S i m o n B o o n e , M i e k e V a n H o u t t e Ghent University, Belgium
SOCIAL INEQUALITIES IN EDUCATIONAL CHOICE
AT THE TRANSITION FROM PRIMARY
TO SECONDARY EDUCATION:
A MATTER OF RATIONAL CALCULATION?
ABSTRACT
On the basis of these analyses, we cannot say that cultural and social resources have no role to play at all in the process of individual educational decision-making. What this study shows is that these do not enable us to explain the eff ect of parental SES on educational choice. In the absence of such evidence and in the light of the patterns found in the pupils’ accounts, we think to fi nd some support for a view of educational decision-making as be-ing the result of rational calculation. In this calculation parents take their own situation as a point of reference, considering the (educational) resources on which they can rely.
Key words:
social inequalities, educational choice, educational system, cultural capital
1. Introduction
Although recent research by Breen1 challenges the conclusions of the infl uential work by Blossfeld and Shavit2 by showing that social inequality in educational
at-1 R. Breen, R. Luijkx, W. Müller, Nonpersistent Inequality in Educational Attainment: Evidence
from Eight European Countries, “American Journal of Sociology” 2009, No. 114, Vol. 5, pp. 1475–1521.
tainment declined rather than remained stable throughout the twentieth century, the fact that inequalities in educational attainment – albeit to diff erent degrees, depending on the country one considers – persist remains undisputed. Th e persis-tence of these inequalities has mainly been explained by invoking social class dif-ferentials in scholastic achievement as well as in educational choice, net of achieve-ment3. Th e latter have received wide attention in European social stratifi cation research as choice is a crucial determinant of educational attainment in most Eu-ropean countries4. In fact, in most of these countries parents, along with their children, have to choose between mutually exclusive educational tracks at a fairly young age, leading to very diff erent educational outcomes. Th e emphasis thus laid on choice in most European education systems allows for self-selection to occur. Several studies conducted in various European countries have indeed shown that working class parents do less oft en opt for the more demanding – general/aca-demic – tracks in secondary education than service class parents, even if their children achieved equally well throughout primary school5 (e.g. Ditton and Krüsken for Germany, Jaeger for Denmark, Duru-Bellat for France). Th is leads to highly homogenous educational tracks in terms of social background, as working class students are already overrepresented in less demanding tracks due to the fact that they perform less well on average6.
Besides the fact that these tracks direct pupils to very diff erent educational – and occupational – pathways, the mere fact of being enrolled in a less demanding track has consistently been shown to have negative consequences for a student’s educational outcomes. Irrespective of prior ability, pupils enrolled in lower tracks
Countries [in:] Persistent Inequality: Changing Educational Attainment in Th irteen Countries, Y.
Shav-it, H.P. Blossfeld (eds.), Boulder 1993, pp. 1–23.
3 R. Boudon, L’inégalité des Chances: La Mobilité Sociale dans les Sociétés Industrielles, Paris 1973;
Can Education Be Equalized? Th e Swedish Case in Comparative Perspective, R. Erikson, J.O.
Jons-son (eds.), Boulder–Colorado 1996.
4 B. Tan, Blijvende sociale ongelijkheden in het Vlaamse onderwijs, „Tijdschrift voor Sociolo-gie” 1998, No. 19, Vol. 2, pp. 167–197.
5 H. Ditton, J. Krüsken, Der Übergang von der Grundschule, “Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissen-schaft ” 2006, Sekundarstufe I, No. 9, Vol. 3, pp. 348–372; M.M. Jaeger, Equal Access but Unequal
Outcomes: Cultural Capital and Educational Choices in a Meritocratic Society, “Social Forces” 2009,
No. 87, Vol. 4, pp. 1943–1972; M. Duru-Bellat, Les inégalités sociales à l’école: genèse et mythe, Paris 2002.
achieve less than pupils in higher tracks7. As a consequence, tracked educational systems tend to exacerbate social inequalities in educational attainment8.
Debate on the causes of class diff erentials in educational choice has mainly evolved around two theoretical strands in educational literature, namely cultural reproduction theory and rational action theory. To a lesser degree, however, also the concept of social capital has been applied to the explanation of educational decision-making. Studies juxtaposing these theoretical perspectives are scarce. Mostly, only one of the aforecited perspectives guides research. In recent years rational action theory has become predominant in research on class diff erentials in educational choice, witness the growing number of studies inspired by this theoretical perspective. Th is evolution refl ects a shift away from cultural explana-tions of inequalities in educational attainment, which are considered too vague and therefore too complex. By contrast, rational action theories conceive of educa-tional decision-making as being the result of simple cost-benefi t calculations made by individual students or parents. Th e evidence accumulated so far in favor of a rational action explanation of social inequalities in educational choice and edu-cational attainment has, however, not entirely convinced either9. Key aspects of the theoretical framework have been operationalized in diff erent ways, due to limita-tions posed by the available data and an apparent lack of scholarly consensus on how to appropriately put the theory through a test. Moreover, studies that tested rational action explanations of inequality in educational choice found only mixed support for it.
Since evidence on the mechanisms that mediate the relationship between social class and educational choice remains inconclusive, additional research is needed. Recently, researchers have highlighted the potential of qualitative research to shed light on the complex dynamics of educational decision-making10. In this article, we propose a study that confronts the explanatory potential of the three aforemen-tioned theories in explaining class diff erentials in educational choice at the
transi-7 M. Van Houtte, Tracking Eff ects on School Achievement: A Quantitative Explanation in Terms
of the Academic Culture of School Staff , “American Journal of Education” 2004, No. 110, Vol. 4, pp. 354–
388.
8 H.G. Van de Werfh orst, J.J. B. Mijs, Achievement Inequality and the Institutional Structure of
Educational Systems: A Comparative Perspective, “Annual Review of Sociology” 2010, No. 36, pp. 407–
428.
9 A. Holm, M.M. Jaeger, Does Relative Risk Aversion Explain Educational Inequality? A Dynamic
Choice Approach, “Research in Social Stratifi cation and Mobility” 2008, No. 26, pp. 199–219.
10 S. Scherger, M. Savage, Cultural Transmission, Educational Attainment and Social Mobility, “Th e Sociological Review” 2010, No. 58, Vol. 3, pp. 406–428.
tion from primary to secondary education in Flanders (the Northern, Dutch-speaking part of Belgium) using a mixed methods design.
First of all, we present a brief sketch of the specifi cities of the Flemish educa-tional system as to set out the specifi c institueduca-tional setting in which educaeduca-tional choice at the end of primary school takes place.
