the children on a
daily basis. He is further in contact with their parents and/or older siblings, and is generally involved in the
children’s everyday lives. The second is a gym teacher and the coordinator of the school’s LKP (Leer Kansen
Profiel) lessons in which he is in close contact with the children but in a different way than when they are in
the classroom. Therefore the two teachers are able to provide several point of views to the children’s
current situation.
3.3.2.2 Interview guideline
The guideline was predominantly based on the interviews conducted with the children. The teachers were
asked about their experiences with the children and their parents. Topics included the children’s social life,
the consequences of their ethnic background/minority status, their parents’ involvement in the school and
the children’s future aspirations. The teachers were also asked about the school’s attitude towards
multiculturalism, or the integration of both Dutch and minority approaches. The guideline contained 12 to
14 questions, depending on the teacher, and included probes and spontaneous questions that arose during
the conversation, such as one teacher’s personal experience as a Dutch-Moroccan man.
20
3.4 SAMPLING
3.4.1 PARTICIPANTS
The focus was on the school’s group 8, which has 24 students ranging from 11 to 13 years old who are
getting ready to proceed to secondary school. Most students are not very proficient in Dutch (by Dutch
standards), and therefore there was a tight collaboration with the class teacher and aide in order to secure
reliable data. The contact person from the school, a teacher who has worked at the school for over 10 years,
assisted in the data collection and access to information.
The interviewed children all had a Muslim background by chance. One child with a Christian background
and one child with a Hindu background did not have parental consent, and another also with a Christian
background was unable to participate in an interview. The children represented backgrounds from Turkey
(N = 8), Morocco (N = 7), Yemen (N = 1), Somalia (N = 1) and Tunisia (N = 1). Of the interviewed children,
there were 10 girls and 8 boys.
The classroom in total had children with family backgrounds from Turkey (N = 9), Morocco (N = 8),
Somalia, (N = 2), Curacao (N = 1), Nigeria (N = 1), Yemen (N = 1), Tunisia (N = 1) and Surinam (N = 1). The
children from Turkey and Morocco composed over two-thirds of the classroom.
The teachers chosen for this study are both young males in their late twenties or early thirties. The class
teacher is of a Moroccan background, while the LKP coordinator is of Dutch background.
3.4.2 DEMOGRAPHICS
The study took place at an elementary school in a large, Dutch city. The school is situated in a neighborhood
predominantly inhabited by minorities with low socio-economic status. According to the city’s official
demographics, the school’s three surrounding neighborhoods, in which all the children live, are populated
by people with predominantly Turkish, Moroccan and Surinamese backgrounds.
TABLE 1 (SOURCE: MUNICIPALITY WEBSITE, 2012)
Western neighborhood
Turkish background
Almost 30%
Northern
neighborhood
Over 25%
Eastern neighborhood
Moroccan background
20%
Over 20%
Almost 30%
Surinamese
background
Dutch background
20%
Over 15%
Over 15%
8%
13%
6%
Over 25%
Table 1 (above) shows the distribution of ethnic backgrounds in the western, northern and eastern
neighborhoods. Due to this distribution the school is only attended by children with minority background.
This school therefore is very different from other schools where research on minority children has
previously been conducted, where children are often from both majority and minority groups, and in some
cases from many very different ethnic groups (e.g. Devine, 2009; Schmitt, 2010). For the sake of anonymity
the municipality sources have been concealed.
21
3.4.3 SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS
TABLE 2 (SOURCE: MUNICIPALITY WEBSITE, 2012)
Amount low-income
households
Unemployment rate
Western
neighborhood
67.5%
Northern
neighborhood
69.3%
Eastern neighborhood
10.1%
11.1%
10.9%
66.4%
Table 2 (above) shows the socio-economic status of the school district neighborhoods in 2009. As is shown,
over two-thirds of the school district’s population is low-income households. There is an over 10%
unemployment rate, which is almost twice as much as the average unemployment rate of the municipality
of the city (5.4%; municipality website, 2012).
3.5 LIMITATIONS
3.5.1 LANGUAGE
While the author understands and is able to read Dutch, certain expressions, sayings and manners of
speaking were not understood correctly, initially leading to misjudging of situations. These situations were
discussed with the parties involved and independent colleagues with Dutch backgrounds in order to
confirm or refute the initial findings. Any misunderstandings were remedied by immediate feedback from
the contact person or other persons involved in the research, as well as colleagues who aided in the
transcription of interviews in order to secure reliable data.
3.5.2 INTERVIEW METHODS AND SETTING
Due to the language barrier, the contact person from the school was involved in the mediation of
information and consent, and in conducting the interviews. While the use of the contact person for the
interviews aided in gaining the trust of the children, and while her prior knowledge of the children’s
situation proved useful in drafting questions and probes that might not otherwise have been possible, her
presence may also have limited the answers the children felt they could give due to the power imbalance of
teacher and student, adult and child, majority and minority member (Eder & Fingerson, 2001). This was
evident in that the children would wait before speaking unless they were asked a question; rarely would
they volunteer information unless prompted. In normal interaction in the classroom or in the hallways, the
children were usually loud, chatty and active. However, it is likely that the same behavior would have taken
place should another adult have conducted the interview, as the person would still be in a more powerful
position due to being an adult, and furthermore the person would be a stranger. The children exhibited
similar quiet behavior at the ‘rapportavond’, when they were with their teachers and their parents. The fact
that the contact person knew the children beforehand may also have created a bias in the way questions
were phrased, or she may have probed for specific information she knew was there. However, the
advantages to making use of a person whom the children trusted and felt comfortable with were found to
outweigh the possible bias that could occur in such a situation.
The use of the school as the interview setting may have had an effect on the children’s way of responding,
as they are in their ‘student role’. Interviewing them for example in the home or at a neutral location may
have led to different results. However, the use of the school as the interview location was the most
convenient for data collection, as all the students and the contact person would be present in one location
at the same time. The school is further a place where the children feel comfortable; it is a familiar setting for
them. The author deemed that it would be difficult to obtain consent for interviews conducted in the home
due to some parents’ skeptical attitudes during the ‘rapportavond’, and there were no neutral locations
22
available in the children’s vicinity. Removing the children from school or the home to go to an unknown
location might have resulted in unnecessary stress. Looking for alternative locations would also have taken
up a considerable amount of time. The author recognizes that being in their ‘student role’ may have affected
the outcome, but that this would have been the case regardless of the location. The results are interpreted
with these limitations in mind.
3.5.3 THE LIMITATIONS OF ACCULTURATION RESEARCH
In his review of literature on acculturation, Chirkov (2009) has come to a number of thought-provoking
conclusions regarding contemporary studies of acculturation. Firstly, many approaches to acculturation
(including Berry’s) rely on a positivist and deductive paradigm, relying on quantitative methods to most
often find correlations or confirm hypotheses. This approach, according to Chirkov, has a number of
restrictions. Secondly, in many of these contemporary studies of acculturation there is a lacking or
incomplete definition of culture itself, and most researchers do not agree on the definition, or only focus on
the parts relevant to their study. Indeed, many of the studies reviewed in this thesis do not provide more
than a brief, if any, theoretical explanation of the construct. Rather, most seem to operate with a universal
definition of ‘culture’ that is unspoken but (seemingly) commonly agreed upon. This is also problematic, as
how can you study acculturation without a clear definition of what you are studying? Thirdly, the
acculturation process is too complex to be approached by just one discipline. Therefore, several
epistemologies, methodologies and disciplines should be applied in the studies of the acculturation process,
instead of only relying on social sciences.
It is not within the scope of this thesis to provide an in-depth analysis of Dutch, Turkish and Moroccan
culture (those predominantly represented in this thesis). Instead, the analysis of the current data will draw
on previous acculturation studies and other anthropological and ethnographic studies of the cultures in
question. However, this brings up a second problem: regarding culture as static and bounded (cf. the work
of Geert Hofstede), or as dynamic and fluid. While many sources on acculturation and cultural studies
consider culture a static construct that applies to everyone of relevant background, others suggest a
perspective on culture as an on-going, dynamic process that happens every time an individual comes in
contact with people, images, views, and so on which are not already part of his cultural repertoire (Berry,
1997). While the first approach is infinitely simpler, the latter seems to this author to be more
encompassing, rich and, above all, accurate. Therefore, cultural traits, for example the importance of
familial values, will be assumed to apply to the majority of the members of the various groups, with the
acknowledgement that they do not apply to all members.
Berry (2009) answers this critique of, mainly, his own work, and advocates for a union between qualitative
and quantitative methods and a universalist approach to acculturation psychology studies. Thus scientists
could take the best from both worlds and adapt it to their research. The universalist position accepts that
all humans share commonalities, but that these are “species-common characteristics of all human beings on
which cultures play infinite variations during the course of development and daily activity” (Berry, 2009 p.
364). Related to the competences and performance processes stated previously, one is only able to perceive
the performances of an individual. It is then up to the researcher to analyze, with the help of both social
constructivist and positivist accumulated data, the acculturation process the individual has gone through in
order to arrive at this particular performance.
4. RESULTS
23
4.1 QUESTIONNAIRES
4.1.1 BACKGROUND OVERVIEW
Almost all of the children were born in the Netherlands (N = 23, with one child born in Somalia), and all had
lived there for more than 9 years, thus making them 2nd generation immigrants. There were 13 girls and 11
boys. The following section will provide an overview of their background as well as the support they
receive from their parents and siblings. The following table shows the ethnic origin of the parents. Over a
third is from Turkish origin, while a third is from Moroccan origin. The last third is comprised of origins
predominantly from African countries and previous Dutch colonies.
TABLE 3
Country of
origin
Turkey
Morocco
Suriname
Somalia
Tunisia
Nigeria
Yemen
Curacao
Mother
%
Father
%
9
8
1
2
1
1
1
1
37,5
33,3
4,2
8,3
4,2
4,2
4,2
4,2
9
8
1
2
1
1
1
1
37,5
33,3
4,2
8,3
4,2
4,2
4,2
4,2
The table below (table 4) gives an overview of the parent’s work situation. As is obvious, most of the
mothers are stay-at-home mothers, while the majority of the fathers are working. Their jobs include: shop
owner, working at a hotel, working for the NS (Nederlandse Spoorwegen) or the KLM, gardener,
construction worker, roofer, taxi driver and cleaner. The few mothers who held jobs worked as: caregivers
at an institution for the disabled or a nursing home, nurse and cleaner. In some cases the children were not
sure what their parents did for a living. It is clear that most parents hold low-paid and low-skilled jobs. This
is common for the neighborhoods in which the children are living, as they are areas with low socioeconomic statuses.
TABLE 4
Working
situation
Has work
Does not work
Do not know
Mother
%
Father
%
8
14
2
33,3
58,3
8,3
14
4
6
58,3
16,7
25
The final tables (table 5 and 6) show the parents’ and siblings’ involvement in the children’s school life. This
includes help with homework and participation in activities at school. Overblijfmoeder/vader here refers to
parents who stay at school to look after the children who do not go home for lunch, while the
leesmoeder/vader refers to parents who help the children practice their reading. These are positions that
the school has created in order to involve the parents more in the school’s and the children’s everyday
activities, as well as provide a few mothers and fathers with small, paying jobs. The ouderraad is the parent
association that helps practically at school, while the medezeggenschapsraad refers to the parent-teacher
council who make important school decisions. One child did not fill out the ‘father’ section as his father has
passed away.
TABLE 5
24
Activity
Homework
“Overblijfmoeder/vader”
“Leesmoeder/vader”
In the “ouderraad”
In the
“medezeggenschaapsraad”
Other
Mother
12
3
7
-
%
50
12,5
29,2
-
Father
16
-
%
66,7
-
1
4,2
1
4,2
The child who noted other for their mother explained that she helps “teach me how I have to behave”. The
same child filled in other for their father as well, explaining that he “helps me how to do sums”. It is apparent
that the mothers are generally more involved in school activities, where fathers tend to help out more with
homework. This may be because they are educated and/or because they work, while the mothers are
uneducated and/or stay at home. The children were not asked which education their parents had, as the
contact person evaluated that they would not know much, if anything, about their parents’ educational
background.
The following table describes the siblings’ involvement in the children’s school life. Two children did not fill
this out as they had no older siblings. The ‘rapportavond’ is the tri-yearly parent-teacher meeting where the
child’s progress at school is discussed. The particular meeting attended during the research process
concerned the children’s Cito scores and their secondary school advice.
TABLE 6
Activity
Helps with homework
Attends “rapportavond”
Helps pick up siblings at
school
Other
Sibling(s)
21
16
4
%
87,5
66,7
16,7
2
8,3
The same child as above filled in that his older brother “tells me how to do things/moral support” while
another child filled in “helps me with tests”. Thus the older siblings are generally quite involved in the
children’s school lives to a greater degree than the parents. This is most likely because the siblings know
what is expected of them at school and how to tackle the homework, and their Dutch proficiency may be
higher than that of their parents.
4.1.2 LANGUAGE OVERVIEW
The level of language maintenance or preference is important in this context for assessing the children’s
and their parent’s attitude towards assimilation/integration. More often than not, higher mother tongue
proficiency among immigrants is undesirable from the host country’s point of view. It indicates that the
immigrants have little desire to assimilate (Sam & Berry, 2010). Language is also heavily connected with
the children’s connection to their family’s cultural background as it enables them to maintain family
connections and participate in cultural events.
The following table (table 7) displays the languages spoken in the children’s homes. The question was a
multiple-answer question, and most children spoke more than one language in the home. It is interesting to
note that Dutch was spoken in the majority of the homes, but not in all. Of the three who do not speak Dutch
in the home, one is Turkish and two are Moroccan. All children speak their parent’s mother tongue at home.
25
This is important for the children’s language proficiency progress, as language is one of main reasons why
the children’s Cito scores are lower than average (cf. Stevens et al., 2011).
TABLE 7
Language
Dutch
Turkish
Berbers
English
Arabic
Papiamentu
Somali
Surinamese
Frequency
21
9
8
1
1
1
2
1
%
87,5
29,2
33,3
4,2
4,2
4,2
8,3
4,2
The children were then asked to indicate which language they spoke most in the home. Despite being
instructed to only fill in one option, 8 children filled in an extra option. The table below (table 8) shows the
languages spoken most in the home, with the additional languages on the right side. Due to the nature of
the questionnaire, it was not possible to measure which language was spoken most in the homes where two
languages were spoken. However, the children had filled in that they most often spoke Dutch with their
siblings and another language with their parents. The child who spoke Surinamese in the home had filled in
that they spoke mostly Dutch in the home. Where all the Turkish children speak both Dutch and Turkish in
the home, not all Moroccan children speak Dutch and Berbers in the home.
TABLE 8
Language
Dutch
Turkish
Berbers
English
Arabic
Papiamentu
Somali
Surinamese
Frequency
11
5
4
1
1
2
-
%
45,8
20,5
16,7
4,2
4,2
8,3
-
Additional
4
3
1
-
%
16,7
12,5
4,2
-
The children were also asked which language they spoke the best. As is obvious from the data (table 9),
almost all the children considered their Dutch better than their parents’ mother tongue. This is also
supported by the interview data. It is interesting in this context because their Dutch proficiency is usually
seen as one of the greatest hindrances for their further academic and professional career. One child crossed
off Papiamentu as well as Dutch in the same question.
TABLE 9
Language
Dutch
Turkish
Berbers
Frequency
22
1
1
%
91,7
4,2
4,2
Many of the children also took language classes outside of school. The table below (table 10) illustrates
which languages the children were taking. Four children took lessons in more than one language. These are
included in the table on the right side.
26
TABLE 10
Language
Berbers
English
Arabic
Papiamentu
Frequency
8
1
8
1
%
33,3
4,2
33,3
4,2
Additional
1
3
-
%
4,2
12,5
-
The children taking Arabic lessons are most likely learning this at the mosque. This is supported by
statements from the children in the interviews. It is interesting to note that none of the children are taking
Turkish lessons, which suggests that their language maintenance is higher in the Turkish homes, or that
their parents are not overly concerned with their language maintenance. The former seems most likely, also
given that all the Turkish children indicate that they speak equally Dutch and Turkish in the home.
However, the data also reveal that Turkish children take Arabic lessons, again most likely at the mosque.
4.1.3 AHIMSA SCALE
The children were measured on the AHIMSA scale (Unger et al., 2002) to determine their level of
acculturation as per Berry’s acculturation model. Children were measured if they were integrated,
assimilated, separated or marginalized. Two items related to child-rearing and the acceptance of cultural
differences were added, and one item was removed as it proved superfluous and confusing for the children.
