christine teelken, geert driessen & frederik smit (2005) ire frictions between formal education...

FRICTIONS BETWEEN FORMAL EDUCATION POLICY

AND ACTUAL SCHOOL CHOICE: CASE STUDIES IN AN

INTERNATIONAL COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE

CHRISTINE TEELKEN, GEERT DRIESSEN and FREDERIK SMIT

Abstract – This contribution is based on comparative case studies of secondaryschools in England, the Netherlands and Scotland. The authors conclude thatalthough opportunities for school choice are offered in a formal sense in each of thelocations studied, in certain cases choice is not particularly encouraged. In order toexplain this disparity between formal education policy and actual school choice, theyidentified seven areas of friction which determine school choice. This approachallowed a more detailed and accurate view of the operation of school choice on alocal, day-to-day basis. Active or passive discouragement of choice became apparentin factors such as availability of transport and information; bureaucratic procedures;strictly enforced admission criteria; and lack of educational diversity.

Zusammenfassung – UNGLEICHHEIT ZWISCHEN FORMALER POLITIKUND TATSACHLICHER SCHULWAHL: FALLSTUDIEN IN EINER INTER-NATIONAL VERGLEICHENDEN PERSPEKTIVE – Dieser Beitrag basiert aufvergleichenden Fallstudien weiterfuhrender Schulen in England, den Niederlandenund Schottland. Die Autoren kommen zu dem Schluss, dass, obwohl die Moglichkei-ten der Schulwahl im formalen Sinne an jedem der untersuchten Standorte angebotenwerden, in bestimmten Fallen die Wahl nicht in besonderer Weise unterstutzt wird.Um diese Ungleichheit zwischen formaler Bildungspolitik und tatsachlicher Schulwahlzu erklaren, haben sie sieben Faktoren identifiziert, welche die Schulwahl bestimmen.Dieser Zugang erlaubt eine detailliertere und genauere Sicht auf den Vorgang derSchulwahl auf ortlicher und taglicher Grundlage. Aktive oder passive Entmutigungbei der Wahl wurde bei Faktoren wie Transportmoglichkeit und Informationszugang,burokratischen Verfahren, streng angewandten Zulassungskriterien sowie Mangel anerzieherischer Mannigfaltigkeit deutlich.

Resume – DISPARITE ENTRE POLITIQUE FORMELLE ET CHOIX REELD’UNE ECOLE : ETUDES DE CAS DANS UNE PERSPECTIVE COMPARA-TIVE INTERNATIONALE – Cette contribution est basee sur des etudes compara-tives de cas d’ecoles secondaires en Angleterre, aux Pays-bas et en Ecosse. Lesauteurs en concluent que, bien que des opportunites pour le choix d’une ecole soientoffertes sur un plan formel dans chacun des emplacements etudies, dans certains casle choix n’est pas particulierement encourage. Afin d’expliquer cette disparite entre lapolitique formelle d’education et le choix reel d’une ecole, ils ont identifie sept fac-teurs qui determinent le choix d’une ecole. Cette approche a permis une vue plusdetaillee et plus juste de l’operation de choix d’une ecole sur une base locale, au jourle jour. Un decouragement actif ou passif du choix est apparu dans des facteurs com-me la disponibilite de transports et l’information ; les procedures bureaucratiques, lescriteres d’admission appliques strictement et le manque de diversite educative.

International Review of Education (2005) 51:35–58 � Springer 2005DOI 10.1007/s11159-005-0590-0

Resumen – DISPARIDAD ENTRE LA POLITICA FORMAL Y UNA VERDA-DERA ELECCION ESCOLAR: ESTUDIOS DE CASOS EN UNA PERSPECTI-VA COMPARATIVA INTERNACIONAL Esta contribucion esta basada enestudios de casos de escuelas secundarias realizados en Inglaterra, Paıses Bajos yEscocia. Los autores llegan a la conclusion de que, pese a que en un sentido formalen cada una de las regiones estudiadas existan las oportunidades de eleccion escolar,en ciertos casos esta eleccion no se fomenta en gran medida. Para explicar esta dis-paridad entre una polıtica de educacion formal y una verdadera eleccion escolar, losautores identificaron siete factores que determinan la eleccion escolar. Este enfoquepermitio echar una mirada mas detallada y precisa al funcionamiento de la eleccionescolar, sobre una base local y cotidiana. El desaliento activo y pasivo de la eleccionse hicieron evidentes en factores tales como disponibilidad de medios de transporte einformaciones, procedimientos burocraticos, criterios de admision sumamente severosy falta de diversidad en la oferta educativa.

Since 1980 the education systems of several European countries, as well asthe United States and New Zealand, have shown a tendency towards restruc-tured and deregulated state schooling, often related to greater parentalchoice. In general, this trend has been part of a greater drive to bring publicservices more in line with the private sector. This study attempts to bridgethe gap between the wider theoretical picture of international educationalreform and the actual experience of individual schools and their local choicesituations. It seeks to provide insight into differences between the nationalpolicy framework and the actual circumstances of choice as experienced byschools and students. The move from primary to secondary education isemphasised, as this is a crucial step in a child’s education.

The public debate on the desirability, fairness and consequences of choicehas been extensive and has received new impetus with the publication of pol-icy studies such as that by the Dutch Education Council (van Dyck 2001)undertaken at the request of the Dutch Secretary for Education. In Britain,social inclusion and exclusion in relation to schools has been a major issue

36 Christine Teelken, Geert Driessen and Frederik Smit

for the New Labour government (Whitty, Power and Halpin 1998; Whitty2001).

Some advocates of choice (Chubb and Moe 1990; Glenn 1989; Nathan1993; Raywid 1987) argue that choice and the quasi-market of educationoffer great benefits, especially for disadvantaged students. Critics (Whittyet al. 1998) suggest that such reforms actually increase inequality betweenschools. Tooley (1997) provides us with an overview of the different opin-ions: whether choice leads to inequalities and reinforces social division (Ball1993; Edwards and Whitty 1992; Gewirtz, Ball and Bowe 1993a, b, 1995;Ranson 1993; Walford 1994; Woods 1992), or whether we should see choiceas a way to improve educational opportunities (Holmes, DeSimone andRupp 2003; Lee, Croninger and Smith 1996). Whitty and Power (1997)reviewed the whole package of reforms introduced by the British governmentand are concerned about increased inequality in education provision result-ing from the commitment to market forces (see also Bagley 1996; Gillborn1997; Gorard, Taylor and Fitz 2002; Tomlinson 1997).

