Based on data from PISA, this paper explores the relationship between the academic performance of students from disadvantaged backgrounds and the students’ differentiation models of the educational systems of OECD countries.

As confirmed by numerous studies, students’ socioeconomic background is a variable that noticeably affects students’ educational outcomes (e.g. Blanden and Gregg, 2004; Caro, McDonald and Willms, 2009; Dupriez and Dumay, 2006; Gorard and Smith, 2004; Field, Kuczera and Pont, 2007; OECD, 2007; 2010; 2011; Sirin, 2005; Tieben and Wolbers, 2010). Moreover, differences in outcomes among students according to their socioeconomic status are considered as an indicator of equality of opportunities in educational systems (Field, Kuckzera and Pont, 2007).

There are aspects of educational policy that can reduce or increase the academic gap between disadvantaged students and their more advantaged peers, such as the strategies for managing the students’ heterogeneity. Some studies suggest that educational inequalities are largely determined by the structure of educational systems in terms of their level of differentiation, even more so than by inequalities in society (Dupriez & Dumay, 2006).

Based on differentiation policies, Mons (2004) proposes a classification of educational systems into four categories, which the author terms as “heterogeneity management models”. The first category refers to the separation model, which is characterised by the existence of a short common core curriculum, grouping students according to ability, and generalised use of grade retention in managing students’ progress. The second model is the uniform integration model characterized by a longer common core curriculum but with a high incidence of grade retention and the possibility of forming ability groups according to students’ abilities, although often not in an official way. The à-la-carte integration model is the third to be defined by Mons. Its main features are a long common core curriculum, reduced grade retention, flexible ability grouping in secondary school, and an extensive use of individualised teaching. Finally, the author delineates the individualised integration model, which has a long common core curriculum, automatic grade promotion of students, heterogeneous classrooms, and a generalised use of individualised teaching.

There are several studies that examine the impact of the types of differentiation policies on educational equality. Duru-Bellat, Mons and Suchaut (2004) conclude that a higher level of differentiation in educational systems reduces social equality. Furthermore, they support that countries with high levels of educational differentiation obtain lower score averages in PISA 2000 than countries with more comprehensive educational systems. 

According to Erickson and Jonsson (1996), this is because families with more resources tend to choose more academic tracks for their children. The later the moment at which a track is selected, the lower the level of what the author defines as self-selection by families with more resources. In this sense, in the case of Romania, Malamud and Pop-Eleches (2011) show how educational reform that postponed the moment of choice between academic and vocational tracks significantly increased the number of students from rural areas – or from families with lower educational levels – that were candidates for progressing to higher education levels.

Thus the main objective of this article is to understand the impact of educational differentiation policies on students’ academic performance. More specifically, we focus on students from disadvantaged backgrounds, paying special attention on students who achieve high levels of academic performance and students from such backgrounds that obtain poor results. Therefore, the research question is the following:

• To what extent do the models of educational differentiation determine the presence of disadvantaged high achievers and of disadvantaged low achievers?
  

Blanden, J. & Gregg, P. (2004). Family Income and Educational Attainment: A Review of Approaches and Evidence for Britain. CMPO Working Paper Series No. 04/101. Caro, D., McDonald, J.T. & Willms, J.D. (2009). Socio‐economic Status and Academic Achievement Trajectories from Childhood to Adolescence. Canadian Journal of Education, 32(3), 558‐590. Coleman, J., Campbell, E., Hobson, C., McPartland, J., Mood, A., Weinfeld, F., & York, R. (1966) Equality of educational opportunity (Washington DC, U.S. Government Printing Office) Dupriez, V. & Dumay, X. (2006), Inequalities in school systems: effect of school structure or of society structure?, Comparative Education, 42(2), 243 - 260. Duppriez, V., Dumay, X., & Vause, A. (2008). How Do School Systems Manage Pupils’ Heterogeneity?. Comparative Education Review, 52, (2). Duru-Bellat, M., Mons, N. & Suchaut, B. (2004) Caractéristiques des systèmes éducatifs et compétences des jeunes à 15 ans, Les Cahiers de l’Iredu, 66. Erikson, R. & Jonsson, J.O. (1996) Explaining class inequality in education: The Swedish test case, in: R. Erikson & J.O. Jonsson (Eds), Can education be equalized? (Boulder CO, Westview Press). Field, S., Kuczera, M. & Pont, B. (2007) No More Failures: Ten Steps to Equity in Education (París, OECD). Gorard, S. & Smith, E. (2004), An international comparison of equity in education Systems, Comparative education, 40 (1), 15-28. Malamud, O. & Pop-Elches, C. (2011). School tracking and access to higher education among disadvantaged groups. NBER Working Paper Series, 16914. Mons, N. (2004) De l'école unifiée aux écoles plurielles : évaluation internationale des politiques de différenciation et de diversification de l'offre éducative. (Thesis. Université de Bourgogne). OECD (2007) Understanding the Social Outcomes of Learning (Paris, OECD). OECD (2010) PISA 2009 Results: Overcoming Social Background: Equity in Learning opportunities and Outcomes. Vol II. (Paris, OECD). OCDE. (2011). Against the Odds. Disadvantaged students who succeed in school. (Paris, OECD). OCDE (2012) Equity and quality education – Supporting disadvantaged students and schools. Executive summary. (Paris, OECD). Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A metaanalytic review of research. Review of Educational Research. 75(3), 417 - 453. Tieben N. and Wolbers, M. (2010). Success and failure in secondary education: socio‐economic background effects on secondary school outcome in the Netherlands, 1927–1998. British Journal of Sociology of Education. 31(3), 277-290.