Content uploaded by Henry M. Levin
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Henry M. Levin on Apr 17, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
This article was downloaded by: [Henry M. Levin]
On: 30 July 2013, At: 01:43
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Oxford Review of Education
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/core20
Does educational privatisation promote
social justice?
Henry M. Levin a , Ilja Cornelisz a & Barbara Hanisch-Cerda a
a Columbia University , USA
Published online: 29 Jul 2013.
To cite this article: Oxford Review of Education (2013): Does educational privatisation promote
social justice?, Oxford Review of Education, DOI: 10.1080/03054985.2013.825983
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2013.825983
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Does educational privatisation
promote social justice?
Henry M. Levin*, Ilja Cornelisz and Barbara Hanisch-Cerda
Columbia University, USA
Social justice in education refers to the expectation that the education system provides fairness
in its access to opportunities and results. Proponents of educational privatisation believe this
would not only open up opportunities for those that otherwise are restricted from attending
good schools, but that it would also improve overall efficiency in the education system through
pressures of market competition. This article first provides a framework for analysing a quasi-
market in education and for considering the potential effects of privatisation. It then applies this
framework to the Netherlands, a school system premised completely on choice where two thirds
of the schools are privately sponsored. We conclude that the Dutch system, thanks to a series of
policies and regulations in place, performs relatively well on social justice, when looking at free-
dom of choice and overall productive efficiency. However, for equity and social cohesion,
despite clear policy efforts, the privatised system seems to undermine social justice for certain
groups in the population. The dilemma observed here is that some private benefits of education
must be compromised to achieve greater equity and social cohesion. It is an open question
whether policy makers are willing to make such tradeoffs.
Keywords: privatisation; the Netherlands; social justice; equity
Introduction
The term ‘social justice’ is used frequently in education because of the expectation
that the educational system provide fairness in its access to opportunities and
results. Of course we know that in most countries the schools serving populations
with high levels of poverty, working-class families, immigrants, and minorities
show considerably poorer educational results relative to schools enrolling students
from more advantaged families. Advocates of educational privatisation believe that
a shift in policy from government schools towards a competitive marketplace of
private providers will be a strike for social justice. This claim proceeds from the
*Corresponding author. Department of Education Policy and Social Analysis, Teachers College,
Box 181, New York, New York 10027, USA. Email: hl361@columbia.edu
Oxford Review of Education, 2013
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2013.825983
Ó2013 Taylor & Francis
Downloaded by [Henry M. Levin] at 01:43 30 July 2013
fact that school attendance zones are often defined by neighbourhoods
circumscribed by social class and race. A private market of schools supported by
government funding would enable families to escape these constraints.
At the same time, it is maintained that the pressures of market competition for
students by private schools would increase efficiency and allow families to choose
schools that would better serve different educational needs. Under a system of
educational privatisation, students from disadvantaged families would allegedly
have better options than the assigned schools in their neighbourhoods and would
be expected to take advantage of those options. Further, all schools would be
expected to improve because they would need to compete for student enrollments.
These are the most fundamental assertions put forth by Milton Friedman (1962)
in his classic article calling for educational vouchers.
The purpose of this paper is twofold. In the first part we provide a framework
for considering the potential benefits of educational privatisation and how a quasi-
market system might be constructed and evaluated. In the second part we apply
this framework to the Netherlands, a school system premised completely on family
and student choice where two thirds of the schools are privately sponsored. In
terms of its impact on social justice, we consider whether the system reverses the
traditional pattern of social stratification by providing comparable benefits to lower
socioeconomic (SES) populations and immigrants relative to those it provides for
natives and those of higher SES origins. We conclude that for two of the four
criteria, freedom of choice and productive efficiency, the Dutch system supports
policies that contribute to social justice. However, for the other two, equity and
social cohesion, despite public regulations and funding policies, the heavy reliance
on privatisation seems to undermine social justice for non-western immigrants and
by SES.
Education as social justice
The evaluation of social justice in education as in other spheres depends heavily
on how it is defined and on subjective judgments (Rawls, 2001). Education has
both private and public consequences, and conceptions of social justice have fea-
tures of both. Education as a private good refers to its ability to confer benefits to
individuals and their families according to their preferences and efforts. Education
as a public good refers to its contribution to the functioning and maintenance of a
fair, productive and democratic society. Social justice in the private consequences
of education is reflected in the responsiveness of the education system to family
educational goals. Social justice in public consequences for society is reflected in
the overall effectiveness on promoting democratic values and civic function as well
as overall fairness in the distribution of opportunities and outcomes. For example,
we know that some schools are more productive than others and that not every
family or student has access to the best educational opportunities. We also know
that at a social level there are differences in which groups have access to these
opportunities as well as the degree to which particular populations are stratified
2H.M. Levin et al.
Downloaded by [Henry M. Levin] at 01:43 30 July 2013
among the different schools. Social justice can be viewed in these and related
dimensions, such as whether education promotes social cohesion among its
members or sectarian tensions.
What complicates matters is that education is neither purely private nor public
(Levin, 1987, 2009). Rather, it is a ‘mixed’ good because it provides both types of
benefits. Its benefits accrue both to individuals, with the quality and amount of
education they attain, and to all of society, with improved democratic functioning
and economic productivity even for members not participating directly in the
educational process. That is, the entire society benefits from preparing the young
for citizenship participation and more nearly equalising educational, political and
economic success among children born to different social origins. The private
good aspect suggests a large component of family choice. The public good aspect
suggests the need for societal decisions to design a common experience that will
contribute to greater equity, social cohesion and citizen participation.
Not only is the matter of social justice complex in the matter of education, but
so is the issue of privatisation. Schools can be engaged in privatisation in many dif-
ferent ways. We have referred to educational privatisation in its most expansive
form as a quasi-market with private sponsorship and operation of schools depen-
dent largely on government funding as is found in voucher plans and in many
countries such as the Netherlands, Chile and Sweden. Although we will refer to
the situation where the government funds elementary and secondary schools that
are both publicly as well as privately sponsored, it should be noted that there are
many forms of privatisation in education (Belfield & Levin, 2005).
