In this presentation I assess the explanatory power of a perspective arguing that school social segregation enhances social inequalities in political engagement because of the distinct effects that concentrations of adolescents of disadvantaged backgrounds in educational settings generate. I test this argument with data of the 2000 Civic Education Study among Upper Secondary students and use intentions to participate and political competences as outcomes to represent political engagement.

The point of departure of the aforementioned perspective is the strong link between social background and political engagement. As noted by many scholars, children from disadvantaged backgrounds are less likely to be knowledgeable of and involved in politics than those from middle class families (Beck & Jennings, 1982; Verba et al., 1995; Achen, 2002; Schulz et al., 2010; Lauglo, 2016). The proposed mechanism driving this social class difference is differences in socialization, with middle class parents being more inclined to foster a sense of efficacy, inculcate a commitment to participate, and discuss politics at home than working class ones (Kam and Palmer, 2008; Lauglo, 2016).

The perspective then proceeds by proposing that a concentration of children from disadvantaged backgrounds in a certain educational setting (i.e. low status schools or classrooms) reinforces the relative disengagement of such children in two ways. First, such a concentration gives rise to a particular group dynamic (or peer effect) socializing students in a counter culture marked by political alienation, alternative status symbols and a contempt for the educational process (Willis 1977; van der Werfhorst 2007; Janmaat and Mons 2011). This culture of resistance sanctions lack of efficacy, ignorance of politics and non-engagement (see Forsberg 2011, who identified such a culture in male-dominated vocational tracks). The flip side of a counter culture is a culture of alignment promoting the values of the school and democratic society more broadly. Such a culture emerges in settings with a stronger presence of children from middle class backgrounds (Langton 1969).

Secondly, concentrations of disadvantaged children bring about certain school and teaching practices that are not conducive for political engagement. According to Ben-Porath (2013) schools serving disadvantaged communities are generally so preoccupied with improving the academic achievements of their pupils that they enforce strict behavioural regulations (ibid.) and devote all resources to teaching the core subjects of language and maths (Bischoff 2016). A downside of strict enforcement, however, is that it inhibits open discussions of political issues and other learning opportunities to become more engaged (Ben-Porath 2013). Indeed Ichilov (1991) and Condon (2007) found that teachers in schools serving deprived communities are less likely to promote debate. This may reflect low teacher expectations regarding the ability and willingness of these students to engage with politics and conduct civilised political discussions. Such students could internalise these expectations and thus come to believe that the world of politics is not for them (Sohl and Arensmeier 2015).

The last step in the social inequalities perspective is the contention that a setting’s social composition complements the effect of individual social background: By suppressing the low engagement levels of disadvantaged children in low status settings still further and enhancing the already high engagement levels of middle class children in high status ones, a setting’s social composition exacerbates overall social gaps in engagement (Wilkenfeld 2009a; Janmaat et al 2011). 

As there are both more high and more low status settings in segregated systems, the effect of social composition should be strongest in such systems and hence social inequalities in engagement should be largest there. This is the main hypothesis to be tested by the present study.

I use data of the Civic Education Study among upper secondary students (Cived UpSec) to explore the proposed relationships. The International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) fielded this survey in 2000 in 16 countries worldwide. The survey amassed data among more than 50,000 students aged between 15 and 20 using nationally representative samples. I explore whether the effect of classroom social composition is greater in the more segregated systems with multilevel linear models as the outcome is at the individual level and the predictors are at the individual and classroom level. Multilevel analysis (MLA) is necessary to obtain accurate estimates of the effects of higher level predicators when data is nested and observations are not independent (Snijders and Bosker 1999), which is the case in the present study. Using Mplus (Muthen and Muthen 1998-2002), I will run a two-level random intercept multilevel model on the pooled data. I will run correlations at the country level to assess whether social segregation is related to social inequalities in future participation and political competences.

