Early Selection in HungaryA Possible Cause of High Educational Inequality

Daniel Hornresearch fellow

Institute of Economics, Hungarian Academy of Sciencesand

Department of Economics, Eötvös University Budapest

horn@econ.core.hu

Motivation• Age of selection is likely the best proxy for comprehensive

schooling – The later the first age of selection the longer students will study in

heterogeneous groups• Comprehensive schooling is said to be decreasing inequality

(Meghir and Palme 2005, Pekkarinen, Uusilato and Kerr 2007)– and tracking correlates with higher inequality across countries (e.g.

Hanushek and Woessmann 2005, Pfeffer 2008, Horn 2009)• Why?

– Teachers matter (Hanushek, Rivkin and Kain 2005; McKinsey 2007)– Peers matter (Sacerdote 2001, Hanushek et al 2003.)– …

• So the longer one studies in selected groups the larger the difference will be

• The Hungarian system is an „ideal” case for testing early selection

• Inequality in the Hungarian education system is especially high

Source: OECD PISA 2009 Vol. II, p 44.

The system of education is certainly not comprehensive

The Hungarian public education system Early-selective tracks

8-yr-ac and 6-yr-ac

Questions• Are early-selective tracks status selective?• Do early-selective tracks have a higher value-added?• Do longer, 8-year-long academic tracks further

increase differences, as compared to the 6-year-long academic tracks?

• Do others lose because of the early selection?

If answers are affirmative the early selective tracks increase initial differences between students of different status. Thus, the Hungarian system is more unequal (ceteris paribus) because of the early selection.

Data

• National Assessment of Basic Competencies (NABC)– Annually collected since 2006, PISA-like survey of all 6th,

8th and 10th grade students (see below)– Reading and mathematical literacy– Approximate mean: 1500, sd: 200 (before 2010: 500/100)

• Cross cohort and cross year comparable. Mean 1500 and sd 200 is only for 2008. 6th grade

• I standardize these, 0 mean 1 sd, for each year, cohort and subject– Detailed background questionnaires

• generated Socio-economic status (SES) index – 0 mean 1 sd– Individual panel since 2008

The NABC cohorts  4th grade 6th grade 8th grade 10th grade

2003 020 students from every

school 020 students from each track

from each school

2004 020 students from every

school20 students from

every school20 students from each track

from each school

2006 full cohortevery student from a

sample of 195 schools full cohort30 students from each track

from each teaching site

2007 full cohortevery student from a

sample of 200 schools full cohort30 students from each track

from each teaching site

2008*every student from a

sample of 200 schools full cohort full cohort full cohort

2009*every student from a

sample of 200 schools full cohort full cohort full cohort

2010*every student from a

sample of 200 schools full cohort full cohort full cohort

* Individual identification numbers available

Descriptive statistics

3,8%

96,2%

3,9%

5,3%

90,8%

3,0%

4,8%

30,3%

40,2%

21,7%

Percentage of students in different tracks

1673

1491

1782

1756

1615

1821

1807

1704

1608

1452

Average math test scores

1675*

1693*

1450*

1598*

0,85

0,83

-0,059

0,8

0,8

0,39

-0,1

-0,81

Average SES index

ARE EARLY-SELECTIVE TRACKS STATUS SELECTIVE?1st question

YES! (DETAILS IN THE PAPER, DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINT – SORRY!)

DO EARLY-SELECTIVE TRACKS HAVE A HIGHER VALUE-ADDED?

DO LONGER, 8-YEAR-LONG ACADEMIC TRACKS FURTHER INCREASE DIFFERENCES, AS COMPARED TO THE 6-YEAR-LONG ACADEMIC TRACKS?

(6TH TO 8TH GRADE)

2nd and 3rd question

The model

• Model:where, i-individual, s – school (track), t – timeY – test score,X – student charactersitics – SES, GenderZ – school characteristics – track type, ed. provider (FE)

• Endogenity problem – if Zst = Zs(t-1)

– Thus if students do not change tracks during observations, track has an effect on Y(t-1) as well

– students start general tracks six years, and 8-yr-ac tracks two years earier than we measure them. Thus 6th grade test scores reflect the quality of the given track

• Note: 6-yr-ac value-added is unbiased

Endogenity problem• Sollution: Instrumental variable estimation

– instrument: distance from home to nearest 6-yr-ac and 8-yr-ac– assumption: distance has an effect on the chance to enter an

early-selective track, but it does not affect test scores• Problem with instrument:

– correlates with average SES• establishment of early selective tracks was demand driven

– correlates with average teacher quality• teachers are also selected; just as students

• Easing the problem– Spliting the sample decreases the bias

• 8-yr-ac vs. 6-yr-ac and 6-yr-ac vs. general– Track effects in IV estimation are underestimated:

the stronger the correlation bw. distance and teacher quality the more effect the instument „absorbs”.

