Primary and Secondary Effects of Students’ Socioeconomic Background on Educational
Choices in the German Context of Full- and Part-Time Schooling: Evidence from
PIRLS and TIMSS 2011
Abstract
In our paper, we analyze the role of primary and secondary effects of students’ socioeconomic background on educational choices between part- and full-time schooling in German primary education. In contrast to school systems in other countries, German schools traditionally
are part-time schools. A major system reform initiated by results of international comparative
studies aimed at a comprehensive implementation of all-day schools. Enhancing educational
opportunities by extending the school day was seen as one instrument to foster students’
competencies and to reduce educational inequality. Today, students and their parents can
choose between all-day and part-time schooling, therefore, it is important to analyze, to what
extent decisions concerning the students’ participation in all-day school programs are determined by the students’ socioeconomic background. Based on Boudon’s (1974) model of educational opportunities, we distinguish between primary and secondary effects of students’
socioeconomic background.
By using a representative sample of N = 3995 grade 4 primary school students, we performed
systematic comparisons between students attending part-time (53.2%) and full-time schools
(46.8%). Our results can contribute to the current discussion of educational inequality and
provide information on the successfulness of all-day schools in terms of reducing educational
inequality.
Proposal
In our paper, we analyze the role of primary and secondary effects (Boudon, 1974) of students’ socioeconomic background on educational choices between part- and full-time schooling in German primary education.
PISA 2000 (OECD 2001, 2002) revealed two major challenges for the German school system:
First, the academic achievement of German secondary students was below average and
showed an above average heterogeneity between students. Second, across all participating
countries, students from families with a high socioeconomic status tend to be more academically successful than students from less advantageous families. This association was especially strong in the German secondary school system and was even found in primary education
(PIRLS 2001, Mullis, Martin, Gonzalez & Kennedy, 2003; Schwippert, Bos & Lankes, 2003).
These findings lead to far-reaching structural changes of the school system aiming at both,
increasing students’ subject-related competencies, and reducing the observed educational inequality apparent in the association between students’ socioeconomic background and their
educational attainment (KMK 2002). One major approach was to increase learning time and
to enhance students’ opportunities to learn by the implementation of so-called all-day schools.
In contrast to the traditional part-time schooling in the educational system, all-day schools
should have better options to foster students learning by a higher amount of learning time and
by implementing adapted and refined learning environments. As a consequence, students and
their parents can basically choose between all-day and part-time schooling today. Although
the number of schools, which provide extracurricular, all-day programs for their students (e.g.
homework supervision, time and support for individual learning, remedial teaching, projects,
or interdisciplinary courses for special interest groups), more than tripled within the last decade, only 25% of primary school students attend schools offering all-day education, 75% still
attend traditional part-time schools (KMK, 2013).
From the point of view of educational (in-) equity, it is important to analyze, to what extent
students’ participation in all-day school programs is determined by parental social and cultural backgrounds. In that context, results from the nationwide Study on the Development of Allday Schools (StEG) between 2005 and 2009 indicate that students from less privileged backgrounds use the extended educational opportunities offered by all-day schools significantly
less frequently (Steiner, 2011). Complementarily, results provided by PIRLS 2006 (Holtappels et al., 2010) show that all-day school programs seem to have a remedial function: Students with lower reading abilities attended extra-curricular activities more frequently. In both
studies, no information is given on the interplay between students’ competence level and their
social background in order to explain students’ participation in all-day school programs.
The aim of our paper is threefold: First, we analyze the relationship between participation of
primary school students in full- and part-time schools and the students’ socioeconomic and
cultural background between 2006 and 2011. Second, we investigate to what extent the participation in all-day school programs is associated with the students’ competencies in different
domains (reading, science, and mathematics). Third, the interplay between social background
and students’ competencies in terms of primary and secondary effects is analyzed.
Our study is based on Boudon’s (1974) micro-theoretical model of educational opportunities
and transitions. According to this framework, inequality in educational opportunity and attainment stems from two sources, primary and secondary effects of the students’ socioeconomic background. The primary effect of educational inequality emphasizes, that the lower
educational success of students from less privileged family backgrounds can be explained by
actual differences in the students’ competencies. These effects mainly originate from differing
economic, social, cultural, and human resources in those families (Bourdieu, 1977; Coleman,
1988). In addition to such interclass differences in the distribution of academic performance,
secondary effects describe interclass differences in educational choices given at a certain performance level. Accordingly, secondary inequalities are social disparities that emerge among
students of the same ability level when families of different backgrounds make disparate educational choices. Secondary effects can be explained by rational-choice (Breen & Goldthorpe,
1997) or expectancy-value theories (Becker, 2003), according to which individuals from different social backgrounds tend to make different cost-benefit calculations resulting in different educational decisions.
