14. Communities, Families and Schooling in Educational Research
Paper
Exposure Private School Myths - Parents Perceptions and Evidence from Research and Statistics
Tanja Mayer, Thomas Koinzer, Judith Schwarz, Nicky Zunker
Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Germany
Presenting Author: Mayer, Tanja
Investigating educational inequalities and reveal their underlying origins is crucial, because educational inequalities can be responsible for social inequalities. Comparative studies like PISA show that the extent of educational inequalities varies significantly across countries. Schlicht et al. (2010) use the PISA data from 2006 to show that inequality is unlike distributed in Europe. Furthermore, they conclude that various mechanisms for that inequality interfere with each other.
One important factor that can reinforce or even create educational inequalities is parental school choice. However, especially the choice of private schools seems to be of vital importance in modeling inequalities. More opportunities for school choice and the rise of private schools follow an increasing marketization on the educational level characterized by more competition between schools, a growing number of school profiles, and more choice options for parents (Heinrich et al. 2011). Factors such as sponsorship of the school (private/state) shape attitudes and tend to reinforce educational inequalities through school choice (Parade & Heinzel 2020).
A central role within the school choice process is played by parents, who make decisions for or against a school, based on the information available to them. Schwarz et al. (2017) show that parents primarily rely on recommendations from acquaintances, information from school homepages, and school visits when choosing an elementary school. In addition, other information and experiences shape parental school choice decisions, such as their own school biographies (Mayer 2019) or images about the school system disseminated by the mass media (Fields 2006).
However, it remains still unclear what conclusions parents draw from this information and what attitudes parents have or what perceptions they have about state and private schools. In many countries, the private school rate is increasing (West & Nikolai 2016), which indicates a particularly positive perception and also a demand of private schools in general. But there are no findings so far on how much and what exactly is valued so positively about private schools by the parents. Moreover, it is not clear to what extent these parental assessments correspond to the reliable findings and whether parents judge their school choice decision on valid information at all. According to the market logic of school choice, detailed and valid information should be available to all stakeholders if the positive effects of school competition are to be achieved, e. g. high academic performance (Bellmann 2008, Le Grand & Barlett 1993). So far, it can rather be assumed that objective or factual sources of information are not used, because sources such as official statistics or information from school boards are rarely consulted (Schwarz et al. 2017). Instead, parents ground their decision primarily on personal recommendations (Lareau 2014).
Due to the fact that specific factors for the different country-related regulations and mechanisms are hard to compare, this article highlights one aspect of the generation of educational inequalities (school choice and especially parental assumptions about private schools) and discusses it on the example of one specific country (Germany). Using the example of only one country and its specific conditions that apply, we will show what kind of assumptions and prejudices parents have on the choice of private (vs state) schools and how these phenomena correspond to evidence from research and statistics.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedIf we look at Germany in an EU-wide comparison, the correlation between social background and educational success is relatively high (OECD 2018). It is therefore appropriate to take a closer look at this country in relation to the factors influencing social inequality. Since this article is primarily intended to take a look at the private school system, it is relevant to briefly describe the most important aspects here: In Germany, in the school year 2020/21 about 9.3% of all pupils attend a private school (Destatis 2021). This puts Germany in line with the OECD average (Koinzer et al 2017). But unlike in many other countries, private schools in Germany are guaranteed by the law and supervised by the state. For this reason, and also in order to provide access to this education sector for everyone, the state also finances private schools to a large extent, which means that school fees are quite low in international comparison (Nikolai & Koinzer, 2017). Nevertheless, studies show that private school attendance in Germany is strongly dependent on the social background of families (Görlitz et al. 2018; Helbig et al. 2017).
To answer the research questions, data from the CHOICE project are used, in which parents (N=1296) were asked about their school choice decision in the context of their child's enrollment in school. Among other questions, parents were asked the open-ended question, "what is the first thing that comes to mind when you think of state schools?" or the same question analogously for private schools. Parents' open-ended responses (multiple responses possible, N=2488 for state schools or N=2552 for private schools) were then categorized both in terms of their valuation (positive/negative/neutral) and their content. The coding of the open responses was done independently by two researchers for the entire data material. Subsequently, all ambiguous codings were discussed in a coding conference and assigned to a category. The final category system consists of nine main with several sub categories.
