29

Researching Race and Ethnic Inequalities

in Education. Key Findings and Future
Directions
Peter A. J. Stevens and A. Gary Dworkin

As pointed out in the introduction, the sheer scope of the research discussed
in this Handbook does not allow us to integrate critically all the findings that
emerged out of these studies into a single concluding chapter that advises on
future directions for research in each of the key research traditions and national
and regional contexts. Instead in this concluding chapter we aim to realize
three goals. First, we summarize and discuss some of the key characteristics of
each national/regional review presented in an overview grid, which includes
information on the: (1) research traditions; (2) research goals; (3) dominant
research designs; (4) focus on groups identified as racially or ethnically dis-
tinct; (5) relationship between policy-makers and the research community;
(6) key policy characteristics and developments over time; and (7) main
language(s) of publication. This overview grid is used both as a tool to sum-
marize research conducted in this area and as a reference guide that can be
used by readers to identify particular areas of research and information and as
a result assist in developing more specific, integrative reviews.
A second goal is to provide a cursory theoretical context with which read-
ers of this Handbook might examine the national research literature on

P. A. J. Stevens (*)
Department of Sociology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
e-mail: peter.stevens@ugent.be
A. G. Dworkin
Department of Sociology, The University of Houston, Houston, TX, USA
e-mail: gdworkin@central.uh.edu

© The Author(s) 2019 1237

P. A. J. Stevens, A. G. Dworkin (eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Race and Ethnic Inequalities
in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94724-2_29
1238 P. A. J. Stevens and A. G. Dworkin

educational inequality among racial, ethnic, and other groups. This context
acknowledges that the content of any national research literature on educa-
tional inequality is likely to reflect salient issues that a particular nation
confronts in educating its populace, and especially members of groups who
are not part of the society’s dominant population or who do not participate
in the core culture of that society. This section will not attempt to analyze
the studies central to the research traditions of each nation, but instead will
only suggest that, (1) research in the sociology of education that tends to
focus on the social facts prevalent in a society, asking about the extent to
which they are factual, and assessing their causes and implications for indi-
viduals and groups, and (2) the context of educational inequality is vested
in the history of intergroup relations in the particular country. It therefore
matters whether the disadvantaged groups are members of an indigenous
and/or aboriginal population that have faced colonization, attempts at
extermination, or historically been excluded from the mainstream of the
nation. Somewhat different experiences and outcomes might exist if the
disadvantaged group were conquered peoples as a result of warfare between
nations. Here they may not be aborigines or even indigenous peoples, but
rather those whose nation lost a war against the current dominant popula-
tion. If the initial arrival of a group was the result of a slave trade the out-
comes and current understandings would be even more distinct. It further
matters whether the group is composed of recent immigrants to the society,
who arrived as guest workers or as refugees from political oppression in
their homelands.
A third goal of this concluding chapter is to highlight several gaps in the
literature and suggest directions through which research on race and ethnic
inequalities can further develop. It is expected that a more inclusive model of
intergroup dynamics and the redress of racialized inequalities might be con-
structed from such future research.

 ey Characteristics of Research on Ethnic

K
and Racial Inequalities in Education
Table 29.1 summarizes some of the key characteristics of research on ethnic
and racial inequalities as it developed in each of the 25 national and regional
contexts included in this Handbook.
Observing this comparative summary table and a close reading of the chap-
ters included in this Handbook allow us to draw some general conclusions
Table 29.1 Key characteristics of research on ethnicity, race and educational inequality in different national contexts between 1980–2017
Country Research traditions
Argentina (1) Mapping educational
access;
(2) Intercultural
educational policies;
(3) Language conflict and
schooling;
(4) Difference and
diversity;
(5) School texts / books as
a means of othering
Australia (1) Social class and family
resources;
(2) Ethnic minority
cultures;
(3) Language proficiency;
(4) Ethnic (urban/rural)
segregation;
(5) Social-­psychological
features (such as
motivation, identity
and aspiration);
(6) Stereotypes and
discrimination;
(7) Multicultural teaching
and education
Focus on which Relationship researchers Policy towards ethnic or
Dominant research racialized or ethnicized and policy makers racial minorities between Main language of
Main research goal(s) designs groups between 1980–2017 1980–2012 publication
Analyzing how social, policy Mainly qualitative Indigenous minority Researchers take a more A shift from more Spanish
and educational research groups: critical relationship to assimilation orientated
discourses contribute to  Mapuche social policy makers and policies to policies that
disadvantage some  Toba rely on diverse funding emphasize the reality
minority ethnic groups’  Kolla sources (including non and importance of
educational experiences  Wichí governmental agencies, cultural differences and
and schooling  Bordered immigrants universities and research diversity
and their descendants governmental agencies)
Explaining Quantitative, European immigrants Researchers can be critical Pro-­multiculturalism and English
Differences in educational qualitative, case Turkish immigrants of, but have also a integration from the
and occupational studies and mixed Asian immigrants collaborative 1980 onwards, but
aspirations and methods African humanitarian relationship with social periods of laissez-faire
under-achievement by refugees; « boat policy makers; attitudes, and
cultural and social people » government funding for occasional criticism of
psychological features Indigenous aboriginals research the policy
Teacher preparation for and indigenous Torres
migrant and indigenous Strait islanders
students
(continued)
Table 29.1 (continued)
Focus on which Relationship researchers Policy towards ethnic or
Dominant research racialized or ethnicized and policy makers racial minorities between Main language of
Country Research traditions Main research goal(s) designs groups between 1980–2017 1980–2012 publication

Austria (1) Political arithmetic;
(2) Family background;
(3) Structures of
educational systems;
(4) Intercultural education
and discrimination as
well as;
(5) Multilinguality
Belgium (VG (1) Political arithmetic;
and FWB) (2) Cultural and
educational outcomes;
(3) Language proficiency;
(4) Racial and racial
discrimination in
school;
(5) School effectiveness
Explaining Since 2000
underachievement of
ethnic minorities.
In the VG (Dutch speaking Mainly quantitative
community), emphasis on
the importance of
socio-­economic context
and the importance of
structural school features
in developing ethnic
inequalities and a focus
on cultural features, such
as expectations,
aspirations, language and
prejudice
In the FWB (French speaking
community), focus on
reducing ethnic
inequalities to structural
social class inequalities,
with cultural differences
(between the dominant
and minority groups)
treated as a consequence
of these
Descendants of Shift from a critical Contradicting policies German
quantitative, immigrants from attitude towards social emphasizing both
before qualitative  Turkey policy to a more multiculturalism and
and critical theory  Former Yugoslavia collaborative assimilation; with an
and autochthonous relationship and an increased emphasis on
minorities such as increase in policy the latter
Carinthian Slovenes funded and oriented
research
Descendants of Collaborative and critical Contradicting policies Initially in Dutch
research immigrants in general relationship with emphasizing both but increasingly
and in particular from: government and multiculturalism and more in English
 Turkey increasingly more assimilation in de VG and
 Morocco research funded mainly in French
 Italy (in FWB) through government in the FWB
However, in FWB, a independent channels
strong preference not
to focus on ethnic
categorization and
instead focus on social
class differences