For example, in the USA some public schools are operated under contract by
private entities. Government schools may purchase services from private providers
including management of schools. Government schools may also receive part of
their funding from private sources. So, the phenomenon of educational privatisa-
tion is far more varied than the establishment of markets or quasi-markets where
schools that are owned and operated by private sponsors receive public funding to
compete for students—— the specific situation that we will address.
The tensions between the public and private become obvious when we address
four prominent goals for evaluating educational outcomes in western democracies:
freedom of choice, productive efficiency, equity, and social cohesion (Levin,
2002). Each of these goals has implications for social justice.
Freedom of Choice. Freedom of choice is the dominant feature of an education sys-
tem designed to capture private benefits. Families will choose schools according to
their values, educational philosophies, religious teachings, and political leanings, as
well as perceived effectiveness in learning results. Private benefits of education can
be maximised by families if they choose schools that fully meet their educational
aspirations for their offspring.
Productive Efficiency. An important goal for any education system is the degree to
which it uses both family and public resources in a parsimonious fashion. A
Does privatisation promote social justice? 3
Downloaded by [Henry M. Levin] at 01:43 30 July 2013
system with high productive efficiency maximises educational outcomes for any
given resource constraint for both families and society. Privatisation and quasi-
market advocates believe that more choice promotes competition, which creates
incentives that improve productive efficiency.
Equity. The goal of equity refers to the quest for and achievement of fairness in
access to educational opportunities, resources, and outcomes by gender, social
class, race, language origins, disability and geographical location of students. Of
particular concerns are the quality of schools these groups of students attend, the
availability and efficacy of resources they provide to overcome disabilities or disad-
vantages, the degree to which they are segregated with other needy students, and
the differential educational outcomes in achievement and attainments.
Social Cohesion. A universal goal of schooling in a democratic society is the
provision of a common educational experience that will orient all students to
grow to adulthood as full participants in the social, political and economic insti-
tutions of society. This goal requires common elements of schooling with regard
to curriculum, social values, purposes, language and political understanding. A
democracy requires that its members master the skills and knowledge necessary
for civic and economic participation, including citizen rights and responsibilities
under the law, principles of democratic government, and an understanding of
economic institutions and preparation for productive roles in that system. Milton
Friedman (1962) has mentioned both equity and social cohesion types of bene-
fits as a reason for public funding of education, even within a market or voucher
system.
All four of these goals address social justice to some extent. For example,
freedom of choice is a measure of availability of the types of school most desired
by individual families and students and their availability to both individual families
and different social groups (e.g. gender, disability, social class, language,
ethnicity). Productive efficiency addresses the use of social resources in their most
efficacious way for education for society and its constituent families and individual
groups. Equity refers to fairness in the distribution of educational resources and
outcomes, and social cohesion refers to the educational experience provided in
contributing to the creation of a fair and productive society promoting full
acceptance of and participation of all.
Design issues
Even within privatisation initiatives, education systems can be designed to put
greater emphasis on some goals in contrast to others by employing the three
instruments of policy design: finance, regulation, and support services. The use of
these policy instruments to construct a privatised system can have important
consequences for social justice.
4H.M. Levin et al.
Downloaded by [Henry M. Levin] at 01:43 30 July 2013
Finance. The level and distribution of financial support can make a large difference
in both public and private benefits. The higher the level of finance in a quasi-mar-
ket for education, the greater the variety of educational choices that can be offered
to families. With greater financial provisions, private suppliers will be able to offer
a richer range of alternatives. A more substantial financial commitment translates
into higher quality and an expanded range of educational strategies for both com-
munities and individual children. This is also true for the education of students
with special needs, where additional funding increases both the choices for those
families as well as the consequences for increased equity (Duncombe & Yinger,
2005).
The specific form of educational finance and how it offers incentives to improve
education can also affect productive efficiency of schools. As well, whether parents
are required to pay for additional services or can add private funds for schools with
higher tuition will affect equity to the degree that this option will depend upon
family income. That is, children in poorer households will lack access to more
costly schools than students from wealthier families, resulting in quality and social
stratification of schools by family income.
Regulation. Regulation is used largely to ensure the provision of public benefits
including assurance of education quality and a fairer distribution of educational
benefits within the population. It is common for governments to establish stan-
dards for curriculum, testing, personnel qualifications, and student admission that
will ensure equity and social cohesion. Specific types of regulations can be forged
for designing the level of and balance among public and private benefits, though
this does not mean that all educational regulation has been focused on that
purpose.
Curriculum and testing requirements may be established in behest of both
establishing public accountability for resource efficiency as well as greater equity
among students and social cohesion in terms of exposing all students to a common
educational experience. Such curriculum and instructional requirements also are
designed to assure that children with disabilities receive an appropriate education,
a concern for equity.
Support services. Support services refer particularly to those that enhance effective
decisions in choosing schools. Choice does not work well unless there is a large
range of options and choosers are informed about differences among them. In
most cases this suggests an augmented system of transportation to provide student
access to a reasonable range of schools as well as a system for providing accurate
and useful information on alternatives. Such support services contribute not only
to better choice, but also to productive efficiency in promoting competition. More-
over, they support equity because it is especially the poor, minorities and less
educated who lack access to transportation and have the least knowledge of
differences among schooling alternatives (Schneider, Teske, & Marschall, 2000).
Does privatisation promote social justice? 5
Downloaded by [Henry M. Levin] at 01:43 30 July 2013
Tradeoffs and preferences
There are many ways that the policy tools of finance, regulation and support ser-
vices can be used to address the four types of benefit outlined above. Some
detailed examples are found in an application of this framework to the design of
educational vouchers for quasi-markets (Levin, 2002, pp. 170–171). In theory it is
possible to design approaches to school choice that provide an appropriate balance
among the various public and private benefits. However, there can be tensions and
even contradictions between fulfilling some criteria for social justice and not fulfill-
ing others. Some goals cannot be fully attained without sacrificing others.
For example, freedom of choice could be expanded by allowing families to add
their own financial resources to whatever the government provides and allowing
schools to make supplementary charges as Milton Friedman (1962) suggests for
his voucher plan. Such a plan would certainly increase the range of choices for
many families, but not for poorer ones. Moreover, it would probably lead to
greater income stratification in schools than the present residentially-based system.
This would mean that the advantage in increasing social justice through greater
choice would be offset by greater inequality and further loss of diversity within
schools, undermining social justice with regard to equity and social cohesion.