Conceptual framework and research method

After decades of discussion, the actual consequences of greater market influ-ence and choice are still undetermined. The general increase in inequality ineducation can partly be explained by a disparity between the formal avail-ability of choice and its actual availability on a day-to-day basis.

Bearing in mind the unclear role played by increased market forces ineducation systems, this study aims to analyze three fundamental factors inthe provision of local choice in education: the disparity between formal andactual choice situations; the presence of the market; and whether the marketleads to increased differences (i.e., unequal opportunity) or increased diver-sity in secondary education. Two distinct forms of diversity are involvedhere: educational diversity, by which we mean different educational philoso-phies, schooling programmes or actual educational content; and institutionaldiversity, by which we mean the different types of schools available, in termsof finance, foundation and governance. It can be argued that educationaldiversity prevents inequality in a school system since no single type of schoolsuits every student (Teelken 1998; Tenbusch and Garet 1993). However,Adnett and Davies (2000) demonstrated that competition between schoolsdoes not necessarily lead to greater diversity, but rather tends to leadto greater curricular conformity. Gorard (2000) concluded that patterns ofsegregation among local schools can at least partly be attributed to theorganisation of these schools and the way appeals are dealt with.

This study puts forward the view that the disparity between formal andactual choice opportunities can explain unintended consequences of makingschool choice. There is always some inconsistency between formal policygoals and their execution. However, by comparing local choice situations

37Formal policy and actual school choice

from an international perspective, it is possible to expose a considerabledegree of inconsistency. Generally, the central and local authorities approveof school choice in theory, but in the actual functioning of choice on a day-to-day basis a different attitude is revealed.

The market can act as a good coordinating mechanism in education; itallows diversity, creativity and new experiments in education (Teelken 1999).Constraints on the functioning of the market mechanism have a muchgreater impact on the school system than formal policy statements. The gapsidentified between policy and practice help us to find a clearer picture ofhow choice actually functions.

This study compares different contexts of choice in the Netherlands,England and Scotland. The Netherlands has always offered a large measureof school choice, since catchment areas for secondary schools were neverofficially established. In the final year of primary school, pupils choosebetween the available secondary schools. In England and Scotland, schoolchoice has historically been more restricted, but opportunities have beenincreasing over the last decade. Choice is made possible by means of placingrequests and, increasingly, by open enrolment. However, the Scottish schoolsystem is arguably more uniform than most other school systems in Europe(Echols, McPherson and Willms 1990).

In order to investigate and compare the availability of choice in the Neth-erlands, England and Scotland, three variables were identified.

1. Demand for choice, that is, whether choice is actually provided in terms ofinformation and transport.

2. Supply of choice, that is, the encouragement of choice, including formalpolicy in relation to choice and the degree of diversity in secondary educa-tion.

3. The regulative structure of choice, which includes school autonomy. Dis-tinction can be made between financial and administrative autonomy.

These three variables can be used to investigate the disparity between theformal availability of choice and its actual operation on the ground. Withinthe variable demand for choice, distinctions are most clearly visible in theprovision of information and transport, since these factors influence abilityto choose an alternative to a designated school. For the variable supply ofchoice, we look at the opportunities to choose in terms of the availability ofa diverse supply of schools and the accessibility of these schools. It is likelythat less-educated, informed or assertive parents will not use their right tochoose, as the bureaucratic procedures may seem inaccessible. Within thecategory regulative structure of choice, we look at the extent to which schoolshave the autonomy to respond to the wishes and expectations of parents(i.e., their financial and administrative autonomy), as this determines thefunctioning of the educational market mechanism. We present our findingswith reference to these three variables, but also in terms of seven basic areas


Table

1.Areasoffrictionin

threecategories

ofvariables

Term

ofanalysis

Description

ADem

andforchoice

1Facilitationofchoice

1aAvailabilityoftransport

Theextentto

whichtransport

orcoverageoftransport

costsisavailable

tostudents

fortravellingto

designatedandnon-designatedschools

1bAvailabilityofinform

ation

Theamountofgeneralandoutcome-basedinform

ationaboutschoolsandabout

theschoolchoiceprocess

available

tocurrentandpotentialstudents

andtheirparents

BSupply

ofchoice

2Diversity

ofsupply,includinginvolvem

ent

intheeducationalcurriculum

Varietyofeducationalprovision(educationaldiversity)andthedifferentadministrative

types

ofschoolsavailable

(institutionaldiversity)

3Form

alopportunitiesforschoolchoice

Theactualopportunityto

choose

betweendifferentschools

4Admissioncriteria

forstudents

Absolute

criteria

referto

certain

criteria

students

haveto

fulfilin

order

toenterthe

school,in

term

sofcatchmentareaoracadem

icability.Relativecriteria

apply

only

ifthereare

more

applicationsthanplacesavailable

ataschool

CRegulativestructure

ofchoice

5Financialautonomy

Adistinctioncanbemadebetweenthefinancialbasisandthemethodoffunding

6Administrativeautonomy

Thedegreeofautonomyexperiencedbytheindividualschools


of friction in the operation of school choice. Table 1 provides an overview ofour analytical model.

Statistical generalisation is not possible in a case study, and that is not itspurpose. What is important is whether and to what extent findings can beused to support a valid general theory. When generalising to a theory, pre-dictions are first made on the basis of theory and then confirmation for thesepredictions is sought. The local choice situations – geographical areas with anumber of primary and secondary schools – were selected so as to allow forgeneralisation. Each of the areas chosen is one of high population density.This ensures a choice between two or more secondary schools within a rea-sonable distance. The local choice situations (the unit of analysis) do nothave to be representative of their country, but are merely examples of a typi-cal choice situation in either country. The internal and construct validitywere improved using the following statistical devices: standardisation ofinterviews (to avoid contamination); systematic data analysis (to avoidbiased viewpoints); and the use of categories of differences.

In order to ensure comparability between the schools studied, three sec-ondary schools providing a similar educational curriculum were selectedwithin each of the local choice situations. In each of the countries, themost common types of school were chosen. In the Netherlands, the threesecondary schools selected all had a MAVO-HAVO-VWO curriculum (juniorgeneral-secondary education, senior general-secondary education andpre-university education). In England and Scotland, mixed comprehensivestate schools were selected, with similar educational provision. Table 2outlines some general characteristics of the schools included in the study.The codes introduced in this table (E-1, Sc-2 etc.) are used throughout thetext to refer to the specific schools.