2. Institutional structure of the Flemish educational system
Th e institutional arrangements characteristic of an educational system shape the opportunities and constraints faced by pupils and their parents when outlining an educational career11. A clear understanding of the institutional structure of the Flemish educational system is therefore essential.
Compulsory education in Flanders starts when children turn six, at that mo-ment primary school begins. Primary education lasts six years, aft er which pupils, at age twelve, make the transition to secondary education, which usually also lasts six years. Th ese six years are divided into three so-called grades, each lasting two years. Th ese subsequent grades are characterized by an increasing diff erentiation in terms of educational tracks and fi elds of study within tracks. However, upon completion of primary school parents and their children are confronted with a ba-sic choice between what is offi cially called A-stream and B-stream. B-stream is primarily meant to provide education for pupils that are less fi t for theoretical tuition. Yet, the great majority of pupils enters fi rst grade of secondary education in the A-stream. Th e A-stream is said to propose a common curriculum to all pu-pils which prepares them for the choice that has to be made at the end of fi rst grade. At the beginning of second grade, pupils have to make a choice between general/ academic, technical, artistic and vocational secondary education and progressive-ly between fi elds of study within these broad tracks. Nevertheless, within the A-stream pupils have to choose between optional courses such as Latin, modern sciences, technology, art, etc. Whereas optional courses like Latin and modern sci-ences are seen as part of a preparation for general/academic secondary education, courses like technology and art direct pupils to technical and artistic secondary education. Moreover, as educational tracks in Flanders are not only organised within but also between schools, pupils are oft en separated in schools which pro-vide general/academic education and technical/vocational schools from fi rst grade on. In addition, there are reasons to suppose that the curriculum is proposed in
a less challenging way in the less prestigious options within A-stream even if taught in schools that off er all the electives12. Hence, although not offi cially pursued by the government, diff erentiation in fi rst grade of secondary education goes beyond the simple dichotomy of A – and B-stream.
Th ere are no formal rules regulating access to either A – or B-stream, or the optional courses within A-stream. Th ere is no standardized test at the end of pri-mary school and advice given by pripri-mary school teachers or pupil counsellors is not binding. Th is leaves parents with a great deal of discretion when choosing an educational career for their children. Th e Flemish educational system can thus be said to be very open to individual decision-making. Th is openness is also refl ected by the fact that certifi cates obtained in general/academic, technical, artistic and vocational secondary education all grant unlimited access to any form of higher education. Th is could give the impression that choices made in secondary school are not very consequential, however, this is contradicted by research on the conse-quences of tracking conducted in Flanders. Van Houtte found that pupils in tech-nical/vocational schools have higher chances of failing than pupils in general/aca-demic secondary schools due to the fact that teachers attach less importance to academic goals in those schools13. Furthermore, teachers in technical/vocational education view the pupils in their schools as less teachable and pupils’ culture is less academically oriented in technical/vocational schools14. Th e fi ndings by Van Houtte15 were confi rmed by a recent qualitative study conducted in Flanders, com-paring how teachers view and handle pupils enrolled in various educational tracks16. In general, teachers tend to have a less positive perception of students enrolled in lower status tracks. Moreover, they said to adapt their way of teaching and to make the curriculum less demanding when teaching a lower status track17. Th e choices made at the onset of and throughout secondary education can thus be quite consequential for pupils’ future educational careers.
Research has shown that children from working class families are overrepre-sented in vocational and technical secondary education in Flanders18. Th is fi nding
12 P.A.J. Stevens, H. Vermeersch, Streaming in Flemish Secondary Schools: Exploring Teachers’
Perceptions of and Adaptations to Students in Diff erent Streams, “Oxford Review of Education” 2010,
No. 36, Vol. 3, pp. 267–284.
13 M. Van Houtte, Tracking Eff ects…, op.cit.
14 Ibidem; M. Van Houtte, School Type and Academic Culture: Evidence for the Diff
erentiation-Polarization Th eory, “Journal of Curriculum Studies” 2006, No. 38, Vol. 3, pp. 273–292.
15 M. Van Houtte, Tracking Eff ects…, op.cit.
16 P.A. J. Stevens, H. Vermeersch, Streaming in Flemish…, op.cit. 17 Ibidem.
suggests that self-selection also takes place in the Flemish context. Little is known, however, on the mechanisms underlying these diff erentials in educational deci-sion-making.
3. Cultural capital and educational choice
Drawing on the infl uential work of Bourdieu and Passeron19, sociologists of educa-tion oft en seek to explain social inequalities in educaeduca-tional attainment by referring to the concept of cultural capital. Th is means that these researchers assume that inequalities in educational attainment are the result of the unequal distribution of the valued cultural resources in society. Quantitative inquiry that tests this theory mostly employs a highbrow defi nition of the concept of cultural capital, meaning that the concept is operationalized as participation to highbrow cultural activities or high status (beaux arts) possessions20. Research conducted in this vein has shown that parental and children’s own cultural capital furthers their educational careers. With regard to educational choice specifi cally, pupils’ cultural capital has been shown to positively infl uence the propensity of enrolling in demanding edu-cational tracks in Denmark21. However, these studies also show that only parts of the association between children’s social background and educational outcomes are explained by the diff erential possession of cultural resources in families. Th is means that other processes related to the connection between social class and educational attainment have to be at work. Moreover, research using a highbrow interpretation of cultural capital has failed to elucidate how exactly parents’ or children’s participation in highbrow cultural activities infl uences educational pro-cesses. Observing positive eff ects of cultural capital on educational outcomes does not further our understanding of how pupils and parents precisely deploy their acquaintance with dominant culture in educational settings. It thus leaves the black box unopened. In addition, the highbrow research tradition has also been criticized by other scholars for narrowing the scope of potential applications of the concept of cultural capital in educational research22. By contrast, in qualitative research on educational inequality inspired by the concept of cultural capital attention has
19 P. Bourdieu, J.C. Passeron, Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture, London 1977. 20 A. Lareau, E.B. Weininger, Cultural Capital in Educational Research: A Critical Assessment [in:]
Aft er Bourdieu: Infl uence, Critique, Elaboration, D.L. Swartz, V. Zolberg (eds.), Dordrecht 2004,
pp. 105–144.
