Educational achievement disparities between second-generation and non-immigrant students: Do school characteristics account for tracking effects?

Abstract

The present article investigates the relationship between the degree of tracking and inequalities in reading literacy of second-generation and non-immigrant students in 28 Western countries. The article takes into account that next to between-school tracking, there are also more subtle forms of tracking, such as tracking within schools or classes. By elaborating how the distinct mechanisms of different tracking characteristics generate achievement inequalities, I assume that any negative effects of tracking on second-generation immigrant students’ achievements are primarily driven by differences in the quality of school environments. Data from the Programme for International Student Assessment 2018 are used and multilevel regression analysis with country-fixed effects are applied. The findings reveal that a higher tracking degree is related to substantial disadvantages in reading literacy for immigrant children. Furthermore, a higher immigrant concentration in schools is associated with immigrant inequalities in reading performance as the degree of tracking increases, whereas unequal distributions of teacher and instructional quality were found to generate inequalities in countries with less tracking. Even though the results are only partly in line with the theory of tracking influences on immigrant achievement disadvantages, they suggest that the interplay between institutional tracking and school characteristics are crucial for learning inequalities.

Educational Expectation Gaps Between Second-Generation Immigrant and Ethnic Majority Students in a Comparative Perspective: The Moderating Role of Educational Tracking

“…In Table 1, these tracking characteristics are summarized on the left-hand side. Germany is the most strongly tracked system and Sweden and England are the more weakly tracked ones, with the Netherlands in between (see Pomianowicz (2021) for an empirical validation of the variation of the tracking degree across countries). On the righthand side, the hypotheses are again displayed to provide guidance on how countryspecific results can be interpreted in accordance with the assumptions about the trackingdegree effects.…”

“…Tracking has been linked to channeling effects on students' expectations: In highly tracked countries, educational expectations are found to develop more realistically and match more closely with eventual university attendance (Buchmann and Dalton 2002;Buchmann and Park 2009). For students with an immigrant background specifically, the tracking degree has been linked to the degree of disadvantage that they face compared to ethnic majority students (Van de Werfhorst and Mijs 2010; Van de Werfhorst, van Elsas, and Heath 2014;Pomianowicz 2021). In highly tracked countries, even immigrant students from positively selected immigrant communities perform worse across various educational outcomes compared to similar immigrant students in lowly tracked countries (Van de Werfhorst and Heath 2019).…”

“…The focus on students’ educational expectations is crucial because these reflect external conditions created by the opportunity structure an individual is confronted with (Kerckhoff 1976; Mickelson 1989; Reynolds and Pemberton 2001; Morgan 2007). Expectations also represent a realistic appraisal of future prospects and are therefore seen as being relevant in guiding behavior (Haller 1968; Kerckhoff 1976; Mickelson 1989), which in this context has repercussions for an individual's educational attainment (Hanson 1994; Beal and Crockett 2010) and achievement (Mickelson 1990; D’hondt et al 2016).…”

“…Sources on tracking degree indicators: Bol and Van de Werfhorst (2013);Chmielewski, Dumont, and Trautwein (2013);Chmielewski (2014);Pomianowicz (2021).…”

The interplay between diversity climate and multiculturalism policy: How diversity contexts shape student collective voice

“…Collective voice—students participating, having a say, and being heard in decision‐making—is thus a fundamental component of procedural justice (Tyler, 1989) in schools. This is just as important for students as a group, broadly, as it is specifically for students as members of minoritized groups in the context of culturally diverse schools (e.g., students of immigrant‐origin, who often experience disproportionate disadvantage; Phalet, Deboosere, & Bastiaenssen, 2007; Pomianowicz, 2023). Nevertheless, existing research on student's voice remains in its infancy and has been situated largely at the ‘intrapersonal’ level, reflecting the extent to which students believe they, as individuals, have the power to make a difference in how things are done in schools (Kirk et al, 2016).…”