Organisational predictors of (track and subject) choices and success in high school: an exploration of the ‘effect’ of middle school characteristics

ICSEI 2009 Vancouver

Jan Van Damme & Heidi PustjensUniversity of Leuven (Belgium)

TOPIC

• choice of students of a ‘track’ and a specific study program within a track in high school (grade 9-12)

• success at the end of high school (grade 12)

• linked to the middle school (grade 7-8) ?

• and if so, which characteristics of the middle school are relevant ?

Research literature on school characteristics and curriculum choice

a. Effects of organisational and process characteristics

a.o. Garet & Delany (1988)

Jones, Vanfossen & Ensminger (1995) (numbers of programs,…)

Smyth & Hannan (2006) (school provision, interactions between students & teachers, homogeneous versus heterogeneous grouping…)

Research literature on school characteristics and curriculum choice (continued)

b. Effects of school composition

- Kilgore (1991): high SES schools: more competition, impeding transition to more advanced programs

- Jones, Vanfossen & Ensminger (1995): schools reproduce the existing social stratification (high SES schools: more academically-oriented programs)

- Marsh (1991,…): indeed… ‘reflected glory’ effect although:

also the ‘big-fish-little-pond’-effect: high ability schools: lower academic self-concept, impeding enrollment in academically advanced courses (not confirmed by e.g. Ayalon & Yogev, 1997)

Research literature on school characteristics and successful curriculum choices

• School sector (catholic vs. public schools)

(Gamoran, 1992; Lee & Bryk, 1988)

• Selective schools vs. non-selective schools (Kreft, 1993)

• Effects of structural characteristics and composition characteristics on drop-out(Bryk & Thum, 1989; Luyten et al., 2003; Rumberger & Thomas, 2000…).

Research questions

1) Are there differences between middle schools

– as for the transition to different tracks and programs in the 9th grade ?– as for the educational level attained in the 12th grade ?

2) If so, how to explain these differences ?

- Student characteristicso intake differenceso differences related to the pathways through the middle school

- (middle) school characteristicso compositiono process characteristicso organisational characteristics

Dataset

• Longitudinal study through secondary schools (LOSO)

– 9th grade: 4671 students from 47 middle schools

– 12th grade: 4783 students from 84 middle schools and 173 high schools

Structure of educational system in Flanders

– Middle school: grade 7 and 8

partially differentiated

– High school: grade 9 to 12

totally differentiated

(ASO,KSO, TSO, BSO; academic, artistic,

technical, vocational)

Outcome measures

To rank order the tracks and the different programs

within the tracks, the average intelligence of the

students when entering secondary education was

used

– 9th grade– 12th grade

Student characteristics

• Intake– Gender– Home language– SES– Delay in primary education– Language achievement at start middle school– Mathematics achievement at start middle school

• Pathways through middle school– Subjects chosen within middle school (academic vs. prevocational)– Passed middle school successfully or not– Delay in middle school– Language achievement at end middle school– Mathematics achievement at end middle school

School characteristics (middle schools)

• Structural characteristics– Program provision (4 types: academic, multitrack, technical-

vocational,…)– Sector (public/catholic)

• Composition characteristics– Mean SES– Mean language achievement end 8th grade– Mean mathematics achievement end 8th grade– % students whose home language is Dutch– % students progressing normally through middle school

School characteristics (middle schools) (continued)

• Process characteristics– Achievement orientation– Percentage of students entering higher education– Involvement of teachers in school decision-making– Supportive and helpful teachers– Positive relationship with students– Focus on discipline– Student grouping (homogeneous, heterogeneous)– Number of parent-teacher meetings per class– Strong hierarchy of programs and subjects within the school– Focus on student retention at the own school when counseling

related to the choice of subjects– Degree of that kind of counseling– Cutoff value to succeed an academic program (low, average, high

achievement criterion)

Method

• Multilevel analysis• Students within schools• For second dependent variable (final curriculum level

attained in high school): a middle/high school cross-classification

• 1st step: what part of the variance at school level ?• 2nd step: explanatory variables

– Student characteristics– School characteristics

• 3d step: random slopes between schools

cross-level interaction effects

Results: I. Curriculum level at the start of high school

a) Null model

42.8 % situated at the (middle) school level

b) student characteristics- All variables significant- They explain a big part- Girls slightly lower level- Language minorities slightly higher level- Program in middle school is very important

Results: I. Curriculum level at the start of high school (continued)

