School Reform in the Field of Tension Between Inner- and Out-Of-School Resources

Author(s):

Corinna Geppert(presenting / submitting)Sonja Bauer-Hofmann(presenting)

Conference:

ECER 2014

Network:

14. Communities, Families and Schooling in Educational Research

Format:

Paper

Session Information

14 SES 09 B, School-Related Transitions Within a Life Course Perspective (Part 4)

Paper Session: continued from 14 SES 01 B, 14 SES 02 B, 14 SES 08 B

Time:

2014-09-04

11:00-12:30

Room:

B326 Sala de Aulas

Chair:

Aitor Gomez

Contribution

“For millions of children throughout the world formal instruction does not end when the school bell rings to signal the completion of the school day“ (Bray, 2007). Success or failure in education is shaped by the dynamic interplay of intra- and extra-curricular resources, although research shows that the extracurricular resources or conditions are much more powerful than inner-school processes (see summary Baumert, Stanat & Waterman, 2006; Becker & Lauterbach, 2006).

From an international perspective, we see a trend that the recourse to extra-curricular resources can be described by the use of (paid) tuition (which has also intensified more and more over time). The so-called shadow education system of private supplementary tutoring in academic subjects outside the hours of mainstream formal schooling has become a huge industry throughout the world. Austria-wide approximately 75% of parents support their children with their homework and learning. 50% of parents indicate that they have to deal with the homework and learning of their children on a daily basis (IFES, 2013). The time and personal resources that parents devote to this are quite considerable.

According to Jürgens and Diekmann (2007), tutoring can be divided into three areas: family tutoring, private tutoring and institutional tutoring. On a closer look, these three areas largely depend on the material and cultural resources of the family. In our educational institutions learning processes are mostly designed that way that the success in school depends on the "mastery of the language of instruction", “non-formal education”, “learning motivation” and the "habitualized study habits” – and this presupposes the cooperation of the parents (see also Solga, 2005). In this context, the term “parental involvement” has become established (defined for example by parental activities that help to promote the academic success of the child by supporting them in doing their homework). However, it depends not only on the material resources of the parents but also strongly on their formation, if they can act as a "substitute teacher". But this leads to a high imbalance in terms of opportunities in and through school.

Austrian policy makers often define the problem of the increasing use of private supplementary tutoring in academic subjects as a problem of structure. The first results of PISA 2000 once again led to debate on how to optimize the Austrian school structure. Especially the early selection process after the 4^th grade was once more blamed for the bad results of Austria’s students, which resulted in a further trial introducing a new form of comprehensive school. Traditionally, Austria has two main school forms for students aged 10 to 14: the academic secondary school (Gymnasium) and the general secondary school with a tracking system in the core subjects, Mathematics, German and English. The so-called “New Middle School” (NMS) was introduced as a test model for comprehensive schooling in Austria’s schooling system in 2009. It will replace the current general secondary school by 2018.

As there is a social and regional gap between those who attend the academic secondary school and those who attend the general secondary school, the declared aim of the “New Middle School” is to widen educational opportunities for all children regardless of their socio-economic or regional backgrounds. By focusing on the individual promotion and exposure of the students, private tutoring should no longer be part of one’s school life, as the initiators of the “New Middle School” claim.

So the question arises: How do students describe the change in the homework situation over the course of the NMS period (5th - 8th grades) and which resources (focusing especially on parental involvement) do they have to cope with in their homework situation?

Method

The paper reports on the results of a study carried out within the framework of a government- funded large-scale, longitudinal evaluation project (NOESIS) launched in 2010 to evaluate an Austrian school reform program at the lower secondary level, the “New Middle School” (NMS). The data base consists of questionnaires from students in 16 schools in the Federal State of Lower Austria. Three cohorts were established, with the first cohort starting in 2010/11. Student data and teacher data from this cohort (about 500 students and their teachers), where yearly assessments from 4th grade until 7th grade are available, are complemented by 5th grade student data from the second cohort (starting in 2011/12 – about 680 students and their teachers) and a third cohort (starting in 2012/13 – about 700 students and their teachers). Data was analyzed using panel analysis for the longitudinal data (Adolph, Butler & Wilson, 2005; Steenbergen & Jones, 2002). The change in “parental involvement” was treated as an outcome variable. Predictors were changes in “learning motivation”, in “learning barriers”, in “teacher-students-relationships”, in “perceived cooperation within class” and changes in “extracurricular activities” over the course. Measures of gender, socio-economic status and migration status were included in the model. The model was designed as multilevel-panel-data, including variables indicating the impact of testing-points.

