Advertisement

Cross-National Trends in Addressing Socioeconomic Inequality in Education

  • Sylke V. SchnepfEmail author
  • Don A. Klinger
  • Louis Volante
  • John Jerrim
Chapter
Part of the Education Policy & Social Inequality book series (EPSI, volume 4)

Abstract

This chapter takes the results of all previous chapters into account and provides a cross-national evaluation of educational policies designed to reduce socioeconomic inequalities among pupils. By stocktaking on this Volume’s choices for examining socioeconomic inequality and student outcomes, the chapter first reviews the most recent trends of socioeconomic inequality in the nine countries covered. Second, the chapter assesses which national policies appear to have been successful for reducing disadvantaged students’ outcomes, by relating these trends with recent and preceding education policies. In order to cover most of the education policies featured in the single country chapters, this discussion of policies is structured along three dimensions: (a) school autonomy versus centralization; (b) tracking versus comprehensive schooling; and (c) instruction time and curricula. Third, the chapter concludes by addressing existing research caveats and future research directions from a cross-national perspective.

Keywords

Student achievement Socioeconomic status Inequality Comparative analysis Education policies 

References

  1. Alvaredo, F., Chancel, L., Piketty, T., Saez, E., & Zucman, G. (2017). World inequality report 2018. Retrieved from https://wir2018.wid.world/files/download/wir2018-full-report-english.pdf.
  2. Blossfeld, H.-P., Kulic, N., Skopek, J., & Triventi, M. (Eds.). (2017). Childcare, early education and social inequality: An international perspective. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.  https://doi.org/10.4337/9781786432094.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bradbury, B., Corak, M., Waldfogel, J., & Washbrook, L. (2015). Too many children left behind: The U.S. achievement gap in comparative perspective. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  4. Chmielewski, A. K., & Reardon, S. F. (2016). Patterns of cross-national variation in the association between income and academic achievement. AERA Open, 2(3), 1–27.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858416649593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chzhen, Y., Gromada, A., Rees, G., Cuesta, J., & Bruckauf, Z. (2018). An unfair start: Inequality in children’s education in rich countries (Innocenti Report Card 15). Florence, Italy: UNICEF Office of Research. Retrieved from https://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/995-an-unfair-start-education-inequality-children.html.
  6. Clark, D. (2005). Politics, markets and schools: Quasi-experimental evidence on the impact of autonomy and competition from a truly revolutionary UK reform. Unpublished manuscript, Center for Labor Economics, University of California, Berkeley, CA. Retrieved from http://matthieuchemin-research.mcgill.ca/ECON742/paper/clark.pdf.
  7. Contini, D., & Cugnata, F. (2018). How do institutions affect learning inequalities? Revisiting differences-in-differences models with international assessments. Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis working paper. Retrieved from https://ideas.repec.org/p/uto/dipeco/201817.html.
  8. Contini, D., & Scagni, A. (2011). Inequality of opportunity in secondary school enrolment in Italy, Germany and the Netherlands. Quality & Quantity, 45(2), 441–464.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-009-9307-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cordero, J., Cristóbal, V., & Santin, D. (2017). Causal inference on education policies: A survey of empirical studies using PISA, TIMSS and PIRLS. Journal of Economic Surveys, 32(3), 878–915.  https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Crato, N., & Paruolo, P. (Eds.). (2019). Data-driven policy impact evaluation: How Access to microdata is transforming policy design. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78461-8_1.Google Scholar
  11. De Gregorio, J. D., & Lee, J.-W. (2003). Education and income inequality: New evidence from cross-country data. Review of Income and Wealth, 48(3), 295–416.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-4991.00060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Witte, K., Smet, M., & Van Assche, R. (2017). The impact of additional funds for schools with disadvantaged pupils (SONO research paper 2017.OL3.1/3). Retrieved from http://steunpuntsono.be/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/SONO_2017.OL3_.1_3_vrijgegeven.pdf.
  13. European Union. (2009, May 28). Council conclusions of 12 May 2009 on a strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training (‘ET 2020’). Official Journal of the European Union, 52, C 119.  https://doi.org/10.3000/17252423.c_2009.119.eng.