21 M.M. Jaeger, Equal Access…, op.cit.
primarily gone to the subtle ways in which parents use their cultural resources, such as knowledge of the educational system, in furthering their children’s educa-tional careers23. Lareau24 found that middle class parents are more at ease when interacting with teachers than working class parents and feel more confi dent to intervene in their children’s schooling process as they know what teachers expect them to do. Furthermore, in his study on educational decision-making in Cyprus, Vryonides25 found upper middle class parents, in contrast to working class parents, to be well informed about the educational system as a result of their experiences during their own educational career. Th is knowledge gave them the opportunity of being actively involved in their children’s decision-making process. What ap-pears to be of primary importance for grasping how middle class parents are able to promote their children’s educational career is thus their insider knowledge of the educational system.
4. Social capital and educational choice
Inspired by the work of Bourdieu26 and Coleman27, other sociologists try to explain social inequalities in educational achievement and educational attainment by refer-ring to the networks in which individuals are embedded. Whereas for Bourdieu28 social capital refers to the resources available to individuals through their member-ship of social networks, for Coleman29 social capital is inherent in the structure of social relations and presents itself in three forms: trust, information channels and norms. Both conceptualizations of social capital have potential relevance for the explanation of educational choice, for social networks can be sources of valuable information that enables parents to make well-considered choices. Nevertheless, research relating social capital to educational choice is scarce. Mainstream educa-tional research has mainly used Coleman’s version of the concept and has focused
23 A. Lareau, Home Advantage: Social Class and Parental Intervention in Elementary Education, Lanham 2000; M. Vryonides, Social and Cultural Capital in Educational Research: Issues of
Operation-alization and Measurement, “British Educational Research Journal” 2007, No. 33, Vol. 6, pp. 867–885.
24 A. Lareau, Home Advantage…, op.cit. 25 M. Vryonides, Social and Cultural…, op.cit.
26 P. Bourdieu, Th e Forms of Capital [in:] Handbook of Th eory and Research for the Sociology of
Education, J.G. Richardson (ed.), New York 1986, pp. 241–258.
27 J. Coleman, Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital, “American Journal of Sociolo-gy” 1988, No. 94, Supplement, pp. S95–S120.
28 P. Bourdieu, Th e Forms of Capital…, op.cit. 29 J. Coleman, Social Capital in…, op.cit.
on its infl uence on educational achievement and educational attainment30. By con-trast, research endeavours linking social capital to educational decision-making mostly use Bourdieu’s conceptualization or a combination of both Bourdieu’s and Coleman’s, and apply qualitative methodology31. Ball32 shows how middle class parents and their children are able to gather crucial information through their social networks which enables them to make a well-considered choice, in a way absent in the accounts of working class parents. Furthermore, Horvat’s study33 points to the essential diff erence between working class and middle class parents’ social networks. Whereas the latter oft en contain educators and professionals that can be called upon in case of an educational crisis in their children’s school career, the former are centred around kinship groups which are of very limited use. Im-portantly, their research also suggests that relations between parents of peers are mainly a middle class phenomenon. Th is means that working class parents less oft en benefi t from discussions with other parents about educational matters. Con-sequently, a social capital explanation of inequalities in educational decision-making points to the diff erential availability of social networks and the resources that can be acquired through it, which primarily consist of valuable informal information.
5. Rational action theory
Rational action theories explain social inequalities in educational choice by refer-ring to the diff erent cost-benefi t calculation at which parents arrive when facing a branching point in their children’s educational career34. Th e various versions of the theory diff er slightly in emphasis, but all share the view that parents take their own social position as a point of reference and evaluate costs and benefi ts associ-ated to the educational alternatives at hand from there. Furthermore, parents are
30 S.L. Dika, K. Singh, Applications of Social Capital in Educational Literature: A Critical
Synthe-sis, “Review of Educational Research” 2002, No. 72, Vol. 1, pp. 31–60.
31 S.J. Ball, Class Strategies and the Educational Market: Th e Middle Classes and Social Advantage, London 2003; M.E. Horvat, E.B. Weininger, A. Lareau, From Social Ties to Social Capital: Class Diff
er-ences in the Relations between Schools and Parent Networks, “American Educational Research
Jour-nal” 2003, No. 40, Vol. 2, pp. 319–351. 32 S.J. Ball, Class Strategies…, op.cit.
33 M.E. Horvat, E.B. Weininger, A. Lareau, From Social Ties…, op.cit.
34 R. Boudon, L’inégalité des Chances…, op.cit.; R. Breen, J. Goldthorpe, Explaining Educational
Diff erentials: Towards a Formal Rational Action Th eory, “Rationality and Society” 1997, No. 9, Vol. 3,
also thought to take into account their children’s probability of success in the var-ious educational options. Th e rational action explanation proposed by Erikson and Jonsson35 diff ers from the other ones as it elaborates on the specifi c resources that aff ect parents’ considerations of costs, benefi ts and probability of success and that are unequally distributed over social classes. Th e evaluation of the costs associated with educational options is thought to be primarily dependent on families’ eco-nomic resources. However, as costs of secondary education are almost entirely covered by the (welfare)state in most European educational systems (including the Flemish), other resources should be at work in creating the inequalities observed. It is in this context that Erikson and Jonsson36 point to the potential relevance of parents’ educational resources, in particular at early transitions. For at an age at which it is diffi cult for parents to have a precise idea of their children’s academic ability, highly educated parents are thought to be more confi dent about their capac-ity to assist their children if learning problems arise and consequently, they will evaluate their children’s probability of success much more favourably. As a result, middle class parents will more frequently take up the more demanding educa-tional alternatives than working class parents, even if their children achieved equally well throughout primary school.
Since Breen and Goldthorpe’s restatement37 of the original theory by Boudon38, rational action theory seems to have become predominant in research on class diff erentials in educational choice. However, studies putting the explanatory pow-er of the theory through a test have made use of vpow-ery diff pow-erent oppow-erationalizations and their results are therefore diffi cult to compare39. Nevertheless, most of these studies lend at least some support to an explanation in terms of rational action.
6. Design
Th e central aim of this study is to explore the mechanisms that intervene in edu-cational decision-making at the transition from primary to secondary school in Flanders (the Northern, Dutch-speaking part of Belgium). First of all, we have to determine whether self-selection does also occur in Flanders. Given the fact that
35 Ibidem. 36 Ibidem.
37 R. Breen, J. Goldthorpe, Explaining Educational…, op.cit. 38 R. Boudon, L’inégalité des Chances…, op.cit.
choice is free of restrictions and occurs at a fairly young age, we expect to fi nd that patterns of educational choice will diff er according to class of origin. If class dif-ferentials in educational choice can indeed be established, the next step is then to explore which are the mechanisms behind these diff erences in choice. To this end, this study uses a mixed methods design, combining analysis of survey and focus group data.