Social inequalities in political competences turn out to be greater in states with the most segregated systems, but social disparities in intentions to participate are unrelated to the level of segregation. How can we make sense of this mixed bag of findings? The pattern suggests that the effect of classroom social composition (CSS) as proposed by the social inequalities argument primarily applies to cognitive outcomes and not to attitudinal ones, such as intentions to participate. What might account for the lack of an effect of CSS on future political participation is a growing insensitivity to peer group views and pressures during late adolescence. Indeed, documenting the research on engaging in anti-social behaviour and the willingness to do so, Steinberg and Monahan (2007) observe that susceptibility to peer influences is highest at age 14 and declines rapidly afterwards. They state that “middle adolescence is an especially significant period for the development of the capacity to stand up for what one believes and resist the pressures of one’s peers to do otherwise” (ibid. p. 1531). On the other hand, the findings on political competences align closely with the propositions of the social inequalities perspective. Not only are social inequalities in political competences larger in the more segregated systems, CSS, as the mechanism postulated to bring these inequalities about, also shows a positive effect on political competences, and one that reinforces the effect of social background. Drawing on these findings I argue that policy makers should consider creating a more integrated school system if they seek to reduce social inequalities in INFORMED political participation.

Ben-Porath, S. (2013). Deferring virtue: The new management of students and the political role of schools. School Field, 11(2), pp.111-128. Bischoff, K. (2016). The political effects of schools: Theory and empirics. Theory and Research in Education, Vol. 14(1) 91–106. Brady, Henry E., Sidney Verba, and Kay Lehman Schlozman. 1995. "Beyond SES: A Re- source Model of Political Participation." American Political Science Review 89:271- 94. Campbell, D.E. (2007) Sticking together: classroom diversity and political education, American Politics Research, 35 (1): 57-78. Coleman, J. S. (1966). Equality of Educational Opportunity. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office. Dalton, R.J. (2017). The Participation Gap: Social Status and Political Inequality. Oxford University Press. Delli Carpini, M. and Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans Know about Politics and Why it Matters. New Haven: Yale University Press. Duncan, O. D. and Duncan, B. (1955). "A Methodological Analysis of Segregation Indexes". American Sociological Review. 20 (2): 210–217 Janmaat, J.G. (2011). ‘Ability Grouping, Segregation and Political Competences among Adolescents’, International Sociology, 26 (4): 455-482. Janmaat, J.G. and N. Mons (2011) ‘Promoting Ethnic Tolerance and Patriotism: The Role of Education System Characteristics’, Comparative Education Review, LV, 56-81. Jenkins, S.P., Micklewright, J., and Schnepf, S.V. (2008) ‘Social Segregation in Secondary Schools: How Does England Compare with Other Countries,’ Oxford Review of Education, 34, 1, pp. 21-37. Kahne, J., & Middaugh, E. (2008). Democracy for some: the political opportunity gap in high school. Circle Working Paper 59. Centre for Information and Research on Political Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE). Kam, C. D. & Palmer, C. L. (2008). Reconsidering the Effects of Education on Political Participation, Journal of Politics, 70(3), 612–31. Loveless, T. (1999). Will tracking reform promote social equity? Educational Leadership, 56, 28-32. Snijders, T., and Bosker, R. J. (1999). Multilevel Analysis: An Introduction to Basic and Advanced Multilevel Modelling. London: Sage Publications. Van de Werfhorst, H. (2007) ‘Vocational Education and Active Citizenship Behavior in Cross-National Perspective’, AIAS Working Paper Number 2007/62, http://www.uva-aias.net/uploaded_files/publications/WP62.pdf. Van de Werfhorst, H. G. (2017). Vocational and Academic Education and Political Engagement: The Importance of the Educational Institutional Structure. Comparative Education Review, 61 (1), 111-140. Verba, S., Lehman Schlozman, K., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and equality: Political voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wilkenfeld, B. (2009a). Does context matter? How the family, peer, school and neighbourhood contexts relate to adolescents’ Political Engagement (CIRCLE Working Paper 64). Medford, MA: Tufts University, CIRCLE.