(continued)
Table 29.1 (continued)
Country Research traditions
Brazil (1) Charting ethnic/racial
inequalities in
education;
(2) Race and school
effectiveness;
(3) Racism and
discrimination in
schools
Canada (1) Mobility / Meritocracy; Explaining
(2) Individual
Discrimination /
Prejudice / Racism;
(3) Identity / Values;
(4) Aboriginal Education;
(5) Institutional Processes
Focus on which Relationship researchers Policy towards ethnic or
Dominant research racialized or ethnicized and policy makers racial minorities between Main language of
Main research goal(s) designs groups between 1980–2017 1980–2012 publication
Describing inequalities in Quantitative and Indigenous (Indian) Collaborative relationship Pro-­multiculturalism and Portuguese
access, survival and qualitative minorities and African with considerable policy affirmative policies
achievement and Brazilian minorities funded and oriented
experiences of racism research
Quantitative and Aboriginal and A detached relationship Increased emphasis on English and French
underachievement of qualitative, with non-white, visible between the research pro multicultural
visible minority students the latter more minority students community and policies (and
and highlighting the dominant in government intercultural policies in
production and recent years Quebec)
negotiation of racialized
identities and hierarchies
through schooling
processes
(continued)
Table 29.1 (continued)
Focus on which Relationship researchers Policy towards ethnic or
Dominant research racialized or ethnicized and policy makers racial minorities between Main language of
Country Research traditions Main research goal(s) designs groups between 1980–2017 1980–2012 publication

China Mandarin literature: Describing the complex Quantitative and Indigenous minority Mandarin literature is The Chinese government Mandarin and
(1) Marxism and ethnic interrelationships of qualitative groups mainly collaborative adopts an English
minority education; ethnicity with cultural, designs, particular while English literature integrationist
(2) Patriotism and policy, development, and qualitative is more critical of social perspective towards
national unity in language issues analyses of policy ethnic minorities,
education for ethnic (policy) texts which is realized and in
minority students; turn fosters patriotism
(3) Multicultural and economic
education; development
(4) Determinants of
ethnic differences in
education;
(5) School facilities and
teacher quality;
(6) Preferential /
affirmative action
policies.
English literature:
(1) Policy overviews;
(2) Education and ethnic
identity;
(3) Incentives and
disincentives for buy-in
to the education
system;
(4) Educational
stratification

(continued)
Table 29.1 (continued)
Focus on which Relationship researchers Policy towards ethnic or
Dominant research racialized or ethnicized and policy makers racial minorities between Main language of
Country Research traditions Main research goal(s) designs groups between 1980–2017 1980–2012 publication

Cross-national (1) Individual predictors; Investigating how Quantitative Broad categories, Research is usually Is not characterized by English
comparative (2) School-level characteristics of origin research using related to members of detached from particular ideologies
research predictors; and destination countries large-scale dominant and government funding, regarding cultural
(3) Predictors related to inform ethnic inequalities datasets (i.e. PISA, minority ethnic but national diversity
the contexts of in educational outcomes PIRLS, and groups governments pay
reception/destination TIMMS) increasingly more
countries; attention to this
(4) Predictors related to research (and how their
origin countries/ country contexts rank or
ethnicity compare to other
countries)
Cyprus (1) School ethnographies Explaining Greek Cypriot Mainly qualitative Turks Researchers take a more From assimilation Greek and English
of national identity ethnocentric identity research Turkish Cypriots critical approach to orientated policies to
construction; construction in relation to Immigrants from Russia social policy makers and more pro-­multicultural
(2) School ethnographies “others” and Eastern European rely on self-funding and/ policies, but the latter
of racism; countries or funding sources that are in turn focused on
(3) Critical studies of Asian countries like are independent of the assimilation, albeit in a
curricula and textbooks; China, Sri Lanka and government more hidden way
(4) Studies of teachers Vietnam
and intercultural
education

(continued)
Table 29.1 (continued)
Focus on which Relationship researchers Policy towards ethnic or
Dominant research racialized or ethnicized and policy makers racial minorities between Main language of
Country Research traditions Main research goal(s) designs groups between 1980–2017 1980–2012 publication

Czech (1) Ethnic discrimination Mapping and explaining (by Quantitative and Roma Researchers and From assimilationist and Czech and to some
Republic in the educational focusing on family qualitative Slovaks government institutions colour blind policies extent in English
system; background and research Ukrainians work in a collaborative towards more inclusive
(2) The mapping of ethnic discrimination) the Vietnamese way policies that recognize
inequalities in under-representation of Russians the need for
education; ethnic minority groups, multicultural and
(3) Educational resources, particularly Roma ant-racism education
social contexts, and minorities, in (higher
under-achievement status) educational
trajectories
England (1) Political arithmetic; Identifying inequality in Mainly qualitative Descendants of Critical approach to Pro-­multiculturalism English
(2) Racism and racial educational experiences research immigrants from government policies oriented policies with a
discrimination; (3) and outcomes of racial  Caribbean less visible, more
school effectiveness and ethnic minorities  Africa assimilation orientated
and inclusion;  Pakistan agenda
(4) Culture and  India
educational outcomes;  Bangladesh
(5) Educational markets  China
and educational Gypsy/Traveller/Roma’
outcomes children

(continued)
Table 29.1 (continued)
Focus on which Relationship researchers Policy towards ethnic or
Dominant research racialized or ethnicized and policy makers racial minorities between Main language of
Country Research traditions Main research goal(s) designs groups between 1980–2017 1980–2012 publication

France (1) Structures, curriculum Research conducted in From a focus on Mainly descendants A critical approach to Traditional French French
and policies for France analyses the gaps mainly qualitative from immigrants from social policies with little integration
minority students; between the official research to more North African and research being policy (assimilation) policies
(2) Family background color-­blindness of the quantitative sub-Saharan countries orientated and funded with some limited
and ethnic inequalities traditional French research designs departure from the
in education; integration model and assimilationist model in
(3) Limited educational concrete evidence of educational policy
resources of ethnic ethnic inequalities
minority families;
(4) Ethnic school
segregation;
(5) Ethnic relations in
classrooms and schools
Finland (1) Non-­Finnish Explaining how cultural Mainly qualitative (descendants from) A collaborative Contradicting policies Finish and more
backgrounds of differences and poor research Immigrants from: relationship with few emphasizing both recently English
students as a Finish language skills lead  Russia critical studies on multiculturalism and
pedagogical and to educational drop outs  Somalia government policies assimilation
didactic problem; of minority youth  Roma/Traveller
(2) Minority students’ background
educational paths as
parts of marginalized
life-courses;
(3) Ethnic discrimination
in secondary education

(continued)
Table 29.1 (continued)
Country Research traditions
Germany (1) Characteristics of
migrant students and
their families as causes
of inequality;
(2) Features of the
education system and
their relevance for
inequality;
(3) Linguistic diversity as a
cause of educational
inequality;
(4) Discrimination (as part
of the other traditions)
Ireland (1) Cultural and religious
diversity in policy
documents and
research reports;
(2) Racism and education;
(3) The development of
newer and more critical
research agendas
Main research goal(s)
Explaining
underachievement of
ethnic minority groups
Focusing on gaps between
progressive policy rhetoric
and practices drawing
mainly on Bourdieu
Focus on which Relationship researchers Policy towards ethnic or
Dominant research racialized or ethnicized and policy makers racial minorities between Main language of
designs groups between 1980–2017 1980–2012 publication
Quantitative and Turkish immigrants Critical and collaborative From multiculturalism to German and (more
qualitative, often Russian speaking relationship super diversity recently) English
mixed methods (Eastern European)
immigrants
Qualitative research Focused more on A widening relationship An development towards English
through analysis policies rather than between educational more pro-­multicultural
of (policy) texts immigrants (most of sociologists and policy policies
which are very recent makers, and practice in
migrants of polish and the field
Lithuanians
background and to a
lesser extent of
Indian, Chinese and
Nigerian background)
(continued)
Table 29.1 (continued)
Focus on which Relationship researchers Policy towards ethnic or
Dominant research racialized or ethnicized and policy makers racial minorities between Main language of
Country Research traditions Main research goal(s) designs groups between 1980–2017 1980–2012 publication

