Content uploaded by Jan Skopek
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jan Skopek on Sep 01, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Performance in Secondary School in German States –
A Longitudinal Three-Level Approach
Jan Skopek* and Jaap Dronkers§
* European University Institute § Maastricht University, ROA
Via dei Roccettini 9 the Netherlands
50014 San Domenico di Fiesole, Italy Email:
Email: jan.skopek@eui.eu j.dronkers@maastrichtuniversity.nl
(Working Paper, August 2015)
Abstract
This paper contributes to the ongoing debate on how educational systems impact on
academic performance in secondary schools by studying the impact of tracking on
achievement in secondary education in Germany. We exploit federal heterogeneity in the
16 German states’ educational systems by classifying them into three tracking regimes.
Using recent, representative, and longitudinal from the NEPS, our study overcomes three
severe methodological drawbacks of previous research on the impact of tracking and
educational differentiation on level and (social) inequality in achievement: (1) the
exclusion of the mediating level of schools, (2) the reliance on cross-sectional data, (3)
the failure to account for students’ prior ability especially before tracking occurred. Our
findings based on a three-level model incorporating states, schools and students highlight
the importance of accounting for the mediating role of schools when analyzing effects of
educational systems but also the importance of including prior abilities in the study of
secondary school performance.
Key words: educational systems; inequality in educational achievement; educational differentiation; ability
tracking; school effects; multilevel modeling
Acknowledgements
We thank Hartmut Esser, Walter Müller, and Hans-Peter Blossfeld for intensive discussions and helpful
comments on earlier versions of the paper. In addition, we are grateful for valuable comments from a group of
researchers at the European University Institute. Jan Skopek acknowledges financial support from the European
Research Council (eduLIFE project).
2
Introduction and background
Several studies on equity and efficiency of educational systems concluded that early
stratification and sorting of students to different tracks of secondary schools tend to increase
inequalities in academic achievement among students while not improving – maybe even
reducing – overall achievement levels (Hanushek & Woessman, 2006). Evidence was found
that the negative effects of early tracking vary across the performance distribution,
particularly harming low performing students. In addition, it was found that tracking or other
forms of educational differentiation as compared with comprehensive systems is associated
with increased socioeconomic inequalities in academic achievement and educational
attainment (Becker & Schubert, 2006; Bol, Witschge, Van de Werfhorst, & Dronkers, 2014;
Brunello & Checchi, 2007; Gamoran & Mare, 1989; Marks, 2005; Van de Werfhorst & Mijs,
2010). Recently, this was labeled as the “standard result” on the effects of tracking (Esser &
Relikowski, 2015; see also for a comprehensive overview to related studies). Most of that
research builds upon a two level approach characterized by comparing countries and students
based on international assessment data. While this approach is capable to assess total effects
of tracking it is neither capable to disentangle various mechanisms that contribute to these
outcomes and nor does consider potential heterogeneity within a country’s educational
system. Furthermore, these studies rely on rather rigid, mostly dichotomous definitions of
tracking versus non tracking.
More recent research tries to incorporate more refined measures of tracking and ability
sorting and the school level in order to obtain better insights to the question of how system
effects actually operate (Bol et al., 2014; Dronkers, Van Der Velden, & Dunne, 2012; Dunne,
2010; Esser & Relikowski, 2015). Importantly, by re-analyzing PISA data Bol et al. (2014)
found that in countries where central examinations are prevalent in the secondary school
system, the relationship between the level of tracking and the level of inequality by
socioeconomic status (SES) is attenuated. Additionally, taking into account school level
characteristics (like student-teacher ratio or school’s SES composition) revealed that school
heterogeneity seem to mediate parts of the impact of tracking on the link between SES and
students’ achievement. As a main finding of Dunne (2010) – also relying on PISA data – the
impact of educational differentiation at the country level is mediated by effects of social
composition of schools. Particularly, she found that compositional effects are stronger in
countries that promote educational differentiation while lower SES students benefit more
from a higher SES composition of school. Dronkers et al. (2012) highlight the importance of
3
considering the track- and school-level as separate units of the analysis. Their findings
suggest that the effects of educational system characteristics are flawed when adhering to a
two level model of countries and students while ignoring relevant track- and school-level
features (like type of school, entrance selectivity, social and ethnic diversity). Moreover, the
inclusion of the track-level is necessary to avoid overestimation of school SES composition
effects, especially in stratified educational systems. It turns out, that channels through which
institutional settings on the country level impact on student achievement are manifold and
complex.
Past research investigating the impact of tracking and differentiation on secondary
school achievement and (social) inequality in achievement suffers from three methodological
drawbacks: (1) the exclusion of the mediating level of schools, (2) the reliance on cross-
sectional data (mostly PISA data measuring achievement at a fixed age), and, maybe most
importantly, (3) the failure to account for students’ prior ability especially before tracking
occurred. While, as discussed above, (1) has been partly addressed, (3) is a black box in
previous studies and should be addressed in further research.
1
If we do not know prior
abilities of students (at end of primary school), then we will inevitably overestimate the effect
of student’s socioeconomic background (individual SES) during secondary schooling due to
the primary relation between SES and early abilities.
2
As an extreme, differential achievement
in secondary school could just resemble differential achievement in primary school (system
effects would operate at most indirectly for instance through anticipation mechanisms).
Second, it is impossible to assess effects of tracking on achievement without knowledge of
prior abilities that usually serve as an important basis for track allocation in differentiated
systems (ability sorting). Even in tracked systems, different school compositions might be
produced if mechanisms of allocation of students to secondary school are different as a result
of institutional sorting rules that promote or constrain families’ free choices. Third, without
including prior abilities in empirical models, SES effects on the school level as found earlier
are likely to be heavily confounded with ability effects on the school level (effects of the
intellectual composition of the student body, peer effects). If we are unable to distinguish the
latter, we cannot tell whether schools’ SES segregation is effectively promoting inequality of
educational opportunity or whether it is rather the segregation by abilities (the explicit idea of
1
Some studies like Hanushek & Woessman (2006) mimic a country level longitudinal design by
comparing two cross-sectional datasets on early and later abilities for each country relying on a Difference-in-
Difference approach. Nonetheless, this design is not without methodological problems (for a review see Van de
Werfhorst & Mijs, 2010) and particularly is blind for disentangling direct and indirect system effects.
2
Nonetheless, we one can assess the total and cumulative effect of SES on student achievement up to a
certain age.
4
ability sorting) that produces the inequality. Educational systems with various degrees of
differentiation will produce different school structures in terms of SES and abilities
composition with important consequences on individual learning. Moreover, even in
differentiated systems the strictness of ability sorting as basis of allocation to different tracks
of school will impact on compositional features of the schools (e.g., stronger homogenization)
and, hence, on the resulting effects on individual development.
Some recent studies try to tackle some of these issues. Dronkers (2015) aimed to solve
the problem of the missing measures of early abilities by analyzing longitudinal data on
students entering secondary school in 1989 in the Netherlands, which possesses a highly
differentiated and selective system based on prior achievement and teacher recommendations,
which is in many aspects similar to that of the German states. After including prior abilities on
the individual and school level (average of student’s abilities) as well as type of school, he
found that both individual and school SES (average of students’ SES) are no longer related
with language score in third year of secondary school whereas school type has substantial
effects. Dronkers concluded that school characteristics like entrance selectivity based on
scholastic ability at the end of primary education affect the link between SES and early
scholastic ability on the one hand and later educational achievement in secondary schools at
the other hand. Moreover, he concluded that school characteristics seem to mediate some of
the effects of the educational system. In several works Hartmut Esser (Esser & Relikowski,
2015; Esser, forthcoming-a, forthcoming-b) specified a theoretical model providing a
systematic account of the pathways through which systems, families and schools produce
equity and efficiency outcomes in educational achievement. Asking whether ability tracking
is responsible for inequalities in achievement outcomes, Esser & Relikowski (2015) tested the
implications of Esser’s ‘model of ability sorting’ (MoAbiT) using longitudinal data on Hessia
and Bavaria, two German federal states that constitute pretty antagonistic cases in terms of
ability sorting and differentiation. Following up students from Grade 5 to 7 they found
evidence challenging the “standard” approach; once all relevant conditions and processes (in
particular ability and SES on the school level) are empirically controlled, there are no direct
effects reinforcing inequality in terms of achievement due to a stricter differentiation; all
system effects are explained by individual and school level factors. In fact, Esser &
Relikowski (2015) report an additional positive effect of homogenization of schools by
cognitive abilities that is even higher for Bavaria (stronger differentiation and strict ability
sorting) as it is assumed by proponents of ability tracking.
