Abstract

Research to date on the effects of between-school tracking on inequalities in achievement and on performance has been inconclusive. A possible explanation is that different studies used different data, focused on different domains, and employed different measures of inequality. To address this issue, we used all accumulated data collected in the three largest international assessments—PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment), PIRLS (Progress in International Reading Literacy Study), and TIMSS (Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study)—in the past 20 years in 75 countries and regions. Following the seminal paper by Hanushek and Wößmann (2006), we combined data from a total of 21 cycles of primary and secondary school assessments to estimate difference-in-differences models for different outcome measures. We synthesized the effects using a meta-analytical approach and found strong evidence that tracking increased social achievement gaps, that it had smaller but still significant effects on dispersion inequalities, and that it had rather weak effects on educational inadequacies. In contrast, we did not find evidence that tracking increased performance levels. Besides these substantive findings, our study illustrated that the effect estimates varied considerably across the datasets used because the low number of countries as the units of analysis was a natural limitation. This finding casts doubt on the reproducibility of findings based on single international datasets and suggests that researchers should use different data sources to replicate analyses.

Highlights

  • Levels of institutional differentiation are characteristic features of educational systems

  • We propose two possible explanations for the variation in the effect estimates related to conceptual differences in the outcome measures and to the small sample sizes at the country level

  • It is difficult to draw strong conclusions about conceptually different outcomes because the number of studies was limited for each outcome

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Levels of institutional differentiation are characteristic features of educational systems. The arguments in favor of selective schooling center on a perceived trade-off between equity and efficacy (Hanushek and Wößmann 2006) Those who believe in the efficacy of track differentiation argue that it is easier and more efficient to teach more homogeneous student groups. Tracking advocates argue from a societal perspective that vocational and academic tracks give rise to school leavers with a mix of qualifications, which is beneficial in a heterogeneous job market. This does not consider the possible effects of tracking on equity, especially in the case of very early tracking. A possible social bias in the track selection process and differential expectations, motivations, and resources between the different tracks might contribute to increased inequality (Maaz et al 2008)

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call