Educational Reproduction in the Educational Reproduction in the Czech Lands from 1916 to the Czech Lands from 1916 to the Present: A Mobility PerspectivePresent: A Mobility Perspective

Natalie SimonováNatalie SimonováPetr SoukupPetr Soukup

The analysis and its presentation are based on The analysis and its presentation are based on work carried out during a visit to the European work carried out during a visit to the European

Centre for Analysis in the Social Sciences Centre for Analysis in the Social Sciences (ECASS) at the Institute for Social and Economic (ECASS) at the Institute for Social and Economic Research, University of Essex supported by the Research, University of Essex supported by the Access to Research Infrastructure action under Access to Research Infrastructure action under the EU Improving Human Potential Programme.the EU Improving Human Potential Programme.

Outline of presentationOutline of presentation

Aims Aims & research questions & research questions

AbsoAbsollute mobily ute mobily analysisanalysis

Relative Relative mobily mobily analysisanalysis

Related research-some resultsRelated research-some results

ConclusionsConclusions

AIMS AIMS && RESEARCH QUESTIONS RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Aims of the analysisAims of the analysis

to show with the help of mobility analysis the to show with the help of mobility analysis the development of educational reproduction in development of educational reproduction in the Czech Lands from 1916 so farthe Czech Lands from 1916 so far

to give detailed insight on structural contexts, to give detailed insight on structural contexts, which formed chances on educational which formed chances on educational transitions in 3 main époques (before-transitions in 3 main époques (before-socialism, socialism, post-socialism)socialism, socialism, post-socialism)

General starting pointsGeneral starting points

in the beginning of 20th century the Czechs were in the beginning of 20th century the Czechs were the most educated nation among Eastern the most educated nation among Eastern European nations, e.g. differences between the European nations, e.g. differences between the Czech and German society were negligibleCzech and German society were negligible

after 1948 high degree of status inconsistency after 1948 high degree of status inconsistency was taking placewas taking place

after the fall of socialism relations between after the fall of socialism relations between education, occupation and income strenghten education, occupation and income strenghten againagain

i.e. after 1989 the association between education i.e. after 1989 the association between education of parents and offspring should weakenof parents and offspring should weaken

Conditions for educational reproduction Conditions for educational reproduction formationformation

it seems so far, that after the Velvet revolution it seems so far, that after the Velvet revolution educational reproduction doesn't decreaseeducational reproduction doesn't decrease

individuals continuation to tertiary level is highly individuals continuation to tertiary level is highly determinated by his previous choice of determinated by his previous choice of secondary schoolsecondary school

educational aspirations grow noticeably educational aspirations grow noticeably (demand), as well as possibilities to study at (demand), as well as possibilities to study at secondary and tertiary level schools (supply)secondary and tertiary level schools (supply)

pprocess of Czech higher education's rocess of Czech higher education's liberalisation is rather at its beginning, in liberalisation is rather at its beginning, in comparison to Poland the CR has 10-year delay comparison to Poland the CR has 10-year delay (Simonová, Antonowicz 2006)(Simonová, Antonowicz 2006)

Research questionsResearch questions

Is the Czech education system becoming Is the Czech education system becoming more/ less open after 1989?more/ less open after 1989?

Are there any differences between men Are there any differences between men and women in their mobility patterns?and women in their mobility patterns?

What mechanisms are hidden behind What mechanisms are hidden behind found inequality levelsfound inequality levels in all 3 historical in all 3 historical periods?periods?

ABSOLUTE MOBILITY ANALYSISABSOLUTE MOBILITY ANALYSIS

Data and methodsData and methods

9 data sets combined (TSS 1978, 1984, 9 data sets combined (TSS 1978, 1984, 1991; SIALS; SSVE; ISSP 1997, 1999; 1991; SIALS; SSVE; ISSP 1997, 1999; ESS 2004; Cohesion 2005), n = 41 460ESS 2004; Cohesion 2005), n = 41 460

variables = education of father, mother, variables = education of father, mother, respondent, respondent’s sex and his age respondent, respondent’s sex and his age cohortcohort

1888 to 1985 covered (by respondent’s 1888 to 1985 covered (by respondent’s birth) or 1906 to 2003 (by the year of 18birth) or 1906 to 2003 (by the year of 18thth birthday)birthday)

Development of net mobility from 1906 to Development of net mobility from 1906 to 20032003