5
Our paper contributes to the ongoing debate on how educational systems impact on
academic performance in secondary education by studying the German case using recent,
representative, and longitudinal data on a cohort of five graders from the German National
Educational Panel Study (NEPS). Contrary to most prior studies on secondary achievement
treating Germany as a unified system, we will present a more refined model on studying
systems of secondary education and their impact on the development of individual
achievement. Exceeding the horizons of previous studies, we are (a) employing a larger
national sample on Germany, (b) exploiting variation across a larger number of educational
systems (16 German states), (c) adding prior abilities to the equation, and (d) applying a three
level model, deciphering various influences on individual achievement on the level of states,
schools, and students. The federal setup of education in Germany is very advantageous for the
purpose of our study; while in general there is a common principle of early differentiation of
students to a (mostly) tripartite system, there is a vast variety in types of schools, the
availability of comprehensive types of schools, the entrance selectivity of schools, the tension
between achievement based track selection versus freedom of choice, and also variation in the
age of tracking. Consistent with prior research on Germany (Dollmann, 2011; Gresch,
Baumert, & Maaz, 2010; Neugebauer, 2010; Roth & Siegert, 2015; von Below, 2006), we
will distinguish German states by their strictness of tracking. Nonetheless, such rough
classifications might mask important heterogeneity in the admission practice of schools
between and within states. Legal frames of educational systems will be manifest in certain
common standards among schools within a system, of course. Though, German schools
always have autonomy to some degree and will differ in their everyday practice and routine of
admitting students. Hence, contrary to previous studies conceiving ability tracking as a macro
level feature, we will incorporate additionally measures for entrance selectivity on the
intermediate level of schools.
Educational systems of German states
A peculiar and sometimes complicating feature of the German educational system is
that general education is not centrally organized but historically a federal state affair (for a
comprehensive overview, see Maaz, Baumert, Gresch, & McElvany, 2010). In a more stylized
fashion, one could even argue that there are 16 educational systems (one for each federal
state) rather than one unified system. Table 1 provides a classification of German states by
their tracking regime, which we will elaborate in the following.
6
=== TABLE 1 here ===
Our discussion will be informed by a useful typology of German educational systems
as suggested by von Below (2006). She differentiates German educational systems by the
degree of regulation regarding structure (organization of the school system; e.g. number of
tracks, provision of comprehensive schools) and content (curricula content and its observance
by tests and examinations). Regulations might be rather tight or strict (systems provide clear-
cut and obligatory norms and rules) or rather loose (system provides frames and suggestions,
room for interpretation at the individual level). In her terminology, von Below called a loose
regulations of structure reformed and a tight regulation of structure traditional; loose
regulations of content she calls liberal and tight regulations of content conservative. Based on
that, von Below develops four sub-types of educational systems in Germany (von Below,
2006, p. 233): Traditional-conservative (structures and content are strictly regulated, e.g.
tripartite track system, early selection based on objective achievement, track mobility difficult
and rare, centralized curriculum standard), reformed-conservative (strict regulation of content
and importance of achievement; structures are loose, e.g. a considerable number of
comprehensive schools, track switching easier), traditional-liberal (strict structures, but
contents not obligatory and oriented more towards individual student’s personality, lower
importance of objective achievement), and finally reformed-liberal (free school choice, larger
provision of comprehensive schools, content determined and designed on the individual
level). Prominent examples for traditional-conservative are the southern German states (see
Table 1) while for instance the pattern reformed-liberal can by typically found for western
states or city states.
In practice, German education is characterized by a remarkable regional heterogeneity
not only in the provision of certain types of secondary schools
3
but also in the criteria of
access to higher track schools. Nonetheless, there are also important communalities. Across
all states track states in to different types of schools usually after Grade 4 at age of 10,
although in some states later. Berlin, Brandenburg and Mecklenburg Western Pomerania as
they lift the age at tracking to around 12 years by keeping their students longer in
comprehensive schooling. In Berlin and Brandenburg primary school lasts six years and
3
An example is the availability, coverage and implementation of comprehensive types of schools which
are not uniformly present in Germany. Similarly, the Hauptschule as separate school form is also not present in
all German states.
7
students enter secondary education in Grade 7. Mecklenburg Western Pomerania has four
years of primary school but keeps students two additional years in fully comprehensive
schools (‘orientation stage’). In total, those three states provide the shortest length of tracking
and, thus, can be described by a lower degree of differentiation as compared to other states.
After tracking all states channel students into up to three different educational tracks,
which is Hauptschule (vocational), Realschule (technical), or Gymnasium (academic) – the
classical tripartite system deeply rooted in the socio-historical context of Germany (Benavot
& Resnik, 2004). In the more traditional regimes these three tracks coincide with school
types. Nonetheless, some states combined the lower tracks (the more ‘reformed’ ones). Yet,
comprehensive types of schools are expanding since their introduction in West-Germany
since 1970ies (socialist East-Germany had a rather comprehensive schooling system).
Nowadays, in all German states more inclusive forms of education by maintaining
comprehensive schools combining several tracks in mixed or separated classrooms with
manifold labels are available at least to some extent.
A common element across German states is the primary school recommendation
(Gresch et al., 2010; Neugebauer, 2010). At end of primary school teachers provide a formal
recommendation for students indicating the secondary school track being most apt given their
abilities (usually marks in Math and German), behavior, and talent. Specifically, the
recommendation indicates the eligibility for the academic track. The regulating power of the
recommendation and its consequences, however, is different across states.
4
Almost all of the
‘conservative’ states (regulating content and its observance strictly) have legally binding
recommendations restricting families’ voice in track choice by knotting access to the higher
tracks to prior achievement.
5
In states with loose content regulation (‘liberals’), the
recommendation is nothing more as a suggestion, without any binding element; parents have
freedom of choice.
Summarizing our discussion we arrive at three types of tracking regimes that are
relevant for our study of early secondary school achievement (see last column in Table 1).
First, there are states that sort students early after Grade 4 to tracks based on prior
performance via a binding recommendation (early ability tracking states or ‘EAT’). To this
4
The binding character of the teacher recommendation is also a politically very disputed subject.
Hence, in some states amendments of school laws introduced and withdrew the bindingness depending on the
political color of the current government.
5
Circumventing a binding teacher recommendation implies obstacles and burdens. In case of a conflict
between parents and school, parents can choose a legal process or, as in some states possible, can make use of
trial periods or entry examinations of the targeted secondary school.
8
group belong the larger southern states Baden-Wuerttemberg and Bavaria, Saarland, and the
new Laender Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt, and Thuringia. A second group of states sort students
early after Grade 4, but without a binding recommendation (early tracking states or ‘ET’).
Finally, there are three states that post-pone tracking to Grade 7 by providing comprehensive
schooling up to Grade 6 (prolonged comprehensive or ‘PC’). Except for Mecklenburg-
Western Pomerania which has been labeled as being rather conservative, those states share a
liberal orientation.
Hypotheses
In accordance with Esser’s model of ability sorting (Esser & Relikowski, 2015; Esser, n.d.-a,
n.d.-b), one can expect secondary school performance to be an complex outcome of various
mechanisms. We will elaborate a set of hypotheses to test those being most relevant for
overall achievement and inequality.
