M i e k e V a n H o u t t e , D i m i t r i V a n M a e l e Ghent University, Belgium
SCHOOL IS COOL: THE IMPORTANCE OF FACULTY
TRUST FOR STUDENT’S SOCIAL INTEGRATION IN
TECHNICAL/VOCATIONAL VERSUS ACADEMIC
SCHOOLS
ABSTRACT
Educational systems worldwide apply some form of tracking which stratifi es students ac-cording to their ability. Our study shows that teachers’ perceptions of intergenerational bonding in school diff er according to the track in which the teacher-student relationships take place. Moreover, this mechanism is responsible for the students’ lower sense of belong-ing in technical/vocational schools compared to academic schools. In terms of strengthen-ing students’ connectedness to a technical/vocational school environment, we indicate that strengthening the level of trust in students on behalf of the teachers could be a crucial step that needs to be undertaken.
Key words:
1. Introduction
Worldwide, most secondary schools apply some form of tracking. Th is educa-tional stratifi cation consists of grouping students according to their ability. Since the late 1960s, research has repeatedly demonstrated that students in lower tracks may develop an anti-school culture to overcome the status deprivation resulting from being in a lower track1, generally ending in poor educational achievement. In large-scale quantitative research, this anti-school culture is usually assessed by poor academic attitudes or study disengagement, because anti-school norms dis-engage students from the learning process2. Here, as in the educational literature in general, engagement has been measured primarily by observable behaviors di-rectly related to academic eff ort and achievement, such as trying hard in class; completion of homework; grades; and avoiding school misconduct, such as tru-ancy and distracting behavior in class3. Th e more aff ective component of engage-ment, namely the extent to which students in diff erent tracks feel embedded in or alienated from their school communities, their school attachment, or sense of school belonging, is rarely examined, although academic engagement and attach-ment are related to each other and to achieveattach-ment4. In fact, usually no distinction is made between engagement and attachment5, and studies relating ability group-ing to “students’ social bondgroup-ing to school”6 do not dealing with the non-behavioral, affective component of engagement as such7. An exception is, for example, Smerdon,8 who found that students in general and vocational tracks had lower 1 M. Berends, Educational Stratifi cation and Students’ Social Bonding to School, “British Journal
of Sociology of Education” 1995, No. 16, Vol. 3, pp. 327–351; D.H. Hargreaves, Social Relations in
a Secondary School, London 1967; M. Van Houtte, School Type and Academic Culture: Quantitative Evidence for the Diff erentiation-polarisation Th eory, “Journal of Curriculum Studies” 2006a, No. 38,
Vol. 3, pp. 273–292.
2 M. Berends, op.cit.
3 S. Jimerson, R.E. Campos, J.L. Greif, Toward an Understanding of Defi nitions and Measures of
School Engagement and Related Terms, “Th e California School Psychologist” 2003, No. 8, pp. 7–27; M.K. Johnson, R. Crosnoe, G.H. Elder Jr, Students’ Attachment and Academic Engagement: Th e Role of Race and Ethnicity, “Sociology of Education” 2001, No. 74, Vol. 4, pp. 318–340.
4 Ibidem.
5 M.T. Hallinan, Teacher Infl uences on Students’ Attachment to School, “Sociology of Education”
2008, No. 81, Vol. 3, pp. 271–283; S. Jimerson, R.E. Campos, J.L. Greif, Toward an Understanding…, op.cit.; M.K. Johnson, R. Crosnoe, G.H. Elder Jr, Students’ Attachment…, op.cit.
6 M. Berends, Educational Stratifi cation…, op.cit.
7 S. Jimerson, R.E. Campos, J.L. Greif, Toward an Understanding…, op.cit.; M.K. Johnson,
R. Cros-noe, G.H. Elder Jr, Students’ Attachment…, op.cit.
8 B.A. Smerdon , Students’ Perceptions of Membership in Th eir High Schools, “Sociology of
perceptions of school membership than students in academic tracks. Nevertheless, it has been demonstrated that the status hierarchies established by systems of tracking infl uence the nature and quality of students’ interactions with teachers and peers9. Students in the lower tracks are shown to have less positive relation-ships with their teachers10. In addition, it can be assumed that unsupportive rela-tionships between the teacher and student determine the students’ sense of belong-ing at school. Hallinan11 recently demonstrated that the extent to which teachers support students has a strong infl uence on their attachment to school, and, in gen-eral, students’ perception of teacher support is seen as an important dimension of their sense of connectedness to school12. As such, an association between track position and sense of belonging due to unsupportive teacher-student relationships in lower tracks is likely.
Examining the former association does not only add to our knowledge con-cerning the consequences of tracking, but is relevant with respect to the expertise concerning sense of school belonging as well. Generally, little is known about the determinants of sense of belonging or attachment to school since most studies into belongingness seem to focus on academic and behavioral consequences of students’ feelings about school13. Even less is known about school eff ects on stu-dents’ attachment14, although undoubtedly several aspects of the school experience, including school features, such as school size and student composition, infl uence a students’ sense of school belonging. Given that in the Flemish educational system between-school tracking is the norm, a distinction can be made between second-ary schools off ering academic education preparing for higher education and schools off ering technical and vocational education. As such, it can be examined whether school type is associated with students’ sense of belonging. Furthermore, instead of considering students’ perceptions of teachers’ support as a determinant
9 D.H. Hargreaves, Social Relations…, op.cit.
10 Ibidem; J. Oakes, Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality, New Haven (CT) 1985;
M. Van Houtte, School Type…, op.cit.
11 M.T. Hallinan, Teacher Infl uences…, op.cit.
12 C. Goodenow, Th e Psychological Sense of School Membership among Adolescents: Scale
Devel-opment and Educational Correlates, “Psychology in the Schools” 1993, No. 30, Vol. 1, pp. 79–90;
S. Jim-erson, R.E. Campos, J.L. Greif, Toward an Understanding…, op.cit.; H.P. Libbey, Measuring Student
Relationships to School: Attachment, Bonding, Connectedness, and Engagement, “Journal of School
Health” 2004, No. 74, Vol. 7, pp. 274–283; K.F. Osterman, Students’ Need for Belonging in the School
Community, “Review of Educational Research” 2000, No. 70, Vol. 3, pp. 323–367.