The data is then analysed descriptively to see how parents’ value private and state schools. In addition, the parental associations are ranked on the basis of the category system. The most frequent mentions are then compared with official data and research results.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsFirst descriptive results show that negative associations are mentioned significantly more often for state schools than private ones (70.6% vs. 29.4%). At the same time, significantly more positive evaluations are directed towards private schools (82.8% vs. 17.2%).
In terms of the content analysis parents associate high tuition fees (N=298), small class sizes (N=298), and good individual care (N=195) with private schools. In comparison, parents most frequently link state schools with large classes (N=238), poor building condition (N=93), and poor teacher-to-student ratios (N=188). In the next step, these and other parental statements are compared with data from official statistics and the corresponding scientific research.
Using the example of "small classes at private schools" it can be shown with data from official statistics (Destatis 2021) that class sizes at private schools are indeed lower than at state schools. Even if the parental perception is correct, it can be assumed that parents clearly overestimate the differences in class size because the difference is just one. With a difference of only one pupil, the variance between any schools or even class is greater than between private and state schools.
Finally, we discuss what it means if parental perception subsequently influences choice decisions and further reinforces inequalities. We want to determine what effects can be achieved by exposing private school myths. In conclusion, we will discuss the question of how parental school choice processes and decisions should be framed by researchers and education administrators. At the end we want to debate (also with the audience) how the situation is in other countries and to what extent the results from Germany are transferable: Are the local findings also global ones and is the internationally noticeable increase in private schools in other countries also (partly) due to parental misperceptions?
ReferencesBellmann, J. (2008). Choice Policies – Selektion, Segregation und Distinktion im Rahmen von Bildungsmärkten. In: Ullrich, H. & Strunck, S. (Eds.), Begabtenförderung an Gymnasien (pp. 249-270). Wiesbaden: Springer Verlag.
Destatis - Statistisches Bundesamt (2021). Private Schulen - Fachserie 11 Reihe 1.1 - Schuljahr 2020/2021. https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Gesellschaft-Umwelt/Bildung-Forschung-Kultur/Schulen/Publikationen/Downloads-Schulen/private-schulen-2110110217005.xlsx;jsessionid=2645124D2A6393881A6F555809D5103E.live742?__blob=publicationFile
Fields, B. (2006). School discipline coverage in Australian newspapers: impact on public perceptions, educational decisions and policy. Australian Association for Research in Education https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/11039769.pdf
Görlitz, K., Spieß, C. K. & Ziege, E. (2018). Fast jedes zehnte Kind geht auf eine Privatschule. DIW Wochenbericht 51+52: 1104-1111.
Helbig, M., Nikolai, R. & Wrase, M. (2017). Privatschulen und soziale Frage. Wirkung rechtlicher Vorgaben zum Sonderungsverbot in den Bundesländern. Leviathan: Zeitschrift für Sozialwissenschaft 45: 357-380.
Heinrich, M., Altrichter, H. & Soukup-Altrichter, K. (2011). Neue Ungleichheiten durch Schulprofilierung? Autonomie, Wettbewerb und Selektion in profilorientierten Schulentwicklungsprozessen. In Dietrich, F., Heinrich, M. & Thieme, N. (Eds.), Neue Steuerung - alte Ungleichheiten? (pp. 271–289). Münster: Waxmann.
Koinzer, T., Nikolai, R. & Waldow, F. (2017). Private Schooling and School Choice
as Global Phenomena: An Introduction. In: Koinzer, T., Nicolai, R. & Waldow, F. (Eds.), Private Schools and School Choice in Compulsory Education (pp. 1-6). Wiesbaden: Springer Verlag.
Lareau, A. (2014). Schools, housing, and the reproduction of inequality. In A. Lareau & K. Goyette (Eds.), Choosing homes, choosing schools (pp. 169-206). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Le Grand, J. & Barlett, W. (1993). Quasi-Markets and Social Policy. London: Macmillan
Mayer, T. (2019). 'Und dann geht natürlich nur der Weg zur Privatschule' – Individuelle Schulwahlprozesse und Einzelschulwahl an privaten Grundschulen. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 22 (2), 389-410.