Similarly, with heterogeneous preferences across households, schools will seek to
differentiate their offerings from other schools, thereby creating a niche in their
local education market to attract enrollees. That is, schools will compete by
matching their appeal to particular educational preferences of households, rather
than trying to produce a standardised educational product (Belfield & Levin,
2005; Levin, 2012). Product differentiation is a common response to competition
for clientele. Obviously, such a situation may also impact productive efficiency,
equity and social cohesion by promoting stratification by such categories as race,
income, religion or political values.
Or consider a plan to increase social cohesion by requiring a common curricu-
lum, standard teacher credentials, testing and admissions that limit racial and
social class segregation through the use of a lottery to choose among applicants.
Such a plan will tend to make schools more uniform in their offerings and instruc-
tional approaches, thus raising social cohesion and equity, but reducing freedom
of choice as all schools are beset with greater uniformity.
Likewise, tradeoffs will be inherent in enacting a plan to increase equity by rais-
ing the financial allocations for educating students from lower income and minor-
ity families and those with special needs. This plan might also provide expanded
transportation and a comprehensive system of information. The impact of these
provisions would be to improve social justice in the forms of raising educational
equity and increasing freedom of choice through greater accessibility and informa-
tion, especially for the most disadvantaged families. But its costs would reduce
productive efficiency by leaving a smaller share of the educational budget for
instruction.
6H.M. Levin et al.
Downloaded by [Henry M. Levin] at 01:43 30 July 2013
There is no ‘optimal’ system that provides maximal results among all social jus-
tice criteria. Ultimately, the selection of design features and their consequences
will depend upon specific preferences and values as transmitted through demo-
cratic institutions. If privatisation of education is expanded, it is necessary to con-
sider the consequences for both the private and the public benefits and how these
can be balanced, and particularly as they contribute to one’s conception of social
justice.
Even credible attempts to design a system of privatisation to meet standards of
social justice through freedom of choice, productive efficiency, equity and social
cohesion may fall considerably short of those goals in terms of outcomes. One rea-
son is that responses to a choice system on both the part of schools (supply) and
families (demand) may have constraints and preferences that extend beyond what
educational policy can achieve. For example, if ethnic groups have strong prefer-
ences for putting their children in schools with other students who share their own
ethnicity, stratification will be a natural outcome of a choice system. In the next
section, we explore the application of the three design principles and educational
outcomes for the most extensive system of educational choice in the industrialised
countries, that of the Netherlands.
Privatisation and social justice in the Netherlands
A recent World Bank report defines the concept of public–private partnerships
(PPPs) in education as a system that recognises the existence of alternative options
for providing education services besides public finance and public delivery (Patri-
nos, Barrera-Osorio, & Guequeta, 2009). The report examines PPPs in which gov-
ernment guides policy and provides funding, with the private sector involved in
delivering the actual education services. The Netherlands is mentioned as an
exemplar in which such a sharp distinction between the role of the public sector as
education financier and that of the private sector as education provider is in place.
The education system in the Netherlands has been providing universal choice to
households since 1848, with private and public schools under equal government
treatment and funding ever since 1917. Educational privatisation in the Nether-
lands encompasses freedom of choice from both the demand and the supply side.
Parents are free to choose schools for their children. In primary education such
freedom is universal, whereas in secondary education the system is organised in
tracks according to students’ abilities.
On the supply side, the right to establish government-funded schools has
resulted in a plurality of private educational choices on offer (Merry & Karsten,
2011). This is arguably the result of ‘cultural heterogeneity’, with differentiated
demand towards education (James, 1984). Religious government-funded private
schools now include Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and anthroposo-
phist schools. However, the system of state-funding and increased secularisation of
Dutch society has had implications for what private religious schools can teach
(Walford, 2001). Non-denominational private schools that base teaching on
Does privatisation promote social justice? 7
Downloaded by [Henry M. Levin] at 01:43 30 July 2013
specific educational ideas, such as the Montessori method, are on the rise account-
ing for around a quarter of all schools (Education Inspectorate, 2012).
Government-funded schools account for 99% of all schools (Educational Inspec-
torate, 2012) with private schools accounting for 70% of enrollment in primary
education (OCW, 2011a) and 72% in secondary education (CBS, 2012). The
system serves a heterogeneous student population, with 15% of all students from
non-Western backgrounds, and roughly 65% of these who originated from Turkey,
Morocco, Surinam or the Antilles (CBS, 2012).
The system of compulsory schooling fits the definition of a quasi-market (cf.
Belfield & Levin, 2005), in that (i) suppliers of education are in competition with
each other, (ii) entry into, and exit from, the schooling market is regulated, (iii)
household demands are expressed through a voucher-type system of funding, and
(iv) the government maintains an important role in accountability and standards.
The specific arrangement of this system of privatisation in Dutch compulsory edu-
cation is detailed next, according to its finance, regulation and support services.
Finance
Funding occurs through a voucher-type system, in which money follows the stu-
dents and each school receives, for each student, a sum equivalent to the per-
capita cost of public schooling (Patrinos, 2002). Although we refer to this as a
voucher system, there is no distribution of voucher certificates. Government-
funded schools, regardless of whether they are privately run, are not allowed to
charge tuition or have for-profit motives (Educational Inspectorate, 2012). Schools
are allowed to ask for voluntary contributions from parents, but only for extra-
curricular activities (Eurydice, 2009). There are three important targeted
adjustments to the value of the voucher. The first is a system of weighted student
funding in primary education to deal with students with disadvantaged back-
grounds, with extra funds currently varying from 30% to 120% over and above
the regular voucher. In addition, secondary schools receive additional funds when
accommodating high proportions of students from poor areas, and for each indi-
vidual that recently immigrated to the Netherlands (Smeets et al., 2008). Special-
needs students are beneficiaries of a pupil-specific funding system that allows them
to enroll in mainstream education or attend special primary or secondary schools.
Over the past few decades a decentralised funding system has been put in place
with the introduction of lump sum financing. By 2006, such block grant funding
applied to all schools. Additionally, since 1991, minimum school size requirements
for funding eligibility have been increased, activating a process of school- and
school-board consolidations (Waterreus, 2009).
Regulation
The Dutch education system has its education policy centralised at the national
level, but with administration and management of the schools largely decentralised
8H.M. Levin et al.
Downloaded by [Henry M. Levin] at 01:43 30 July 2013
(Eurydice, 2009). Government regulations relate primarily to the inputs and out-
comes of education, whereas decision-making of managerial and educational pro-
cesses are placed at lower levels of authority (Karsten & Meijer, 1999). All
government-funded schools must follow central regulations regarding (i) admission
policies, (ii) national curriculum and attainment targets, (iii) national examinations
at the end of primary and secondary education, (iv) teacher minimum qualifica-
tions, training and salaries, and (v) quality control of the education provided (Edu-
cation Inspectorate, 2012). School boards are responsible for the organisation of
teaching and learning, personnel and materials, and for the quality of education
provided.
Support services
The Education Inspectorate and schools publish information on schools’ perfor-
mance levels and characteristics. Schools also hold information days that parents
of prospective students can attend to gather information regarding their schools of
interest. Regarding transportation, it is the responsibility of the municipalities to
ensure that every student is able to reach a school, with special arrangements in
place for special-needs students (de Boer, 2005).
The Dutch Inspectorate of Education identifies schools that are ‘at risk’ on a
yearly basis. The aim is to assess potential problems affecting the quality of educa-
tion and to monitor schools in realising improvements. Schools that perform ade-
quately do not require such intense risk-based inspection, allowing the
Inspectorate to focus most of its attention on the improvement of poorly perform-
ing schools (Education Inspectorate, 2012).
Freedom of choice
A variety of school types on offer in the Netherlands enables households to choose
schools based on their preferences towards schooling. In primary education, par-
ents can freely choose among any government-funded school. National regulations
do not allow schools to select by ability, although private schools can reject stu-
dents by criteria strictly related to religious denomination or the ideological char-
acter of the school (Eurydice, 2009). In secondary education, ability tracking is
used and 83% of all schools do not offer all programme tracks (Herweijer, 2008).
Eligibility to enrol into a track is determined by the primary school’s advice, but
beyond this criterion, secondary schools are not supposed to cream off the highest
ability students. But, secondary schools are increasingly offering special pro-
grammes (e.g. dual-language) within the existing system (Weenink, 2009). For
these add-ons, additional fees are charged and selective admission processes, such
as interviews or school-level tests, can be used. Popular schools facing capacity
constraints are required to apply ability-neutral preference rules and employ lotter-
ies for admissions.
Such a system of vouchers, where private and public schools are financed on an
equal basis, promotes the fulfillment of privately held demands towards education.
Does privatisation promote social justice? 9
Downloaded by [Henry M. Levin] at 01:43 30 July 2013
In both primary- and secondary education, financial constraints to access educa-
tion seem to be non-existent (Dronkers, 1995). Almost all schools do charge par-
ents voluntary fees. Schools are not allowed to select on the basis of ability to pay
these yearly fees which average around $40 a year in primary education and $100
a year in secondary education, but which can be significantly higher at non-
religious private schools (Vogels, 2002).
Most households have access to several schools close by. About 89% of students
live less than one kilometer from the nearest primary school (Bunschoten, 2008).
For secondary education there is more variation across areas, but there is at least
one school within a radius of five kilometers for nine out of ten households (CBS,
2012). Thus, distance to schools is not considered an important constraint to
parental school choice (Dijkstra, Dronkers, & Karsten, 2001).
An informed choice requires accurate and useful information. Up until the first
half of the 20th century, the most relevant information for school choice was the
religious denomination of private schools. After the Second World War, and with
waves of immigrants during the 1960s and 1970s, Dutch society became highly
secularised, and parental choice increasingly shifted to perceptions of school qual-
ity (Dronkers, 1995). Information on school quality is available publicly to all
households. Nonetheless, the level of household information is positively correlated
with parental education (Dronkers, 1995), placing poorer and less advantaged
populations at a handicap in choosing a quality school. In particular, non-Western
immigrants tend to be particularly difficult to inform effectively. The Dutch gov-
ernment focuses efforts and resources on increasing their awareness and level of
participation (Herweijer, 2009).
In summary, school options are regulated with the aim of promoting universal
household choice. However, private schools are allowed to select on the basis of
religion or educational philosophy and some non-religious private schools ask sig-
nificantly higher ‘voluntary’ fees. Over time, the government has bequeathed more
freedom in terms of school control of the educational process and school manage-
ment. Universal freedom to choose schools reflects concerns for social justice in
the Netherlands’ education system, although some restrictions arise from ability
tracking in secondary education, disparate knowledge on schools, and ongoing
school consolidation. Taken at face value, financial and transportation constraints
do not seem to challenge social justice.
Productive efficiency
Productive efficiency in education serves social justice criteria when there are
shared benefits of effective education, efficient use of public resources, and appro-
priate resources targeting individuals who require extra support. In general, the
use of resources to maximise educational outcomes in the Netherlands’ educa-
tional system is commendable. Dutch students perform well above the OECD
country average, while expenditures in education are around average (Sutherland,
10 H.M. Levin et al.
Downloaded by [Henry M. Levin] at 01:43 30 July 2013
Price, & Gonand, 2009). As noted, recent developments in minimum school-size
requirements are also designed to promote efficiency.
The seemingly adequate level of performance achieved by most students can be
partially understood as a response of schools to meet national regulations and
through special opportunities and resources for students from disadvantaged back-
grounds. National academic standards, examinations and regulations urge public
and private schools to meet academic thresholds. For students from disadvantaged
backgrounds, and students with special needs, higher vouchers are in place,
destined for extra or targeted educational opportunities. Social justice seems to be
served in the provision of good overall academic results across almost all schools,
fostered by the aforementioned characteristics of the system.
When comparing performance across school types, Dronkers (2004) summarises
the Dutch empirical literature as showing positive effects of Catholic and Protes-
tant private schools on academic achievement, reported in terms of dropout rates,
test scores, degrees and educational attainment. However, a number of apparent
exceptions to the general religious school advantage complicate the picture. Posi-
tive academic outcomes seem to be more pronounced in primary education and
appear to be confined to a period between the late 1960s and early 1990s. The lat-
ter result might be due to a combination of school consolidation affecting the size
of private religious schools (Dronkers, 2004) and the ongoing process of decen-
tralisation of public school management.
