This article aims to identify the moderating effect of two dimensions of the stratification of education systems (the extent to which the first selection is based on students’ ability and the age of first selection) on social background gradient in educational attainment. Individual-level data of the European Social Survey (round 1 to 9) is complemented with new contextual indicators measuring various education systems’ characteristics. This article’s contribution to the debate is twofold. First, it simultaneously investigates two dimensions of the stratification of education systems that have never been analyzed in cross-country studies investigating long-term educational outcomes. Second, it provides a series of indicators of education systems’ characteristics collected by means of an online expert survey whose validity and reliability is also tested. Findings show that the two dimensions of the stratification of education systems have opposite effects. As the first selection is increasingly based on students’ ability, social background gradient in educational attainment increases. In contrast, postponing the age of first selection decreases social inequality in educational opportunity.
BallarinoGBernardiFPanichellaN (2016) Education systems and inequality based on social origins: The impact of school expansion and design. In: HadjarAGrossC (eds) Education Systems and Inequalities: International Comparisons. Bristol: Policy Press, pp. 135–158.
2.
BargK (2013) The influence of students’ social background and parental involvement on teachers’ school track choices: Reasons and consequences. European Sociological Review29(3): 565–579.
3.
BarroRJLeeJW (2013) A new data set of educational attainment in the world, 1950-2010. Journal of Development Economics104: 184–198.
4.
BauerPRiphahnRT (2006) Timing of school tracking as a determinant of intergenerational transmission of education. Economics Letters91(1): 90–97.
5.
BergerJCombetB (2017) Late school tracking, less class bias in educational decision-making? The uncertainty reduction mechanism and its experimental testing. European Sociological Review33(1): 124–136.
6.
BernardiF (2012) Unequal transitions: Selection bias and the compensatory effect of social background in educational careers. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility30(2): 159–174.
7.
BernardiF (2014) Compensatory advantage as a mechanism of educational inequality: A regression discontinuity based on month of birth. Sociology of Education87(2): 74–88.
8.
BlossfeldHP (1992) Is the German dual system a model for a modern vocational training system?International Journal of Comparative Sociology 33(3–4): 168–181.
9.
BlossfeldHPShavitY (1993) Persisting barriers: Changes in educational opportunities in thirteen countries. In: ShavitYBlossfeldHP (eds) Persistent Inequality: Changing Educational Attainment in Thirteen Countries. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp. 1–24.
10.
BlossfeldHPTriventiMSkopekJ, et al. (2016) Varieties of secondary education models and social inequality—Conclusions from a large-scale international comparison. In: BlossfeldHPBuchholzSSkopekJ, et al. (eds) Models of Secondary Education and Social Inquality an International Comparison. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 377–400.
11.
BolTVan de WerfhorstHG (2013) Educational systems and the trade-off between labor market allocation and equality of educational opportunity. Comparative Education Review57(2): 285–308.
12.
BosWScharenbergK (2010) Lernentwicklung in leistungshomogenen und-heterogenen Schulklassen. In: BosWBaumertJ (eds) Schulische Lerngelegenheiten und Kompetenzentwicklung: Festschrift für Jürgen Baumert. Münster: Waxmann Verlag, pp. 173–194.
13.
BoudonR (1974) Education, Opportunity and Social Inequality. New York: John Wiley.
14.
BoudonR (1998) Social mechanisms without black boxes. In: HedströmPSwedbergR (eds) Social Mechanisms an Analytical Approach to Social Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 172–203.
15.
BragaMChecchiDMeschiE (2013) Educational policies in a long-run perspective. Economic Policy28(73): 45–100.
16.
BreenRGoldthorpeJH (1997) Explaining educational differentials: Towards a formal rational action theory. Rationality and Society9(3): 275–305.
17.
BreenRVan de WerfhorstHGJaegerMM (2014) Deciding under doubt: A theory of risk aversion, time discounting preferences, and educational decision-making. European Sociological Review30(2): 258–270.
18.
BrunelloGChecchiD (2007) Does school tracking affect equality of opportunity? New international evidence. Economic Policy22(52): 781–861.
19.
CardDGiulianoL (2016) Universal screening increases the representation of low income and minority students in gifted education. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences113(48): 13678–13683.
20.
ContiniDScagniA (2011) Inequality of opportunity in secondary school enrolment in Italy, Germany and the Netherlands. Quality and Quantity45(2): 441–464.
