The development of cognitive, language, and cultural skills from age 3 to 6: A comparison between children of Turkish origin and children of native-born German parents and the role of immigrant parents’ acculturation to the receiving society

Becker, B., Klein, O., & Biedinger, N. (2013). The development of cognitive, language, and cultural skills from age 3 to 6: A comparison between children of Turkish origin and children of native-born German parents and the role of immigrant parents’ acculturation to the receiving society. American Educational Research Association Journal, 50(3), 616-649.


Many things bothered me about this article, which compares the development trajectories of preschool-age children and grandchildren of Turkish immigrants in Germany to their native-born counterparts. The authors carefully differentiate among various kinds of skills, including cognitive skills, language skills (meaning German language skills) and cultural skills (meaning knowledge of the dominant German culture). They related the Turkish children’s developmental levels on these skills to their parents’ ways of “acculturating”; that is, to how much the parents took on the language and culture of Germany and taught that to their children.

There was little that was surprising in the findings. The children whose parents were more “acculturated” to the German culture (the authors stopped short of saying “better acculturated”, but they might as well have used those words, and clearly they view acculturation as a positive outcome) than children whose parents did not speak German at home, did not teach the German culture in their homes, and did not associate closely with people outside the Turkish immigrant community. The differences showed up early, and though there was some “catch-up” (this was precisely the heavily judgmental wording used) by the Turkish children on some things (e.g., German language) over time, the gap actually widened on cultural knowledge, and the Turkish immigrant children were clearly described as “disadvantaged.”

The authors conclude that the family is an extremely important influence on children’s development. They also conclude that acculturated parents help their children acculturate, and that acculturation helps those children achieve better in school. Finally, they conclude that preschool (in Germany, it is called “kindergarten”, and that term is in fact a German word) can be powerful in that acculturation process and by extension is a factor in later school success in Germany. None of these conclusions can be argued with in terms of accuracy, but so much is worrisome in the ways they are stated.

As often happens when we look at cultural factors affecting educational achievement, there are several “elephants in the room” that in this article are either completely ignored or are mentioned only in passing. Of course, that doesn’t only occur in studies done in Germany, though this particular article is particularly perplexing, and does seem to reveal a certain dominant conservatism toward immigrant populations in Germany. We have the same elephants in the U.S., too, though we may tend to choose our words more carefully these days than these German authors did. In many ways we could draw parallels between the German situation described here and the situations we have with immigrant groups in the U.S.

The first elephant is the problems with the assessments used. The notion that certain kinds of assessments can be culturally biased was dutifully touched upon here, but not really dealt with in a meaningful way. Choices were offered about what language children could use, and care was taken with who administered the tests, but it does not appear that test items or the bigger problem of the basic nature of the assessments, which definitely appeared to favor German-heritage children, were dealt with. I was floored by the authors’ admission that a “cultural test” to be given to very young children of any ethnic origin would have an item requiring recognition of Charlie Chaplin. I question the overall choice of these assessments and their validity for these populations, and as a result of that, I question the entire set of study findings.

The second elephant, which I have already alluded to, is the “deficit model” language the authors use repeatedly when describing the Turkish children, their parents, and their culture. Little effort is made to understand the Turkish culture or to help the reader understand it. There is a mention of the notion of cultural resources, but it is brief, and is only an afterthought at the very end of this article. I want to know more about what was actually going on here. Why do some Turkish families stay within their communities and never relate to native Germans or learn the German language? The authors mention that these groups might not have the opportunities to relate to Germans, but they go no further. Are there religious factors in play here? What about prejudice and fears of conflicts and violence? Finally, where do Turkish immigrants tend to live, and under what conditions, in comparison to the typical child of long-term German heritage?

That, of course, brings us to the biggest elephant of all: poverty. That is the elephant that is always at the end of the line in any discussion of educational inequality, no matter what nation you are talking about. The dominant groups in a society are the “haves”, and the non-dominant groups are the “have-nots”. Immigrant groups who have been willing to at least outwardly take on the norms of the dominant culture have done so in order to become “haves”, though they have often paid a high price for acculturation. The dominant culture protects what it has, and is unwilling to give up anything to help others have an opportunity to share the wealth. Barriers of long standing are set up to prevent the “have-nots” from crossing the line and becoming “haves”, and few really achieve equal footing, at least not for several generations, if then. The more “different” you are from “mainstream” norms, the harder it will be to fit in. Some may give lip service to “leveling the playing field”, and propose solutions like bolstering early childhood programs (not a bad idea in itself) and other kinds of interventions. However, these supposed solutions will have a limited impact as long as some groups live in poverty and there is unequal opportunity in a society, and the dominant culture carefully guards its dominance. Before real change can happen, people must face up to prejudice, discrimination, and injustice, and the basic fear that lies beneath the surface of those ugly words. That’s a lot harder than building more and better preschools.