**4.2 Stratification of education systems**

Stratification is understood as "the degree to which systems have clearly differentiated kinds of schools whose curricula are defined as 'higher' and 'lower'" (Kerckhoff, 2001: 4). As such, stratification usually takes place at the (lower or higher) secondary level of education.

 11 At this point, Allmendinger's concept seems rather inconsistent. When studying stratification in secondary education, the author merely considered the formal existence of different tracks; in contrast, for the tertiary system, she added the criterion of quality and *informal* distinction between different colleges and universities. The question is, would the author label US secondary education as nonstratified if she approached it in the same way as tertiary education?

<sup>12</sup> One might object here that this dimension is already covered by the stratification level. Indeed, systems grouping students in the general and vocational education tracks are stratified. However, given its importance, we will deal with this aspect separately, along with Kerckhoff. In his latest article on the topic, Kerckhoff (2001) further mentioned a fourth dimension: "student choice". He understood it as the level of flexibility of decisions a given education system allows to students. This aspect is also strongly

related to the system's stratification, and therefore, we will not deal with it separately. 13 For example, Kerckhoff (2000) assessed standardization and stratification for education systems *as a whole,* rather than the individual levels of education like Allmendinger did. On the other hand, Müller & Shavit (1998) operationalized stratification simply as level of differentiation (tracking) in secondary education.

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

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

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

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

different social partners within it" (Green, 1997: 296).

under-average ones are likely to fall behind even more.

consequences (Roeber, 1999: 162).

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 those from technical or vocational schools.

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