Changes in educational inequalities in Poland. Comments on Zbigniew Sawiński’s article “Education reform and inequality: fifteen years of new lower secondary schools in Poland”

• Authors: Sitek Michał
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

In his text published in Edukacja, 141(2), 2017 („Education reform and inequality: fifteen years of new lower secondary schools in Poland”), Zbigniew Sawiński analyses data from the 2000 to 2012 editions of the OECD PISA study and argues that lower secondary school reform has not reduced educational inequalities in Poland. The importance of students’ social origin remained at the same level as before the reform, the impact of social origin on the choice of type of secondary school remained the same, and an increasing differentiation of lower secondary schools did not lead to an increase in educational inequalities. I present methodological arguments and the results of a re-analysis of PISA data, indicating changes in wider educational inequalities. Between 2000 and 2012: (a) the strength of association in the performance of 15-year-olds with the socio-economic status of students’ families did not change, but (b) the variation of results decreased, which was mainly due to the improved performance of the lowest performing students; (c) the differences between students of high and low socio-economic status decreased; (d) the influence of social origin on the choice of the type of upper secondary school decreased. The effects of socio-economic status on upper secondary school choice is largely direct: it is not mediated by the educational achievements of students. The commentary also highlights the complexity of lower secondary school reform, which was not limited to the introduction of such schools. I indicate the role of factors that make it difficult to interpret the results of the reform in causal terms – particularly the role of unobserved variables related to the changes in the learning environments of subsequent cohorts of students.

Keywords

EN

school effectiveness; educational achievement; educational inequalities; school selectio; social origin; educational pathways

• Publisher: Instytut Badań Edukacyjnych
• Journal: Edukacja
• Year: 2017
• Issue: 2(2017)
• Pages: 164–181