Although the Dutch system performs well on average, it does not seem to
produce many high achievers, relative to comparable countries. A study of the
Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis (CPB) analysed data from
several large-scale international assessments and concluded that the high average
level of Dutch academic performance is largely due to its good results in overcom-
ing lower levels of performance (Minne et al., 2007). In contrast, the Netherlands
does not belong to the best performing countries in the highest echelons of
achievement. This is particularly true for primary education. In secondary educa-
tion, the highest performing Dutch students seem to catch up with their interna-
tional peers to some extent, which could be due to ability tracking (Vermeer &
van der Steeg, 2011). Furthermore, grade repetition rates in the Netherlands are
above 25% for students by the age of 15 (OECD, 2011). This is a very large share
in comparison with other countries (Dijkstra et al., 2001), and is an important
concern with respect to the efficient use of public funds.
Dutch education, with public funding and strong adequacy targets, has not been
successful in promoting academic excellence beyond achievement requirements.
School efforts beyond the academic threshold seem to be oriented towards product
differentiation instead. This could explain the relatively small benefits of competi-
tion on high achievement in Dutch primary education, as parents might value
other factors, such as school activities, maintenance of buildings, cultural specific-
ity and religious denomination when choosing a school (Noailly, Vujic, & Aou-
ragh, 2009). Similarly, observing a negative association between competition and
achievement in secondary education, Dijkstra, van der Geest, Gradus and de Jong
Does privatisation promote social justice? 11
Downloaded by [Henry M. Levin] at 01:43 30 July 2013
(2008) also posit that Dutch schools seem to compete more on secondary ele-
ments such as sport, music facilities or the attractiveness of the building, leaving
fewer resources for the primary process of teaching. Weenink (2009) shows that
school managers associate quality and excellence in education more with abilities
of students than with quality of educational programmes, staff or facilities and that
international curricular offerings are arising to serve a niche market that stems
from schools’ competitive engagement with local education markets (Weenink,
2009).
In summary, the productive efficiency of the system seems to serve social justice.
In comparison with other countries the average outcomes for Dutch students are
excellent relative to the adequate level of spending. The system has room to
increase efficiency when considering the potential for producing more high per-
forming students and reducing its high repetition rates.
Equity
With the educational goal of equity, social justice is promoted through greater fair-
ness in the distribution of inputs of schooling and the distribution of educational
outcomes across students and schools.
Regarding the distribution of inputs, the three adjustments to student funding
and the absence of tuition fees contribute to the public objectives of horizontal
and vertical equity. Dijkstra et al. (2001) point out that equal funding of private
and public schools, with strict regulations regarding financial and ability selection
of students for private schools, has promoted the diminution of prestigious elite
schools outside the state-subsidised sector. Equal funding and the absence of tui-
tion thus prevented any extreme form of creaming off the most able students by
either public or private schools. Moreover, the use of extra funding to meet educa-
tional challenges is reflected by the fact that in 2010 the portion of students in
mainstream education covered by the weighted funding system was around 13%
(OCW, 2011a).
This notion of vertical equity in inputs seems to be matched by student
outcomes, in the high number of students meeting a meaningfully adequate level
of performance. In contrast, the high levels of grade repetition could endanger
socioeconomic inequity, as socioeconomic differences in performance tend to
widen with retention rates (OECD, 2011). Results show that the socioeconomic
achievement gap in the Netherlands is comparable to those of other industrialised
countries. A notable difference is that the deleterious effect of socioeconomic sta-
tus on achievement is initially low for lower levels of SES, but as socioeconomic
background improves, there is an increase in the extent to which background
inequalities translate into performance differences (OECD, 2010).
There are other dimensions which question whether the Dutch education
context promotes social justice, such as the early onset of tracking as the students
enter secondary school at age 12. Non-Western immigrant students in the
Netherlands are generally from low socioeconomic backgrounds (OECD, 2010).
12 H.M. Levin et al.
Downloaded by [Henry M. Levin] at 01:43 30 July 2013
They perform relatively well in primary education, but fall behind their interna-
tional peers in the tracked secondary system (Christensen & Segeritz, 2008).
Woessmann (2009) demonstrates that a system of early tracking is likely to
increase the socioeconomic achievement gap (e.g. possibly through peer effects).
Herweijer (2009) adds to this that migrant pupils are underrepresented in the
highest tracks of secondary education, arguing that the system of early tracking is
indeed disproportionately harmful to non-Western immigrant students. Similarly,
Christensen and Segeritz (2008) claim there is a substantial performance gap, even
after accounting for the lower levels of SES of many immigrant students, implying
that there is a need for additional policy interventions targeted directly at these
students.
The relatively low performance of these students is deemed worrisome by
CITO, the Dutch national institute for educational measurement (De Knecht-van
Eekelen, Gille, & van Rijn, 2007). There is evidence indicating that the achieve-
ment gap for students with a non-Western background is already significant in the
second year of primary education (Gijsberts & Herweijer, 2007). For this reason,
the Dutch government started to promote pre-schooling among these households
from 2001, although empirical results on the effectiveness of this approach are not
yet available (OCW, 2011b). Since 2006–2007, the additional educational funding
is based only on the socioeconomic characteristics of the students, and not on
their ethnic background, so direct scrutiny by ethnic group for recent years is not
forthcoming.
Nevertheless, Driessen and Dekkers (2008) analyse the evolution of a variety of
Dutch policies and programmes designed to tackle such educational disadvantages
due to the socioeconomic and/or ethnic background of students from 1960 up to
2004, and find no direct evidence to suggest that any one intervention has success-
fully reduced the gaps. Leuven and Oosterbeek (2007) also find no positive effects
of additional funds.
The Netherlands sponsors a school system that is among the most ethnically
and socioeconomically stratified in Europe, particularly at the tracked secondary
level (Herweijer, 2008; Jenkins, Mickelwright, & Schnepf, 2005). Such segregation
has generally been attributed to a combination of residential sorting and universal
school choice by parents (Bakker, 2012). Not only does this raise questions of
equity in terms of learning opportunities and peer effects on learning, but inequali-
ties also seem to emerge from a system that fosters student sorting at an early age
across types of schools, as we will address in the next section. We believe that pri-
vatisation and choice enhance these differences through their emphasis on product
differentiation in attracting enrolments.