Both mechanisms are particularly useful in explaining educational transition processes – such
as the transitions between primary and secondary schools, although it is plausible that these
processes should also operate in choices between different kinds of school systems (full- and
part-time schooling) within one school type (primary schools). However, no empirical evidence concerning primary and secondary effects in the context of full- and part-time schooling exists so far.
In order to approach this research gap, we present findings from the 2011 Progress in International Reading Literacy (PIRLS – Mullis et al., 2012a) and Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS – Martin et al., 2012; Mullis et al., 2012b). Based on a representative sample of N = 3995 grade 4 primary school students, we performed systematic
comparisons between students attending traditional part-time schools (53.2%) and students
attending full-time schools (46.8%). Our analyses employed a broad range of different indicators of both students’ academic performances (standardized test-scores in mathematics, sci-
ence, and reading) and questionnaire information on parental economic, social, and human
capital.
Preliminary results indicate that the students’ achievement levels significantly differ between
students in full- and part-time schools: Students in part-time schools have higher competence
levels in reading, science and mathematics. However, these differences can be explained by
the students’ individual background characteristics. Further investigations will focus on in
depth analyses of the assumed secondary effects of the students’ social background. Our results can contribute to the current discussion of educational inequality and provide information on the successfulness of all-day schools in terms of reducing educational inequality.
References:
Becker, R. (2003). Educational expansion and persistent inequalities of education. Utilizing subjective expected utility theory to
explain increasing participation rates in upper secondary school in the Federal Republic of Germany. European Sociological Review, 19, 1–24.
Boudon, R. (1974). Education, opportunity, and social inequality: Changing prospects in Western society. New York: Wiley.
Bourdieu, P. (1973). Cultural reproduction and social production. In: R. Brown (Ed.). Knowledge, Education, and Cultural Change:
Papers in the Sociology of Education , 71-112. London: Tavistock Publications.
Breen, R., & Goldthorpe, J. H. (1997). Explaining educational differentials: Towards a formal rational action theory. Rationality and
Society, 9, 275–305.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. In American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95-120.
Holtappels, H. G., Radisch, F., Rollet, W. & Kowoll, M. (2010). Bildungsangebot und Schülerkompetenzen in Ganztagsgrundschulen [Educational Opportunities and Students’ Competencies in All-Day Primary Schools]. In W. Bos, S. Hornberg, K.-H.
Arnold, G. Faust, L. Fried, E.-M. Lankes et al. (Hrsg.), IGLU 2006 - die Grundschule auf der Prüfstand. (S. 165–198).
Münster: Waxmann.
KMK - The Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs of the Länder in the Federal Republic of German (2002). PISA 2000 - Zentrale Handlungsfelder. [PISA 2000 – Major Activities]. Berlin: KMK.
KMK - The Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs of the Länder in the Federal Republic of German (2013). Allgemein bildende Schulen in Ganztagsform in den Ländern in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland: Statistik
2007 bis 2011 [All-Day Schools in Germany: Statistics 2007-2011]. Berlin: KMK.
Martin, M.O., Mullis, I.V.S., Foy, P., & Stanco, G.M. (2012). TIMSS 2011 International Results in Science. Chestnut Hill, MA:
TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Gonzalez, E.J. & Kennedy, A.M. (2003). PIRLS 2001 International Report. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS
& PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Foy, P., & Drucker, K.T. (2012a). PIRLS 2011 International Results in Reading. Chestnut Hill, MA:
TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Foy, P., & Arora, A. (2012b). TIMSS 2011 International Results in Mathematics. Chestnut Hill, MA:
TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
OECD (2001). Knowledge and Skills for Life. First Results of the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA)
2000. Paris: OECD.
OECD (2002). Reading For Change. Performance and Engagement Across Countries. Results from PISA 2000. Paris: OECD.
Schwippert, K., Bos, W. & Lankes, E.-M. (2003). Heterogenität und Chancengerechtigkeit am Ende der Vierten Jahrgangsstufe im
internationalen Vergleich. [Heterogeneity and Educational Equity at the End of Grade 4 in International Comparison.]. In
W. Bos et al. (Eds.) Erste Ergebnisse aus IGLU: Münster: Waxmann.
Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic Status and Academic Achievement: A Meta-Analytic Review of Research. Review of Educational Research, 75 (3), 417-453.
Steiner, C. (2011). Teilnahme am Ganztagsbetrieb. [Partizipation in All-Day School Programms]. In N. Fischer et al., (Eds.)
Ganztagsschule: Entwicklung, Qualität, Wirkungen. [All-Day Schools: Development, Quality, and Effects]. Weinheim:
Juventa.