13 M.T. Hallinan, Teacher Infl uences…, op.cit.; K.F. Osterman, Students’ Need…, op.cit.
14 M.K. Johnson, R. Crosnoe, G.H. Elder Jr, Students’ Attachment…, op.cit.; X. Ma, Sense of
Belong-ing to School: Can Schools Make a Diff erence?, “Journal of Educational Research” 2003, No. 96, Vol. 6,
of sense of belonging15, it is probably more enlightening to connect a more objec-tive – that is, not obtained from the students – measure of the teacher-student relation to students’ sense of belonging. Knowing that the student’s perception of teachers’ support is usually considered as a dimension of his or her sense of belong-ing16, it appears rather redundant to consider these perceptions as a determinant of belongingness. Th erefore, we prefer the use of teacher report data to probe the teacher-student relationship. As previous research17 demonstrated a lower faculty trust in students in technical/vocational schools compared to academic schools, this contribution aims to examine (1) to what extent the students’ sense of school belonging diff ers according to school type (academic versus technical/vocational schools) and (2) whether faculty trust in students mediates an association between school type and students’ sense of belonging at school.
Before answering these questions empirically, we will fi rst go into the relevance, conceptualization, and sources of sense of belonging. We will explain the impor-tance of a favorable teacher-student relationship, and we will report on the teach-er-student relationship in diff erent tracks.
2. Background. The need to belong
A growing body of educational research in the previous decades has taken into account students’ school belongingness and has demonstrated its importance in relation to a number of important outcomes (for an extensive review see Oster-man18). For instance, students’ sense of belonging is shown to be positively associ-ated with school achievement19. Students with a greater sense of school belonging are more motivated to attend school and to put in greater eff ort20. Students’ belong-ingness is commonly seen as an indicator that schools develop in (better) ‘com-munities’; members have to experience feelings of belonging to speak of a com-munity21.
15 M.T. Hallinan, Teacher Infl uences…, op.cit.
16 C. Goodenow, Th e Psychological Sense…, op.cit.; S. Jimerson, R.E. Campos, J.L. Greif, Toward
an Understanding…, op.cit.
17 M. Van Houtte, School Type…, op.cit. 18 K.F. Osterman, Students’ Need…, op.cit. 19 C. Goodenow, Th e Psychological Sense…, op.cit. 20 K.F. Osterman, Students’ Need…, op.cit. 21 Ibidem.
Strikingly, researchers use a variety of concepts and methods to measure stu-dents’ belongingness to school, such as attachment, bonding, connection, and en-gagement. In insightful overviews, Jimerson22 and Libbey23 list several ways of conceptualizing, defi ning, and measuring school engagement and related terms. Both overviews clearly show that some conceptualizations include a more behav-ioral dimension associated with academic achievement, whereas others stress a more aff ective dimension, namely feelings of attachment or connectedness to school24. In case of the latter, sense of belonging is usually defi ned as “the extent to which students feel personally accepted, respected, included and supported by others in the school social environment”25. Th e most common theme that emerged from the scales reviewed by Libbey26 was in fact teacher support, making Libbey27 conclude that “Student relationships with school oft en were operationalized as their relationship with their teachers”. It is clear that teachers play a major role in shaping students’ experiences in school. Hallinan28 demonstrated that students are more likely to feel connected to the school when they perceive that teachers care about them, try to be fair, and praise them.
Other individual student characteristics, besides perceived teacher support, related to sense of belonging are, for example, general health, self-esteem29, par-ticipation in school activities30, and several socio-demographic characteristics of students, such as sex – in middle schools girls are more attached to school and in high schools girls are less attached to school than boys31 – intact home32, ethnici-ty33, and parents’ educational attainment34. But, in general, little is known about the
22 S. Jimerson, R.E. Campos, J.L. Greif, Toward an Understanding…, op.cit. 23 H.P. Libbey, Measuring Student…, op.cit.
24 M.K. Johnson, R. Crosnoe, G.H. Elder Jr, Students’ Attachment…, op.cit. 25 C. Goodenow, Th e Psychological Sense…, op.cit., p. 80.
26 H.P. Libbey, Measuring Student…, op.cit. 27 Ibidem, p. 281.
28 M.T. Hallinan, Teacher Infl uences…, op.cit. 29 X. Ma, Sense of Belonging…, op.cit.
30 Ibidem; C.A. McNeely, J.M. Nonnemaker, R.W. Blum, Promoting School Connectedness:
Evi-dence from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, “Journal of School Health” 2002,
No. 72, Vol. 4, pp. 138–146.
31 C. Goodenow, Th e Psychological Sense…, op.cit.; M.K. Johnson, R. Crosnoe, G.H. Elder Jr,
Students’ Attachment…, op.cit.; C.A. McNeely, J.M. Nonnemaker, R.W. Blum, Promoting School…,
op.cit.
32 M.K. Johnson, R. Crosnoe, G.H. Elder Jr, Students’ Attachment…, op.cit.; C.A. McNeely,
J.M. Nonnemaker, R.W. Blum, Promoting School…, op.cit.
33 Ibidem.
determinants of belongingness to school, and, although it seems reasonable to expect certain school features to be determinant for students’ sense of belonging, very little research identifi es specifi c school features aff ecting students’ sense of belonging35. Moreover, the results on school eff ects are mixed. Johnson36 conclud-ed that students are more strongly attachconclud-ed to school when they attend schools with proportionately more students of their own race or ethnicity, although these school eff ects are small. McNeely37 drew the same conclusion: school connected-ness is relatively high in racially or ethnically segregated schools and lowest in mixed schools. Van Houtte and Stevens38, however, did not fi nd an eff ect of school ethnic composition, neither for immigrant nor for native students. Furthermore, students in smaller schools display, on average, a higher belonging than students in larger schools according to McNeely and colleagues39, but this fi nding is not confi rmed by Johnson and colleagues40, or by Van Houtte and Stevens41. Johnson42 found that students in private schools have higher levels of attachment than stu-dents in public schools, whereas Van Houtte and Stevens43 did not fi nd an eff ect of school sector. Ma44 showed that school features, including school size and socio-economic context, were not important with respect to students’ sense of belonging, but some school climate variables did make a diff erence, namely academic press, disciplinary climate, and parental involvement. Th is fi nding made him conclude that “what matters to [students’] sense of belonging is the presence of caring peers and teachers, along with a lot of attention to their schoolwork and academic success”45. But, as far as we know, the way teachers deal with their students at school, their judgments of the students, or supportive attitudes towards them, have not yet been related to students’ sense of school belonging. Yet, recent research has shown that such teacher characteristics tend to be shared at school level, becoming school features that are associated with various structural and compositional
35 X. Ma, Sense of Belonging…, op.cit., K.F. Osterman, Students’ Need…, op.cit. 36 M.K. Johnson, R. Crosnoe, G.H. Elder Jr, Students’ Attachment…, op.cit. 37 McNeely, J.M. Nonnemaker, R.W. Blum, Promoting School…, op.cit.
