Religion, denomination, and education in the Netherlands

1. Religion, Denomination, and Education in The
Netherlands: Cognitive and Noncognitive
Outcomes After an Era of Secularization
GEERT DRIESSEN
FRANS VAN DER SLIK
After 1850, The Netherlands developed into a strongly pillarized or denominational society. Starting in 1965,
however, a process of secularization and depillarization emerged and the influence of the institutionalized de-
nominations declined greatly. Today, there are indications that the process of secularization has reached its peak.
Remarkably enough, such secularization and depillarization has had little influence on the educational system in
The Netherlands. In this article, the relations between the religious affiliations of parents, the denominations of the
schools attended by their children, and both the cognitive and noncognitive educational achievement of their chil-
dren are examined. A representative sample of nearly 8,400 kindergarten students from 432 elementary schools is
studied. The results show that the denomination of the school does not appear to affect educational results. Effects
of the religious affiliation of the parents on the cognitive achievement but not the self-confidence or well-being of
their children were found. When the socioethnic background of the students was taken into consideration, however,
the observed effects disappeared.
INTRODUCTION
The core of many educational systems as they currently exist in Western Europe was formed
during the second half of the 19th and early 20th centuries. During this process, the religious and
secular elites were the most important parties. The battle that raged at the time resulted in three
types of educational systems. Within the first type, the state has complete control over education.
The second type is characterized by a national system of uniform regulations, with the dominant
religious group having a decisive stamp on the matter, although there is space for other groups.
Within the third type, different groups operate on an equal basis next to each other within a
uniform set of rules (Dijkstra and Peschar 1996).
The Netherlands is a clear example of the third type. As a result of the “school dispute” in
The Netherlands, equal treatment of public and private schools was constitutionally established
in 1917. This implies, among other things, the freedom to found a school and the freedom to teach
according to a particular ideology or social principles. These freedoms and the associated right to
equal funding by the government have, over the years, led to a colorful palette of denominations
(van Haaften and Snik 1999).1
With regard to elementary schools, the most sizable denominations
are the public, Protestant Christian, and Roman Catholic. In the school year 1999–2000, the
distribution of elementary schools across these three denominations was 34 percent, 30 percent,
and 30 percent, respectively. In addition, the government recognized 16 other denominations,
such as the Islamic, the Hindu, the Jena Plan, and the Montessori, which together constituted
some 7 percent of the schools.
Characteristic of the Dutch situation is the fact that the battle for equal treatment of public and
private schools did not occur on its own but was, rather, part of a general emancipatory process of
“pillarization” that penetrated all aspects of society (de Rooy 1997 ). The result of this was a society
Dr. Geert Driessen is a researcher at the Institute for Applied Social Sciences (I.T.S.) of the University of Nijmegen, The
Netherlands, P.O. Box 9048, 6500 KJ Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Email: G.Driessen@its.kun.nl
Dr. Frans van der Slik is a researcher at the Department of Applied Linguistics of the University of Nijmegen, The
Netherlands, P.O. Box 9103, 6500 HD Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Email: f.v.d.slik@let kun.nl
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 40:4 (2001) 561–572

2. 562 JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF RELIGION
vertically segregated on the basis of religion with each “pillar” containing its own political parties,
labor unions, schools, radio and TV networks, newspapers, sport clubs, hospitals, and so forth.
This close interweaving of the religious and the secular implies that, until the 1960s, the choice
of a private versus public school was not made on educational grounds but on religious grounds
(Dronkers 1996). After that time, a process of secularization and dechurching was initiated and the
role of religion and the church within society changed drastically (Felling, Peters, and Schreuder
1991; Hermans and van Vugt 1997). Depending on the way the question is formulated, between
40 and 60 percent of the Dutch people are still religious at this moment (Dekker and Ester 1996).
In 1991, 43 percent of the Dutch people were members of a church; in 1960, this number was
82 percent. A strong generation effect plays a role in these findings, though, with 59 percent of
those between 51 and 79 years of age calling themselves a member of a church in 1991 and only
28 percent of the 21 to 30 year olds doing so at the same time. Church attendance has declined
dramatically: from 67 percent of the church members in 1970 to 43 percent in 1991 (Faber et al.
1970; Lechner 1996). At the same time, a process of “depillarization” has emerged. According
to Bax (1998), three developments are responsible for this: the rise of the modern welfare state
with the existing pillars losing their social control as a result; scale expansion of the schools
with diminished ideological isolation of social groups as a result; and increased secularization
with, for example, voting behavior no longer inextricably bound up with religious affiliation as a
result.