Israel (1) Social class differences; Explaining differences in
(2) Differences in quality
of neighbourhoods and
schools;
(3) Ethnic and social
composition schools;
(4) Ability grouping
(tracking);
(5) Family (migration)
background
characteristics;
(6) Discrimination in
education and society
Italy (1) School inclusion and Charting and explaining
intercultural practices;
(2) Political arithmetic;
(3) Educational outcomes;
(4) Interethnic
relationships
Mainly quantitative
educational achievement
between various Jewish
and non-Jewish groups
Quantitative and
differences in attainment
between ethnic minority
and dominant ethnic
groups in education
Jews of European-­ A close collaboration Assimilationist policies. Hebrew and
research American descent between researchers English
(EA – Ashkenazim) and social policy makers
Jews from afro-Asian
descent
(AA – Mizrachim)
Russian Jews
Ethiopian Jews
“old-timers” Jewish
majority (born in
Israel)
Jewish majority
Arab minority
Romani students A close collaboration Since the 1990s, policy Italian and more
qualitative Undocumented between researchers shifted more to recently in
research migrants and social policy makers inclusive and English
Eastern-European intercultural policies
migrants
Asian migrants
African migrants

(continued)
Table 29.1 (continued)
Focus on which Relationship researchers Policy towards ethnic or
Dominant research racialized or ethnicized and policy makers racial minorities between Main language of
Country Research traditions Main research goal(s) designs groups between 1980–2017 1980–2012 publication

Japan (1) Quantitative Explaining Qualitative Indigenous minority A collaborative A policy that emphasises Japanese
descriptions of minority underachievement of groups, and relationship between human rights over
students’ educational ethnic minorities descendants of former educational cultural diversity (i.e.
achievements; colonial subjects and anthropologists and colour blind approach)
(2) Schooling processes in migrants such as: local governments
relation to  
Ainu people;
discrimination, school  
buraku people;
interventions and  
zainichi Koreans;
identity formation;  new migrants
(3) Home cultures
Norway (1) Ethnic inequalities in Charting and explaining Mainly quantitative. Pakistanis Close collaborative A shift in policy from Norwegian and
educational enrolment, educational Vietnamese relationship between more pro MC to more English
achievement, underachievement of Sri-Lankan researchers and the assimilation. Although
attainment; certain ethnic minority Moroccan; government MC is more visible and
(2) Immigrant families groups. Turkish recognized in more
and ethnic minority recent textbook and
communities as curricula; it is at the
resources for same time essentialized
educational careers; and limited to ‘folklore’
(3) Curriculum, teacher differences
instruction, and student
experiences with
inclusion and exclusion

(continued)
Table 29.1 (continued)
Focus on which Relationship researchers Policy towards ethnic or
Dominant research racialized or ethnicized and policy makers racial minorities between Main language of
Country Research traditions Main research goal(s) designs groups between 1980–2017 1980–2012 publication

Russia (1) Languages of school Describing the educational
education;
(2) School quality and
ethnic background;
(3) Socio-­cultural
differences and
education;
(4) Problems of migrants
and receiving society;
(5) Students’ inter-ethnic
relations
Mainly quantitative Indigenous (national) Collaborative relationship A post-USSR context that Russian
problems experienced by minority groups such with considerable policy is characterized by
various ethnic minority as: funded and oriented political tension
indigenous populations  Tatars; research conditioned by
and migrants  Yakuts; demands for cultural
 Bashkirs; autonomy of various
 Chuvashs; sub-­national regions
 Buriats; and ethnic minority
 Armenians; groups
 Georgians

(continued)
Table 29.1 (continued)
Focus on which Relationship researchers Policy towards ethnic or
Dominant research racialized or ethnicized and policy makers racial minorities between Main language of
Country Research traditions Main research goal(s) designs groups between 1980–2017 1980–2012 publication

South Africa (1) From Oligarchy to The development of social Mainly quantitative Black majority Close, collaborative ties From apartheid to English
Democracy; policy and the systematic population with the government as post-apartheid regime
(2) Policy development – educational inequalities most research is
State versus resistance between the majority government funded and
movements; black and minority White aimed at evaluating and
(3) The impact of the learners, in particular in guiding social policy
removal of race based relationship to interventions
policies; achievement and school
(4) Racial (de) resources
Segregation: Causes
and consequences;
(5)(de)Segregation and
school resources;
(6) Curriculum studies;
(7) Teacher Training and
Pedagogy;
(8) Charting inequalities
in student outcomes;
(9) Rural education

(continued)
Table 29.1 (continued)
Country Research traditions Main research goal(s)
Sweden (1) Political arithmetic; Charting and explaining
(2) Racism and
discrimination;
(3) Language proficiency
tradition;
(4) School choice and
school segregation;
(5) Cultural and social
capital and socio-
historical contexts
Taiwan (1) Social stratification; Research focuses primarily
(2) Education
stratification;
(3) Cultural identity and
ethnic education;
(4) Culturally responsive
teaching;
(5) Language proficiency
and literacy program;
(6) Intersectionality and
academic performance
Focus on which Relationship researchers Policy towards ethnic or
Dominant research racialized or ethnicized and policy makers racial minorities between Main language of
designs groups between 1980–2017 1980–2012 publication
Quantitative and Migrants from: A collaborative Although there is an Swedish and
educational qualitative  Nordic countries relationship between official discourse that English
underachievement of (excluding Sweden); researchers and social favours multicultural
certain ethnic minority  EU27 (excluding policy makers, but also a education, in practice
groups Nordic countries); more critical stance of teachers adopt
 Europe (excluding the former over the assimilationist
EU27 and Nordic latter assumptions about the
countries); role of schools in
 North America and teaching ethnic
Oceania; minority children
 South America;
 Africa;
 Asia
Quantitative and Hakka; Researchers and social A shift in policy from Mandarin
on explaining how qualitative Mainlander; policy makers work assimilation to
indigenous students, Indigenous usually independent multiculturalism in the
especially those from from each other, with past two decades
working classes, tend to researchers offering (particularly through
fail in school analyses that feed into minority language
social policy teaching); in part as a
development response to the
dominance of
mandarin language in
the public sphere (due
to the influence of
China)
(continued)
Table 29.1 (continued)
Country Research traditions
The (1) Political arithmetic;
Netherlands (2) Racism and ethnic
discrimination;
(3) School characteristics;
(4) School choice;
(5) Family background;
(6) Institutional approach
Turkey (1) Regional differences;
(2) Language differences;
(3) Religious differences
Focus on which Relationship researchers Policy towards ethnic or
Dominant research racialized or ethnicized and policy makers racial minorities between Main language of
Main research goal(s) designs groups between 1980–2017 1980–2012 publication
Explaining Quantitative Descendants of Collaborative relationship From pro-­multicultural to Initially in Dutch
underachievement of immigrants from with considerable policy more assimilation but increasingly
ethnic minorities  Turkey funded and oriented oriented policies more in English
 Morocco research
 Suriname
Charting and explaining Quantitative Language minorities Virtual no government Assimilationist and Turkish and
underachievement of Lower SES groups funding on research on colour-blind policies English
minority groups ethnic inequalities. Few and a deficit thinking
researchers work in this in relationship to
area and there is not a inequalities in
strong, critical voices in education. Growing
relationship to role of religion in
government policies education
(continued)
Table 29.1 (continued)
Focus on which Relationship researchers Policy towards ethnic or
Dominant research racialized or ethnicized and policy makers racial minorities between Main language of
Country Research traditions Main research goal(s) designs groups between 1980–2017 1980–2012 publication

