Cross-national Differences in Educational Achievement Inequality

Abstract

School systems are called not only to instruct and socialize students but also to differentiate among them. Although much research has investigated inequalities in educational outcomes associated with students’ family background and other ascriptive traits, little research has examined cross-national differences in the total amount of differentiation that school systems produce, the total achievement inequality. This article evaluates whether two dimensions of educational systems—variations in opportunities to learn and intensity of schooling—are associated with achievement inequality independent of family background. It draws data from the Programme for International Student Assessment for more than 50 school systems and models the variance in achievement. Findings suggest that decreasing the variability in opportunities to learn—in the form of greater homogeneity in teacher quality and the absence of tracking—within the school system might reduce achievement inequality. More intense schooling is also related to lower achievement inequality to the extent that this intensity is homogeneously distributed within the school system, particularly in the form of a more highly qualified teacher workforce.

School Effects, Gender and Socioeconomic Differences in Reading Performance: A Multilevel Analysis

“…For instance, in reality, we might not control and change the SES to improve achievement, but we can change the factors that influence the effect of SES on reading performance. As Montt (2010) writes, "by reducing the strength of the relationship between socioeconomic status and achievement in a school system, the overall distribution of achievement is also equalized" (p. 62). Moreover, Willms (2006) recommends that a mix of interventions will be optimal to achieve both excellence and equity because a combination of factors can jointly maximize these parameters.…”

Opening the Black Box: Prospects for Using International Large-Scale Assessments to Explore Classroom Effects

“…The effect of family socioeconomic status (SES) was related to student achievement in the FIMS, indicating that the strong effect of family background noted in the contemporaneous Coleman Report (1966) was not restricted to the United States. More recent research has verified the continuing importance of family background to achievement in ILSAs (Baker et al, 2002;Woessman, 2004;Chudgar & Luschei, 2009;Montt, 2011). Methodological debates, particularly with respect to measuring SES, have resulted in varying estimates of SES-based inequality.…”

“…Heyneman and Loxley (1983) argue that although school resources do not have a strong effect in wealthier countries, they do mitigate SES gaps in developing countries. Sousa and Armor (2010) also found that school resources could shrink achievement gaps (see also Montt, 2011). However, whether this phenomenon persists -or indeed ever existed -has been called into question using many of the same individual-and school-level ILSA data (Baker et al, 2002;Chudgar & Luschei, 2009;Hanushek & Luque, 2003).…”

“…Strategies that have shown some potential for reducing inequalities include greater pre-school enrollment (Schutz et al, 2008;Causa & Chapuis, 2009) and more instructional time (Ammermuller, 2005). Using student-level data, Montt (2011) suggests that a more equitable distribution of high-quality teachers reduces dispersion in achievement. In related work, Akiba et al (2007), employing nationally aggregated data, found that although high-quality teachers improve mean performance, their equitable distribution does not reduce the gap between high-and low-SES students.…”

“…Defined in a variety of ways (in terms of between or within school, the age at which tracking begins, or the number of available programs), tracking is associated with greater dispersion in student achievement within countries (Hanushek & Woessman, 2005;Dupriez & Dumay, 2006;Huang, 2009;Montt, 2011). There is also evidence that tracking exacerbates the gaps between immigrants and native-born students (Entorf & Lauk, 2006;Alba et al, 2011) and boys and girls (Bedard & Cho, 2010), and that it is related to greater socioeconomic (Causa & Chapuis, 2009) and ethnic (Alegre & Ferrer-Esteban, 2010) segregation.…”