38 M. Van Houtte, P.A.J. Stevens, School Ethnic Composition and Students’ Integration Outside and
Inside Schools in Belgium, “Sociology of Education” 2009, No. 82, Vol. 3, pp. 217–239.
39 C.A. McNeely, J.M. Nonnemaker, R.W. Blum, Promoting School…, op.cit. 40 M.K. Johnson, R. Crosnoe, G.H. Elder Jr, Students’ Attachment…, op.cit. 41 M. Van Houtte, P.A.J. Stevens, School Ethnic…, op.cit.
42 M.K. Johnson, R. Crosnoe, G.H. Elder Jr, Students’ Attachment…, op.cit. 43 M. Van Houtte, P.A.J. Stevens, School Ethnic…, op.cit.
44 X. Ma, Sense of Belonging…, op.cit., K.F. Osterman, Students’ Need…, op.cit. 45 Ibidem, p. 348.
school features and individual student outcomes46. As such, research has shown, for example, that teachers’ trust in students may not only be considered as a feature of an individual teacher, but also as a collective feature of teachers instructing at the same school, namely faculty trust47. It seems reasonable to assume that school features, such as faculty trust, infl uence the extent to which students feel con-nected to the school.
3. Faculty trust in students and students’ sense of belonging
When teachers perceive the students at their school as trustworthy, teachers may be described as willing to risk vulnerability towards the students based on the confi dence that the latter are benevolent, reliable, competent, honest, and open48. Th ese key elements of trust have been demonstrated to form a unitary and coher-ent concept of trust in schools49. Faculty trust in students then indicates the level of trust in students that teachers from the same school share with each other50. Teachers at the same school are imbedded in similar roles within the same or-ganizational context. Viewing them as a unifi ed group within a similar context, it may be argued that social information processes will lead to a collective trust phe-nomenon51. As such, faculty trust in students may be conceived as a school char-acteristic that is associated with various structural and compositional school fea-tures52. Given that a shared level of trust among school members constitutes a school’s organizational level of social capital53, faculty trust in students is an as-pect of the level of social capital present in school.
46 M. Van Houtte, School Type…, op.cit.
47 W.K. Hoy, M. Tschannen-Moran, Five Faces of Trust: An Empirical Confi rmation in Urban
Elementary Schools, “Journal of School Leadership” 1999, No. 9, Vol. 3, pp. 184–208; M. Van Houtte, School Type…, op.cit.; D. Van Maele, M. Van Houtte, Faculty Trust and Organizational School Char-acteristics: An Exploration across Secondary Schools in Flanders, “Educational Administration
Quar-terly” 2009, No. 45, Vol. 4, pp. 556–589.
48 M. Tschannen-Moran, W.K. Hoy, A Multidisciplinary Analysis of the Nature, Meaning, and
Measurement of Trust, “Review of Educational Research” 2000, No. 70, Vol. 4, pp. 547–593.
49 W.K. Hoy, M. Tschannen-Moran, Five Faces…, op.cit. 50 Ibidem; D. Van Maele, M. Van Houtte, Faculty Trust…, op.cit.
51 B. Shamir, Y. Lapidot, Trust in Organizational Supervisors: Systemic and Collective
Considera-tions, “Organization Studies” 2003, No. 24, Vol. 3, pp. 463–491.
52 M. Van Houtte, School Type…, op.cit.; D. Van Maele, M. Van Houtte, Faculty Trust…, op.cit. 53 J.S. Coleman, Foundations of Social Th eory, Cambridge (Mass.) 1990.
Th e importance of teacher-student bonding is revealed in studies which have related students’ perceptions of teachers’ interpersonal behavior to students’ drop-ping out54, their disciplinary problems, academic achievement55, and their attach-ment to school56. From the literature, it is obvious that intergenerational bonding in school is crucial with respect to students’ socialization in school. Aft er all, strong teacher-student relationships are signifi cant in accounting for the level of social capital available in the students’ social networks through a transmission from teachers to students57.
In maintaining an eff ective learning environment, developing trusting relation-ships between teachers and students is essential. Students who experience trust from their teachers will more easily engage in supportive relationships with teach-ers, which in turn expands the level of social capital on which students can account in their educational environment58. As such, teachers’ trust in students is a form of teacher-based social capital available to students59 that indicates the presence of a supportive educational student environment. Accordingly, given that students’ connectedness to school is related to a supportive student environment60, we pro-pose students’ sense of belonging will be strong in schools where faculty members trust the students. Furthermore, the more social resources, such as trust, are present in school, the more likely it is that a school is marked by a strong sense of com-munity. So, it seems reasonable to assume that in schools, where the level of social capital is high due to strong teacher-student trust relationships, the sense of com-munity in those schools will be strong as well, which should be revealed in a strong sense of belonging on behalf of the students61. Yet, there are reasons to assume that students’ social integration in school will diff er according to the track in which the teacher-student relationships take place.
54 R.G. Croninger, V.E. Lee, Social Capital and Dropping out of High School: Benefi ts to At-risk
Students of Teachers’ Support and Guidance, “Teachers College Record” 2001, No. 103, Vol. 4,
pp. 548–581.
55 R. Crosnoe, M.K. Johnson, G.H. Elder Jr., Intergenerational Bonding in School: Th e Behavioral
and Contextual Correlates of Student-Teacher Relationships, “Sociology of Education” 2004, No. 77,
Vol. 1, pp. 60–81.
56 M.T. Hallinan, Teacher Infl uences…, op.cit.
57 R.D. Stanton-Salazar, A Social Capital Framework for Understanding the Socialization of Racial
Minority Children and Youths, “Harvard Educational Review” 1997, No. 67, Vol. 1, pp. 1–40.
58 Ibidem.
59 R.G. Croninger, V.E. Lee, Social Capital…, op.cit.
60 C. Goodenow, Th e Psychological Sense…, op.cit.; K.F. Osterman, Students’ Need…, op.cit. 61 K.F. Osterman, Students’ Need…, op.cit.
4. Tracking and teacher-student relations
Teachers in diff erent tracks need to instruct diff erent material and even deal dif-ferently with it. For example, in lower tracks, subjects are approached far less theo-retically and academically with facts and basic skills are emphasized instead. While in higher tracks, stress is laid on concepts, processes, and more complicated skills. Students in higher tracks are off ered more diffi cult material and, consequently, have more opportunities to learn62. In addition, there is less required academically from lower track students than there is from higher track students63. Generally speaking, the whole attitude of teachers in higher tracks is more apt to promote learning than it is in lower tracks64.
