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.