An inclusive school system aims to provide equal opportunities for education and satisfaction of individual learning needs to all pupils. Like in other cantons in Switzerland and in many other countries, the education system in the canton of Bern provides integrative measures in regular schools for children and adolescents with special educational needs. Compensation for disadvantages (CFD) and reduced individual learning objectives (RILO) are such measures intended to support learners with disabilities in mainstream classes and to promote equality of opportunities. While the target group of RILO are pupils with generally low cognitive abilities who are not able to achieve the regular learning objectives, the target group of CFD are pupils with an at least average cognitive ability but with a specific disadvantage (e.g. Dyslexia or ADHD) which is compensated by special aids (e.g. spell checker program, extra time at exams) to enable them to achieve the regular learning objectives. Approximately 2 to 5 % of all learners receive one of these two measures in the canton of Bern (Sahli Lozano & Ganz, 2018).

While CFD and RILO aim to support pupils with special educational needs, these measures also bear the risk to reproduce or enhance educational inequalities, for example when the likelihood of receiving certain measures also depends on student characteristics other than cognitive ability or academic performance. So far, there are no theories that explain inequalities in the allocation of integrative school measures. We therefore transfer studies and theories that explain external differentiation mechanisms to the allocation of integrative measures. It is well known that characteristics such as having a migration background or a low socioeconomic status influence the allocation to certain tracks and educational success (Becker & Beck, 2012; Ditton & Krüsken, 2009; Kronig, 2003; 2007; Reisel, 2011; Stocké, 2007). This can be justified by labeling effects (Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968; Greber et al., 2017) and sociological theories that address the influence of social status on educational success (Boudon, 1974; Bourdieu, 1983). Similar mechanisms may be expected when it comes to the allocation of less (reducing learning objectives) or more (compensating disadvantages) favorable integrative measures. Indeed, in an early study (SECABS) investigating the allocation mechanisms of integrative measures at the end of primary school in the canton of Bern, it was found that pupils with a higher socioeconomic status were more likely to receive a CFD than pupils with a low socioeconomic background, even when controlling for ability and academic performance (Sahli Lozano et al., 2018). It was further demonstrated that receiving RILO introduces a negative labeling bias (Fox & Stinnett, 1996): teacher’s expectancy of cognitive ability (prediction of IQ) of children receiving this measure was negatively biased in that IQ-scores of the children were systematically underestimated (Greber et al., 2017). Therefore, different measures may have different consequences for educational success in the long term.

In the present follow-up study (CHARISMA), allocation biases at secondary school level and long-term academic outcomes of pupils receiving CFD and RILO were investigated.

Our analytic data come from a longitudinal study which has been running since 2015 and aims to describe the characteristics of pupils receiving RILO or CFD. It will also be investigated how learners with integrative school measures develop over the course of their schooling. For the present contribution data was collected of 2228 pupils in 116 secondary school classes from 53 schools in the canton of Bern, Switzerland (mean age: 15.5 years). 581 of these pupils already took part in the SECABS study three years earlier in primary school. As in the SECABS study before, pupils again completed standardized tests in math and language (German) to assess academic performance level, as well as a general intelligence test (Culture Fair Intelligence Test 20-R). Pupil and teacher questionnaires were used to collect further information about individual integrative measures (RILO, CFD, others or no measures) of each pupil and their socioeconomic background (highest international socioeconomic index of occupational status (HISEI); Ganzeboom & Treiman, 1996). Of the total sample of 2228 pupils, 64 were identified as receiving RILO and 52 as receiving CFD. With separate multilevel logistic regressions and propensity score matching, we a) tested whether pupils’ background characteristics (migration background, socioeconomic status, parents’ education) predicted the allocation of the measures RILO and CFD even when controlling for cognitive ability and academic performance and b) compared academic performance development of pupils having received RILO or CFD in primary school to a matched control group of pupils which never received such measures. The control groups were matched using the following variables: Grade (6th), sex (female), age, migration background, socioeconomic status, integrative support, IQ, math performance, language performance.