  14. Han, S. W. (2018). School-based teacher hiring and achievement inequality: A comparative perspective. International Journal of Educational Development, 61, 82–91.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2017.12.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hanushek, E. A., Link, S., & Woessmann, L. (2013). Does school autonomy make sense everywhere? Panel estimates from PISA. Journal of Development Economics, 104, 212–232.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2012.08.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hanushek, E. A., & Woessmann, L. (2006). Does educational tracking affect performance and inequality? Differences-in-differences evidence across countries. The Economic Journal, 116(510), C63–C76.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2006.01076.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Heckman, J. (2006). Skill formation and the economics of investing in disadvantaged children. Science, 312(5782), 1900–1902.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1128898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Horn, D. (2009). Age of selection counts: A cross-country analysis of educational institutions. Educational Research and Evaluation, 15(4), 343–366.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13803610903087011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jackson, M. (Ed.). (2013). Determined to succeed? Performance versus choice in educational attainment. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Jenkins, S. P., Micklewright, J., & Schnepf, S. V. (2008). Social segregation in secondary schools: How does England compare with other countries? Oxford Review of Education, 34(1), 21–37.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03054980701542039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jürges, H., Schneider, K., & Büchel, F. (2010). The effect of central exit examinations on student achievement: Quasi-experimental evidence from TIMSS Germany. Journal of the European Economic Association, 3(5), 1134–1155.  https://doi.org/10.1162/1542476054729400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kerr, S. P., Pekkarinen, T., & Uusitalo, R. (2013). School tracking and development of cognitive skills. Journal of Labor Economics, 31(3), 577–602.  https://doi.org/10.1086/669493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Klinger, D. A., DeLuca, C., & Miller, T. (2008). The evolving culture of large-scale assessments in Canadian education. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 76. Retrieved from https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/cjeap/article/view/42757.
  24. Meghir, C., & Palme, M. (2005). Education reform, ability and family background. American Economic Review, 95(1), 414–424.  https://doi.org/10.1257/0002828053828671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2012, May). Growing income inequality in OECD countries: What drives it and how can policy tackle it? (OECD Forum on Tackling Inequality). Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/els/socialpoliciesanddata/47723414.pdf.
  26. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2016a). PISA 2015 results (vol. 1): Excellence and equity in education. Paris, France: OECD Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264266490-en.
  27. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2016b). Enrolment in childcare and pre-school. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/els/soc/PF3_2_Enrolment_childcare_preschool.pdf.
  28. Rochex, J.-Y. (2012). General conclusion: Priority education policies in Europe, from one “ageˮ and one country to another. In M. Demeuse, D. Frandji, D. Greger, & J-Y. Rochex (Eds.), Educational policies and inequalities in Europe (pp. 288–319). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  29. Rodriguez-Pose, A. (2018). The revenge of the places that don’t matter (and what to do about it). Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 11(1), 1752–1378.  https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsx024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schnepf, S. V. (2002). A sorting hat that fails? The transition from primary and secondary school in Germany (Innocenti Working Papers No. 92). Retrieved from https://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/341-a-sorting-hat-that-fails-the-transition-from-primary-to-secondary-school-in-germany.html.
  31. Woessmann, L. (2018). Central exit exams improve student outcomes. IZA World of Labor, 419.  https://doi.org/10.15185/izawol.419.

Copyright information

© European Union, under exclusive licence to Springer Nature, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sylke V. Schnepf
    • 1
    Email author
  • Don A. Klinger
    • 2
  • Louis Volante
    • 3
  • John Jerrim
    • 4
  1. 1.European Commission’s Joint Research CentreIspraItaly
  2. 2.University of WaikatoHamiltonNew Zealand
  3. 3.Brock UniversityHamiltonCanada
  4. 4.Institute of Education, University College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations