Session Information
09 SES 10 B, National and Regional Large-Scale Assessments: Methods and Findings (Part 2)
Paper Session
Contribution
Many studies show that one of the most important factors related to delivering equity in education is the design of education system, its differentiation, and the age at the time of the first selection (OECD 2007). In a system in which early self-selection is constrained by the choice structure there is less educational inequality than in a system where consequential decisions about the educational career are taken at a very young age. The younger the students are when they have to make decisions about their future in education, the more this decision is determined by their parents rather than by their own interests, abilities and aspirations. It appears that through the mere existence of choice, the selective systems raise the aspirations of parents from higher socio-economic backgrounds and lower those of parents from lower socio-economic backgrounds (Erikson and Jonsson 1996). Ireson et al (2002) found that students are in many cases wrongly placed in tracks and that division into tracks is influenced by factors such as ethnic origin, race, or family background. On that account, grouping according to student performance has been one of the most controversial issues in education for more than 80 years. Its effects, particularly on student achievement, have been extensively studied over that time period (e.g. Slavin 1987, 1990, Kulik and Kulik 1982, Gamoran 1992, Harlen, Malcolcm 1999). Most studies agree that tracking has no impact on overall achievement. It, however, contributes to inequality: students assigned to higher-ranked tracks fare better than their lower-ranked peers and their progress is faster than in heterogeneous settings. On the opposite, students in lower-ranked tracks fare worse and their progress is slower than in heterogeneous settings. Gamoran, Nystrand (1990) and Oakes (1990) showed that students experience different quality of teaching in different tracks: higher tracks had more academic subjects, more enthusiastic and knowledgeable teachers, better learning climate.
In the Czech Republic, tracking starts from very young age. At the age of 11, children can apply for long academic track (eight-year gymnasium). About 13 % of Czech 11-years old students leave basic schools and start lower secondary education at upper secondary academic schools. Eight-year gymnasia are valued as institutions providing high quality education to especially talented children and thus efficiently reproducing Czech elites. At the same time, by the Czech researchers they are viewed as one of the main sources of high inequalities in the Czech education system (e.g. Mateju, Strakova 2005).
The paper studies mechanisms of transition from primary school to eight-year gymnasium. It seeks answers to the following questions: How do families decide about application to eight-year gymnasium? How do children prepare for entrance examinations? What is the match between students´ success in enrollment procedure and their results in IEA TIMSS and PIRLS? Is mathematics and reading achievement a stronger predictor of students´ success than their family background?
Method
Expected Outcomes
References
Erikson, R., Jonsson, J. 1996. Explaining Class Inequality in Education. The Swedish Test Case. Pp. 1-64 In: Erikson, R. and Jonsson, J. (eds.). Can Education be Equalized? The Swedish case. Boulder, USA: Westview Press. Gamoran, A. 1987. The stratification of high school learning opportunities. Sociology of Education, 60, 135-155. Gamoran, A. 1992. Synthesis of Research/Is Ability Grouping Equitable? In: Educational Leadership. 50.2 pp. 11-17 Gamoran, A., Mare, D., R. 1989. Secondary School Tracking and Educational Inequality: Compensation, Reinforcement, or Neutrality? The American Journal of Sociology, 94,5, pp. 1146-1183. Gamoran, A., Nystrand, M. 1990. Tracking, Instruction and Achievement. Paper presented at the World Congress of the International Sociological Association, Madrid: July 1990 Ireson, J., Hallam, S., Hack, S., Clark, H., Plewis, I. 2002. Ability Grouping in English Secondary Schools: Effects on Attainment in English, Mathematics and Science. Educational Research and Evaluation, 8(3), pp. 299-318. Kulik, C.C., Kulik, J.A. 1982. Effect on Ability Grouping on Secondary School Students: A Meta-Analysis of Evaluation Findings. American Educational Research Journal, 19, pp. 415-428. Mateju, P., Strakova, J. 2005. The role of the family and the school in the reproduction of educational inequalities in the post-Communist Czech Republic. British Journal of Sociology of Education, Vol.26, No.1, pp. 17-40. Oakes, J. 1990. Multyplying Inequalities: The Effects of Race, Social Class, and Tracking on Opportunities to Learn Mathematics and Science. Santa Monica: Rand Corporation. OECD. 2007. No more Failures. Ten Steps to Equity in Education. OECD: Paris. Slavin, R.E, 1987. Ability Grouping and Student Achievement in Elementary Schools: A Best Evidence Synthesis. In: Review of Educational Research, 57,3, pp. 293-336. Slavin, R.E, 1990. Ability Grouping and Student Achievement in Secondary Schools: A Best Evidence Synthesis. In: Review of Educational Research, 60,3, pp. 471-499
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 you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.