First of all, abilities shape the intellectual capacity of knowledge acquisition.
Consequently, and very straight-forward, we expect a strong effect of earlier achievement on
later achievement in secondary school (H1). Families differ in their resources (like quality of
home learning environments) providing differential constrains and opportunities for children’s
learning process. Hence, over and above prior achievement we expect socio-economic status
(SES) of parents to be positively related with secondary school achievement (H2).
Beyond these individual level factors, achievement will vary by different
environments in schools and classes. There are several reasons to expect why schools should
matter. First, in tracked system like Germany, different types of school embody different
curricula with different learning plans and, thus, different opportunities for acquiring specific
knowledge in form of learning milieus (Neumann et al., 2007). In addition, higher track
schools – on average – might attract more motivated and higher qualified teachers increasing
effectivity and efficiency of students’ learning. Therefore, controlled for other factors, we
expect to find a significant influence of track, particularly a premium for Gymnasium, on
achievement in secondary school (H3).
Above track specific curricular effects, contextual features of schools might directly
impact on learning of children basically via quality of instruction, resources, organization, and
composition of the student body. As reported, several previous works based on PISA data
have provided evidence for a positive relation between school’s SES composition and
individual performance. Rumberger & Palardy (2005) found SES composition effects to be
9
almost as large sometimes even larger than individual SES effects on achievement growth.
Consequently, SES segregation across schools could be an important driving force of social
inequalities. A more advantageous SES composition – over and above track curriculum –
might contribute to more favorable conditions (e.g., better teachers, more expensive
equipment, or stronger involvement of parents at the school level, a better academic climate)
at the school level and, thus, might facilitate beneficial learning environments. Hence, we
expect a positive effect of SES composition of school on individual achievement (H4).
Furthermore, the intellectual quality of peers should matter for individual achievement. If
classrooms are visited by more able students, teaching may be more efficient. Reversely,
higher ability schools and classes may attract more competent teachers. Moreover, exposure
to more able peers might not only provide higher motivation and incentives to the individual
learner but also support in school-based friendship networks. For instance, Kerckhoff (1986)
who analyzed effects of ability grouping in British secondary schools found support for this
‘divergence’ hypothesis claiming that (accounting for prior abilities) students in higher ability
classes gain more. Therefore, school’s intellectual composition should positively affect
individual achievement (H5).
In all educational systems, residential social segregation will inevitably lead to a
minimum level of social and – due to the primary relation of abilities and parental background
(Boudon, 1974) – ability segregation of schools. Notwithstanding, in a differentiated system
like Germany that explicitly allocates students to different track schools, schools segregation
in terms of SES and ability is likely to be much more pronounced. Thus, we will expect that
the (within school) effects of SES and ability will be smaller (compared to the total effects)
once accounting for the school level, particularly school composition effects resulting from
the interplay of ability and preferences at the transition to secondary education (H6).
The interplay of conditions of the school level and individual characteristics is likely
to impinge on achievement. Theoretically, such feedback mechanisms can work within both
dimensions SES and ability. Regarding SES, once could argue that lower SES students will
do harder in high SES school environments resulting from a lack of cultural and behavioral
adaption to the class and school standard. That should become visible in a positive interaction
between a schools SES composition and individual SES background (H7).
With regard to ability, interaction effects may exist if peer effects work in a non-linear
fashion (i.e., depend on own ability). For instance, the aforementioned benefit of having better
peers in the class may be larger for low performing students whereas peer returns become
10
marginal for students having high ability as a result of ceiling effects; a basic tenet underlying
negative views on ability tracking favoring comprehensive and more inclusive schooling (cf.
Gamoran & Mare, 1989). If that is the case, a negative interaction term between individual-
level and school-level ability should show up (H8a). However, one could also expect the
opposite (positive interaction), that better peers are less beneficial for lower performing
students in terms of achievement (H8b). This could happen for various reasons. For instance,
more able students on average allow the teacher to speed up the pace of instruction and
progress faster in the lectures, which might leave less able students behind. Moreover,
everyday exposure to more able fellows could promote learning frustration and eventually
isolation in the school context cutting important support networks. As a third hypothetical
case, peer ability effects might be just linear, that is, working for less and more able students
in the same way resulting in no interaction (H8c). Yet, that does not postulate that there are no
feedback mechanisms at work. We might find linear effects also if mechanisms behind H8a
and H8b mix and cancel out each other.
After having hypothesized factors of the core model – school and individual level
factors – of secondary school performance, we turn to effects on the system level in the
context of German states. Previous cross-national comparative research found, that
standardization (for instance central examinations, standardized curricula but also a more
objective sorting to school types based on abilities) reduces the magnifying effects of tracking
on inequality in educational outcomes (Ayalon & Gamoran, 2000; Van de Werfhorst & Mijs,
2010). Yet, when looking at German states it is not a prior clear, how more or less strict
ability tracking impacts on overall achievement and inequality as various other institutional
features might intervene.
Importantly, one has to consider first the ability influx to different states’ secondary
schools. If track placement is done based on achievement, parents as well as schools have to
invest more in preparation of children anticipating that achievement crucially matters for the
transition to secondary education. If that is true, prior abilities should be higher on average in
such states where the teacher’s voice is binding. Consequently, these higher prior abilities
should translate into higher achievement in secondary school on the state level (H9a). That
should be mirrored at the school level: Students visiting schools that select their intake stricter
based on prior performance should perform better as a result of their higher abilities before
(H9b).
11
Differentiated systems (like Austria, Switzerland, Germany or the Netherlands) that
explicitly track students to different school types create a stronger homogenization of schools
in terms of SES as compared to more comprehensive systems (Maaz, Trautwein, Lüdtke, &
Baumert, 2008). Nonetheless, even within differentiated systems one can expect different
school compositions according to institutional rules of tracking. The stronger sorting of
students to schools takes place on the basis of prior achievement, the more schools will be
stratified by performance resulting in a higher between-school heterogeneity and a higher
within-school homogeneity of abilities. If there are no peer effects, homogenization would be
inconsequential and nothing would be different (ceteris paribus). Nonetheless, if peer effects
are at work these should be amplified if peers are more similar as a result of ability
homogenization within schools. Therefore, we would expect to see stronger effects of ability
composition in states with a binding recommendation compared to states where track choice
is up to the parents (H10). Consequences of the homogenization could be quite different
depending on the nature of peer effects; linear peer effects (according to H8c) will facilitate
overall dispersion in achievement between schools and tracks. That will be further
exaggerated, if peer effects are non-linear and stronger for more able students (see H8b).
Nonetheless, compensation could happen if peer effects are stronger for less able students (see
H8a).
Eventually, one can speculate that differences in institutional sorting among German
states may have an impact on social inequalities in secondary school achievement outcomes.
Stronger achievement orientation might provide better structures facilitating opportunities and
incentives for learning particularly for less performing students. In effect, social disparity in
secondary school achievement could be lower within German states that restrict free choice
and allocate students to secondary schools based on abilities. On the other hand, one could
also expect the opposite: there might be higher social disparities in school performance in
states that track by ability, if the link between SES and ability is sufficiently strong and the
more able students and higher SES students are beneficially segregated from the less able and
lower SES students. Yet, the various mechanisms discussed are likely to intervene. That
makes any a priori predictions on system effects in total very challenging. A superficial
inspection of overall differences across states might mask important heterogeneity in the way
how different systems work. Hence, in the following our task shall be to test our three-level
model empirically.
12
Data
Our analysis draws on recent data from Starting Cohort 3 of the National Educational
Panel Study (Blossfeld, Roßbach, & von Maurice, 2011).
6
This cohort comprises a multi-
stage and stratified school-student sample of 6.112 students of the population of students
attending the 5th grade secondary school in Germany in autumn 2010 (Aßmann, Walter, &
Zinn, 2012; Skopek, Pink, & Bela, 2012). The sample is followed up annually and to the time
of conducting this study, two waves were available. In the first wave in autumn 2010,
students’ competences have been assessed within the schools under supervision.