Contributors

author

Sitek Michał

• Educational Research Institute

References

• Betts, J. R. (2011). The economics of tracking in education. In E. A. Hanushek, S. Machin and L. Woessmann (eds.), Handbook of the economics of education (vol. 3, pp. 341–381). Amsterdam: North Holland.
• Bol, T., Witschge, J., Van de Werfhorst, H. G. and Dronkers, J. (2014). Curricular tracking and central examinations: counterbalancing the impact of social background on student achievement in 36 countries. Social Forces. DOI: 10.1093/sf/sou003
• Boudon, R. (1974). Education, opportunity and social inequality: changing prospects in Western society. New York–London: Wiley–Interscience.
• Breen, R., Luijkx, R., Müller, W. and Pollak, R. (2009). Nonpersistent inequality in educational attainment: evidence from eight European countries. American Journal of Sociology, 114(5), 1475–1521.
• Cunha, F. and Heckman, J. (2007). The technology of skill formation. Working Paper No w12840. Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic.
• Cunha, F. and Heckman, J. J. (2009). The economics i psychology of inequality and human development. Journal of the European Economic Association, 7(2–3), 320–364.
• Dolata, R., Jasińska, A. and Modzelewski, M. (2012). Wykorzystanie krajowych egzaminów jako instrumentu polityki oświatowej na przykładzie różnicowania się gimnazjów w dużych miastach. Polityka Społeczna, 1(Numer tematyczny), 41–46.
• Dolata, R., Jakubowski, M. and Pokropek, A. (2013). Polska oświata w międzynarodowych badaniach umiejętności uczniów PISA OECD. Wyniki, trendy, kontekst i porównywalność. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.
• Dolata, R., Hawrot, A., Humenny, G., Jasińska, A., Koniewski, M., Majkut, P. and Zółtak, T. (2013). Trafność metody edukacyjnej wartości dodanej dla gimnazjów. Warszawa: Instytut Badań Edukacyjnych.
• Domański, H., Federowicz, M., Pokropek, A., Przybysz, D., Sitek, M., Smulczyk, M. and Żółtak, T. (2016). Ścieżki edukacyjne a umiejętności i pozycja społeczna. Studia Socjologiczne, 220(1), 67–98.
• Ganzeboom, H. B. G. and Treiman, D. (2014). Intergenerational occupational mobility in comparative perspective: explaining cross-national differences and cross-temporal differences and similarities. Paper presented at The Research Committee
• 28 on Social Stratification and Mobility, Budapest.
• Haman, J. (2004). Populacja i próba uczniów w badaniach PISA. In M. Federowicz (ed.), Program międzynarodowej oceny umiejętności uczniów OECD/PISA 2003. Wyniki polskie. Raport z badań. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo IFiS PAN.
• Hanushek, E. A. and Woessmann, L. (2011). The economics of international differences in educational achievement. In E. A. Hanushek, S. Machin and L. Woessmann (eds.), Handbook of the economics of education vol. 3, pp. 89–200). Amsterdam: North Holland.
• Heckman, J. J. and Mosso, S. (2014). The economics of human development and social mobility. Working Paper No. w19925. Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic.
• Herbst, M. and Wojciuk, A. (2014). Przestrzenne nierówności oferty edukacyjnej w zdecentralizowanym systemie oświaty. Przypadek Polski. Edukacja, 126(1), 34–52.
• Herczyński, J. and Sobotka, A. (2017). Organisational models of gymnasium in Poland. Edukacja, 141(2), 5–31.
• Horn, D. (2009). Age of selection counts: a cross-country analysis of educational institutions. Educational Research and Evaluation, 15(4), 343–66.
• Jackson, M., Erikson, R., Goldthorpe, J. H. and Yaish, M. (2007). Primary and secondary effects in class differentials in educational attainment the transition to A-level courses in England and Wales. Acta Sociologica, 50(3), 211–229.
• Jackson, M. (2013). Introduction: how is inequality of educational opportunity generated? The case for primary and secondary effects. In M. Jackson (ed.), Determined to succeed? Performance versus choice in educational attainment (pp. 1–55). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
• Jakubowski, M., Patrinos, H. A., Porta, E. E. and Wiśniewski, J. (2016). The effects of delaying tracking in secondary school: evidence from the 1999 education reform in Poland, Education Economics, 1–16. DOI: 10.1080/09645292.2016.1149548
• Karlson, K. B., Holm, A. and Breen, R. (2012). Comparing regression coefficients between same-sample nested models using logit and probit a new method. Sociological Methodology, 42(1), 286–313.
• Kerckhoff, A. C. (2001). Education and social stratification processes in comparative perspective. Sociology of Education, Extra issue, 3–18.
• Lavrijsen, J. and Nicaise, I. (2015). New empirical evidence on the effect of educational tracking on social inequalities in reading achievement. European Educational Research Journal, 14(3–4), 206–221.
• Mare, R. D. and Winship, C. (1984). The paradox of lessening racial inequality and joblessness among black youth: enrollment, enlistment and employment, 1964–1981. American Sociological Review, 49(1), 39–55.
• Marks, G. N. (2014). Education, Social background and cognitive ability: the decline of the social. Abingdon. Oxon: Routledge.
• Marks, G. N. (2015). Are school SES effects statistical artefacts? Evidence from longitudinal population data. Oxford Review of Education, 41(1), 122–144.
• Mood, C. (2010). Logistic regression: why we cannot do what we think we can do and what we can do about it. European Sociological Review, 26(1), 67–82.
• Pokropek, A., Borgonovi, F. and Jakubowski, M. (2015). Socio-economic disparities in academic achievement: a comparative analysis of mechanisms and pathways. Learning and Individual Differences, 42, 10–18.
• OECD (2013). PISA 2012 results: excellence through equity: giving every student the chance to succeed (vol. II). Paris: OECD Publishing.
• Rajchert, J. M., Żółtak, T. and Smulczyk, M. (2014). Erratum to Predicting reading literacy and its improvement in the Polish national extension of the PISA study: the role of intelligence, trait-and state-anxiety, socio-economic status and school-type. Learning and Individual Differences, 33, 1–11.
• Raudenbush, S. W. and Eschmann, R. D. (2015). Does schooling increase or reduce social inequality? Annual Review of Sociology, 41, 443–470.
• Sawiński, Z. (2017). Education reform and inequality: fifteen years of new lower secondary schools in Poland. Edukacja, 141(2), 146–163.
• Shavit, Y. and Muller, W. (1998). From school to work. A comparative study of educational qualifications and occupational destinations. Oxford: Oxford University Press
• Snijders, T. A. B. and Bosker, R. J. (2012). Multilevel analysis: an introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modelling (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
• UNICEF (2016). Fairness for children. A league table of inequality in child well-being in rich countries. Innocenti Report Card 13. Florence: UNICEF Office of Research.
• Rabe-Hesketh, S. and Skrondal, A. (2012). Multilevel and longitudinal modeling using Stata. STATA press (3rd ed., vol. I). College Station: Stata Press.
• Van de Werfhorst, H. G. and Mijs, J. J. (2010). Achievement inequality and the institutional structure of educational systems: a comparative perspective. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 407–428.
• Willms, J. D. (2003). Ten hypotheses about socioeconomic gradients and community differences in children’s developmental outcomes. Final report. Ottawa: Human Resources Development Canada.

Notes

http://www.edukacja.ibe.edu.pl/images/numery/2017/2-10-sitek-changes-in-educational-inequalities.pdf

Identifiers

DOI

10.24131/3724.170210