Study Of Socioeconomic School Segregation
Author(s):
Conference:
ECER 2017
Format:
Paper

Session Information

11 SES 11 B, International Assessments and Teaching Improvement

Paper Session

Time:
2017-08-24
17:15-18:45
Room:
W2.05
Chair:
Buratin Khampirat

Contribution

School segregation refers to an uneven distribution of students in schools according to their personal or social characteristics (Bellei, 2013; Ireson and Hallam, 2001). In essence, it is possible to distinguish two basic types of school segregation: segregation by socioeconomic status and by ethnic-cultural status, which in turn can distinguish between the concentration of the immigrant population and the concentration of the ethnic or racial minorities in certain schools.

The study of school segregation has as its starting point the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States on Brown v Board of Education of Topeka in 1954. Among these early studies, perhaps the best known is the one conducted by James Coleman et al. (1966). Their results showed that the existence of schools for whites and schools for black’s student exacerbate the inequality between racial groups.

From the 80’s, school segregation studies have been focused on the socioeconomic characteristics of the families of students. One of the most influential studies is called “The Truly Disadvantaged” (Wilson, 1987). Wilson study the disadvantages of the concentration of disadvantaged families in some schools. Since then, there have been many researches that address socioeconomic segregation between schools, their evolution, and also its comparison between different countries (eg, Cheng and Gorard, 2010; Gorard and Smith, 2004; Orfiel and Lee, 2005; Stephan, 2013).

According to the literature, the magnitude of socioeconomic segregation is increasing in recent years (Gorard, 2010; Orfiel and Lee, 2005). In the United States, Reardon and Owens (2013) indicate that the increase of school segregation in public primary schools can be considered “modest” in the early 90s, but it has been exacerbated during the late 2000s. There is also evidence of this increase in England (Gorard, Hordsoy and See, 2013), Belgium (Dumay and Dupriez, 2008), or Chile (Elaqua, 2012), among others.

Latin American research on school segregation by socioeconomic status has been addressed very early form. We can highlight a few studies such as Elacqua (2012) and Valenzuela, Bellei and de los Rios (2010, 2014) in Chile, and Gasparini and others (2011) and Krueger (2011) in Argentina.

The research conducted by Valenzuela, Bellei and de los Rios (2010) analyzes the degree of school segregation by socioeconomic status of schools in Chile. The results confirm a condition of high school segregation (dissimilarity index of 0.51 in 1999, and 0.54 in 2008). Meanwhile, Gasparini and others (2011) document and analyze school segregation among students from different socioeconomic levels attending public and private schools in Argentina since 1986. According to their results, the degree of school segregation by level socioeconomic shown an upward trend since mid-1980 to the present (dissimilarity index of 0.34).

As we have seen, research in Latin America suffers the lack of global, and comprehensive research about school segregation. The kind of research that promote the debate, reflection, and suggests reforms of the educational administration and education policies in the Region. That is why in this study we estimated the magnitude of the effect of school segregation by socioeconomic status in Latin America.

Method

The aim of this research is: • To estimate the magnitude of the effect of school segregation by socioeconomic status in Latin America. To achieve our aim, we use the data of the Third Regional Comparative and Explanatory Study (TERCE, UNESCO). The study sample is 105,847 students, of 5,733 schools, from 15 Latin American countries (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, and Uruguay). The variables used are: • Socioeconomic and cultural level of the family of the students (ISECF): factor obtained from the educational and occupational levels of parents, family income, housing characteristics, and numbers of books at home. Standardized index for the region. Standardized variable. Obtained from the questionnaire for families. • Habitat school: if the school is located in an urban or rural area. Dummy variable. This information comes from the sampling criteria used in the TERCE, and allows us provide narrow results. We use the Dissimilarity index (D) (Duncan and Duncan, 1955) to estimate the magnitude of the effect of school segregation in the different countries of Latin America. D considers the proportion of minority students in schools about the majority group, and is interpreted as the rate of students who must change schools so that segregation is zero. Its minimum value is 0 and the situation of maximum segregation has a value of 1. The values obtained by the Dissimilarity index is influenced by the composition of the population. It is considered that segregation is low if D takes values between 0 and 0.3; moderate if it is between 0.3 and 0.6; and high when it is higher than 0.6 (Massey and Denton, 1994). Glaeser and Vigdor (2001) consider hypersegregation when D exceeds 0.6. To estimate the magnitude of school segregation by socioeconomic status, we considered as "minority" group those students from the Q1 (25% lower) of the ISECF for each country.

