Diversity in education is no longer a phenomenon specific to restricted cultural
contexts. In contemporary times, increasing diversity1 of student populations is a
global educational trend (Hastedt 2016; Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development 2015). The discourses on diversity in educational settings are
mainly focused on the relatively recent rapid influx of immigrants, refugees and
asylum seekers, coupled with issues of increasing intolerance, social exclusion and
feelings of alienation and extremism among young people. Nevertheless, these
sources of difference intersect with other dimensions and identities such as gender,
socioeconomic status, religion, disability and sexual orientation, creating complex
challenges for schooling.
Educational systems are often overwhelmed by issues of equality and the
inclusion of diverse populations, while simultaneously striving to achieve excellence and prepare young people for active and efficient participation in the labor
market and society. Many policy actions tend to focus primarily on topics such as
enhancing the academic outcomes of immigrant students, mainstream language
acquisition or ethnic mixing. Less attention is being paid to curricular aims and
activities directed at creating inclusive classrooms that can embrace diversity and
nurture attitudes of mutual tolerance among youth. This is only recently becoming
the focus of attention within educational practice.
Holding attitudes of tolerance toward other groups is a fundamental feature of a
mature citizenship in democratic societies (Almond and Verba 1963; Sherrod and
Lauckhardt 2009). Yet tolerance is certainly a controversial, multifaceted and
complex concept (Forst 2003; Green et al. 2006; Mutz 2001; Van Driel et al. 2016).
While in a broad sense, tolerance can be understood as respect, acceptance and
appreciation of diversity (Unesco 1995; Van Driel et al. 2016), in educational
settings, tolerance is often conceptualized in relation to civic and intercultural
competences and in terms of positive attitudes toward equal rights for different
groups (Green et al. 2006).
Attitudes of tolerance may take various forms, depending on their underlying
conceptualization and the groups involved. Weldon (2006), for example,
distinguished between political and social tolerance (see also Quintelier and
Dejaeghere 2008). Political tolerance concerns granting democratic and political
rights to different groups in society while social tolerance refers more to the evaluation of direct contact with people from out-groups (e.g. inter-ethnic friendships).
Other scholars (Forst 2003; Green et al. 2006; Mutz 2001) draw attention to the
distinction between different types of tolerance according to the differing contexts and
the “subjects of toleration”. In this respect, individuals may experience and exhibit
attitudes of tolerance concerning a wide range of groups based on, among other
factors, ethnicity, immigrant status, gender, and lifestyle choices.
Moreover, conceptualizations of tolerance may often include differing
perspectives. For example, one perspective is oriented to the rejection of social
groups and another oriented to the respect or acceptance of other social groups
(Freitag and Rapp 2013). These approaches are not necessarily in opposition (Van
Zalk and Kerr 2014), but rather are different dimensions of the development of
recognition of social rights and liberties (Rapp and Freitag 2015). On the one
hand, the rejection approach is focused on the negative attitudes toward difference,
such as intolerance or prejudice. On the other hand, the acceptance approach is
focused on the development of democratic principles and its application to all
sociopolitical groups (Freitag and Rapp 2013).
Researchers and educational practitioners have long been concerned with
identifying factors and conditions that have the potential to help schools and
teachers promote tolerance (Côté and Erickson 2009; Rapp and Freitag 2015; Van
Driel et al. 2016). However, the body of existing research is largely dominated by
individual-level theoretical explanations (e.g. Allport’s 1954 contact hypothesis; the
social identity perspective advanced by Tajfel and Turner 1979) emerging largely
from social-psychological research (Quintelier and Dejaeghere 2008; Weldon
2006). Research that has the potential to take into account the multiple contexts
shaping tolerance, as well as individual- and societal-level explanations, is still
largely needed.
International large-scale assessments (ILSA) such as the International Civic and
Citizenship Education Study (ICCS) 2009 of the International Association for the
Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), have the potential to tremendously
improve the study of tolerance in youth2 by providing the opportunity to analyze
differing explanatory mechanisms in a multitude of multi-leveled contexts. Existing
secondary analyses of ICCS 2009 and its predecessor, the 1999 Civic Education
Study (CIVED), have already made important contributions to the field. With minor
exceptions (Caro and Schulz 2012), most studies (Barber et al. 2013; Elchardus et al.
2013; Isac 2015; Isac et al. 2012; Janmaat 2014; Torney-Purta et al. 2008;
Torney-Purta and Barber 2011) operationalize tolerance in terms of positive attitudes
toward immigrants or, applying Weldon’s (2006) conceptualization, in terms of
political tolerance toward immigrants. Taken together, these findings have pointed to
the importance of different explanatory mechanisms. The factors identified by these
studies concern characteristics of schools, classrooms and educational systems, but
also individual student traits and background.
The work of Torney-Purta et al. (2008), for example, was among the first in a
consistent body of research to show the importance of open class and school
climates for promoting more positive attitudes toward immigrant rights. Other
research (Isac et al. 2012; Janmaat 2014) has shown that heterogeneous class and
school contexts (e.g. the proportion of immigrant students in a school or the opportunity to interact with immigrant peers) are linked with more positive attitudes
among non-immigrant students toward immigrants in general.
Moreover, studies with a particular focus on country and educational system
characteristics put forward macro-level explanations of tolerance. These studies
(Barber et al. 2013; Elchardus et al. 2013; Janmaat and Mons 2011) highlight the
role of sociocultural country characteristics (e.g. levels of economic and democratic
development, policies toward immigrants) and features of educational systems (e.g.
public steering and levels of differentiation within educational systems). These
studies highlight the relevance of studying tolerance in context.
In addition, many studies (see e.g. Isac 2015; Torney-Purta et al. 2008) have
shown consistent individual differences in political tolerance. Female students,
students with more civic knowledge, higher educational expectations and a higher
socioeconomic status tend to have more favorable attitudes toward immigrants.
Such work indicates the importance of the individual student’s background in
relation to tolerance.
The existing research on the topic of tolerance among youth based on analyses of
the CIVED 1999 and ICCS 2009 data provides valuable indications concerning
potentially relevant factors at the student, classroom/school, and country levels.
These factors are generally expected to be positively related to the tolerance levels
of young people. Yet, some important knowledge gaps remain in the field and these
IEA studies can provide further opportunities for data analysis relevant for a large
number of educational systems worldwide. For example, and partially due to a lack
of data, most previous studies have largely conceptualized tolerance in a somewhat
narrow framework (e.g. focusing preponderantly on tolerance toward some groups
like immigrants). Moreover, the majority of studies have looked at average relationships across countries and focused mainly on direct effects of differing
explanatory factors.
This report aims to fill some of these gaps by taking into account: (a) broader
conceptualizations of tolerance, including attitudes toward the rights of three different social groups: immigrants, ethnic groups and women; (b) the potential
relationships between these types of outcomes; (c) the strength of relationships
within different levels (individual, school, educational system level); (d) the complexity
of direct and indirect (e.g. mediation, moderation) relationships; and (e) the variation
of these relationships among countries (common and country-specific, differential
effects3
).
Therefore, this volume presents five empirical studies that aim to address some
of the gaps in the literature mentioned above. Each of the studies tries to take into
account the hierarchical layers of relationships (by controlling for relevant factors at
each level) but give in-depth attention to a particular level of analysis. The combined results aim to provide additional evidence regarding factors and
conditions that have the potential to help schools and teachers promote tolerance.