A sound reason for this discrepancy is the response teachers get from their students in the respective tracks. Teachers have certain general conceptions about teaching, but when they end up in specifi c tracks characterized by a specifi c group of students, they need to adjust their conceptions to the real context. It has been shown that in technical/vocational schools students’ culture is less study oriented than it is in academic schools65. As a result of this poor study culture in technical/ vocational schools, teachers are not confi dent that students will meet their expec-tations with respect to achievement66. Furthermore, teachers usually do not make an independent, individual evaluation of individual students, but they start from the stereotype that lower-track students are good for little-academically speaking. In other words, even before they have met their classes, teachers have formed an image of the students’ academic abilities and developed certain expectations, to which they adjust their educational goals and their interaction with students67. Moreover, in time teachers will develop common ideas and views as an answer to the questions implicit in their circumstances and the problems peculiar to their work. As such, teachers will share certain beliefs and expectations concerning the nature of the students, education, and school68.
62 D.H. Hargreaves, Social Relations…, op.cit.; M.H. Metz, Classrooms and Corridors. Th e Crisis
of Authority in Desegregated Secondary Schools, Berkeley 1978; J. Oakes, Keeping Track…, op.cit.
63 D.H. Hargreaves, Social Relations…, op.cit.; J. Oakes, Keeping Track…, op.cit.; R. Page, Lower
Track Classrooms. A Curricular and Cultural Perspective, New York 1991.
64 J. Oakes, Keeping Track…, op.cit.; M. Van Houtte, School Type…, op.cit. 65 M. Van Houtte, School Type…, op.cit.
66 M. Van Houtte, Tracking and Teacher Satisfaction: Th e Role of Study Culture and Trust,
“Jour-nal of Educatio“Jour-nal Research” 2006b, No. 99, Vol. 4, pp. 247–254.
67 R. Page, Lower Track…, op.cit.
It can be assumed that teachers’ lower expectations in lower tracks will aff ect their trust in students as well. Organizational and educational studies69, defi ne trust as “confi dence that expectations will be met.” When a person depends on another and when some level of skill is involved in fulfi lling an expectation, then a person who means well may nonetheless not be trusted70. Previous research revealed that teachers in technical/vocational schools are less satisfi ed with their job than teach-ers in academic schools are because they trust their students less, due to the stu-dents’ poor study culture71. In addition, this diminished trust is shown to be shared by teachers in the school as well, yielding lower levels of faculty trust in students in technical/vocational schools compared to academic schools72.
Th is diminished (faculty) trust in students may have detrimental eff ects in a teaching context. Furthermore, given the assumed relation between faculty trust and students’ sense of belonging, a lower sense of belonging in lower tracks can be expected as well.
Th is brings us to two research questions, namely (1) to what extent the students’ sense of belonging diff ers according to school type (academic versus technical/ vocational schools) and (2) whether faculty trust in students mediates an associa-tion between school type and students’ sense of belonging.
5. Context
Before depicting the methodology of the study, it seems useful to briefl y describe the particulars of Flemish education. First of all, it should be kept in mind that every single school in Flanders is subsidized by the state. Usually, children go to nursery school from the age of two-and-a-half onwards. Education becomes com-pulsory when the child becomes six years old. Aft er six years of primary education, at the age of twelve, children transfer to secondary education. Th ere are six years of secondary education, divided into three grades, lasting two years each. In theo-ry, the fi rst grade (years one and two) is an orientating grade, offi cially divided into a core curriculum known as the A-stream and a B-stream, which prepares for vocational education. In practice, though, the kind of courses off ered in the A-stream depends upon the main tracks off ered in the school at hand. Th ere are four
69 M. Tschannen-Moran, W.K. Hoy, A Multidisciplinary Analysis…, op.cit. 70 Ibidem, p. 557.
71 M. Van Houtte, Tracking and Teacher…, op.cit.
main tracks: academic education preparing for higher education, technical educa-tion, vocational educaeduca-tion, and artistic education (which is a rather marginal track, in terms of number of students). Tracks are not only organized within, but also, and mainly, between schools. A common diff erentiation is between schools off er-ing academic education and schools off erer-ing technical and vocational education. Within each main track, diff erent tracks are distinguished – e.g. economy-modern languages in academic education, electricity-mechanics in technical education, and childcare in vocational education – by diff erent subjects and accents. At the end of each year, the students get a certifi cate indicating whether they can continue their current school career (A-certifi cate) or not (B or C certifi cate). In the case of the latter, a B certifi cate indicates that the student may pass to the next year, but needs to join a lower track. AC certifi cate means that the student cannot pass to the next year and has to repeat the year. Th ese certifi cates are based on the GPA obtained; there are no standardized tests (for example, in the form of centrally administered and standardized examinations). Each grade, i.e. in the third and the fi ft h year, the students need to refi ne their branch of studies. Secondary education is compul-sory until the age of eighteen. Th ere is a possibility to enroll in part-time voca-tional education from the age of sixteen, combining classes with experience on the shop fl oor. Aft er six years of general, technical, or artistic education, or seven years (six years plus an extra year) of vocational education, the student receives a di-ploma of secondary education granting unlimited access to each form of higher education. Each student having a diploma of secondary education may begin uni-versity studies.
6. Methods
SAMPLE
We use data from 6,851 students and 1,215 teachers in 50 schools for secondary education in Flanders. Th ese schools form a selection from a broader sample of 85 schools encompassing 11,872 respondents. Th is data was gathered in the 2004-2005 school year as part of the Flemish Educational Assessment (FIEA). A mul-tistage sampling was conducted. First, we selected proportional-to-size postal codes, with the size for this purpose defi ned as the number of schools within the postal code, as gathered from the data of the Flemish Educational Department. Because of this strategy, postal codes of large municipalities – with a greater num-ber of schools – had a greater chance of selection. From the 240 postal codes, we
selected 48 with a desired slight overrepresentation of greater municipalities. Sec-ondly, all regular secondary schools within these selected municipalities were asked to participate, yielding a positive response of 31%. Th e small proportion of participating schools is due to the fact that Flemish schools are commonly swamped with such requests from investigators, generally resulting in a “fi rst come, fi rst served” outcome. As such, the participating schools did not diff er from those that opted out in terms of school sector, size, curriculum, or student com-position. Th e 48 municipalities and 85 schools in this dataset are representative of the Flemish situation. Schools agreeing to participate did this with the parents’ consent. Students completed the questionnaires in class in the presence of one or two researchers and a teacher. In the end, 11,945 students completed a question-naire, of which 11,872 proved to be valid, which comes down to a response rate of 87%. 6,081 students were in the third grade, and 5,791 were in the fi ft h grade (the 9th and 11th grade in the American educational system, respectively). Th e questionnaires were not anonymous, because we wanted to couple this data with other data, such as academic results provided by the school. All names were re-moved as the data was assembled, so that the fi nal database and all analyses were completely confi dential.