  (7) (8)VARIABLES Read Math     General school -0.0383*** 0.0221

(0.0145) (0.0208)8-yr-ac 0.0732*** 0.138***

(0.0188) (0.0304)Standardized reading score, 6th grade 0.565*** 0.165***

(0.00496) (0.00555)Standardized math score, 6th grade 0.230*** 0.630***

(0.00493) (0.00645)SES 0.0832*** 0.0597***

(0.00379) (0.00441)female 0.222*** -0.131***

(0.00493) (0.00537)Education provider FE. y yConstant -0.100*** 0.0227

(0.0148) (0.0215)

Observations 82,211 82,210R-squared 0.638 0.596

Robust site clustered standard errors in parentheses, *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

OLS

8-yr-ac vs. 6-yr-ac 6-yr-ac vs. general  (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

First stage Second stage First stage Second stageVARIABLES 8-yr-ac Read Math General Read Math

             

8-yr-ac 0.0810 0.228***(0.0600) (0.0831)

general -0.545** 0.0114(0.226) (0.311)

Standardized reading score, 6th grade 0.00694 0.545*** 0.188*** -0.00970*** 0.561*** 0.165***

(0.0143) (0.0119) (0.0138) (0.00178) (0.00557) (0.00636)Standardized math score, 6th grade -0.0232 0.217*** 0.702*** -0.0282*** 0.215*** 0.625***

(0.0185) (0.0106) (0.0138) (0.00359) (0.00840) (0.0113)

SES -0.0183 0.0483*** 0.0744*** -0.0194*** 0.0720*** 0.0591***

(0.0120) (0.00842) (0.00876) (0.00240) (0.00594) (0.00797)female 0.0284 0.190*** -0.244*** -0.00673** 0.219*** -0.127***

(0.0174) (0.0138) (0.0145) (0.00283) (0.00545) (0.00593)distance bw. home and closest 8-yr-ac -0.0169***

(0.00155)distance bw. home and closest 6-yr-ac 0.00198***

(0.000238)Ed. provider FE y y y y y yConstant 0.515*** -0.0240 -0.0421 0.949*** 0.391* 0.0305

(0.0598) (0.0299) (0.0435) (0.00602) (0.220) (0.301)

Observations 7,986 7,989 7,986 78,744 78,743 78,744R-squared 0.131 0.536 0.644 0.186 0.618 0.584

Robust site clustered standard errors in parentheses, *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

IV – split sample

M: 0,228***R: n.s.

Estimated differences bw. tracks, reference 6-yr-ac

M: n.s.R: -0,545**

M: 0,17**R: n.s.

M: -0,226**R: n.s.

DO OTHERS LOSE BECAUSE OF THE EARLY SELECTION?

4th question

YES, IN MATH.Students in general schools, where early-selective tracks are available perform worse in math bw. 6th and 8th grade, compared to students in general schools with no early-selective track around.

Conclusion

Conclusion

• Early selective tracks are status selective(6-yr-ac tested)

• Early selective tracks have a higher value added– between 6th and 8th grade in reading– between 8th and 10th grade in math

• 8-yr-ac performs better than 6-yr-ac in math each year• Students left in general tracks lose

Early selection increases the gap between students of different social background

Thank you for your attention!

Comments welcome!horn@econ.core.hu

Track type combinations within sites

Number of sites

general 8-yr-ac 6-yr-ac 4-yr-ac technikum voc. train.

2463 1 0 0 0 0 0228 0 0 0 0 1 1162 0 0 0 0 1 095 0 0 0 1 1 091 0 0 0 1 0 082 1 0 1 1 0 078 0 0 0 0 0 172 1 0 0 1 0 052 1 1 0 1 0 050 0 0 0 1 1 143 1 0 0 0 0 123 1 1 0 0 0 023 1 0 1 0 0 023 1 0 1 1 1 015 1 1 0 1 1 014 1 0 0 0 1 08 0 0 1 1 0 08 1 0 0 0 1 18 1 0 0 1 1 07 1 0 0 1 0 17 1 0 0 1 1 15 0 0 0 1 0 13 1 0 1 0 1 03 1 1 1 1 0 02 0 1 0 1 0 02 0 0 1 1 1 02 1 0 1 1 1 11 0 0 1 1 1 11 1 1 0 0 1 01 1 1 1 0 0 01 1 1 0 1 0 11 1 1 0 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 0

Spatial distribution of early selective tracks