Using equity as a criterion of social justice, there is still considerable progress
to be made. There seems to be a high degree of equity in distribution of inputs
and outcomes in the sense that most students reach and share an adequate
level of academic achievement. However, there are inequities among students of
different migration origins, which in secondary education seem to be exacer-
bated by the tracking system. Certainly, a portion of these inequities is due
Does privatisation promote social justice? 13
Downloaded by [Henry M. Levin] at 01:43 30 July 2013
directly to the voucher system, where parents choose schools that mirror their
own religion, ethnicity and socio-economic identities. Several additional policies
and programmes have been implemented to address this issue, but the evidence
available provides mixed conclusions on whether such interventions have been
successful.
Social cohesion
The educational goal of social cohesion reflects social justice when the provision of
a common educational experience prepares students equally to be active citizens in
a democratic society. In this scenario, there are three key aspects to consider: the
curriculum (what is taught), educational processes (how it is taught), and student
sorting (who are fellow students).
In the Netherlands, schools receiving government funds accommodate virtually
all students and must adhere to many attainment targets, enrolment regulations
and curriculum requirements, thus promoting a common experience (Education
Inspectorate, 2009). This refers particularly to ‘what’ is imparted in terms of mea-
surable outcomes, with more freedom for schools in terms of ‘how’ the curriculum
is offered. There is a strong monitoring policy that oversees whether schools actu-
ally comply with the regulations. A rich set of curriculum goals for each subject is
set by the Ministry and tested in standardised national end-of-secondary examina-
tions. Measurable academic outcomes are largely similar, when student-body
intake is taken into account, as the same targets apply across all schools and school
types.
However, the educational process and experience can differ significantly across
schools. Partially facilitated by the processes of deregulation, decentralisation and
lump sum financing, schools tailor the educational process to meet demands. This
is a direct result of the emphasis on choice, competition and the resulting product
differentiation by schools so as to appeal to particular niches of household prefer-
ences. To the extent that there is a discrepancy between public and private objec-
tives, the Dutch system, itself, promotes the latter over the former, private goals
over public ones.
Not only are there incentives to promote the schooling experience as different
across schools, but much of this differentiation in the Netherlands seems to be
based upon ethnic and socioeconomic status. A segregated school system by ethnic
and socioeconomic niches means that the educational process does not allow for
many interactions between students from different socioeconomic, ethnic, and/or
religious backgrounds. It can be hypothesised that private schools face incentives
to avoid serving relatively difficult disadvantaged neighbourhoods and/or students.
Despite the absence of elite (private) schools, Jenkins et al. (2005) show that the
segregation of highly educated households across schools in the Netherlands is
actually the highest of all OECD countries. Behaviour in line with the outgroup
avoidance theory is observed among majority households (Karsten et al., 2003).
Herweijer (2008) points out that, particularly in the four largest cities, Dutch stu-
14 H.M. Levin et al.
Downloaded by [Henry M. Levin] at 01:43 30 July 2013
dents in secondary education choose to attend schools outside the municipality
boundary which enrol far fewer students from non-Western backgrounds. Herwei-
jer (2008) furthermore asserts that the system of universal parental choice and
early tracking promotes secondary-school stratification by socioeconomic status.
This is particularly true for urban areas, in which schools more often offer either
only a single track, vocational or academic, not both. Administrative data indicate
that private schools are relatively underrepresented in both the highest and lowest
urban density areas, which are generally areas where relatively low-income house-
holds live (Steenbekkers, Simon, & Veldheer, 2006).
In the Netherlands, segregation by ethnicity overlaps to a considerable extent
with socioeconomic stratification (Herweijer, 2008). Results indicate that 80% of
students with a non-Western background, who are highly concentrated in the four
main cities, are in primary schools where the majority of students are like them-
selves; and that this phenomenon has increased slightly from 1997 to 2005 (Ladd,
Fiske, & Ruijs, 2010). Within neighbourhoods, private schools can have a ten-
dency to further increase ethnic (and socioeconomic) segregation across school
types as they can reject students on the basis of religion or educational philosophy.
Whereas applicants do not seem to be rejected on a regular basis (Karsten et al.,
2003), more implicit barriers to entry and product differentiation could still affect
ethnic enrolment patterns at private schools. Empirical support for this is found in
a study conducted by Karsten et al. (2003) on ethnic segregation in primary
schools, in which school principals reported that while the variation in ethnic com-
position across schools could perhaps be largely attributed to residential sorting
and choice, schools do also (i) market certain profiles, (ii) practice a variety of
gatekeeping methods and (iii) compete for students. In particular, a proportion of
the so-called ‘non-White’ schools adopt specific strategies targeting their clientele
(e.g. materials, methods, parental lessons). Similarly, certain ‘White’ schools serv-
ing affluent children have adopted a relatively isolated position. Often, these
schools have a strong religious (Christian) identity, thereby making them less
attractive to ethnic minority parents, although this specific religious dimension
appears to be less relevant than the reputation (i.e. standards, rules of behaviour)
these schools have (Karsten et al., 2003).
To survive in a secularised society, most private religious schools from
traditional denominations now only offer selective religious courses, which are
often courses in world religions or religious orientation. In contrast, the establish-
ment of new private religious schools, such as the Islamic schools, is regarded as a
threat to the social integration of these students into Dutch society (Dijkstra et al.,
2001). These households, together with orthodox Protestant families, show the
strongest tendency to self-segregate (Denessen, Driessen, & Sleegers, 2005).
With heterogeneous demands and characteristics of households, the Dutch
education context has always been segregated, particularly along religious lines. In
recent decades, this segregation has focused on socioeconomic and ethnic
differences. The arrival of non-Western immigrants has made these social
inequities noticeable (Merry & Karsten, 2011). The magnitudes of these segrega-
Does privatisation promote social justice? 15
Downloaded by [Henry M. Levin] at 01:43 30 July 2013
tion patterns are high, even in relation to those observed in the USA, and they
raise the question to what extent social justice in the Dutch education context is
challenged.
Aiming to reduce segregation in primary schools, particularly ethnic segregation,
the Ministry allocated financial resources for pilot programmes, to be conducted
by 12 segregated municipalities, in the years 2008–2011. Across these municipali-
ties, virtually all school boards share the public objective of having integrated
schools. However, student-body compositions have not followed, as private schools
find it difficult to compromise parental freedom to choose, often finding the
increased role of the municipality to be intrusive, and being afraid to lose their
(beneficial) position in the education market (Brink & van Bergen, 2012).