Additionally, data was gathered from third- and/or fi ft h-grade teachers by means of anonymous written questionnaires. A number of 2,104 teachers across 84 schools did respond, which comes down to a teacher response rate of approxi-mately 60%73.
Given the research questions at hand, we selected from this sample of 85 schools those schools off ering exclusively academic education (22 schools) and those schools off ering exclusively technical/vocational education (30 schools). We in-cluded in the analyses only those schools from which data from at least fi ve fac-ulty respondents were available. Th is selection criterion was imposed to obtain a critical mass of respondents within a school, making generalizations about a school’s staff more stable. As such, two technical/vocational schools were re-moved from the data. Finally, the data consisted of 22 academic schools with 3,376 students and 461 teachers, and 28 technical/vocational schools with 3,475 students and 754 teachers.
RESEARCH DESIGN
To determine the relation between school type (academic versus technical/voca-tional) and the individual student’s sense of belonging, we will start with a t-test, comparing the mean sense of belonging in the two types of schools. But given that we are dealing with a clustered sample of students nested within schools and with data at diff erent levels – namely school type as the main determinant at school level and the dependent at student level – use of hierarchical linear modeling (HLM6) is most appropriate.
First, we will estimate an unconditional model to determine the amount of variance that occurs between schools, as is common in multilevel analyses. Next, we will examine the eff ect of school type (Model 1). Th en, we will proceed stepwise by adding variables at school level (Model 2) and at the individual student level (Model 3) that have been demonstrated to relate to a sense of belonging in order to rule out spurious relations and selection eff ects. At the school level, it would be appropriate to control for the socioeconomic context of the school74, but, in Flan-ders, a side eff ect of the diff erentiation in tracks is a diff erentiation according to SES. With respect to the present data, we fi nd a Pearson correlation of -0.88 (p < 0.001) between school type and the SES context, precluding an analysis containing both variables since multi-collinearity cannot be avoided. School features we do take into account are school size75, school sector76, and the ethnic composition of the school77. At the student level, we take into account sex, age, socioeconomic status, migrant origin, parental support, and a measure of prior school achieve-ment78. Finally, the mediating variable – faculty trust – will be introduced in the last model (Model 4).
VARIABLES
Th e dependent variable sense of belonging at school was measured using a Dutch translation of the 18-item Psychological Sense of School Membership scale by Carol Goodenow79 (see Appendix). Th ere are fi ve answer categories, ranging from
74 X. Ma, Sense of Belonging…, op.cit.
75 McNeely, J.M. Nonnemaker, R.W. Blum, Promoting School…, op.cit. 76 M.K. Johnson, R. Crosnoe, G.H. Elder Jr, Students’ Attachment…, op.cit. 77 Ibidem; McNeely, J.M. Nonnemaker, R.W. Blum, Promoting School…, op.cit.
78 C. Goodenow, Th e Psychological Sense…, op.cit.; M.K. Johnson, R. Crosnoe, G.H. Elder Jr.,
Students’ Attachment…, op.cit.; McNeely, J.M. Nonnemaker, R.W. Blum, Promoting School…, op.cit.
absolutely do not agree (score 1) to completely agree (score 5). Responses were
im-puted for missing values by way of item correlation substitution: a missing value for one item is replaced by the value of the item correlating most highly with that item. Th e scale had a Cronbach’s alpha of .86 (N=11.548). Th e scores for each item were summed, yielding a minimum score of 18 and a maximum score of 89. Th e students in this study had a mean score of 60.83 (SD=9.42; N=6678).
Th e main independent variable was school type. We distinguished between schools that off er general, academic education (coded 0, N=22) and schools that off er technical and vocational education (coded 1, N=28).
Th e SES context of the school was measured classically by calculating the mean of the socioeconomic status of the students at school, namely the mean of the SES of the respondents (see below). Th e 50 schools considered here had a mean SES context of 4.98 (SD=1.17). On average, the academic schools had a signifi cantly higher SES context (M=6.13, SD=0.36) than technical/vocational schools did (M=4.07, SD=0.70, t=13.54, p<0.001; see table 1). As indicated in the design section, this variable cannot be included in the analyses due to its high correlation (Pearson
r=-0.88, p<0.001) with school type.
We determined the school size from the total number of students, as reported by the school administrators. Th e number of students varied from 84 in the small-est school to 1,124 in the largsmall-est school. Th e 50 schools catered for an average of 477.56 students (SD=259.24; see Table 1). On average, the academic and technical/ vocational schools did not diff er signifi cantly with respect to the number of stu-dents (see table 1).
Th e variable school sector distinguished between 28 private schools (score 0) and 22 public schools (municipal schools and state schools) (score 1). It should be noted that in the Flemish educational system, no distinction is made between public schools and private schools with respect to state support. For historical reasons, the private sector has always been the most developed, in terms of both the number of schools and number of enrolled students. In our sample, public schools are somewhat overrepresented due to the fact that the sampling procedure favored larger cities, in which most of the municipal schools are located.
Th e proportion of immigrant students in the third and fi fth grade of a school, that is, the proportion of immigrant respondents from a school in our database (cf. infra), determined the school’s ethnic composition. On average, the proportion of students of foreign descent is 13.17% (SD=16.47; see Table 1). Th e academic schools had, on average, a signifi cantly lower proportion of migrant students (M=3.37, SD=3.91) than technical/vocational schools did (M=20.87, SD = 18.46,
To obtain a measure of faculty trust in students, we started from a measurement of individual teacher’s trust in students. Trust in students was measured with 10 items80, such as, “Do you have to closely supervise the students?” or “Do the stu-dents cheat if they have the chance?”. Th e scores for each item were summed up, yielding a minimum score of 10 and a possible maximum score of 50. Cronbach’s alpha for this scale is 0.77. Th e aggregation of this indicator of trust at the indi-vidual teacher level is a necessary next step since we intend to assess faculty trust – a group feature. A customary aggregation strategy is the calculation of the mean score of individual members of the group or organization. In doing this, one has to be sure this aggregation is permitted. In order to determine if it is legitimate to speak of faculty trust, i.e., something ‘shared’ at the school level, we opted for an index of mean rater reliability based on the intra-class correlation coeffi cient (ICC) from a one-way analysis of variance: ICC(1,k) = (between mean square – within mean square)/between mean square (with k = number of raters in each group or organization. Th e ICC must be at minimum 0.60 to permit an aggregation at the group or organization level (Glick, 1985). We found an ICC of 0.87 (schools N=80). On average, faculty trust is signifi cantly lower in technical/vocational schools (M=29.98, SD=2.33) than in academic schools (M=34.22, SD=1.04, t=8.592,
p<0.001).