While the waning influence of the church can be seen in most social institutions and organi-
zations, the denominational educational system has remained largely intact. In 1950, for example,
73 percent of all elementary school children attended a private school; in 1993, the number was
68 percent (Dronkers 1996). The occurrence of this paradoxical situation is related, in the opin-
ion of Bax (1988), to the vested interests of the professionals in denominational organizations
and their legal protection (cf. Dekker and Ester 1996). Dronkers (1996) adds a few other possi-
ble explanations. The informal relations between school administration and teachers in private
schools may contribute to the high achievement of students in such schools and thereby attract
nonreligious parents. Additionally, private schools may be more attractive than public schools
because, in contrast to the obligation of the latter to be neutral, private schools pay consider-
able attention to basic values and norms. According to Dronkers, more traditional parents avoid
public schools because they are generally too progressive. Finally, one can speak of a conscious
educational choice on the part of the parents and teachers at a private school, which encourages
the development of an educational community with shared values and may thereby foster higher
achievement. Private schools can thus provide some counterweight to the negative influence of
increased individualization in modern society.
That the denominational education system has remained intact does not mean that factors
other than religion have not gradually come to play a role in the choice of school, especially the
quality of the education (Ritzen, van Dommelen, and de Vijlder 1997). One can add to this that,
since the 1980s, a number of “new” denominations have emerged, such as the Islamic and the
Hindu (Driessen and Valkenberg 2000). According to a recent study by van Kessel (2000), in the
city of Amsterdam approximately 50 percent of the elementary school children are of a foreign
origin and there are only six Islamic schools at this moment; in principle there is a need for 20
such schools.
Given the central role of denomination within the Dutch educational system, a number of
different studies have been conducted around this theme over the years. Some of the studies
concern the founding of new schools. To found a new school in The Netherlands, a prognosis
must be made with regard to the expected number of students. The conclusion is usually that a
discrepancy exists between the denominations of the existing schools and the preferences of the
parents. The number of parents who cannot realize the desired school choice can vary between
25 and 40 percent (van der Wouw 1994). Some recent studies have been concerned with the
foundation of “new” denomination schools, such as Islamic or Hindu schools (van Kessel 2000).

3. RELIGION AND EDUCATION IN THE NETHERLANDS 563
Studiesinwhichtherelationsbetweenthereligiousaffiliationoftheparents,thedenomination
of the school, and the educational careers of the children are examined are generally referred to as
effect studies: a more or less causal relation is drawn between religious affiliation or denomination
and educational chances (Bosker and Dijkstra 1996; de Jong and Roeleveld 1989; Jungbluth and
Driessen 1987). For an extensive review of the research concerned with the denomination of
the schools in particular, the reader is referred to Dijkstra (1997). From this overview, it can be
seen that much of the research is concentrated on cognitive outcomes (i.e., language and math
achievement) at the end of elementary school and beginning of junior high school. Noncognitive
effectsandotherphasesoftheschoolcareerareonlysporadicallyexamined.AccordingtoDijkstra,
the findings of these studies show an inconsistent picture: denomination-specific differences are
sometimes detected and sometimes not detected. Consistency and systematicity in the results is
generally difficult to find. It is not possible to speak of general effects encompassing a number of
domains or involving a variety of criterion variables. All of this does not mean that there is not
a tendency for different denomination schools to show small differences in educational results.
Once again, the effects of denomination appear to be detrimental in the case of public schools and
favorable in the case of private schools. Among the private schools, the Roman Catholic schools
can be found at the top of the list, followed by the general private, and thereafter the Protestant
Christian schools. These outcomes are in line with studies in the United States (Coleman 1987),
in which it was found that students at Catholic schools performed better than students at public
(Protestant) schools.
Research concerned with the religious affiliation of the parents and the educational achieve-
ment of their children is (Dijkstra and Peschar 1996; Sherkat and Darnell 1999) only available to
a very limited extent in not only The Netherlands but also abroad. From their overview of this type
of research, it appears that insofar as the effects of religious affiliation are considered, the effects
almost completely disappear when the socioeconomic background of the students is taken into
consideration: differences in educational results are thus explained away by milieu differences
between religious groups.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The literature shows a paucity of large-scale representative research on the relations between
the religious affiliation of parents and the denominations of schools, on the one hand, and religious
affiliation, school denomination, and both cognitive and noncognitive educational results, on the
other hand. These connections have become very relevant over the past few years because both
the government and society have been placing an increasing emphasis on the quality of education
(Ritzen, van Dommelen, and de Vijlder 1997). The quality of education can be deduced primarily
from the output of the schools, that is, the results of the schools in terms of student achievement.
This has led to the publication of annual overviews of the quality and output of schools by
the educational inspectorate in The Netherlands and to the publication of the school results in
newspapers and on the Internet. All of this is based on the argument that parents should be given
the opportunity to make their own responsible choice of school. Despite the ongoing process of
secularization and depillarization, the Dutch educational system based on religious categories
has remained intact. The question is whether this is related to the quality of the denomination
schools. If this were the case, then there should be output differences among schools of different
denominations. According to Laemers (1999), the quality of education is now grosso modo the
most important factor motivating school choice, with the choice of a particular denomination
becoming more implicit as a result. This does not mean, according to Laemers, that a group of
parents with a specific interest in the denomination of the school does not exist, as the recent
founding of Islamic, Hindu, and Evangelical schools clearly attests.