The case studies were conducted by means of semi-structured interviewswith stakeholders from the local authorities and the three schools, includingschool principals and members of the school board; a questionnaire given toa sample of first-year students; and analysis of documents produced by theschools and the local authorities.

These case studies were carried out in 1996 and 1997. More recent litera-ture and documents have also been used. Each of the three local choice situ-ations is described briefly within its national choice context, and aninternational comparison between the three local situations is presented foreach of the seven areas of friction.

Three cases: An international comparison

The Netherlands: School choice in Rotterdam

The situation in Rotterdam is a typical example of how school choice oper-ates in the Netherlands. There is freedom of school choice, no catchment


Table

2.Thecase-studyschools

Code

Generalcharacteristics

Number

ofinterviews

Number

ofstudents

Number

offeeder

primary

schools

TheNetherlands:Rotterdam

Localgovernment

1Nl-1

Publicschool(offeringGreek

andLatin),relatively

highparentalcontribution,middle-class

intake,

many

extracurricularactivities

31500

80–90

Nl-2

Publicschool(offeringEnglish

stream

andbilingualVWO),

highpercentageethnic

minority

students

21200

70–75

Nl-3

Private,Protestantschool,highpercentageofethnic

minority

students,caters

forstudents

withspecialneeds

2750

45–50

England:Nottingham

Localrepresentatives

2E-1

Communityschool(offeringA-levels),goodfacilities,

middle-class

area

31173

6

E-2

Communityschool(offeringA-levels),form

edbymerger

withgrammarschool,goodreputation,traditional

focusondiscipline,

oversubscribed

11357

4

E-3

Foundationschool,teaches

upto

GCSE,form

edbymerger

betweenboys’andgirls’school

2562

2

Scotland:Dundee

Representatives

ofEducationAuthority

2Sc-1

EA

school,deprived

neighbourhood,receives

extra

funding,new

principalattem

ptingto

improve

quality

ofeducation

2611

3(+

2)*

Sc-2

EA

school(R

omanCatholic),provides

religiouseducation

2736

4(+

10)*

Sc-3

EA

school(w

ithaspecialunit),hasseen

an

increase

insize

dueto

being‘secondchoice’

toavery

popularoversubscribed

school

1889

3(+

7)*

Totalnumber

ofinterviews

23

*Thefirstnumber

refers

totheofficialfeeder

primaries,thenumber

inbracketsrefers

toadditionalprimary

schoolsfrom

whichplacing

requests

havebeenmadein

thepast.


areas and a wide diversity of secondary schools. Public and denominationalschools receive equivalent central funding (Driessen and van der Slik 2001).All schools are allowed to request a reasonable, voluntary parental contribu-tion for extra activities. Rotterdam is the largest city in the Netherlands(600,000 inhabitants). It is an industrial city with a high percentage of ethnicminorities. Furthermore, all Dutch religious denominations have schoolsthere.

Public education in Rotterdam was given new impetus when the ultimateresponsibility for schools was given to school management. One of the aimsof this reform was to improve the transition from primary to secondary edu-cation. This initiative was linked to central government policies to improveeducation, but its ‘businesslike’ approach was unique. Schools for secondaryeducation were viewed as medium-sized companies with consumers expectinga high-quality product. This suggested a shift from a collective idea of publiceducation towards the idea that every school is unique and independent.Denominational schools (publicly funded and privately managed) in Rotter-dam were not given as much encouragement to raise their profiles as werepublic schools. However, both public and denominational schools experi-enced a similar policy shift from central government towards more financialand administrative autonomy.

England: School choice in Nottingham

Nottingham is a large city in the East Midlands of England with 280,000inhabitants. The Local Education Authority (LEA) assigns students toschools on the basis of catchment areas and uses a feeder system of primaryschools. Despite this highly controlled form of allocation, school choice hasbeen formally promoted by a succession of Education Acts (1988, 1992,1993), and schools are financed on a per-student basis. The feeder systemmeans that several primary schools are affiliated to one secondary schooland the combined catchment areas of the primary schools form the totalcatchment area of the secondary school. This choice situation is certainly notthe most common for England as a whole, since only 25% of researchedcommunity schools still use this form of student allocation (White, Gorard,Fitz and Taylor 2001).

Admission to community schools and voluntary-run schools is adminis-tered by the local Area Education Office. Community and voluntary-runschools have a catchment area defined geographically or by their contribu-tory feeder schools. The 1994 Nottinghamshire County Council brochure(NCC 1994) states that attending a local school is attractive because‘‘most parents wish their child to attend a school as near to their homeas possible’’. Furthermore, a place is reserved and consequently guaran-teed at the appropriate school for children living in the catchment area orfor children attending a feeder school. This school is known as the desig-nated school.


If parents wish their child to attend a school other than that designated,they are asked to complete a preference form requesting a place at an alter-native school. This form must be submitted 9 months in advance. Prefer-ences are normally approved if places at the requested school are available.If more placing requests are received than there are places available, a list ofcriteria is applied to establish an order of priority. In the event of refusal,the Area Education Officer provides information about how to make anappeal or suggests alternative schools.

The Local Education Authority believes that the feeder system guaranteescertainty for parents and students as well as schools; that it allows studentsto stay together with their friends; and that it is convenient for parents, as itkeeps travelling distances short, which is safe and cheap. The LEA represen-tative we interviewed explained that generally only very mobile familiesdesire anything other than their designated school (see also Gewirtz et al.,1995).

In Nottingham, there does not seem to be a great deal of school choice.However, some recent developments, such as a White Paper entitled ‘‘Choiceand Diversity’’ and the increased powers of the governing bodies may pro-mote choice.

Scotland: School choice in Dundee

The school choice situation in Dundee is not substantially different from thatin any other city in Scotland. Dundee, situated on the east coast in the Tay-side Region, is the fourth largest city in Scotland (150,000 inhabitants). Twotypes of catchment areas exist: one for non-denominational schools and onefor Roman Catholic schools.

A lot has been written about the distinctiveness of the Scottish educationsystem, which is regarded as fundamental to Scottish culture. The system isfounded on democratic and egalitarian values. Compared to England, choiceis less widely exercised. Generally, the links between secondary and primaryfeeder schools are even stronger (Campbell 2000).

Parents receive information about the designated school for their child.The principal of their future secondary school is automatically informed ofthe student’s progress in order to arrange suitable courses. However, placingrequests to alternative schools are seldom refused, and if so only because thedesired school is oversubscribed. Parents can then opt to put their child on awaiting list or to lodge an appeal. The Education Authority may also suggestan alternative school.

