{"title":"德国去追踪改革的双刃剑:利用差分法估算对学生教育愿望的影响及其与学生社会经济背景的关系","authors":"Marlen Holtmann , Camilla Rjosk , Malte Jansen , Oliver Lüdtke","doi":"10.1016/j.stueduc.2024.101350","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Some German states recently reformed their tracking practices by reducing the number of secondary school track options from up to four to a two-path structure, in which students can continue their school career until they acquire the general university entrance qualification in both tracks (academic and comprehensive). We examine whether these <em>de-tracking</em> reforms were, as intended, associated with a change in students’ educational aspirations and whether they reduced socioeconomic disparities in students’ educational aspirations. We analyze representative data of around 65,000 ninth graders from states with and without reforms from pre- and post-reform periods (2012 to 2018), using a Difference-in-Differences approach and a regression of students’ educational aspirations on their socioeconomic backgrounds. Our results suggest that students’ educational aspirations have increased in the wake of the <em>de-tracking</em> reforms, but that socioeconomic disparities in students’ educational aspirations have increased rather than weakened. Implications for tracking practices and socioeconomic disparities are discussed.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47539,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Educational Evaluation","volume":"81 ","pages":"Article 101350"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The double-edged sword of de-tracking reforms in Germany: Using a Difference-in-Differences approach to estimate effects on students' educational aspirations and their association with students' socioeconomic backgrounds\",\"authors\":\"Marlen Holtmann , Camilla Rjosk , Malte Jansen , Oliver Lüdtke\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.stueduc.2024.101350\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Some German states recently reformed their tracking practices by reducing the number of secondary school track options from up to four to a two-path structure, in which students can continue their school career until they acquire the general university entrance qualification in both tracks (academic and comprehensive). We examine whether these <em>de-tracking</em> reforms were, as intended, associated with a change in students’ educational aspirations and whether they reduced socioeconomic disparities in students’ educational aspirations. We analyze representative data of around 65,000 ninth graders from states with and without reforms from pre- and post-reform periods (2012 to 2018), using a Difference-in-Differences approach and a regression of students’ educational aspirations on their socioeconomic backgrounds. Our results suggest that students’ educational aspirations have increased in the wake of the <em>de-tracking</em> reforms, but that socioeconomic disparities in students’ educational aspirations have increased rather than weakened. Implications for tracking practices and socioeconomic disparities are discussed.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47539,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Studies in Educational Evaluation\",\"volume\":\"81 \",\"pages\":\"Article 101350\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Studies in Educational Evaluation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191491X24000294\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in Educational Evaluation","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191491X24000294","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
The double-edged sword of de-tracking reforms in Germany: Using a Difference-in-Differences approach to estimate effects on students' educational aspirations and their association with students' socioeconomic backgrounds
Some German states recently reformed their tracking practices by reducing the number of secondary school track options from up to four to a two-path structure, in which students can continue their school career until they acquire the general university entrance qualification in both tracks (academic and comprehensive). We examine whether these de-tracking reforms were, as intended, associated with a change in students’ educational aspirations and whether they reduced socioeconomic disparities in students’ educational aspirations. We analyze representative data of around 65,000 ninth graders from states with and without reforms from pre- and post-reform periods (2012 to 2018), using a Difference-in-Differences approach and a regression of students’ educational aspirations on their socioeconomic backgrounds. Our results suggest that students’ educational aspirations have increased in the wake of the de-tracking reforms, but that socioeconomic disparities in students’ educational aspirations have increased rather than weakened. Implications for tracking practices and socioeconomic disparities are discussed.
期刊介绍:
Studies in Educational Evaluation publishes original reports of evaluation studies. Four types of articles are published by the journal: (a) Empirical evaluation studies representing evaluation practice in educational systems around the world; (b) Theoretical reflections and empirical studies related to issues involved in the evaluation of educational programs, educational institutions, educational personnel and student assessment; (c) Articles summarizing the state-of-the-art concerning specific topics in evaluation in general or in a particular country or group of countries; (d) Book reviews and brief abstracts of evaluation studies.