Preliminary results at the primary school level indicate that pupil’s socioeconomic background related to the allocation of the measure CFD, even under control of cognitive ability and academic performance. This was not the case for RILO (Sahli Lozano et al., 2018). At the secondary school level, there is no (longer a) significant correlation between a pupil's socioeconomic background and the allocation of the measures CFD and RILO. However, pupils with migration background have a significantly lower chance to receive a CFD at this school level. The results further show a high clustering of the measures in classes. While some classes had several pupils with CFD or RILO, others had none at all. Thus, class membership may make a difference (Sahli Lozano et al., 2020). Further, analyses of academic achievement found that having received RILO in math in primary school led to a detrimental outcome three years later: pupils with RILO performed significantly worse than the matched controls without RILO in the standardized math performance test at secondary school. In view of the increasing integration of pupils with disabilities in regular school classes, supportive integrative measures are very important. One risk here is that such measures can give rise to new mechanisms for educational inequalities. School policy should ensure that pupils from educationally disadvantaged backgrounds have equal chances to receive a CFD, that pupils, teachers and parents are well informed about potential risks of measures like RILO and that teachers give care to avoid stigmatization and lowered achievement expectancy of pupils receiving RILO in one or more subject areas. How to best ensure fair allocation of such measures will be interesting and relevant for an international audience, as similar measures exist in other countries as well.

Becker, R., & Beck, M. (2012). Herkunftseffekte oder statistische Diskriminierung von Migrantenkindern in der Primarstufe? In R. Becker & H. Solga (Hrsg.), Soziologische Bildungsforschung (S. 137–163). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-00120-9_6 Boudon, R. (1974). Education, opportunity, and social inequality : changing prospects in Western society. New York: Wiley. Bourdieu, P. (1983). Ökonomisches Kapital, kulturelles Kapital, soziales Kapital. In R. Kreckel (Hrsg.), Soziale Ungleichheiten. Soziale Welt, Sonderband 2 (S. 183–198). Göttingen: O. Schwartz. Ditton, H., & Krüsken, J. (2009). Bildungslaufbahnen im differenzierten Schulsystem. Entwicklungsverläufe von Bildungsaspirationen und Laufbahnempfehlungen in der Grundschulzeit. Bildungsentscheidungen. Sonderheft, 12. Fox, J. D., & Stinnett, T. A. (1996). The effects of labeling bias on prognostic outlook for children as a function of diagnostic label and profession. Psychology in the Schools, 33(2), 143–152. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6807(199604)33:2<143::AID-PITS7>3.0.CO;2-S Ganzeboom, H. B. G., & Treiman, D. J. (1996). Internationally Comparable Measures of Occupational Status for the 1988 International Standard Classification of Occupations. Social Science Research, 25, 201–239. Greber, L., Sahli Lozano, C., & Steiner, F. (2017). Lehrpersoneneinschätzungen von Kindern mit integrativen schulischen Massnahmen. Empirische Pädagogik, 31(3), 303–322. Kronig, W. (2003). Das Konstrukt des leistungsschwachen Immigrantenkindes. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 6(1), 126–141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-003-0008-3 Kronig, W. (2007). Die systematische Zufälligkeit des Bildungserfolgs: theoretische Erklärungen und empirische Untersuchungen zur Lernentwicklung und zur Leistungsbewertung in unterschiedlichen Schulklassen (1. Aufl.). Bern: Haupt Reisel, L. (2011). Two Paths to Inequality in Educational Outcomes: Family Background and Educational Selection in the United States and Norway. Sociology of Education, 84(4), 261–280. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040711417012 Rosenthal, R. & Jacobson, L. F. (1968). Pygmalion in the Classroom: Teacher Expectation and Pupils’ Intellectual Development. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York. Sahli Lozano, C., & Ganz, A. S. (2018, February). Chancen und Risiken integrativer Massnahmen (ChaRisMa) Präsentation Treffpunkt Schule und Wissenschaft [Vortragsreihe der pädagogischen Hochschule Bern]. Sahli Lozano, C., Ganz, A. S., & Wüthrich, S. (2018, September). Systematic Randomness in the Allocation of Integrative School Measures. Presentation held at European Conference of Educational Research (ECER), Bozen. Sahli Lozano, C., Wüthrich, S., & Brandenberg, K. (2020, November). Reducing or Enhancing Educational Inequalities: A Fine Line with Integrative Measures?. Online Kongress Heterogeneity and Inequality: Differentiation in Education and Consequences for Educational Inequalities, Bern. Stocké, V. (2007). Explaining Educational Decision and Effects of Families’ Social Class Position: An Empirical Test of the Breen–Goldthorpe Model of Educational Attainment. European Sociological Review, 23(4), 505–519. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcm014