**4.3 Standardization of education systems**

While both Allmendiger and Kerckhoff considered standardization (i.e., ensuring certain proximity or comparability of education across a country's education system) to be a single dimension (i.e., more-or-less standardized systems can be distinguished), it may cover several different areas of an education system with different individual levels of standardization. In particular, it may cover the following aspects: (a) the ways and levels of financing, (b) the curriculum, (c) school-leaving certificates, (d) educational procedures, (e) teacher education and career growth, (f) monitoring and evaluation of educational achievement.

Generally speaking, centrally managed education systems exhibit higher standardization. For instance, standardization is typical for France where the national Ministry of Education is responsible for teacher education, student and teacher evaluation, and the specification of national curriculum (Kerckhoff, 2001). In contrast, the different administrative districts in Great Britain possess important powers and autonomy, while the financing and certification are rather standardized across the country. Kerckhoff found the least level of standardization in the US, where important competencies lie in the hands of different states and regions and the ways and levels of financing also differ between places.

Germany is an example of a highly stratified education system. Compulsory school education begins at the age of six. After four years of mixed classes, pupils are divided into three different education tracks (Mortimer & Krüger, 2000). Only about 30% of the most successful enter the *Gymnasium* which provides nine years of education and prepares them for college. The Main School (*Hauptschule*) is the second education track for grades 5 through 9. While it provides general education, it is already oriented towards future vocational education for mostly manual labor. The third type, the Real School (*Realschule*) lies between the *Gymnasium* and the Main School. The Great Britain's system is also stratified and distinguishes between *Secondary Modern, Comprehensive* and *Grammar Schools.*  There is no such thing in countries like the US or France. All US high school graduates receive the same diploma and are able to go on to college. While there are different types of secondary schools in France, with either general or vocational orientation, all graduates obtain a *baccalauréat* and, in turn, access to college. (Interestingly, the French system used to be almost as stratified as the German one until the 1970s.) On the other hand, students with a *baccalauréat* from a general secondary school have better odds of entering college than

Stratification primarily depends on the opportunities for further study any given type of study opens up. Since Kerckhoff meant merely a *formal* stratification of education systems (that is, what school-leaving certificates made possible), he found a low level of stratification in the US system. One might object that even in the US there is an important distinction between private, church and public schools, and the consequences of this distinction are much higher than in Europe. At the same time, private schools usually provide better quality than public schools. Thus, even in the US system, the *type* of school stratifies and differentiates students; simultaneously, the family's economic status is the main factor that determines whether one goes to a private school. As a result, it is generally true that "education inequalities are more likely to occur in more stratified education systems" but we should take

While both Allmendiger and Kerckhoff considered standardization (i.e., ensuring certain proximity or comparability of education across a country's education system) to be a single dimension (i.e., more-or-less standardized systems can be distinguished), it may cover several different areas of an education system with different individual levels of standardization. In particular, it may cover the following aspects: (a) the ways and levels of financing, (b) the curriculum, (c) school-leaving certificates, (d) educational procedures, (e) teacher education and career growth, (f) monitoring and evaluation of educational

Generally speaking, centrally managed education systems exhibit higher standardization. For instance, standardization is typical for France where the national Ministry of Education is responsible for teacher education, student and teacher evaluation, and the specification of national curriculum (Kerckhoff, 2001). In contrast, the different administrative districts in Great Britain possess important powers and autonomy, while the financing and certification are rather standardized across the country. Kerckhoff found the least level of standardization in the US, where important competencies lie in the hands of different states

and regions and the ways and levels of financing also differ between places.

into consideration both formal (legislated) stratification and informal stratification.

those from technical or vocational schools.

**4.3 Standardization of education systems** 

achievement.

Thus, the effects of standardization on education inequalities remain unclear. On one hand, vast literature covers the effects of stratification and the proportion between general and vocational education on educational achievement and inequalities. On the other hand, there is very little empirical evidence about the effects of standardization and we have to resort to a limited number of research studies or logical deduction. Generally we can assume that standardization ensures similar education and a minimum level of quality for all. Green (1997: 296) analyzed educational achievement in centralized and decentralized systems and concluded that "the high-achieving countries appear to have an 'inclusive learning culture' which is characterized by the high premium which society places on learning *for all groups*  … [and whose education systems] institutionalize norms and expectations for everyone, and not just the élites" (emphasis in original). At the same time, he found necessary "a high degree of state 'regulation', where government acts in a concerted fashion at different levels to define and operationalize the system, including defining and enabling the roles of the different social partners within it" (Green, 1997: 296).