We assume that parents in Flanders make a series of binary choices when decid-ing between the educational alternatives available at the onset of secondary educa-tion. First of all, they have to choose whether to send their children to A – or B-stream, subsequently, whether within A-stream they will take up an option leading to academic education or rather an option that leads to technical or arts education, and fi nally, if they choose an academic option, whether it will be Latin or modern sciences. Consequently, as the outcome variable is dichotomous, this study makes use of (stepwise) logistic regression analyses. As noted, we start by determining whether parental socio-economic status has an infl uence on choice of option. First we do so, controlling for gender, family type, ethnic origin and mother’s education. Next, we examine if this eff ect also holds when we control for prior achievement. In the third model, we add measures of cultural capital, as to determine whether these can intermediate the relationship between socio-economic status and choice of option. In the fourth model, we proceed the same way with measures of social capital. Next, we try to elaborate and elucidate the results obtained through the logistic regression analyses by analysis of focus group data.
7. Data
We make use of quantitative data gathered during the months of May and June 2008 from 1339 parents of pupils in their last year of primary education in a sam-ple of 53 Flemish primary schools. Th is data collection took place within the framework of a research project on educational choice at the transition from pri-mary to secondary education, funded by the Flemish ministry of education. Th e participating schools were selected using a disproportionally stratifi ed sample, on the basis of three criteria, namely, geographical spread, school sector and location – in an urban or rural environment. Samples of schools were drawn from offi cial records of primary schools from the Flemish Educational Department. Selected schools were contacted and asked to participate. 41,36% of all the schools we con-tacted, accepted to participate in the study. Th is low rate of positive responses is due to the fact that schools in Flanders are swamped with requests to participate
in research. As schools oft en reply to this kind of requests using a logic of ‘fi rst come, fi rst served’, this data-collection has probably suff ered more from negative responses, as it started at the end of the school year. We have no indication that this could be of infl uence on the results of our study. Once schools had accepted to participate, questionnaires for parents were brought to the school sites by a re-searcher and collected about a month later. Somewhat less than 87% of the ques-tionnaires were handed back, yielding information on 1339 pupils. As we will focus attention on particular decisions (see variables section) and due to missing data on particular variables the number of cases used will vary according to the analy-sis. Qualitative data were gathered by means of two focus groups with pupils who had just made the transition to secondary education in two secondary schools, in the autumn of 2009. Th e two schools in which the focus groups took place were randomly selected from a list of secondary schools in the region that propose both the electives that prepare for general/academic education and those that prepare for technical education. In this manner, we were able to hear about the experi-ences of both pupils who chose for the theoretical electives and pupils who chose for practical electives. Each focus group consisted of eight pupils, of whom three were enrolled in Latin at the time, three in modern sciences and two in a technical option. Both focus groups were moderated by the fi rst author of the article and lasted somewhat more than thirty minutes each. Discussions were guided by a top-ic list, wha top-ich consisted of a number of questions and topa top-ics wha top-ich went from gen-eral to more specifi c and centred on how pupils had made a choice. Each focus group was recorded using a digital voice recorder and transcribed literally aft er-wards. For the analysis use was made of NVivo8 qualitative data analysis soft ware.
8. Variables
8.1. DEPENDENT VARIABLES
We successively consider three diff erent dichotomous dependent variables, fi rst of all, the choice between A-stream (1) and B-stream (0), next, within the A-stream, the choice between the options leading to general/academic secondary education (1) and the options leading to technical or artistic secondary education within A-stream (0) and, fi nally, within general/academic education, the choice between Latin (1) and modern sciences (0). As can be seen from Table 1, only 5,4% of the parents indicated to have chosen to enrol their child in B-stream. Th is fi nding is not surprising, as B-stream is mainly recruiting pupils from primary schools for
special education. Th e distribution of pupils over A – and B-stream in our sample poses problems for the use of multivariate techniques to analyse this particular choice. We therefore restrict the analysis with regard to the choice between A – and B-stream to t-tests comparing the mean SES and mean GPA of pupils enrolling in A – and B-stream (Table 2).
8.2. INDEPENDENT VARIABLES
Parental socioeconomic status (SES) was measured by asking both parents what their occupation was at the time of the survey, or in case they were unemployed, what their previous occupation had been. Answers were then recoded by the re-searcher according to the classifi cation by Erikson, et al. Scores range from 1 to 8, in which 1 stands for unskilled manual labour, 2 for specialized manual labour, 3 for skilled manual labour, 4 for employees, 5 for self-employed craft smen and agriculture, 6 for lower middle management, 7 for higher middle management and 8 for managers, professionals and company holders. To determine family SES the highest of both scores is then used. Th e mean SES in the sample is 5,25 (SD= 1,98).
Pupils’ prior achievement was measured by asking parents what their children’s GPA was at the end of 5th year of primary school. As a lot of Flemish primary schools do not work with GPA’s, 16,5% of the pupils in the sample have missing values on this variable. Th e mean for this variable is 80,67% (SD= 8,18).
Mother’s educational attainment was measured by asking parents to indicate
what the highest credential obtained by the mother of the child was. Parents could choose among: no education, primary education, lower secondary education, high-er secondary education, thigh-ertiary not at univhigh-ersity level and thigh-ertiary at univhigh-ersity level. Answers were recoded into three categories: lower secondary education or less (13,4%), higher secondary education (41,9%) and tertiary education (44,7%). In multivariate analysis, we make use of two dummy variables, with higher second-ary education as a reference category.
As for gender (male= 0, female= 1), 52,1% of the pupils in the sample are girls.
Family type was also measured by a dichotomous variable, equal to 1 when the
pupil lives with both parents and equal to 0 when the pupil lives in a non-intact family. 76,7% of the pupils live with both parents.
Pupils’ ethnic origin was determined by asking parents the birthplace of the pupil’s maternal grandmother. If the pupil’s maternal grandmother was born in Belgium or another Western-European country, the pupil got value 0, if she wasn’t the pupil got value 1. Th e sample consists of 88,5% pupils with Belgian or Western-European origin.