Expected Outcomes

One of the challenges of the education systems in Latin America is high segregation of schools by socioeconomic status. Using the Dissimilarity index (the most common), our results show that the school segregation average of Latin America is 0.56 (high segregation according to the parameters of Glaeser and Vigdor (2001)). According to our results, Panama and Colombia are the most segregated countries in Latin America, and the Dominican Republic and Uruguay recorded the lower rate of school segregation by socioeconomic status. We can configure four groups of countries according to the size of its index of school segregation: • Countries with a medium school segregation (with an index of dissimilarity to 0.5): Dominican Republic and Uruguay. • Countries with a medium-high segregation (more than 0.50 to 0.55): Argentina, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua. • Countries with high segregation (more than 0.55 to 0.6): Brazil, Chile, Honduras and Paraguay. • Countries with a high school segregation by socioeconomic status (over 0.6): Colombia, Mexico, Panama, and Peru. These results can be better understood by analyzing the percentage of schools that concentrate more students whose families are among the 25% with a lower socioeconomic status. Thus, the two countries with less school segregation are those with the lowest percentage of schools that concentrate students from the Q1. Dominican Republic has only 2.2% with more than 75% of students in Q1, and 11.26% with more than 50%; Uruguay rise slightly but remain the lowest in the region: 3.25 % and 17.68%, respectively. For its part, the study of school segregation by socioeconomic status in urban schools in Latin America provides similar results with respect to the total number of schools.

References

Bellei, C. (2013). El estudio de la segregación socioeconómica y académica de la educación chilena. Estudios Pedagógicos, 39(1), 325-345. Cheng, S. C. & Gorard, S. (2010). Segregation by poverty in secondary schools in England 2005–2009. Journal of Education Policy, 25(3), 415-418. Coleman, J.S., Campbell, E.Q., Hobson, C.J., McPartland, J., Mood, A.M., Weinfeld, F.D., &York, R. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. Duncan, O. & Duncan, B. (1955) A methodological analysis of segregation indexes. American Sociological Review, 20, 210–217. Dumay, X. & Dupriez, V. (2008). Does the school composition effect matter? Evidence from Belgian data. British Journal of Educational Studies, 56(4), 440-477. Elacqua, G. (2012). The impact of school choice and public policy on segregation: Evidence from Chile. International Journal of Educational Development, 32(3), 444-453. Gasparini, L.C., Jaume, D., Serio, M., & Vázquez, E. (2011). La segregación escolar en Argentina. Reconstruyendo la evidencia. Buenos Aires: CEDLAS. Glaeser, E. & Vigdor, J. (2001). Racial Segregation in the 2000 census: promising news. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. Gorard, S. & Smith, E. (2004). An international comparison of equity in education systems. Comparative Education, 40(1), 15-28. Gorard, S., Hordosy, R., & See, B.H. (2013). Narrowing down the determinants of between-school segregation: an analysis of the intake to all schools in England, 1989–2011. Journal of School Choice, 7(2), 182-195. Ireson, J. & Hallam, S. (2001). Ability grouping in education. London: Paul Chapman Publishing. Krüger, N. (2011). The segmentation of the argentine education system: evidence from PISA 2009. Regional and Sectoral Economic Studies, 11(3), 41-64. Massey, D. & Denton, K. (1994). Hypersegregation in U.S. metropolitan areas: black and hispanic segregation along five dimensions. Demography, 26, 373‐93. Orfield, G. & Lee, C.M. (2005). Why segregation matters: poverty and educational inequality. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press. Reardon, S.F. & Owens, A. (2013). 60 years after brown: trends and consequences of school segregation. Annual Review of Sociology, 40, 199-218. Stephan, W. (Ed.). (2013). School desegregation: past, present, and future. Nueva York: Springer. Valenzuela, J.P., Bellei, C., & de Los Ríos, D. (2010). Segregación escolar en Chile. In S. Martinic y G. Elacqua (Eds.), Cambios en la gobernanza del sistema educativo chileno (pp. 257-284). Santiago: UNESCO. Valenzuela, J.P., Bellei, C., & de los Ríos, D. (2014). Socioeconomic school segregation in a market-oriented educational system. The case of Chile. Journal of Education Policy, 29(2), 217-241. Wilson, W.J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Author Information

Cynthia Martínez Garrido (presenting / submitting)
Universidad de Granada
El Álamo (Madrid)
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain

Update Modus of this Database

The current conference programme can be browsed in the conference management system (conftool) and, closer to the conference, in the conference app.
This database will be updated with the conference data after ECER. 

Search the ECER Programme

  • Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
  • Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
  • Search for authors and in the respective field.
  • For planning your conference attendance, please use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference and the conference agenda provided in conftool.
  • If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.