Simonova Soukup presentation

Document Sample
Simonova Soukup presentation Powered By Docstoc
					Educational Reproduction in the
 Czech Lands from 1916 to the
Present: A Mobility Perspective
              Natalie Simonová
                Petr Soukup

  The analysis and its presentation are based on
  work carried out during a visit to the European
     Centre for Analysis in the Social Sciences
       (ECASS) at the Institute for Social and
      Economic Research, University of Essex
        supported by the Access to Research
   Infrastructure action under the EU Improving
           Human Potential Programme.
             Outline of presentation
   Aims & research questions

   Absolute mobily analysis

   Relative mobily analysis

   Related research-some results

   Conclusions
AIMS & RESEARCH
   QUESTIONS
              Aims of the analysis

   to show with the help of mobility analysis the
    development of educational reproduction in
    the Czech Lands from 1916 so far
   to give detailed insight on structural contexts,
    which formed chances on educational
    transitions in 3 main époques (before-
    socialism, socialism, post-socialism)
            General starting points

   in the beginning of 20th century the Czechs were
    the most educated nation among Eastern
    European nations, e.g. differences between the
    Czech and German society were negligible
   after 1948 high degree of status inconsistency
    was taking place
   after the fall of socialism relations between
    education, occupation and income strenghten
    again
   i.e. after 1989 the association between education
    of parents and offspring should weaken
     Conditions for educational reproduction
                    formation
   it seems so far, that after the Velvet revolution
    educational reproduction doesn't decrease
   individuals continuation to tertiary level is highly
    determinated by his previous choice of
    secondary school
   educational aspirations grow noticeably
    (demand), as well as possibilities to study at
    secondary and tertiary level schools (supply)
   process of Czech higher education's
    liberalisation is rather at its beginning, in
    comparison to Poland the CR has 10-year delay
    (Simonová, Antonowicz 2006)
               Research questions

   Is the Czech education system becoming
    more/ less open after 1989?
   Are there any differences between men
    and women in their mobility patterns?
   What mechanisms are hidden behind
    found inequality levels in all 3 historical
    periods?
ABSOLUTE MOBILITY
     ANALYSIS
              Data and methods

   9 data sets combined (TSS 1978, 1984,
    1991; SIALS; SSVE; ISSP 1997, 1999;
    ESS 2004; Cohesion 2005), n = 41 460
   variables = education of father, mother,
    respondent, respondent’s sex and his age
    cohort
   1888 to 1985 covered (by respondent’s
    birth) or 1906 to 2003 (by the year of 18th
    birthday)
          Development of net mobility from 1906 to
                          2003

             1888-1920   1921-1926   1927-1930   1931-1950   1951-1971   1972-1985
             1906-1938   1939-1944   1945-1948   1949-1968   1969-1989   1990-2003



                                 Net mobility

parent-
daughter
              6,85        8,05         8,6        15,8        31,6        34,9

parent-
son
               3,9        7,25         6,5       18,55        33,3        32,2

mother-
daughter
               1,3         2,4         2,9         6,1       18,05       33,15

father-
              3,65         6,5         5,9       16,55        32,1       38,95
son
Upward educational mobility for individual age cohorts

                parent-daughter          parent-son              mother-daughter      father-son

    35
                                                                               31,6
%                                       29,5   29,9
    30                                                      29,1
                                                                                                 27,7
                            26,5                                   26,0
    25
                             25,8                                                  23,9          22,1
                                                            24,9
                                                                     22,7         23,0
    20
                                                                              20,9                  18,7
         16,7    16,9                                                                     16,8
    15
                          11,8            12,0
    10
                 6,8              9,1            8,8
     5
          4,7
     0
         1888-1920      1921-1926         1927-1930         1931-1950       1951-1971     1972-1985

         1906-1938      1939-1944         1945-1948         1949-1968       1969-1989     1990-2003
                                                       Cohorts
    Downward educational mobility for individual age
                      cohorts
           parent-daughter         parent-son        mother-daughter           father-son

    30
%                                                                                              29,9

    25
                                                                                       22,5
                                                                                                22,0
    20
                                                                                17,3
                                                                       15,6             14,8
    15
                                                                               14,4
                                                         8,5
    10
                                                                 7,9     7,3
                             4,3          4,4                  7,5
     5         3,7
                        2,6 2,9                         2,2
               1,7                           2,4
         1,5                1,1          2,0 1,4
     0         0,6

         1888-1920    1921-1926        1927-1930      1931-1950        1951-1971       1972-1985

         1906-1938    1939-1944        1945-1948      1949-1968        1969-1989       1990-2003
                                           Cohorts
  Upward/ downward mobility ratio 1906 to 2003