8.3. MEASURES OF CULTURAL CAPITAL
We use two indicators of parental cultural capital, namely knowledge of the edu-cational system and opinions on the eduedu-cational tracks. Knowledge of the
tional system was measured by a series of statements about the Flemish
educa-tional system for which parents had to indicate if they were wrong or right. Parents were given the opportunity to make subtle distinctions in their answers, as the response categories were: surely wrong, probably wrong, no idea, probably right, surely right. An example of such a statement is ‘in secondary education an A-certifi cate means that the pupil passes’. Th e answers were recoded so that a val-ue of 5 means that a parent has identifi ed a wrong statement as being surely wrong and a correct statement as being surely right. Th e answers were then added up, so that parents could attain a maximum score of 45 and a minimum score of 9. Th e mean for this variable is 35,91 (SD= 4,08). Opinions on the educational tracks were measured by seven statements for which parents had to indicate to which extent they agreed with them. Response categories were: strongly disagree, rather disa-gree, neutral, rather adisa-gree, strongly agree. An example of such a statement is ‘gen-eral/academic education always attracts the best pupils’. Cronbach’s alpha for these items was 0,84. Th e items where then added up so that a minimum value of 7 means strongly disagree with the stereotypical image of technical/vocational education and a maximum value of 35 means strongly agree with the stereotypi-cal image of technistereotypi-cal/vocational education. Th e mean for this variable is 16,24 (SD= 5,62).
8.4. MEASURES OF SOCIAL CAPITAL
We have two indicators of social capital, namely parental relations and profes-sional advice. Parental relations were measured by asking parents whether they knew the parents of other pupils in their children’s school, response categories were: nobody, some parents, a lot of them, all parents. We constructed a dichoto-mous variable grouping, on the one hand, parents who knew nobody or only some parents (value 0), and on the other hand, parents who knew a lot of other parents or all the parents (value 1). 54,9% of the parents said to know no other parents or only some of them. Th e second indicator of social capital, professional advice, dis-tinguishes parents who did obtain professional advice (from teachers, school prin-cipal, pupil counsellors; value 1) and those who did not (value 0). 51,9% of the parents did not obtain professional advice.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics for the dependent and independent variables: frequen-cies, means, standard deviations
Variables Mean SD
Independent variables
SES (N= 1274) 5,25 1,98
GPA (N= 1118) 80,67 8,18
Mother’s educational attainment (N= 1296)
Lower secondary education or less Higher secondary education Tertiary education 13,4% 41,9% 44,7% Gender (N=1339) Female Male 52,1% 47,9% Family type (N= 1337) Intact family Non-intact family 76,6% 24,4% Ethnic origin (N= 1314)
Belgian or Western-European origin
Non-Belgian or non-Western-European origin
88,5% 11,5% Knowledge of the educational system (N= 1239) 35,91 4,08
Opinions on tracks (N= 1295) 16,24 5,62
Parental relations (N= 1336)
Parents know no or some other parents Parents know a lot of or all other parents
54,9% 45,1% Advice (N= 1323)
Parents got professional advice Parents got no professional advice
48,1% 51,9% Dependent variables A – or B-stream (N= 1277) A-stream B-stream 5,4% 94,6% A academic or A practical within A stream (N=1172)
A academic A practical
20,7% 79,3% Latin or modern sciences within A academic (N= 889)
Latin
Modern sciences
56,4% 43,6%
9. Results
Table 2 successively compares the mean SES and mean GPA of pupils enrolling in A – and B-stream, of those who, within A-stream, choose an academic option and those who choose a technical or arts option, and of those who within, the aca-demic options, choose Latin and those who choose modern sciences. What is im-mediately apparent from Table 2 is the fact that the more prestigious and more demanding track within each comparison attracts pupils that, on average, per-formed better in primary school and stem from families with higher SES. When we focus attention on the comparison of pupils choosing A – and B-stream, we especially observe a marked diff erence in mean GPA. Pupils in our sample who decided to enrol in B-stream performed considerably worse in primary school than pupils who chose to enrol in A-stream. With regard to the other choices considered, we also observe signifi cant diff erences in GPA and SES, though less pronounced when we compare those pupils choosing Latin or modern, than when we make a comparison of pupils who choose between the electives leading to academic secondary education and those who choose technical or arts secondary education. Table 2. Comparisons of mean GPA and mean SES between educational options
A--stream
B--stream
Mean diff er-ence, t-value
A aca-demic
A practi-cal
Mean diff er-ence, t-value Latin
Modern sciences Mean dif-ference, t-value SES 5,38 (1,94) 4,00 (1,80) 1,38*** (t=5,949) 5,68 (1,84) 4,24 (1,84) 1,44*** (t=10,593) 6,16 (1,70) 5,34 (1,85) 0,82*** (t=6,774) GPA 81,69 (7,44) 67,81 (8,02) 13,87*** (t=13,187) 83,62 (6,42) 74,02 (6,45) 9,59*** (t=19,084) 86,81 (5,07) 81,36 (6,09) 5,45*** (t=13,440) *** p< 0,001
To ascertain whether a pupil’s SES has an eff ect on choice of elective over and above the eff ect of previous achievement, we now turn to multivariate analyses. Table 3 shows the results of a logistic regression analysis of choice for options lead-ing to general secondary education rather than choice for options leadlead-ing to tech-nical or arts secondary education. Model 1 only includes family SES and control variables as predictors of choice between academic and practical electives. Family SES has an independent eff ect on this particular choice, in the expected direction. In fact, as family SES increases with one unit, the chance of choosing the elective leading to general/academic education increases with 30%. Furthermore, we ob-serve signifi cant eff ects of gender, family type and mother’s educational attainment.
Girls and pupils who stem from intact families are respectively 87,5% and 71,2% more likely than boys and pupils from broken families to choose the theoretical electives. A pupil whose mother is highly educated is more than twice as much more likely of enrolling in the theoretical options than a pupil whose mother has stopped at the end of secondary education. In model 2 we additionally control for pupils’ prior achievement. Addition of GPA to the model drastically increases the explained variance (Nagelkerke R²), which gives an indication of its importance in explaining the choice between the theoretical and practical options. Both pupils’ GPA and SES independently and positively infl uence the choice between options leading to general/academic secondary education and those leading to technical or artistic options. Th is means that self-selection at the transition from primary to secondary education does also occur in Flanders. Furthermore, we observe that the eff ects of gender and family type are slightly attenuated and that the eff ect of a pupil’s mother’s educational attainment disappeared altogether.