The USA (1) Emphasis on students; Measuring and accounting
(2) Emphasis on families;
(3) Emphasis on schools
Quantitative in
for the race/ethnic based
test-score gaps; assessing
the magnitude and effects
of school desegregation
and re-segregation;
explaining the effects of
the accountability
movement on students
and school staff
Racial and ethnic A considerable amount of A combination of policies English
assessing the minorities and the research is either that encourage
magnitude and immigrant groups, policy research or multiculturalism as well
nature of the especially native-born policy-relevant research; as assimilation,
test-score gap;  African Americans Many of the large studies promote educational
Quantitative and  Hispanics have been funded by opportunities across
Qualitative in  Native Americans the U.S. Department of racial/ethnic and social
examining the (Indians) Education or by state class groups, but also
causes of the gap  Asian Americans and education agencies address the threats by
immigrants from elites who seek to
 Latin American continue affluent and
 Asia middle class hegemony
over educational
advantages

Note: Research traditions in bold are the most dominant traditions of research within this particular country
1254 P. A. J. Stevens and A. G. Dworkin

regarding the development of research on ethnicity, race, and educational

inequality worldwide. First, the chapters included in this review testify to the
wealth of research carried out on ethnic and racial inequalities worldwide.
Second, although researchers appear increasingly more likely to publish their
work in English and consider research developed abroad, most of the research
carried out on this topic is ‘inward looking’, with scholars developing research
traditions mainly in interaction with local developments in terms of policy
and intellectual thought, and generally neglecting research conducted abroad.
Additionally, a fully comprehensive cross-national review is a challenge
because a considerable amount of published research on the ethnic and racial
inequalities in education is written in the native language of the country stud-
ied (see the chapters on Argentina, Austria, Brazil, Canada, China, France,
the FWB region in Belgium, Germany, Israel, Japan, Russia, Taiwan, and
the Netherlands). This tendency makes some significant portion of the pub-
lished research less accessible to a global research community and less likely to
be included in the more popular and authoritative, academic electronic data-
bases (such as ERIC, Sociological Abstracts, and Web of Science).
Sometimes, the language in which research is written can indicate particu-
lar ideological preferences or assumptions on the part of researchers. This is
perhaps best illustrated by the context of China, which has produced both a
Mandarin and an English body of literature on ethnic and racial inequalities.
While there is considerable overlap between these bodies of research in terms
of focus and employed methods, they often draw on different ideological
starting points: while the Mandarin literature draws more on a Marxist ideol-
ogy of ethnic minority education which emphasizes the role of the state in
creating national unity and patriotism, English research is much more critical
of such a view and emphasizes much more the importance (and lack of ) mul-
ticultural policies in education.
Third, the chapters included in this Handbook show that research on eth-
nic and racial inequalities in education is strongly influenced by nationally
specific political and demographic characteristics and processes. For example,
most of the research carried out in Northern Europe focuses on the under-
achievement of second- and third-generation immigrant children, whose par-
ents migrated from Southern Europe, North Africa, Turkey, and former
colonies, particularly between the 1960s and 1970s due to labor shortages in
Northern European countries. In sharp contrast, research in South Africa is
more focused on the educational inequality between the white minority and
black majority population in South Africa and the importance of the apart-
heid legacy and post-apartheid policies in sustaining or changing these
inequalities. While a vast amount of research has been conducted on ethnic
 Researching Race and Ethnic Inequalities in Education. Key Findings… 1255

and racial inequalities in the USA, focusing on large immigrant groups such
as (children of ) Spanish speaking migrants and descendants of the Spanish
conquest of the New World, as well as Asian migrants, the most dominant
tradition of research focuses on the persistent ‘achievement gap’ between the
large and historically important (due to the legacy of slavery) black minority
population and the white majority population. Finally, in Russia, research on
multilingualism sharply increased after the collapse of the USSR and the sub-
sequent regional developments of national and ethnic movements; as the poli-
tics of language became both related to a discourse on socio-economic
inequality and cultural self-governance.
However, historical, political processes do not only influence the focus of
research in terms of what are legitimate research questions and populations
that need to be involved in research on ethnic and racial inequalities, but also
how such research is framed. For instance, while there is considerable research
on racial discrimination of ethnic minority groups and educational inequality
in Germany, this research is rarely framed as such but instead linked to
research on the role of families, school structures and processes, and multilin-
gualism. The reasons why this body of research rarely explicitly refers to rac-
ism (or racialized groups) is that the concept of racism in Germany is heavily
linked to and used in the context of studying the racist ideology and practices
of Nazi Germany.
The chapters also suggest that there is a strong relationship between state
ideologies and the production of knowledge on ethnic inequalities in educa-
tion. More specifically, nationalism (China, Japan, Russia, Turkey), univer-
salism (France, the FWB in Belgium), Marxism (China, France, the FWB in
Belgium) and/or religious belief systems (Turkey), can function as state-­
sponsored ideologies that deliberately throw a cloak over the existence of eth-
nic diversity in society. In these countries / regions, ethnic diversity policies
are usually characterized by a color-blind and/or assimilationist approach, in
which differences in educational achievement are often reduced to social class,
poverty and/or regional inequalities. Although these ideologies differ in terms
of their world views, in the countries mentioned above, they seem to consider
a focus on ethnic/cultural diversity as a potential threat to the social cohesion
of society. In these countries, national governments will restrict or oppose
investments in the development of data-sets that allow for the investigation of
ethnic differences in educational systems, as explained by Ichou and Van
Zanten: ‘This continued ‘veil of ignorance’ makes it difficult to obtain official
statistical or documentary data to assess the extent of these inequalities and to
obtain funding to conduct original quantitative and qualitative studies to fur-
ther explore their different expressions, causes, and consequences’ (the chapter
1256 P. A. J. Stevens and A. G. Dworkin

on France). However, in such countries, researchers sometimes fall back on

large-scale cross-national databases (e. g. PISA) as a sources of information
(see for instance the FWB in Belgium, France and Turkey); which ironically
leads to the production of quantitative research findings on ethnic differences
in educational outcomes that are considered important by these national gov-
ernments. This suggests a somewhat contradictory view on ethnic inequalities
in education in these countries/regions: while they are considered to exist and
be problematic (in that they might be indicative of or lead to an erosion of
social cohesion), they cannot be highlighted too strongly and need to be
explained by (manageable) structural forces (such as poverty, lack of educa-
tion and/or regional underdevelopment), so that it cannot become a force of
community destabilization. The reason why these ideologies in particular
seem to restrict the development of knowledge on ethnic inequalities in edu-
cation can be explained by their ideological assumptions: while communist
(inspired) systems will emphasize the importance of economic forces over
cultural forces in explaining inequality, nationalism (and religious belief sys-
tems and universalism) will emphasize the need to be (to some extent) homo-
geneous as a nation in terms of culture and identity. For these belief systems,
the recognition of ‘cultural diversity’ as a legitimate, driving force, can be
considered as a threat to their core principles. In contrast, in countries where
governments have taken ethnic and racial inequalities in education on board
as a policy concern, research on this topic, and particularly large-scale, quan-
titative research has flourished (e.g. the VG in Belgium, England, Germany,
The Netherlands, South Africa and the USA), sometimes through direct
funding of nationally specific policy-orientated research projects or through
the participation in international comparative research projects (for the latter
see, for instance, the chapter on Austria). However, continued pressure from
powerful interest groups in society can stimulate national governments who
prefer to focus on ‘what we have in common’, to recognize the value of and
promote cultural diversity. In Russia for example, after the collapse of the
USSR, continued pressure from the various sub-national regions encouraged
the national government to implement MC policies that promote teaching in
minority languages.
While, the (in)dependence of (particular types of ) research on government
funding poses important questions on how this relationship impacts on the
production of knowledge and policy in this area, the chapters included in this
Handbook suggest that there is considerable variability in terms of this rela-
tionship and its potential consequences. For example, research in Argentina
and Cyprus is primarily qualitative, with strong roots in anthropology, and in
both countries researchers adopt a more critical approach to social policy ini-
 Researching Race and Ethnic Inequalities in Education. Key Findings… 1257

tiatives and educational processes, which are criticized for failing (often
implicitly) to recognize ethnic minority interests and needs, and adopting a
more assimilationist approach to diversity. However, while research in Cyprus
has largely failed to make an impact on social policy and is – in terms of fund-
ing – largely independent from the government, researchers and social policy-­
makers in Argentina (and also in Brazil) seem to depend more on government
funding and appear to have a more collaborative relationship in which critical
research seems to lead to the adoption of more multicultural policy initiatives
and practices in schools, which in turns spurs further research on these issues.
Fourth, in terms of focus on particular research traditions seven key tradi-
tions seem to dominate the field of ethnic and racial inequalities in
education:

1. Large-scale, mainly descriptive studies of (developments in) inequality in

outcomes between ethnic and racial groups, particularly between the dom-
inant (largest and/or most powerful) ethnic or racial group and various
ethnic or racial minority groups;
2. Racism in education, including a focus on policy, curriculum, pedagogy,
selection mechanisms and inter-ethnic or racial relationships and
attitudes;
3. The importance of family (and social class) background in accounting for
differences in educational outcomes between majority and minority ethnic
and racial groups;
4. The importance of (structural) school characteristics in explaining variabil-
ity in educational outcomes between majority and minority ethnic and
racial groups;
5. The development of students’ ethnic/racial and national identities;
6. Multilingualism;
7. Teacher training.

Although most of these traditions feature in all the countries/regions included

in this volume, the first four traditions tend to be the most dominant research
traditions in the selected countries/regions. Whilst these seven research tradi-
tions are characterized by a different focus, there is considerable variability
within each of these traditions and overlap between them. For instance,
researchers working in the ‘multilingualism’ tradition often focus on issues
related to racism, but also on the effectiveness and development of policy and
school interventions, and the role of families in developing language and edu-
cational outcomes more generally (see, for instance, the reviews on Argentina,
Austria, Belgium, China, Finland, Germany and Russia). Furthermore,
1258 P. A. J. Stevens and A. G. Dworkin

some research traditions overlap in terms of their approach and focus, with
studies producing findings that are relevant to different research traditions at
the same time. This is particularly the case for quantitative research that aims
to map inequalities in educational achievement between ethnic or racial
groups and assess the importance of school and family characteristics in
explaining these differences (see, for example, the chapter on Austria). Finally,
cross-cutting these research traditions is a more basic philosophical and to
some extent methodological divide with, on the one hand, researchers adopt-
ing more critical and/or constructivist assumptions and qualitative research
approaches (see, for example, research in Argentina, Cyprus, England) and,
on the other hand, researchers working from a more post-positivistic and usu-
ally more quantitative research approach (see, for example, research in the VG
in Belgium, Russia and The Netherlands). While the former are more
focused on critically examining how the educational system and school pro-
cesses disadvantage particular ethnic and racial groups and as a result perpetu-
ate existing social, ethnic and racial inequalities in education, the latter are
more concerned with charting and explaining variability in underachieve-
ment of ethnic and racial minority groups. This shows that the demarcation
of specific research traditions is to some extent arbitrary, and that the research
traditions identified in this Handbook should be conceptualized more as dif-
ferent and relatively loose sets of research that overlap in varying degrees.
However, the seven research traditions identified are different in terms of
their general focus and often in terms of their adopted research methods, with
quantitative research used predominantly by researchers working in traditions
one, three and four and qualitative research methods mainly in traditions two,
five and seven.

 onceptualizing Minority Group Outcomes

C
Across Nations
The second goal of this concluding chapter is to provide the reader with a
conceptual framework with which to read the individual national chapters. In
the broadest sense each of the disadvantaged racial, ethnic, and economic
groups subject to differential and pejorative educational outcomes is a minor-
ity group (Dworkin and Dworkin 1999). According to that perspective,
minority group status is a process involving four linked components. Thus,
we view minorities as groups that are (1) identifiable, (2) have differential
(less) power, and consequently are (3) subjected to differential and pejorative
 Researching Race and Ethnic Inequalities in Education. Key Findings… 1259

treatment, and (4) ultimately develop a sense of group awareness or con-

sciousness of kind. The conjoined effects of identifiability and differential
power generally lead to pejorative treatment, which eventually facilitates
group awareness. This definition of minority avoids the problems associated
with ‘trait definitions’ (see also below) in which specific phenotypic or geno-
typic characteristics or cultural patterns are specified, thereby requiring a con-
tinuous updating of the definition whenever a new disadvantaged group
arrives.
Theoretical work by two groups of scholars can provide the basis for the
present conceptual argument. First, Pierre van den Bergh (1967) noted that
the relationships between the dominant group and the minority group often
was influenced by the extent to which race relations in the society was ‘pater-
nalistic’ or ‘competitive’. The nature of initial contact and the history of con-
flict among the groups will affect the extent to which the minorities are
stereotyped as ‘intellectually and biologically inferior’ and hence relatively
uneducable, as seen in paternalistic systems. Such presumptions may focus
research agendas on accounts for present academic outcomes and attainments.
By contrast, when minorities are seen as competitors, restrictions of educa-
tional opportunities may occur in order to prevent the minority from gaining
an advantage at the expense of the majority. Sometimes societies move from
paternalistic to competitive race relations in the course of this history. Thus,
in the USA relations between whites and African Americans were initially
paternalistic, during the era of slavery and following racial segregation.
Opposition to affirmative action and the emergence of the Standards-based
School Accountability movement in the 1980s and beyond reflect white
middle-­class concerns that white hegemony and privilege had ebbed. Relations
between groups in South Africa are also undergoing such a transition under
black rule, while the treatment of South Asians in South Africa reflected a
combination of paternalistic and competitive forces. Asian Indians were
brought to South Africa by whites because it was assumed that they were more
capable of low-level management activities than were the native population,
but there were concerns about the extent to which Asian Indians might gain
too many advantages because of their hard work. By contrast, the relations
between the dominant populations in most of the European countries in this
Handbook and other European and Turkish minorities reflect issues of con-
cerns about competition, including fears that the guest workers and political
refugees who do not leave will alter the nature of the society to which they
emigrated. In fact, educational issues associated with the children of guest
workers may include condoning educational inequalities on the assumption
that the children will leave shortly, while the education of children of political
1260 P. A. J. Stevens and A. G. Dworkin

refugees who are culturally quite different from the dominant population may
create longer-term strains that raise research questions about pressures toward
assimilation as seen in Finland, Austria, Germany, France, Belgium and
The Netherlands, and China’s treatment of some of its population in the
western portion of the nation. In the case of France, the assumption has been
that all people in France are de facto ‘French’.
Michael Banton (1967) in his analysis of possible outcomes of intergroup
relations held that different forms of initial contact between groups affect
future outcomes. Thus, the long-term outcome of domination, whereby the
minority group is conquered and oppressed may result in a pluralistic society
with the minority retaining its distinctive culture. Paternalism and accultura-
tion, Banton notes, will lead to integration and the incorporation of the
minority into the core society. However, Aboriginal peoples in Australia and
Native American groups in the USA have experienced both domination and
paternalism, and some have remained excluded (or protected) from assimila-
tion into the dominant society. The same has been the condition of some
tribal groups in South Africa, Brazil, and to some extent in Argentina.
Another useful theoretical orientation incorporates work on the nature of
economic systems and the obligations nations owe their people. Green et al.
(2006) examined the interplay between educational and employment oppor-
tunities, social capital, and social cohesion. They described three models, each
with different consequences for social cohesion and for minority populations.
The Social Democratic and Nordic model, exemplified in the Handbook by
the chapter on Finland, has high levels of economic productivity, high
employment, life-long learning that promotes continuous job-skill improve-
ments, a strong social welfare policy, but tends to reserve these benefits to citi-
zens, especially those who are from the dominant population. Culturally
different minorities are a concern for the educational system, especially for
non-standard language learners. Thus, research in educational inequality will
explore the extent to which such societies encourage the assimilation of immi-
grant minority groups as a prerequisite for equity. The Social Market model,
as found in France, Germany, and Austria maintains high productivity due
to the reliance on technology, but labor agreements lead to shorter working
hours and lower employment rates. Domination by high-priced labor pres-
ents barriers to immigrant and minority workers. Research in social market
countries will more often focus on the extent to which minorities are consid-
ered to be sojourners with less attention paid to societal efforts to produce
cohesion and assimilation of immigrant groups. Finally, the Liberal Anglo-­
Saxon model as seen in the UK, USA, Canada, and Australia has high
employment and somewhat longer working hours, with more diversity in the
 Researching Race and Ethnic Inequalities in Education. Key Findings… 1261

better-paid labor force. Additionally, more restricted welfare policies than in

the Nordic countries results in less social cohesion. Research on educational
inequality will tend to focus on how meritocratic policies and restrictions on
access to educational resources have produced such inequalities.