7
Hence,
assessments took place relatively early in secondary school, 1 to 4 months after first day of
school year.
8
Moreover, school principals and teachers were surveyed as well as parents (the
latter by CATI). On year later in Grade 6, a second assessment was carried out.
9
Results from
the second test represent our dependent variable. Even if our study’s scope is obviously
limited to achievement up to one and half year after secondary school enrolment, the NEPS
data provides important benefits for our purpose.
10
We applied some few but necessary sample exclusions. We dropped students from an
additional sample of special needs schools.
11
Moreover, some few students who participated
neither in wave 1 nor 2 tests as well as students with missing data on state of school, date of
birth and gender were dropped, too. Finally, a number of 5,444 students attending 230 schools
in 16 German states remain for the analysis.
Variables
Individual level
6
This paper uses data from the National Educational Panel Study (NEPS): Starting Cohort 3 – 5th grade
(From Lower to Upper Secondary School), doi:10.5157/NEPS:SC3:2.0.0. The NEPS data collection is part of
the Framework Programme for the Promotion of Empirical Educational Research, funded by the German Federal
Ministry of Education and Research and supported by the Federal States.
7
Field time took place during October 2010 to January 2011. About 50% of the field work was done
beginning of December and about 98% end of December.
8
The effective start of the school year varies slightly across federal states. However, in 2010, in most
states summer holidays ended between mid of August and mid of September.
9
The time span between first and second tests counted on average 12 months with a minimum of 12 and
a maximum of 14 months.
10
Our analyses will be replicated once further wave updates are released by the NEPS.
11
Competence data is not available for these students.
13
Dependent variable of our analysis is achievement in second year of secondary school
(Grade 6). We measure that by test scores in Science literacy.
12
The framework of the NEPS
test on science embraces both knowledge of basic scientific concepts and facts (‘Knowledge
of Science’) as well as the understanding of scientific processes (‘Knowledge about Science’)
and implements relevant features of the PISA 2006 framework of scientific literacy, the
Benchmarks of Science Literacy of the American Association for the Advancement of Science,
and the German National Educational Standards for graduation after intermediate secondary
schooling (Hahn et al., 2013).
The data provided rich variables to measure our independent concepts on several
levels of explanation. Socio-economic background (SES) of student’s was measured by the
average among parents’ education classified on a 4 point scale ranging from low (lower
secondary or less) to high education (tertiary training).
13
For that, we took reports from the
responding parent in the phone interview that took place in the first wave.
14
As proxy for prior
abilities (ABIL) we took standardized WLE scores in Mathematics which has been assessed in
the first wave (Duchhardt & Gerdes, 2012).
15
Even if Math was assessed within secondary
school (as a constraint of the panel study’s design), it was taken relatively early in Grade 5
were differences by track exposure can be assumed to be still very small. Taking Math as
proxy for prior abilities is particularly favorable in the German context as Math competence
constitutes a crucial element of the primary school recommendation and higher track entrance
hurdles (usually marks in Math and German are important) shaping students’ sorting.
Moreover, Math score turned out to correlate high with Science literacy (about 0.66). As
control variables we included dummy indicators for migration background (Migrant)
16
and
student’s gender (Female). All missing data on the individual level have been imputed by
12
Second wave assessment also included tests on ICT literacy and listening comprehension on the word
level (vocabulary). We decided for science because of its particular importance for educational pathways and
because it matches with major reports based on PISA data.
13
Alternatively to parental education we tried also highest ISEI-08 among parents as measure for SES
(which many other studies pursue). Results were very close. Nevertheless, our study requires measures as precise
as possible in order to effectively disentangle influences of prior abilities and social background. Eventually, we
opted for average of parental education instead of ISEI as the former performed clearly better in predicting test
scores.
14
If data on parental education was missing in the first interview, we filled up with values from the
second wave interview.
15
Alternatively, we took the standardized Reading score in Grade 5 (Pohl, Haberkorn, Hardt, &
Wiegand, 2012). We also tried a composite measure of Math and Reading. Results were largely similar
(available upon request). From a substantial point of view, for keeping uncertainty induced by missing values
lowest, and lastly for simplicity of presentation, we decided for Math.
16
We define migration background by a variable on generational status provided by the NEPS (Olczyk,
Will, & Kristen, 2014). Our definition includes status 1-2.25, thus ranging students no born in Germany to
students with one parent born in Germany (but with grandparents born abroad).
14
multiple imputation generating 20 imputation datasets.
17
Afterwards, we standardized
competence scores and the SES variable for our sample of students to have mean 0 and
standard deviation 1within each imputation dataset.
School level
On the school level, we included social composition (S-SES) and ability composition
(S-ABIL) by averaging individual level variables within schools.
18
In addition, we include
dummies to identify track-types of secondary school. One should note that Gymnasium is the
only school type that is uniformly provided in all German states. For that reason, we took a
binary indicator for Gymnasium (GYM) versus other types.
19
For measuring entrance selectivity of schools, as a measure of state level features on
the intermediate level of schools, we exploit items from the school principal questionnaire of
the first wave. School principals have been asked on the relevance of several factors in
admission of students to their schools.
20
Among others, factors relating to prior achievement
were: (1) previous students’ school achievement or grades, (2) entrance examination, (3) trial
lesson, (4) recommendation of students’ previously attended school. For each, principals
respond on a four-point scale ranging from not considered at all, low relevance, high
relevance, and necessary precondition.
For reducing the dimensionality of these items, we used principal component analysis
(PCA) to extract components relating to selection on achievement. In doing so, we first
pooled schools with responding principals in Wave 1 of Starting Cohort 3 with Wave 1 of
Starting Cohort 4 (a bigger sample of ninth graders based on the same sampling frame). As a
result we were able to exploit information from 445 different schools in total (due to the
common sampling frame 122 of these schools were included in both cohorts whereas their
principals were surveyed only once). Second, we applied multiple imputation procedures to
impute missing value in these items (about 12 percent missingness) using an array of school
17
We used a chained equation approach. The MI model included a large variety of individual level
factors and accounted for school factors by fixed effects for schools.
18
This has been done within imputation datasets. Modelling composition effects makes clear the
advantage of multiple imputation since it may effectively reduce the risk of a two-level bias. Nonetheless,
running our analyses on complete data yielded substantially very similar results.
19
Nonetheless, we tried alternative specifications using more precise dummies for Hauptschule (HS),
Realschule (RS), comprehensive school types (CS), and Gymnasium (GYM). Results were virtually the same.
20
The precise question was “How do you weigh the following factors when admitting students to your
school?”.
15
characteristics.
21
Third, from a set of five generated imputation data sets we took the mean
imputed value for missing data in the admission standard variables. Fourth, we run the PCA
on the covariance matrix of the 4 items (see Table A1 for results). We extracted one
component having an Eigen value greater than one (1.98). Overall the extracted component
represents about 62 percent of the four items’ covariance.
22
Our constructed measure selection on achievement (SOA) represents the z-
standardized score (weighted on school level) of the achievement component from the PCA
analyses. Yet, this score is only available for schools with principals who were responding to
the NEPS questionnaires. In the analytical sample 74 out of 230 schools had non-responding
principals. Dropping those schools did not substantially change the coefficients but resulted in
higher standard errors due to severely lowered case numbers on the student level (3,795
instead of 5,444 students). Hence, we opted for a missing coding in the school’s score by
defaulting to 0 (average over schools) in case of a missing value while controlling for non-
response of the school’s principal in the multivariate models.
State level – tracking regime
On the state level we constructed a categorical variable for distinguishing tracking
regimes EAT, ET, and PC states according to our classification in Table 1. On substantial
grounds, we decided to code the German Land on the basis of the location of the school.
Finally, out of 16 German Laender six are classified EAT, seven as ET, and three as PC.