Based on our interview with the responsible officer at the EducationAuthority in Dundee, it became clear that although parental right to chooseis recognised, local policies encourage parents to send their children to theschool that serves their local community. Sometimes the Education Author-ity facilitates choice without the need for placing requests by assigning morethan one school to a catchment area. The intention in doing so is to limit


the number of placing requests and thereby protect schools that are becom-ing smaller.

Most Dundee schools’ maximum intake is never achieved because theircapacity is based on the demographic situation in the 1970s. The birth ratein Dundee has been decreasing since then. Consequently, most schools areundersubscribed in a formal sense. In some cases, undersubscription can leadto closure of schools, but this is strongly opposed politically.

Seven areas of friction

Seven areas of friction were chosen for this study to expose the gaps betweenformal policy regarding school choice and how school choice actually oper-ates at local level. These gaps may explain why choice under some conditionsleads to increased inequalities between schools. For each of these seven, thelocal choice situations are discussed within the framework of the nationalchoice system and in an international comparative perspective.

Availability of transport

No system of organised transport to secondary schools exists in the Nether-lands. Students walk, cycle or travel by public transport. By contrast, theEnglish Local Education Authority provides transport to designated schoolsif the travelling distance exceeds a certain number of miles. For example, freetravel in the form of a travel pass is offered to students in Nottingham iftheir designated school is situated more than three miles away from theirhome. Some assistance may be provided if the distance is less than threemiles. However, attending a non-designated school affects the student’s enti-tlement to travel assistance. In Scotland, parents have to arrange their owntransport if they choose a non-designated school. Therefore, when making aplacing request in Dundee, parents are expected to be aware that they willbe responsible for transport.

International comparisonA sample of first-year students in the nine case-study schools were asked tofill in a questionnaire regarding their means of transport. The resultsrevealed significant differences between the three cities. In Rotterdam nearlyall students travelled by themselves, most often by bicycle (42%) or publictransport (38%). In Nottingham the involvement of the Local EducationAuthority was substantial (65% travelled by school bus). In Dundee moststudents walked to school (59%).

Transport arrangements to secondary schools are absent in the Nether-lands, while in England and Scotland transport arrangements are quitegenerous, at least as far as designated schools are concerned. If parents optfor a non-designated school, they may be offered only the cost of transport


to their originally designated school or no assistance with transport at all.This implies that the local authorities do not encourage choice.

Availability of information

The local choice situation in Rotterdam conformed to the general practice inthe Netherlands of providing comprehensive information to students andparents. Schools increasingly emphasise their individual features. What wasunique to Rotterdam compared to the rest of the Netherlands was that all ofthe schools – public as well as denominational – advertised themselves in acollective brochure. The schools used the collective brochure to present theirunique profiles. Both of the public schools included in this study were tryingto maintain their intake quality either by targeting students from privatenon-denominational primary schools and public Montessori and Jena Planschools (Nl-1) or by offering bilingual VWO (pre-university curriculum) andan English stream (Nl-2). A further aid to choice is the availability since1997 of exam results through the website of the Ministry of Education andthe official Guide to Choice in Secondary Education (Agerbeek 1999).

In Nottingham, the local authorities produced general information aboutschool admissions. The content of the prospectuses was standardised andemphasised general, practical information about the school rather than itsactual character and profile. Schools organised open evenings and sent outseparate invitations to primary schools. Word of mouth was an importantsource of information for parents, and the reputation of a school was veryimportant. The brochures appeared to have had little effect.

The Parents’ Charter in Scotland (SOED 1995) states that parents have aright to information about education and schools in their area. Informationprovision to parents by Scottish schools has increased, but it is still tightlycontrolled and only limited information is available. In Dundee, no generalinformation about schools is provided to parents, except for a basic guide.Parents must ask for prospectuses from individual schools on their own ini-tiative. The three Scottish schools sent out brochures to the feeder schools inJanuary as they are obliged to do under the Parents’ Charter. Furthermore,the school principals visited their feeder schools and organised open eveningsfor the final year classes. However, most information on schools tended tostem from reputation and word-of-mouth transmission. Advertising isallowed but is rarely used, since it tends to be seen as an attempt to poachstudents.

League tables are available to the public in all three countries. These tablesare provided by the local or central government and show the exam results ofall public schools. As the principal of school Sc-1 explained, their only pur-pose could be to enable comparisons over a few years. The scores reflect thenature of the local catchment area much more than the actual quality of theschool. Improvements in the league table say more about a school’s ability toattract better students than about the motivation of students and staff. High


scores in the league table can give a school a false sense of security. The pro-vision of such information is a contentious issue, but only a small minority ofparents seem take it seriously into account (Sc-1).

International comparisonIn Rotterdam, the local authority actively encouraged the provision of infor-mation to potential students and parents; in Nottingham there was no suchencouragement; while in Dundee, sending information to non-feeder schoolswas even seen as a threat to other secondary schools. Information provisionin Rotterdam, in the form of a brochure in which every school publicisesitself, aimed to inform students and parents about the individual identities ofthe schools, thereby stimulating a deliberate choice based on educationaldiversity. In Nottingham and Dundee, collective publication of informationwas limited to outcome-based results, such as league tables. If parentswanted to obtain information about non-designated secondary schools, theyhad to contact the school directly.

Diversity of supply

In Rotterdam, there is a high degree of diversity among schools which con-tinues to increase. Diversity used to take the form of institutional diversitybetween schools, based on religion and denomination, but it is now increas-ingly based on deliberately emphasised differences in character. Schools Nl-1and Nl-2 have been motivated to actively develop distinct profiles. SchoolNl-3 explained that it has a reputation as a neighbourhood school. Nl-3 pro-vided longer school days because the first and second-year students do theirhomework at school. This approach is especially attractive for students whocan expect little support at home.

In Nottingham, as in the rest of England, legislation has facilitated theformation of new types of schools. As well as community schools, there havealways been voluntary-run and voluntary-aided schools. Despite the appear-ance of two new types of schools (Community Technical Colleges and Foun-dation Schools), there was no evidence of increased educational diversity.The first explanation for the lack of significant increase in educational diver-sity is that government policies only target institutional diversity, in particu-lar by encouraging schools to opt out of LEA control. It seemed as if theschools in Nottingham simply imitated traditional ‘academic’ features andall aimed at having similar reputations. This development seems to bear outWalford’s worry that ‘‘any diversity between schools inevitably becomes ahierarchy’’ (Walford 1997: 167). A second explanation for the lack of diver-sity is that schools do not opt out of the LEA for educational reasons, butfor financial reasons, as did school E-3 in Nottingham. Its foundation statuswas unlikely to have influenced the choice of students and parents. All threeschools in Nottingham, including the foundation school, followed the


national curriculum, and saw it as a beneficial framework, not least becausethe national assessment enables publication of results in the league tables.

