1. Divorce and educational outcomes for children Sara Le Roy Sofie Vanassche An Katrien Sodermans Koen Matthijs Family and population Centre for Sociological research K.U.Leuven

2. Introduction In knowledge society, education is considered as main mechanism for allocation of life chances. Level of education: indicator of social (in)equality. Social inequality on three life domains (Bourdieu, 1984): financial, social and cultural capital. These three related to each other. Through divorce: reduction in social and financial resources  Implications for cultural resources or school performances: reduced parental involvement in school life, less help with homework, lower expectations, less educational enrichment in home environment, move to another neighbourhood, other school, …

3. Explanation: Structure or process? 1. Structure approach: Divorce = loss of resources in the family by ‘departure’ of parent. New partner for parents:  compensating effect 2. Process approach Divorce = more than a painfull loss. = process with a lot of factors; the former conflict, the continuing conflict after divorce, the adjustment of the parents and the children, … New partner for parents:  more stress and conflicts, parents have to divide their attention between children and the new partner so children can feel abandoned. This affects their general wellbeing and therefore can have a negative influence on their school performances.

4. Hypotheses Hypothesis 1: Due to the divorce of their parents, children in dissolved families perform lower in school compared to children in intact families. Hypothesis 2: There is an effect of the family type (depending on the arrival of a new partner) after divorce.  From structure approach: children in new constitited families perform better in school (due to compensating effect)  From process approach: children in one-parent families perform better in school.

5. Data and sample Divorce in Flanders dataset (19/07/10) 803 resident children (still living with parent(s)) 232 (29%) children from intact families and 571 (71%) from dissolved families 428 (53%) boys and 375 (47%) girls 609 (76%) still in school - 194 (14%) in primary school - 377 (62%) in secondary school - 148 (24%) in higher education

6. Structure Flemish school system 2nd & 3rd grade Secondary School (14-18) General 2nd + 3rd grade Secondary school (14-18) Art 2nd + 3rd grade Secondary school (14-18) Technical 2nd + 3rd grade Secondary school (14-18) Vocational Special Education 1st grade Secondary school (12-14) A & B Primary school (6-12) Nursery school (2,5-6) 7th year (optional) HIGHER EDUCATION PhD Advanced Master Master Advanced Bachelor Bachelor (ac) Bachelor (prof) WORK

7. Consequences  Cascade careers: Expectation to aim a high level (General Education), because of possibility to re-orientate to another type of education. Given rigidity of system: re-orientation = descend  Once changed very difficult to ‘climb up’ again. = salmon principle Vocational education as ‘endpoint’ in cascade career, Technical(/Art) as go-in-betweens

8. Consequences When students not allowed to move on to next year because of lack on performance, two options: Student repeats year in same/other study option BUT in same type (level is retained). Student moves on to the next year BUT in another (lower) type of education (descend in level).  students that don’t want to repeat a year, can choose for second option. = 2 different ways of dealing with study problems with very different consequences ! !

9. Variables Dependent variables (outcome variables) 1. School career in secondary education, measured by: –Repeating a grade in secondary school –Education type at start and end of secondary school –Descend to a lower type –Combination of repeating a grade and descending to lower type 2. Achieved level of education at end of school career (higher education included) Divided into three categories -Low: diploma lower secondary education -Medium: diploma higher secondary education -High: diploma higher education

10. Variables Independent variables: Family type:  Intact family: parents married  Dissolved family: parents divorced  New constituted family : at least 1 residential stepparent  One-parent family: no residential stepparent

11. Control variables Given the fact that the education of the parents is a good indicator for the school performances of the children, it is important to first have a look at these differences in the different types of family. This variable will be used as control variable in further analyses. Table 1: Distribution (%) of the educational level of mother and father according to family type FATHER Intact family (N=231) One-parent family (N=225) New constituted family (N=283) Low132726 Medium424047 High453327 MOTHER Intact family (N=232) One-parent family (N=228) New constituted family (N=286) Low112317 Medium384045 High513738