  1888-19201906-1938

1921-19261939-1944

1927-19301945-1948

1931-19501949-1968

1951-19711969-1989

1972-19851990-2003

Net mobility

parent-daughter

parent-son

mother-daughter

father-son

6,85 8,05 8,6 15,8 31,6 34,9

3,9 7,25 6,5 18,55 33,3 32,2

1,3 2,4 2,9 6,1 18,05 33,15

3,65 6,5 5,9 16,55 32,1 38,95

Upward educational mobility for individual age cohortsUpward educational mobility for individual age cohorts

23,9

18,7

9,1

4,7

8,8

23,022,7

16,8

29,5

25,8

20,9

24,9

16,9

27,729,1

31,6

6,8

12,011,8

16,7

29,9

26,0

22,1

26,5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1888-1920 1921-1926 1927-1930 1931-1950 1951-1971 1972-1985

1906-1938 1939-1944 1945-1948 1949-1968 1969-1989 1990-2003

Cohorts

%

parent-daughter parent-son mother-daughter father-son

Downward educational mobility for individual age Downward educational mobility for individual age cohortscohorts

22,0

3,74,3

15,6

22,5

4,47,9

8,5

17,3

1,72,9

29,9

2,4

0,61,1 1,4

2,2

7,3

14,8

2,62,0

14,4

1,5

7,5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1888-1920 1921-1926 1927-1930 1931-1950 1951-1971 1972-1985

1906-1938 1939-1944 1945-1948 1949-1968 1969-1989 1990-2003

Cohorts

%

parent-daughter parent-son mother-daughter father-son

Upward/ downward mobility ratioUpward/ downward mobility ratio 11906 906 toto 2003 2003

  1888-19201906-1938

1921-19261939-1944

1927-19301945-1948

1931-19501949-1968

1951-19711969-1989

1972-19851990-2003

upward / downward ratioupward / downward ratioparent-daughter

parent-son

mother-daughter

father-son

1,26 2,12 2,0 2,87 1,47 0,83

9,44 8,9 12,29 2,93 1,21 0,56

11,50 10,73 8,57 13,23 4,33 1,87

10,69 10,19 14,9 3,47 1,66 1,0

Absolute mobility analysis conclusionsAbsolute mobility analysis conclusions

total mobility increasingly formed by net mobility total mobility increasingly formed by net mobility continues still after 1989continues still after 1989

educational system expanded with upward mobility educational system expanded with upward mobility prevailing until 1968, after 1968 stagnation and prevailing until 1968, after 1968 stagnation and downward mobility increase downward mobility increase

educational opportunities have been weakening for educational opportunities have been weakening for both sexes after 1989 both sexes after 1989

upward mobility equal to downward mobility in men, upward mobility equal to downward mobility in men, upward mobility twice as big as downward mobility upward mobility twice as big as downward mobility in women after 1989in women after 1989

women profit from the educational development women profit from the educational development after 1989 (twice as much as men), men stagnateafter 1989 (twice as much as men), men stagnate

RELATIVE MOBILITY ANALYSISRELATIVE MOBILITY ANALYSIS

RRelativelativee mobility mobility analysisanalysis

log-linear analysis eliminates impact of marginal log-linear analysis eliminates impact of marginal distributions (quantitative changes in the system)distributions (quantitative changes in the system)

aimed to find the model best accounting for correlations aimed to find the model best accounting for correlations between education of parents, respondents and the between education of parents, respondents and the cohortcohort

conditional independence model, constant fluidity model conditional independence model, constant fluidity model and log-multiplicative model were compared and log-multiplicative model were compared

the log-multiplicative model captured data structure best the log-multiplicative model captured data structure best in all 4 casesin all 4 cases

Model: log(mModel: log(mabcabc)=)=λλaa++λλbb++λλcc++λλabab++λλacac++ΦΦaaλλbc,bc,

where a where a -- cohort, b-parent education, c-child cohort, b-parent education, c-child’s education, ’s education, ΦΦ-association -association parametparameteerr ( (for for parent and childparent and child’s education’s education))

Results of log-linear analysis of associations between mother’s (Results of log-linear analysis of associations between mother’s (MM) education, ) education, daughter’s (daughter’s (DD) education and cohort () education and cohort (CC)),, father’s (father’s (FF) education, son’s () education, son’s (SS) education ) education

and cohort (and cohort (CC)),, education of the parent with higher level of education ( education of the parent with higher level of education (PP), his/her ), his/her child’s education (son and/or daughter) and cohort (child’s education (son and/or daughter) and cohort (CC))

