Cognitive development in Dutch primary education, the impact of individual background and classroom composition

Abstract

A sample of 815 Dutch pupils from 49 classes was followed from age 6 (Dutch Grade 3) through age 11 (Grade 7) to estimate growth trajectories for pupils with different socio-ethnic backgrounds. The results indicate that the disadvantage for spelling already present in Grade 3 increases more strongly for Dutch lowsocioeconomic status (SES) pupils than for low-SES minority pupils. With regard to mathematics, the initial disadvantage of Dutch low-SES pupils hardly changes, whereas the gap is clearly reduced for low-SES minorities. Effects of classroom composition appear to be quite modest, but classes with very high proportions of low-SES minority pupils show a clear disadvantage for both spelling and mathematics at age 6. In subsequent grades, the spelling gap between advantaged and disadvantaged classroom populations disappears completely. For mathematics, the gap is initially reduced to some extent, but at age 11 the disadvantage increases again.

Educational effectiveness research (EER): a state-of-the-art review

“…Indeed, longitudinal studies investigating school composition have demonstrated differential school composition effects on achievement on the first measurement occasion and subsequent learning growth. Most of these studies have found significant school composition effects on achievement on the first measurement occasion and no or considerably smaller school composition effects on learning growth (Belfi et al, 2013;Guldemond & Bosker, 2009;Luyten, Schildkamp, & Folmer, 2009;Verhaeghe et al, 2011).…”

Inequality in language achievement growth? An investigation into the impact of pupil socio‐ethnic background and school socio‐ethnic composition

“…This study adds to the existing research in three ways. First, previous studies on differences in the language growth trajectories of different pupil groups have focused on one language domain only, namely, reading fluency (McCoach et al ., ), spelling (Luyten et al ., ), reading comprehension (Droop & Verhoeven, ), or language achievement generally (Hill & Rowe, ; Guldemond & Bosker, ). The same limitation holds for most research on school composition effects (Driessen, ; Van der Slik et al ., ; Guldemond & Bosker, ).…”

Using growth models to monitor school performance: comparing the effect of the metric and the assessment

“…As noted, the model examining the effect of the metric spans 1998 to 2001, while the model evaluating the impact of the assessment spans 2002-2004. It is important to consider the specification of Equation (1) carefully considering that previous research suggests that student growth in terms of academic achievement does not necessarily follow a linear pattern over time (Guldemond & Bosker, 2009;Luyten, Schildkamp, & Folmer, 2009;Seltzer et al 1994; Van der Werf, Opdenakker, & Kuyper, 2008). Both Luyten et al (2009) and Guldemond and Bosker (2009) demonstrated that student cognitive growth is characterized most appropriately with a nonlinear growth trajectory.…”

“…It is important to consider the specification of Equation (1) carefully considering that previous research suggests that student growth in terms of academic achievement does not necessarily follow a linear pattern over time (Guldemond & Bosker, 2009;Luyten, Schildkamp, & Folmer, 2009;Seltzer et al 1994; Van der Werf, Opdenakker, & Kuyper, 2008). Both Luyten et al (2009) and Guldemond and Bosker (2009) demonstrated that student cognitive growth is characterized most appropriately with a nonlinear growth trajectory. Moreover, Van der Werf et al (2008) showed that, even though student growth trends may be linear on average, the size of the quadratic term can vary significantly between schools; thus, quadratic growth curves could be a better fit for the data for some schools but not for others.…”