With respect to sex, our sample was quite equally divided with about 47% fe-males (male = 0, female = 1). We should note, though, a slight underrepresentation of girls in technical/vocational schools (42.2%; table 1), but this corresponds well with the offi cial fi gure stating that in 2004-2005 44% of the students in technical/ vocational education were females.
Our research concentrated on the third- and fi ft h-grade students, so the age of most respondents was 15 (35.6%) or 17 (about 33%) years old in 2005. Th e oldest respondents were 20 years or older (1.4%), and the youngest was 13 (one respond-ent). Th e respondents were on average 16.43 years old (SD=1.30), and the students in technical/vocational schools were, on average, signifi cantly older (M=16.88,
SD=1.33, t=-30.872, p<0.001) than the students in academic schools were (M=15.97, SD=1.11) due to their higher retention rate (see table 1).
We measured the socioeconomic status (SES) of origin of the students by means of the occupational prestige of the father and mother (EGP) – the highest of both was used as an indicator of the SES of the family. Th e respondents had a mean SES of 5.23 (SD=2.11). On average, the students in technical/vocational schools had
a signifi cantly lower SES (M=4.27, SD=2.08) than the students in academic schools (M=6.14, SD=1.70; see table 1).
We distinguish between native and immigrant students. As is common practice, the principal criterion for determining nativity was the birthplace of the students’ maternal grandmothers. If this data was missing (only 1% missing of the total sample, N=11,872), we considered their mothers’ and fathers’ nationalities, as most immigrant students are second- or third-generation immigrants and have Belgian nationality. Non-Western European birthplaces and nationalities were considered as foreign descent. As such, we created a dichotomous variable (0 = native, 1 = im-migrant). In the data at hand, 10.7% of the students were identifi ed as from a for-eign origin. As expected, we found more immigrant students in the technical/vo-cational schools than in the academic schools (see Table 1).
Parental support was measured using a seven-item scale with fi ve answer
cat-egories, ranging from absolutely do not agree (score 1) to completely agree (score 5). Examples of items are “My parents accept me as I am”, “My parents make me feel that I do not meet their expectations,” (scored in reverse), and “My parents only pay attention to my mistakes” (scored in reverse). Th is scale yielded a Cronbach’s alpha of .83 (N=11,727). We summed up the scores on each item. On average, students in academic schools reported significantly more parental support (M=28.50, SD=5.24) than students in technical/vocational schools (M=28.10,
SD=5.90; see Table 1).
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for Dependent and Independent Variables: Frequencies (%), Means and Standard Deviations (SD) and Results of t Tests Comparing General and Technical/Vocational Schools
Total Academic Schools Technical/Vocational
Variables Mean or % SD Mean or % SD Mean or % SD
Student level Sense of belonging 60.83 (n=6678) 9.42 62.37 (n=3343) 9.00 59.29 (n=3335) 9.57 Sex Female 46.9% (n=6834) 52.0% (n=3372) 42.2% (n=3462) Age 16.43 (n=6815) 1.30 15.97 (n=3365) 1.11 16.88 (n=3450) 1.33 SES 5.23 (n=6443) 2.11 6.14 (n=3295) 1.70 4.27 (n=3148) 2.08 Ethnicity Immigrant 10.7% (n=6851) 3.9% (n=3376) 17.4% (n=3475)
Total Academic Schools Technical/Vocational
Variables Mean or % SD Mean or % SD Mean or % SD
Student level Parental support 28.30 (n=6753) 5.59 28.50 (n=3354) 5.24 28.10 (n=3399) 5.90 GPA 69.47 (n=6180) 9.21 71.54 (n=3149) 8.38 67.32 (n=3031) 9.55 School level SES Context 4.98 (n=50) 1.17 6.13 (n=22) 0.36 4.07 (n=28) 0.70 School size 477.56 (n=50) 259.24 540.14 (n=22) 291.88 428.39 (n=28) 223.63 School sector Public 44.0% (n=50) 27.3% (n=22) 57.1% (n=28) Ethnic Composition 13.17 (n=50) 16.47 3.37 (n=22) 3.91 20.87 (n=28) 18.46 Faculty trust 31.85 (n=50) 2.82 34.22 (n=22) 1.04 29.98 (n=28) 2.33 * p < 0.05, ** p ≤ 0.01, *** p < 0.001
As a measure of prior academic achievement, we used the grade point average at the end of the year preceding the inquiry. Th ere are no standardized tests (for example in the form of centrally administered and standardized examinations) in the Flemish educational system, which makes educational achievement very hard to compare across schools and across students. We need to rely on a self-reported GPA, yielding questions with respect to validity because of memory problems and cover up strategies. Recent research indicated, though, that self-reported grades are generally highly correlated with grades taken from students’ transcripts, and that GPA has some desirable features relative to standardized test scores (Kelly, 2008). Th e mean GPA in this data set was 69.47. On average, students in academic schools reported a signifi cantly higher GPA (M=71.54, SD=8.38) than students in techni-cal/vocational schools (M= 67.32, SD=9.55, t=18.438, p < 0.001; Table 1).
7. Results
On average, students in technical/vocational schools experienced a signifi cantly lower sense of belonging (M=59.29, SD=9.57) than students in academic schools (M=62.37, SD = 9.00, t=13.569, p<0.001; see Table 1). Th e unconditional multi-level analysis indicated that 8.52% (τ0 / (τ0 + σ²), with σ²=81.67, τ=7.61, p<0.001) of the variance in sense of belonging was among schools. School type showed a signifi cant (p<0.001), moderate association with sense of belonging (see Table 2, Model 1; standardized coeffi cient y*=-0.158) confi rming that students in technical/ vocational schools had a signifi cantly lower sense of belonging than students in academic schools. Of the variance in sense of belonging between schools, 29.6% could be ascribed to school type. Th is association between school type held when taking into account the school features size, sector, and ethnic composition (Ta-ble 2, Model 2).