Table 11 shows the frequency of which the children belonged to the various groups. Here, the Netherlands
refers to the assimilation aspect; home country refers to separation; both countries refer to integration; and
neither of the two refers to marginalization. Statistical analyses were performed to ensure that a
homogeneous sample had been found. The children were grouped into three groups: Turkish, Moroccan
and other nationalities. The groups differed significantly only on the topic of holidays with p > .05. In the
rest of the categories there were no significant differences. The Turkish group differed internally on the
topics of friends and holidays, with p > .05. No significant differences were found between girls and boys in
the AHIMSA scale. The small sample makes many statistical analyses difficult and unreliable. Therefore this
section will focus mostly on the frequencies of answers given in the questionnaires.
TABLE 11
Frequency per question
Netherlands
%
%
Both
%
Neither
%
4,2
Home
country
2
I am most comfortable
with people from:
1
8,3
20
83,3
1
4,2
My best friends are
from:
11
45,8
3
12,5
6
25,0
4
16,7
My favorite music is
from:
3
12,5
4
16,7
10
41,7
7
29,2
My favorite TV shows
are from:
12
50,0
2
8,3
8
33,3
2
8,3
The holidays I celebrate
are from:
1
4,2
18
75,0
5
20,8
-
-
The food I eat at home
is from:
-
-
14
58,3
10
41,7
-
-
The way I do things and
the way I think about
things are from:
11
45,8
3
12,5
10
41,7
-
-
27
The people who have
the best way of raising
their children are
from:*
The people who are
most open to other
people’s differences are
from:*
2
8,3
6
25,0
16
66,7
-
-
4
16,7
7
29,2
10
41,7
3
12,5
ITEMS MARKED WITH * WERE ADDED BY THE AUTHOR
The table shows that the level of acculturation varies depending on which aspects of the children’s lives are
observed. Public aspects, here counted as engagement with popular culture and socializing outside the
home, are more likely to have high amounts of children scoring as either assimilated or integrated. Almost
all children are comfortable with both in- and out-group members. One exception may be taste in music,
where almost a third of the children marked ‘Neither’ as their preference. This is not necessarily an
expression of marginalization. The scale originated in USA, and using it in a Dutch context (or any other
context) will most likely yield different results due to a multitude of factors, such as the fact that much
contemporary popular music originated in USA. Aspects related to the private sphere, here counted as
traditions, preference in food and childrearing, are more likely to have high ratings of separation or
integration. It is interesting to note that children are either assimilated or integrated when it comes to the
way they think and behave. It does not appear that any of the children distinctly represent the
marginalization aspect, but rather distribute themselves across assimilation, integration and separation
depending on the topic. As we shall see, this is consistent with the children’s statements in the interviews. It
should be remembered that in the case of those children who constitute a minority within the minority,
such as the boy with Yemenite origins, choosing ‘Neither’ for the people he feels most comfortable with, and
‘Both’ for the origin of his friends might not necessarily indicate that he feels uncomfortable around
Yemenite people, or that his friends are from both the Netherlands and Yemen. He may not know any other
children with a Yemenite background, but this is not apparent in the questionnaire and is one of the shortcomings of the AHIMSA scale.
What is interesting to note is that the girls often showed more inclination to answer ‘Netherlands’ or ‘Both’,
while boys were more inclined to answer ‘Home country’ or ‘None’. This difference was not markedly
visible on the question of music preference, TV show preference and origin of holidays celebrated. In the
case of food eaten in the home, the answers were reversed, meaning the girls picked ‘Home country’ and
the boys picked ‘Netherlands’. The girls further were more inclined to consider their behavior a mix of both
cultures, while boys were more prone to describe their behavior as Dutch. This category differed only
slightly, however.
4.2 INTERVIEWS - CHILDREN
The interviews were coded according to Arksey & Knight’s (1999) categorization system. Five categories
were found which were then divided into several subcategories. The categories included: belonging,
traditions, social capital, future plans, and family matters. These will be described in turn. The interviewer
named in the following quotes is the contact person who conducted the interviews.
4.2.1 BELONGING
All children were asked how they would describe themselves if asked where they came from. All children
except one remarked they were from the Netherlands. About half the children responded promptly that
they were Dutch, while the other half thought about it for a few seconds. The question of belonging was a
confusing topic for most of the children. Either the question “where do you come from?” needed
28
elaboration because the children did not understand what answer was expected of them (“what do you
mean, where I’m born, or…?”), or the children would contradict themselves throughout the interview. This
most often happened when asked about their family’s traditions or which language they spoke in the home.
One girl started out saying she was Tunisian but born in the Netherlands, and then later explained that she
felt more Dutch.
Some children felt it necessary to explain that they themselves were from the Netherlands, but that their
parents were born in another country, and that they therefore were of another origin. Other children only
added this part when asked if they were just Dutch. Many said they would add this extra information in
case the person they were speaking to thought they were “real Dutch” (“echte Nederlander”) or that their
parents were also Dutch.
I say that I myself am born in the Netherlands but my parents are born in Turkey, so
we speak Turkish at home […] Because um… (laughs) because I’m not a real
Dutchman.
- Turkish girl, age 12
Well, [I add that] because maybe if I just say that I was born in the Netherlands
they’ll think my parents are also born in the Netherlands, and that makes it clear
that they have a different background.
- Somali girl, age 12
When asked, most children described themselves as being mostly Dutch, or equally Dutch and Moroccan,
equally Dutch and Turkish, and so forth. One exception was a Turkish girl who almost renounced herself of
anything Turkish and very determinedly called herself a Dutch girl. She even referred to herself as a
‘kaaskop’, a word normally used as a slang expression for a Dutch person.
Girl: I don’t feel Turkish at all, I feel completely, 100% Dutch, “kaaskop”.
Interviewer: Really, “kaaskop”?
Girl: Yes, my Turkish is-.. my Dutch is much better than my Turkish […] I don’t feel
Turkish at all, when we go to parties, my family behaves very Turkish and they call
me-.. they often tease me, “kaaskop”, I’m a real Dutchman.
- Turkish girl, age 12
In her story, her family behaves very ‘Turkish’ and this almost appears to be a source of embarrassment.
However, later in the interview she expressed that everyone was entitled to their own beliefs and
traditions, and that she found it important to hang on to her parents’ cultural heritage.
The sense of belonging when visiting the parents’ home country varied for the children. Some felt Dutch
when they visited their family in Morocco, Turkey or other places in Europe, while others felt comfortable
and ‘at home’. It seemed that the children from Turkish backgrounds saw their extended family in Turkey
more often than children from other backgrounds, but within this group it was as varied on the question of
belonging as much as in the group overall. Many children explained that they felt like ‘outsiders’ when they
29
were not able to understand what their cousins were saying, and indeed all children expressed that they
spoke Dutch more fluently than their parents’ mother tongue.
Interviewer: And when you’re in Morocco, do you then feel Moroccan? Or do you
feel Dutch?
Boy: Then I feel Moroccan.
Interviewer: Yes? Do you feel that you’ve grown up different than your cousins?
Boy: Yes I do have that.
Interviewer: Yes? Is that different?
Boy: Sometimes they say something, and sometimes I understand it but sometimes I
don’t, and then I have to ask my mother what they’re saying.
- Moroccan boy, age 13
This quote from a boy of Moroccan origin displays the confusion and sense of (non)belonging that some of
the children experience during visits to their family’s home country. For most children, it is not the
(possible) cultural differences that cause the feelings of non-belonging, but rather the language barrier.
This can disrupt playtimes and socialization with family members when the children must continuously ask
their parents what their cousins are saying. However, this seemed most prominent in children who were of
other origins than Turkish, as the Turkish children appeared to have greater language maintenance than
many of their classmates.
Language and especially birthplace appeared to be one of the greatest indicators of belonging. Most
children felt more Dutch when they spoke Dutch with their siblings or at school, and denied that others
would feel Dutch if they had not been born in the Netherlands. Those with siblings born in the Netherlands
felt certain these siblings would feel more belonging to the Netherlands, while they felt their parents would
feel less belonging in the Netherlands, as is displayed by this statement from a Yemenite boy:
Interviewer: You always feel like a Dutchman, and what about mummy, do you
think?
Boy: No.
Interviewer: Mummy doesn’t?
Boy: No.
Interviewer: Why not?
Boy: Because she wasn’t born here.
- Yemenite boy, age 13
In general, the sense of belonging was a constant, fluid, dynamic notion that changed depending on the
topic. Language and birthplace left the children with a higher sense of belonging in the Netherlands, while
discussion of religious or cultural customs, such as going to the mosque, visiting family or celebrating
certain holidays, meant that the children felt a higher degree of belonging to their parents’ home country. In
the case of the Somali girl, whose family are fugitives, the gathering of Somali people meant a connection
across the diaspora, a ‘special’ feeling of being connected despite having come to the country through
various channels.
30
Girl: Well, if I’m with Dutch people then […] I feel Dutch, but if I’m around Somali
people then I feel Somali again.
Interviewer: You feel a little bit of both?
Girl: Yes […] it’s very nice that you’re here in the Netherlands and you see people
from your own culture […] we’re all fugitives, and we’ve all come to the Netherlands,
and I think that’s special.
- Somali girl, age 12
It is interesting how the girl says she feels Somali again, as if it is necessary to switch between being Dutch
and Somali. However, all children expressed being in-between cultures, at the same time part of both but
not completely belonging to either. It was especially important that people understood this; that they were
Dutchmen because they were born here and they spoke the language, but that they were also Turkish,
Moroccan, etc. because their origin lay there. “Maybe people think I’m a real Dutchman when I’m also
Turkish”. One child referred to it has his motherland (“moederland”). It would appear that the division of
public and private spheres determined which country the children mostly felt they belonged to, as was also
shown in the AHIMSA model.
At home I feel more Moroccan and outside I feel more Dutch.
- Moroccan boy, age 11
4.2.2 TRADITIONS
When asked about the traditions, customs and/or habits kept in their family’s home, or the (perceived)
differences between these traditions, customs and/or habits in their family’s home and a Dutch home, the
first thing most children thought of was the language spoken or the food eaten in the home. Some also
mentioned the décor, and most pointed out that you had to take off your shoes before entering the house.
Only when prompted did most children also mention religious differences, though mostly in terms of the
physical manifestations – prayer, celebrations and clothing and less in terms of spiritual manifestations.
Again, one of the children that stood out was the Somali girl, who went to the Kaaba for the second time
with her family the previous summer and completed the seven rounds. It would be her father’s thirteenth
trip, and he also completed the Hajj. As mentioned previously, all of the interviewed children were Muslims,
though the classroom in total had three students who were Christian or Hindu. Several children noted that
Muslims had to pray differently than most Dutch people did – several times a day and in a different manner,
and that being a Muslim meant you had to behave nicely, not lie, and treat others with respect, “then you get
more points”. However, they did not think that was much different from most Dutch people. The children
could often not explain why certain rituals took place, or why certain traditions had to be observed, though
some had a vast knowledge about their family’s cultural and religious traditions. While many children were
not always able to explain why they celebrated a certain holiday, most were still aware of which traditions
and rituals their families celebrate.
Girl: We celebrate other holidays than the Dutch do.
Interviewer: Tell me which holidays you celebrate.
Girl: Uh, the “Offerfeest” [Id al-Adhr] or “Suikerfeest” [Id al-Fitr], uh…
31
Interviewer: Other holidays?
Girl: (pause) Also, uh… also… the day the prophet was born.
Interviewer: Which day is that?
Girl: That is, uh… (pause) I don’t remember anymore.
Interviewer: Do you know what month it is?
Girl: I think it’s in September.
Interviewer: September, okay, and what do you celebrate then, how do you notice
that at home?
Girl: Uh, we-.. then we read the Quran, and we pray, and also on TV there’s a show,
and then we go to the mosque.
- Turkish girl, age 12
In this quote, the girl is aware that they celebrate the prophet’s birthday, and what happens on the
particular day, but cannot recount why this is worth celebrating.
Contrary to the author’s expectations (and perhaps those of greater society), the children did not
immediately identify themselves as Muslims, nor as distinctive members of a particular culture. Most could
not put a finger on why they were very different from the Dutch majority, though they were aware that
there was some sort of difference. As mentioned, most children listed language and food as the most
common differences, but especially within the food traditions they could not explain what the differences
were, nor could many list specific Turkish or Moroccan or other regional dishes. Most said that their
mothers cooked both Dutch food and food specific to their home country, but had difficulties defining what
either of them were, aside from a few regional dishes such as chikufteh. When it came to eating habits, most
replied they ate with a knife and fork, or more commonly with a spoon and fork. A few mentioned eating
with their hands when asked about it, but this usually pertained to bread, or more rarely couscous and the
likes. Eating with your hands was common for these children, some of the school’s employees expressed.
However, most of the children rarely did it, and some even thought it a strange habit that occurs elsewhere:
Well, I don’t know but my mum told me that in Morocco they eat couscous – do you
know that? […] -… with your hand, and that’s a bit strange, they make a small ball
and they eat it.
- Moroccan girl, age 11
On the part of the interviewer there also appeared some specific notions about the child’s cultural
background. This particularly pertained to food and religious customs. This at times confused the children,
who seemed puzzled as to what answer the interviewer was looking for.
Interviewer: And which Turkish dishes [do you eat]?
Boy: (pause) Uh… I think salmon with these green things.
Interviewer: Oh that’s in those leaves? That’s very good, and do you eat that with
bread?
Boy: No.
Interviewer: You eat that as it is? And the uh, how do you eat your bread?
32
Boy: (pause) Uh juf sometimes we put something in and then we just eat it.
- Turkish boy, age 12
In these next quotes, we see how cultures and expectations collide when discussing particular cultural
habits. The contact person prior to the interviews had explained that most families shopped at specific
shops that catered to their cultural tastes, and that they seldom diverged from this.
Interviewer: No, where do you buy your bread? In the Turkish shop?
Boy: Turkish shop.
Interviewer: And do you also shop in the Moroccan shop?
Boy: Yes, at [shop].
Interviewer: Yes, so you shop there too, and the supermarket, is that a Turkish
supermarket or a Moroccan-..
Boy: Aldi.
Interviewer: The Aldi, okay, but do you go deliberately to the Turkish shop or does
that not matter?
Boy: It doesn’t matter.
- Turkish boy, age 11
When the boy says his family shops at the Aldi, which is German, the interviewer tries to steer him back on
the topic of culture-specific shops, only to be told that it does not matter where they shop. In this next
quote, the definition of ‘Dutch’ ends up encompassing more than just the national identity, but rather a
European identity as well. While some children explained that their parents had bought furniture at specific
Turkish or Moroccan shops that imported furniture from those countries, this did not seem to be the
majority, or perhaps the children did not consider it so:
Interviewer: Your own bed, and is that a […] Turkish bed? Or is it a real Dutch bed?
Boy: I don’t know.
Interviewer: Is it bought in IKEA or is it bought in a…
Boy: I don’t know.
- Turkish boy, age 12
What is interesting here is the distinction between having a Turkish bed or a real Dutch bed that perhaps
comes from IKEA. It does not matter that IKEA is actually Swedish; in this context it encompasses a
European identity which the Netherlands is a part of, and which Turkey is not (cf. Van Nieuwkerk, 2004).
This is most likely not a subject that crossed the interviewer’s mind when she posed the question, but it can
help explain the difficulty some teachers face, and which can be confusing and frustrating for the children.
This will be explored later.
Only one of the interviewed girls wore a headscarf, but a few of the other girls planned to wear one once
they enter secondary school. One other girl in the class also wore a headscarf. It was important for them to
get across that wearing a headscarf was a voluntary action, and not something their parents made them do.
33
The one who wants to wear it and is ready for it, wears it. And the one who’s not
ready for it doesn’t wear it, because it’s part of our background, but we live in the
Netherlands so nothing is mandatory and everything is possible.
- Turkish girl, age 12
Girl: It’s not mandatory to wear a head-scarf, and my parents didn’t tell me to wear
one, I wanted it myself, but my mum told me that maybe I’m not ready for it, in
about the 6th grade […] my mum says maybe you’re not ready for it, maybe you will
take it off again, and then put it back on, so maybe you can better, uh, and I said I’m
still going to give it a try, and then I kept it on […] I saw my sisters wearing a headscarf, and it looked fun to me to wear one, and it was nice to put the scarf on in a
nice way, so that’s why.
Interviewer: […] And why do you wear a head-scarf? Can you tell me that?
Girl: To cover yourself.
Interviewer: Yes.
Girl: Uh… (laughs) yeah, that’s the only thing I know.
- Moroccan girl, age 11
As with some of the other religious traditions, not all girls were certain why women wore headscarves. For
most, it was a pretty accessory that they could share with their sisters and match with their clothes. They
realized it carried some significance within their religion, but not exactly why.