In light of these developments, it is relevant to determine the possible relations between
religious affiliation, denomination, and educational results. Do we find differences in educational

4. 564 JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF RELIGION
outcomes—cognitive as well as noncognitive—in favor of private schools, which may help explain
why the educational system based on denominational differences has remained intact despite the
highly secularized climate in The Netherlands? With the data from the national cohort study
of Elementary Education (the PRIMA study) in The Netherlands, these relations can now be
studied. The PRIMA study is a recent, national, large-scale longitudinal study with data collected
at elementary schools every two years from head-teachers, teachers, students, and parents. Two
important features of PRIMA address equality and quality issues in education. The PRIMA data
include a stock of information on the full range of denominations and religious affiliations together
with not only measures of cognitive results but also noncognitive results. The PRIMA data make
it possible to control for socioeconomic background characteristics, which is necessary to get a
fair picture of the net results of education (Scheerens and Bosker 1997), and to study the early
school years, which constitute a phase of the school career that has yet to be considered. Stated
concretely, we would like to answer the following question with the aid of the PRIMA data: What
relations exist between the religious affiliation of the parents, the denomination of the school, the
language and math achievement, and the self-confidence and well-being of the students? What
role does the socioethnic background play in these relations?
DATA AND VARIABLES
Sample
Within the PRIMA cohort, a sample of 432 schools largely representative of all elementary
schools in The Netherlands can be distinguished (Driessen, van Langen, Portengen, and Vierke
1998). The parents of the kindergarten children (second grade, on average six years of age)
were asked about their religious affiliation via a written questionnaire. The response rate was
79 percent with large differences depending on socioethnic background. We therefore went on to
determine whether we could speak of denominational selectivity or not. The differences between
the denominations appeared to be very minimal; only the Islamic and Hindu schools, which are
attended by predominantly ethnic minority students, stood out with a 44 percent response rate. In
the end, a sample of 8,394 students remained.
Variables
Religious Affiliation
The following question was asked with regard to the religious affiliation of the parents:
“Which church, religious community, or ideological group do you and your partner ascribe to?”
The response categories distinguished were: (1) none, (2) Roman Catholic, (3) Dutch Reformed,
(4) Calvinist, (5) other Christian, (6) Islamic, (7) Hindu, or (8) other.2
To obtain a variable at the
level of the family, the data from the mother were used; if there was no mother, the data from the
father were used.
Denomination
Regarding the denominations of the schools, the following categories could be distinguished:
(1) public, (2) Roman Catholic, (3) Protestant Christian, (4) Reformed, (5) Reformational,
(6) Islamic, (7) Hindu, or (8) general private.3
On content and numerical grounds, the Reformed
and Reformational schools were combined, as were the Islamic and Hindu schools.
Socioethnic Background
An indicator of the socioethnic background of the family is the so-called weighting factor
used by the Dutch Ministry of Education to assess the degree of disadvantage for students. This

5. RELIGION AND EDUCATION IN THE NETHERLANDS 565
indicator is based on ethnic origin along with the educational and professional level of the parents
(Driessen 2000). We distinguished three categories: (1) children who do not find themselves at a
disadvantage; (2) native Dutch children at a disadvantage; and (3) ethnic minority children at a
disadvantage. The distribution of the students in our sample across these categories was found to
be: 66.6 percent, 23.9 percent, and 9.2 percent, respectively.
Cognitive Outcomes
Achievement was measured with the aid of two tests developed by the National Institute
for Educational Measurement (CITO) to provide an indication of the level of prereading and
prearithmetic skills.4
For the entire sample, the average scores on the tests were 974 and 904,
respectively, with standard deviations of 34 and 63 (reliability: KR-20 0.96 and 0.90, respec-
tively).
Noncognitive Outcomes
Self-confidence and well-being were measured using a series of statements presented to the
teachers with the request that the teachers indicate the extent to which the statements apply to each
student.5
The ratings could vary from (1) definitely untrue to (5) definitely true. On the basis of
the reactions, the factors self-confidence and well-being were constructed (reliability: Cronbach’s
alpha of 0.75 and 0.77, respectively). The average ratings for the entire sample were 3.5 and 4.2,
respectively, with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.5.
DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSES
Denomination and Religious Affiliation
In Table 1 under N, the distribution of the number of students per religious affiliation of the
parents and denomination of the schools are presented.
