Author:

Abstract:

(a) Theoretical/conceptual framework: As ethnic achievement gaps are still present in many societies, including Belgium (Levels, Dronkers & Kraaykamp, 2008), it is very important to understand how schools can reduce such achievement gaps. The cultural diversity model (CDM) a school adopts seems to be very important in this respect (e.g. Schachner, Schwarzenthal, van de Vijver & Noack, 2019). However, existing CDM scales do not discern the domains in which cultural diversity models could be implemented, such as in practices related to language or religion. It is very well possible that schools adopt different CDM’s in different domains, which can have differential effects on pupil-level outcomes like achievement and/or school belonging, but also on teacher-level outcomes like teachability and/or self-efficacy beliefs. (b) Aims and objectives: Our aim is to create such domain-specific scales for pupils and teachers. We make a distinction between assimilationism, color-blindness, multiculturalism and interculturalism in the domains of language, religion, curriculum and identity. (c) Sample: One pilot study among pre- and in-service teachers (N = 306) was conducted in Flanders. Teachers from this pilot study were selected from our networks, and filled in online survey questionnaires. We will test the final scales in a more representative sample of teachers from approximately 69 Flemish elementary schools in Genk, Ghent and Antwerp. (d) Methodology: After a thorough literature review of existing scales, we selected items from existing scales that seemed valuable and developed new ones within the different combinations of CDM’s and domains. After several rounds of feedback and discussion, we reached a pool of items which seemed to have face validity, and we tested these items (91 in total) in a pilot study. EFA’s were performed, both within domains and within CDM’s. We also performed reliability and validity checks on the selected scales. Based on these results, we selected appropriate items and, where necessary, developed new items to measure the CDM’s in the four domains. The final teacher scale will be used among the more representative sample of teachers. (e) Results EFA’s indicated that there was no color-blind CDM within the religion domain. Further, the scale intended to measure religious assimilationism rather seemed to measure religious neutrality, and the scale intended to measure religious multiculturalism seemed to measure equal treatment. Correlations showed that color-blindness in terms of language (e.g. ‘we don’t care about languages’) seemed closer to the multiculturalism scales, whereas color-blindness in terms of identity (e.g. ‘we don’t want children to express their identities’) was closer to assimilationism. CFA’s further indicated that all CDM’s and domains could be discerned from each other, except for assimilationism in terms of identities and curriculum. The color-blindness in terms of identities scale had to be dropped due to linear dependency with other scales. (f) Implications At least for teachers, it is important to make a distinction between domains in which the CDM is applied. We recommend future research to also use a domain-specific approach when measuring CDM’s, so that we can get better insights into which CDM works best in which domain.