In summary, social cohesion is addressed through strict curriculum and outcome
regulations. Nevertheless, there is a considerable degree of stratification in the sys-
tem, particularly in the ability-tracked secondary sector. The appeal of ethnic ties
in enrolments and the lesser ability of low socioeconomic families to make choices
of schools beyond their immediate neighbourhoods lead to high levels of stratifica-
tion. In general, private schools are (i) less likely to serve neighbourhoods accom-
modating high proportions of non-Western households from relatively
disadvantaged backgrounds and (ii) more likely to be ‘relatively white’ compared
to the neighbourhood they are located in. These phenomena are not new, as the
voucher system of government-funded schools was based on religious segregation
from its origins, but nowadays this has shifted largely to stratification based on
SES and ethnicity (Merry & Karsten, 2011). Policy measures to reduce such pat-
terns face huge challenges.
Conclusion
There is a fundamental tension between offering households universal choice of
schools and the societal goals of equity and social cohesion. The purpose of
choice, and allowing private schools to enter the market, is to match schools with
the preferences of families based upon their values, beliefs, personal goals and per-
ceived educational needs. With heterogeneous demands towards education, the
resulting product differentiation by schools can overlap substantially with the
socioeconomic status, religious commitments, political philosophies and ethnicity
of the student populations they serve. But social justice in the forms of equity and
a cohesive society with common economic, social and political institutions may be
compromised by the divisiveness of choices and the advantages of some groups in
identifying and obtaining enrollments at those schools that are perceived as most
effective. Of course, the solution is to try to obtain balance between the private
goals of families in choosing schools and the safeguarding of equity and social
cohesion through the policy tools of finance, regulation and support services.
At present, the highly privatised Dutch system is reasonably successful in safe-
guarding freedom of choice and largely successful in the provision of productive
efficiency. However, there are serious challenges to social justice in the domains of
16 H.M. Levin et al.
Downloaded by [Henry M. Levin] at 01:43 30 July 2013
equity and social cohesion, resulting primarily from high patterns of socioeconomic
and ethnic stratification across schools and school types. These patterns are not
exclusively found in the Dutch education system; voucher systems in Chile (e.g.
Elacqua, 2011) and Sweden (e.g. Skolverket, 2012) seem to be facing similar
challenges. The educational dilemma in these contexts is how much of the private
benefits of education must be compromised to achieve greater equity and social
cohesion, and whether countries are willing to make such tradeoffs.
Notes on contributors
Henry M. Levin is Professor of Economics and Education and Director of the
National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education (NCSPE) at
Teachers College Columbia University. He is also the David Jacks Professor
of Education and Economics, Emeritus, at Stanford University.
Ilja Cornelisz is Instructor of Economics of Education at Teachers College,
Columbia University and a Ph.D. candidate in the TIER project at
Maastricht University. He has been studying the impact of educational choice
in the Netherlands.
Barbara Hanisch-Cerda is a Ph.D. student in the Economics of Education at
Teachers College, Columbia University. She served as an Academic
Coordinator at PENTA UC the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile and is
evaluating the educational voucher system in Chile.
References
Bakker, J. (2012). Cultureel-etnischesegregatie in het onderwijs: achtergronden, oorzaken en
waarom te bestrijden. Pedagogiek, 32, 104–128.
Belfield, C. R., & Levin, H. (2005). Privatizing education choice: Consequences for parents, schools,
& public policy (ch.1). Boulder, CO: Paradigm.
Brink, M., & van Bergen, C. T. A. (2012). Tegengaan segregatie in het basisonderwijs: Monitoring
van de OCW-Pilots. Netherlands: RegioplanBeleidsonderzoek.
Broersen, S., & Klein, T. (2004). Schoolkostenonderzoek: Schoolkosten in het voortgezet onderwijs en
MBO/BOL 2003–2004. Netherlands: Ministry of Education, Culture and Science.
Bunschoten, B. (2008). Hoe ver woon ik van… Bevolkingstrends, 2e kwartaal (pp.19–22).
Netherlands: Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek.
CBS (Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek). (2012). StatLine. Netherlands: Centraal Bureau voor
de Statistiek.
Christensen, G., & Segeritz, M. (2008). Immigrant student achievement in 2006: An international
perspective. Germany: Bertelsmann Stifung.
De Boer, E. (2005). The dynamics of school location and school transportation. TR News, 237,
11–16.
De Kneckt-van Eekelen, A., Gille, E., & van Rijn, P. (2007). Resultaten PISA 2006. Nether-
lands: StichtingCitoInstituutvoorToetsontwikkeling.
Denessen, E., Driessen, G., & Sleegers, P. (2005). Segregation by choice? A study of group-spe-
cific reasons for school choice. Journal of Education Policy, 20, 347–368.
Does privatisation promote social justice? 17
Downloaded by [Henry M. Levin] at 01:43 30 July 2013
Dijkgraaf, E., Van der Geest, S., & Gradus, R. (2008). School choice and competition: Evidence
from The Netherlands. Tinbergen: Institute Discussion Paper Series TI2008–109/3.
Dijkstra, A., Dronkers, J., & Karsten, S. (2001). Private schools as public provision for education:
School choice and marketization in the Netherlands and elsewhere in Europe. Retrieved from:
http://www.ncspe.org/.
Driessen, G., & Dekkers, H. (2008). Educational inequality in the Netherlands: Policy, practice
and effects. In R. Tesse, S. Lamb, & M. Duru-Bellat (Eds.), International studies in educa-
tional inequality, theory and policy, Volume III. Dordrecht: Springer.
Dronkers, J. (1995). The existence of parental choice in the Netherlands. Educational Policy, 9,
227–243.
Duncombe, W., & Yinger, J. (2005). How much more does a disadvantaged student cost?
Economics of Education Review, 24, 513–542.
Education Inspectorate. (2009). Risk-based inspection as of 2009: Primary and secondary education.
Netherlands: Education Inspectorate.
Education Inspectorate. (2010). Devrijwilligeouderbijdrage in het primair onderwijs. Netherlands:
Inspectorate of Education.