21.
De FraineBVan DammeJVan LandeghemG, et al. (2003) The effect of schools and classes on language achievement. British Educational Research Journal29(6): 841–859.
22.
DollmannJ (2016) Less choice, less inequality? A natural experiment on social and ethnic differences in educational decision-making. European Sociological Review32(2): 203–215.
23.
DöringHManowP (2019) Parliaments and governments database (Parlgov): Information on parties, elections and cabinets in modern democracies (development version). Available at: http://www.parlgov.org/ (accessed 14 September 2020).
24.
DupriezVMonseurCVan CampenhoudtM, et al. (2012) Social inequalities of post-secondary educational aspirations: Influence of social background, school composition and institutional context. European Education Research Journal11(4): 504–519.
25.
EriksonR (2013) Educational institutions and social selection in education. In: DeißnerD (ed.) Chancen Bilden Wege zu Einer Gerechteren Bildung—Ein Internationaler Erfahrungsaustausch. Berlin: Springer, pp. 111–124.
26.
EriksonRGoldthorpeJH (1992) The Constant Flux. A Study of Class Mobility in Industrial Societies. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
27.
EriksonRJonssonJO (1996) Introduction explaining class inequality in education: The Swedish test case. In: EriksonRJonssonJO (eds) Can Education be Equalized? The Swedish Case in Comparative Perspective. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp. 1–63.
28.
EsserH (2016) Sorting and (much) more: Prior ability, school-effects and the impact of ability tracking on educational inequalities in achievement. In: HadjarAGrossC (eds) Education Systems and Inequalities: International Comparisons. Bristol: Policy Press, pp. 95–114.
29.
European Social Survey Cumulative File ESS1-8 (2018a) Data file edition 1.0. NSD—Norwegian Centre for Research Data, Norway—Data Archive and Distributor of ESS Data for ESS ERIC. doi:10.21338/NSD-ESS-CUMULATIVE
30.
European Social Survey Round 9: European Social Survey Round 9 Data (2018b) Data file edition 2.0. NSD—Norwegian Centre for Research Data, Norway—Data Archive and Distributor of ESS Data for ESS ERIC. doi:10.21338/NSD-ESS9-2018
31.
GambettaD (1987) Were They Pushed or Did They Jump? Individual Decision Mechanisms in Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
32.
GiesselmannMSchmidt-CatranAW (2018) Getting the within estimator of cross-level interactions in multilevel models with pooled cross-sections: Why country dummies (sometimes) do not do the job. Sociological Methodology49(1): 190–219.
33.
GoldthorpeJH (2007) On Sociology (2nd rev. ed.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
34.
GröhlichCScharenbergKBosW (2009) Wirkt sich Leistungsheterogenität in Schulklassen auf den individuellen Lernerfolg in der Sekundarstufe aus?Journal for Educational Research Online1(1): 86–105.
35.
HadjarABeckerR (2016) Education systems and meritocracy: Social origin, educational and status attainment. In: HadjarAGrossC (eds) Education Systems and Inequalities: International Comparisons. Bristol: Policy Press, pp. 231–258.
36.
HadjarAGrossC (eds) (2016) Education Systems and Inequalities: International Comparisons. Bristol: Policy Press, pp. 231–258.
37.
HauserR (2010) Causes and consequences of cognitive functioning across the life course. Educational Researcher39(2): 95–109.
38.
HeisigJPSchaefferM (2019) Why you should always include a random slope for the lower-level variable involved in a cross-level interaction. European Sociological Review35(2): 258–279
39.
HeisigJPElbersBSolgaH (2020) Cross-national differences in social background effects on educational attainment: absolute vs relative inequalities and the role of education systems. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education50(2): 165–184.
40.
HeisigJPSchaefferMGieseckeJ (2017) The costs of simplicity: Why multilevel models may benefit from accounting for cross-cluster differences in the effects of controls. American Sociological Review82(4): 796–827.
41.
HirschmanAO (1970) Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
42.
HornD (2009) Age of selection counts: A cross-country analysis of educational institutions. Educational Research and Evaluation15(4): 343–366.
43.
JacksonMJonssonJO (2013) Why does inequality of educational opportunity vary across countries? Primary and secondary effects in comparative context. In: JacksonMJonssonJO (eds) Determined to Succeed? Performance Versus Choice in Educational Attainment. Stanford, CA: Standford University Press, pp. 306–337.
44.