Table 2. Association between school type and sense of belonging. Mediating role of faculty trust in students. Results multilevel analysis (HLM6)
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Intercept 62.425*** 62.909*** 62.190*** 61.290*** School level School type γ γ* -2.981*** -0.158*** (0.696) -3.290*** -0.175*** (0.815) -1.916** -0.102** (0.669) -0.413 -0.022 (0.718) School size γ γ* -0.001 -0.028 (0.001) -0.0002 -0.006 (0.001) -0.0005 -0.014 (0.001) School sector γ γ* -0.671 -0.036 (0.712) -0.853 -0.045 (0.640) -0.708 -0.038 (0.578) Proportion migrant students γ
γ* 0.022 0.038 (0.022) 0.007 0.012 (0.020) 0.036 0.063 (0.027) Faculty trust γ γ* 0.554* 0.166* (0.249)
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Intercept 62.425*** 62.909*** 62.190*** 61.290*** Student level Sex γ γ* 0.163 0.009 (0.249) 0.103 0.005 (0.251) Age γ γ* -0.209 -0.029 (0.113) -0.210 -0.029 (0.114) SES γ γ* 0.190** 0.043** (0.061) 0.186** 0.042** (0.061) Migrant origin γ γ* 0.311 0.010 (0.435) 0.321 0.011 (0.436) Parental support γ γ* 0.575*** 0.341*** (0.029) 0.575*** 0.341*** (0.029) Prior GPA γ γ* 0.100*** 0.098*** (0.019) 0.099*** 0.097*** (0.019) Variance components Intercept U0 5.359*** 5.544*** 4.375*** 3.735*** Gender U1 0.389 0.356 Age U2 0.232 0.261 SES U3 0.037 0.034 Migrant origin U4 2.239 2.506 Parental support U5 0.020*** 0.020*** Prior GPA U6 0.009* 0.010* * p < .05, ** p < 0.01, *** p ≤ 0.001
None of these school features appeared to be related to students’ sense of be-longing. Controlling for the individual student’s characteristics altered the asso-ciation between school type and sense of belonging only very little (Table 2, Mod-el 3). At the individual levMod-el, a student’s sense of bMod-elonging was positivMod-ely associated with SES, parental support, and prior achievement (GPA)—be it that the associations with SES and GPA are very weak.
Introducing the variable faculty trust into the model (Table 2, Model 4) changed the picture profoundly. Th e association between school type and students’ sense of belonging decreased dramatically and turned non-signifi cant. Faculty trust was positively (y*=0.166) and signifi cantly (p=0.03) related with students’ sense of belonging, and appeared responsible for the stated association between school type and students’ sense of belonging. Finally, faculty trust at school level and parental support at student level were found to be the main determinants of student’s sense of belonging.
8. Discussion
While a rich tradition of research focuses on the nature and eff ects of tracking students81, there is little or no research that investigates the extent to which stu-dents in diff erent tracks feel embedded in or alienated from their school commu-nities (exception: Smerdon82). However, there are reasons to assume that students’ social integration in school will diff er according to track position. For instance, students in the lower tracks are shown to have less positive relationships with their teachers83. Given the important positive consequences of belongingness both on the individual student level and the level of the school84, two research questions led the present study: (1) to what extent does the students’ sense of belonging dif-fer according to school type (academic versus technical/vocational schools) and (2) does faculty trust in students mediate an association between school type and students’ sense of belonging?
By means of multilevel analyses on a uniquely Flemish dataset of students and teachers in schools off ering diff erent tracks (system of between-school tracking), this article demonstrates that students enrolled in technical/vocational education display a signifi cantly lower sense of belonging than students enrolled in academic schools do. Furthermore, it is shown that faculty trust in students is signifi -cantly higher in academic schools than in technical/vocational schools and that this diff erence in faculty trust is responsible for the stated association between school type and the student’s sense of belonging. In comparison with students in academic schools, those in technical/vocational schools feel less embedded in
81 M. Berends, Educational Stratifi cation…, op.cit.; M. Van Houtte, School Type…, op.cit. 82 B.A. Smerdon, Students’ Perceptions…, op.cit.
83 J. Oakes, Keeping Track…, op.cit.; M. Van Houtte, School Type…, op.cit. 84 K.F. Osterman, Students’ Need…, op.cit.
school, because teachers in their schools display less trust in their students than teachers in academic schools do.
Th ese results clearly show that tracking outcomes of students cannot be con-sidered apart from how teachers deal with students in diff erent tracks. Crosnoe85 pointed out that, from the perspective of students, the nature of intergenerational bonding in school diff ers according to the context in which the teacher-student relationships take place. We show this is the case as well when considering the teachers’ perspective. In demonstrating the mediating role of the teachers’ relations with students – considered as a school feature – in the association between track-ing and students’ sense of belongtrack-ing, this article makes a relevant contribution to revealing the mechanisms through which tracking aff ects student outcomes. Future research should continue along this line. Combining quantitative and qualitative research is desirable. Qualitative research techniques are best suited to explore the teacher and student relationships in diff erent types of school or in diff erent tracks, while quantitative techniques allow one to generalize these fi ndings and to relate them to individual students’ or teachers’ outcomes.
Th is study also contributes to the knowledge concerning school belongingness. Firstly, only recently has interest grown some concerning the causes of a sense of belonging and, more specifi cally, into the school features aff ecting students’ sense of belonging. Confi rming Ma86, this study shows that school features, such as school size, ethnic composition, and school sector, do not determining students’ sense of belonging. Ma87 suggested, though, that what probably matters to students’ sense of belonging is the presence of caring teachers. We revealed that students’ sense of belonging is indeed associated with the faculty trust in students. Even more, the presence of faculty trust in students explains why students attending academic schools display higher levels of sense of belonging in school than stu-dents enrolled in technical/vocational schools do. More research is defi nitely need-ed into which school features are associatneed-ed with students’ belongingness.
Secondly, recent research into belongingness is pointed towards the importance of teacher support in explaining students’ sense of belonging in school88. But, in-stead of trying to grasp how teachers support their students, this research consid-ers students’ perceptions of teachconsid-ers’ support. Yet, knowing that the student’s per-ception of teachers’ support is usually considered as a dimension of his or her sense
85 R. Crosnoe, M.K. Johnson, G.H. Elder Jr., Intergenerational Bonding…, op.cit. 86 X. Ma, Sense of Belonging…, op.cit.
87 Ibidem, p. 348.
of belonging89, this way of working seems rather tautological. Th erefore, in the present study, a more objective interest (i.e. not obtained from the students) meas-ure of the teacher-student relationship is associated with students’ sense of belong-ing, namely, teachers’ trust in students, as reported by the teachers themselves. In order to relate this measure to the students’ outcomes, we considered teachers’ trust in students as a feature of the school. Our analyses then confi rm the importance of the teachers’ relationships with their students as a determinant of students’ sense of belonging. Our main conclusion is that being surrounded by caring adults is crucial with respect to students’ sense of belonging in school and this does not mean only having trusting teachers around, but also having supportive parents.