The children were all asked about whether they thought their family’s traditions and customs were
different to those of Dutch people. Some saw obvious differences, while others had difficulties finding any,
believing that their family was quite similar to a ‘normal’ Dutch family, aside from the language and the
food. Most were able to point out that their religious customs were different than those of Dutch people
because “Dutch people are not Muslims and Turks are”. Others noted that Dutch people kept pets and
sometimes behaved differently. The children “dared” do more, such as talking to strangers. The Turkish girl
who considered herself Dutch said that she considered the Dutch more “classic”, as people who drink
cocktails. This almost lends being Dutch an air of sophistication. Overall, however, the children knew that
some of their customs were different, though they did not consider any meaningful differences between
themselves and Dutch children. The salience of some indefinable difference is evident throughout the
interviews. There are ways of being both, or of choosing which parts to take part in:
Boy: I say I come from the Netherlands but I’m Moroccan.
Interviewer: And what are you, Dutch or Moroccan?
Boy: (pause) Both because I speak Moroccan-.. but really a Dutchman because I was
born in the Netherlands. […] My mother and father are born in Morocco, and we’re
born in the Netherlands, and we have to be both Moroccan and Dutch at home.
- Moroccan boy, age 13
Interviewer: And when you are together with your family, do you live in the
Moroccan way?
34
Girl: I don’t, I just do it in the Dutch way.
Interviewer: And when the women get together, is that in a Moroccan fashion, or is
it also Dutch, do you think?
Girl: Yes, really Moroccan, but I just do it the Dutch way. […] They dress Moroccan,
speak Moroccan, they speak a lot in Moroccan about life in Morocco […] I don’t.
- Moroccan girl, age 11
The manor of greetings was also discussed in great detail. One Moroccan boy described a particularly
Arabic greeting, placing the hand over the heart upon greeting someone, which his cousin had taught him.
They had mixed this greeting with the fist-bump popular in contemporary pop culture, thereby creating a
method of greeting that combined the traditional and modern. Other children said they kissed their parents
on the foreheads when they entered the house, or greeted with the traditional “salaam aleikum”. When
asked if “salaam aleikum” means “peace”, one child said it just meant “hello”. Strictly speaking the literal
translation of the greeting is close to “peace be upon you”, but its modern equivalent is a simple “hello”. The
former translation was what the interviewer was familiar with, and thereby the different cultural
expectations again become obvious.
The maintenance of traditions and customs was important for almost all the children. The general
consensus was that these were also part of their culture, something they were used to and had grown up
with, though the children had difficulties expressing why they would be upset to see them go. Only one or
two stated that they would not be upset if their cultural traditions went away. Whether this is a genuine
feeling, or because they misunderstood the question, or because they feel this was a ‘socially acceptable’
answer, is difficult to say. One child insisted that he would not mind giving up his family’s culture until the
interviewer asked whether his parents would feel the same way. Then he admitted that he found it
important to maintain some things, as “that’s where I come from, and my grandmother too and so on”.
Another child, when asked whether it would be alright to completely lose his Moroccan heritage, said: “No
because then my mummy would be angry and thinks it’s only for us and not for them”. This sentence may
indicate that the family has previously felt the stress of conforming to Dutch values and standards, though it
is difficult to say for sure. The girl who identified as completely Dutch expressed similar wishes to maintain
her family’s Turkish heritage:
Girl: My opinion is that every person has the right to bring traditions to a different
country.
Interviewer: Yes, and you find-.. okay.
Girl: Human rights are very important to me.
Interviewer: […] Okay, do your parents also think it’s important?
Girl: My parents also think it’s important, because they also know that we live in
another country and that we have to be respectful towards Dutch people and other
people with a different background.
- Turkish girl, age 12
Here, maintenance of one’s cultural heritage is a human right, but at the same time one must take into
account the country in which one lives, as well as the people who live there who have different
backgrounds. This is echoed by another child, who became exasperated when she could not explain why
35
she felt her cultural heritage was important to her, or why people were entitled to their own beliefs. She
succinctly put it: “Because otherwise you can only live in Turkey if you have a Turkish background, and here in
the Netherlands only Dutch people”.
4.2.3 SOCIAL CAPITAL
The level to which children and their families associated with their neighbors varied greatly. The Somali
girl appeared to have the most socially active parents; her father goes to their local coffee house every day,
they socialize with their local shop owner and his family every Saturday, her mother has many friends and
attends many weddings, and they often go to Somali gatherings through the networks their parents have
established. The rest of the children, however, told of limited contact with their neighbors, though it did not
appear to be out of unwillingness. Most had parents who socialized with the neighbors in some way, for
example by bringing them food or shopping for them if they were ill. Some were invited to weddings, or had
dinner together. Most of these activities seemed limited to the mothers. Many also play with the children in
the neighborhood.
[We socialize] with friends or family… and acquaintances […] Juf, for example if
someone needs something then we help, or (pause) for example, if my mother or
sister is sick, or theirs, then someone helps us clean the house or make some food.
- Turkish girl, age 12
In addition, many of the children have mothers who are part of their everyday life at school. Some are part
of the parent-teacher board, others are ‘overblijfsmoeders’, i.e. they stay with those children who remain at
school to eat lunch, as most children usually go back home for lunch. Many mothers also help out with
arrangements for school events, such as the parent-teacher nights, musicals or holidays, for example by
making food. The teachers at the school explained that most mothers made specialties from their home
countries, thereby introducing both the children and the teachers to new food cultures. This was the case
for the ‘rapportavond’ that the author attended, where one Turkish mother had single-handedly cooked the
food for the over 20 teachers and aides who would be attending that night. Finally, some mothers help
arrange trips for the neighborhood children, and some children described going on picnics or to theme
parks with a big group of children and adults from their neighborhood.
Many children, especially girls, remarked that they would babysit for their younger siblings or cousins if
their mother had an appointment outside the home or at family gatherings. It generally seemed as if
cousins, aunts and uncles were a big part of the children’s everyday lives, with many visits and trips
together. Many went on holiday with their extended family (aunts and uncles) to visit other extended
family in their family’s home country, or in the case of the Somali girl, in other countries such as England,
Egypt or Syria where her family’s networks were scattered. These trips often last for up to a month,
sometimes more, during the summer holidays. The use of digital communication was also common where
the children had family who lived in other countries such as Iran, Canada and France. This way, they were
able to keep in contact with family who was located far away when they were not able to visit them often.
Many Turkish families had houses there still, which was often taken care of by aunts or uncles. This in
particular seems to allow the family a sense of ‘home’ when they return, as they have their own house to
settle back in. One Turkish boy mused that his parents most likely kept the house in case they later wished
to return to Turkey. His extended family tended the house during the year and kept it ready for their return.
36
The social life of the children appears to vary from child to child. Some have many friends from their class,
the street or the mosque whom they play with inside and outside, and during the holidays, while others are
only allowed to play with children from their class and who have limited social contact outside of school.
This is reflected in their excitement to go back to school after the holidays, and the fact that many do not
appear to be looking forward to the summer holidays as much as many children often do. One Turkish boy
expressed that he spends most of his time watching TV and resting during the holiday and never mentioned
playing with other children. Very few of the children had friends from Dutch origin. The question of
whether they had Dutch friends was, similarly to the question of belonging, confusing. The term ‘Dutch
friends’ was often misunderstood, which is not surprising considering that the children consider
themselves Dutch even though their ethnic origin lies elsewhere. The children are able to identify that this
is due to the fact that the school has no Dutch students, nor do there live many (if any) Dutch families in
their own neighborhoods. Many children emphasize that to them it does not matter where their friends
come from, as long as they get along well. One boy explained that he knew a few Dutch boys, but that they
never played together.
Interviewer: So [do you have friends] who are born in the Netherlands but who also
are from the Dutch culture?
Boy: (pause) No.
Interviewer: Why is that, do you think? That you don’t have that?
Boy: I do know a few but I don’t spend time with them.
Interviewer: Is it because they aren’t nice, or-..
Boy: They don’t want to play (smiles).
Interviewer: They don’t play with you?
Boy: No.
Interviewer: So you’re separated, Dutch apart and-..
Boy: Yes.
Interviewer: Yes?
Boy: Most of the time.
Interviewer: And do you have any friends who do play with Dutch children?
Boy: (pause) No, I don’t think so.
- Turkish boy, age 11
A couple of the children had Dutch friends, mostly from extra-curricular activities like football training and
violin lessons. Others found Dutch friends at the park or when visiting family in other cities, though it was
not clear whether their cousins were friends with the Dutch children or whether they met them at the park.
Almost none of the children could identify any differences between themselves and the Dutch children,
except a few who identified differences in behavior. Therefore it may be confusing for those children, such
as the Turkish boy above, who seek out contact with other children at the park and are rejected possibly
because of their background. However, one Turkish boy did attempt to explain why he did not have any
Dutch friends, “Juf, because I come from a different culture, because I’m different”. He was the only one to
identify his background as a potential reason for why he did not have any Dutch friends. He identified this
before he realized that it might also be because they do not have any Dutch children at school, nor did any
Dutch people live in his neighborhood. It is interesting to note here that most children would say there was
no big differences between themselves and a Dutch child, and would at the same time say that they knew
37
there were differences between their family’s traditions and customs. But whatever differences there may
be, they appear insignificant for the children.
Furthermore, very few of the children attended after-school activities such as sports or music lessons. Ten
children indicated that they were part of a club outside of school. They may also be general youth clubs, or
they may be clubs for football, basketball, tennis, swimming or taekwondo, and one girl took violin lessons.
However, she had to stop taking those lessons as her parents could no longer afford them. Most of the
children play with their friends, the majority of them play in parks or on the street while a minority play
inside, for example playing computer or video games. Other activities included reading books. This shows
that while the children appear to get out of the house often, they do not go further than the street or the
nearest park. Most children did not mention any of the above activities in their interviews, and it would
appear that going to the swimming pool happened with current friends or while taking their swimming
certificate, which is facilitated by the school and thus would include many of their classmates. A few
children, however, also mentioned going to the mosque as an after-school activity. All of the interviewed
children were Muslim and went to the mosque at least once a week. Most went with their family, and many
also attended Arabic lessons or Quran school, either alone or with their siblings. Several had also spent two
or three weeks at the mosque during the summer holidays, where they would learn about the Quran and
spend time with other children, much like a summer camp. According to the children, the summer camps
are always very busy with many children attending. These camps would be an opportunity for the children
to make new friends, though none expressly said that they saw these children after the camp had ended.
However, this may be because they were not asked specifically.
Finally, the Somali girl appeared to be the only girl who had attended other schools than the one in
question. She had previously attended a school with a majority of Dutch students, and she was therefore
able to relate the differences between the two. When asked about whether she had Dutch friends, and about
her previous classmates, she said:
In my old class there were actually only Dutch children, at my school there were
only a few who had a background, well it is nicer with Dutch children, no, not nicer,
they’re both nice, but it’s not really a problem.
- Somali girl, age 12
It is interesting that she starts out by saying that Dutch children are nicer, but then changes her mind and
says that both are nice. It has been observed in many academic studies that classrooms with a relatively
high number of children with a minority background perform worse than classrooms with relatively few
children from minority backgrounds (Kalmijn & Kraaykamp, 2003). The Somali girl has experienced a
classroom with only Dutch children and a classroom of only minority children, and it is possible that she is
aware of the difference in behavior and performance between the two schools.
4.2.4 FUTURE PLANS
Most of the children had given some thought to what they wanted to be when they grew up. Many of these
were high-status jobs. Among the choices were: surgeon, dentist, policeman, psychologist, architect,
veterinarian, chef, fashion designer and pediatrician. Less prestigious jobs included doctor’s assistant,
mechanic and working at a daycare. The choice of most of the children reflected a preference for a job with
a high status. Most did not know how they would achieve this, and almost none had a high enough Cito
score to actually pursue their dream career. However, this did not stop everyone.
38
I’m going to do very well the first year because I have to achieve a HAVO so I don’t
have to do an MBO and after that I’m going to do further studies [to become a
doctor].
- Turkish girl, age 12
Many children felt that there were many hindrances to achieve what they wanted, and one girl had
downgraded her future aspirations from doctor to doctor’s assistant. Many of these doubts were connected
to the parents, where some had tried to change their children’s minds and make them choose a different
career path.
Actually, I think I’m really going to become a dentist, but sometimes I think my mum
is a bit right, because I think sometimes I’m not going to make it […] It’s too long, I
think […] I do want to reach it but sometimes my mum says I have to do something
different […] Juf, because it’s easier to reach and you don’t have to study that long
for it […] Maybe she thinks I can’t handle it […] I really want to do it.
- Turkish boy, age 12
When asked, most children said they would take their parents’ worries or suggestions into consideration.
Others would try to convince their parents that they could do it, but if their parents insisted they would
look for another career. However, most children expressed that if they were passionate about their career
choice, they would follow through with it despite their parents’ objections.
Yeah, I find it more important what I think, because imagine doing a job you really
don’t like, then it’s of no use and you’re always angry with your work.
- Moroccan girl, age 11
Interviewer: What is important, what you think or what mummy thinks?
Girl: What I think because it’s my future.
- Turkish girl, age 12
I’d try to convince my mother and tell her it’s me who is doing it, you’re not doing it,
and it’s important for me and if she still doesn’t want me to do it then I’ll look for
another study. If she doesn’t want me to do it then I have to accept that […] but I’m
really going to try and convince her, because in the end, I’m the one who is going to
do it.
- Turkish girl, age 12
Some children mentioned marriage in the conversations about their future. It had been pointed out to the
author by some teachers that many children, especially girls, got married and started a family very early.
However, the subject did not come up often. One Turkish girl remarked that her mother had told her to
finish her education first and then get married later because getting an education is important. This stood
in contrast to the attitudes of the teachers observed by the author. Several indicated that many of the
39
children who had attended the school had gone on to get married and had children at an early age.
However, the interviewed Moroccan teacher suspected that this pressure was heaviest on the eldest
siblings, but that this was changing as both parents and children picked up more Dutch customs where
marriage and education was concerned.
Almost all children regularly went back to their family’s home countries on holiday during the summer
holidays, and the majority would be going back on holiday this year. All spoke of visiting extended family,
though it varied how often these visits took place. Most of the children with a Turkish background went
back to Turkey every year, while it was more common for the rest of the children to either space out the
visits, or to visit other countries, sometimes several others, than their family’s home country. The main
concern about visiting family this year was the fact that the Ramadan would take place over the holidays,
making fasting difficult because of the heat. One Moroccan boy refused to go back to Morocco for this
reason, and instead opted to stay with an aunt in the Netherlands. A few children mentioned that their
parents had discussed moving back to their home country, though it did not appear to be a serious
consideration yet. When asked if they would move with them, most children declined. One said she felt
more “safe” in the Netherlands. Another boy said he might move back to Turkey if he got a job there, but
that if he got a job in the Netherlands he would only be able to go there on holiday.
4.2.5 FAMILY MATTERS
Almost all the children had older siblings who had attended the same school. Several had older siblings who
were already married, some who were divorced, and others who were facing the pressure of getting
married soon. One Moroccan boy explained in detail the pressure his sister was facing to get engaged. The
sister had no interest in getting married any time soon, but would rather finish her studies.
Boy: My dad says she has to get married, three or four boys have already asked her,
but she says no, she doesn’t want to yet […] Not for another two or three years.
Interviewer: And can she choose for herself? Whether it’s a boy from Morocco or if
it’s a boy from the Netherlands?
Boy: I don’t know […] I think that the boy’s father comes to my father, then he says
uh, my son is old and wants to get married, and then my father goes to my sister and
tells her about it and who he is, and then she has to choose yes or no.
Interviewer: But then it has to be a boy from Morocco, but is it a boy from Morocco
who comes here, or-..
Boy: No that doesn’t matter […] My sister can choose […] But I think she won’t take
a Moroccan boy who is born in Morocco, no […] No then she’s going to whine, she
doesn’t want that, she’ll say it’s someone from the mountain area (laughs) […] she
thinks they’re not so rich and such […] No [he doesn’t have to be] rich, just a normal
Dutch man who lives here in the Netherlands, who has a good job.
- Moroccan boy, age 11
The sister in this story appears to be set on being part of the decision who she marries. It was explained
that she was definitely going to marry a Moroccan, but by her own choice, as a Dutch boy would not be
Muslim. However, the boy would still be a ‘normal’ Dutchman. The Moroccan teacher echoed this
sentiment, describing that it is much more common now that marriage is postponed and that more
emphasis is put on the merits of getting an education. Most of the children did not know much about their
40
older siblings’ education or future aspirations. When asked, most children could not tell the interviewer
which school their older brother or sisters were attending, or what they aspired to be. This is echoed by the
teachers who were interviewed, who also noticed that most children do not discuss education or future
aspirations in the home. The teachers thought this may be because education was not an important subject.
Still, most of the children had clear ideas about what they wanted to be when they grew up.
Some children explained that their parents tried to engage them to be actively involved in their family’s
cultural background. Several children had gone to stay at the mosque over the summer, and for one child
this was his holiday plans for this year. Another girl explained that her father attempted to increase her
language proficiency:
Yes very often he says a sentence in which he mixes Dutch and Tunisian words, and
then he sees whether I understand it or not.