Education Inspectorate (2012). The Dutch inspectorate of education. Retrieved from: http://www.
onderwijsinspectie.nl/english.
Elacqua, G. (2011). The impact of school choice and public policy on segregation: Evidence
from Chile. International Journal of Educational Development, 32, 444–453.
Eurydice. (2009). Organization of the education system: The Netherlands. Netherlands: European
Commission.
Friedman, M. (1962). The role of government in education. In M. Friedman (Ed.), Capitalism
and freedom (ch. 6). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gijsberts, M., & Herweijer, L. (2007). Allochtoneleerlingen in het onderwijs. In J. Dagevos &
M. Gijsberts (Eds.), Jaarrapportintegratie 2007 (pp. 102–130). The Hague: Sociaal en Cultu-
reelPlanbureau.
Herweijer, L. (2008). Segregatie in het basis—— en voortgezetonderwijs. In Institute for Social
Research (Eds.), Betrekkelijkebetrokkenhei: Sociaal en cultureel rapport (pp. 209–236). Nether-
lands: Institute for Social Research.
Herweijer, L. (2009). Making up the gap: migrant education in the Netherlands. Netherlands: Insti-
tute for Social Research.
Jenkins, S., Micklewright, J., & Schnepf, S. (2005). Social segregation in schools: An international
comparison. Paper presented at the 29th conference of The International Association for
Research in Income and Wealth, Joensuu, Finland. Retrieved from: http://iariw.org/papers/
2006/jenkins.pdf.
Karsten, S., Ledoux, G., Roeleveld, J., Felix, C., & Elshof, D. (2003). School choice and ethnic
segregation. Educational Policy, 17, 452–477.
Karsten, S., & Meijer, J. (1999). School-based management in the Netherlands: The educa-
tional consequences of lump-sum funding. Educational Policy, 13, 421–439.
Ladd, H., Fiske, E., & Ruijs, N. (2010). Parental choice in the Netherlands: Growing concerns about
segregation (Sanford Working Paper Series). Retrieved from: http://sanford.duke.edu/research/
papers/SAN10–02.pdf.
Leuven, E., & Oosterbeek, H. (2007). The effectiveness of human-capital policies for disadvan-
taged groups in the Netherlands. Schools and the equal opportunity problem, 191–208.
Levin, H.M. (1987). Education as a public and private good. Journal of Policy Analysis and Man-
agement, 6, 628–641.
Levin, H.M. (2002). A comprehensive framework for evaluating educational vouchers. Educa-
tional Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 159–174.
18 H.M. Levin et al.
Downloaded by [Henry M. Levin] at 01:43 30 July 2013
Levin, H.M. (2009). An economic perspective on school choice. In M. Berends, M.G. Springer,
D. Ballou, & H. Walberg (Eds.), Handbook of research on school choice (pp. 19–34). New
York: Routledge.
Levin, H.M. (2012). Some economic guidelines for design of a charter school district. Economics
of Education Review, 31, 331–343.
Merry, M., & Karsten, S. (2011). Pluralism and segregation: the Dutch experience, Canadian
Issues, Spring, 83–86.
Minne, B., Rensman, M., Vroomen, B., & Webbink, D. (2007). Excellence for productivity? The
Hague: CentraalPlanbureau.
Noailly, J. Vujic, S., & Aouragh, A. (2009). The effects of competition on the quality of primary
schools in the Netherlands (No. 120). CPB Discussion Paper.
OCW. (2011a). Key figures 2006–2010. Netherlands: Ministry of Education, Culture and Sci-
ence.
OCW. (2011b). Tussenrapportage stand van zaken per medio 2011. Netherlands: Ministry of Edu-
cation, Culture and Science.
OCW. (2011c). Nota Werken in het onderwijs 2012. Netherlands: Ministry of Education, Culture
and Science.
OECD (2010). PISA 2009 results: Overcoming social background. Equity in learning opportunities
and outcomes, Volume II. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264091504–en.
OECD (2011). When students repeat grades or are transferred out of school: What does it mean
for education systems? PISA in focus. Retrieved from: http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaprod-
ucts/48363440.pdf.
Patrinos, H. A. (2002). Private education provision and public finance: The Netherlands as a possible
model. Retrieved from: http://www.ncspe.org/.
Patrinos, H. A., Osorio, F. B., & Gua
´queta, J. (2009). The role and impact of public–private part-
nerships in education. Washington, DC: World Bank Publications.
Rawls, J. (2001). Justice as fairness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Schneider, M., Teske, P., & Marschall, M. (2000). Choosing schools. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Skolverket (2012). Educational equity in the Swedish School System? A quantitative analysis of
equity over time (summary by the authors). Retrieved from: http://www.skolverket.se/publi-
kationer?id=2816.
Smeets, E., Ramakers, C., Schellingerhout, R., van den Wiijngaart, M., & Hovius, M. (2008).
Het persoonsgebonden budget in het onderwijs. Netherlands: Universiteit Nijmegen.
Steenbekkers, A., Simon, C., & Veldheer, V. (2006). Thuis op het platteland: de leefsituatie van
platteland en de stadvergeleken. Netherlands: Sociaal en CultureelPlanbureau.
Sutherland, D., Price, R., & Gonand, F. (2009). Improving public spending efficiency in pri-
mary and secondary education. OECD Journal of Economic Studies, 1, 1–30.
Vermeer, N., & van der Steeg, M. (2011). Onderwijsprestaties Nederland in perspectief. Nether-
lands: CentraalPlanbureau.
Vogels, H.M.G. (2002). Oudersbij de les: Betrokkenheid van ouders bij de school van hun kind.
Netherlands: Sociaal en CultureelPlanbureau.
Walford, G. (2001). Evangelical Christian schools in England and the Netherlands. Oxford
Review of Education, 27, 929–941.
Waterreus, I. (2009). Is er een economisch ereden voor een fusietoets in het onderwijs? TPEdigi-
taal, 3, 80–102.
Weenink, D. (2009). Creating a niche in the education market: the rise of internationalised
secondary education in the Netherlands. Journal of Education Policy, 24, 495–511.
Woessmann, L. (2009). International evidence on school tracking: A review. Research reports.
Germany: CESifo DICE.
Does privatisation promote social justice? 19
Downloaded by [Henry M. Levin] at 01:43 30 July 2013