KöllerOSchütteKZimmermannF, et al. (2013) Starke Klasse, hohe Leistungen?Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht60(3): 184–197.
45.
KorthalsR (2012) Selection and Tracking in Secondary Education: A Cross Country Analysis of Student Performance and Educational Opportunities (ROA Research Memorandum (No 14)). Maastricht University: Research Centre for Education and the Labour Market.
46.
LangeSVon WerderM (2017) Tracking and the intergenerational transmission of education: Evidence from a natural experiment. Economics of Education Review61: 59–78.
47.
LareauA (2011) Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
48.
LucasSR (2001) Effectively maintain inequality: Education transitions, track mobility, and social background effects. American Journal of Sociology106(6): 1642–1690.
49.
MarksGN (2005) Cross-national differences and accounting for social class inequalities in education. International Sociology20(4): 483–505.
50.
MüllerWKarleW (1993) Social selection in educational systems in Europe. European Sociological Review9(1): 1–23.
51.
NeumannMSchnyderITrautweinU, et al. (2007) Schulformen als differenzielle Lernmilieus. Zeitschrift Für Erziehungswissenschaft10(3): 399–420.
52.
OECD (1999) Classifying educational programmes. Manual for ISCED-97 implementation in OECD countries. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/education/1841854.pdf (accessed 3 July 2020).
53.
OpdenakkerMCVan DammeJ (2001) Relationship between school composition and characteristics of school process and their effect on mathematics achievement. British Educational Research Journal27(4): 407–432.
54.
ÖstermanM (2018) Varieties of education and inequality: How the institutions of education and political economy condition inequality. Socio-Economic Review16(1): 113–135.
55.
PfefferFT (2008) Persistent inequality in educational attainment and its institutional context. European Sociological Review24(5): 543–565.
56.
ReicheltMCollischonMEberlA (2019) School tracking and its role in social reproduction: Reinforcing educational inheritance and the direct effects of social origin. The British Journal of Sociology70(4): 1323–1348.
57.
RosenbaumJEMillerSRKreiMS (1996) Gatekeeping in an era of more open gates: High School counselors’ views of their influence on students’ college plans. American Journal of Education104(4): 257–279.
58.
RothTSiegertM (2016) Does the selectivity of an educational system affect social inequality in educational attainment? Empirical findings for the transition from primary to secondary level in Germany. European Sociological Review32(6): 779–791.
59.
ScharenbergK (2014) Schule und Schulklasse als soziale Kontexte der Entwicklung im Jugendalter. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie66(S1): 317–348.
60.
Schiepe-TiskaA.RönnebeckS.HeitmannP.SchöpsK.PrenzelM.NagyG. (2017). Die Veränderung der naturwissenschaftlichen Kompetenz von der 9. zur 10. Klasse bei PISA und den Bildungsstandards unter Berücksichtigung geschlechts- und schulartspezifischer Unterschiede sowie der Zusammensetzung der Schülerschaft. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 20(2), 151–176
61.
Schmidt-CatranAWFairbrotherM (2016) The random effects in multilevel models: Getting them wrong and getting them right. European Sociological Review32(1): 23–38.
62.
SulzmaierD (2020) The causal effect of early tracking in German Schools on the intergenerational transmission of education. Working Papers No 187. Bavarian Graduate Program in Economics (BGPE).
63.
TriventiMSkopekJKulicN, et al. (2020) Advantage ‘finds its way’: How privileged families exploit opportunities in different systems of secondary education. Sociology54(2): 237–257.
UseemEL (1991) Student selection into course sequences in mathematics: The impact of parental involvement and school policies. Journal of Research on Adolescence1(3): 231–250.
66.
UseemEL (1992) Middle schools and Math groups: Parents’ involvement in children’s placement. Sociology of Education65: 263–279.
67.
Van de WerfhorstHG (2019) Early tracking and social inequality in educational attainment: Educational reforms in 21 European countries. American Journal of Education126(1): 65–99.
68.
VogtenhuberS (2018) The institutional conditions of inequality in credential and skill attainment and their impact on occupational placement. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility55: 13–24.
69.
YonezawaSS (2000) Unpacking the black box of tracking decisions: Critical tales of families navigating the course placement process. In: SandersMG (ed.) Schooling Students Placed at Risk: Research, Policy, and Practice in the Education of Poor a Minority Adolescents. New York: Routledge, pp. 109–140.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