           1888-1920   1921-1926   1927-1930   1931-1950   1951-1971   1972-1985
           1906-1938   1939-1944   1945-1948   1949-1968   1969-1989   1990-2003



                   upward / downward ratio
parent-
daughter    1,26        2,12         2,0        2,87        1,47        0,83

parent-
son
            9,44         8,9       12,29        2,93        1,21        0,56

mother-
daughter
           11,50       10,73        8,57       13,23        4,33        1,87

father-
           10,69       10,19        14,9        3,47        1,66         1,0
son
     Absolute mobility analysis conclusions

   total mobility increasingly formed by net mobility
    continues still after 1989
   educational system expanded with upward mobility
    prevailing until 1968, after 1968 stagnation and
    downward mobility increase
   educational opportunities have been weakening for
    both sexes after 1989
   upward mobility equal to downward mobility in men,
    upward mobility twice as big as downward mobility
    in women after 1989
   women profit from the educational development
    after 1989 (twice as much as men), men stagnate
RELATIVE MOBILITY ANALYSIS
                 Relative mobility analysis

   log-linear analysis eliminates impact of marginal
    distributions (quantitative changes in the system)
   aimed to find the model best accounting for correlations
    between education of parents, respondents and the
    cohort
   conditional independence model, constant fluidity model
    and log-multiplicative model were compared
   the log-multiplicative model captured data structure best
    in all 4 cases

Model: log(mabc)=λa+λb+λc+λab+λac+Φaλbc,
where a - cohort, b-parent education, c-child’s education, Φ-association
  parameter (for parent and child’s education)
     Results of log-linear analysis of associations between mother’s (M) education,
   daughter’s (D) education and cohort (C), father’s (F) education, son’s (S) education
    and cohort (C), education of the parent with higher level of education (P), his/her
                 child’s education (son and/or daughter) and cohort (C)



Model             Description            L2         df        sig.       BIC        delta

                Log-
PC DC(PD)x      multiplicative         57,3         15       0,0000     -91,9      0,0111
                model

                Log-
PC SC (PS)x     multiplicative         14,7         15       0,4721     -132,5     0,0060
                model

                Log-
MC DC(MD)x      multiplicative         31,4         15       0,0079     -117,5     0,0048
                model

                Log-
FC SC(FS)x      multiplicative         14,9         15       0,4581     -131,8     0,0066
                model
Coefficient of association* in log-multiplicative models in
  individual cohorts for boys and girls (20th century)
                * between parent and child’s education

 1,6

 1,4

 1,2

   1
                                                              sons
 0,8
                                                              daughters
 0,6
                                See next slide
 0,4

 0,2

   0
        1901- 1921- 1927- 1931- 1951- 1972+
        1920 1926 1930 1950 1971
       Note: Base (reference) category are sons born in 1901-1920
Coefficient of association* in log-multiplicative models in
 individual cohorts for boys and girls (1931-nowadays)
                * between parent and child’s education

 1,6

 1,4

 1,2

   1
                                                              sons
 0,8
                                                              daughters
 0,6

 0,4

 0,2

   0
         1931-1950        1951-1971          1972+
       Note: Base (reference) category are sons born in 1931-1950
     Relative mobility analysis conclusions

   association between parent and offspring
    education exists and changes in time (for
    cohorts)
   the association consistently weakened until
    1968, cca to one half of the original value in all
    cases
   thus, intergenerational educational reproduction
    weakened
   after 1968 till 1989 moderate strengthening or
    stagnation, after 1989 the same
RELATED RESEARCH
             Results of other (related) studies I
          Odds according to gender and father's education


             F+FED1      F+FED2     F+FED3        M+FED1   M+FED2           M+FED3

1,8
1,6
1,4
1,2
  1
0,8
      Sons of fathers with univ. edu. have the highest probability to get university
0,6
        education, while daughters of fathers with basic edu. the lowest.
0,4
0,2
  0
             1937-1952                1953-1971                     1972+


Source: Simonova, Soukup: ISA RC 28 (Brno, May 2007)
           Results of other (related) studies II
         Factors influencing child’s aspiration on university
                             education




Source: Mateju,Soukup, Basl : ECSR (Prague, September 2006)
CONCLUSIONS
    Overall summary – answers to questions
             posed in the beginning

   Is the Czech education system becoming more/ less
    open after 1989? From 1949 mostly just in women.
   Are there any differences between men and women in
    their mobility patterns? After 1989 upward mobility equal
    to downward mobility in men, upward mobility twice as
    big as downward mobility in women. Women continue to
    profit from the educational development after 1989 (twice
    as much as men), men stagnate.
   What mechanisms are hidden behind found inequality
    levels? Educational system expanded with upward
    mobility prevailing until 1968, then stagnation and
    downward mobility increase.
     Thank you
 for your attention.
       Enjoy
the rest of the day.

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:0
posted:10/1/2012
language:English
pages:26