OECD (2018). Country Note - Equity in Education: Breaking Down Barriers to Social Mobility – Germany. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/Equity-in-Education-country-note-Germany.pdf
Parade, R. & Heinzel, F. (2020). Sozialräumliche Segregation und Bildungsungleichheiten in der Grundschule – eine Bestandsaufnahme. Zeitschrift für Grundschulforschung 13, 193-207.
Schlicht, R., Stadelmann-Steffen, I. & Freitag, M. (2010). Educational Inequality in the EU. European Union Politics, 11 (1): 29–59.
Schwarz, J., Habeck, C., Gruehn, S. & Koinzer, T. (2017). School Choice in German Primary Schools. In: Koinzer, T., Nicolai, R. & Waldow, F. (Eds.), Private Schools and School Choice in Compulsory Education (pp. 177-199). Wiesbaden: Springer Verlag.
West, A. & Nikolai, R. (2016). The Expansion of “Private” Schools in England, Sweden and Eastern Germany: A Comparative Perspective on Policy Development, Regulation, Policy Goals and Ideas. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice 19, 5. 452-469.
14. Communities, Families and Schooling in Educational Research
Paper
Family Diversity and the Transition to School. A qualitative longitudinal Study of socially privileged Families in Switzerland
Doris Edelmann, Kathrin Beeler, Claudia Schletti
Bern University of Teacher Education, Switzerland
Presenting Author: Beeler, Kathrin;
Schletti, Claudia
Social diversity in the 21st century is reflected in the diversity of families, including the social, economic, and societal resources (Bourdieu, 1992) available to them to educate and support their children. Internationally, it is well documented that the family is the earliest and most important educational setting for children and that the resources available play a central role in school success (Edelmann, 2018; Sylva et al., 2010). The family also has an impact on how children manage the transition from home to school and on their further educational pathways (Corsaro, 1996; Grasshoff et al., 2013; OECD, 2017).
Even though the right to equal educational opportunities is enshrined in the Swiss Federal Constitution, family background and educational trajectories are in Switzerland particularly closely linked compared to other European countries. The goal of equal educational opportunities for all children is thus far from being achieved (Edelmann et al., 2019).
In Switzerland, the issue of school entry has received renewed attention in recent years, as children have recently been required to start school at an earlier age. They now enter compulsory schooling at the age of four, which is rather unique in Europe. The first two years are known as kindergarten. After the second year, children move on to primary school. Bringing the starting age forward increases the age and developmental diversity in the classrooms. As a result, social and educational debates have arisen around the assumption that not all children are ready for school (Edelmann & Schletti, 2020; Edelmann et al., 2018).
Contrary to international research (Lareau, 2011; Vincent & Ball, 2006), studies in Switzerland have mainly focused on how less privileged children and their families, often with a migration background, cope with transitions. Empirical findings on how socially privileged Swiss families cope with transitions are largely lacking (Edelmann, 2018; Edelmann et al., 2019). However, we recognise such findings as an important basis for fully understanding and appropriately addressing processes and contexts that generate unequal educational opportunities at the time of school enrolment.
Against this background, the three researchers, responsible for this presentation, have developed a qualitative longitudinal study (Corsaro, 1996; Lareau, 2011; Witzel, 2010), that is financially supported by the Bern University of Teacher Education. Over a period of five years (2019 to 2023), the study examines the experiences and perspectives of five socially privileged Swiss families during two transitions of their first-born children. Data collection began six months before the children started school and continued until after the transition to primary school two years later. The main question of this study is: How do socially privileged Swiss families manage and experience the transition of their first-born child during the first transitions into and within the education system?
In this study, educational pathways are referred to as transitions. This makes it clear that they are complex life events that take place over a longer period and affect not only the child entering school, but also the entire family (Dockett, 2015; Niesel & Griebel, 2013).
