**4.1 A typology of education systems according to education inequalities**

If we attempt to analyze the role of education systems in reproducing education inequalities and assume that different systems feature different mechanisms of reproduction, then we must identify the key differences between different countries' education systems. Given the great diversity of education systems, this task is more complex than it might appear at first sight.

There is a great deal of typologies and comparative analyses of education systems. Nevertheless, Kerckhoff's (2000, 2001) typology assumes key importance and is most often used when it comes to education inequalities. It basically builds on and specifies the two dimensions identified in Allmendinger's (1989) seminal work and labeled "standardization" and "stratification".

Allmendinger understood **standardization** as the level of uniformity of education provision in a given education system, i.e. the extent to which it is regulated by centrally defined standards. Here she primarily meant geographic standardization, i.e. to what extent aspects like teacher education, curriculum, school-leaving certificates or financing differ between and within the regions and areas of a given country, and to what extent they are determined by individual providers (i.e., schools). Thus, this dimension primarily refers to the levels of centralization and autonomy within education systems. Based on a comparison between Norway, US and Germany, Allmendinger demonstrated key differences in the level of autonomy, and thus standardization between those countries.

several types of student differentiation and sometimes find it difficult to classify clearly as

**American term** Branching (Tracking) Tracking Ability grouping

**British term** Streaming Setting

External

school

We will divide further discussion on differentiation in two parts. First, we will deal with the overall structure of the education system and the ways it affects the reproduction of education inequalities (the problem of branching). Subsequently, we will focus on the school level and what we know about the processes of differentiation taking place there (the

If we attempt to analyze the role of education systems in reproducing education inequalities and assume that different systems feature different mechanisms of reproduction, then we must identify the key differences between different countries' education systems. Given the great diversity of education systems, this task is more complex than it might appear at first

There is a great deal of typologies and comparative analyses of education systems. Nevertheless, Kerckhoff's (2000, 2001) typology assumes key importance and is most often used when it comes to education inequalities. It basically builds on and specifies the two dimensions identified in Allmendinger's (1989) seminal work and labeled "standardization"

Allmendinger understood **standardization** as the level of uniformity of education provision in a given education system, i.e. the extent to which it is regulated by centrally defined standards. Here she primarily meant geographic standardization, i.e. to what extent aspects like teacher education, curriculum, school-leaving certificates or financing differ between and within the regions and areas of a given country, and to what extent they are determined by individual providers (i.e., schools). Thus, this dimension primarily refers to the levels of centralization and autonomy within education systems. Based on a comparison between Norway, US and Germany, Allmendinger demonstrated key differences in the level of

school level

differentiation at the

A homogenous group of students (classes) is formed for all courses (e.g., a language class is formed) within a

Internal differentiation

classes)

Students within a class are grouped for certain courses (e.g., beginner and advanced language

internal or external differentiation.

Source: Author.

sight.

and "stratification".

**General terms** External differentiation at

**Definition** Students are grouped in

Table 3. Basic types of student differentiation.

problem of tracking and ability grouping).

the education system level

different types of schools

**4. Inequality reproduction at the level of education system** 

autonomy, and thus standardization between those countries.

**4.1 A typology of education systems according to education inequalities** 

**Stratification** was understood as the level of internal and external differentiation (tracking) within an education system and the proportion of a given age cohort that attained the highest level of education available within the system (the highest possible number of years of education). The higher the proportion, the less stratified the system. Thus, education system stratification refers to the system's selective character, i.e. the fact that students are sorted into different tracks and how this affects their education prospects. Unsurprisingly, Allmendinger found the German education system to be highly stratified, as opposed to the US system.

Allmendinger's approach is helpful because it provides us with a simple but effective typology of education system, based on a combination of the above two dimensions. Every country's education system can be classified as one of the four resulting types (standardized and stratified, unstandardized and unstratified, unstandardized and stratified, standardized and unstratified). The advantage of this simple typology becomes clear once we realize, along with Allmendinger, that the degrees of standardization and stratification differ between levels of education within many existing education systems. For example, secondary education in the US is non-stratified (with no tracking and no diversity of diplomas) but tertiary education in the same country is highly selective, and thus stratified11.

As we suggested above, Allmendinger's work had a great impact and was further developed and applied (e.g., Kerckhoff, 2000; Müller & Shavit, 1998). In the following section, we will describe and outline Kerckhoff's approach which adds a third dimension to Allmendinger's original two: the degree of specificity of vocational education12. Finally, it is worth mentioning that while the authors who went in Allmendinger's footsteps developed her approach in many respects, they also frequently introduced great simplification when attempting to operationalize the approach13. Therefore, we can only recommend a critical reading of the original work.