Analytical Strategy
We will test the theoretical arguments with linear mixed models. Random intercepts for
schools take into account unobserved heterogeneity on the school level. To capture variance
on the level of states we experimented with several specifications and finally decided for a
fixed effects approach including dummies on track level and, as a robustness check, dummies
for states.
23
All our estimations were done using design weights. In the linear mixed models
21
We used chained equation models for iteratively imputing values for the admission practice items.
The model additionally included information on school size (number of students, teachers, and classes), school
type, social composition of school (fraction of migrants and social strata), size of community, teachers’ attitudes
and moral, and private/public funding body.
22
For robustness checks we did the PCA only for on the subset of 125 schools from the 5th graders
cohort (Starting Cohort 3). Compared to the full sample of schools component loadings very similar and
standardized scores were almost perfectly correlated (.998). Hence, incorporating all information available we
decided to construct the component scores based on the full sample of schools.
23
To have a more parsimonious approach, we also tried random intercepts for states. Albeit this might
violate assumption of normality since there are only 16 units on the state level, comparisons with the non-
16
we specified design weights for school (school level weights) and student weights accounting
for unequal selection probabilities conditional on school (student level weights).
Descriptive results
Mean performance
Our empirical investigation starts with a descriptive overview. Table 2 reports means,
standard deviations and fractions of central variables grouped by tracking regime. At first, we
observe a clear gradient in Science sores in Grade 6 between EAT and ET. On average
students in EAT states score about 26 percent of a standard deviation higher (p < .01) and PC
students about 18 percent higher (p <.01) compared to students in ET states (difference
between EAT and PC about 8 percent, p=.183). This pattern is pretty good resembled by the
gradient of tracking regimes in prior Math abilities (mean differences statistically significant
on p<.01 with exception of the contrast between ET and PC). While overall performance
differs remarkably, EAT and ET states hardly differ by SES (p=.125). Nonetheless, students
in PC countries appear to have more advantageous SES family backgrounds on average
(statistically significant only compared to ET, p<.05), but have also the lowest fraction of
migrants.
Schools
On the school level, we find that schools are most selective when it comes to the
practice of admitting of students in EAT states and least selective in PC states whereas
average SOA scores of schools in ET states range in between. A disaggregation of the score
based on school types (see Table A2) reveals that the differences between ET and EAT are
particularly strong among school types Gymnasium and Realschule. This is full in line with
what one could expect with the state level rules of sorting.
School level averages in prior abilities and SES differ from the individual averages as
a result of a non-random distribution of students on schools. Yet, a closer look reveals that
EAT school average in SES are closest to individual SES averages and most distant in
individual and school ability, which might point to a lower degree of SES segregation and a
higher degree of ability segregation across schools in the EAT states. Very consistently, in PC
parametric fixed effects approach showed only minor differences in estimations. Though, for some models and
imputation datasets, convergence problems emerged due to the considerably high complexity of the resulting
model and the marginal variance on the state level.
17
states there are throughout comprehensive school types in the sample. Fractions of
Gymnasium school types are rather similar across EAT and ET states, while there is a slightly
higher variability of school types in the ET states (not shown).
=== TABLE 2 here ==
Inequality
Do tracking types differ in the degree of dispersion and social inequality in secondary
school achievement and early abilities? Table 3 allows some tentative conclusions. Using the
standard deviation and percentile differences as measures of dispersion, it appears that
individual inequalities are slightly larger in EAT states. Nonetheless, differences are minor.
Social inequality (here measured by the fraction of variance in achievement explained by
SES) seems to the lowest in the EAT states, particularly on the level school composition
variables. Very similar patterns can be found for Math abilities early in Grade 5.
=== TABLE 3 here ===
Multivariate results
Table 4 presents estimates of the linear mixed models. Model 1-4 include in a stepwise
fashion tracking regime, schools’ entrance selectivity, school type, as well as SES measured
by parental education on the individual and the school level. As a baseline, Model 1 includes
only tracking regime and random effects on the school level. Patterns in differences between
tracking regimes conditional on school effects are the same as found in the descriptive results.
Nonetheless, the overall contrast between PC and ET does not reach statistical significance.
The variance estimates tell us that about 31 percent of the total variance in Science
(conditional on tracking regime) is located at the school level.
Model 2 includes schools’ entrance selectivity (SOA) revealing a pretty strong
association with Science performance. Higher selectivity of schools explains partly the edge
of students in EAT states as compared to ET states, whereas this seems not to be true for the
18
comparison PC versus ET which even increases; that is not too surprising, considering that
school selectivity is extremely low in the PC states while performance is comparably high.
Schools’ selectivity accounts for about 14 percent of the variance between schools as
estimated by Model 1.
Model 3 introduces both SES variables with interaction term. Students with more
advantageous family backgrounds have higher performance in Science. In addition, students
in higher SES school do also have higher performance, which represents an indirect SES
effect. The model shows an interaction with positive sign, but it is rather small and far from
statistical significance. Furthermore, SES differences across students and school compositions
account for a good part of the PC and ET contrast and the differences by selectivity of school
(visible in the smaller coefficients for system dummies and SOA).
Model 4 additionally accounts for school type Gymnasium; students enrolled in the
academic track perform better. Gymnasium explains also part of the school SES differences in
Science score (not the individual social gradient in Science score) and part of the remaining
differences by school’s SOA score. The contrast between tracking regimes ET and EAT is not
affected by controlling for Gymnasium, but so the contrast between PC and ET; compared to
Model 3 it is larger and statistically significant. Again this is a result of system differences; in
PC there are (almost) no Gymnasium students, so the contrast effectively relates to students in
non-Gymnasium schools in ET states and students in PC states (conditional on the other
variables). Including the additional variables led to a sharp reduction of explained variance
across schools, but only a minor explanation of the individual variance.
=== TABLE 4 here ===
To sum up, Models 1 to 4 suggest that students in states that track early without ability
tracking and students in less selective schools perform weakest in Grade 6 on average. There
are remarkable differences by individual SES and SES school composition. More selective
schools and Gymnasiums have more favorable SES compositions associated with higher
performance, but beyond that entrance selectivity of schools and particularly Gymnasium
show positive effects.
19
The next set of models (5a to 8) adds prior abilities of students and schools ability
composition to the equation. We present Model 5 in a stepwise fashion, first including
individual abilities only (Model 5a), which is best compared with Model 2. Prior ability in
Math is very strong predictor of Science score in Grade 6 (1 standard deviation increase in
Math is associated with .59 standard deviation increase in Science). Abilities explain much of
the conditional differences between tracking regimes and also a large part of the advantage of
more selective schools. Model 5b includes school’s ability composition and the interaction,
thus, is equivalent in structure to Model 3. Peer ability effects are sizable: students with an
average ability gain (loose) about .3 standard deviations in Science score, if average school
ability increases (decreases) by one standard deviation of ability. Moreover, the statistically
significant interaction term indicates non-linear and reinforcing peer ability effects: the higher
(lower) the individual ability the larger (smaller) the difference by school ability composition.
Once we account for individual and peer ability, the coefficient for school selectivity is
shrinking towards zero as a result of a selection effect. Also, the contrasts between tracking
regimes are rendered marginal. Obviously, differences between states and schools in Grade 6
secondary school achievement are brought out by differences in prior abilities, schools’ ability
compositions and peer effects.
Model 6 includes both, SES and ability variables. We see that the SES effects found in
Model 3 are confounded by effects of ability. This is most true for SES composition; the
coefficient reduced by almost 82 percent and is statistically significant only if we accept a 10
percent alpha level. Nevertheless, there remains an important individual-level SES gradient in
Grade 6 performance.
Accounting for school type Gymnasium in Model 7 does not add much to the model;
the whole effect as found in Model 4 (.37) is explained by prior abilities of students and peer
ability. Model 8 is adding the controls for migration background and gender; students having
a migration background perform worse and there is not much differences by gender.