The presentation will focus on insights into how socially privileged Swiss families experience and cope with the first two transitions of their first-born children into the education system. It will also show how the family's quality of education stimulation, everyday coping and attitudes changed in the context of the two transitions. The longitudinal perspective makes it possible to identify changes and continuities over time, thus contributing to a deeper understanding of the family's coping with the transitions. Finally, the findings will be discussed in terms of their relevance for the design of the school entry phase as well as for the training of teachers and education policy.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe empirical study is qualitative and longitudinal (Lareau, 2011; Witzel, 2010). It includes participating observations (Breidenstein et al., 2013) and problem-based interviews (Witzel, 2000). The data were collected in two phases, each lasting several months. They took place at the time of the first transition to school (= kindergarten) and two years later at the time of the second transition to primary school.
An ethnographic approach (Breidenstein et al., 2013; Corsaro, 1996; Lareau, 2011) was chosen to study the family environment, consisting mainly of participating observations in the families. The observations took place at at least four points in time: twice before the children were entering kindergarten or primary school, immediately after entering kindergarten or primary school, and after a few weeks in kindergarten or primary school. The family observations usually lasted three to four hours and were protocolled.
In addition, three qualitative problem-based interviews (Witzel, 2000) with a strong narrative focus were conducted with all parents in both phases of the study, so that individual activities and subjective perceptions could be captured. In particular, the interviews were used to gain insights that could not or could not fully be captured by participating observations.
The first interview took place in spring, the second one just before the child started kindergarten or primary school, and the third in the autumn, after the child had entered kindergarten or primary school. The interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed according to a transcription guide developed by the research team. Data analysis was carried out according to qualitative content analysis with the support of MAXQDA (Edelmann, 2018).
For each family and survey phase, at least four observation protocols and three transcribed interviews were available after the research phase. The analysis of this data corpus was closely based on grounded theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1996, 1998). In a first step, the available data per family and per survey phase were analysed using a multi-stage coding procedure. In a second step, the categories identified were compared across cases. From this, key categories relevant to each transition were derived. With the help of these key categories, it was possible to understand both the transition to kindergarten and the transition to primary school in a case-centred and case-comparative way across the five families. In addition, the longitudinal research design made it possible to compare the key categories identified across the two phases of the study.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsIt is clear from the available evidence that all five families can be described as informal educational settings in which social learning and school-like practices take place. The children are also offered a range of extra-curricular activities. It is also evident that parents negotiate social behaviour with their children and talk to them about values and norms.
Interestingly, parents were most concerned about their children's ability to make friends and integrate socially in the classroom during the first transition to kindergarten. The way to school and the length of time spent at school also raised some concerns. It was not until the second transition to primary school that parents started to worry about whether their children will be able to cope with the demands of school.
Despite the assumption, based on the available evidence of this study, that family resources should enable children to cope with the demands of school, individuals still experienced challenges in the transition process. In particular, children's social behaviour was criticised as being too independent. Also, not all children felt comfortable in their kindergarten or school. Similarly, school routines required all families to restructure their daily family routines.
The surveys thus show that transitions are a challenge even for children from socially privileged families. They thus complement the existing evidence on children and families from less socially privileged backgrounds.
Overall, the available evidence provides an important basis for designing the school entry phase. It addresses the question of how to design the school entry phase so that it is truly ready for all children and enables a successful start to school. As it has been empirically proven that successfully mastering the first transition has a positive effect on further transitions, this is to be understood as a ground-breaking goal that requires pedagogical and educational policy action.
ReferencesBourdieu, P. (1992). Die verborgenen Mechanismen der Macht. VSA.
Boyle, T., Grieshaber, S., & Petriwskyj, A. (2018). An integrative review of transitions to school litera-ture. Educational Research Review, 24, 170-180.
Breidenstein, G., Hirschauer, S., Kalthoff, H., & Nieswand, B. (2013). Ethnografie: Die Praxis der Feldforschung. UVK.
Corsaro, W. A. (1996). Transitions in Early Childhood: The Promise of Comparative, Longitudinal Ethnography. In R. Jessor, A. Colby & R. A. Shweder (Ed.), Ethnography and Human Development (419-457). University of Chicago Press.