- Tunisian girl, age 12
In this way, the father helps his daughter maintain a link to her cultural heritage by teaching her a language
she would otherwise forget. This may in part be due to the fact that the girl’s mother has passed away, and
therefore the childrearing is left to him. This may be a way to remember who their mother was and where
she came from, by remembering the language she would speak with the children when they were little.
4.3 INTERVIEWS, TEACHERS
The teachers interviewed for this project were the group 8’s class teacher, as well as the LKP coordinator
and gym teacher. The following section is divided into categories found through the categorization method
mentioned earlier, and then collapsed into broader categories for the sake of simplicity. These categories
are: being a teacher, neighborhood and parent difficulties, and the children and their surroundings.
4.3.1 ON BEING A TEACHER
The interviewed teachers immediately identified that the children at the school had different needs than
children at other schools. The fact that it was a ‘black’ school meant having to take different approaches in
dealing with the children, the methods of learning, the communication and involvement of the parents, and
the ways in which the children were prepared for their future academic and personal endeavors. According
to the interviewed teachers, the school does not have a certain policy for dealing with the cultural pluralism
existing at the school. Rather, it appears that defining boundaries is up to the individual teacher, and this
causes much discussion in the teacher’s lounge during breaks. Trying to establish where to meet the
children and their parents half-way in cultural and/or religious matters seemed especially difficult, and the
teachers were divided in their approach to their role as a teacher and how much the children should adapt.
That’s always a discussion in the team of the teachers, do we hold up at what we, we
think is best or what’s ‘real Dutch’ and that’s the way, and that’s the only way, or do
we meet the parents and where do we meet the parents […] even the first part is a
bit of a problem, do we want to meet the parents […] some teachers think that’s
very difficult, this is the way, this is how we do it, they have to adapt, well yeah, I
think there starts a lot of frustrations [for both] the teachers [and] the parents.
- LKP coordinator
41
Both teachers take their roles very seriously. Each explained the responsibility they feel to broaden the
children’s view of the world when the world they currently live in is so narrow and homogeneous. The class
teacher takes the class on many excursions in order to show them other areas of the city they live in, and he
uses his own background to help relate to the children and show them what it is possible to achieve as
someone with a dual or mixed identity and background. This teacher was also very thankful that the team
of teachers at the school is diverse, and thinks that this is important in order to show the children the
diversity of society.
The LKP coordinator explained the importance of serving as a role model every single day in order to show
the children how to behave towards other people. Due to the poor socio-economic level of the
neighborhoods the children grow up in, role models tend often to be young men who have ‘made it’ by
dropping out of school and often earning a lot of money by engaging in illegal activities. The children then
look to the successful young man who is able to drive an expensive car without an education, instead of
their parents who may have an education but who are working low-skilled and low-paid jobs, or not
working at all. For example, one girl has a mother who has published several books and father who is a
journalist, but neither of them currently holds a job. In this sense, the LKP coordinator emphasized that it
was extremely important to motivate the children to take their education seriously, to stay off the streets
and continue in their academic track. At the school they often saw that many adolescents, especially boys,
dropped out shortly after starting a secondary education or were expelled for bad behavior. This in spite of
the fact that the law makes it mandatory for children to complete 12 years of school, 8 of which are in
elementary school and 4 of which are at a secondary school (Stevens et al., 2011). Recently, the police
performed a drug raid in the area, and several of the school’s staff has mentioned graduated students who
have joined the street gangs operating in the area. The LKP coordinator does not think that street gangs are
currently a big threat to the children in this specific neighborhood, but their presence definitely affects
their everyday lives.
When asked what the most difficult task for the teachers was at the school, both teachers mentioned the
behavior, discipline and motivation of the children. The blame here seemed to lie mostly with the parents,
and one teacher speculated whether it was because the topic of education was not one that came up often
in the home, or that an education simply was not considered that important. Also, many children would
stay up late and were therefore tired and unmotivated the next day. This is echoed in the children’s
statements, as several expressed not wanting to go to school when they were tired because they had not
slept much the night before.
When kids don’t know why they’re at school, or at home they don’t, they tell, well,
school’s not that important, because when you’re 18 you’re going to get married
and get children, and.. that’s it, um, well (throws hands into the air) why do you
have to invest in school? […] I think when children are getting motivated, and know
why, they know why they are going to school, and what their um, what’s their
benefit that they get, when they go to school, it’s more easy to learn, and for the
school you get, you have less problems with behavior… (smiles) but it’s not that
easy… it’s, you can tell about it in a minute, but to change that it takes a lot of time.
- LKP coordinator
The LKP coordinator noted that all the teachers knew “what they were getting into” when they were hired.
It was indicated that complications arising from different cultural expectations between the children and
42
the teachers was frustrating for him. Perhaps especially the teachers should know better, since they knew
what kind of task they were taking on at such a school.
4.3.2 NEIGHBORHOOD AND PARENT DIFFICULTIES
Especially the roles that the teachers and the parents each embody seem to be a frustrating and ambivalent
topic. Many parents and some teachers consider the teacher’s role as solely educational; it is their job to
teach the children math, language, and so on, nothing else. The two interviewed teachers, however,
consider their role much more encompassing than that. They are responsible for helping raise the children
when the parents are not capable of providing the children with the necessary skills and baggage that the
children need in order to succeed in Dutch society.
You aren’t only a teacher, you help raise the children.
- Class teacher
But you don’t make it without any attention from your parents or without any
other, um... development or role model or whatever, but that has to start with your
parents.
- LKP coordinator
The socio-economic status of the neighborhood was again seen as a contributing factor here. According to
the teachers, most of the parents in the neighborhoods do not accumulate much cultural capital as they do
not read the newspaper, do not go to museums, and do not go to libraries to check out books. Thus, they
limit their children’s social capital accumulation as well. The class teacher also noted that this would create
problems for the children later on, as their parents will not be able to afford to cover as many costs for the
children as average Dutch parents would. This includes tuition fees, extra-curricular activities, school trips
and other activities or things the children may want or need to participate in. As mentioned previously, one
child in group 8 had attended violin lessons for a year, through which she had met a few Dutch friends, but
she had to stop after the one year as her parents could not afford a second year of tuition. The class teacher
noted that he had been in the same position as a teenager, and that he had needed to work in order to be
able to afford his schooling and other activities he wanted to participate in. He felt this was certain to affect
the children when they entered secondary school as well, as it would become apparent that the Dutch
parents would be able to afford more for their children than the minority children’s parents. On the topic of
leisure time, the teachers confirmed parts of the children’s interviews that in some cases the children were
active, but in others they spent a lot of time at home because they are not allowed to play in the street for
safety reasons. The LKP coordinator mused that this may also be due to the fact that their parents do not
often socialize outside the home, except for with family. The children therefore do not feel a need to
socialize other than at school, and are content with having a TV and a computer. He thought it almost a bit
worrying that the children were, in some cases, dreading the holidays and looking forward to the day they
would be back at school.
The school attempts to have a close working relationship with the parents. This is achieved through events
and discussion groups with the parents, mostly with the mothers after school. Topics for discussion include
puberty and what to expect when the children grow older, in order to help parents who perhaps do not
have much knowledge about the physicality of what actually happens during puberty. This creates a safe
environment for the parents to discuss what is going on at home, it stimulates relationships between the
parents and the teachers, and it may also strengthen the communication between child and parent.
43
However, there are many difficulties in maintaining these relationships, especially in terms of language and
cultural barriers. The LKP coordinator described situations in which siblings had to act as translators. This
was also evident at the ‘rapportavond’ where many children brought siblings instead of parents due to their
parents’ poor language skills. Also, sometimes the parents simply do not show up for conversations or
meetings at school. This was again the case at the ‘rapportavond’, where neither one particular student nor
their parent showed up for the appointment, and thereby missed out on discussing the child’s possibilities
for attending secondary school. These occurrences provoke a lot of frustration in the teachers, as they are
hindered in doing their job properly and securing the child’s best interests. Furthermore, it takes up extra
time and resources as the class teacher then had to schedule a new meeting with the child and his parents
to discuss the child’s future. Most of the children received a VMBOT advice, and the teacher felt confident
that most of them would be able to achieve this.
4.3.3 CHILDREN AND THEIR SURROUNDINGS
The class teacher mentioned that they often discuss religious and cultural differences in the class, though
these discussions happen at random and are not planned. In discussions about beer or pork, both of which
are prohibited in Islam, the Muslim children often bear down on the three children in the class who are
Christian or Hindu, asking them if they eat pork or if their parents drink beer. The class teacher mentioned
that those three children often feel uncomfortable because they are in the minority; it appears they are
sometimes teased because their background is different. The Muslim children would also ask the teacher if
he consumed beer or pork, or why he was not married even though he was 29 and had a girlfriend. The
teacher says he uses these opportunities to broaden the children’s horizon and teach them that different
people do different things. Furthermore, as a Muslim himself, he can show the children that it is important
to use your heart in deciding which path is right for you, instead of following all the rules that your parents
set out for you. He explained in the interviews that he felt exasperated with many people’s inability to
separate culture and religion, as this clouded the actual rules set forth by the Quran. He felt certain the
children would be able to separate these when they grew older as they would expand their networks, meet
new people and generally gain a stronger sense of autonomy.
The class teacher was quite enthusiastic when discussing the children’s advantages from their ethnic
background. As a Dutch-Moroccan man himself, he was very aware of the process that the children would
be going through over the next years. As the children progressed to secondary school, they would be able to
take advantage of their ethnic and cultural background in new situations, gaining a second perspective to
social and philosophical matters that Dutch children would not have. Joining a predominantly Dutch
environment would also enable the children to evaluate their parents’ traditions and values so that they
might pick out the parts from the Dutch identity and the Turkish/Moroccan/etc. background that they liked
in order to form an identity in-between, and part of, both cultures. The LKP coordinator, however, was
unable to identify any advantages for the children in this case, which was rather surprising. When it came
to the children’s perceived disadvantages, there were plenty. Their surroundings were pegged as one of the
most difficult ones. Another was their linguistic abilities, as the children have been told since they first
started school that their linguistic levels are not good enough to pursue their dream career, and this lowers
their self-esteem. However, the LKP teacher felt confident that their linguistic abilities need not be a
hindrance as long as their parents were supportive. This in itself could be a challenge for some children, he
said, and again emphasized the importance of the parents’ attitude towards and participation in their
children’s school life. The class teacher also mentioned that they discuss the children’s status in the class.
The children are aware of their position in society and that they are different from the Dutch majority, he
said, and sometimes they will discuss if something has happened or been said on TV about minority groups
in the Netherlands.
44
But yeah, those are the difficulties, their low esteem and […] they hear a lot on TV
about how the Netherlands looks at them [hoe Nederland naar ze kijkt] […] Children
with-… they know a lot of, for example Geert Wilders, they know a lot about his
ideas.
- Class teacher
This contradicts what the children said about themselves in the interviews, where many claimed that they
did not perceive any meaningful differences between themselves and a ‘normal’ Dutch boy or girl aside
from some cultural differences. If they are indeed aware of the general political attitude towards minorities
and immigrants, they would be aware of the fact that society differentiates between them and a Dutch boy
or girl. However, it does not appear from the data whether the children genuinely do not see any
substantial differences, or if they claim to not see any substantial differences in an effort to minimize the
differences imposed on them by society. On the topic of secondary schools, the class teacher remarked that
the children would look at the schools and assess which ones had a large intake of Dutch students, and steer
towards schools with a higher intake of minority students. The children did not mention this in their
interviews, though this is most likely because they were not asked directly. If this is indeed the case, the
children are effectively limiting their exposure to the Dutch majority by choice. The interviews lent no
direct explanation as such to why this might be the case. A follow-up e-mail revealed that the children are
indeed eager to attend schools with larger minority attendance, but that their parents would rather have
the children attend schools with larger Dutch attendance. Again, the reason for this was not obvious.
While both teachers were very happy in their jobs, they both saw areas of improvement. The class teacher
had applied for another class for the next academic year, as having group 8 is stressful and busy. While he
mostly enjoyed spending extra time on for example school trips and career advice, there were also many
“sleepless nights” over the children’s Cito scores and whether they would be able to progress to secondary
school. This may tie in with the motivation issues that the LKP coordinator mentioned as being one of the
chief problems the children were facing. The LKP coordinator was more unsatisfied with the progress they
were making in their LKP program coordination. He described progress as coming in waves, but it seemed
as if there were always many issues to work on at once, and therefore the discussions were seldom as
fruitful as he would like. He considered these topics especially important for the children’s further
development, and therefore it was frustrating that change would only happen every few years.
5. DISCUSSION
The previous section has revealed that the situation of the minority children is complex. The following
section will elaborate on the result section and explain the impact these findings have. The findings will
then be put in the context of the literature explored in the second chapter of the thesis and finally the
research questions will be answered.
5.1 ACCULTURATION
5.1.1 BERRY’S ACCULTURATION FRAMEWORK
This thesis has made use of Berry’s acculturation framework in explaining how different cultural groups
come together and learn to co-exist. Particularly, the focus has been on second-generation minority
children of Muslim background who have grown up in the Netherlands. As shown in the results section, the
45
children considered themselves to be either assimilated or integrated when it came to matters concerned
with the public sphere, such as socialization with friends, participation in popular culture and
communication with friends and siblings. Thus they are oriented towards Dutch society in these aspects.
Contrarily, they considered themselves either separated or integrated when it came to matters concerned
with the private sphere, such as food preference and the holidays they celebrated. Here, the children were
more oriented towards their family’s home culture. Interestingly, they were assimilated or integrated in
their behavior and way of thinking, which is supported by the interview data. This would explain why they
consider themselves equally or more Dutch than Turkish, Moroccan, and so on. This resembles previous
studies on minority acculturation patterns, where assimilation or integration is preferred in public
situations and separation is preferred in the private sphere (Arends-Tóth & Van De Vijver, 2004;
Andriessen & Phalet, 2002). Here is where the children’s own perception of their lives and the social reality
in which they live collide. Since the children are not in contact with majority groups they do not completely
fulfill the contact and participation dimension of Berry’s acculturation framework in terms of assimilation
and integration. They may consider themselves assimilated or integrated, but according to Berry’s theory
this is not the case. They build their understanding on what they see on TV, on what little they experience in
everyday life, and on what they learn from their teachers. Meaning, they have a low level of contact through
digital media, the rare encounter with Dutch peers, and their school environment. This presents the
children with a quite limited perspective on Dutch society. This may be subject to change once the children
progress to secondary school, where interethnic contact is bound to be higher than it is now.
While the children may feel a connection to their parents’ home country through their family’s traditions
and customs, and while many felt very comfortable in their parents’ home country, none seriously
considered moving there and preferred to stay in the Netherlands. This may be viewed as a higher level of
integration or assimilation, following Berry’s acculturation levels, but it may also be an expression of
familiarity and comfort, as few children speak their parents’ language well enough to fully participate in
conversations with their extended families in the home country. Language appeared to act as a bridge
between identities, for example when the children visited their family’s home countries but still spoke
Dutch with their siblings while there. According to the questionnaire data, most children speak Dutch with
their siblings and another language with their parents, or use them interchangeably. The large amount of
children who speak Dutch in the home, if only with their siblings, shows that the children are oriented
towards Dutch society. Speaking their parents’ mother tongue allows them to keep a bond with their
cultural heritage, and using the languages interchangeably as a family helps cement their dual identities
(Phinney et al., 2001).
In terms of Berry’s acculturation model, the children and their families paint a diverse picture. It was
observed that the Turkish children differed on the topics of friends and which holidays were celebrated,
which is partially also revealed in the interview data. The Turkish children also proved the polarization
described by Crul & Doomernik (2003), in that particularly the girls were striving to do well so that they
would succeed academically. Some children, especially boys, were very oriented towards their family’s
customs and habits, while others, especially girls, were more oriented towards Dutch culture (such as the
girl mentioned throughout), or adopted a mixed approach, though no significant difference was found
statistically between the genders. It appears that the children have adapted quite well psychologically and
socio-culturally (Berry, 1997), as they do not express any serious troubles in being positioned between the
Dutch culture and that of their family. They further appear to be able to handle the daily problems that pop
up in relation to their minority position. It has been suggested that being orientated towards an integration
or separationist mode of acculturation is connected with positive psychological and socio-cultural
adaptation in youths (Berry et al., 2006), which are the categories the children predominantly fall into. The
economic aspect of adaptation, however, is a little more complex and will here be treated in relation to the
46
children’s academic performance rather than their ability to find and keep a job. The teachers frequently
mentioned the low academic level that most of the children were on, and the fact that many seemed to have
little motivation to go to school. This kept them from actively participating in their education and from
receiving good scores. Only a few of the girls stood out here, particularly the Turkish girl mentioned above
who throughout the interview was determined to prove that she would get out of the neighborhood as soon
as she could. She adjusted her friendships and activities in order to create a better, safer environment for
herself and to stay out of trouble. However, according to the teachers the majority of the blame for the
children’s poor academic success lay with the parents, whose background hindered the children in
gathering the necessary capital needed to succeed, and the apparent low importance of education was also
a factor (Driessen & Dekkers, 2009). This will be further explored later.
