Even though every human being has the right to high-quality education (Assembly, U.G., 1948), there are signs that children from some ethnic groups may be receiving a lower quality education as compared to others. That is, in many European educational systems including Flanders (the context of the current study), minoritized students often achieve at lower levels as compared to ethnic majority youth (OECD, 2023), and such inequalities remain even after controlling variables like IQ, socio-economic status or generational status (Agirdag, 2020). Still, a recent line of empirical studies offers hope for a more equitable future, as they found that schools can reduce ethnic inequalities in education by means of how they approach ethnic-cultural diversity (e.g., Celeste et al., 2019). Specifically, while schools that choose to acknowledge and value ethnic-cultural diversity have reduced ethnic achievement gaps, schools which adopt more color-blind or assimilationist approaches to diversity tend to have exacerbated ethnic achievement gaps (Celeste et al., 2019; Schachner et al., 2021).

However, as there are still only a limited number of studies that have examined how diversity approaches are related inequities in education, there are still some important research gaps in this field that need to be addressed. First, although studies have shown that the general diversity approach, as expressed in the general vision statements of schools, is related to inequalities in education (e.g., Celeste et al., 2019), less attention has been paid to how these visions are translated into concrete diversity practices. Still, such focus on practices is likely to be important, because previous studies show that assimilationist, color-blind and pluralist visions can be translated into very different concrete practices depending on whether the vision is applied to dealing with linguistic, religious, curricular or identity-related diversity (e.g., Hagenaars et al., 2023). For instance, assimilation is likely translated into very different concrete practices when it comes to linguistic diversity (e.g., punishing speaking other languages) compared to diversity in religions (e.g., banning headscarves), the curriculum (e.g., focusing only on Flemish culture), or identities (e.g., hiring only teachers who identify as Flemish). In a recent study, it was even found that the same diversity ideology may have be differently related to outcome variables like achievement and school belonging depending on the concrete domain in which the diversity ideology is applied (MASKED). This highlights that considering on a more concrete level which specific diversity practices are most effective in reducing inequities is likely to be the most promising way forward.

Second, although an increasing number of studies have started to examine relations between school diversity approaches and several important outcome variables, such as achievement and school belonging (e.g. Celeste et al., 2019; Schachner et al., 2021), we are not aware of any qualitative studies that have examined how these diversity approaches are actually experienced by pupils. Therefore, in the current study we aim to integrate pupils’ own preferences for diversity practices into the scientific debate. By doing so, we not only aim to shed light on which considerations are important in pupils’ lived experiences of diversity practices, but we also hope to offer educational practitioners with important insights as to which considerations they should take into account in implementing specific diversity practices. The main research question in study is ‘Which concrete diversity practices do pupils in Flemish primary schools prefer and for which reasons?’.

This study is part of a mixed methods project that investigates the relationship between SDMs and achievement in 3 Flemish cities (Antwerp, Ghent, Genk) by means of a large-scale survey and follow-up focus groups one year later. For the focus groups, we selected schools with the highest average scores on i) assimilationism, ii) color-blindness and iii) pluralism, as indicated by pupils in the survey. However, these schools had mostly majority student populations, which is why we also selected a fourth school with average scores on all SDMs, but with a more mixed ethnic composition (54% of students with migration background). Within schools, we chose to select students within the last grade for the focus groups (pupils are +/- 12 years old) because children of this age are capable of providing insightful perspectives on issues related to ethnic-cultural diversity (e.g., Hajisoteriou et al., 2017; Kostet et al., 2021). Pupils only participated if their parents signed an active informed consent form. We target 5 to 6 pupils per focus groups (Greig et al., 2007), and, in case more students had signed informed consent forms, we made a random selection. In line with Dekeyser (2020), we performed separate focus groups for boys (N = 18) and girls (N=15), given that pupils at this age usually play mostly with same-gender peers. In one school, none of the boys filled out the informed consent form, which is why the total number of focus groups was limited to 7. The focus groups were framed as a gathering of the ‘board of directories’ of children and children were asked to imagine that they together constituted the principals of their school, and had to make some decisions for their ideal school. We then gave them four dilemmas that each time pertained to one of the diversity domains, namely i) allowing minoritize students to speak their mother tongues at school vs. not allowing this (language domain), ii) allowing religious symbols such as the Hijab or not (religions), iii) ensuring that examples and pictures in textbooks are culturally diverse or not (curriculum), and iv) making sure that the teaching force of their school is ethnic-culturally diverse or not (identities). Each time, after we made sure everybody understood the dilemma, pupils could hold up a sign with their choice, and we discussed their choices together, trying to reach agreement. All focus group discussions were transcribed and thematically analyzed in NVivo.

Regarding the linguistic dilemma, most students (61%) supported allowing minoritized students to speak their mother tongues. They perceived it as unfair to punish non-Dutch languages like Turkish while praising others like English, and believed it could be helpful for students who are not yet proficient in Dutch to have peers helping them in their mother tongue. Yet, they also feared exclusion or bullying in such scenarios. Establishing clear rules on when mother tongues can be used is essential to harness linguistic diversity as a resource without causing exclusion. Second, students almost unanimously (97%) agreed that religious attire should be allowed in schools, which is in strong contrast with schools current approaches (Celeste et al., 2019). Students emphasized the importance of expressing one's authentic self for feeling at home in school, as well as for opening dialogue about diverse religions, thereby learning new things. However, expressing one’s religion could also make one vulnerable for bullying, which is why schools should ensure a sufficiently safe climate in implementing pluralism. Concerning the inclusion of ethnic-culturally diverse content in school books, 80% of students considered it worthwhile because it gives all students the feeling that they are understood, and it prepares majority students for an ethnic-culturally diverse society. Yet, others did not find it worthwhile. In terms of hiring teachers with ethnic-culturally diverse backgrounds, a slim majority (55%) supported the idea. They believed it would enhance understanding, offer cultural insights, and contribute to countering racism. Those who disagreed prioritized teaching quality over teachers' ethnic-cultural backgrounds. Hence, pluralist practices were preferred mostly because it may aid learning and feelings of safety, which is in line with pedagogical (Banks, 1993; Ladson-Billings, 1995) and psychological theories (Derks, et al., 2007) about why pluralism could be effective, and these findings thereby offer hope for a more equitable future.

Assembly, U. G. (1948). Universal declaration of human rights. UN General Assembly, 302(2), 14-25. Banks, J. A. (1993). Multicultural Education: Historical Development, Dimensions, and Practice. Review of Research in Education, 19(1), 3–49. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732x019001003 Celeste, L., Baysu, G., Phalet, K., Meeussen, L., & Kende, J. (2019). Can School Diversity Policies Reduce Belonging and Achievement Gaps Between Minority and Majority Youth? Multiculturalism, Colorblindness, and Assimilationism Assessed. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(11), 1603–1618. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167219838577 Dekeyser, G. (2020). Miss, that’s not special. Everybody speaks multiple languages. Children’s voices about being multilingual within and beyond their family. A multimethod study in Antwerp, Belgium. Derks, B., Van Laar, C., & Ellemers, N. (2007). The Beneficial Effects of Social Identity Protection on the Performance Motivation of Members of Devalued Groups. Social Issues and Policy Review, 1(1), 217–256. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-2409.2007.00008.x Greig, A. D., Taylor, M. J., & MacKay, T. (2007). Doing research with children. Sage. Hagenaars, M., Maene, C., Stevens, P. A., Willems, S., Vantieghem, W., & D’Hondt, F. (2023). Diversity ideologies in Flemish education: explaining variation in teachers’ implementation of multiculturalism, assimilation and colourblindness. Journal of Education Policy, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2023.2167236 Hajisoteriou, C., Karousiou, C., & Angelides, P. (2017). Mapping cultural diversity through children’s voices: From confusion to clear understandings. British Educational Research Journal, 43(2), 330–349. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3266 Kostet, I., Verschraegen, G., & Clycq, N. (2021). Repertoires on diversity among primary school children. Childhood, 28(1), 8–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0907568220909430 Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a Theory of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312032003465 OECD (2023), PISA 2022 Results (Volume I): The State of Learning and Equity in Education, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en. Schachner, M. K., Schwarzenthal, M., Moffitt, U., Civitillo, S., & Juang, L. (2021). Capturing a nuanced picture of classroom cultural diversity climate: Multigroup and multilevel analyses among secondary school students in Germany. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 65, 101971. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2021.101971