Model 8 (FE) instead of specifying aggregated tracking regime types includes states as
fixed effects and, hence, is more precise as the other models in accounting for residual state
level heterogeneity in performance.
24
All substantial results remain robust. After all, the last
24
As we are not allowed to compare or single out German states by our data contract with the NEPS,
we do not report the coefficients. What we can tell is that the standard deviation of residual state effects is about
.09 as compared to .22 in a null model that defines fixed state effects and random school effects only.
20
model explains about 27 percent individual level and 94 percent school level variance within
tracking regimes (i.e., compared with Model 1).
Referring to our hypotheses we can conclude the following. H1 (positive effect of
prior ability) and H2 (positive effect of social background) found strong support. Particularly,
early ability is a strong predictor for later achievement. However, when inspecting the full
model, we found no support for an additional track effect (H3) – at least on average.
25
Also,
we can report only weak evidence for a general SES composition effect (H4). Instead, it is the
ability composition that matters (H5) and strongly confounds SES composition effects as
found earlier (H6). The hypothesis of a positive interaction between SES composition and
individual SES background as a result of a cultural fit or misfit of student and school (H7)
was disappointed across all models; in our data, we found no sign for such feedback
mechanisms. Rather we found relevant effects of peer ability benefitting all students but better
students slightly more. Hypothesis 8a of a negative interaction (low performing students
benefit more from better peers) had to be rejected. Nonetheless, the positive interaction is
rather weak in size and, thus, not strong enough to support opposite hypothesis 8b (better
peers are detrimental for lower performing kids). Eventually, our results are most in line with
hypothesis 8c (linear peer effects) but with imperfect linearity.
Our discussion theorized that in states with stricter ability tracking, prior abilities
should be higher in the first place, which then translates into advantages during secondary
schooling (H9a). Our findings from Model 5a strongly support that very simple argument.
Comparing full Model 5b with the Model 1, we saw that the coefficient for the contrast
between EAT and ET shrank by almost 87% once conditioning on prior abilities and
compositional effects. Apparently, by installing achievement orientation states indirectly
already improve their student input to secondary schools. This is also true on the level schools
(H9b), the coefficient for SOA shrinks tremendously after accounting for abilities, albeit
Model 5b shows that the effect of school selectivity goes fully to zero only after accounting
for the ability composition of schools (also the coefficient for contrast EAT versus ET shrinks
further). We can conclude that states that ability-track their students to secondary schools
have a better input overall which results additionally in more favorable school contexts.
Nonetheless, even after accounting for abilities there remains still a difference of about .1
25
It should be noted that this might not be necessarily true for single states. In additional analyses (not
shown) separating out states sometimes yielded positive net effects for Gymnasium schools and sometimes
negative net effects. So, it is likely that various effects cancel each other out on average. Another explanation for
the insignificant effect of Gymnasium might be the limited observation period of our study.
21
standard deviations (though statistically significant only on the 10 percent level) between ET
and the group of states having prolonged comprehensive schooling. Inspecting state fixed
effects models (Model 8 FE) revealed that this is particularly driven by one state.
Hypothesis H10 remains to be tested. Our core argument was that if students are
sorted to tracks and schools on the basis of prior abilities, schools compositions are more
homogenous in terms of ability, which should foster peer effects. We will test that on the
basis of the more robust state fixed effects model (Model 8 FE), adding interaction terms
between ability and SES variables and dummies for tracking regime. We will leave out in the
school level variable on entrance selectivity because it had no effect in the full model but
might reduce the model efficiency due to high correlation with school ability (more selective
schools have better ability compositions, as we have found out earlier).
Table 5 reports results from two additional models in a compact way. Model 10 is
more parsimonious by testing differences in composition effects between EAT and other
regimes; Model 11 is adds more parameters for testing coefficient differences across all
regimes.
Both models point to important differences between EAT and the other regimes with
regard to school composition effects. The models provide solid evidence that the peer ability
effects are significantly stronger in EAT states, supporting H10 (nonetheless, also in non-EAT
states there are peer effects due to the interaction between individual and peer ability which
does not differ between tracking regimes). Unexpected, but interestingly, we found also a
sizable interaction with SES composition: in EAT states they are absent, while strong and
significant in the non-EAT states. Contrary, individual SES effects do not differ between
tracking regimes neither do individual ability effects or the respective interaction terms
(additional models not shown). Entrance selectivity of schools explain part of the found
tendencies, but sizable coefficients for interactions (p<.10) remain (models not shown).
Net of the prior ability context, visiting a higher (lower) SES school is connected with
a measurable additional advantage (disadvantage) for achievement, but not in states that select
on ability. How can we make sense of that finding? With the data at hand, we can only
speculate. A possible explanation might be quality factors of schools (resources and teachers)
that have effects on students learning, but are unobserved by our model. These factors might
be correlated with schools’ social composition in states that have a lower achievement
orientation. One could make the case that states that ability-track their students on a legal
22
basis at the same time provide a higher standardization of schools and curricula across all
tracks due to the higher responsibility and accountability on the system level. This would be
consistent with the arguments of von Below discussed above, since most of ET and PC states
are rather liberal and reformed (“loose structures”) adhering less to general norms while
putting emphasize on autonomy of schools and the individual (family).
=== TABLE 5 here ===
Conclusion
This paper contributes to the ongoing debate on how educational systems impact on
academic performance in secondary education by studying the German case using recent,
representative, and longitudinal data on a cohort of five graders from the German National
Educational Panel Study (NEPS). We have (a) employed a large national sample on Germany,
(b) exploited variation across 16 educational systems, (c) accounted for prior abilities of
pupils, and (d) applied a three level model, distinguishing various influences on individual
achievement on the level of states, schools, and students.
Overall, we found that academic performance in Science of sixth graders differs by
tracking regime and is highest in German states that track students early based on prior
achievement and lowest in states that track early but on the basis of freedom of choice. While
differences between tracking regimes regarding the dispersion in performance are rather
minor, social inequality in academic performance seems to be actually lowest in states
following ability tracking. Our multivariate results clearly showed the importance of
including information on prior ability of pupils for the correct understanding of selection in
the different types of German educational systems. Without the inclusion of prior ability, the
meaning of other variables like parental background and socio-economic compositions of
schools can be easily misunderstood. However, this does not mean that parental socio-
economic status has become irrelevant after inclusion of prior ability: it has still an important
impact of educational performance in secondary education.
We did not find a significant effect for attending Gymnasium or another secondary
track. But this was only true after controlling for school’s ability composition. Our
observation window (1 to 1.5 years of exposure to secondary education) might be too short to
23
pick-up an additional gymnasium effect after controlling for prior ability and ability
composition. As we have seen, the later matters a lot for educational performance and
confounds strongly SES composition effects. Neither had we found a significant interaction
between SES composition and individual SES. Peer ability seems to benefit all students but
better students a bit more.
Extending previous studies on secondary school achievement mainly based on cross-
sectional data, our findings contribute to a more in-depth understanding of system level
differences. We found pupils’ achievement in secondary school to be higher in German states
that explicitly track based on abilities. However, prior achievement is already higher in
exactly those states. Consequently, earlier advantages translate into persisting advantages
during secondary education. Our results corroborated that finding on the level of schools;
students in more selective schools perform better, but have already a more able influx of
students. Hence, a sizable part of the difference in secondary education is attributable to what
happens before students enter secondary education.
Consistent with theoretical expectations on the homogenizing effect of ability
tracking, we found that in states with early ability tracking peer ability effects are significantly
stronger than in other states. Surprisingly, we found also SES composition effects to vary
across tracking regimes: while in early ability tracking states they are absent, they are quite
strong and significant in the other states. We provided an ad-hoc explanation, namely that
quality features of schools might be less related to SES composition in German Laender with
state-law enforced ability tracking. However, this finding deserves more thorough
investigations in the future.
