Rhythms_of_Class_Zwierpdf
Rhythms_of_Class_Zwierpdf
Page 1 of 27600
dieuwke zwier shared this file. Want to do more with it?
  1. RHYTHMS OF CLASSSocio-Economic Disparities and Peer Dynamics inSecondary School ChoiceDieuwke Zwier
  2. This research was made possible through a grant awarded to René Veenstra, Hermanvan de Werfhorst, Jan Kornelis Dijkstra, Thijs Bol, and Sara Geven for the project“Peer Relations in the Transition from Primary to Secondary school: Social, Behavioraland Academic Aspects of Social Integration” by the Netherlands Initiative forEducation Research (NRO) (grant number 40.5.18325.001) and a grant awarded toDieuwke Zwier for the use of the Netherlands Cohort Study on Education (grantnumber 40.5.20326.005). Additional funding for the research visit was provided by aCultuurfondsgrant from thePiek den Hartog Fondsand a Madeleine Julie Vervoorttravel grant from the Amsterdam University Fund, both awarded to Dieuwke Zwier.© 2024 by Dieuwke ZwierTypesetting: Dieuwke ZwierDesign cover & chapter pages: Esther Beekman | estherontwerpt.nlPrinting: Ipskamp | ipskampprinting.nlISBN: 978-94-6473-659-5
  3. Rhythms of ClassSocio-Economic Disparities and Peer Dynamics in Secondary School ChoiceAcademisch Proefschriftter verkrijging van de graad van doctoraan de Universiteit van Amsterdamop gezag van de Rector Magnificusprof. dr. ir. P.P.C.C. Verbeekten overstaan van een door het College voor Promoties ingestelde commissie,in het openbaar te verdedigen in de Agnietenkapelop dinsdag 28 januari 2025, te 13.00 uurdoor Dieuwke Zwiergeboren te Hoorn
  4. PromotiecommissiePromotores:prof. dr. H.G. van de Werfhorst Universiteit van Amsterdamprof. dr. T. Bol Universiteit van AmsterdamCopromotores:dr. S.A.J. Geven Universiteit van AmsterdamOverige leden:prof. dr. C. Kroneberg University of Cologneprof. dr. C.M.G. Haelermans Universiteit Maastrichtprof. dr. L. Elffers Universiteit van Amsterdamdr. W.R. Boterman Universiteit van Amsterdamprof. dr. O.J.M. Velthuis Universiteit van AmsterdamFaculteit der Maatschappij- en Gedragswetenschappen
  5. TABLE OF CONTENTS1 Synthesis101.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .121.2 The Global Expansion of School Choice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .161.3 SES Disparities in School Choice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .181.4 Peer Effects in School Choice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .261.5 Context: School Choice in the Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . .311.6 Data and Methodological Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .361.7 Four Empirical Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .421.8 Lessons Learned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .471.9 Moving Forward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .491.10 Policy Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .522 Let’s Stick Together562.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .592.2 Background and Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .602.3 Data and Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .652.4 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .722.5 Conclusion and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .773 Knowing Me, Knowing You803.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .833.2 Background and Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .853.3 Data and Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .893.4 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .953.5 Conclusion and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1034 One Track Mind1064.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1094.2 Background and Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1114.3 Data and Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1174.4 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1244.5 Conclusion and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1325 Be True to Your School1365.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1395.2 Background and Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1405.3 Data and Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1465.4 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1515.5 Conclusion and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .157
  6. Appendices162Appendix A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .164Appendix B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .175Appendix C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .183Appendix D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .197Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .211Co-authorship & Publications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .235Data & Code Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .237Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .239Samenvatting (Summary in Dutch) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .245Dankwoord (Acknowledgements) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .251About the Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .255ICS Dissertation Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .257
  7. LIST OF FIGURES1.1 Segregation plot of all Dutch secondary schools (2021). . . . . . . . . .131.2 Overview Dutch educational system. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .321.3 Segregation plot of all Dutch secondary schools by track offer (2021). . .342.1 Hypothetical student choice sets in (a) urban and (b) rural municipalities.672.2 Number of schools in choice set by urbanization degree. . . . . . . . . .683.1Example of (co-occurrences between) student friendship and parentalcontact networks for one classroom. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .913.2 Boxplot mean co-occurrences between friendship and intergenerational ties.974.1 School choice scenarios for students with different track recommendations.1124.2 Sample selection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1194.3 Alluvial plot of student track recommendations and school types. . . . .1254.4 SES disparities in secondary school choice, track offering. . . . . . . . .1274.5 SES disparities in secondary school choice, ability grouping. . . . . . . .1284.6Relation between network resources and school choice, in total and byparental education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1305.1 Share of schools in choice set with a given profile, by parental education.1525.2Share of chosen schools with a given profile, by parental education and track.1535.3 Preferences for school profiles by parental education, CLM estimates. . .1555.4 Cultural versus economic resources, CLM estimates. . . . . . . . . . . .156B.1Results metaregressions SES homophily and SES disparities in IC, and SEScomposition school. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .182C.1 Associations among network layers and social capital indicators. . . . . .191C.2 Overall and within-school variation in social capital. . . . . . . . . . . . .192C.3SES disparities in secondary school choice, ability grouping (three categoriesparental education). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .193C.4SES disparities in secondary school choice, ability grouping (householdincome). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .194C.5 Robustness checks classroom-level response rate. . . . . . . . . . . . . .195C.6 Robustness checks binary social capital indicators. . . . . . . . . . . . .196D.1 Number of schools in choice set. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .208D.2Preferences for school profiles, controls for school quality and composition,CLM estimates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .209D.3 Comparison gymnasium schools vs. classics theme, CLM estimates. . . .210
  8. LIST OF TABLES1.1 Overview of empirical chapters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .432.1 Descriptive statistics students. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .662.2 Descriptive statistics secondary schools. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .732.3 Conditional logit models, secondary school choice. . . . . . . . . . . . .753.1 Descriptive statistics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .913.2 Overview ERGM terms in main model specifications. . . . . . . . . . . .943.3 Descriptive statistics friendship and intergenerational classroom networks.963.4 Results univariate meta-analysis ERGMs, SES homophily. . . . . . . . .983.5 Results univariate meta-analysis ERGMs, co-occurrences. . . . . . . . .1014.1 Sample descriptives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1204.2 Descriptive statistics by parental education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1265.1 Descriptive statistics and representativeness of student sample. . . . . .148A.1 Sample restrictions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .164A.2 Conditional logit models, full (starting) sample. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .165A.3 Conditional logit models, check parental education. . . . . . . . . . . . .166A.4 Conditional logit models, choice sets based on 10 km distance radius. . .167A.5Conditional logit models, including students who pick a school outsidedistance radius. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .168A.6 Conditional logit models, including secondary school fixed effects. . . . .169A.7 Mixed logit models, secondary school choice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .171A.8 Conditional logit models, similar-track peer groups. . . . . . . . . . . . .172A.9 Conditional logit models, subsamples by gender. . . . . . . . . . . . . .173A.10 Conditional logit models, same-gender peer groups. . . . . . . . . . . . .174B.1 Check selectiveness of classrooms included in analytical samples. . . . . .175B.2 Check selectiveness of students included in PRIMS and analytical samples.176B.3 Exclusion classes based on convergence and model fit issues per model. .177B.4Results univariate meta-analysis ERGMs, SES homophily (logistic estimates).178B.5Results univariate meta-analysis ERGMs, SES homophily controlled forspatial proximity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .179B.6Results of univariate meta-analysis ERGMs, co-occurrences (logisticestimates). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .180B.7Results random effects metaregressions SES homophily, SES disparities inIC, and restricted school choice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .181C.1 Partition of variance network resources based on intercept-only models. .183C.2 Choice set descriptives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .184C.3LPMs of school type (track offering) on parental education and controlvariables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .185
  9. C.4LPMs of school type (ability grouping) on parental education and controlvariables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .186C.5 FE LPMs of school type on parental education and network resources. .187C.6LPMs of school type (track offering) on parental education, exit testperformance, and control variables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .188C.7LPMs of school type (ability grouping) on parental education, exit testperformance, and control variables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .189C.8LPMs of school type (track offering) on household income and controlvariables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .190D.1 Overview sample selection procedure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .197D.2Descriptive statistics of all choice alternatives (A) and chosen schools (C),for the full sample and by parental education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .198D.3 Overview school profiles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .199D.4 Preferences for school concept, CLM estimates. . . . . . . . . . . . . .203D.5 Preferences for school themes, CLM estimates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .204D.6 Sensitivity check parental education, CLM estimates. . . . . . . . . . . .205D.7 Preferences for school profiles, estimates from mixed logit models. . . . .206D.8Preferences for school profiles, cultural vs. economic resources, CLMestimates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .207
  10. 1
We use cookies to provide, improve, protect and promote our services. Visit our Privacy Policy and Privacy Policy FAQs to learn more. You can manage your personal preferences, including your ‘Do not sell or share my personal data to third parties’ setting using the “Customize cookies” button below.