Dundee had a very uniform system of schools. Even the Roman Catholicschools were completely incorporated into the state system. Diversitybetween schools was and remains small because of the reorganisation into acomprehensive system, the failure of self-governing schools and the introduc-tion of the national guidelines (1989) which, although voluntary, have led tovirtually uniform curricula. The schools are under a common system ofnational examinations, since there is one central exam for the whole of Scot-land. Some of the Scottish respondents feared that the lack of educationaldiversity led to an emphasis on other differences between schools, such associal differences and differences of reputation.

International comparisonFrom a comparison of the three local-choice situations, it can be concludedthat the diversity between schools in Rotterdam was mainly a matter ofeducational diversity, with institutional diversity much less important. InNottingham, however, a clear gap existed between an institutional diversityencouraged by government policy and a lack of educational diversity experi-enced by students and parents. There was hardly any educational or institu-tional diversity in Dundee.

Formal opportunities for school choice

In the Netherlands, formal opportunities for school choice have always beenconsiderable because of the lack of geographical barriers between schools.Everybody has had to choose. In Rotterdam, there were a large number ofdifferent schools to choose from. Because their intake is uncertain, theschools in Rotterdam put a lot of effort into making pupils at primaryschools aware of the range of secondary schools available in the city.

There was a certain amount of formal choice available in England, butthe actual opportunities for choosing a school were limited. The marketmechanism of parental choice could lead to the closure of certain schools,and this was one of the arguments leading to the introduction of choice.

The feeder system in Nottingham involved strict Local Education Author-ity guidelines for admission. Students were enrolled in the schools in the fol-lowing order: firstly students from the primary feeder schools, then siblingsfrom within the catchment area, then students from voluntary-aided primaryschool, then siblings from outside of the catchment area, and finally studentswith special needs. Exceptions were made for children who had recentlymoved into the area and did not have a designated school.

If placing requests were refused, parents and students could lodge anappeal. However, the appeal hearings did not take place until August, justbefore the school term begins. In most cases parents would rather accept a


place at another school than wait for the hearings. A common reason forgoing to appeal was that students had siblings at the school but lived outsidethe catchment area. Occasionally, parents even lied about their address inorder to get a place at a school.

In Scotland, although legislation has increased opportunities for choice, ithas not met with any great enthusiasm. As the Parents’ Charter in Scotlandstates, ‘‘your rights for your child are a choice of school within certain limits’’(SOED 1995). Approximately 13% of children graduating from primary tosecondary school made this choice in 2000/2001 by means of a placingrequest, which means that they chose to attend a different school from theone to which they were assigned. Adler (1997) indicated that the proportionof all placing requests granted gradually decreased to 84.8% in 2001/2002(SOED 2002). For entrance to secondary school in 1990/1991, 8,867 placingrequests were received, of which 87.5% were granted. This had fallen to76.2% (11,051) by 2001/2002. Ninety percent of the refusals for placingrequests were based on student number constraints (SOED 2002).

The representative of the Education Authority whom we interviewed inDundee made it clear that choice is not encouraged. He acknowledged thatparents should have a right to choose education like any other service. How-ever, the Education Authority thought that parents should, as far as possi-ble, send their children to a local school in order to maintain a sense ofcommunity. It was argued that, if parents choose, it is for a better school, abetter area or a better environment; and this could lead to the accidentaland indirect creation of magnet schools. In Dundee, formal availability ofchoice was accompanied by overcapacity in most of the schools, whichmeans that placing requests were often granted.

International comparisonBecause there was already a great deal of choice available in Rotterdam, therehave been few recent policy changes with regard to school choice. The greatestchange has been in the ever-growing level of educational diversity betweenschools. In Nottingham as well as Dundee, choice was not particularlyencouraged. The arrangements set up by the local authorities were so compli-cated that parents were de facto discouraged from exercising their rights.

Local representatives in particular were eager to emphasise the disadvan-tages of choice. The Educational Authority in Dundee feared the creation ofmagnet schools and subsequent increased differences between schools – whatone representative called the ‘‘antithesis of comprehensive education’’.Although the English and Scottish school principals were not as negativeabout choice as the local representatives were, they did not actively promoteit. It became clear in Nottingham and Dundee that choice was neitherencouraged nor appreciated; it was merely tolerated since it had legislativeapproval. As local authorities could refuse placing requests on the basis ofstaff or accommodation constraints, gaining entry to a popular school wasoften very difficult.


Admission criteria for students

The schools in Rotterdam applied absolute admission criteria in terms ofacademic ability. The individual schools dealt with student admissions. Thethree schools studied reported that they only admitted students with the min-imum academic requirement. Denominational schools are allowed to admitstudents on an ideological basis, although the Protestant school Nl-3 neverused that opportunity. As a result, only about 10% of the students wereProtestant. Relative admission criteria were only used when schools werefaced with oversubscription. These rarely played a role in Rotterdam. Theschools worked on a first-come, first-served basis.

The schools in Nottingham applied relative admission criteria. The stateschools were not allowed to select on ability; they had to accept studentsacross the whole ability spectrum, including students with special needs. Therelative admission criteria had a great impact on the choice situation in Not-tingham, because the popular schools were all full and were hard to get into.Because school E2 was full, it knew exactly how many students to expect.On the other hand, the other two schools were undersubscribed. This meantthat they had to accept students from other areas and did not know inadvance how many students to expect. The financial resources of the threeschools were based on their student numbers. This led to increased differ-ences between over- and undersubscribed schools.

In Dundee, relative admission criteria were more relevant than absolutecriteria, depending on the number of students applying to the school. How-ever, there was overcapacity in the school system as a whole, because thepopulation has been falling since the 1970s. Only one school was very popu-lar and relative admission criteria (in terms of feeder primary school andcatchment area) applied to this school. The schools investigated all had spareplaces, and so the admission criteria were largely irrelevant.

International comparisonIn Rotterdam, the absolute admission criteria were more important than therelative criteria, while in Nottingham the situation was exactly the opposite.Although the relative criteria in Nottingham seemed less severe, they couldhave serious consequences in terms of the amount of choice available. Theywere the most common criteria used for refusing a placing request. Theschools researched in Dundee did not use their admission criteria becausethey were undersubscribed.