From this table it can be concluded that 31 percent of the students in the PRIMA sam-
ple have parents with no religious affiliation (2,549 of in total 8,260 students), 38 percent
TABLE 1
SOCIOETHNIC BACKGROUND ACCORDING TO RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION
AND SCHOOL DENOMINATION (PERCENTAGES)
Socioethnic Background Socioethnic Background
Religious No Dutch Ethnic No Dutch Ethnic
Affiliation Disadv. Disadv. Disadv. N Denomination Disadv. Disadv. Disadv. N
None 71.5 25.7 2.8 2,549 Pu 67.8 22.4 9.7 2,332
RC 70.2 27.4 2.4 3,096 RC 66.1 26.3 7.6 3,317
DR 72.4 26.3 1.3 963 PC 65.9 24.6 9.5 1,967
Ca 79.1 19.5 1.4 533 Red, Rel 79.1 19.7 1.3 228
Ch 70.6 16.8 12.6 409 Is, Hi 10.7 0.0 89.3 73
Is, Hi 6.6 1.4 92.1 550 GP 74.6 14.5 10.9 343
Other 61.6 21.9 16.6 160
η 0.59 8,260 0.18 8,260
NOTE: Pu = public; RC = Roman Catholic; DR = Dutch Reformed; Ca = Calvinist; Red = Reformed;
Rel = Reformational; Is = Islamic; Hi = Hindu; GP = general private, Ch = other Christian.

6. 566 JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF RELIGION
are Roman Catholic, 24 percent are Protestant (Dutch Reformed, Calvinist, other Christian),
7 percent are Muslim or Hindu, and 2 percent have another affiliation. It should be noted
that the parents of these students are relatively young; the average age of the mothers is 35
years, and that of the fathers 37 years. The table also shows that 28 percent of the students
are at public schools (2,332 of in total 8,260 students), 40 percent are at Roman Catholic
schools, and 27 percent are at Protestant schools (Protestant Christian, Reformed, Reforma-
tional), while only 1 percent are at Islamic or Hindu schools, and 4 percent are at general private
schools.
Socioethnic Background, Religious Affiliation, and Denomination
Which parents choose which schools? This is the next question we will attempt to answer.
Table 1 also gives the distributions of the socioethnic family backgrounds according to religious
affiliation and denomination of the school. When we examine the relation between religious
affiliation and socioethnic background, it appears that 71.5 percent of the students with parents
without a religious affiliation belong to the group with no disadvantage; 25.7 percent to the
group of native Dutch disadvantaged students; and 2.8 percent to the group of ethnic minority
disadvantaged students. The distributions for the students of Roman Catholic or Dutch Reformed
parents do not deviate much from this. The Calvinist category shows a relatively greater number of
students with no disadvantage and also very few native Dutch and ethnic minority disadvantaged
children. Among the categories of other Christians and other, the percentage of ethnic minority
disadvantaged children stands out. As expected, almost all of the Muslim and Hindu children are
disadvantaged ethnic minorities.
When we consider the denomination of the school in relation to the socioethnic background
of the students, we see that within the three largest denominations (Roman Catholic, public, and
Protestant Christian), about two-thirds of the students consistently belong to the category of stu-
dents with no disadvantage; approximately 25 percent belong to the category of native Dutch
disadvantaged students; and approximately 9 percent belong to the category of ethnic minority
disadvantaged students. The Roman Catholic schools tend to have somewhat fewer ethnic mi-
nority students. At the Reformed and Reformational schools, there are relatively many students
with no disadvantage and virtually no ethnic minority disadvantaged students. At the Islamic and
Hindu schools, there are primarily ethnic disadvantaged minority students. Finally, at the general
private schools, there is a relatively large percentage of students with no disadvantage and ethnic
minority students at a disadvantage.
Religious Affiliation, School Denomination, and Educational Results
What is the relation between religious affiliation and school denomination, on the one hand,
and a number of cognitive and noncognitive educational results, on the other hand? With regard to
the latter, four categories of results were distinguished: language achievement, math achievement,
self-confidence, and well-being. In Table 2, an overview of the average scores according to
religious affiliation and school denomination is presented.
With respect to language achievement, it can be seen that nearly 6 percent of the variation
in the scores is “explained” by the religious affiliation of the parents (viz. η 0.242
× 100). The
language achievement of the children of parents with a Roman Catholic religious affiliation is the
highest with a score of 978; the language achievement of the Muslim and Hindu children is the
lowest with a score of 943 (the difference between these scores is 35 points or 1 standard deviation).
The latter finding is not particularly surprising when one realizes that the parents in the Muslim
and Hindu groups are also the least educated parents. With respect to math achievement, there is a
comparable pattern of findings: the children of Roman Catholic parents achieve best; the Muslim

7. RELIGION AND EDUCATION IN THE NETHERLANDS 567
TABLE 2
LANGUAGE ACHIEVEMENT, MATH ACHIEVEMENT, SELF-CONFIDENCE, AND
WELL-BEING ACCORDING TO RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION OF THE PARENTS
AND DENOMINATION OF THE SCHOOL (AVERAGES)
Religious Self- Well- Self- Well-
Affiliation Language Math Confidence Being Denomination Language Math Confidence Being
None 975 904 3.5 4.1 Pu 973 901 3.5 4.1
RC 978 914 3.5 4.1 RC 977 910 3.5 4.0
DR 976 904 3.5 4.1 PC 972 897 3.6 4.1
Ca 975 904 3.6 4.1 Red, Rel 972 902 3.5 3.9
Ch 974 899 3.6 4.1 Is, Hi 949 863 3.9 4.0
Is, Hi 943 856 3.6 4.1 GP 975 910 3.4 4.1
Other 971 901 3.6 4.1
η 0.24 0.22 0.04 0.03 0.10 0.11 0.07 0.07
NOTE: Pu = public; RC = Roman Catholic; DR = Dutch Reformed; Ca = Calvinist; Red = Reformed;
Rel = Reformational; Is = Islamic; Hi = Hindu; GP = general private, Ch = other Christian.