Our paper contributes to a methodological advancement of research on the effects of
tracking. Using the example of Germany our paper tried to overcome three major drawbacks
of the current research on the impact of tracking and differentiation on secondary school
achievement and (social) inequality in achievement: (1) the exclusion of the mediating level
of schools, (2) the reliance on cross-sectional data, (3) the failure to account for students’
prior ability especially before tracking occurred. Eventually, our analysis calls for a critical
reflection of what Esser labeled as the “standard approach”. It is basically blind in testing the
various mechanisms that operate in certain educational systems and produce educational
outcomes like overall levels or socio-economic inequalities in achievement.
24
References
Aßmann, C., Walter, H., & Zinn, S. (2012). Weighting the Firth and Ninth Grader Cohort
Samples of the National Educational Panel Study, Panel Cohorts. Technical Report.
NEPS Research Data Paper. Bamberg.
Ayalon, H., & Gamoran, A. (2000). Stratification in academic secondary programs and
educational inequality in Israel and the United States. Comparative Education Review,
54–80.
Becker, R., & Schubert, F. (2006). Soziale Ungleichheit von Lesekompetenzen. Kölner
Zeitschrift Für Soziologie Und Sozialpsychologie, 58(2), 253–284. doi:10.1007/s11575-
006-0055-0
Benavot, A., & Resnik, J. (2004). Lessons from the Past: A Comparative Socio-Historical
Analysis of Primary and Secondary Education. In A. Benavot, J. Resnik, & J. Corrales
(Eds.), Global Educational Expansion. Historical Legacies and Political Obstacles.
Cambridge: American Academic of Arts and Sciences.
Blossfeld, H.-P., Roßbach, H.-G., & von Maurice, J. (2011). Education as a Lifelong Process
- The German National Educational Panel Study (NEPS). Heidelberg: Springer VS.
Bol, T., Witschge, J., Van de Werfhorst, H. G., & Dronkers, J. (2014). Curricular Tracking
and Central Examinations: Counterbalancing the Impact of Social Background on
Student Achievement in 36 Countries. Social Forces, (1), 1–48. doi:10.1093/sf/sou003
Boudon, R. (1974). Education, opportunity, and social inequality: Changing prospects in
western society. New York: Wiley.
Brunello, G., & Checchi, D. (2007). Does school tracking affect equality of opportunity? New
international evidence. Economic Policy, (October), 781–861.
Dollmann, J. (2011). Verbindliche und unverbindliche Grundschulempfehlungen und soziale
Ungleichheiten am ersten Bildungsübergang. Kolner Zeitschrift Fur Soziologie Und
Sozialpsychologie, 63, 595–621. doi:10.1007/s11577-011-0148-z
Dronkers, J. (2015). In wiens voordeel werkt selectie aan het begin van het voortgezet
onderwijs? [Who benefits from selection early in secondary education? A new approach
to an old question]. Mens En Maatschappij, 90(1), 5–24.
Dronkers, J., Van Der Velden, R., & Dunne, A. (2012). Why are migrant students better off in
certain types of educational systems or schools than in others? European Educational
Research Journal, 11(1), 11–44. doi:10.2304/eerj.2012.11.1.11
Duchhardt, C., & Gerdes, A. (2012). NEPS Technical Report for Mathematics - Scaling
Results of Starting Cohort 3 in Fifth Grade (No. 19). NEPS Working Papers. Bamberg.
Dunne, A. (2010). Dividing Lines: Examining the relative importance of between- and within-
school differentiation during lower secondary education. European University Institute.
25
Esser, H. (n.d.-a). Bildungssysteme und ethnische Bildungsungleichheit. In C. Diehl, C.
Hunkler, & C. Kristen (Eds.), Ethnische Ungleichheiten im Bildungsverlauf:
Mechanismen, Befunde, Debatten. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
Esser, H. (n.d.-b). Sorting and (much) more. Prior ability, school-effects and the impact of
ability tracking on educational inequalities in achievement. In A. Hadjar & C. Grosse
(Eds.), Education systems and educational inequalities. Bristol: Policy Press.
Esser, H., & Relikowski, I. (2015). Is Ability Tracking (Really) Responsible for Educational
Inequalities in Achievement ? A Comparison between the Country States Bavaria and
Hesse in Germany (No. 9082). IZA Discussion Paper.
Gamoran, A., & Mare, R. D. (1989). Secondary School Tracking and Educational Inequality:
Compensation, Reinforcement, or Neutrality? American Journal of Sociology, 94, 1146.
doi:10.1086/229114
Gresch, C., Baumert, J., & Maaz, K. (2010). Empfehlungsstatus, Übergangsempfehlung und
der Wechsel in die Sekundarstufe I: Bildungsentscheidungen und soziale Ungleichheit.
In Bildungsentscheidungen (pp. 230–256).
Hahn, I., Schöps, K., Saß, S., Hansen, S., Martensen, M., Wagner, H., & Funke, L. (2013).
The Assessment of Scienfic Literacy in the National Educational Panel Study (NEPS)
including example items for Kindergarten, grade 6, students and adults. Bamberg.
Hanushek, E. A., & Woessman, L. (2006). Does Educational Tracking Affect Performance
and Inequality? Differences-in-Differences Evidence Across Countries. The Economic
Journal, 116(1984), 63–76.
Kerckhoff, A. C. (1986). Effects of Ability Grouping in British Secondary Schools. American
Sociological Review, 51(6), 842. doi:10.2307/2095371
Maaz, K., Baumert, J., Gresch, C., & McElvany, N. (Eds.). (2010). Der Übergang von der
Grundschule in die weiterführende Schule - Leistungsgerechtigkeit und regionale,
soziale und ethnisch-kulturelle Disparitäten. Der Übergang von der Grundschule in die
weiterführende Schule. Berlin: Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung.
Maaz, K., Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., & Baumert, J. (2008). Educational transitions and
differential learning environments: How explicit between-school tracking contributes to
social inequality in educational outcomes. Child Development Perspectives, 2, 99–106.
doi:10.1111/j.1750-8606.2008.00048.x
Marks, G. N. (2005). Cross-National Differences and Accounting for Social Class Inequalities
in Education. International Sociology, 20(December), 483–505.
doi:10.1177/0268580905058328
Neugebauer, M. (2010). Bildungsungleichheit und Grundschulempfehlung beim Übergang
auf das Gymnasium: Eine Dekomposition primärer und sekundärer Herkunftseffekte.
Zeitschrift Für Soziologie, 39(3), 202–214.
26
Neumann, M., Schnyder, I., Trautwein, U., Niggli, A., Lüdtke, O., & Cathomas, R. (2007).
Schulformen als differenzielle Lernmilieus. Zeitschrift Für Erziehungswissenschaft,
10(3), 399–420. doi:10.1007/s11618-007-0043-6
Olczyk, M., Will, G., & Kristen, C. (2014). Personen mit Zuwanderungshintergrund im
NEPS: Zur Bestimmung von Generationen-Status und Herkunftsgruppe (No. 41b). NEPS
Working Papers.
Pohl, S., Haberkorn, K., Hardt, K., & Wiegand, E. (2012). NEPS Technical Report for
Reading – Scaling Results of Starting Cohort 3 in Fifth Grage (No. 15). NEPS Working
Papers. Bamberg.
Roth, T., & Siegert, M. (2015). Freiheit versus Gleichheit? Der Einfluss der Verbindlichkeit
der Übergangsempfehlung auf die soziale Ungleichheit in der Sekundarstufe. Zeitschrift
Für Soziologie, 44(2), 118–136.
Rumberger, R., & Palardy, G. (2005). Does segregation still matter? The impact of student
composition on academic achievement in high school. The Teachers College Record,
107(9), 1999–2045.
Skopek, J., Pink, S., & Bela, D. (2012). Data Manual. Starting Cohort 3 – From Lower to
Upper Secondary School. NEPS SC3 1.0.0. NEPS Research Data Paper. Bamberg.