Financial autonomy

The schools in Rotterdam have experienced a growing degree of financialautonomy, but this has not always been as beneficial as it might seembecause some budgets were determined at a non-school level (in the case ofpublic schools this was by the local authority). The public schools (Nl-1 and


Nl-2) felt that private schools were financially advantaged because they hadmore opportunities to select students and could request higher parental con-tributions. High parental contributions could also function as a selectionmechanism. The private school Nl-3 argued that it was not better off finan-cially than the public schools. It did not select on an ideological or financialbasis, and the spending of parental contributions had to be fully itemised. Ifparents could not afford the contribution, students were admitted at no cost.The schools explained that although their financial scope has increased in aformal sense, the actual amount of money available has not.

The English schools remain completely state-funded, while the method offunding, like the voucher system in the United States, is increasingly student-based. The local authority finances schools on a per-student basis, andschools receive little extra funding. The schools explained that accountantshave handled their increased financial responsibilities since the introductionof Local Management of Schools (LMS) in 1988. According to the principalof school E-1, ‘‘it is like running a medium-sized business.’’ Gaining controlover its own budget since opting out of Local Education Authority controlhas enabled school E-3 to do many things that it could otherwise never havedone, such as reducing vandalism, renovating the school buildings andimproving its information technology infrastructure.

Since the funding of schools tended to be based on student numbers andage, the schools realised the importance of student numbers and of appealingto parents. However, that did not only have benefits. Side effects included astronger emphasis on exam results, discipline, and the increased popularityof school uniforms. These are issues perceived as desirable by parents,according to the schools. The Local Education Authority said it was not infavour of the ‘marketisation’ of education, because education was somethingto be experienced, not something to be bought as a consumer. As the repre-sentative said, ‘‘education should be local’’. He feared a shift from commu-nity values to individualistic behaviour with negative consequences foreducation.

The main financial issue in Scotland was the introduction of DevolvedSchool Management (DSM). DSM provided financial autonomy, but onlyin certain restricted areas. The Education Authority in Dundee did not seea relationship between DSM and placing requests because schools werenot supposed to increase their student numbers at the expense of otherschools. The Education Authority was very supportive of DSM inasmuchas it enabled schools to make their own decisions. In Dundee, DSM wasphased in between 1993 and 1997. The regions were obliged to identify thedifferent categories of expenditure and to determine, in consultation withthe school board, which decisions were specific to the individual schooland could be taken by the school principal. The Scottish Office stipulatedthat at least 80% of the budget should be devolved to the school principalor the school boards. The Tayside region only devolved material costs, notstaffing costs.


International comparisonIn all three cities, the schools studied were gaining financial autonomy. InNottingham and Dundee, there was not much evidence that this autonomywas being used to offer the students more diverse options for choice or todevelop stronger individual school profiles. Popular, oversubscribed schoolsfelt no such encouragement at all, as confirmed by the study of Adnett andDavies (2000). In Rotterdam, some increase in differences between schoolswas expected because of the increased financial autonomy, while in Notting-ham there was no such expectation. In Dundee, the consequences wereexpected to be limited.

Administrative autonomy

The schools in Rotterdam were given more administrative autonomybetween 1992 and 1996. The local authority in Rotterdam intended to pro-vide a framework within which the individual schools could develop theirown policies in terms of curriculum, finance, staff development and assign-ment of tasks to different members of staff. In general, the schools admittedthat the increase in autonomy had been limited and sometimes merely cos-metic. Because of the close link between increased autonomy and tighterfinancial restraints, schools experienced some types of regulations as restric-tive.

Nevertheless, the public schools (Nl-1 and Nl-2) have been activelyencouraged by their local authority to emphasise their individual identities.There have been some adjustments between schools which have led to thedevelopment of a very interesting range of schools in Rotterdam. The privateschool Nl-3 was governed by a very large regional school board. This schoolhas not experienced the same level of encouragement. A future merging witha VBO-MAVO (junior secondary-vocational and general curricula) schoolwill probably lead to a lower intake level, both in terms of student numbersand their academic ability.

Like Rotterdam, Nottingham’s schools have also obtained more auton-omy under Local Management of Schools or by adopting Grant Mainte-nance (GM). This increased autonomy has largely been obtained at theexpense of the local authority. Although LMS was criticised heavily, theschool principals enjoyed its advantages.

School E-1 explained that under LMS budgets go directly to the school,which made ‘juggling’ with financial resources possible. This involved moreresponsibilities for the school board of governors because the number ofitems on the agenda increased enormously. The school deliberately keptadministrative tasks from teachers and hired an accountant for financialmatters. This allowed the school principal to set the broad outline and todelegate certain tasks in order to have time for actual educational manage-ment (E-1). School E-2 used the greater autonomy to turn offices into class-


rooms or to get pre-fabricated classrooms, and to provide for the growingnumber of students.

School E-3 opted out of LEA control, because, in their experience, theLEA formula involved a decreasing budget; they felt that LEA interferencehampered them in acting against vandalism and violent students. This madethe school ripe for GM (grant-maintained) management, although theNottingham Local Education Authority was opposed to this. Under GM,the school was able to reduce vandalism and take care of its own repairs.

The three most important administrative changes in Scottish educationwere Devolved School Management, legislation for schools to becomeself-governing, and the reorganisation of the regional authorities into unitaryauthorities. These authorities replaced the former regions and districts.Self-governing legislation to create the Scottish equivalent of the foundationschools never gained support in the country and was dropped in 2000.

According to school Sc-1, government reorganisation of the local authori-ties in Dundee could lead to a change in the catchment areas and even topressures to close one or more schools. While this overcapacity makes for agreater range of choice, closure of schools is very unpopular with parents.

International comparisonThe schools in Rotterdam were encouraged by local policies to stress theirdistinctive features. Their increased autonomy led to greater diversity. Gener-ally, each school developed a different culture and ethos, or even an entirelydifferent profile, as in the case of the international schools. With theirincreased autonomy and the introduction of student-based funding, schoolsbecame more dependent on a stable student intake.

As a result of their increased autonomy, thanks to LMS and GM legisla-tion, the schools in Nottingham were able to use their financial resources totheir best advantage. In particular, the introduction of GM legislationincreased institutional diversity between schools. There were no signs, how-ever, of any increase in educational diversity.

The schools in Dundee believed that new legislation brought greaterautonomy for them. In the words of the principal of school SC-3: ‘‘How youactually organise it as a school is your own business, provided you do notexceed the total number of staff.’’ There was greater organisational auton-omy, as long as they kept to the general rules such as the minimal curricu-lum guidelines. Autonomy remained within limits, because staffing still tookup most of the budget.