Dockett, S. (2015). Starting school: A time of transition for families. In M. Urban, M. Schulz, K. Meser & S. Thoms (Ed.), Inklusion und Übergang. Perspektiven der Vernetzung von Kita und Grundschule (51-62). Julius Klinkhardt.
Edelmann, D. (2018). Chancengerechtigkeit und Integration durch frühe (Sprach-)Förderung? Theoretische Reflexionen und empirische Einblicke. Springer.
Edelmann, D., Beeler, K., Krienbühl, M., Schletti, C., & Bertschinger, F. (2019). Der Eintritt in die Schule – eine Chance für alle Kinder: Eine Studie im Auftrag der Jacobs Foundation. [online]. www.phbern.ch/transition
Edelmann, D., & Schletti, C. (2020). Das typische Kindergartenkind aus Sicht der Kindergartenlehrpersonen. In E. Wannack & S. Beeli-Zimmermann (Ed.), Der Kindergarten im Fokus (31-37). hep.
Edelmann, D., Wannack, E., & Schneider, H. (2018). Die Situation auf der Kindergartenstufe im Kanton Zürich. Eine empirische Studie im Auftrag der Bildungsdirektion des Kantons Zürich. [online]. www.phbern.ch/kindergartenstudie
Grasshoff, G., Ulrich, H., Binz, C., Pfaff, A., & Schmenger, S. (2013). Eltern als Akteure im Prozess des Übergangs vom Kindergarten in die Grundschule. Springer.
Lareau, A. (2011). Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life. University of California Press.
Niesel, R., & Griebel, W. (2013). Transitionen in der frühkindlichen Bildungsforschung. In M. Stamm & D. Edelmann (Ed.), Handbuch frühkindliche Bildungsforschung (285-296). Springer.
OECD. (2017). Starting Strong V: Transitions from Early Childhood Education and Care to Primary Education. OECD Publishing.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1996). Grounded Theory: Grundlagen qualitativer Sozialforschung. Beltz.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Sage.
Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Taggart, B. (2010). Early Childhood Matters. Evidence from the Effective Pre-school and Primary Education Project. Routledge.
Vincent, C., & Ball, S. (2006). Childcare, Choice and Class Practices: Middle-Class Parents and their Children. Routledge.
Witzel, A. (2000). Das problemzentrierte Interview, Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research (1).
Witzel, A. (2010). Längsschnittdesign. In G. Mey & K. Mruck (Ed.), Handbuch Qualitative Forschung in der Psychologie (290-303). VS.
14. Communities, Families and Schooling in Educational Research
Paper
Socioeconomic Segregation in German Primary Schools: What role do private schools play?
Lars Hoffmann
IQB, HU Berlin, Germany
Presenting Author: Hoffmann, Lars
Compared to other countries, Germany is considered to have a relatively small private school sector. At the primary level, the vast majority of students attend a public (governmental) school, whereas only four percent of the children are enrolled in a private (non-governmental administered) school (Statistisches Bundesamt, 2021). An important feature of Germany’s private schools is that they receive large public subsidies (Nikolai & Helbig, 2021). They have permission to additionally charge school fees but are legally obliged to stay potentially affordable for every family (Klemm et al., 2018).
Like in many other countries, private school attendance has increased during the last two decades (Nikolai & Koinzer, 2017). This increase is especially steep in East Germany and in urban areas (Koinzer & Mayer, 2015). The expansion of Germany’s private school sector is critically discussed among politicians and researchers. Some authors even argue that the actual school fees are often too high and that the legal precept of social accessibility is violated. According to these authors, private schools selectively attract children from families with a higher socio-economic status (SES) who utilize private schooling as a means of social distinction (Wrase & Helbig, 2016). Consequently, private schools are assumed to be one main driver of socio-economic segregation processes in the German school system (Nikolai & Helbig, 2021).
Indeed, several studies have shown that German private schools are selective with regard to the SES of their students (Klemm et al., 2018). However, to our knowledge, no study has directly addressed the research question of whether and to what extent private schools drive socioeconomic segregation processes in the German school system. The present study investigates this desideratum by analyzing socioeconomic segregation at the primary level, where private schools are often the only school-choice alternative to the public school the students are assigned to by default (Jähnen & Helbig, 2022).