and Hindu children achieve poorest (with a difference of 58 points or 0.9 standard deviation).
With respect to self-confidence and well-being, no significant differences were observed for the
different categories of religious affiliation.
The differences observed for denominationof school are smaller than the differences observed
for religious affiliation. Insofar as they are comparable, the pattern of the scores for school
denomination parallels the pattern of the scores for religious affiliation. It is striking that the
teachers at the Islamic and Hindu schools judge their students as having a relatively high degree
of self-confidence (a difference of 0.4 points as compared to the other categories or half a standard
deviation).
The final conclusion after inspection of the results in Table 2 is that moderate differences
in language and math achievement appear to correlate with religious affiliation and small dif-
ferences with denomination. When the category “Islamic/Hindu” is omitted from further analy-
ses, however, the difference according to religious affiliation and denomination disappears com-
pletely. The differences in the remaining categories explain no more than 0.5 percent of the
variance in the test results. With regard to self-confidence and well-being, there are again no
differences.
MULTILEVEL ANALYSES
As already mentioned, differences in the socioethnic backgrounds of the children were found
to relate to religious affiliation and school denomination. Although the differences in language
and math achievement depending on religious affiliation and school denomination were only
moderate, we still wanted to determine what remains of the differences after taking socioethnic
background into consideration. Because we found no differences in the noncognitive outcomes,
we did not include self-confidence and well-being in the analyses.
The characteristics of religious affiliation and denomination are located at two different
levels, namely, at the student and at the school level. It has recently been suggested that this level
difference should be explicitly taken into consideration and a suitable form of analysis applied,
namely, multilevel analysis (Snijders and Bosker 1999). Multilevel analyses have the advantage
of showing which part of the explanation is situated at which level. In the present study, we used
the program MLn (Rasbash and Woodhouse 1996).

8. 568 JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF RELIGION
Given that religious affiliation and denomination are nominal variables, we used dummy
variables for each of the categories of these predictors. To prevent the occurrence of linear
dependence within the model, one of the dummy variables was omitted from the analyses. The
regression coefficients are then the effects of a category in contrast to the omitted category. We
decided to omit “no religious affiliation” for religious affiliation and “public school” for denom-
ination. Effects thus represent differences in the category averages in contrast to the category of
“no religious affiliation” and “public school,” respectively.
In Tables 3 and 4 the following models are presented:
0 the null model
R total influence of religious affiliation
D total influence of denomination
B total influence of socioethnic background
R.B independent influence of religious affiliation (with background constant)
D.B independent influence of denomination (with background constant)
The results with regard to language will be described extensively. The null model shows the
total variance in the language achievement of the students to be divided into two levels: the largest
part (86.8 percent) is located at the student level, while a small part (13.2 percent) is located at
the school level.
TABLE 3
RESULTS OF MULTILEVEL ANALYSES OF LANGUAGE ACHIEVEMENT
ACCORDING TO RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION OF PARENTS (R) AND
SCHOOL DENOMINATION (D) WITHOUT AND WITH SOCIOETHNIC
BACKGROUND (B) CONTROLLED FOR
0 R D B R.B D.B
Variance components
Student level (%) 86.8 3.1 4.3 +0.9
School level (%) 13.2 22.7 7.6 29.7 +0.9 +3.6
χ2
/d f 54.5∗
4.5 453.8∗
13.6∗
2.7
Regression coefficients
Socioethnic background −13.0∗
−10.0∗
−12.9∗
Religious affiliation (compared to no religion):
RC 0.2 0.3
DR 0.6 0.4
Ca 0.0 −0.7
Ch −0.9 0.1
Is, Hi −28.8∗
−16.0∗
Other −4.0 −1.7
Denomination (compared to public school):
RC 4.4 4.2
PC 0.0 −0.1
Red, Rel 0.8 −2.1
Is, Hi −24.3∗
−6.9
GP 2.9 1.5
NOTE: Pu = public; RC = Roman Catholic; DR = Dutch Reformed; Ca = Calvinist; Red = Reformed;
Ref = Reformational; Is = Islamic; Hi = Hindu; GP = general private, Ch = other Christian.