All three local choice situations reflect an increase in autonomy for indi-vidual schools. Generally, the schools seemed to appreciate this freedom tomake decisions outside the power of the local authority. In the cases of theschools studied in Nottingham and Dundee, there was little evidence thatthey were trying harder to attract more students or certain groups ofstudents, or that the actual opportunities for choice were becoming moreelaborate.


Conclusion

The seven areas of friction examined in this study allowed us a more detailedview of the functioning of choice. In cases where choice generally seemed tobe favoured, splitting the characteristics of choice into separate items servedto clarify whether legislative changes have truly encouraged choice betweenschools. In Table 3 presents a summary of our findings.

There have always been extensive opportunities for school choice inRotterdam. These opportunities have not increased in recent years in aformal sense, but the availability of a diverse supply of schools, stimulatedby greater financial and administrative autonomy, has made the choice morevaried. However, popular schools do fill up quickly and this limits the avail-ability of choice.

In Nottingham and Dundee, opportunities for school choice have increasedin a formal sense. Although choice has been formally encouraged at nationallevel, opportunities to exercise choice have not improved much at local level,nor have they been encouraged by the local authorities. This is evidenced bythe nature of availability of transport and information and by the bureaucraticprocedures parents have to go through to choose a non-designated school.Furthermore, the local representatives were eager to point out the disadvan-tages of choice. Other barriers included a lack of educational diversity amongschools and, especially in Nottingham, the quite strictly enforced admissioncriteria in place to prevent schools from growing, which made it almost impos-sible for students from outside a catchment area to enter a popular school. InDundee, placing requests to nearly any school will be granted, as most schoolsare undersubscribed. This provides us with an interesting example of the com-plexity of the gap between formal and actual choice. Although choice in Dun-dee is possible in a formal sense as established at national level, it is notparticularly encouraged at local level. The actual situation enables choicebetween an extensive, but not very diverse, supply of schools.

The three local choice situations provide further insight into the waychoice is exercised on a daily basis. The question as to whether or notinequalities and social divisions between schools have increased remainsunanswered (Chubb and Moe 1990; Whitty et al. 1998). Although parents’and students’ choices are primarily influenced by the likely consequences ofthose choices, the present contribution shows that the actual opportunitiesfor choice, that is, the diversity and accessibility of educational supply, alsoplay a major role. It has been argued that a certain amount of educationaldiversity can prevent increased segregation between schools (Tenbusch andGaret 1993). From the way choice is actually exercised in the Netherlands,England and Scotland, it has become apparent that, in some cases, a hierar-chy of schools may be created, even though this was not the initial intentionof the central and local educational policies.

It should be noted that the topics of concentration and segregation of eth-nic minority students have not explicitly been dealt with in this study. In the


Table

3.Factors

affectingschoolchoicein

thecomparativecase

studies*

Areaoffriction

1aAvailabilityoftransport

R:noorganised

transport

N&

D:notransport

arrangem

ents

tonon-designatedschools

1bAvailabilityofinform

ation

R:increase

inoutput-basedinform

ation

NandD:availabilityofinform

ationaboutnon-designatedschoolslimited

2Diversity

ofsupply

R:extensiveeducationaldiversity

NandD:little

increase

inchoicebetweeneducationallydiverse

schools

3Form

alopportunitiesforschool

choice

R:students

are

obliged

tochoose

NandD:little

encouragem

entto

exercise

choice

4Admissioncriteria

forstudents

R:admissioncriteria

playalimited

role

NandD:relativeadmissioncriteria

prohibittheactualexercise

ofchoice

5Financialautonomy

R:someincrease

infinancialautonomy

NandD:increasedfinancialautonomy,em

phasisonmaterialbudgets

6Administrativeautonomy

R:stressingofdistinctivefeatures

N:schoolsenjoybeingmore

autonomousfrom

theirlocalgovernment,butdonotuse

this

autonomyforanymore

specificprofilingorencouragingchoice

D:few

consequences.

*R

=Rotterdam,N

=Nottingham,D

=Dundee.


Netherlands, a fierce political discussion regarding the abolishment of educa-tional freedom is currently taking place in order to prevent segregation. Thisdiscussion includes limitation of the freedom of choice. For future researchconcerning school choice, the addition of an ethnic component should beconsidered.

Diversity and accessibility are currently even more relevant, for example,when discussing whether the recently established Islamic schools represent awelcome addition to educational diversity or an undesirable concentration ofdisadvantaged students (Parker-Jenkins and Hartas 2002). In a broader con-text, the actual constraints of the educational market may harm weakergroups of students. That this is so may help us understand why a certainlevel of institutional involvement in education remains relevant: to sustainthe provision of choice and education on an egalitarian basis in order toeducate every child to the best of his or her potential.

References

Adnett, Nick, and Peter Davies. 2000. Competition and Curriculum Diversity inLocal Schooling Markets: Theory and Evidence. Journal of Education Policy 15(2):157–167.

Adler, Mike. 1997. Looking Backwards to the Future: Parental Choice and Educa-tion Policy. British Education Research 23(3): 297–313.

Agerbeek, Marjan. 1999. Keuzegids Middelbare Scholen. Kiezen voor Kwaliteit [Guideto middle schools. Quality indicators]. Zeist: Uitgeverij Kerckebosch.

Bagley, Chris. 1996. Black and White Unite or Flight? The Racialised Dimension ofSchooling and Parental Choice. British Educational Research Journal 22(5): 569–580.

Ball, Stephen. 1993. Education Markets, Choice and Social Class: The Market as aClass Strategy in the UK and the USA. British Journal of Sociology of Education14(1): 3–19.

Campbell, Carol. 2000. An Analysis of a ‘‘Scottish Dimension’’ in the Developmentof School-based Management. Scottish Educational Review 32(1): 4–20.

Chubb, John, and Tom Moe. 1990. Politics, Markets and America’s Schools. Wash-ington, DC: Brookings.

Driessen, Geert, and Frans van der Slik. 2001. Religion, Denomination, and Educa-tion in the Netherlands: Cognitive and Noncognitive Outcomes after an Era of Secu-larisation. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 40(4): 561–572.

Echols, Frank, and J. Douglas Willms. 1993. Scottish Parents and Reasons for SchoolChoice. Vancouver: University of British Columbia.