Null model Intake characteristics Education characteristics Estimate S.E. Estimate S.E. Estimate S.E. FIXED Intercept 100.58 0.960 100.07 0.547 85.32 0.485 Student characteristics Gendera -0.919*** 0.217 -1.669*** 0.158 Home Language b -2.157*** 0.320 -1.052*** 0.232 SES 0.718*** 0.044 0.409*** 0.032 Delay in primary educationc 3.684*** 0.288 0.615** 0.217 Dutch at the start middle school 3.183*** 0.156 0.779*** 0.126 Math at the start middle school 3.304*** 0.158 0.973*** 0.124 Middle school theoretical module 15.965*** 0.279 Middle school other modules 11.965*** 0.247 Passed middle school successfully 4.689*** 0.178 Failed middle school -2.240** 0.780 Delay in middle schoold 1.190*** 0.248 Dutch end middle school 0.956*** 0.098 Math end middle school 0.997*** 0.095 VARIANCE Student 56.760*** 8.986 29.637*** 0.617 15.540*** 0.412 Middle school 42.528*** 1.181 7.440*** 1.648 1.738*** 0.412 EXPLAINED VARIANCE Student 47.8% 72.6% Middle school 82.5% 95.9% -2 Log Likelihood 32316.5 29231.5 26181.0 Significance levels : * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001 a. 1: girl, 0: boy b. 1: only Dutch is spoken at home, 0: another language, whether or not in addition to Dutch, is spoken at home c. 1: normal progression through basic education, 0: one or more years repeated in bas ic education d. 1: normal progression through secondary education, 0: one or more years repeated in middle schoo l

RESULTS of the null model and the model including student characteristics (N students=4671, N schools=47)

Results: I. Curriculum level at the start of high school (continued)

c) school characteristics

Significant school characteristics (separate)

– Positive relationship with students– Cutoff low achievement criterion– Focus on student retention at school (-)– Focus on discipline (-)– ASO middle school

(mostly process characteristics)

Results: I. Curriculum level at the start of high school (continued)

Table 6. Results of the model including school characteristics and of the model including cross level interaction effects (Nstudents=4671, Nschools=47) School characteristics Cross-level interaction effects Estimate S.E. Estimate S.E. STUDENT CHARACTERISTICSa SCHOOL CHARACTERISTICS Pos relationship with students 4.060** 1.567 4.558** 1.751 Discipline -2.560* 1.020 -2.450* 1.107 Cutoff low achievement criteria 1.301** 0.471 -0.205 0.799 INTERACTION EFFECTS Cutoff low achievement criteria* Middle school theoretical module

2.023* 0.933

VARIANCE-COVARIANCE Student 15.536*** 0.323 15.010*** 0.313 School Intercept 1.057*** 0.260 2.353*** 0.663 Middle school theoretical module 3.391*** 1.035 Intercept – Middle school theoretical module -2.126** 0.723 -2 Log Likelihood 26159.6 26051.3 Significance levels : * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001 a. The coefficients only differ slightly from those shown Table 2 and hence are not included again.

Results: I. Curriculum level at the start of high school (continued)

90

92

94

96

98

100

102

104

106

108

110

Middle school other module Middle school theor. Module

Final curriculum level in Middle school

Init

ial c

urr

icu

lum

lev

el i

n

Hig

h s

ch

oo

l

cutoff low crit.

cutoff averageor high crit.

Figure 1. The relationship between normal and successful progressing through middle school in a theoretical versus a non-theoretical module and curriculum level at the de start of high school for schools setting low achievement standards for successful completion of a theoretical module in middle school versus other schools

II. Finally attained curriculum level in high school: influenced by the middle school ?

a. Null model– 48.0 % at student level– 10.1 % linked to the middle school– 41,9 % linked to the high school

b. Student characteristics– Explain almost all variance linked to the middle school– Student characteristics partially influenced by the middle school

II. Finally attained curriculum level in high school: influenced by the middle school ? (continued)

0.8

8.1

0.40.8

unexplained

intake characteristics

educational career inmiddle school

initial educational level inhigh school

Proportion of variance at middle school level explained by student characteristics

Conclusions

1. As for the curriculum level at the start of high school:

• positive effect of schools with positive relationship with their students (characterised by openness, mutual trust and encouragement)

• negative effect of focus on discipline• positive effect of less demanding schools (in terms of

the achievement level which is required to succeed in an academically oriented program): students of less demanding middle schools reach higher

Conclusions (continued)

2. As for the curriculum level attained at the end of high school:

• only indirect effects of middle school (through achievement level and curriculum level at the start of high school)

• still a positive effect of the curriculum level at the start of high school.

So, reaching high at the start does not have negative effects within high school.

Perhaps, that can be considered as an indication that ‘inclusive teaching’ (i.e., a high proportion of students enrolled in a track above that predicted on the basis of prior achievement, see Kilgore, 1991) can have positive effects.

THANKS FOR BEING ATTENTIVE

More info:

jan.vandamme@ped.kuleuven.be