9. RELIGION AND EDUCATION IN THE NETHERLANDS 569
TABLE 4
RESULTS OF MULTILEVEL ANALYSES OF MATH ACHIEVEMENT ACCORDING
TO RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION OF PARENTS (R) AND SCHOOL DENOMINATION
(D) WITHOUT AND WITH SOCIOETHNIC BACKGROUND (B)
CONTROLLED FOR
0 R D B R.B D.B
Variance components
Student level (%) 80.5 2.3 4.7 +0.4
School level (%) 19.5 13.0 5.7 17.5 +1.3 +3.4
χ2
/d f 38.7∗
3.6 448.4∗
6.6 2.4
Regression coefficients
Socioethnic background −23.6∗
−20.1∗
−23.5∗
Religious affiliation (compared to no religion):
RC 3.1 3.2
DR 1.5 1.3
Ca 0.8 −0.4
Ch −2.6 −0.7
Is, Hi −43.2∗
−18.2∗
Other −3.6 1.0
Denomination (compared to public school):
RC 10.0 9.7
PC 0.0 −0.2
Red, Rel 2.7 −2.3
Is, Hi −37.0 −5.5
GP 10.7 8.1
NOTE: Pu = public; RC = Roman Catholic; DR = Dutch Reformed; Ca = Calvinist; Red = Reformed;
Ref = Reformational; Is = Islamic; Hi = Hindu; GP = general private, Ch = other Christian.
The percentages of the variance explained by the models following the null model or models
R, D, and B are determined with respect to the total variance at that level. The student-level
variables of religious affiliation and socioethnic background exert an influence at both the student
and school levels. Religious affiliation explains 3.1 percent of the student-level variance and 22.7
percent of the school-level variance. Because denomination is a school variable, it can only explain
school variance, which was found to be 7.6 percent. Socioethnic background explained more of
the variance in language than did religious affiliation: 4.3 percent at the student level and 29.7
percent at the school level.
The percentages of the variance explained in the models R.B and D.B—when socioethnic
background is thus held constant—represent the amount of additional variance explained by
religious affiliation and denomination, respectively, after the influence of background has been
excluded. At both levels, religious affiliation is found to add only 0.9 percent to the amount of
explained variance and denomination only 3.6 percent.
It is sometimes concluded that school-level predictors are extremely important for the stu-
dents’ school achievement. The fact is, however, that given the existence of relatively little variance
to explain at the level of the school, their contribution to the total amount of explained variance
can actually only be very small. When the explained variances are translated into proportions of
the total variance, we get the following results. For the influence of religious affiliation at the
level of the student, this is 3.1 percent of 86.8 percent or 2.7 percent; at the level of the school,
it is 22.7 percent of 13.2 percent or 3.0 percent. Only 5.7 percent of the total variance is thus

10. 570 JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF RELIGION
explained. For the influence of socioethnic background at the level of the student, the amount of
variance explained is found to be 4.3 percent of 86.8 percent or 3.8 percent; at the level of the
school, it is 29.7 percent of 13.2 percent or 3.9 percent. Only 7.7 percent of the total variance is
thus explained.
The χ2
/d f values are used to test whether a model significantly deviates from a more
restricted model. The models R, D, and B are again tested against the null model; the models R.B
and D.B are tested against model B. Values representing a significant difference are indicated with
an∗
(p < 0.005). Significant regression coefficients are also indicated in such a manner. Religious
affiliation can thus be seen to explain a significant portion of the variance in the language scores;
however, this is not the case for denomination. Religious affiliation also contributes significantly
to the explanation of the variance in the language scores even when socioethnic background is held
constant. Of the regression coefficients for religious affiliation and denomination, only the effects
of the category Islamic/Hindu in contrast to no religious affiliation are found to be significant.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
When the research findings are summarized, we come to the following conclusions. There are
differences in the socioethnic backgrounds of the parents with different religious affiliations and
in the student populations from different denomination schools. The differences stand out the most
with respect to the proportion of ethnic minority children at an educational disadvantage. There
is nevertheless much similarity in the distributions of socioethnic background across the largest
categories of religious affiliation and school denomination. With respect to the language and math
achievement of the students, moderate differences in the correlations with the religious affiliation
of the parents were observed and small differences in the correlations with school denomination.
When the socioethnic background is taken into account, however, the effects of affiliation and
denomination on achievement disappear almost completely. With respect to the self-confidence
and well-being of the students, no differences were observed with regard to religious affiliation
or denomination.
Thus, we found no evidence for the idea that either religious affiliation or denomination
contribute to the explanation of differences in cognitive or noncognitive results. The main question
is then: Why are there so few relationships? Differences in educational achievement are clearly
much more determined by socioethnic family background than religion and denomination per se,
which is in line with findings from a number of other Dutch studies. This is particularly the case
for the Islamic and Hindu categories. Most Muslims and Hindus have had very little education;
their educational disadvantage can therefore probably best be understood in terms of social class.