We now seek to explain the independent eff ect of family SES by introducing two measures of cultural capital to the model. However, adding these measures of cultural capital to the model does not substantially reduce the eff ect of family SES. Th e variable opinions on tracks has an independent eff ect on the choice between academic and practical electives. Th e more stereotypical the opinions parents have about technical/vocational secondary education the more likely they are to choose to send their child to academic electives. Moreover, knowledge of the educational system has no eff ect on this particular choice. In model 4 we add measures of social capital to the equation, however, none of them enables us to explain the eff ect of family SES. Whether parents were able to obtain advice from professionals had an eff ect on choice, as they were 36% less likely to choose the academic electives. Table 3. Odds ratios for logistic regression of choice for the academic electives rather than for the practical electives, N= 882, (standard errors between brackets)
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
SES 1,302*** (0,061) 1,367*** (0,072) 1,331*** (0,073) 1,325*** (0,073) Gender 1,875*** (0,187) 1,666* (0,218) 1,731* (0,222) 1,705* (0,223) Ethnic origin 0,937 (0,342) 2,015 (0,401) 1,718 (0,407) 1,598 (0,409) Family type 1,712** (0,210) 1,634* (0,239) 1,554 (0,244) 1,651* (0,250)
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Mother’s educational attainment (ref. cat. higher secondary education)
Lower secondary education Tertiary education 0,759 (0,289) 2,311*** (0,254) 0,956 (0,344) 1,073 (0,293) 0,853 (0,358) 1,077 (0,298) 0,796 (0,359) 1,049 (0,300) GPA 1,243*** (0,019) 1,237*** (0,019) 1,239*** (0,020)
Knowledge of the educational system 0,975
(0,028) 0,983 (0,029) Opinions on tracks 1,088*** (0,020) 1,085*** (0,021) Parental relations 0,819 (0,234) Advice 0,644+ (0,226) Constant 0,413** (0,341) 0,000*** (1,560) 0,000*** (1,948) 0,000*** (1,994) Nagelkerke R² 0,194*** 0,452*** 0,477*** 0,483*** +p= 0,051; *p< 0,05; **p≤ 0,01; ***p≤ 0,001
We repeat these steps with regard to the choice between Latin and modern sci-ences (Table 4). In the fi rst model containing only family SES and control variables, we observe that only mother’s educational attainment and family SES have an fl uence. As family SES increases with one unit, the chance of choosing Latin in-creases with 23,3%. Children whose mother is highly educated are 61% more likely to choose Latin than children whose mother stopped at the end of higher secondary education. In model 2 we control for previous achievement. Again, we fi nd that SES has an independent eff ect on choice between Latin and modern sci-ences, over and above the eff ect of GPA. Th is means that irrespective of prior achievement, pupils who stem from high SES families are more likely to choose Latin than pupils who stem from low SES families. Furthermore, as we add GPA to the model, the odds-ratio for ethnic origin increases signifi cantly and becomes highly signifi cant. Th is would imply that, when controlling for previous achieve-ment, non-Belgian and non-Western-European pupils are more than four times more likely to choose Latin than Belgian and Western-European pupils. However, this fi nding should be treated cautiously as our sample contains very few
non-Belgian or non-Western-European pupils who indicated to choose Latin (n=32). In model 3 we add both indicators of cultural capital to the equation. However, adding these indicators does not substantially change the eff ect of family SES. Parents’ opinions on the educational tracks have a small independent eff ect on choice between Latin and modern sciences, as parents who endorse more stereo-typical opinions on technical/vocational education are more likely to choose Latin for their children. In the fi nal model, indicators of social capital are added to the equation. Again, these do not enable to explain the eff ect of family SES. However, the variable ‘advice’ has an independent eff ect on the decision between Latin and modern sciences. Parents who were able to obtain professional advice are 48,5% less likely to choose Latin.
Table 4. Odds ratios for logistic regression of choice for Latin rather than for Modern sciences, N=685, (standard errors between brackets)
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
SES 1,233*** (0,062) 1,211** (0,068) 1,195** (0,068) 1,192** (0,069) Gender 1,203 (0,161) 0,996 (0,177) 0,983 (0,178) 0,990 (0,180) Ethnic origin 1,554 (0,378) 4,360*** (0,438) 4,008** (0,445) 3,747** (0,446) Family type 1,172 (0,211) 1,058 (0,234) 1,040 (0,235) 1,050 (0,240) Mother’s educational attainment
(ref. cat. higher secondary education)
Lower secondary education Tertiary education 1,028 (0,392) 1,608* (0,205) 1,008 (0,432) 1,136 (0,227) 0,949 (0,434) 1,132 (0,229) 1,006 (0,439) 1,122 (0,232) GPA 1,206*** (0,020) 1,208*** (0,020) 1,207*** (0,020)
Knowledge of the educational system 0,984
(0,023)
0,984 (0,023)
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Opinions on tracks 1,035* (0,017) 1,035* (0,017) Parental relations 0,964 (0,186) Advice 0,515*** (0,179) Constant 0,138*** (0,390) 0,000*** (1,694) 0,000*** (1,875) 0,000*** (1,894) Nagelkerke R² 0,084*** 0,286*** 0,293*** 0,315*** *p< 0,05; **p<0,01; ***p≤ 0,001
From the quantitative analysis we can conclude that self-selection does also occur in Flanders. High SES families show a greater propensity than low SES fam-ilies to choose the more demanding, academic options for their children, even if the children of the latter achieved equally well in primary school. Indicators of parental cultural and social capital did not enable us to explain these diff erentials in educational choice. We are thus not able to explain class diff erentials in educa-tional choice through parents’ diff erential possession of cultural or social resourc-es, at least not through the indicators we used. Other processes that explain the connection between social class and educational choice should therefore be at work. We now turn to the analyses of the focus group data.
9.1. REFERENCE TO PARENTS
Analysis of both focus groups shows that six out of the sixteen participating pupils made explicit reference to their parents’ educational career – some of them addi-tionally referred to their occupational status – when explaining how they made a particular choice. Two pupils did so during the fi rst focus group and four during the second. Four out of six were enrolled in Latin.
Lauren (focus group 2, Latin): ‘My father did it in the past, and my sister too and yeah, … now me too’
Julie (focus group 1, Latin): ‘In my case, my teacher and my parents [told me to do Latin], because my mum also said “Latin would be a good choice for you, I did that too, and you’ll manage too”…’
Tristan (focus group 2, Latin): ‘Yes … my parents both did Latin and they’ve got a good job now’
Of the remaining two pupils referring to their parents, one was enrolled in modern sciences and the other one in technical education.
