Does Early Tracking Affect Learning Inequalities? Revisiting Difference-in-difference Modeling Strategies with International Assessments

Dalit Contini () and Federica Cugnata ()
Additional contact information
Federica Cugnata: University of Turin, http://www.est.unito.it/

Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis. Working Papers from University of Turin

Abstract: The development of international surveys on children’s learning like PISA, PIRLS and TIMSS – delivering comparable achievement measures across educational systems – has revealed large crosscountry variability in average performance and in the degree of inequality across social groups. A key question is whether and how institutional differences affect the level and distribution of educational outcomes. In this contribution, we discuss the difference-in-difference strategies employed in the existing literature to evaluate the effect of early tracking on learning inequalities exploiting international assessments administered at different age/grades. In their seminal paper, Hanushek and Woessmann (2006) analyze with two-step estimation the effect of early tracking on overall inequalities, measured by test scores’ variability indexes. Later work of other scholars in the economics and sociology of education focuses instead on inequalities among children of different family background, using individual-level models on pooled data from different countries and assessments. In this contribution, we show that individual pooled difference in difference models are quite restrictive and that in essence they estimate the effect of tracking by double differentiating the estimated cross-sectional family background regression coefficients between tracking regimes and learning assessments. Starting from a simple learning growth model, we show that if test scores at different surveys are not measured on the same scale, as occurs for international learning assessments, pooled individual models may deliver severely biased results. Instead, the scaling problem does not affect the two-step approach. For this reason, we suggest using two-step estimation also to analyze family-background achievement inequalities. Against this background, using PIRLS-2006 and PISA- 2012 we conduct two-step difference-in-difference analyses, finding new evidence that early tracking fosters both overall inequalities and family background differentials in reading literacy.

Pages: pages 33
Date: 2020-07
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-edu
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.est.unito.it/do/home.pl/Download?doc=/ ... 20dip/wp_18_2020.pdf (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:uto:dipeco:202018

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis. Working Papers from University of Turin Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Laura Ballestra () and Cinzia Carlevaris ().