In the literature, it is repeatedly assumed that an important motive behind the choice of school
is quality and that the continued existence of educational pillarization may relate to qualitative
differences between the denominations (Dronkers, Hofman, and Dijkstra 1997). As our findings
do not point to such differences, neither as regards achievement, nor as regards well-being and
self-confidence, there does not seem to be any need for parents to choose a denominational school.
Why then do nonaffiliated parents still send their children to religious schools? Is it because they
think there are output differences, perhaps based on the socioethnic composition of the school
population? Or is it because it is the only school in the vicinity? Or is it because religion does
not matter in The Netherlands any more, neither at home, nor at school? We believe that the
latter explanation is a very plausible one. In general, it is probably safe to conclude that, with the
exception of the Islamic, Hindu, and orthodox Protestant schools, religion plays hardly any role at
mostreligiousschools.ReligiousschoolsinTheNetherlandshavebecomesecularizedthemselves.
As a result, religious denominational schools are equally attractive to both nonaffiliated and
affiliated parents. This might explain why we could not trace any denominational effects.
In closing, some methodological issues should be considered. First, the study addressed a
previously unstudied and early period of elementary school. The question is whether we should

11. RELIGION AND EDUCATION IN THE NETHERLANDS 571
be expecting religious influences on educational outcomes at that age. Most Dutch elementary
schools offer prereading and premath programs in their kindergarten classes (Driessen 1997).
At the time of the study, the children had been at school for almost two years. If denomina-
tion were to make a difference, we would expect achievement differences by this time. The
same applies to self-confidence and well-being: if there were educational climate differences
related to denominational categories we would expect them to occur after two years of schooling.
Second, it should be noted that both religious affiliation and denomination are formulated from
an institutional perspective. This can be considered a drawback as recent religious sociologi-
cal research has shown attachment to institutions to be declining while religiosity is becoming
strongly individualized (Becker and de Wit 2000). For many people, the dividing line between
groups and opinions is no longer compulsory and definite but flexible and open. This has as a
consequence that the categorization employed here perhaps is no longer suited to the current sit-
uation. Rather than religious affiliation, parental religious involvement could be associated with
educational outcomes (Regnerus 2000). An implication of this is that in future research vari-
ables such as churchgoing, praying, and participating in church community activities should be
included.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The data used in the present analyses stem from the Dutch cohort study Primary Education (PRIMA). Collection of
thedataonthiscohortwasfinanciallysupportedbytheFoundationforBehavioralSciencesfromtheDutchOrganizationfor
Scientific Research (NWO). The authors would like to thank Jan Doesborgh for his help with the multilevel analyses, and
the editor and reviewers of The Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion for their suggestions to improve the manuscript.
Portions of this research were presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association in April
2001 in Seattle, Washington.
NOTES
1. The division of public and private education in The Netherlands is based on the form of administration and objectives
of the school and not on financing; the latter is equal for all schools. Public schools (i.e., nondenominational schools)
are administered under the auspices of the community government, whereas private schools (which are almost all
denominational schools) are administered by private legal institutions (usually a foundation) based on a religion or
philosophy of life.
2. The Dutch Reformed (Nederlands Hervormden) generally are the more liberal Protestants, while the Calvinists
(Gereformeerden) generally are the stricter, traditional Protestants. However, it should be kept in mind that the features
of the different branches of Protestantism are not mutually exclusive.
3. The Protestant Christian (Protestants-Christelijk) school denomination is a general category of Protestant schools,
while the Reformed (Gereformeerd) and Reformational (Reformatorisch) denominations are the orthodox branches of
Protestant schools. The general private (Algemeen-Bijzonder) category includes schools that do not assume a particular
denominational ideology but have a pedagogical orientation.
4. The two tests were “Concepts” and “Ordering,” with 60 and 42 items, respectively. The Concepts test is made up of
concepts in concrete situations from the everyday life, and concepts that are connected with agreements about reading
direction and the distribution of words and sentences on a page (e.g., many, first). The Ordering test covers three
aspects, namely, classification, sequencing, and comparisons and counting.
5. Examples of self-confidence items are: “the student has self-confidence, is sure about himself/herself” and “the student
is easily unsettled.” Examples of well-being items are: “the student feels uncomfortable at school” and “the student
has a good relationship with the teacher.”
REFERENCES
Bax, E. 1988. Modernization and cleavage in Dutch society. A study of long term economic and social change. Ph.D.
dissertation. Groningen, The Netherlands: University of Groningen.
Becker, J. and J. de Wit. 2000. Secularisatie in de jaren negentig. Kerklidmaatschap, veranderingen in opvattingen en
een prognose. Den Haag: SCP.

12. 572 JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF RELIGION
Bosker, R. and A. Dijkstra. 1996. Richting, religie en resultaat. Effecten van richting van de school en de gods-
dienstige achtergrond van leerlingen op schoolsucces. Paper Sociaal-Wetenschappelijke Studiedagen, April 11–12,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Coleman, J. 1987. Public and private high schools: The impact of communities. New York: Basic Books.