The study is based on data from two large-scale educational studies conducted in 2016 and 2021. For each student, these datasets provide information on the HISEI value (Highest International Socio-Economic Index of Occupational Status) as a well-established measure of the family’s SES. The study reports the results of descriptive analyses on the average HISEI values of public and private primary school students and school-level intraclass coefficients (ICC) for the HISEI values as an indicator for socioeconomic segregation.
Consistent with other studies, the results of our descriptive analyses show that students from private schools have, on average, a higher SES than students from public schools (e. g. MD2021: 8.76 HISEI-points, p = 0.002). For urban areas and in East Germany, this difference is even higher (e. g., city-states: MD2021: 11.48 HISEI-points, p < 0.001; East German States: MD2021: 12.35 HISEI-points, p < 0.001). However, when examining the distribution of the school-level-averaged HISEI values across schools, we found that for public schools, the range of this distribution is exceptionally large and almost totally overlaps the distribution for private schools. In line with this, the estimated ICCs indicate that the socioeconomic segregation within the group of public schools (e. g. 2021: ICCpublic, within = .182) exceeds the segregation between public and private schools (e. g. 2021: ICCpublic/private, between= .081). Taken together, this result pattern suggests that private schools only seem to have a minor effect on the socioeconomic segregation of the whole school system (ICCpublic/private, within= .186). However, divergent results were found for East Germany (but not for the city-states). In this subsample, the estimated ICCs indicate a considerably higher segregational effect of private schools on the school system (e. g. 2021: ICCpublic, within = .120; ICCpublic/private, between = .191; ICCpublic/private, within= .130).
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedOur analyses are based on data from the IQB Trends in Student Achievement 2016 (Stanat et al., 2017) and 2021 (Stanat et al., 2022) – two German-wide, representative large-scale studies that assessed the language and mathematical proficiencies of fourth-grade primary school students. Altogether, both datasets gathered data from 50.456 fourth-grade students from 2669 public and 77 private primary schools. As a particular feature of the study, we investigate the socioeconomic segregation of schools based on a metric variable – the HISEI values of the students. We used the imputed HISEI values provided in both datasets to deal with missing values. In reference to Merlo et al. (2005), we fitted several two-level null models using the lme4-Package (Bates et al, 2014) in the statistical software R to obtain ICCs. In our study, these coefficients represent the degree to which students are clustered within schools according to their SES and hence serve as an indicator of socioeconomic segregation in the German primary school system.
To investigate the effect of private schools on segregation, we first conducted descriptive analyses focusing on the distribution of HISEI values across students and schools. In the second step, we decomposed our segregation indicator following the methodical strategy suggested by Clotfelder (2004). Accordingly, we estimated coefficients for the whole sample (public and private schools, ICCpublic/private, within), as well as separately for public schools (ICCpublic, within) and private schools (ICCpublic, within). In addition, we estimated null models with school type (public vs. private) as cluster variable (ICCpublic, between). To enable inferential statistics, standard errors for each ICC were calculated through bootstrapping.
For the last two decades, official statistics show that the share of private schools has increased, particularly in urban areas and in East Germany (Koinzer & Mayer, 2015). Since this development may have resulted in a school landscape different from other parts of Germany, we additionally calculated ICCs for the subsample of the three city-states of Berlin, Hamburg, and Bremen, as well as for the five East German states.
To check for the robustness of our findings, we conducted our analyses for the 2016 dataset as well as for the 2021 dataset (and found virtually no differences).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsAltothegeter, the present study confirms that German private primary schools are selectively composed with regard to the SES of their students. Furthermore, our results indicate that private schools reinforce social disparities within the German school system. However, the present study also reveals that private schools only play a minor role for the socio-economic segregation in the German primary school system. Instead, our findings indicate that the public primary school sector itself is characterized by vast social inequalities.
