Agirdag, O., Driessen, G., & Merry, M. (2015). Is there a catholic school effect for Muslim pupils? Paper 12th Conference of the European Sociological Association 2015, Prague, Czech Republic, August 25–28, 2015. DOI 10.13140/RG.2.2.14725.76004/1

1. Is There a Catholic School Effect for
Muslim Pupils?
Orhan Agirdag, Geert Driessen & Michael Merry
Agirdag, O., Driessen, G., & Merry, M. (2015). Is there a
catholic school effect for Muslim pupils? Paper 12th
Conference of the European Sociological Association 2015,
Prague, Czech Republic, August 25–28, 2015.

3. Background
Sociology of Education in the US after ’80
Controversy about effects of Catholic schooling
Why so important?
 Political: School choice and marketisation
 Theoretical: social capital
 Methodology: school-effects research/multilevel

4. Theory (1)
James Coleman (1982, 1987)
1. Catholic school advantage
 Catholic schools outperform Public schools
2. Catholic common school effect
 Less ethnic inequality in Catholic schools
 Less social inequality in Catholic schools

5. Theory (2)
Theory of social capital
 Catholic schools are more community imbedded
 Intergenerational bonds
 Pro school values and social control
 Compensate lack of support by some parents
 Social capital ‘rubs off’

6. Study Setting
In the US:
• Very few Catholic schools
• Privately funded
• Even when ethnic diversity, religious homogeneity
In Belgium:
 More than 50% of schools are Catholic
 Publicly funded
 Ethnic and religious diversity

7. Research Questions
RQ1
Is there a Catholic school advantage
 Is the achievement growth larger
RQ2
Is there a Catholic common school effect
for ethnoreligious and socioeconomic groups
 Is the achievement growth gap smaller

8. Methods (1)
Data
Longitudinal SIBO-survey
± 6000 pupils within ± 500 primary schools
± 60% of the schools are Catholic
± 15 % of the pupils are Muslims
Design
Multigroup Multilevel Latent Growth Curve Analysis
Full information maximum likelihood method (FIML)

9. Methods (2)
Dependent variables
Math : Grade 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6
Reading : Grade 3, 4, 5 & 6
Independent variables
Ethnoreligious background
Native Belgian vs Muslims immigrant
SES
Composite: education, occupation, income
Control for gender

10. Public Catholic Difference
b p b p Δ p
Initial achievement 39.337 *** 41.083 *** -1.746 ***
Achievement growth 6.851 *** 6.812 *** 0.039 ns.
Unconditional model for reading comprehension

11. Public Catholic Difference
b p b p Δ p
Initial achievement 65.266 *** 66.969 *** -1.703 ***
Achievement growth 11.969 *** 12.169 *** -0.200 ns.
Unconditional model for math achievement

12. Math Achievement: Initial achievement
Public Catholic Difference
B p B p Δ p
Intercept 68.106 *** 70.199 *** -2.093 ***
Muslim -1.579 ** -3.543 *** 1.964 **
Girl -2.091 *** -1.659 *** -0.432 ns.
SES (student-level) 3.090 *** 3.198 *** -0.108 ns.
SES (school-level) 5.063 *** 4.359 * 0.704 ns.

13. Math Achievement: achievement growth
Public Catholic Difference
B p B p Δ p
Mean growth 12.141 *** 12.455 *** -0.314 ns.
Muslim 0.167 ns. 0.155 ns. 0.012 ns.
Girl -0.334 * -0.378 *** 0.044 ns.
SES (student-level) 0.367 ** 0.261 *** 0.106 ns.
SES (school-level) -0.022 ns. 0.257 ns. -0.279 ns.

14. Conclusion and Implications
• Contrary to popular belief:
– No Catholic school advantage
• Contrary to US studies
– No Catholic common school effect
• Larger ethnoreligious gap in Catholic schools
– Due to intake, but still important