It is not difficult to deduce that greater autonomy expands freedom and room for innovation, on one hand, and increases the differentiation of educational achievement, on the other hand. For example, if individual administrative regions are given the responsibility for financing schools and the freedom to set their own money allocating mechanism, it they are highly likely to choose different strategies with different effects. Analogically, when schools get more discretion in designing the curriculum and teaching methods, one may expect school curricula to be better tailored to the abilities and interests of both students and teachers in each individual school. At the same time, differences between schools are likely to grow and while good students become even better, the average and under-average ones are likely to fall behind even more.

All of this has its pros and cons. No exact optimal level of standardization can be determined for the above dimensions. However, many countries have taken the road of increasing standardization, especially in the field of curriculum. As a typical example, the US introduced a standards-based reform at the turn of 1990s (Roeber, 1999). The reforms aimed at improving educational achievement by setting national standards for different subjects and raising the overall "education bar". Interestingly, the standardization effort was criticized from both sides: because advanced students would be slowed down by the necessary adaptation to general standards for all, and because disadvantaged and handicapped students failing to fulfill the general standards would suffer graver consequences (Roeber, 1999: 162).

Recently, most developed education systems have progressed from process standardization to outcome standardization (OECD, 2004b). Most developed countries' education systems substantially increased the autonomy of schools and administrative districts. Subsequently, some of them introduced additional control mechanisms. There is no agreement on the ways control mechanisms should be designed. Unless part of a larger plan, national testing initiatives and subsequent repression of "unsuccessful schools" do not seem to always produce the desired results in terms of quality or equal opportunities. Instead, cheating takes place and, as a result, schools become increasingly differentiated and classified as either good or bad. It is unclear whether test results improve due to exercise before the specific test or an actual increase in students' knowledge and skills in the given subject. Standardization through testing proves to have negative consequences for the achievement

Systems built around specific skills tend to facilitate more egalitarian societies, with fewer differences between people. The above authors contend that this relationship is not primarily caused by the social protection itself but rather by the type of vocational education system. For approximately one-third of students with the worst study competence, vocational education ensures the best and only chance to increase their value on the job market (Estevez-Abe et al., 2001: 156). If general education was only available to those people, their labor market competitiveness would be much worse and they would drop to the level of unskilled jobs. In other words, systems without vocational education provide below-average secondary school graduates with much lower return on their education investment, compared to systems that prepare them for specific occupations. A little standardized and little structured system – like the US one – makes secondary school graduates who do not go straight to college suffer a relatively long time period of searching for the best occupation ("floundering"), a time period many consider extremely unproductive and ineffective in terms of maturation and employability (Hamilton, 1990). For others, however, this is a quality of an open system that facilitates perceived

One of the main controversial aspects of vocational education is whether vocational secondary education should be viewed as an "effective social security safety net" that increases the employability of graduates and decreases the risk of unemployment, or rather as a way of diverting students from higher education (Shavit & Müller, 2000). According to the former opinion that primarily relies on the theory of human capital, vocational education raises the employability and income of trainees and students by increasing their abilities and skills. Authors of this stream (Bishop, 1989; Blossfeld, 1992) assume that vocational education provides students with the knowledge and skills that increase their labor productivity, thus raising employers' demand for their work and the students' chances of earning a decent income. According to the latter opinion, a sharp division between general and vocational education represents an unjustifiable sorting of students into two hierarchical groups that lead to entirely different life courses and reproduce education inequalities across generations. Empirical research reveals that both opinions are partially right. As a rule, vocational education does lower the odds of proceeding to tertiary-level education but, at the same time, it decreases the risk of unemployment and increases the

Another frequently discussed issue is to what extent participation in vocational education determines future education possibilities. Especially important here is the percentage of vocational school graduates who proceed to the tertiary level. According to one theory (Hilmert & Jacob, 2003), vocational education is a "detour", i.e. a longer track to college. It is precisely the length of this track that may deter talented students from going to college. Undoubtedly, countries with high proportions of vocational secondary education (Germany, Austria, France) have little percentages of tertiary level students, while countries with predominantly general education make massive investments in tertiary education

16 There is also the opinion that it facilitates flexibility in workers, making the systems less rigid than those with vocational education and increasing their innovation potential. 17 Nevertheless, countries differ in the extent to which vocational education provides a "social security net". For example, the unemployment of apprenticeship graduates in Germany is much lower than in

opportunities and upward mobility (Turner, 1960)16.

chances of obtaining a qualified manual job (Arum & Shavit, 1995)17.

(Estevez-Abe et al., 2000: 172).

the Czech Republic.

of students at the left tail of the distribution because, in many systems, those students are increasingly obliged to repeat a grade, which discourages them and does not make their achievement better14. Therefore, there has been an ever stronger call for individualizing the education (caring for each individual student) and for increasing schools' and teachers' internal motivation (using standards as a feedback for schools and teachers, rather than an instrument of control and repression).