Lizz (focus group 2, modern sciences): ‘What they really didn’t want me to do was Latin, because they said that was too diffi cult […]’
Q: ‘And why didn’t she want you to do Latin?’
Lizz (focus group 2, modern sciences): ‘She found it too diffi cult and my mum went to school only until her 14th and … my father, I don’t know, really … but they thought it would be too diffi cult’
Steve (focus group 2, technical education): ‘I chose for it because my father also did technical secondary education and he works at E-COMPANY, for ING, electricity and so on and I would like to do that too, plumber and that kind of stuff , that’s why I chose electro mechanics’
Th e impression that arises is that, at least for these six pupils, parental educa-tional background serves as a point of reference which guides the educaeduca-tional decision. Th is fi nding was further illustrated by statements on which electives they were allowed to choose from and which ones not. Whereas Tristan (whose parents both did Latin and now had ‘a good job’) could only consider the options leading to general/academic secondary education, Steve (whose father was an electrician) could even choose to enrol in vocational education, had he really wanted to.
Tristan (focus group 2, Latin): ‘I wasn’t allowed to choose vocational education because they found that too low … and … also no … technical education, I wasn’t allowed to do that either, the other options yes …’
Steve (focus group 2, technical education): ‘… I could choose whatever I wanted, preferably not vocational education, but I was allowed to, if I really wanted to’
Again, these statements suggest that parents judge the available educational alternatives depending on their own background. We think that these accounts lend support to a view of educational decision-making as a rational calculation made within families. Some statements in particular seem to lend at least some support to Erikson and Jonsson’s40 emphasis on diff erences in the evaluation of probability of success according to the educational resources parents possess.
Elise (focus group 1, Latin): ‘Th ey didn’t really say something about it [options that she was not allowed to consider], they just said “you can do Latin, we both did this too” …’
Whereas parents who themselves studied Latin encouraged their children to take up Latin and made them feel at ease with the prospect of enrolling in the most demanding elective (see also Julie’s statement above), parents (like Lizz’) who themselves didn’t reach the higher levels of educational system were reluctant of making such a – in their eyes hazardous – choice. Moreover, we found plain evi-dence that pupils and parents are forward looking when making their choice.
9.2. LOOKING FORWARD
Th e majority of the participating pupils referred to their future plans when explain-ing how they made their decision. Th ey thus appeared to be forward looking when deciding which educational alternative to choose.
Jef (focus group 1, modern sciences): ‘I chose modern sciences because aft erwards there will be a lot of subjects that I can study at university, … because I’d want to study computer science. Th at’s about it’
Nabil (focus group 2, modern sciences): ‘…, I chose myself that I would enrol in sports, because in the future I would like to be a sports leader and my mother thought that was a good idea too and my father too … and then we chose that’ Sarah (focus group 2, modern sciences): ‘My brother went here too [ to this school ] and he wants to do something else in the future, but he chose the same option as I … and … I talked about it with my mum and then we looked at what I wanted to be in the future and then we chose which option was the best’
Th e fact that pupils and their parents are clearly oriented to future opportunities and future decisions, would again rather lend support to a rational action perspec-tive to the explanation of educational choice. Forward-looking behaviour is indeed a prerequisite for rational action41.
10. Conclusions
Th e observed persistence of social inequalities in educational attainment in Europe has driven researchers to focus attention particularly on class diff erentials in edu-cational choice. Research of this kind has been guided by three theoretical perspec-tives, namely, cultural reproduction theory, rational action theory and social capi-tal theory. Studies juxtaposing these theoretical perspectives are very scarce and the evidence amassed for each of them is rather fragmentary. Th e aim of this study was therefore to explore the mechanisms underlying class diff erentials in educa-tional choice at the transition from primary to secondary education in Flanders taking into account the explanatory potential of these theoretical perspectives. We did so by making use of a mixed methods design, combining both survey data and qualitative data gathered during focus groups.
Logistic regression analyses, fi rst of all, showed that self-selection does also oc-cur in the Flemish context. Pupils stemming from high SES families are more likely to choose the more demanding, general/academic tracks than pupils stem-ming from low SES families, even if the latter performed equally well in primary school. Next, we aimed to determine whether the eff ects of parental SES on edu-cational choice could be explained through the diff erential possession of cultural and social resources. Diff erences in cultural capital measured in terms of parental knowledge of the Flemish educational system and in terms of opinions with regard to educational tracks, cannot explain the eff ect of family SES. Parents’ knowledge of the educational system appears to have no infl uence at all on educational deci-sion-making. Th e opinions about the educational tracks parents endorse do seem to have a small independent impact on educational choice. Th ese fi ndings cor-roborate the fi ndings by Jaeger42, who found that more traditional measures of cultural capital only to a very limited degree explain the eff ect of family SES on educational choice. Furthermore, measures of social capital did also not enable us to explain the impact of family SES. Parents’ relations with other parents at their
41 A. Holm, M.M. Jaeger, Does Relative…, op.cit. 42 M.M. Jaeger, Equal Access…, op.cit.
children’s school haven’t got any infl uence at all on their choices. Whether or not parents had obtained advice from professionals has an independent eff ect on par-ents’ choices, but does not off er an explanation for the fact that high SES families tend to be more likely to choose the more demanding, general academic options. Indeed, advice obtained from professionals seems to depress ambitions, as parents who had obtained such advice tend to be less inclined to choose the more demand-ing options. An alternative explanation could be that those parents who do obtain advice are more uncertain about their choice and are willing to choose the less demanding options.
Nor our measures of cultural capital, nor those of social capital enable us to explain the eff ect of parental SES on choice of option. Analysis of focus group data would rather point in the direction of a rational action interpretation of the diff erential choices made at the onset of secondary education. In fact, six out of sixteen pupils made explicit reference to their parents’ educational background when explaining how they made a choice. It seems as if parents take their own background as a point of reference and evaluate the educational alternatives avail-able to their children from there. Besides, some statements suggest that parents diff erently judge their children’s chances of success depending on their own edu-cational careers, which is a corroboration of the argument proposed by Erikson and Jonsson43. Furthermore, from the accounts of the pupils who participated in the focus groups we can deduce that pupils along with their parents are forward looking when making an educational decision at the onset of secondary education. In fact, participating pupils frequently mentioned future plans when explaining how their choice came into being. A tentative conclusion would thus be that class diff erentials in educational choice at the transition from primary to secondary education in Flanders are the result of rational calculations on behalf of the parents.
