2018
DOI: 10.1080/13803611.2018.1520130
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Inequality in top performance: an examination of cross-country variation in excellence gaps across different levels of parental socioeconomic status

Abstract: This article examines the extent to which parental socioeconomic status (SES) affects the likelihood of a child becoming a topperforming student, offering an international perspective by reporting this relationship in 31 developed countries. The impact of 3 important educational system characteristics (differentiation in terms of early tracking, standardisation, and private schooling) on the relationship between parental SES and top performance was determined. We employed multilevel logistic regression models … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
7
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
4
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 51 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
1
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Thus, it creates an opportunity to decrease the concerns of teachers for classes with both fast learning-and slow learning students (Hanushek and Woessmann, 2006). In other words, it seems easier for student groups with the same abilities to focus on certain learning goals and educational progress in the tracked systems (Jacobs and Wolbers, 2018). However, it is also expressed as an opposing view that tracking leads to systematic disadvantages for lower performing students who are already studying in environments, which do not promote learning sufficiently.…”
Section: Tracking and Equalitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, it creates an opportunity to decrease the concerns of teachers for classes with both fast learning-and slow learning students (Hanushek and Woessmann, 2006). In other words, it seems easier for student groups with the same abilities to focus on certain learning goals and educational progress in the tracked systems (Jacobs and Wolbers, 2018). However, it is also expressed as an opposing view that tracking leads to systematic disadvantages for lower performing students who are already studying in environments, which do not promote learning sufficiently.…”
Section: Tracking and Equalitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…They encompass all manner of gaps in all STEMM fields across age groups, educational levels, and scale levels. The following list illustrates the prevalence, extreme diversity, and complexity of the subject: Kinds of gaps: excellence gap, 16,17 pay gap, 18,19 achievement gap, 20 confidence gap, 21,22 opportunity gap, 23,24 representation gap 25 STEMM‐fields: astronomy, 26,27 biology, 28,29 chemistry, 30,31 engineering, 32,33 geosciences, 34,35 computer science, 36 math, 37,38 medicine, 39,40 pharmacy, 41,42 physics 43,44 Age groups: early childhood, 45 childhood, 46,47 youth and adolescence, 48,49 adulthood 50,51 Educational levels: kindergarten, 52,53 elementary education, 23,54 secondary education, 55,56 higher education, 57,58 vocational education 59,60 Kinds of groups: ethnicity, 48,61 gender and sex, 62,63 immigrants, 64,65 migrants, 66,67 generational, 68,69 sexual orientation and gender identity, 70,71 countries, 72,73 special educational needs and disabilities, 45,71 twice exceptional 74 Scale levels: geography, 75,76 culture, 77,78 institutions and organizations, 79,80 schools, 56,81 groups, 61,82 family 83,84 …”
Section: Inequalities and Equity Gaps In Stemm Talent Developmentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although school tracking cluster students in different high school types according to their academic achievement, considering the effects of the socioeconomic level on academic achievement, disadvantaged students are tracked based on their socioeconomic status if their disadvantages are not compensated (Bölükbafl & Gür, 2020;Cingöz & Gür, 2020;Hanushek & Woessmann, 2006;Suna et al, 2020aSuna et al, , 2020cSuna, Tanberkan & Özer, 2020d). In this way, disadvantaged students cannot participate in high-performing student communities in early school tracking (Burroughs & Plucker, 2014;Jacobs & Wolbers, 2018). Therefore, disadvantaged students often grouped in the same high school types, and consequently, the achievement differences between schools increase (Ammermüller, 2013).…”
Section: The Matthew Effect In Educationmentioning
confidence: 99%