5.1.2 ON BELONGING
It is interesting to note that almost half the children indicated on the AHIMSA scale that most of their
friends are Dutch, and that they feel comfortable spending time with people from both the Dutch and their
family’s culture. In the interviews, almost no children had friends of Dutch origin. The children may
therefore think of each other as Dutch despite their ethnic origin. Indeed, most of the children considered
language and especially birthplace as valid reasons to call oneself Dutch. Most speak Dutch better than their
family’s language, thus they are equally or more Dutch – regardless of the fact that their actual proficiency
is well below average. It seemed as if the fact that they were born in the Netherlands was also enough to
make them Dutch, rather than the ethno-cultural background of their parents. As the Yemenite boy pointed
out, his mother would not feel Dutch because she was not born in the Netherlands. Many children further
displayed feelings of both countries being ‘theirs’, that is, displaying feelings of attachment and belonging to
two (what they consider to be) national and cultural identities (Phinney et al., 2001). This raises the
question of whether the children can actually be considered Dutch in every sense of the word – as the
Turkish girl remarked, a “kaaskop”. As shown in the previous section, their contact with Dutch society is
quite limited, their perception of Dutch society and what constitutes as ‘Dutch’ through what they see in the
media and the attitudes of their nearest environment. The confusion of a label is well-known in integration
and immigrant literature, and public censuses throughout the world also cannot agree on how to define the
answer to the question “where do you come from?” (Extra & Yagmur, 2011). If the answer is your
nationality, your citizenship, then these children most certainly are Dutch. If the answer goes by ethnic
origin, then they are definitely not Dutch as their parents come from predominantly Mediterranean,
Caribbean and African countries, and presumably their parents before them as well. If the answer is defined
by culture, the definition becomes infinitely complex as few schools of thought can even agree on the
definition of ‘culture’ nor when a person is a member of one group or another (Grillo, 2003; Pierik, 2004). It
is therefore not surprising that the children, their teachers and the rest of society struggle with figuring out
exactly what to call these children, what they may call themselves, and whether there really is one
definition to cover it all.
The most notable student on the topic of belonging was the Turkish girl who referred to herself as a
“kaaskop”, and felt completely Dutch. Yet, upon examination of her and her family’s traditions, she seemed
unwilling to give up customs and habits inherent to her family’s home culture, such as religious traditions.
There is a puzzling contradiction between what can be viewed as her opinion of being Dutch as a better
position, almost a sophisticated one that “drinks cocktails”, and her defense of her family’s cultural heritage.
This may indicate that she does not perceive her family’s traditions as incompatible with Dutch culture and
society, or that she does not perceive them as specifically cultural and/or religious customs. Her apparent
embarrassment with her family’s Turkish behavior at parties further suggests that she may be
uncomfortable with her Turkish heritage, despite her adamant assertions that everyone is entitled to their
47
own beliefs. An alternative interpretation may be that she finds it completely possible to be 100% Dutch
while still maintaining her Turkish traditions, by expanding the definition of what is ‘Dutch’ (cf. Verkuyten,
2004). No obvious parent-child acculturation gaps were perceived during the interviews, with the possible
exception of the Turkish girl who was being called a ‘kaaskop’ by her own family. This family may be an
example where the child acculturates differently than the family, in this case completely renouncing herself
verbally of her Turkish identity. The family’s teasing of her may indicate that while she is participating in
the family’s rituals and traditions, she is behaving and/or thinking differently than the rest of her family,
provoking clashes and disagreement. Smaller child-parent acculturation gaps may be seen in the children’s
determination to follow their own career path despite their parents’ protest.
5.1.3 INTEGRATION AND SEPARATION – ALL AT ONCE
The children expressed a wish to remain rooted in both cultures, with one notable exception. Since they
were born in the Netherlands, and their parents had been born in another country with another culture,
both set of traditions and customs had to be observed. This was despite of the fact that most children could
not explain what certain traditions were, or why their family celebrated them. This suggests that the
children, and to a degree their families, are becoming more oriented towards Dutch society, though
seemingly without taking on any Dutch customs in their place. Rather, the traditions lose the significance
they held in their family’s home culture and are instead celebrated for a sense of cultural continuity and
familiarity. This may be because the celebration of most rituals and traditions takes place predominantly
with a small group of family rather than as large community celebrations, such as the family would have
participated in the home country (cf. Dessing 2001). Changes in rituals and traditions occur when they are
removed from the place in which they originated, and so it is not surprising that the children have
difficulties explaining the meaning or the significance of many of the celebrations their families observe.
The parents may seek to remedy this by sending the children to school at the mosque. While some families
will celebrate the Ramadan in their home country this year, some had their doubts as this year’s Ramadan
celebration would fall during the hot summer, making it difficult to fast. It would therefore be simpler to
celebrate the Ramadan in the Netherlands, where the weather is usually milder. This further illustrates a
change in ritual, where comfort may be placed over tradition.
As one child mentioned, if they could not keep their culture they would have to go back to their family’s
home country, to a country where the children did not feel they really belonged. It did not seem fair to
instruct others to give up their cultural background just because they were living in a different country. It
was a human right to keep one’s heritage. Retaining both cultural influences was important, which indicates
that even though many children claim not to see any meaningful differences between themselves and Dutch
children, they are nonetheless aware that they have a different background and that the elements of this
background are threatened. They would have encountered these discussions of Dutch and non-Dutch in the
classroom, and therefore it is fascinating why the children still maintain in the interviews that the
differences are not essential. The picture that is painted the most often is that these differences should not
matter. For the children, it is perfectly possible to have a mixed identity, regardless of what society thinks.
Similar to Schmitt’s (2010) findings in Germany, the children would not want to completely give up their
family’s cultural background in order to become fully Dutch. This was seen as too large of a sacrifice, for the
children as well as for their family.
5.2 SOCIAL CAPITAL
Consistent with Devine (2009) and Holland, Reynolds & Weller (2007), the children benefit from their
parents’ capitals but also generate it themselves through friendships at school and in the neighborhood,
and through general socializing in the mosque and/or at after-school activities. Several of the children
48
mentioned grocery shopping for elderly or ill neighbors, and babysitting younger siblings when their
mother had an appointment out of the house. However, the findings also indicate that the children are
limited in their general beneficial social capital accumulation, preferring to bond with in-group members
and family rather than gain capital through bridging. This is most likely because the children do not know
many, if any, Dutch children as few participate in after-school activities that bring them in contact with
other children. The children may not consider this a problem, and there was no indication from the data
that the children felt upset about not having Dutch friends, or even that they did not have many
opportunities to meet new friends. Rather, most were happy to play with anyone as long as they were nice,
or to just spend time with their families. However, assimilation or integration necessitates that there is a
certain level of participation in majority groups (cf. Berry, 2005). Since almost none of these children do
that, and since their after-school activities are mainly playing with classmates, cousins or neighboring
children, their general beneficial social capital accumulation is found to be limited. If the children had
indicated that they preferred a separationist attitude, this would not be a problem. However, since they
insist on being at least half Dutch, this necessitates that there is a certain degree of interethnic contact,
according to Berry’s acculturation theory. Minority children in particular benefit from socializing with
people from higher socially ranked, particularly majority, social circles (Karsten, 2011). Only few children
appeared to have a more extensive network, such as the Somali girl and a few other girls who either had
taken music lessons or who had made friends while visiting family in other cities. It was acknowledged by
the teachers that the parents hindered their capital accumulation (cf. Driessen & Dekkers, 2009). By not
participating in the local culture, such as going to museums or the library, the parents were not able to
involve the children in activities where capital accumulation and network expansion was possible. The only
exception seems to be mosque activities, as the children go to the mosque at least once a week with their
family, and further take lessons after school or go on summer camps at the mosque. This will facilitate
capital accumulation, though it would happen with in-group members as the children most often go to a
mosque that caters to their ethnic and cultural preferences. A further analysis of the children’s bonding and
bridging activities will be conducted below.
5.2.1 BONDING
Reynolds (2006, p. 1088) argues that children with minority and immigrant backgrounds participate in
globally dispersed networks through participation in family and kinship events. The author argues that a
similar position can be construed for the children in this study. Many participate in family events both in
the Netherlands and in the home country of their families, such as weddings and religious celebrations.
Contrary to Reynolds’ findings, however, the children in this study do not feel that their family’s home
culture supersedes their feeling of being Dutch. Where Reynolds’ study on Caribbean people in Britain
found that the link to the home culture was much stronger than that to the culture of their birth and/or
host culture, this study found that children would often feel equally Dutch and Turkish or Dutch and
Moroccan, and in many cases the children felt more Dutch. However, this may be the case as the people in
Reynolds’ study had easier access to culture-specific activities and organizations, which these children do
not (yet) have easy access to, at least not on their own. The feeling of being more Dutch is consistent with
Devine’s (2009) findings on belonging in the family’s home country. The children further appeared to
socialize more often with family than neighbors or other in-group members, and this was supported by the
teachers’ observations of the children’s social lives. Bonding was facilitated both in the Netherlands and in
the family’s home country, and this may aid in social capital accumulation for the family as a whole.
Especially Turkish families often still kept a house in Turkey where they would stay over the holidays, and
which would be kept by extended family members during the remainder of the year. In this way, a bond is
kept with the home country, and there is an open connection in case the family should wish to return to
Turkey one day. One child mentioned possibly moving back to Turkey to get a job. Close contact with his
49
family would most likely help facilitate other networks needed to find employment. The mosque is further a
place where bonding is facilitated. Here, bonding is created through religious membership as well as
belonging to the same ethnic minority, as it was expressed during the interviews that the family would go
to mosques with a high amount of in-group members. Many of the children have friends at the mosque and
indicated that they enjoyed their after-school lessons and other activities there. The fact that some children
will be going to summer camp at the mosque, or have previously attended one, further helps the children
establish networks and relationships outside their immediate neighborhood. At their age, their immediate
neighborhood is the largest facilitator of relationships (Boschman, 2012), aside from school, and thus being
able to make new friends from other neighborhoods is a great asset. Still, no children indicated that they
socialized with other children from the mosque at other times than during prayer, camp or lessons.
5.2.2 BRIDGING
The key finding, and condition, in this thesis is that the children do not socialize with ethnic Dutch people
on a daily basis, apart from their teachers. This may influence what the children perceive as being ‘typically
Dutch’. This was confirmed when the children were unable to identify for example whether they thought
their living room was similar to that of a Dutch family, or what ‘typically Dutch’ items were. Their daily
environment is diverse, but mostly this is minority diversity aside from the school staff. The school
celebrates many different holidays, such as the Suikerfeest (Id al-Fitr) and the Divali (Hindu festival of
lights) in order to accommodate the children’s diverse backgrounds. Further, the teachers come from very
diverse ethnic, religious and cultural backgrounds. Thus the school presents the children with a very
pluralist, multicultural everyday setting. As one of the teachers remarked, they are very proud of being able
to offer the children a diverse environment at school, particularly in having a teacher who is gay. As he
explained, this helps the children perceive gay people as more than a stereotype and a religious offense, as
their imam or parents might tell them (as homosexuality is a grave sin in Islam), and it gives them a
broader frame of reference. The Dutch teachers at the school may further act as donors of social capital in
situations where the parents are unable to provide this (Kao, 2004). For example, the teachers will have a
broader majority network than the parents in most cases, which means that the children may be able to
benefit from these connections later in life, for example for employment or admission to certain schools.
While these connections were not explicitly brought up during the research period, it was observed that
previous students of the school would often return for a chat with their teachers and to get advice. This
most often happened when the older students were picking up younger siblings who were still attending
school. This way the teachers are also able to stay updated on how their previous students are faring
academically and personally. They are able to guide the students to for example keep pursuing an academic
career or suggest alternative paths which their parents might not be able, or willing, to do. Especially
encouraging the students to pursue an academic career was observed frequently. Further, the class teacher
explained that there was a lot of work when the children had applied for secondary school, as they
sometimes had to speak to the various schools in order to argue for a child’s admission to said school.
More importantly, however, the lack of socialization with ethnic Dutch children limits the minority
children’s opportunities of bridging and gathering social capital by themselves outside of their own ethnic
group, or the minority groups they socialize with in the neighborhood. As one father, originally from
Turkey and who had lived in the Netherlands for over 30 years, also remarked at the parent-teacher
meeting: “Dutch will be Dutch and Turkish will be Turkish”. This succinct quote reveals that while the
children may not perceive themselves as any different from ‘normal’ Dutch girls and boys, their families
and the Dutch majority are still acutely aware that minorities are still significantly different and lowly
ranked in society (cf. Verkuyten, 2004). Some children were aware of their ‘other-ness’ even if they could
not explain why. One even said he thought he did not have Dutch friends because he came from another
50
culture and therefore was different. Bridging into minority cultures was also not something that happened
very often. The children would generally play with each other across ethnicities, but when it came to
socializing in the neighborhood it varied whether they would socialize with their own ethnic group or with
several ethnic groups. While the children described having a certain level of interaction with their
neighbors, the relationships in the neighborhood did not appear as close as the author had anticipated.
Most of the children played with the children on their street and occasionally participated in social events
with other neighbors. The parents also participated in these. As Boschman (2012) pointed out,
neighborhood participation and activities are usually lower in very heterogeneous areas as the level of
trust is generally lower. Indeed, the school’s surrounding area, where most of the children live, has a very
low socio-economic status with frequent police raids and criminal disturbances. This would most certainly
impede the children’s ability to accumulate beneficial social capital.
5.3 FUTURE ASPIRATIONS
Many of the children had very high aspirations for their future, such as becoming a doctor, a surgeon,
veterinarian and other high-status careers. Several teachers were under the impression that these choices
were encouraged partially by their parents, but also by the children’s own wishes to obtain a position of
status. The children themselves often mentioned that their parents would encourage them to choose a
different study, as becoming for example a doctor took many years of study and there seemed doubt on
both the child’s and the parents’ part as to whether the child would actually be able to complete such a
study. There was a difficult balance for the children, their parents and the teachers on the topic of future
academic and professional success. Both of the interviewed teachers expressed that the children and their
parents often had unrealistic expectations, believing that the child could easily become a dentist or an
architect. The reality is that most of the children do not have the academic skills or the motivation to
achieve this, according to the teachers. They would rather the children strived for something within their
reach, perhaps a bit more in order to push themselves, but reaching for these difficult degrees would only
lead to disappointment, or to dropping out of school entirely. As has been shown in several previous
studies, minority children in general fare worse than their Dutch peers in school (e.g. Kalmijn & Kraaykamp,
2003) and therefore their secondary school advice is necessarily lower, with the majority of the
interviewed children receiving a VMBOT recommendation. A relatively high portion of minority children
end up dropping out as well. However, those with older siblings who are pursuing an education may be able
to draw on their siblings’ experience with school expectations, homework and the skills needed to navigate
the educational system. These siblings may further be able to guide their younger brothers and sisters to
find an education. However, it became apparent in the interviews that many children did not know what
their siblings were studying, thereby limiting the benefits of their experience. The LKP coordinator
mentioned that many of the children look up to the young men who have become successful through more
or less illegal actions rather than their parents, and if indeed the parents are not available to provide their
children with the resources and/or connections to obtain for example material goods or status, these are
readily available through more illicit methods. This is a common concern in areas with high minority
concentrations and gang-related activities, though the LKP coordinator did not seem to consider these an
immediate threat in the children’s current situation. Rather, the risk of dropping out of school was
considered a larger threat to the children’s academic future than the presence of gangs.
An interesting aspect of the children’s future academic careers is that they have been in the position of the
majority in their school up to now. The vast majority of the children attending the school in the current
study are Muslim, and all children belong to minority groups. However, as they progress to secondary
school, the children will end up in the true minority position as the majority of their classmates will most
likely be Dutch. The teachers saw this as a positive development, and especially the class teacher was
51
pleased that the children would be able to compare lifestyles and ways of thinking about the world as he
himself had done in his younger years. In that way, the children would be able to carve out a place for
themselves in society, placed between the Dutch majority and the other ethnic minority groups. He
admitted it might be tough for the children in the beginning, as especially the difference in socio-economic
status would become painfully obvious when majority parents could pay for their children’s tuition, afterschool activities and leisure spending, and the minority children’s parents would not be able to afford all of
this. However, he also mentioned that he had heard the children discussing purposely seeking out schools
with low attendance rates of Dutch students. This was not mentioned by any of the children themselves, but
if this is indeed the case it is rather thought-provoking. The children may prefer a school with higher
concentrations of minority children because it is familiar. They may also prefer these schools because they
are aware of the drastic change in their social position as soon as they become a numerical minority. Most
of the children have older siblings who are attending, or have attended, secondary school. If these have had
negative experiences as a minority these would most likely have been related at home, and thereby might
influence the children’s decision. However, the parents’ (apparent) wish to have their children attend
secondary schools with higher Dutch attendance reveals that the parents may be aware of the segregational
or integrational effect that the choice of secondary school may have. Since schools with high minority
attendance generally fare worse than schools with high Dutch attendance, the parents may therefore want
their children to attend these schools in order to improve their academic chances.
