Upload
adrian-mclean
View
216
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Secondary school recommendations, social class and teacher agency in the Netherlands
Leanne BroekmanOberon, research institute for education
Daniela GrunowUniversity of Amsterdam
Introduction
Study focuses on:
• Inequalities at the transition from primary to secondary school in the Netherlands
• Particular contribution of teachers to the creation of this inequality
Outline
1. Primary and secondary disparities2. Applicability to the Dutch educational system3. Introduction of a teacher-centered model 4. Hypotheses5. Data & Method6. Results7. Conclusion and discussion
Educational inequality:
Boudon (1974) distinguishes two types of effects:
• Primary effects:- as reflected in demonstrated cognitive ability
• Secondary effects:- educational transition points (for instance primary
to secondary school, high school to college)
Explaining secondary effects:
• In general, secondary effects are explained by margin of choices for parents and students. (Boudon, 1974; Breen & Goldthorpe, 1996; Jackson et.al.2007).
• Underlying Assumption: Parents and students make choices relatively independently
• However, in the Dutch transition from primary to secondary school we find:
- Professional interference of the primary school teacher- Secondary school recommendation as an important means
of selection, in addition to test scores.
Transitions in the Dutch educational system
Source:http://www.openeducation.net/2008/05/12/dutch-secondary-school-options-a-model-for-the-us
Vmbo: two sublevels-Vmbo-b/k: Lower vocational-Vmbo-t: Intermediate vocationalHavo= pre-professionalVwo= pre-university
Selection criteria:-Test scores (standardized test, Cito)-Teacher recommendations
Teacher recommendations and secondary effects
• Teacher recommendations reflect a bias towards social class.(Mulder et. al 2007; Luyten & Bosker, 2004, Driessen & Doesborgh, 2005; CBS, 2008).
• Consequences for studying secondary disparities Twofold effect
• Theoretical void regarding the role of teachers in the creation of secondary class effects.
Teachers and the creation of secondary disparities: a model4 key propositions:1.Teachers have a margin of choice regarding the secondary
school recommendations they give. (Jackson et. 2007)
2.Recommendations reflect the teacher’s estimation of future educational success.
3.Teachers include both cognitive and non-cognitive characteristics (such as dispositional factors) as resources that promote educational success. (Driessen, 2005).
4.The cognitive ability being equal, teachers assess students from low SES backgrounds lower on dispositional factors.(Maier Jæger, 2008; Dumais, 2006; Jungbluth, 1985; Lareau, 1987).
-> Differentials in recommendations can be explained by the lower ratings on dispositional factors.
Hypotheses
1. When performing equally on cognitive ability tests, students from low socio-economic backgrounds receive lower recommendations than peer students from high socio-economic backgrounds.
2. The discrepancy between cognitive ability and teacher recommendations can be explained by the less favorable teacher evaluations of lower class students.
3. Teacher recommendations to a large extent determine students’ educational position in the first year of secondary school.
DataData set:Sample of 6349 Dutch 8th grade students who were about to make the transition
to secondary school. Cool 5-18 (2009)
Includes:• Students’ cognitive ability (Cito test scores, additional language & math test
scores) • Students’ secondary school recommendation• Students’ social class position (parental educational level, parental ethnicity)• Teacher assessment of
▫ Parental educational involvement and family stability▫ Students’ personality characteristics (Five Factor Personality Inventory,
Hendriks, 1997),▫ Student behavior and performance (Jungbluth, Roeleveld & Roede, 2001)▫ Teacher-student relationship (Koomen, Verschueren & Pianta, 2007).• Students’ self-evaluation of motivation: ( Inventory of School Motivation
(ISM) by Ali & McInerny (2004) Patterns of Adaptive Learning Survey (PALS) (Midgley et al 2000) (Seegers, Van Putten & De Brabander (2002)
Method
Multinomial logistic regression:
Prediction of the probability to be recommended to:
• a lower vocational track (Vmbo-b/k), • an intermediate vocational track (vmbo-t), • a preperatory professional track (havo) or• or a pre-university track (vwo)
Results (1) Recommendations and social class
Lower vocational
(vmbo-b/k)
Intermediate Vocational
(vmbo-t)
Pre-Professional
(havo)
SES1 Low-educated ethnic minority 15,33*** 6,26*** 2,63 ***
Low-educated Dutch 16,87*** 5,90*** 2,84***
Middle-educated ethnic minority 6,59
*** 2,87*** 2,64***
Middle-educated Dutch 4,63*** 2,96*** 1,91***
High-educated ethnic minority 3,93
*** 2,88*** 2,36***
1High-educated Dutch parental background= reference category*= p<.05, **=p<.01, ***=p<.001. N= 6349
VWO (pre-university track)= reference category
Results (2): Secondary effects on recommendations
Lower vocational
(vmbo-b/k)
Intermediate Vocational
(vmbo-t)
Pre-Professional
(havo)
SES1 Low-educated ethnic minority 2,288 * 1,484 1,088
Low-educated Dutch 8,428 *** 3,464 *** 1,702 **
Middle-educated ethnic minority
1,985 1,027 1,366
Middle-educated Dutch 3,436 *** 2,143 *** 1,457 **
High-educated ethnic minority
1,815 1,474 1,451
Cognitive Cito test score,000 *** ,001 *** ,024 **
*
. 1High-educated Dutch parental background= reference category. *= p<.05, **=p<.01, ***=p<.001. N= 4800
VWO (pre-university track)= reference category
Results (3): secondary effects, including teacher assessments of students Lower
vocational Intermediate
vocationalPre-
professionalSES1 Low-educated ethnic minority 3,165** 1,736 1,086
Low-educated Dutch7,580**
*3,308*** 1,810**
Middle-educated ethnic minority
2,887** 1,201 1,553
Middle-educated Dutch3,362**
*1,893*** 1,486**
High-educated ethnic minority
2,074 1,270 1,538
Cognitive Cito test score,000**
*,001
***,024
***Family background Family stability ,857 ,883 ,906
Parental involvement ,807 † ,878 ,894Divorced (0=non-divorced) 1,331 1,240 1,351
Student Personality Introvercy ,914 ,961 ,902Tolerance ,896 1,008 ,969Emotionality ,984 ,930 ,925Orderliness ,702** ,842† ,898
Autonomy,605**
*,672*** ,855*
Behavior and Performance Underperformance ,889 1,001 1,191*Behavior 1,390 † 1,072 1,216†
Diligence ,578** ,668** ,951popularity ,903 ,917 ,959
Teacher-student relationship Dependence 1,328* 1,220 1,143Conflict 1,256 1,208 1,929Closeness 1,183 1,196 ,929
Motivation (self-evaluation) Self-efficacy ,382*** ,623** ,754*
Task Motivation ,833 ,992 1,409*Mastery 1,079 ,992 1,409**Performance ,659** ,730* ,871Extrinsic 1,476** 1,387** 1,268**Social 1,292 1,122 ,897
VWO (pre-university track)= reference category. 1High educated Dutch parental background= reference category. †= p<.1 *= p<.05, **=p<.01, ***=p<.001. N= 4127
Conclusion
• Student cognitive ability cannot fully explain the educational differentials in teacher recommendations.
• Teachers’ assessments of students’ dispositional characteristics exert an independent influence on recommendations of students.
->However, these assessments only partially explain for the disparities in recommendations
Discussion
• Implication of findings
• Twofold effect of social class on secondary school attendance
• Future research:- Estimate teacher effect and parental choice effect on educational position in year 1. - Conduct interaction analyses to study compensating effects.