1. Secondary school recommendations, social class and teacher agency in the Netherlands Leanne Broekman Oberon, research institute for education Daniela Grunow University of Amsterdam

2. Introduction Study focuses on: Inequalities at the transition from primary to secondary school in the Netherlands Particular contribution of teachers to the creation of this inequality

3. Outline 1.Primary and secondary disparities 2.Applicability to the Dutch educational system 3.Introduction of a teacher-centered model 4.Hypotheses 5.Data & Method 6.Results 7.Conclusion and discussion

4. Educational inequality: Boudon (1974) distinguishes two types of effects: Primary effects: - as reflected in demonstrated cognitive ability Secondary effects: - educational transition points (for instance primary to secondary school, high school to college)

5. Explaining secondary effects: In general, secondary effects are explained by margin of choices for parents and students. (Boudon, 1974; Breen & Goldthorpe, 1996; Jackson et.al.2007). Underlying Assumption: Parents and students make choices relatively independently However, in the Dutch transition from primary to secondary school we find: - Professional interference of the primary school teacher - Secondary school recommendation as an important means of selection, in addition to test scores.

6. Transitions in the Dutch educational system Source:http://www.openeducation.net/2008/05/12/dutch-secondary-school-options-a-model-for-the-us Vmbo: two sublevels -Vmbo-b/k: Lower vocational -Vmbo-t: Intermediate vocational Havo= pre-professional Vwo= pre-university Selection criteria: -Test scores (standardized test, Cito) -Teacher recommendations

7. Teacher recommendations and secondary effects Teacher recommendations reflect a bias towards social class. (Mulder et. al 2007; Luyten & Bosker, 2004, Driessen & Doesborgh, 2005; CBS, 2008). Consequences for studying secondary disparities Twofold effect Theoretical void regarding the role of teachers in the creation of secondary class effects.

8. Teachers and the creation of secondary disparities: a model 4 key propositions: 1.Teachers have a margin of choice regarding the secondary school recommendations they give. (Jackson et. 2007) 2.Recommendations reflect the teachers estimation of future educational success. 3.Teachers include both cognitive and non-cognitive characteristics (such as dispositional factors) as resources that promote educational success. (Driessen, 2005). 4.The cognitive ability being equal, teachers assess students from low SES backgrounds lower on dispositional factors.(Maier Jæger, 2008; Dumais, 2006; Jungbluth, 1985; Lareau, 1987). -> Differentials in recommendations can be explained by the lower ratings on dispositional factors.

9. Hypotheses 1.When performing equally on cognitive ability tests, students from low socio-economic backgrounds receive lower recommendations than peer students from high socio-economic backgrounds. 2.The discrepancy between cognitive ability and teacher recommendations can be explained by the less favorable teacher evaluations of lower class students. 3.Teacher recommendations to a large extent determine students educational position in the first year of secondary school.

10. Data Data set: Sample of 6349 Dutch 8 th grade students who were about to make the transition to secondary school. Cool 5-18 (2009) Includes: Students cognitive ability (Cito test scores, additional language & math test scores) Students secondary school recommendation Students social class position (parental educational level, parental ethnicity) Teacher assessment of Parental educational involvement and family stability Students personality characteristics (Five Factor Personality Inventory, Hendriks, 1997), Student behavior and performance (Jungbluth, Roeleveld & Roede, 2001) Teacher-student relationship (Koomen, Verschueren & Pianta, 2007). Students self-evaluation of motivation: ( Inventory of School Motivation (ISM) by Ali & McInerny (2004) Patterns of Adaptive Learning Survey (PALS) (Midgley et al 2000) (Seegers, Van Putten & De Brabander (2002)

11. Method Multinomial logistic regression: Prediction of the probability to be recommended to: a lower vocational track (Vmbo-b/k), an intermediate vocational track (vmbo-t), a preperatory professional track (havo) or or a pre-university track (vwo)

12. Results (1) Recommendations and social class Lower vocational (vmbo-b/k) Intermediate Vocational (vmbo-t) Pre- Professional (havo) SES 1 Low-educated ethnic minority15,33***6,26***2,63*** Low-educated Dutch16,87***5,90***2,84*** Middle-educated ethnic minority6,59***2,87***2,64*** Middle-educated Dutch4,63***2,96***1,91*** High-educated ethnic minority3,93***2,88***2,36*** 1 High-educated Dutch parental background= reference category *= p<.05, **=p<.01, ***=p<.001. N= 6349 VWO (pre-university track)= reference category

13. Results (2): Secondary effects on recommendations Lower vocational (vmbo-b/k) Intermediate Vocational (vmbo-t) Pre- Professional (havo) SES 1 Low-educated ethnic minority 2,288*1,4841,088 Low-educated Dutch 8,428***3,464***1,702** Middle-educated ethnic minority 1,9851,0271,366 Middle-educated Dutch 3,436***2,143***1,457** High-educated ethnic minority 1,8151,4741,451 CognitiveCito test score,000***,001***,024***. 1 High-educated Dutch parental background= reference category. *= p<.05, **=p<.01, ***=p<.001. N= 4800 VWO (pre-university track)= reference category

14. Results (3): secondary effects, including teacher assessments of students Lower vocational Intermediate vocational Pre- professional SES 1 Low-educated ethnic minority 3,165**1,7361,086 Low-educated Dutch 7,580***3,308***1,810** Middle-educated ethnic minority 2,887**1,2011,553 Middle-educated Dutch 3,362***1,893***1,486** High-educated ethnic minority 2,0741,2701,538 CognitiveCito test score,000 ***,001 ***,024 *** Family backgroundFamily stability,857,883,906 Parental involvement,807,878,894 Divorced (0=non-divorced) 1,3311,2401,351 Student PersonalityIntrovercy,914,961,902 Tolerance,8961,008,969 Emotionality,984,930,925 Orderliness,702 **,842,898 Autonomy,605***,672***,855* Behavior and PerformanceUnderperformance,8891,0011,191* Behavior 1,390 1,0721,216 Diligence,578**,668**,951 popularity,903,917,959 Teacher-student relationshipDependence 1,328*1,2201,143 Conflict 1,2561,2081,929 Closeness 1,1831,196,929 Motivation (self-evaluation)Self-efficacy,382***,623**,754* Task Motivation,833,9921,409 * Mastery 1,079,9921,409** Performance,659**,730*,871 Extrinsic 1,476**1,387**1,268** Social 1,2921,122,897 VWO (pre-university track)= reference category. 1 High educated Dutch parental background= reference category. = p<.1 *= p<.05, **=p<.01, ***=p<.001. N= 4127

15. Conclusion Student cognitive ability cannot fully explain the educational differentials in teacher recommendations. Teachers assessments of students dispositional characteristics exert an independent influence on recommendations of students. ->However, these assessments only partially explain for the disparities in recommendations

16. Discussion Implication of findings Twofold effect of social class on secondary school attendance Future research: - Estimate teacher effect and parental choice effect on educational position in year 1. - Conduct interaction analyses to study compensating effects.