5.4 ON BEING ‘DUTCH’
The concept of something or someone ‘being Dutch’ came up frequently throughout the research period,
and it was a topic that generally caused much confusion. As the interview was carried out by a teacher from
the school, it was interesting to note which words she would use to describe situations and explain
circumstances to the children. Strikingly, the description of the children’s families and their culture was
referred to as ‘you’, while descriptions of Dutch people or Dutch culture was described as ‘us’. An example
was the frequent question “What do you do that we don’t do?” (emphasis added). Thus the popular
immigrant dichotomy of ‘us’ and ‘them’ was created from the start, and it was most likely the result of the
interviewer being a majority member. It did not matter that many children considered themselves more
Dutch than Moroccan or Turkish, they were still perceived as part of the ‘other’. This is worrying, as the
children’s ethnic identity and feeling of belonging may suffer as a result of not being recognized as ‘Dutch’
(e.g. Hopkins, 2011), risking that the children end up feeling that they belong in neither place (Wissink et
al., 2008). The fact that the children maintained that they did not perceive any major differences between
themselves and Dutch children may be an effort to minimize the perceived differences and to maintain that
they are perfectly able to be Dutch at the same time as being Turkish, Moroccan or something else. This
may be an effort to stand up to the teachers’ (and general society’s) categorization of them as well.
At the same time during the interviews, the contact person would start saying, “You are
Moroccan/Turkish/etc.” but would then switch and say, “Your parents are Moroccan/Turkish/etc.”. As
mentioned previously, this shows that there may be a certain level of confusion or ambiguity about the
children’s belongingness among the teachers as well. The LKP teacher confirmed this, and noted that it was
not a good starting point for the children to be confused about their own identity. This here assumes that
the children are confused about their identity, though none of the children expressed this. It may be argued
that it is rather the teachers who are confused about the children’s identity. The LKP coordinator further
discussed that it was difficult to find the half-way point between Dutch and minority culture, and that there
was discussion amongst the teachers as to the best approach. In this context it appears that the school as a
whole would benefit from a clear, well-structured school policy on how teachers are to handle
multiculturalism in the classroom. If such a policy exists already, the interviewed teachers are not aware of
52
it. It would be beneficial for the teachers but also for the children. Perhaps providing the teachers with
cultural awareness training would also be helpful, provided that the training is focused on not putting up
boundaries between cultures but rather encouraging a dynamic, two-way exchange of culture. While most
of the staff has worked in multicultural environments for a while, the data suggests that this has not
necessarily brought about more understanding of people’s cultural backgrounds. Most of the staff seems to
enjoy learning about the children’s background however, and are very vocal about this to the children. This
may aid in establishing a cultural understanding between the children and their teachers, and it is also a
positive experience for the children to have their cultural background recognized positively by their
teachers.
The LKP teacher often corrected himself when speaking about what exactly the term ‘Dutch’ covered. The
contact person also often used different ways of approaching the topic of ethnicity and belonging during the
interviews. For the class teacher, who was of Moroccan origin, the same question popped up during the
interview. It was implied that the definition of what was ‘real Dutch’ varied from teacher to teacher, making
it difficult to establish clear rules for the children as well. This may be due to the fact that while the Dutch
political sphere has been determined to establish a Dutch national identity in the past decade of a uniform,
united Dutch people, the reality is that this identity is being contested by citizens who do not fit into the
typical image of a Dutch person. For example, these children come from different ethnic, cultural and
religious backgrounds, and definitely constitute part of the ‘other’. Yet they insist on calling themselves
Dutch. In creating hybrid identities (for example Dutch-Moroccan; Phinney et al., 2001), they up-end the
popular notion of Dutch identity and challenge the majority’s perceptions of a ‘real’ Dutchman or –woman
(Verkuyten, 2004). Despite being a country with a relatively long history of immigration, compared to some
other European nations, the Dutch society has only accepted those as Dutch who have assimilated quietly,
such as the Indonesian and Caribbean migrants. These have, due to their close relationship with Dutch
culture through periods of colonization, had an easier time settling into Dutch society than their
Mediterranean counterparts who were never integrated because they were expected to go back to their
home countries (e.g. Scholten & Holzhacker, 2009). Thus, the children belong to a minority group who in
the recent years has been very vocal about their equal civil rights and are thereby ‘guilty by association’.
The Moroccan class teacher asked the author during the interview whether the children calling themselves
Dutch was socially desirable. This opens into a new debate – if the children would not call themselves
Dutch, but rather Moroccan or Turkish or something else, how would this affect the way they were seen as
fitting into society? Would this exclude them even more from society, or would it rather improve the way
they were accepted and acknowledged by society, by falling into their ‘right place’? In one study on the
ways of seeking out intercultural interaction by minority students and its effect on school success, it was
reported that teachers flagged more behavioral problems for minority children who sought out a high
degree of intercultural interaction in school (Andriessen & Phalet, 2002). It was suspected that this was
because the children violated the expectations the teachers had of them based on their ethnicities, and by
interfering in a domain that was typically seen as ‘Dutch’ they crossed the ethnic boundaries. It is
preferable that minorities stay in ‘their place’ as blending identities upsets the balance of what is Dutch and
what is not (e.g. Verkuyten, 2004). By hyphenating their identity (Dutch-Moroccan, Dutch-Turk) however,
the children are able to participate in both worlds at the same time, acknowledging their participation and
belonging in both groups. While this hyphenation of identities can be a positive experience for the minority
individual (Phinney et al., 2001), it can also be negative if the majority members focus on the non-Dutch
aspect of the person’s identity, effectively undermining the validity of also being Dutch. In societies such as
the Netherlands there has always been a very distinct idea about who is Dutch, and usually saying that
someone is Dutch means that they are ethnic Dutch (Verkuyten & Thijs, 2010). By hyphenating, minorities
are able to use a dual label which “emphasizes ethnic differences within a common national category,
53
whereas a single label focuses on the separate and distinctive group identities” (Verkuyten & Thijs, 2010 p.
470). In their study on out-group labeling, Verkuyten & Thijs (2010) found that hyphenating, or using a
dual label, led to more favorable feelings towards minority members than if a single label is used.
Surinamese and Antillean minorities were viewed most favorable, while Turkish and Moroccan groups still
ranked lowest in the minority hierarchy and are considered the most unfavorable minority groups in Dutch
society. The results depended on the acculturational outlook of the participant – the more inclined towards
multiculturalism, the more favorable the feeling toward dual labeling. It would appear that the children are
supported in their feelings of belongingness and their ethnic identities if they hyphenate their identity
(provided the viewer appreciates multiculturalism) – which most of them already do. Whether this is still
the case for the children who feel more Dutch than Turkish or Moroccan is less certain.
5.5 RESEARCH QUESTION CONCLUSIONS
The previous section has analyzed the results gained from the interviews and the questionnaires in relation
to the literature section. Throughout, the research question and sub-questions have been answered in part.
This section will clarify the conclusions that the author reached in order to provide a clear picture of what
was gained from the current study.
The sub-questions will first be discussed.

How do minority children place themselves in relation to their peers of both minority and majority
backgrounds and to Dutch society in general?
It was observed that the Muslim children were a definite majority in the studied classroom and at the
school in general. This matches the ethnic composition of the neighborhoods surrounding the school, of
which the majority is Moroccan and Turkish. Islam and the Muslim minority in the Netherlands was
therefore the most debated topics when the discussion fell on minority issues in the news, and the class
teacher reported that some of the other children, who had Christian or Hindu backgrounds, felt
uncomfortable when singled out for their different habits and traditions. The children do not group
themselves into Moroccan, Turkish or other groups, and there is no discussion of only wanting to play with
certain ethnicities. As mentioned above, the children did not seem to have a problem straddling two ethnic
labels, though this was not the case for the teachers. Indeed, there was much confusion as to what label the
children should carry, and from the LKP coordinator’s point of view it was worrying that there was so much
confusion as to how the children should be treated and recognized. The class teacher of Moroccan origin
and the children themselves did not seem to see any problems with being both Dutch and Turkish,
Moroccan, and so on. This suggests that majority and minority group members see the minority children’s
position very differently.
It is worth further investigation to uncover the children’s seemingly contradicting answers on the topic of
difference. According to many children, they do not see any meaningful differences between themselves
and the Dutch majority. They are just like other Dutch children; in most cases they do the same things, eat
the same food, listen to the same music and behave the same way. They have an unproblematic stance
within Dutch society. Yet they are aware that their family has other traditions and customs than Dutch
families, especially in terms of religion, and according to the teachers, discussions on their minority
position in society are not uncommon. The question is then whether the children genuinely do not perceive
the apparent differences as meaningful, or if they claim this in order to consciously defuse the attitudes
they have encountered towards these differences and minimize their effect. In that way, they take charge of
their own position and create a space where the differences are harmless. Yet, the Turkish girl is eager to
shed her Turkish identity and adopt a Dutch identity instead, as her family’s Turkish behavior is almost
54
embarrassing. This, however, may prove almost impossible. It is difficult returning baggage that others
assign to you (e.g. Bishop, 2004; Verkuyten, 2004), and rejecting her family’s culture may cause severe
stress and conflict in her familial relationships.

How does the accumulation of social capital happen in minority children’s homogenous and
underprivileged environments?
As Boschman (2012) showed, the most important facilitator of social capital for children who are still in
elementary school is their immediate neighborhood. Most of the children play with other children from
their street or from school, and most also attend lessons at the mosque and make friends there. A few
children play football, basketball or other team sports, but they are in the minority and most do not attend
any after-school activities outside the neighborhood. One girl had taken violin lessons, but had to stop after
one year as her parents could not afford the tuition. This severely limits the children’s contact with other
children outside their neighborhood, especially children of Dutch origin. Only few children had friends of
Dutch origin, and most had met these through for example football training or violin lessons. The Somali
girl had remained friends with classmates from her previous school, with whom she frequently kept in
contact. This was the only child who had experienced having Dutch classmates, and her parents were also
the most socially active. Her experience is therefore broader than her classmates’, and it was striking that
she acknowledged the differences between having only Dutch classmates as opposed to only having
minority classmates. While she corrected herself, she initially started out saying it was nicer with Dutch
classmates, perhaps due to the difference in the educational environment. It is important to note that the
children did not appear to consider it a problem that they had no ethnic Dutch friends, or that they did not
get to meet a lot of other children than those in their immediate neighborhood. However, one girl
mentioned that she was careful with whom she associated, since making the wrong friendships might result
in not doing well in school.
The Somali girl further appeared to have the largest network of the interviewed children through her
membership in the Somali diaspora. As they share a fugitive background, there appear to be many events to
bring them together, where this does not appear to be the case for the Turkish or Moroccan children. This
may be the fault of low trust in heterogeneous neighborhoods (Boschman, 2012). However, Turkish
children appear to have stronger ties to their family’s home country and this group goes back on holiday
more often than the Moroccan group. Thus their social ties are more oriented towards the home country
and their family there, while the Somali girl is more oriented towards networks in the Netherlands and in
various other countries where family and friends have settled down. Common for all the groups, however,
are strong familial ties inside the Netherlands. Most children spent a lot of time with their families, either
with siblings, aunts, uncles and/or cousins, and often went on vacation with these to visit other family
members. The exception here is the Yemenite boy, who did not seem to socialize with anyone from his own
ethnic group, but rather socialized with various other minority groups.
Thus, social capital happens mostly with in-group members. Again, this did not appear to be a problem for
the children, but it does appear to be a concern of society in general. The teachers hope this will change
once the children enter secondary school so that they might broaden their horizon, but if some children
genuinely are seeking out schools with higher intakes of minority children, they may make expanding their
networks and bridging with the Dutch majority difficult for themselves. If these children prefer a
separationist approach to acculturation it should not come as a surprise, but it may raise the risk of
dropping out as schools with high numbers of minority students generally have lower academic results
than schools with a higher intake of majority students (Kalmijn & Kraaykamp, 2003). While the Dutch
government is concerned about breaking up minority-dense areas, the children appear to acculturate
55
similarly to other minority children in mixed environments. While this finding may be debatable, as the
children in this study do not strictly fulfill Berry’s (2005) contact and participation dimension, it may
indicate that the problems envisioned by the government are not as large as feared. Also in terms of social
capital accumulation, studies have shown that minority-dense neighborhoods do not impede interethnic
contact – for persons aged 15-65. For younger children, such as those in this study, there is a lack of
majority contact which in turn leads to limited majority social capital accumulation (cf. Kao, 2004).

How do the parents’ socio-economic background influence minority children’s adaptation to Dutch
society?
It became very clear that the parents’ socio-economic backgrounds have a huge influence on the children’s
situation at school and in society in general. The parents rarely take the children to museums or to the
library, and some children explained that their parents would watch channels native to their home
countries, such as Al Jezeera. While maintaining a link to one’s home culture does not impede participation
in society, doing so at the expense of participation in bridging activities will hinder the children’s
accumulation of social and cultural capital (cf. Driessen & Dekkers, 2009). Most of the parents have poor
educational backgrounds and Dutch language proficiency, which means they are not able to participate as
actively in their children’s school life as more well-educated parents. Meaning, they may not always be able
to help the children with their homework or understand all the information that the children bring home
from school. Therefore, the siblings often act as mediators between the family and the school and help out
with homework and meetings. The parents’ low Dutch proficiency also means that while two languages are
often spoken in the home, the children speak Dutch with their siblings and another language with their
parents. This may contribute to the children’s below-average Dutch proficiency as well. The school
attempts to regulate this by involving the parents in school events as often as possible, by arranging
meetings for mothers on important topics, such as puberty, and by taking the children out on school trips to
broaden their horizon. However, as the teachers noted, the school can only do so much; the rest of the
responsibility lies with the parents. It would also appear that future aspirations are not a topic discussed
often in the home, minimizing the children’s ability to benefit from their older siblings’ experience. The
parents seem to have a conflicting role in their children’s choice of career; the teachers implied that the
parents expect the children to easily become doctors or dentists without putting in much effort, while some
children indicated that their parents discouraged them from pursuing higher education because the study
was too long or difficult for them. The parents’ own educational background may be a factor here, and
parents’ involvement in their children’s academic career often has an impact on the child’s academic
success (Crul & Domernik, 2003). Finally, the class teacher worried that the children’s socio-economic
background would become very obvious once they entered secondary schools, as their parents would not
be able to afford the same school and leisure activities and materials as majority parents, and this might
provoke some ill feelings between the groups.
The sub-questions have shed light on various aspects of the main research question. It can thus be
answered in the following way:

How do minority children negotiate the norms, values and expectations held and influenced by the
families’ home culture in their everyday experiences of Dutch society?
For most of the children, there is little conflict between being Dutch and Moroccan, Dutch and Turkish, etc.
While some children occasionally experience confusion or obstacles when for example visiting with family
members in other countries due to language barriers, there generally does not appear to be a conflict in
being a member of two cultures. Indeed, most children consider themselves equally Dutch and
56
Moroccan/Turkish/etc., or more Dutch than their other background. At the same time, most express a
determined wish to maintain their family’s traditions and customs (even if they are not always aware of the
significance of these) because they are familiar, and because they enjoy being part of this ethnic and/or
religious community. Many of their holidays are celebrated at the school as well, making it possible for the
children to celebrate with their classmates and their teachers. They are further exposed to holidays from
many different religions and traditions, such as Muslim, Hindu and Christian holidays. Celebrating diversity
at schools aids in making the children more aware and accepting of cultural differences. The teachers are
also openly enthusiastic about learning about the children’s traditions and backgrounds, which encourages
positive attitudes towards diversity and pride in one’s heritage. However, it must be stressed that the
limited exposure to majority culture is considered a problem by both teachers and society. The LKP
coordinator indeed mentioned that getting out of the neighborhood would be beneficial for the children in
order to discover that the Netherlands was much, much more diverse than what they experienced in their
daily life. As has been shown, the children are in a peculiar situation if viewed from an outsider’s
perspective. Due to their limited exposure to majority members of Dutch society, their frame of reference is
shaped by what they see on TV and read on the Internet, and to their experiences with their teachers,
family, friends and neighbors. Thus, their understanding of what is ‘Dutch’ may be very different than that
of minority children in mixed schools and that of other people in general. It would be interesting to
investigate if this perception changes when they enter secondary school, and whether this will change their
sense of belonging and identity.