Directions for Future Research

A final goal of this concluding chapter is to identify particular gaps in or issues
with the literature that can stimulate researchers in developing more innova-
tive research questions that build on this rich area of research. These sugges-
tions are based on our reading of the various chapters and are by no means
comprehensive. Hence, readers might not (fully) agree with our analysis of the
research literature or consider additional issues to be more important.
Nevertheless we feel that innovation in this rich area of research is possible by
considering these suggestions.

 ore Research on How Actors Negotiate Structural

M
and Cultural Opportunities and Constraints

A considerable proportion of sociological research on race and ethnic inequal-

ities in education investigates how social background characteristics of ethnic
minority families facilitate or constrain the opportunities of minority stu-
dents, without paying much attention to how young people manage these
structural and cultural characteristics. In so doing, researchers across the globe
seem to be influenced by the more quantitative, functionalist family-­
background literature that emerged in the US, following the publication of
the Coleman Report (1966). In line with Coleman’s conclusion that family
background is more important than school context in explaining differences
in educational outcomes (see chapter on USA), many researchers focused
their analysis on the importance of social class and/or ethnicity in explaining
differences in educational performance within ethnic minority groups and
between ethnic minority and majority groups (e.g. France, Netherlands,
England, Sweden, Taiwan, USA). Research in this area often suggests that
social class is more important than ethnic background, but that this varies
according to country (see: cross-national comparative research) and inter-
sects with ethnicity and gender in explaining achievement patterns (e.g.
Norway, Sweden, The Netherlands and UK). In most of these countries,
this line of research developed into a more ‘resources’ or ‘capital’ focused
1262 P. A. J. Stevens and A. G. Dworkin

research approach, in which ‘differential access to / use of resources’ is used to

explain differential achievement patterns. These studies typically frame
differences in availability and/or use of resources into a ‘deficit model’
­
approach, in which ethnic minority families are described as ‘lacking’ and/or
‘not using’ the ‘right’ cultural and social resources to do well in school
(Australia, Czech Republic, Italy, Norway, Sweden, Taiwan and The
Netherlands).
Inspired by the development of sophisticated (multilevel modelling) tech-
niques, a School Effectiveness and School Inclusion tradition emerged, which
countered the idea that schools ‘don’t matter’ by showing how school features
relate to differences between groups in terms of their educational perfor-
mance (see review on England). However, at the same time this line of
research adopts a more deterministic view on human actors’ behavior and
often fails to open the ‘black box’ of schools, by ignoring how underlying
(socio-­psychological and micro-sociological) processes mediate relationships
between school structural and cultural features and educational and broader
outcomes.
However, both traditions could be enriched by introducing a stronger
notion of agency in their explanatory models. For instance, a rich line of
research developed in England focuses on how (particularly) Muslim girls
and parents of different social classes negotiate various structural and cultural
constraints and opportunities in making educational choices. Although
Muslim girls might feel pressured to conform to gender-specific, patriarchal
expectations (and, for instance, marry early and focus more on their family
role), they also show the ability (through negotiation) to obtain highly valued
educational qualifications and at the same time to meet these cultural expec-
tations (for instance, in choosing a partner that is also approved by the family,
and by combining a career with a more traditional role in the family).
Similarly, research on the importance of school context, could further develop
by focusing more on the importance of micro-sociological processes and
socio-­psychological characteristics in mediating the relationship between
school features and outcomes. For instance, while there is considerable
research that critically analyzes the development and content of educational
policies, there is far less research that investigates how teachers in schools
enact or translate such policies in their everyday interactions with their social
environment in schools, and how this impacts on race and ethnic inequalities
in education (Ball et al. 2012). In a way, this calls for a revaluation and con-
temporary application of classic ethnographic and symbolic interactionist
studies that developed mainly in England in the 1970s and 1980s, and which
highlight the importance of considering students, parents, and school staff as
 Researching Race and Ethnic Inequalities in Education. Key Findings… 1263

active (re)creators of their own social environment (Delamont 1977;

Hammersley and Woods 1984; Hargreaves and Woods 1984; Woods 1990;
Woods and Hammersley 1977). Research with a stronger focus on the role of
‘agency’ would help not only to develop more comprehensive and less deter-
ministic theories for race and ethnic inequalities in education, but also to
deconstruct prevailing stereotypes of certain racial and ethnic groups in popu-
lar discourse.

 ore International, Comparative Research

M
on the Influence of Institutional Processes

One of the key findings of this Handbook is that research on race/ethnic

inequalities is primarily focused on particular (national/regional) educational
systems, instead of examining how differences between educational systems
impact on ethnic and racial inequalities in education. However, at the same
time the chapter on cross-national comparative research shows that the
availability of large-scale datasets (PISA, PIRLS and TIMMS) has allowed
researchers to gain insight into how individual background characteristics,
school characteristics and host and destination country characteristics influ-
ence educational inequalities between dominant and minority ethnic groups
in society.
Research in this field shows for instance that individual level features, like
parental SES, generation and length of stay and language knowledge of par-
ents all explain variability in achievement, but also that there are large differ-
ences between countries: while SES seems to explain all variability in
educational performance in the US, in in EU countries it appears to be not so
strong as a predictor. Furthermore, the data show that effects of ethnic segre-
gation vary by country (sometimes it has positive effect, no effect or negative
effect) and these effects are generally very small compared to segregation by
SES. Cross-national comparative research also shows that there are certain
school factors that seem to increase immigrant achievement: (1) spending
more time in school (i.e. going to school at an earlier age and until a higher
age), (2) no rigorous tracking at a young age and (3) no grade retention;
effects that seem to be stronger for immigrants who do not know the language
of instruction very well. In addition more comprehensive systems seem to give
room for immigrant children to catch up with natives, whereas non-­
comprehensive systems exacerbate inequalities. Yet, subject-wise ability track-
ing positively influences the achievement of immigrant pupils. Finally,
analyses also show the importance of national legislation: more right wing
1264 P. A. J. Stevens and A. G. Dworkin