Model Description L2 df sig. BIC delta

PC DC(PD)x

Log-multiplicative model

57,3 15 0,0000 -91,9 0,0111

PC SC (PS)x

Log-multiplicative model

14,7 15 0,4721 -132,5 0,0060

MC DC(MD)x

Log-multiplicative model

31,4 15 0,0079 -117,5 0,0048

FC SC(FS)x

Log-multiplicative model

14,9 15 0,4581 -131,8 0,0066

Coefficient of association* in log-multiplicative models in Coefficient of association* in log-multiplicative models in individual cohortsindividual cohorts for boys and girls for boys and girls (20th century) (20th century)

** betweenbetween parent and childparent and child’s’s education education

0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1

1,2

1,4

1,6

1901-1920

1921-1926

1927-1930

1931-1950

1951-1971

1972+

sons

daughters

Note: Note: BaseBase (reference) (reference) category category are sons born in 1901-1920 are sons born in 1901-1920

See next slideSee next slide

Coefficient of association* in log-multiplicative models in Coefficient of association* in log-multiplicative models in individual cohortsindividual cohorts for boys and girls for boys and girls (1931-nowadays) (1931-nowadays)

** betweenbetween parent and childparent and child’s’s education education

0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1

1,2

1,4

1,6

1931-1950 1951-1971 1972+

sons

daughters

Note: Note: BaseBase (reference) (reference) category category are sons born in 1931-1950 are sons born in 1931-1950

Relative mobility analysis conclusionsRelative mobility analysis conclusions

association between parent and offspring association between parent and offspring education exists and changes in time (for education exists and changes in time (for cohorts)cohorts)

the association consistently weakened until the association consistently weakened until 1968, cca to one 1968, cca to one halfhalf of the original value in all of the original value in all casescases

thus, intergenerational educational reproduction thus, intergenerational educational reproduction weakenedweakened

after 1968 till 1989 moderate strengthening or after 1968 till 1989 moderate strengthening or stagnation, after 1989 the same stagnation, after 1989 the same

RELATED RESEARCHRELATED RESEARCH

Results of other (related) studies IResults of other (related) studies I Odds according to gender and father's educationOdds according to gender and father's education

0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1

1,2

1,4

1,6

1,8

1937-1952 1953-1971 1972+

F+FED1 F+FED2 F+FED3 M+FED1 M+FED2 M+FED3

Source: Simonova, Soukup: ISA RC 28 (Brno, May 2007)Source: Simonova, Soukup: ISA RC 28 (Brno, May 2007)

Sons of fathers with univ. edu. have the highest probability to get university Sons of fathers with univ. edu. have the highest probability to get university education, while daughters of fathers with basic edu. the lowest.education, while daughters of fathers with basic edu. the lowest.

Results of other (related) studies IIResults of other (related) studies IIFactors influencing childFactors influencing child’s aspiration on universit’s aspiration on universityy

educationeducation

Source: Mateju,Soukup, Basl : ECSR (Prague, September 2006)Source: Mateju,Soukup, Basl : ECSR (Prague, September 2006)

CONCLUSIONSCONCLUSIONS

Overall summary – answers to questions Overall summary – answers to questions posed in the beginningposed in the beginning

Is the Czech education system becoming more/ less Is the Czech education system becoming more/ less open after 1989?open after 1989? From 1949 mostly just in women.From 1949 mostly just in women.

Are there any differences between men and women in Are there any differences between men and women in their mobility patterns?their mobility patterns? After 1989 upward mobility equal After 1989 upward mobility equal to downward mobility in men, upward mobility twice as to downward mobility in men, upward mobility twice as big as downward mobility in women. Women continue to big as downward mobility in women. Women continue to profit from the educational development after 1989 (twice profit from the educational development after 1989 (twice as much as men), men stagnate. as much as men), men stagnate.

What mechanisms are hidden behind found inequality What mechanisms are hidden behind found inequality levels?levels? Educational system expanded with upward Educational system expanded with upward mobility prevailing until 1968, then stagnation and mobility prevailing until 1968, then stagnation and downward mobility increase.downward mobility increase.

Thank you Thank you for your attention.for your attention.

Enjoy Enjoy the rest of the day.the rest of the day.