While the teachers explained that sometimes there were cultural clashes, these did not appear to pertain to
distinctive cultural or religious traditions that hindered understanding and cooperation between the
parties, but rather the parents’ and children’s attitude towards school. The biggest problem was thus the
children’s motivation. This may be culturally motivated, as parents from Turkish and Moroccan descent
generally show less inclination to encourage their children in their academic pursuits compared to Dutch
parents (e.g. Driessen, 2001), even though it appeared that many parents at this school wanted their
children to attend secondary schools with a higher intake of Dutch students. The children were also eager
to make something of themselves, even if they were not always convinced that they would actually be able
to do so. However, if the interviewed teachers are right in their observation that the children would seek
out secondary schools with low Dutch attendance rates, then this poses something of a predicament. If the
children feel comfortable in their position between their family’s home culture and Dutch society, and if
they genuinely do not see any differences or problems in being a part of two cultures, why would they
purposely seek out secondary schools with higher attendance rates of minority children? One answer may
be familiarity; it is difficult enough to transition to secondary school, and as Holland, Reynolds & Weller
(2007) showed, children may be inclined to choose schools were they already know someone, or where
they feel certain they can build a network fast and easily. Another answer may be fear of discrimination or
rejection (cf. Agirdag, 2011; Karsten, 2011); as the teachers mentioned, the children are aware of their
position and society despite being adamant about not perceiving meaningful differences. The desire to seek
out a more mixed secondary school may then be an attempt to avoid being exposed to these opinions and
accusations in a higher degree than they are now. A third answer may be that the children, having been told
extensively that their academic achievement levels are low, seek out these schools because they feel certain
they will not fall behind, as the academic level of these schools will be lower than schools with a high intake
of Dutch students.
Therefore, the outcome here is that the interviewed children are not experiencing the degree of social or
cultural separation that one might have expected of children in their position. In fact, they have
acculturated similarly to other minority children who attend mixed schools and adult minority members
(e.g. Andriessen & Phalet, 2002; Arends-Tóth & Van De Vijver, 2002, 2004; Huijnk, Verkuyten & Coenders,
57
2012). This is interesting, as one might expect these children to acculturate differently since their cultural
identity is not challenged to the same degree as children who attend mixed schools. An explanation may be
that immigrants are generally becoming more integrated, especially second-generation immigrants (De
Graaf et al., 2011). According to the children themselves they easily blend their family’s home culture with
the Dutch culture. There is no discrepancy in having roots in two different cultures, and the children
expressed frustration at the idea that one could not mix or be a member of two cultures. It did not appear
as if the children experienced any conflicts with their parents in regard to adopting a position in both
cultures, except for the Turkish girl who passionately self-identified as Dutch. This may be due to the fact
that they still have limited contact with the Dutch majority. Once they enter secondary school and are
exposed to different behavior from new students, conflicts may arise, but this is also part of being a
teenager and transitioning into adulthood.
5.5.1 RESEARCH LIMITATIONS
The size and nature of the study is a limitation in that it can hardly be used as a generalization. However, as
little research has been performed in segregated schools in the Netherlands, this study is a good reference
point for future research. Also, there is a possibility that the power balance between child and teacher may
have influenced the way the children answered certain questions. One child asked for more hints when
discussing the differences between Moroccan and Dutch culture so that he would come up with answers
faster. While this may just be an indication that he did not completely understand the question, it also
directed the conversation in a particular direction when the contact person offered suggestions. As
mentioned earlier, the benefits of having an interviewer who knew the children’s backgrounds were
greater than the disadvantage of potential bias, as they were more likely to be open with someone they felt
comfortable with (cf. Adler & Adler, 2001). The school setting may also have influenced the answers given
by the children, but this would be true in any setting. Further research could include focus groups or childinterviewers, as those have proven successful in other studies and may alter the power balance and allow a
more free dialogue. Similar research conducted in various settings, for example in the home, at leisure spots
or youth clubs, would also contribute to varied data on the same topics.
6. CONCLUSION
The Netherlands is a country that encourages assimilation, but it has become apparent in this study that the
children prefer to integrate, remaining rooted in both the Dutch culture and their family’s home culture,
and they have no problem doing so. However, this is usually confusing to the rest of society, almost
bordering on unacceptable, due to the ascribed (Muslim) baggage the children are carrying. The fact that
the general public is confused about what exactly is ‘Dutch’ only serves to complicate matters further. The
teachers are enthusiastic about multiculturalism, but do not know how exactly to merge the cultures or
where to draw the line, should one need to be drawn. It has been difficult in this thesis to pinpoint the
situation of these children – they consider themselves at least half Dutch, if not more, but they do not
frequently, if ever, socialize with Dutch peers. They consider their classmates Dutch as well, which became
evident in the interviews when they misunderstood the question, “Do you have any Dutch friends?”.
According to Berry’s acculturation framework, they cannot be assimilated or integrated without a certain
degree of majority contact. The children achieve this by following the media and through socialization with
their teachers and, more rarely, Dutch peers. This does not appear to fulfill the contact and participation
dimension’s requirement of a high level of contact, particularly because the social dimension is lacking to
such a degree. Still, most of the children appeared to consider themselves assimilated or integrated by
being oriented towards Dutch society. They are born in the Netherlands, they speak the language, and they
feel at home there. From the child’s point of view, majority (and interethnic) contact is achieved when they
58
go to school and play with their friends. The problem is, most of society will not accept them, or their
friends, as Dutch. At the same time, it might be the case that they seek out secondary schools with high
intake of minority children. If they are Dutch, and ethnic Dutch children are also Dutch, why then would
they willingly segregate themselves? Is it a matter of ethnicity, social status, or something else entirely?
The Dutch government is concerned about those that have grown up in a ‘black’ neighborhood with little to
no contact with the rest of the majority, as they are separated and limited in their access to majority capital
resources and networks. It is also inferred that without this majority contact, the children cannot be
expected to assimilate ‘properly’. There are sources who state that this is not necessarily a problem (e.g.
Boschman, 2012; Portes, 1998), but it may be important that the children are able to access these networks
if the acknowledgment of their sense of belonging is dependent on it. Access to majority social capital also
brings other social, cultural and economical benefits with it, such as access to education and job
opportunities (Bourdieu, 1986; Karsten, 2011; Portes, 1998). It would be interesting to follow the
development of the children’s own sense of acculturation, belonging and identity once they proceed to
secondary school, where there is a larger intake of ethnically Dutch students than at their current school. It
is arguable that the children will experience a very different everyday setting here, and they may
experience higher degrees of discrimination or biased preference in class. It should also be examined
whether there is an actual trend of minority children seeking out institutions with a higher intake of
minority children, and if so, why this is the case. Finally, further research should also contribute to the
targeting of public policies, as the ones currently in place do not seem to create a favorable environment for
children to be able to identify as both Dutch and Turkish, or Dutch and Moroccan, nor to favor both of their
cultural backgrounds (e.g. Verkuyten, 2004, 2011).
It has been obvious throughout the thesis that the children’s reality conflicts with that of general society
and the academic world, but only the children themselves are able to recount their personal experiences
and perceptions of being a product of two cultures – not the teachers, not society and not academia. This is
an important aspect of this thesis; much wondering has gone into the results from the author’s and
colleagues’ side. Are the children misleading themselves? Are they turning a blind eye to what is actually
there; are they pretending that the society they live in does not discriminate against them and try to tell
them who they are? This is, as it turned out, a ludicrous – adult – position to take. The children have it right
– in their world it is perfectly doable to be a member of two different (and some would say opposing)
cultures. To celebrate Sinter Klaas and the Ramadan. To eat chikufteh and croquettes. To speak Dutch and
Arabic interchangeably. The children in this thesis have, thankfully, retained some of their childish
innocence and simplistic outlook on life. It is the adults who make the world complex. They decide that it is
not possible to be Muslim and Dutch, that it is not acceptable to call oneself Dutch when one insists on
retaining parts of one’s background that so obviously are incompatible with Dutch values and norms. Never
mind what the children themselves think; fortunately for them, there are adults to tell them exactly how the
world really is. How they should feel confused because they are not really Dutch, but not really Turkish or
Moroccan either. That they are not doing as well as Dutch children (regardless of the children’s own feeling
of Dutch-ness) because they are lacking certain skills to keep up and succeed academically. It almost seems
a shame that the children will have to enter a world where they are likely to repeatedly be informed that
their outlook on life is confused – but maybe it does not have to be this way. Adults and society could
perhaps learn something from children’s simplistic view on life – where one’s identity is valid because of
one’s own experience and feeling of belonging, not because someone with the authority of the majority
agrees.
59
REFERENCES
Adler, P. A. & Adler, P. (2001). The reluctant respondent. In Gubrium, J. F. & Holstein, J. A. (Eds.), Handbook
of interview research: context and method. London: Sage.
Agirdag, O., Demanet, J., Van Houtte, M., & Van Avermaet, P. (2011). Ethnic school composition and peer
victimization: A focus on the interethnic school climate. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 35(4), 465-473.
Arends-Tóth, J. & Van De Vijver, F. J. R. (2002). Multiculturalism and acculturation: Views of Dutch and
Turkish-Dutch. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33(2), 249-266.
Arends-Tóth, J. & Van De Vijver, F. J. R. (2004). Domains and dimensions in acculturation: Implicit theories
of the Turkish-Dutch. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 28(1), 19-35.
Andriessen, I. & Phalet, K. (2002). Acculturation and school success: A study among minority youths in the
Netherlands. Intercultural Education, 13(1), 21-36.
Anthias, F. (2007). Ethnic ties: Social capital and the question of mobilisability. The Sociological Review,
55(4), 788-805.
Arksey, H., & Knight, P. (1999). Interviewing for social scientists. An introductory resource with examples.
Sage Publications.
Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International
Review, 46(1), 5-34.
Berry, J. W. (2005). Acculturation: Living successfully in two cultures. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 29, 697-712
Berry, J. W. (2006). Acculturative stress. In Wong, P. T. P., Wong, L. C. J. (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural
perspectives on stress and coping (287-298). USA: Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.
Berry, J. W. (2009). A critique of critical acculturation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33(2),
361-371.
Berry, J. W, Phinney, J. S., Sam, D. L., & Vedder, P. (2006). Immigrant youth: Acculturation, identity, and
adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 55(3), 303-332.
Bishop, E. (2004). What’s in a name: The classification of non-native Dutch people. Humanity in Action,
retrieved from http://www.humanityinaction.org/knowledgebase/253-whats-in-a-namethe-classification-of-non-native-dutch-people.
Blommaert, J. & Dong, J. (2010). Ethnographic fieldwork: A beginner’s guide. Multilingual Matters.
Boschman, S. (2012). Residential segregation and interethnic contact in the Netherlands. Urban Studies,
49(2), 353-367.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In Richardson, J. E. (Ed.) Handbook of theory of research for the
sociology of education (241-258). New York: Greenwood.
60
Chirkov, V. (2009). Critical psychology of acculturation: What do we study it and how do we study it, when
we investigate acculturation? International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33(2), 94-105.
Crul, M. & Doomernik, J. (2003). The Turkish and Moroccan second generation in the Netherlands:
Divergent trends between and polarization within the two groups. International Migration
Review, 37(4), 1039-1064.
De Graaf, P. M., Kalmijn, M., Kraaykamp, G., & Monden, C. W. S. (2011). Sociaal-culturele verschillen tussen
Turken, Marokkanen en autochtonen: Eerste resultaten van de Nederlandse LevensLoop
Studie (NELLS). Bevolkingstrends, 4, 61-70.
De Graaf, P. M. & van Zanderen, K. (2009). Segmented assimilation in the Netherlands? Young migrants and
early school leaving. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 32(8), 1470-1488.
Dekker, K. (2007). Social capital, neighborhood attachment and participation in distressed urban areas. A
case study in The Hague and Utrecht, the Netherlands. Housing Studies, 22(3), 355-379.
Dessing, N. (2001). Rituals of Birth, Circumcision, Marriage and Death among Muslims in the Netherlands.
Leuven: Peeters.
Devine, D. (2009). Mobilising capitals? Migrant children’s negotiation of their everyday lives in school.
British Journal of Sociology and Education, 30(5), 521-535.
Driessen, G. (2001). Ethnicity, forms of capital, and educational achievement. International Review of
Education, 47(6), 513-538.
Driessen, G. (2002). School composition and achievement in primary education: A large-scale multilevel
approach. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 28(4), 347-368.
Driessen, G. & Dekkers, H. (2009). Dutch policies on socio-economic and ethnic inequality in education.
International Social Science Journal, 59(193-194), 449-464.
Eccles, J. S. (1999). The Development of children ages 6 to 14. When School Is Out, 9(2), 30-44. Retrieved
from http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/docs/09_02_02.pdf
Eder, D. & Fingerson, L. (2001). Interviewing children and adolescents. In Gubrium, J. F. & Holstein, J. A.
(Eds.) Handbook of interview research: Context and method (181-201). Sage Publications.
Extra, G. & Yagmur, K. (2011). Urban multilingualism in Europe: Mapping linguistic diversity in
multicultural cities. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 1173-1184.
Friedrichs, J., Galster, G., & Musterd, S. (2003). Neighborhood effects on social opportunities: The European
and American research and policy context. Housing Studies, 18(6), 797-806.
Goodman, R. (1997). The strengths and difficulties questionnaire: A research note. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 38, 581-586.
Grillo, R. D. (2003). Cultural essentialism and cultural anxiety. Anthropological Theory, 3(2), 157-173.
Holland, J., Reynolds, T., & Weller, S. (2007). Transitions, networks and communities: The significance of
social capital in the lives of children and young people. Journal of Youth Studies, 10(1), 97116.
61
Hopkins, N. (2011). Dual identities and their recognition: Minority group members’ perspectives. Political
psychology, 32(2), 251-270.
Huijnk, W., Verkuyten, M., & Coenders, M. (2012). Family life and acculturation attitudes: A study among
four immigrant groups in the Netherlands. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 38(4),
555-575.
Kalmijn, M. & Kraaykamp, G. (2003). Dropout and downward mobility in the educational career: An eventhistory analysis of ethnic schooling differences in the Netherlands. Educational Research and
Evaluation: An International Journal on Theory and Practice, 9(3), 265-287.
Kao, G. (2004). Social capital and its relevance to minority and immigrant populations. Sociology of
Education, 77(2), 172-175.
Karsten, L. (2011). Children’s social capital in the segregated context of Amsterdam: An historicalgeographical approach. Urban Studies, 48(8), 1651-1666.
Kroon, S. & Spotti, M. (2011). Immigrant minority language teaching policies and practices in The
Netherlands: Policing dangerous multilingualism. In Domovic, V., Gehrmann, S., KrügerPotratz, M., & Petrovic, A. (Eds), Europäische Bildung: Konzepte und Perspektiven aus fünf
Ländern (pp. 87-103). Münster: Waxmann.
Ladd, H. F., Fiske, E. B., & Ruijs, N. (2010). Parental choice in the Netherlands: Growing concerns about
segregation.
Sanford
Working
Paper
Series,
1-43.
Retrieved
from
http://sanford.duke.edu/research/papers/SAN10-02.pdf
Li, P. S. (2004). Social capital and economic outcomes for immigrants and ethnic minorities. Journal of
International Migration and Integration, 5(2), 171-190.
Linde-Laursen, A. (2007). Is something rotten in the state of Denmark? The Muhammad cartoons and
Danish political culture. Contemporary Islam, 1(3), 265-274.
Mooren, T. T. M., Knipscheer, J. W., Kampermann, A. N., Kleber, R. J., & Komproe, I. H. (2001). The Lowlands
acculturation scale: Validity of an adaption measure among migrants in The Netherlands. In
Mooren, T. T. M. (Ed.), The Impact of War. Studies on the psychological consequences of war
and migration (49-68). Delft: Eburon.
Orfield, G. (2001). Schools more separate: Consequences of a decade of resegregation. The Civil Rights
Project, Harvard University. Retrieved from http://www. civilrightsproject.ucla.edu.
Phalet, K. & Schönpflug, U. (2001). Intergenerational transmission of collectivism and achievement values
in two acculturation contexts. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(2), 186-201.
Phinney, J. S. (1991). Ethnic identity and self-esteem: A review and integration. Hispanic Journal of
Behavioral Sciences, 13(2), 193-208.
Phinney, J. S., Horenczyk, G., Liebkind, K., & Vedder, P. (2001). Ethnic identity, immigration, and well-being:
An interactional perspective. Journal of Social Issues, 57(3), 493-510.