12. Results 1. SCHOOL CAREER 1.1 Repeating a grade in secondary school Association remains after controlling for education of the parents. +- 1/3 of all ‘repeaters’ has to repeat a grade for a 2nd time: 90% of them from dissolved families. Number of children that repeated a grade highest in one parent families. Table 2: Distribution (%) of repeating a year in secondary school Intact familyDissolved familyTotal Boys 10 (N=77) 19 (N=194) 16 (N=271) Girls 6 (N=82) 13 (N=172) 11 (N=254) Total 8 (N=159) 16 (N=366) 14 (N=525)

13. Results 1.2 Education type at the start of secondary school Table 3: Distribution (%) of the education at the start of secondary school BOYS X²=2,358 p=0,308 Intact family (N=77) Dissolved family (N=194) General education7164 Technical education2629 Vocational education37 GIRLS X²=3,079 p=0,214 Intact family (N=82) Dissolved family (N=172) General education8074 Technical education1920 Vocational education16

14. Results 1.3 Descend to a lower type After controling for educational level parents, association holds. Especially children in new constituted families have the highest chance to descend. Table 4: Distribution (%) of descend to lower education type Intact familyDissolved family BOYS (X²= 5,300, p=0,021) 22 (N=77) 37 (N=194) GIRLS (X²=3,026, p=0,082) 22 (N=82) 33 (N=172)

15. Results 1.4 Education type at end of secondary school Table 5 : Distribution (%) of education type at the end of secondary education by family type Intact family (N=96) One parent family (N=115) New constituted family (N=101) General education 473733 Technical education 322937 Vocational education 183024 Art education 111 Special education 236

16. Results 1.5 Combination repeating a grade and descending to lower level Table 7: Distribution (%) of problems during secondary education Intact family (N=207) One parent family (N=210) New constituted family (N=247) Never repeated a grade and never descended 676151 Ever repeated a grade but never descended 735 Never repeated a grade but ever descended 211729 Ever repeated a grade and ever descended 51915

17. Results 2. Achieved level of education at end of school career This group not very representative. After controling for educational level of parents, kids from dissolved families are underrepresented in group with high education. Difference largest for children in new constituted families. Table 9: Distribution (%) of the educational attainment for boys and girls together X²= 11, 307 p = 0, 004 Intact family (N=48) Dissolved family (N=146) Low825 Medium4652 High4623

18. Conclusion Hypothesis 1: In general: children from dissolved families seem to show more elements of a cascade career. Obvious differences regarding level of education for children who ended school: children from dissolved families are lower educated (especially children from new constituted families). Even after controlling for the level of education of parents, ‘educational’ differences seem to remain.

19. Conclusion Hypothesis 2: Differentiation of strategies to deal with study problems in secondary school. –Children from one parent families more often repeat a grade (and retain the level). –Children from new constituted families more often change to another type which explains why these children finally achieve a lower education level. As a result: arrival of a new partner doesn’t seem to have a compensating effect for school performances.  Process approach

20. Limitations  Timing of divorce in school career not taken into consideration.  Family classification is ‘snapshot’: Children currently in new constituted families, formerly lived in one-parent families.  No statements about causality.  Only control for educational level of parents: more factors have influence!  Only preliminary analyses.

21. Discussion Evidence for lower cultural capital for children in dissolved families.  Negative implications on different ‘life’ domains (job, health, housing, …). New developments in private environment (divorce, remarriage, post-marital cohabitation, steprelations) can be considered as an engine of new social inequalities. What can be the role of the education sector (schools, policy-makers, … ) in this?  ‘signaling’ function, structural changes, … ?

22. Discussion Future research plans:  Dealing with limitations of these analyses: - Timing divorce & study problems (event history analysis). - Take into consideration the age of the child at the time of the divorce. - Typology family trajectories and duration of being in a specific family type. - Multivariate analyses. - Other control variables: financial situation, parental involvement, relationship (step)parent-child, social network child, amount of conflict before and after divorce, gender (step)parent/child, … - …

23. OTHER SUGGESTIONS ARE MORE THAN WELCOME! Thank you for your attention Sara.Leroy@soc.kuleuven.be