Sense of belonging has seldom been dealt with sociologically, at least not in educational research. However, a strong sense of belonging in students, and by extension in organization members in general, can be seen as an indicator of a strong sense of community and a high level of social capital90, making it a socio-logical topic par excellence. Th is study shows that an individual’s sense of belong-ing cannot be studied apart from the context in which he or she is actbelong-ing and from the relationships he or she develops within that context. In order to enhance stu-dents’ sense of belonging in school, as well as to enhance the school’s social cohe-sion, more research is needed into the determinants and, more specifi cally, into the contextual determinants of sense of belonging.
9. Conclusion
Educational systems worldwide apply some form of tracking which stratifi es stu-dents according to their ability. Our study shows that teachers’ perceptions of in-tergenerational bonding in school diff er according to the track in which the teach-er-student relationships take place. Moreover, this mechanism is responsible for the students’ lower sense of belonging in technical/vocational schools compared to academic schools. In terms of strengthening students’ connectedness to a tech-nical/vocational school environment, we indicate that strengthening the level of trust in students on behalf of the teachers could be a crucial step that needs to be undertaken.
89 C. Goodenow, Th e Psychological Sense…, op.cit.; S. Jimerson, R.E. Campos, J.L. Greif, Toward
an Understanding…, op.cit.
R E F E R E N C E S :
Berends M., Educational Stratifi cation and Students’ Social Bonding to School, “British Jour-nal of Sociology of Education” 1995, No. 16, Vol. 3.
Coleman J.S., Foundations of Social Th eory, Cambridge (Mass.) 1990.
Croninger R.G., Lee V.E., Social Capital and Dropping out of High School: Benefi ts to At-Risk
Students of Teachers’ Support and Guidance, “Teachers College Record” 2001, No. 103,
Vol. 4.
Crosnoe R., Johnson M.K., Elder G.H. Jr., Intergenerational Bonding in School: Th e Behav-ioral and Contextual Correlates of Student-Teacher Relationships, “Sociology of
Educa-tion” 2004, No. 77, Vol. 1.
Glick W.H., Conceptualizing and Measuring Organizational and Psychological Climate:
Pitfalls in Multilevel Research, “Academy of Management Review” 1985, No. 10, Vol. 3.
Goodenow C., Th e Psychological Sense of School Membership among Adolescents: Scale Development and Educational Correlates, “Psychology in the Schools” 1993, No. 30,
Vol. 1.
Hallinan M.T., Teacher Infl uences on Students’ Attachment to School, “Sociology of Educa-tion” 2008, No. 81, Vol. 3.
Hargreaves D.H., Social Relations in a Secondary School, London 1967.
Hoy W.K., Tschannen-Moran M., Five Faces of Trust: An Empirical Confi rmation in Urban
Elementary Schools, “Journal of School Leadership” 1999, No. 9, Vol. 3.
Jimerson S., Campos R.E., Greif J.L., Toward an Understanding of Defi nitions and Measures
of School Engagement and Related Terms, “Th e California School Psychologist” 2003, No. 8.
Johnson M.K., Crosnoe R., Elder G.H. Jr., Students’ Attachment and Academic Engagement:
Th e Role of Race and Ethnicity, “Sociology of Education” 2001, No. 74, Vol. 4.
Kelly S., What Types of Students’ Eff ort Are Rewarded with High Marks?, “Sociology of Edu-cation” 2008, No. 81, Vol. 1.
Libbey H.P., Measuring Student Relationships to School: Attachment, Bonding,
Connected-ness, and Engagement, “Journal of School Health” 2004, No. 74, Vol. 7.
Ma X., Sense of Belonging to School: Can Schools Make a Diff erence?, “Journal of Educa-tional Research” 2003, No. 96, Vol. 6.
McNeely C.A., Nonnemaker J.M., Blum R.W., Promoting School Connectedness: Evidence
from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, “Journal of School
Health” 2002, No. 72, Vol. 4.
Metz M.H., Classrooms and Corridors. Th e Crisis of Authority In Desegregated Secondary Schools, Berkeley 1978.
Osterman K.F., Students’ Need for Belonging in the School Community, “Review of Educa-tional Research” 2000, No. 70, Vol. 3.
Page R., Lower Track Classrooms. A Curricular and Cultural Perspective, New York 1991. Shamir B., Lapidot Y., Trust in Organizational Supervisors: Systemic and Collective
Consid-erations, “Organization Studies” 2003, No. 24, Vol. 3.
Smerdon B.A., Students’ Perceptions of Membership in Th eir High Schools, “Sociology of
Education” 2002, No. 75, Vol. 4.
Stanton-Salazar R.D., A Social Capital Framework for Understanding the Socialization of
Racial Minority Children and Youths, “Harvard Educational Review” 1997, No. 67, Vol. 1.
Tschannen-Moran M., Hoy W.K., A Multidisciplinary Analysis of the Nature, Meaning, and
Measurement of Trust, “Review of Educational Research” 2000, No. 70, Vol. 4.
Van Houtte M., School Type And Academic Culture: Quantitative Evidence for the Diff
eren-tiation-Polarisation Th eory, “Journal of Curriculum Studies” 2006a, No. 38, Vol. 3.
Van Houtte, M., Tracking and Teacher Satisfaction: Th e Role of Study Culture and Trust,
“Journal of Educational Research” 2006b, No. 99, Vol. 4.
Van Houtte M., Stevens P.A.J., School Ethnic Composition and Students’ Integration Outside
and Inside Schools in Belgium, “Sociology of Education” 2009, No. 82, Vol. 3.
Van Maele D., Van Houtte M., Faculty Trust and Organizational School Characteristics: An
Exploration across Secondary Schools in Flanders, “Educational Administration
Quar-terly” 2009, No. 45, Vol. 4.
APPENDIX
1. Th e Psychological Sense of School Membership (PSSM) Scale* 2. I feel like a real part of this school.
3. People here notice when I’m good at something.
4. It is hard for people like me to be accepted here. (reversed) 5. Other students in this school take my opinions seriously. 6. Most teachers at this school are interested in me. 7. Sometimes I feel as if I don’t belong here. (reversed)
8. Th ere’s at least one adult in this school I can talk to if I have a problem. 9. People at this school are friendly to me.
10. Teachers here are not interested in people like me. (reversed) 11. I am included in lots of activities at this school.
12. I am treated with as much respect as other students. 13. I feel very diff erent from most other students here. (reversed) 14. I can really be myself at this school.
15. Th e teachers here respect me.
16. People here know I can do good work. 17. I wish I were in a diff erent school. (reversed) 18. I feel proud of belonging to this school. 19. Other students here like me the way I am.