governments seem better for first generation immigrants, more left wing gov-
ernments for second generation immigrants and more selective immigration
systems are better in that they select more high achieving immigrants (such as
Australia, which uses a ‘point system’ that results in an immigration popula-
tion that is often more educated, and proficient in English compared to other
countries that do not use such a selective system).
These findings underline the importance of what Crul and Schneider call
an ‘institutional approach’ (see chapter on the Netherlands), which relies on
both quantitative and qualitative international comparative research to inves-
tigate how minorities’ educational trajectories differ between countries, and
how this variability can be explained by pointing to specific characteristics of
educational systems. They conclude that such research does not lead to par-
ticular judgments of educational systems as either ‘bad’ or ‘good’ but as hav-
ing different consequences for different groups of students.
The use of such an institutional approach can be very rewarding in explain-
ing differences in ethnic inequalities in educational outcomes between regions
and national contexts. For instance, in the VG community in Belgium, eth-
nic minority children are more likely to finish secondary school, but less likely
to obtain a HE diploma compared to the FGB community in Belgium. This
can be explained by the different selection systems employed in both regions.
The VG educational system can be seen as an early differentiated system, or a
“separation model”, which combines separate educational routes or tracks and
early academic selection. The FWB system in contrast, is said to be a “uniform
integration model” that offers a common curriculum until the age of 14 or 15
but uses grade retention as an alternative selection tool. Similarly, the particu-
larly high level of inequality between native and ethnic minority groups in
Austria, can be explained by some key features of this educational system: the
late starting age of pre-schooling, the early segregation into different ability
tracks (at the age of ten), a low degree of permeability between education
tracks after the early tracking, and a half-day teaching system in compulsory
education.
This also shows that international, comparative research is not synonymous
with choosing large (random) and more representative samples, in that
researchers should consider the benefits from doing research in particular
national contexts that are theoretically interesting to compare. For instance,
the reviews on Brazil, South Africa and the USA show how these countries
differ in terms of the historical development and (perceived) contemporary
nature of race-relations. A similar observation has encouraged Lareau and col-
leagues (Lamont and Mizrachi 2012) to investigate how country-specific his-
torical processes inform the discourses that are available and used by racial
 Researching Race and Ethnic Inequalities in Education. Key Findings… 1265

minorities in responding to experiences of racism. In addition, researchers

could, for instance, explore how different models of multiculturalism and
assimilation as applied in particular countries (with France and the UK as
obvious examples in an EU context) impact on the development of race and
ethnic inequalities in education. Finally, Stevens and Van Houtte (2011)
compare how teachers’ perceptions and interactions with ethnic minority stu-
dents are informed by a market-driven (school accountability) educational
context (i.e. England) and a system where teachers and schools have much
more freedom and power to determine the careers of students (i.e. Belgium).
These examples suggest the importance of future qualitative and quantitative
case-studies conducted in carefully selected, theoretically relevant national
and/or regional contexts.

Interrogating Notions of (In)equality and Ethnicity/Race

In line with Foster et al. (1996), we call for a more critical approach to how
researchers conceptualize and measure notions of ‘equality’ and ‘equity’.
Whilst a concern for more equal opportunities and outcomes for racial and
ethnic minorities drives almost all research written in this area, there is virtu-
ally no consideration of or critical reflection on what is actually meant by
these concepts, and why certain indicators and/or (often implicit) definitions
of what constitutes ‘inequality’ should be favored over others. In line with the
contributors’ observation in relationship to research carried out in Canada,
we find that in most countries two general, almost oppositional views in rela-
tionship to equality emerge. While the first view equates inequality with aca-
demic underachievement, linked to (lack of ) social mobility, a second view
perceives inequality more in terms of an equal, accurate, or representative
representation of cultural knowledge, history, and difference. While the first
view appears to be more dominant in research on ethnic and racial inequali-
ties in education (see overview grid), there is little consideration given to why
and how certain conceptualizations and measurements of ‘underachievement’
are preferred over others (and preferred over ‘educational success’) and how
actors develop particular definitions (including those of minority students
themselves) of these concepts and the processes and contexts underlying their
views. A very interesting exception in this respect constitutes the debate that
developed in England over the measurement of educational outcomes
between racial and ethnic minorities over time (see chapter on England),
which shows that very different conclusions can be drawn regarding the
‘underachievement’ of particular groups depending on how this is measured
1266 P. A. J. Stevens and A. G. Dworkin

and interpreted. Furthermore, the kinds of inequality on which researchers

focus, is sometimes informed by the kids of data that are available. For
instance, researchers in Belgium often focus on ‘soft’ outcomes, such as stu-
dents’ sense of school belonging, ethnic stereotypes, wellbeing, self-esteem
and/or study motivation, as the lack of standardized tests score-data from
Belgian students (and the difficulties in collecting these through surveys)
forces researchers in this context to focus more on broader educational out-
comes. In contrast, researchers in Italy focus almost exclusively on ‘hard out-
comes’ such as students’ test scores on mathematics and language exams, as
these types of data are more readily available for researchers to use. Finally,
research on various forms on inequality shift over time in particular countries
as progress in relationship to certain forms of inequality, make other forms of
inequality theoretically more important. For instance, in Brazil research
focused first on access/enrollment in early education but once this was deemed
to be sufficiently realized, researchers started to focus more on access to HE
and subtle processes of discrimination in early education (see also Israel).
Similarly, future research should adopt a more careful approach to the use
of ‘ethnicity’ and ‘race’ as explanatory concepts. Typically, research tends to
focus on ethnic and racial groups that are considered to be sufficiently large
and/or visible and/or politically recognized and/or underachieving in a par-
ticular national or regional context. This often leads to the construction and
use of particular ethnic or racial classifications which are subject to change
and contested in terms of their validity. For instance in the chapter on Brazil
(in relationship to the use of various color categories) and Czech Republic (in
relationship to the measurement of ‘Roma’), the authors describe ongoing
debates on the validity of the classification system proposed by the govern-
ment. In line with more contemporary criticism leveled at much sociological
research that uses ethnic and racial groups as structural (ontological) deter-
mining forces (Brubaker 2004; Carter and Fenton 2009), researchers should
focus more on how people develop particular in-group identifications and
out-group categorizations in relationship to educational inequality, and how
such ethnicized and racialized notions of collective belonging and positioning
are mobilized as a resource, rather than assigning any determining force or
constitutive properties a priori to such groups.
In some national contexts, the different ways in which ethnicity and race
are used as concepts in research has resulted in the development of very differ-
ent, almost oppositional traditions of research that focus on different research
questions and findings, even when focusing on similar issues (see for example
the discussion in the chapters on Canada or the USA on research analyzing
the impact of teacher expectations on students). The changing nature of such
 Researching Race and Ethnic Inequalities in Education. Key Findings… 1267

ethnic classifications also manifests itself in a changing focus over time in

terms of which ‘ethnic groups’ should be studied and compared. In Israel for
instance, researchers initially focused on differences in educational outcomes
between ‘new comers’ (defined as ‘ascenders’) versus ‘old timers’ (Israeli –
born). Later this focus shifted first to a comparison of Ashkenazim and
Mizrachim Jews, and afterwards to a comparison of majority Jews with minor-
ity Arabs. More generally, the socially constructed nature of ethnic/racial cat-
egories and the perception of educational underachievement as a social
problem for particular ethnic groups, calls for research that explores why par-
ticular groups are (not) identified as a source of concern, who takes part in
this process, how this develops over time, and what the consequences are of
(not) being recognized as such. Research in this area could focus on national
contexts where such ethnic categories are contested in the academic and/or
public debate (such as in Brazil and the Czech Republic) and countries
where ethnic classifications have remained remarkably stable over time (such
as in China).

Multicultural Policies and Practices: What’s in the Name?