Echols, Frank, Andrew McPherson, and J. Douglas Willms. 1990. Parental Choice inScotland. Journal of Education Policy 5(3): 207–222.

Edwards, Tony, and Geoff Whitty. 1992. Parental Choice and Educational Reform inBritain and the United States. British Journal of Educational Studies 40(2): 101–117.

Gewirtz, Sharon, Stephen Ball, and Richard Bowe. 1993a. Parents, Privilege and theEducational Market-place. Research Papers in Education 9(1): 3–29.


———. 1993b. Values and Ethics in the Education Market Place: The Case of North-wark Park. International Studies in Sociology of Education 3(2): 233–254.

———. 1995. Markets, Choice and Equity in Education. Buckingham: Open Univer-sity Press.

Glenn, Charles. 1989. Choice of Schools in Six Nations. Washington, DC: UnitedStates Department of Education.

Gillborn, David. 1997. Racism and Reform: New Ethnicities/Old Inequalities? BritishEducational Research Journal 23(3): 345–360.

Gorard, Stephen. 2000. Questioning the Crisis Account: A Review of Evidence forIncreasing Polarisation in Schools. Educational Research 42(3): 309–321.

Gorard, Stephen, Chris Taylor, and John Fitz. 2002. Does School Choice Lead to‘‘Spirals of Decline?’’ Journal of Educational Policy 17(3): 367–384.

Holmes, Mark, Jeffrey DeSimone, and Nicolas Rupp. 2003. Does School ChoiceIncrease School Quality? Available at: http://www.ncspe.org/list-papers.php, accessed23 December 2003.

Lee, Valerie, Robert Croninger, and Julia Smith. 1996. Equity and Choice in Detroit.In: Choice and Control in American Education, ed. by Bruce Fuller and RichardElmore, 70–91. New York: Falmer Press.

Nathan, Joe. 1993. President Clinton, School Choice, and Education Reform in the1990s. Education Excellence Network (January): 22–27.

Nottinghamshire County Council (NCC). 1994. Going to School in Nottinghamshire:A Guide to the Education Service for the School Year 1994–1995. Nottingham: NCC.

Parker-Jenkins, Marie, and Daniel Hartas. 2002. In Good Faith: A Critique of Reli-gious Schools and Public Funding. Paper presented at the European Conference onEducational Research, Lisbon, Portugal, 11–14 September.

Ranson, Stewart. 1993. Markets or Democracy for Education. British Journal of Edu-cational Studies 41(4): 333–352.

Raywid, Mary Anne. 1987. Public Choice: Yes; Vouchers, No! Phi Delta Kappan 67(June), 762–769.

Scottish Office Education Department (SOED). 1995. The Parents’ Charter in Scot-land. Edinburgh: SOED.

———. 2002. Placing in Education Authority Schools in Scotland, 1988–2002. Avail-able at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/stats/bulletins, accessed 12 January 2004.

Teelken, Christine. 1998. Market Mechanisms in Education: An International Compar-ative Study in the Netherlands, England and Scotland. Ph.D. dissertation, Universityof Amsterdam.

———. 1999. Market Mechanisms in Education. School Choice in The Netherlands,England and Scotland in a Comparative Perspective. Comparative Education 35(3):283–302.

Tenbusch, John, and Michael Garet. 1993. Organizational Change at the Local SchoolLevel under Minnesota’s Open Enrollment Program. Paper presented at the AnnualMeeting of the American Education Research Association, April.

Tomlinson, Sally. 1997. Diversity, Choice and Ethnicity: The Effects of EducationalMarkets on Ethnic Minorities, Oxford Review of Education 23(1): 63–76.


Tooley, James. 1997. Choice and Diversity in Education: A Defence. Oxford Reviewof Education 23(1): 103–116.

Van Dyck, Marjan (ed.). 2001. Onderwijs in de Markt [Education in the market]. DenHaag: Onderwijsraad.

Walford, Geoffrey. 1994. Choice and Diversity in Education. London: Cassell.

———. 1997. Diversity, Choice and Selection in England and Wales. EducationalAdministrative Quarterly 33(2): 158–169.

White, Patrick, Stephen Gorard, John Fitz, and Chris Taylor. 2001. Regional andLocal Differences in Admission Arrangements for Schools. Oxford Review of Educa-tion 27(3): 317–337.

Whitty, Geoff 2001. Education, Social Class and Social Exclusion. Journal of Educa-tion Policy 16(4): 287–295.

Whitty, Geoff, and Sally Power. 1997. Quasi-markets and Curriculum Control: Mak-ing Sense of Recent Education Reform in England and Wales. Educational Adminis-tration Quarterly 33(2): 219–241.

Whitty, Geoff, Sally Power, and David Halpin. 1998. Devolution and Choice in Educa-tion. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Woods, Phillip. 1992. Empowerment through Choice? Towards an Understanding ofParental Choice and School Responsiveness. Educational Management and Adminis-tration 20(4): 204–211.

The authors

Christine Teelken, Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Management Sci-ences at the University of Nijmegen, received her doctorate in Amsterdamfor a study on market mechanisms in education. Her current research inter-ests concern the change capacity of organisations and comparative researchon higher-education organisations. She is also working on an intersectoralcomparison between higher education and the social-security sector.

Contact address: Nijmegen School of Management, University of Nijmegen,P.O. Box 9108, 6500 HK Nijmegen, The Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected].

Geert Driessen, Senior Educational Researcher at the Institute for AppliedSocial Sciences of the University of Nijmegen, received his doctorate for astudy of the educational position of ethnic minority students. His researchinterests include ethnic and social inequality in education; parental participa-tion in education; pre- and early school education; first- and second-languageacquisition; minority language and culture teaching; and religion, denomina-tion and education.

Contact address: Institute for Applied Social Sciences, University ofNijmegen, P.O. Box 9048, 6500 KJ Nijmegen, The Netherlands. E-mail:[email protected].


Frederik Smit, Senior Educational Researcher at the Institute for AppliedSocial Sciences of the University of Nijmegen, received his doctorate for astudy of the role of parents in primary education. He has published in theareas of parental involvement in education, culture differences in education,and participation in decision-making by teachers, parents and students.

Contact address: Institute for Applied Social Sciences, University ofNijmegen, P.O. Box 9048, 6500 KJ Nijmegen, The Netherlands. E-mail:[email protected].


christine teelken, geert driessen & frederik smit (2005) ire frictions between formal education...

Education

taille e et

base e sur

diversite e ducative

actual school choice

bas et en e cosse

operation of school

emplacements e tudie

e tudes compara tives