It is important to bear in mind some of the particularities and limitations of this study. First, there are obviously other, more common ways of operationalizing the concept of cultural capital which we did not consider in this study, for example the highbrow interpretation. However, we think that the measures we used, are appropriate and meaningful in regard to the study of educational choice. Second, in this study we have heavily emphasised self-selection and we did not pay atten-tion to the potential role played by schools. For example, we did not consider the infl uence of advice given by primary school teachers or the potential gatekeeper function played by secondary school personnel. We think that, although this would be an interesting supplement to this research endeavour, this goes beyond the
scope of the present study. Moreover, as we have argued, there are no formal rules of access to A – or B-stream or the electives within A-stream, which makes that the secondary school personnel can barely function as a gatekeeper. Th ird, we wish to stress the exploratory character of the qualitative part of this study, which was primarily meant to complement the quantitative analyses. We made use of the ac-counts of only sixteen pupils, which is of course a limited amount of information. Nevertheless, we were able to disentangle some recurrent topics in the pupils’ ac-counts. We think future research could further benefi t from applying qualitative methodology to the study of educational choice, as it fosters an understanding of how actors think and proceed when facing educational decisions, which cannot be gained through quantitative analysis.
On the basis of these analyses, we cannot say that cultural and social resources have no role to play at all in the process of individual educational decision-making. What this study shows is that these do not enable us to explain the eff ect of paren-tal SES on educational choice. In the absence of such evidence and in the light of the patterns found in the pupils’ accounts, we think to fi nd some support for a view of educational decision-making as being the result of rational calculation. In this calculation parents take their own situation as a point of reference, considering the (educational) resources on which they can rely.
11. Notes
1) Th is is a simplifi ed picture of the Flemish educational system, as in reality pupils can change from one track to another under certain conditions. How-ever, it has to be stressed that moving from a prestigious/demanding track to a less prestigious track is a much more common practice than the reverse movement44.
2) Th e names of the participating pupils are pseudonyms.
44 J. Van Damme, A. De Troy, J. Meyer, Succesvol doorstromen in de aanvangsjaren van het
R E F E R E N C E S :
Ball S.J. , Class Strategies and the Educational Market: Th e Middle Classes and Social Advan-tage, London 2003.
Blossfeld H.P., Shavit Y., Persisting Barriers: Changes in Educational Opportunities in Th ir-teen Countries [in:] Persistent Inequality: Changing Educational Attainment in Th irteen Countries, Y. Shavit, H.P. Blossfeld (eds.), Boulder 1993.
Bourdieu P., Th e Forms of Capital [in:] Handbook of Th eory and Research for the Sociology of Education, J.G. Richardson (ed.), New York 1986.
Bourdieu P., Passeron J.C., Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture, London 1977. Boudon R., L’inégalité des Chances: La Mobilité Sociale dans les Sociétés Industrielles,
Par-is 1973.
Breen R., Goldthorpe J., Explaining Educational Diff erentials: Towards a Formal Rational
Action Th eory, “Rationality and Society” 1997, No. 9, Vol. 3.
Breen R., Luijkx R., Müller W., Nonpersistent Inequality in Educational Attainment: Evidence
from Eight European Countries, “American Journal of Sociology” 2009, No. 114, Vol. 5.
Coleman J., Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital, “American Journal of Sociol-ogy” 1988, No. 94, Supplement.
Dika S.L., Singh K., Applications of Social Capital in Educational Literature: A Critical
Syn-thesis, “Review of Educational Research” 2002, No. 72, Vol. 1.
Ditton H., Krüsken J., Der Übergang von der Grundschule, “Zeitschrift für Erziehungswis-senschaft ” 2006, Sekundarstufe I, No. 9, Vol. 3.
Duru-Bellat M., Les inégalités sociales à l’école: genèse et mythe, Paris 2002.
Erikson R., Goldthorpe J.H. , Portocarero L., Intergenerational Class Mobility in Th ree West European Countries: England, France and Sweden, “British Journal of Sociology” 1979,
No. 30, Vol. 4.
Can Education Be Equalized? Th e Swedish Case in Comparative Perspective, R. Erikson,
J.O. Jonsson (eds.), Boulder–Colorado 1996.
Holm A., Jaeger M.M., Does Relative Risk Aversion Explain Educational Inequality?
A Dy-namic Choice Approach, “Research in Social Stratifi cation and Mobility” 2008, No. 26.
Horvat M.E., Weininger E.B., Lareau A., From Social Ties to Social Capital: Class Diff
er-ences in the Relations between Schools and Parent Networks, “American Educational
Research Journal” 2003, No. 40, Vol. 2.
Jaeger M.M., Equal Access but Unequal Outcomes: Cultural Capital and Educational
Choic-es in a Meritocratic Society, “Social ForcChoic-es” 2009, No. 87, Vol. 4.
Lareau A., Home Advantage: Social Class and Parental Intervention in Elementary Education, Lanham 2000.
Lareau A., Weininger E.B., Cultural Capital in Educational Research: A Critical Assessment [in:] Aft er Bourdieu: Infl uence, Critique, Elaboration, D.L. Swartz, V. Zolberg (eds.), Dordrecht 2004.
Scherger S., Savage M., Cultural Transmission, Educational Attainment and Social Mobility, “Th e Sociological Review” 2010, No. 58, Vol. 3.
Stevens P.A. J., Vermeersch H., Streaming in Flemish Secondary Schools: Exploring Teachers’
Perceptions of and Adaptations to Students in Diff erent Streams, “Oxford Review of
Education” 2010, No. 36, Vol. 3.
Tan B., Blijvende sociale ongelijkheden in het Vlaamse onderwijs, „Tijdschrift voor Sociolo-gie” 1998, No. 19, Vol. 2.
Van Damme J., De Troy A., Meyer J., Succesvol doorstromen in de aanvangsjaren van het
secundair onderwijs, Leuven 1997.
Van de Werfh orst H.G., Mijs J.J.B., Achievement Inequality and the Institutional Structure
of Educational Systems: A Comparative Perspective, “Annual Review of Sociology” 2010,
No. 36.
Van Houtte M., Tracking Eff ects on School Achievement: A Quantitative Explanation in
Terms of the Academic Culture of School Staff , “American Journal of Education” 2004,
No. 110, Vol. 4.
Van Houtte M., School Type and Academic Culture: Evidence for the Diff
erentiation-Polar-ization Th eory, “Journal of Curriculum Studies” 2006, No. 38, Vol. 3.
Vryonides M., Social and Cultural Capital in Educational Research: Issues of