Pierik, R. (2004). Conceptualizing cultural groups and cultural difference: The social mechanism approach.
Ethnicities, 4(4), 523-544.
62
Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review of
Sociology, 24, 1-24.
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone. The collapse of and revival of American community. London: Simon &
Schuster.
Reynolds, T. (2006). Caribbean families, social capital and young people’s diasporic identities. Ethnic and
Racial Studies, 29(6), 1087-1103.
Ryabov, I. & Van Hook, J. (2007). School segregation and academic achievement among Hispanic children.
Social Science Research, 36(2), 767-788.
Sam, D. L., Vedder, P., Liebkind, K., Neto, F., & Virta, E. (2008). Immigration, acculturation and the paradox of
adaptation in Europe. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 5(2), 138-158.
Sam, D. L. & Berry, J. L. (2010). Acculturation: When individuals and groups of different backgrounds meet.
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(4), 472-481.
Schaefer-McDaniel, N. J, (2004). Conceptualizing social capital among young people: Toward a new theory.
Children, Youth and Environments, 14(1), 140-150.
Schmitt, I. (2010). ‘Normally I should belong to the others’: Young people’s gendered transcultural
competences in creating belonging in Germany and Canada. Childhood, 17(2), 163-180.
Scholten, P. & Holzhacker, R. (2009). Bonding, bridging and ethnic minorities in The Netherlands: Changing
discourses in a changing nation. Nations and Nationalism, 15(1), 81-100.
Stevens, G. W. J. M., Pels, T. V. M., Vollebergh, W. A. M., & Crijnen, A. A. M. (2004). Patterns of psychological
acculturation in adult and adolescent Moroccan immigrants living in the Netherlands. Journal
of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35(6), 689-704.
Stevens, P. A. J., Clycq, N., Timmermann, C., & Van Houtte, M. (2011). Researching race/ethnicity and
educational inequality in the Netherlands: A critical review of the research literature
between 1980 and 2008. British Educational Research Journal, 37(1), 5-43.
Unger, J. B., Gallaher, P., Shakib, S., Ritt-Olson, A., Palmer, P. H., & Anderson Johnson, C. (2002). The AHIMSA
acculturation scale: A new measure of acculturation for adolescents in multicultural society.
The Journal of Early Adolescence, 22(3), 225-251.
Van Geel, M. & Vedder, P. (2009). The role of family obligations and school adjustment in explaining the
immigrant paradox. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40(2), 187-196.
Van Laar, C. & Sidanius, J. (2001). Social status and the academic achievement gap: A social dominance
perspective. Social Psychology of Education, 4, 235-258.
Van Nieuwkerk, K. (2004). ‘Veils and wooden clogs don’t go together’. Ethnos: Journal of Anthropology,
69(2), 229-246.
Vasta, E. (2007). From ethnic minorities to ethnic majority policy: Multiculturalism and the shift to
assimilationism in the Netherlands. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30(5), 713-740.
Verkuyten, M. (2004). Everyday ways of thinking about multiculturalism. Ethnicities, 4(1), 53-74.
63
Verkuyten, M. (2011). Assimilation ideology and outgroup attitudes among ethnic majority members. Group
Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14(6), 789-806.
Verkuyten, M. & Thijs, J. (2010). Ethnic minority labeling, multiculturalism, and the attitude of majority
group members. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29(4), 467-477.
Wissink, I. B., Deković, M., Yaĝmur, Ş., Stams, G. J., & de Haan, M. (2008). Ethnic identity, externalizing
problem behaviour and the mediating role of self-esteem amount Dutch, Turkish-Dutch and
Moroccan-Dutch adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 31(2), 223-240.
64
Student no. ___
APPENDIX
The Multi-Item Minority Student Acculturation Survey
Tilburg University, 2012
1. Ik ben ______ jaar oud.
2. Geef met een kruisje aan of je een jongen of meisje bent:
Ο Jongen
Ο Meisje
3. In welk land ben je geboren (geef met een kruisje het goede antwoord aan)?
Ο Nederland
Ο Turkije
Ο Marokko
Ο Suriname
Ο Anders, namelijk: _______________________
4. Hoe lang woon je al in Nederland (geef met een kruisje het goede antwoord aan)?
Ο Minder dan 1 jaar
Ο 1-3 jaar
Ο 3-5 jaar
Ο 5-7 jaar
Ο 7-9 jaar
Ο Meer dan 9 jaar / sinds mijn geboorte
5. In welk land is je moeder geboren (geef met een kruisje het goede antwoord aan)?
Ο Nederland
Ο Turkije
Ο Marokko
Ο Suriname
Ο Anders, namelijk: ________________________
Ο Ik weet het niet
6. In welk land is je vader geboren (geef met een kruisje het goede antwoord aan)?
Ο Nederland
Ο Turkije
Ο Marokko
Ο Suriname
Ο Anders, namelijk: ________________________
Ο Ik weet het niet
7. Wat soort werk heeft je moeder (geef met een kruisje het goede antwoord aan)?
Ο Mijn moeder wertk als ____________________
Ο Mijn moeder werkt niet
Ο Ik weet het niet
8. Wat soort werk heeft je vader (geef met een kruisje het goede antwoord aan)?
Ο Mijn vader werkt als _____________________
65
Ο Mijn vader werkt niet
Ο Ik weet het niet
9. Welke talen worden thuis gesproken (je mag meerdere antwoorden aankruisen)?
Ο Nederlands
Ο Turks
Ο Berbers
Ο Engels
Ο Anders, namelijk: ______________________
10. Welke taal wordt thuis het meest gesproken (geef met een kruisje het goede antwoord aan)?
Ο Nederlands
Ο Turks
Ο Berbers
Ο Engels
Ο Anders, namelijk: ______________________
11. Welke taal spreek je het beste (kruis één antwoord aan)?
Ο Nederlands
Ο Turks
Ο Berbers
Ο Engels
Ο Anders, namelijk: ______________________
12. Krijg je les in andere talen buiten deze school (geef met een kruisje het goede antwoord aan)?
Ο Ja  ga door naar vraag 13
Ο Nee  ga door naar vraag 14
13. In welke taalen krijg je les buiten deze school (geef met een kruisje het goede antwoord aan)?
Ο Nederlands
Ο Turks
Ο Berbers
Ο Engels
Ο Anders, namelijk: ______________________
14. Spreekt en/of begrijpen je moeder Nederlands (geef met een kruisje het goede antwoord aan)?
Ο Mijn moeder spreekt en begrijpt Nederlands
Ο Mijn moeder spreekt geen Nederlands maar begrijpt het wel
Ο Mijn moeder spreekt en begrijpt een beetje Nederlands
Ο Mijn moeder spreekt en begrijpt geen Nederlands
15. Spreekt en/of begrijpen je vader Nederlands (geef met een kruisje het goede antwoord aan)?
Ο Mijn vader spreekt en begrijpt Nederlands
Ο Mijn vader spreekt geen Nederlands maar begrijpt het wel
Ο Mijn vader spreekt en begrijpt een beetje Nederlands
Ο Mijn vader spreekt en begrijpt geen Nederlands
66
16. Wat doe je in je vrije tijd (je mag meerdere antwoorden aankruisen)?
Ο Ik speel buiten op straat met vrienden/vriendinnen
Ο Ik zit thuis achter de computer of kijk TV of doe wat anders:
Ο Alleen
Ο Met vrienden/vriendinnen/broer(tjes)/zus(jes)
Ο Ik zit op en club (voetbaal, zwemmen, creatif, etc.)
Ο Anders, namelijk: _________________________
17. IK KAN MIJ ZELF ZIJN OP SCHOOL
Bij de meesters en juffrouws
Bij mijn vrienden
Bij mijn klasgenootjes
Bij andere kinderen op school
18. IK HEB HET GEVOEL DAT IK GEPLAAGD , GENEGEERD
OF GEPEST WORDT
Door de meesters en juffrouws
Door mijn vrienden
Door mijn klasgenootjes
Door andere kinderen op school
19. IK DENK DAT IK MIJN WERK IN DE KLAS GOED DOE
ZET EEN RONDJE OM HET GOEDE ANTWOORD
Totaal niet
Soms
Vaak
Altijd
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
ZET EEN RONDJE OM HET GOEDE ANTWOORD
Totaal niet
Soms
Vaak
Altijd
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
ZET EEN RONDJE OM HET GOEDE ANTWOORD
Totaal niet
Soms
Vaak
Altijd
1
2
3
4
67
20. IK VIND HET MOEILIJK OM....
Geconcentreerd blijven
Mij goed te gedragen
Mijn gevoelens te uiten (boosheid, aggressie, aardig
zijn, etc.)
Gezellig om te gaan met mijn klasgenootjes
ZET EEN RONDJE OM HET GOEDE ANTWOORD
Totaal niet
Soms
Vaak
Altijd
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
Totaal niet  ga door naar vraag 25
Antwoord alleen vraag 21 t/m 24 als je ‘soms’, ‘vaak’ en/of ‘altijd’ hebt geantwoord op één of
meer vragen in vraag 20!
21. BEN JE HIER WEL VERDRIETIG OM?
ZET EEN RONDJE OM HET GOEDE ANTWOORD
Totaal niet
Soms
Vaak
Altijd
1
2
3
4
ZET EEN RONDJE OM HET GOEDE ANTWOORD
22. HOE LANG BEN JE HIER AL VERDRIETIG OM ?
Minder
dan 1
maand
1
23. ALS JE PROBLEMEN HEBT HOE MERKEN ZE DAT
DAN?
Merken ze dat thuis?
Merken je vrienden dat?
Heb je moeite met goed werken op school?
Heb je moeite met goed werken op naschoolse
activiteiten?
1 tot 5
6 tot 12 Meer dan een
maanden maanden
jaar
2
3
4
ZET EEN RONDJE OM HET GOEDE ANTWOORD
Totaal niet
Soms
Vaak
Altijd
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
68
24. ALS JE PROBLEMEN OF VERDRIET HEBT, VOELEN JE
OUDERS , JE VRIENDEN , JE FAMILIE EN JE
JUFFROUWS /MEESTERS DAT DAN ALS EEN LAST?
ZET EEN RONDJE OM HET GOEDE ANTWOORD
Totaal niet
Soms
Vaak
Altijd
1
2
3
4
25. Ik ben opgevoed als (geef met een kruisje het goede antwoord aan):
Ο Christen
Ο Jood
Ο Moslim
Ο Boeddhist
Ο Hindoe
Ο Anders, namelijk: _____________________
Ο Ik ben niet opgevoed met een geloef
26. Ik vind mijzelf een (geef met een kruisje het goede antwoord aan):
Ο Christen
Ο Jood
Ο Moslim
Ο Boeddhist
Ο Hindoe
Ο Anders, namelijk: _____________________
Ο Athëist
Ο Ik weet het niet
27. IK HEB HET GEVOEL DAT MIJN GELOOF MAKKELIJK
PAST IN MIJN DAGELIJKS LEVEN OP SCHOOL
ZET EEN RONDJE OM HET GOEDE ANTWOORD
Oneens
Beetje mee Beetje mee
oneens
eens
Eens
ZET EEN RONDJE OM HET AANTWOORD DAT JIJ
28. IK VOEL ME HET MEESTE OP MIJN GEMAK OM
MET MENSEN OM TE GAAN DIE:
DENKT HET MEESTE WAAR IS
Nederlands
zijn
Uit mijn
families
geboorteland
Beide
Geen van
beide
69
komen
ZET EEN RONDJE OM HET AANTWOORD DAT JIJ
DENKT HET MEESTE WAAR IS
29. MIJN BESTE VRIENDEN KOMEN UIT:
Van mijn
families
Nederland
geboorteland
komen
Beide
Geen van
beide
ZET EEN RONDJE OM HET AANTWOORD DAT JIJ
DENKT HET MEESTE WAAR IS
30. MIJN FAVORIETE MUZIEK IS:
Van mijn
families
Nederlands
geboorteland
komen
Beide
Geen van
beide
ZET EEN RONDJE OM HET AANTWOORD DAT JIJ
DENKT HET MEESTE WAAR IS
31. MIJN FAVORIETE TV-SHOWS ZIJN :
Van mijn
families
Nederlands
geboorteland
komen
Beide
Geen van
beide
ZET EEN RONDJE OM HET AANTWOORD DAT JIJ
DENKT HET MEESTE WAAR IS
32. DE FEESTDAGEN DIE IK VIER (RAMADAN,
SUIKERFEEST, OOGSTFEEST, DIVALI , ETC.) ZIJN:
Van mijn
families
Nederlands
geboorteland
komen
Beide
Geen van
beide
ZET EEN RONDJE OM HET AANTWOORD DAT JIJ
DENKT HET MEESTE WAAR IS
33. HET ETEN DAT IK THUIS EET IS :
Van mijn
families
Nederlands
geboorteland
komen
Beide
Geen van
beide
ZET EEN RONDJE OM HET AANTWOORD DAT JIJ
34. DE MANIER WAAROP IK DINGEN DOE EN HOE IK
DAAR OVER NADENK ZIJN:
DENKT HET MEESTE WAAR IS
Nederlands
Van mijn
families
Beide
Geen van
beide
70
geboorteland
komen
ZET EEN RONDJE OM HET AANTWOORD DAT JIJ
DENKT HET MEESTE WAAR IS
35. MENSEN DIE DE BESTE MANIER HEBBEN OM
KINDEREN OP TE VOEDEN KOMEN UIT :
Van mijn
families
Nederlands
geboorteland
komen
Beide
Geen van
beide
ZET EEN RONDJE OM HET AANTWOORD DAT JIJ
36. DE MENSEN DIE HET MEEST OPEN ZIJN NAAR
CULTUREN VAN ANDEREN (VERSCHILLEN VAN
ANDERE CULTUREN ACCEPTEREN ) ZIJN:
DENKT HET MEESTE WAAR IS
Van mijn
families
Nederlands
geboorteland
komen
37. KINDEREN MOETEN DOEN WAT HUN OUDERS
ZEGGEN , ALS HEET GAAT OVER WAT JE LATER WILT
WORDEN
Beide
Geen van
beide
ZET EEN RONDJE OM HET GOEDE ANTWOORD
Oneens
Beetje mee Beetje mee
oneens
eens
Eens
ZET EEN RONDJE OM HET GOEDE ANTWOORD
38. OUDERS WETEN PRECIES WAT GOED VOOR JE IS
39. HET IS HEEL BELANGRIJK DAT MIJN OUDERS TROTS
ZIJN OP MIJ
40. MIJN OUDERS ZIJN EENS MET WAT MIJN MEESTERS
EN JUFFROUWS MIJ LEREN OVER GOED GEDRAG
Oneens
Beetje mee Beetje mee
oneens
eens
Eens
ZET EEN RONDJE OM HET GOEDE ANTWOORD
Oneens
Beetje mee Beetje mee
oneens
eens
Eens
ZET EEN RONDJE OM HET GOEDE ANTWOORD
Oneens
Beetje mee Beetje mee
oneens
eens
Eens
71
41. MIJN MOEDER IS BETROKKEN BIJ MIJN
SCHOOLLEVEN
Ze helpt mij bij mijn huiswerk
Ze is overblijfmoeder
Ze is leesmoeder
Ze zit in de ouderraad (OR)
Ze zit in de medezeggenschaapsraad (MR)
ZET EEN RONDJE OM HET GOEDE ANTWOORD
Ja
Nee
Ja
Nee
Ja
Nee
Ja
Nee
Ja
Nee
Ja
Nee
Anders, namelijk: _____________________
42. MIJN VADER IS BETROKKEN BIJ MIJN SCHOOLLEVEN
Hij helpt mij bij mijn huiswerk
Hij is overblijfvader
Hij is leesvader
Hij zit in de ouderraad (OR)
Hij zit in de medezeggenschaapsraad (MR)
ZET EEN RONDJE OM HET GOEDE ANTWOORD
Ja
Nee
Ja
Nee
Ja
Nee
Ja
Nee
Ja
Nee
Ja
Nee
Anders, namelijk: _____________________
43. MIJN OUDERE BROERS EN /OF ZUSSEN ZIJN
BETROKKEN BIJ MIJN SCHOOLLEVEN ( ALS JE GEEN
OUDERE BROERS EN /OF ZUSSEN HEBT  GA DOOR NAAR
VRAAG 44!)
Zij helpen bij huiswerk
Zij helpen bij rapportavond
Zij helpen bij ophalen van school
ZET EEN RONDJE OM HET GOEDE ANTWOORD
Ja
Nee
Ja
Nee
Ja
Nee
Ja
Nee
Anders, namelijk: _____________________
72
44. IK MOET MIJN OUDERS VAAK UITLEGGEN WAT IK
DOE OP DE SCHOOL
ZET EEN RONDJE OM HET GOEDE ANTWOORD
Oneens
Beetje mee Beetje mee
oneens
eens
Eens
73