De Jong, U. and J. Roeleveld. 1989. Public and private secondary schools in Amsterdam. In Educational opportunities
in the welfare state. Longitudinal studies in educational and occupational attainment in the Netherlands, edited by
B. Bakker, J. Dronkers, and G. Meijnen, pp. 151–66. Nijmegen: ITS.
Dekker, P. and P. Ester. 1996. Depillarization, deconfessionalization, and de-ideologization: Empirical trends in Dutch
society 1958–1992. Review of Religious Research 37(4):325–41.
De Rooy, P. 1997. Farewell to pillarization. The Netherlands’ Journal of Social Sciences 33(1):27–41.
Dijkstra, A. 1997. Onderwijskansen en richting van de school. In Verzuiling in het onderwijs. Actuele verklaringen en
analyse, edited by A. Dijkstra, J. Dronkers, and R. Hofman, pp. 144–84. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.
Dijkstra, A. and J. Peschar. 1996. Religious determinants of academic attainment in the Netherlands. Comparative
Education Review 40(1):47–65.
Driessen, G. 1997. Pre-reading and pre-arithmetic instruction in infant education in the Netherlands: A multilevel analysis
approach. Early Child Development and Care 134:1–21.
———. 2000. The limits of educational policy and practice? The case of ethnic minority pupils in the Netherlands.
Comparative Education 36(1):55–72.
Driessen, G. and P. Valkenberg. 2000. Islamic schools in the Netherlands: Compromising between identity and quality?
British Journal of Religious Education 23(1): 14–25.
Driessen, G., A. van Langen, R. Portengen, and H. Vierke. 1998. Basisonderwijs: Veldwerkverslag, leerlinggegevens en
oudervragenlijsten. Basisrapportage PRIMA-cohortonderzoek. Tweede meting 1996–1997. Nijmegen: ITS.
Dronkers, J. 1996. Dutch public and religious schools between state and market. A balance between parental choice and
national policy? In Bilding zwischen Staat und Markt, edited by D. Benner, A. Kell, and D. Lenzen, pp. 51–66.
Weinheim und Basel: Beltz Verlag.
Dronkers, J., R. Hofman, and A. Dijkstra. 1997. Verzuiling onder druk? De toekomst van de onderwijsverzuiling. In
Verzuiling in het onderwijs. Actuele verklaringen en analyse, edited by A. Dijkstra, J. Dronkers, and R. Hofman,
pp. 323–42. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.
Faber, H., T. ten Have, R. van Dijk, W. Goddijn, and J. Kruijt. 1970. Ontkerkelijking en buitenkerkelijkheid in Nederland.
Assen: Van Gorcum.
Felling, A., J. Peters, and O. Schreuder. 1991. Dutch religion. The religious consciousness of the Netherlands after the
cultural revolution. Nijmegen: ITS.
Hermans, C. and J. van Vugt, eds. 1997. Identiteit door de tijd. Reflecties op het confessionele basisonderwijs in een
geseculariseerde en multiculturele samenleving. Den Haag/Nijmegen: ABKO/Katholiek Studiecentrum.
Jungbluth, P. and G. Driessen. 1987. Eindtermen en verzuiling. Verkennende analyses rond schooleffectiviteit. Tijdschrift
voor Onderwijswetenschappen 18(1):1–12.
Laemers, M. 1999. Schoolkeuzevrijheid; veranderingen in betekenis en reikwijdte. Ubbergen: Tandem Felix.
Lechner, F. 1996. Secularization in the Netherlands? Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 35(3):252–64.
Rasbash, J. and G. Woodhouse. 1996. MLn command reference. Version 1.0a. London: University of London.
Regnerus, M. 2000. Shaping schooling success: Religious socialization and educational outcomes in metropolitan public
schools. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 39(3):363–70.
Ritzen, J., J. van Dommelen, and F. de Vijlder. 1997. School finance and school choice in the Netherlands. Economics of
Education Review 16(3):329–35.
Scheerens, J. and Bosker, R. 1997. The foundations of educational effectiveness. Oxford: Pergamon.
Sherkat, D. and A. Darnell. 1999. The effect of parents’ fundamentalism on children’s educational attainment: Examining
differences by gender and children’s fundamentalism. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 38(1):23–35.
Snijders, T. and R. Bosker. 1999. Multilevel analysis. An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. London:
Sage.
VanderWouw,B.1994.Schoolkeuzetussenwensenenrealiseringen.Eenonderzoeknaarverklaringenvoorveranderingen
in schoolkeuzepatronen vanuit het perspectief van (etnische) segregatie. Nijmegen: ITS.
Van Haaften, W. and G. Snik. 1999. Onderwijsvrijheid: voor en tegen. Pedagogisch Tijdschrift 24(1):1–15.
Van Kessel, N. 2000. Verlangd onderwijs in de gemeente Amsterdam. Nijmegen: ITS.