Van de Werfhorst, H. G., & Mijs, J. J. B. (2010). Achievement Inequality and the Institutional
Structure of Educational Systems: A Comparative Perspective. Annual Review of
Sociology, 36(1), 407–428. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.012809.102538
Von Below, S. (2006). Bildungssysteme und Selektivität. Eine Typologie am Beispiel der
neuen Bundesländer. Die Deutsche Schule, 98(2), 230–242.
27
Tables
Table 1 Classification of binding primary school recommendation on state level
Notes: a Binding character of primary school recommendation; valid for end of 2010; classification based on
Gresch et al. (2010) and Neugebauer (2010), a review of state reports, and legal texts from state education laws.
A border case is North Rhine-Westphalia, which had temporarily introduced a binding recommendation in 2006
which was abandoned in 2010 again. b compare von Below (2006). c EAT = early ability tracking, ET = early
tracking, PC = prolonged comprehensive.
Federal state
PSR
Binding a
Tracking
starts in
Grade
Typology
(von Below) b
Tracking
regime type c
Baden-
Wuerttemberg
Yes
5
traditional-conservative
EAT
Bavaria
Yes
5
traditional-conservative
EAT
Berlin
No
7
reformed-liberal
PC
Brandenburg
Yes
7
reformed-liberal
PC
Bremen
No
5
reformed-liberal
ET
Hamburg
No
5
reformed-liberal
ET
Hesse
No
5
reformed-liberal
ET
Mecklenburg-
Western Pomerania
No
7
traditional-conservative
PC
Lower Saxony
No
5
reformed-liberal
ET
North Rhine-
Westphalia
No
5
reformed-liberal
ET
Rhineland-Palatinate
No
5
traditional-liberal
ET
Saarland
Yes
5
reformed-conservative
EAT
Saxony
Yes
5
reformed-conservative
EAT
Saxony-Anhalt
Yes
5
reformed-conservative
EAT
Schleswig-Holstein
No
5
traditional-liberal
ET
Thuringia
Yes
5
reformed-conservative
EAT
28
Table 2 Variables on individual and school level by tracking regime
State level tracking regime
TOTAL
EAT
ET
PC
n=5,444
n=2,046
n=2,914
n=484
Individual level a
Science, Grade 6 (z-std.)
0.00
(1.00)
0.15
(1.02)
-0.11
(0.97)
0.07
(0.99)
ABIL
0.00
(1.00)
0.17
(1.01)
-0.11
(0.98)
-0.02
(0.96)
SES
0.00
(1.00)
0.03
(1.00)
-0.03
(1.00)
0.14
(0.99)
Female
.48
.47
.48
.49
Migrant
.20
.16
.24
.13
School level b
n=230
n=87
n=117
n=26
‘Gymnasium’
.31
.35
.32
(.05)d
SOA
(non-missing, z-std.)
0.00
(1.00)
0.32
(1.09)
-0.14
(0.78)
-0.90
(0.78)
Principal non-response c
.32
.28
.38
.19
S-ABIL
-0.14
(0.70)
0.00
(0.72)
-0.24
(0.69)
-0.17
(0.63)
S-SES
-0.11
(0.64)
-0.07
(0.63)
-0.16
(0.64)
-0.01
(0.67)
Notes: Estimation based on M=20 imputation datasets; standard deviations averaged across imputation datasets
and put in parentheses; a using student weights, b using school weights, c unweighted sample fraction. d only one
school.
29
Table 3 Measures of inequality by tracking regime
State level tracking regime
EAT
ET
PC
Science score, Grade 6
SD
1.02
.97
.99
95th – 5th
3.27
3.21
3.01
75th – 25th
1.33
1.32
1.23
R2 (SES)
.13
.18
.16
School level: R2 (SES)
.51
.74
.83
ABIL, Grade 5
SD
1.01
0.98
0.96
95th – 5th
3.24
3.22
3.15
75th – 25th
1.33
1.32
1.28
R2 (SES)
.14
.18
.19
School level: R2 (SES)
.57
.77
.82
Notes: Estimation based on M=20 imputation datasets; calculations based on student weights, for school level
indicators based on school weights. 95th -5th : difference between 95th and 5th percentile; analogous for 75th-25th;
R2 (SES): fraction of explained variance of a regression on mean parental education (SES).
30
Table 4 Standardized Science score in Grade 6 (linear mixed models)
1
2
3
4
5a
5b
6
7
8
8 (FE)
Tracking system
State
dummies
EAT (ref. ET)
0.240*
0.145
0.162**
0.166**
0.064
0.031
0.058
0.059
0.047
PC (ref. ET)
0.194
0.357*
0.138+
0.255***
0.190**
0.120+
0.101+
0.105+
0.105+
School level
SOA
0.268***
0.099**
0.069*
0.082***
0.004
0.007
0.007
0.012
0.016
S-SES
0.579***
0.397***
0.107+
0.106+
0.104+
0.086
S-ABIL
0.282***
0.138*
0.131*
0.102
0.124*
GYM
0.372***
0.013
0.057
0.050
Individual level
SES
0.174***
0.175***
0.103***
0.103***
0.092***
0.093***
SES x S-SES
0.029
0.021
0.023
0.023
0.023
0.016
ABIL
0.586***
0.535***
0.520***
0.520***
0.503***
0.502***
ABIL x S-ABIL
0.068**
0.061**
0.060**
0.062**
0.067**
Controls
Female
-0.044+
-0.044+
Migrant
-0.230***
-0.231***
Missing SOA
-0.034
0.062
0.030
0.028
0.040
0.048
0.047
0.042
0.036
Constant
-0.195***
-0.158*
-0.124***
-0.256***
-0.056
-0.062+
-0.079**
-0.084*
-0.029
0.000
Variances
School
0.317
0.272
0.075
0.059
0.051
0.032
0.026
0.026
0.023
0.019
Individual
0.697
0.698
0.676
0.675
0.522
0.520
0.512
0.512
0.506
0.507
Notes: N=5,444 students, nested in N=230 schools. Significance level: + p<.1; * p<.05; ** p<.01; *** p<.001.
31
Table 5 School composition effects by tracking regime
Coefficients
Model 10
Model 11
S-ABIL
S-SES
S-ABIL
S-SES
EAT (1)
0.194**
-0.017
EAT (1)
0.193**
-0.017
δ1-2
*
+
δ1-2
+
+
ET & PC (2)
0.005
0.204*
ET (2)
0.008
0.197*
δ2-3
n.s.
n.s.
PC (3)
-0.014
0.246+
δ3-1
n.s.
n.s.
Notes: Model 10 and 11 are modified versions of Model 8 (FE), including interaction terms and excluding SOA.
N=5,444 students, nested in N=230 schools. δ = p-value of difference. Significance level: + p<.1; * p<.05; **
p<.01; *** p<.001.
32
Appendix
Table A1: Loadings of items on admission criteria of secondary schools regarding
achievement on component “achievement” (principal component analysis).
Admission criteria applied by secondary school
Component
“selection on achievement”
(EV 1.98, 62% of variance)
(2) prior school achievement/grades
0.69
(3) entrance examination
0.28
(4) trial lesson
0.27
(5) students’ previous school’s recommendation
0.61
Notes: Component’s Eigenvalue in parentheses. N=445 schools with responding principals. Missing values (12
percent of cases) imputed by multiple imputation.
Table A2: Selection on achievement score by tracking regime and type of school
Type of
secondary
school
EAT
ET
PC
Total
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Hauptschule
-0.40
0.90
-0.53
0.72
-
-
-0.46
0.82
Realschule
0.90
0.90
0.17
0.78
-
-
0.44
0.88
Gymnasium
1.17
0.75
0.06
0.70
(1.68)a
-
0.65
0.91
Comprehensive
-0.40
0.55
-0.42
0.74
-1.10
0.31
-0.70
0.63
Total
0.32
1.09
-0.14
0.78
-0.90
0.78
0.00
1.00
Notes: N=153 schools with non-missing selection on achievement score (= with responding principals). a only
one school.