Expected Outcomes

The results suggest that networks are especially important. Parental involvement in school affairs is extremely important for the students and increases in the “New Middle School” (already after one year in secondary I). The recourse to out-of-school support does not decrease over time. 90% of the students ask their parents to help them in completing their homework and ask them to check the results of their work. This is true for all the three cohorts with respect to 5th graders. From the longitudinal analysis, it can be concluded that parental involvement even increases, especially when students have many peer contacts and perceive an improved relationship with their teachers over time. The learning motivation of the students has a positive effect on their homework support. However, results show that when we check the social status it would seem to override any of the other effects. We can conclude then that the family status of the students is one of the crucial issues for how well coping with homework can work. In addition, almost a third of those students who attend a “New Middle School” receive additional paid tuition (the proportion is lower at the beginning of 5th grade and the transition to 6th grade, and rises again in the 6th grade). So a change of school system or, to be more precise, a change in school structure will not directly lead to a decrease in the recourse to out-of-school-resources. The “New Middle School” is therefore currently not very successful in reducing the need for parental involvement, which can be seen as one part of the shadow education system. Unequal distribution of resources proves to be significant for generating differences in a largely homogeneous school (e.g. Baker, 2006, Hopmann, 2011).

References

Baker, D. (2006). Institutional Change in Education: Evidence from Cross-National Comparisons. In. Meyer, H. & Rowan, B. (Hrsg.), The new institutionalism in education. S. 163-185. New York: State University of New York Press. Balli, S. J., Demo, D. H. & Wedman, J. F. (1998). Family involvement with children’s homework: An intervention in middle class. Family Relations, 47(2), 149-157. Baumert, J., Stanat, P. & Watermann, R. (2006). Herkunftsbedingte Disparitäten im Bildungswesen. Vertiefende Analysen im Rahmen von PISA 2000. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. Becker, G. E. & Kohler, B. (1988). Hausaufgaben. Kritisch sehen und die Praxis sinnvoll gestalten. Weinheim, Basel: Beltz Verlag. Bray, M. (2007). The shadow education system: private tutoring and its implications for planners. UNESCO: International Institute for Educational Planning. Bray, M. (2006). Private supplementary tutoring: comparative perspectives on patterns and implications. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education. 36(4), 515-530. Dohmen, D. Erbes, A., Fuchs, K. und Günzel (2008). Was wissen wir über Nachhilfe? – Sachstand und Auswertung. Berlin: Fibs. Hopmann, S. (2011). Zwischen PISA und Parnass. Bildung im Zeitalter ihrer Vermessung. Online unter: http://menschenbildung.eduhi.at/v_hopmann_Zwischen%20PISA%20und%20Parnass.pdf [30.10.2013] Institut für empirische Sozialforschung 2012: AK-Studie: Nachhilfe 2012. Bundesweite Elternbefragung. Studienbericht. Online unter: http://media.arbeiterkammer.at/wien/PDF/studien/Studie_Nachhilfe_Juni_bundesweit_2012.pdf [01.10.2013] Jackson, P. (1968): The Daily Grind. In P. Jackson (Hrsg.), Life in Classrooms, S. 33-37. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Jürgens, E. & Diekmann, M. (2007). Wirksamkeit und Nachhaltigkeit von Nachhilfeunterricht. Dargestellt am Beispiel des Studienkreises. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Patall, E. A., Cooper, H. & Robinson, J. C. (2008). Parental involvement in homework: A research synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 1039-1101. Pomerantz, E. M., Moorman, E. A. & Litwack, S. D. (2007). The How, Whom, and Why of Parents’ Involvement in Children’s Academic Lives: More Is Not Always Better. Review of Educational Research, 77(3), 373-410. Solomon, Y., Warin, J. & Lewis, C. (2002). Helping with homework? Homework as a site of tension for parents and teenagers. British Educational Research Journal, 28(4), 603-622. Van Voorhis, F. L. (2004). Reflecting on the Homework Ritual: Assignments and Designs. Theory into Practice, 43(3), 205-212.

Author Information

Corinna Geppert (presenting / submitting)

University of Vienna

Department of Education

Vienna

Sonja Bauer-Hofmann (presenting)