In a considerable number of countries, explicit assimilation policies have been

gradually replaced by policies that emphasize the importance of celebrating
multiculturalism in society in general and schools in particular (e.g.:
Argentina, Australia, Canada, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Germany, Italy,
Ireland). Schools are seen as ideal settings where young people can be taught
how to function in an increasingly more super-diverse society, which calls for
the development of inter-cultural skills, a general appreciation of the diversity
that is part of a multicultural society and a clear stance against racism.
However, at the same time, researchers have raised concerns about the
nature and effectiveness of such policies (see for instance reviews on Belgium,
Canada, Cyprus, England, Ireland, Italy and Sweden). First, studies have
identified contradictions in multicultural (MC) policies and related, official
discourse surrounding multiculturalism and multicultural education (MCE),
in that such policies are often characterized by implicit assimilationist views.
Second, it is argued that the translation from such policies to the develop-
ment and implementation of multicultural curricula is weak. Third, little is
known about what makes such policies effective in developing particular out-
comes (such as: less prejudice, more positive inter-cultural relationships in
school, ethnic minority students’ sense of belonging to school, their self-
esteem and their educational outcomes). Finally, it is argued that principals
1268 P. A. J. Stevens and A. G. Dworkin

lack the training and related knowledge and skills to effectively develop,
implement and evaluate MC school policies and for teachers to implement
these in their teaching in classrooms. For instance, recent large-scale, quanti-
tative research in the VG of Belgium suggests that principals have in general
little influence on teachers’ adoption of multicultural teaching (MCT) in the
classroom, that efforts to implement MCT remain underdeveloped and
merely focused on what Banks (1993) calls ‘content integration’ (or teachers’
use of examples from a variety of cultures in teaching their curriculum) and
that students’ ethnic prejudice is not reduced by teachers’ perceptions of their
involvement with MCT, but rather by how students evaluate teachers’ involve-
ment with MCT (Vervaet 2018). Research could build on this developing
area of research by focusing more on what makes MCE/MCT (more) effec-
tive for developing particular outcomes and by explaining why school,
regional and national settings differ in terms of their willingness and success
in adopting such policies. Finally, critical research could continue to play an
important role in this area of research by unveiling the hidden, subtle ways in
which so called MC policies harbor in fact assimilationists and/or color blind
approaches to diversity in education, and the effects of doing so for educa-
tional and broader outcomes.
The last two chapters of the Handbook do not focus on individual coun-
tries, but rather raise cross-national issues. Dicks, Dronkers, and Levels pro-
vide insights and cautions about analysis of cross-national achievement data
used to compare the performances of immigrant and native-born youth.
Data on variations in socio-economic status, language facility, and the immi-
grants’ home countries can significantly improve analyses. Other consider-
ation include the pooling of available data over time, data on the students’
teachers and their own immigrant backgrounds and data on parents can
greatly improve the analyses.
The chapter on social cohesion, trust and accountability offered by Dworkin
points to issues that make plausible the redress of racial and ethnic inequalities
in the educational sphere. Societies that are cohesive in the presence of racial
and ethnic diversity are unlikely to place educational barriers before minority
and immigrant children. The factors that contribute to social cohesion, and
especially cohesion in light of diversity, are explored in the chapter. By con-
trast, those factors that increase the social capital of dominant groups may
reduce it for minorities and immigrants. Neoliberal accountability systems
frequently militate against social cohesion in the presence of diversity and
likewise do regularly enhance the social capital of immigrant and minority
children.
 Researching Race and Ethnic Inequalities in Education. Key Findings… 1269

In the course of this Handbook the contributors and the editors have
attempted to emphasize that the research traditions found in each country
reflect the particular salient social issues present in that country. Because
­sociological research often has substantial policy implications, and in fact, is
frequently undertaken to inform and influence educational decision-makers,
the watchword for much of the research discussed in this Handbook is ‘rele-
vance’. Our purpose in organizing this Handbook has been two-fold. First, we
wanted to portray the rich diversity of research traditions, existing cross-
nationally, that address educational inequalities in our globalizing world.
Second, we wanted to develop a framework by which educational researchers
from many parts of the world can come to recognize that in this diversity of
research traditions there are also numerous commonalities, albeit influenced
by the particular nature of a society’s history of intergroup contacts. In a world
in which education is increasingly being globalized and in which standards and
measurement of academic achievement have ramifications for the competitive-
ness of national labor forces (Pigozzi 2006), we think that both diversity and
commonality of research themes and traditions can be most informative.

Bibliograpy
Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., & Braun, A. (2012). How Schools Do Policy: Policy Enactments
in Secondary Schools. London: Routledge.
Banks, J. A. (1993). Multicultural Education: Histrorical Development, Dimensions,
and Practice. Review of Research in Education, 19(1), 3–49.
Banton, M. (1967). Race Relations. New York: Basic Books.
Brubaker, R. (2004). Ethnicity Without Groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Carter, B., & Fenton, S. (2009). Not Thinking Ethnicity: A Critique of the Ethnicity
Paradigm in an Over-Ethnicised Sociology. Journal for the Theory of Social
Behaviour, 40, 1–18.
Delamont, S. (Ed.). (1977). Readings on Interactionism in the Classroom: Contemporary
Sociology of the School. London/New York: Methuen.
Dworkin, A. G., & Dworkin, R. J. (1999). The Minority Report. New York: Harcourt
Brace Publishers.
Foster, P., Gomm, R., & Hammersley, M. (1996). Constructing Educational Inequality:
An Assessment of Research on School Processes. London: Falmer.
Gamoran, A., & Berends, M. (1987). The Effects of Stratification in Secondary
Schools: Synthesis of Survey and Ethnographic Research. Review of Educational
Research, 57, 415–435.
1270 P. A. J. Stevens and A. G. Dworkin

Green, A., Preston, J., & Janmaat, J. G. (2006). Education, Equality, and Social
Cohesion: A Comparative Analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hammersley, M., & Woods, P. (1984). Life in School: The Sociology of Pupil Culture.
Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Hargreaves, A., & Woods, P. (1984). Classrooms and Staffrooms: The Sociology of
Teachers and Teaching. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Jacobs, D., Rea, A., Teney, C., Callier, L., & Lothaire, S. (2009). De sociale lift blijft
steken. De prestaties van allochtone leerlingen in de Vlaamse Gemeenschap en de
Franse Gemeenschap. De Koning Boudewijnstichting: Brussels.
Lamont, M., & Mizrachi, N. (2012). Ordinary People Doing Extraordinary Things:
Responses to Stigmatization in Comparative Perspective. Ethnic and Racial Studies,
35, 365–381.
Pigozzi, M. J. (2006). What Is the Quality of Education? (A UNESCO Perspective.
In K. N. Ross &. I. J. Genevois (Eds.), Cross-National Studies of the Quality of
Education: Planning Their Design and Managing Their Impact (pp. 39–50). Paris:
UNESCO: International Institute for Educational Planning. http://www.unesco.
org/iiep
Pinterits, E. J., Spanierman, L. B., & Poteat, P. V. (2009). The White Privilege
Attitudes Scale: Development and Initial Validation. Journal of Clinical Psychology,
56, 417–429.
Prokic-Breuer, T., & Dronkers, J. (2011). Highly Differentiated but Still Not the Same
Results: Explaining Differences in Educational Achievement Between Highly
Differentiated Educational Systems with General and Vocational Training.
Onderwijsresearchdagen: University of Maastricht (Netherlands).
Quillian, L. (2006). New Approaches to Understanding Racial Prejudice and
Discrimination. Annual Review of Sociology, 32, 299–328.
Stevens, P. A. J., & Van Houtte, M. (2011). Adapting to the System or the Student?
Exploring Teacher Adaptations to Disadvantaged Students in an English and
Belgian Secondary School. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33(1),
59–75.
Van Den Berghe, P. (1967). Race and Racism: A Comparative Perspective. New York:
Wiley.
Van Houtte, M. (2004). Tracking Effects on School Achievement: A Quantitative
Explanation in Terms of the Academic Culture of School Staff. American Journal
of Education, 110, 354–388.
Vervaet, Roselien. (2018). Ethnic Prejudice Among Flemish Pupils: Does the School
Context Matter? (Unpublished PhD Thesis). Department of Sociology, Ghent
University.
Woods, P. (1990). The Happiest Days? How Pupils Cope with School. London/New
York: The Falmer Press.
Woods, P., & Hammersley, M. (Eds.). (1977). School Experience. Explorations in the
Sociology of Education. New York: St Martin’s Press.