Presumably, these inequalities are primarily driven by socioeconomic residential segregation. This term refers to the spatial separation (or uneven distribution) of households within a geographical area by income, education, and occupation (Jähnen & Helbig, 2022), which has largely increased in Germany’s cities within the last decades (Helbig & Jähnen, 2018). This residential segregation directly affects school composition (e. g., schools in socially privileged areas have a far larger share of high-SES students than schools located in socially deprived areas).
In conclusion, the present study suggests that it is short-sighted to restrict discussions on social inequalities and socioeconomic segregation in the German school system to the expanding private school sector. The socioeconomic segregation of the public school sector appears to be a far more significant challenge to educational equity. Innovative and wide-ranging political efforts are needed to address this challenge effectively.
Furthermore, our results indicate that private schools play a different role within the school landscapes of the East German states. Future research should target this finding and analyze in more depth the sources and mechanisms of socioeconomic school segregation in these states.
ReferencesBates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2014). Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models using lme4. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1406.5823
Clotfelter, C. T. (2004). Private Schools, Segregation, and the Southern States. Peabody Journal of Education, 79(2), 74–97. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327930pje7902_6
Helbig, M., & Jähnen, S. (2018). Wie brüchig ist die soziale Architektur unserer Städte? Trends und Analysen der Segregation in 74 deutschen Städten (Discussion Paper P 2018–001). Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB). https://bibliothek.wzb.eu/pdf/2018/p18-001.pdf
Jähnen, S., & Helbig, M. (2022). The dynamics of socio-economic segregation: What role do private schools play? Urban Studies. https://doi.org/10.1177/00420980221119385
Klemm, K., Hoffmann, L., Maaz, K., & Stanat, P. (2018). Privatschulen in Deutschland: Trends und Leistungsvergleiche (1. Auflage). Schriftenreihe des Netzwerk Bildung: Vol. 43. Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung.
Koinzer, T. & Mayer, T. (2015). Private Schulen - Entwicklung und empirische Befunde unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Grundschulwesens. Zeitschrift für Grundschulforschung, 8(2), 28–41.
Merlo, J., Chaix, B., Yang, M., Lynch, J., & Råstam, L. (2005). A brief conceptual tutorial of multilevel analysis in social epidemiology: Linking the statistical concept of clustering to the idea of contextual phenomenon. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 59(6), 443–449. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2004.023473
Nikolai, R., & Helbig, M. (2021). Private Schools as Drivers of Social Segregation: Why Private Schools should be regulated. On Education. Journal for Research and Debate, 4(11: Segregation). https://doi.org/10.17899/on_ed.2021.11.9
Nikolai, R., & Koinzer, T. (2017). Long Tradition, Moderate Distribution, and Growing Importance: Private Schools in Germany as ‘Change Agents’ of School Choice. In T. Koinzer,
R. Nikolai, & F. Waldow (Eds.), Private Schools and School Choice in Compulsory Education (pp. 81–97). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-17104-9_6
Stanat, P., Schipolowski, S., Rjosk, C., Weirich, S. & Haag, N. (2017). IQB-Bildungstrend 2016. Kompetenzen in den Fächern Deutsch und Mathematik am Ende der 4. Jahrgangsstufe im zweiten Ländervergleich. Waxmann Verlag.
Stanat, P., Schipolowski, S., Schneider, R., Sachse, K. A., Weirich, S., & Henschel, S. (Eds.). (2022). IQB-Bildungstrend 2021: Kompetenzen in den Fächern Deutsch und Mathematik am Ende der 4. Jahrgangsstufe im dritten Ländervergleich. Waxmann Verlag. https://doi.org/10.31244/9783830996064
Statistisches Bundesamt. (2021). Fachserie 11, Reihe 1.1 (Private Schulen). Schuljahr 2020/2021. https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Gesellschaft-Umwelt/Bildung-Forschung-Kultur/Schulen/Publikationen/Downloads-Schulen/private-schulen-2110110217005.html
Wrase, M., & Helbig, M. (2016). Das missachtete Verfassungsgebot - Wie das Sonderungsverbot nach Art. 7 IV 3 GG unterlaufen wird. NVwZ - Neue Zeitschrift Für Verwaltungsrecht (35), 1591–1598.
|
