@article{HeisigMatthewes2022,
  author    = {Heisig, Jan Paul and Matthewes, S{\"o}nke Hendrik},
  title     = {No evidence that strict educational tracking improves student performance through classroom homogeneity},
  series = {Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Soziologie},
  volume    = {51},
  journal   = {Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Soziologie},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {de Gruyter Oldenbourg},
  address   = {Berlin},
  issn      = {0340-1804},
  doi       = {10.1515/zfsoz-2022-0001},
  pages     = {99 -- 111},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {In a recent contribution to this journal, Esser and Seuring (2020) draw on data from the National Educational Panel Study to attack the widespread view that tracking in lower secondary education exacerbates inequalities in student outcomes without improving average student performance. Exploiting variation in the strictness of tracking across 13 of the 16 German federal states (e. g., whether teacher recommendations are binding), Esser and Seuring claim to demonstrate that stricter tracking after grade 4 results in better performance in grade 7 and that this can be attributed to the greater homogeneity of classrooms under strict tracking. We show these conclusions to be untenable: Esser and Seuring's measures of classroom composition are highly dubious because the number of observed students is very small for many classrooms. Even when we adopt their classroom composition measures, simple corrections and extensions of their analysis reveal that there is no meaningful evidence for a positive relationship between classroom homogeneity and student achievement - the channel supposed to mediate the alleged positive effect of strict tracking. We go on to show that students from more strictly tracking states perform better already at the start of tracking (grade 5), which casts further doubt on the alleged positive effect of strict tracking on learning progress and leaves selection or anticipation effects as more plausible explanations. On a conceptual level, we emphasize that Esser and Seuring's analysis is limited to states that implement different forms of early tracking and cannot inform us about the relative performance of comprehensive and tracked systems that is the focus of most prior research.},
  language  = {en}
}
@techreport{MatthewesVentura2022,
  type      = {Working Paper},
  author    = {Matthewes, S{\"o}nke Hendrik and Ventura, Guglielmo},
  title     = {On Track to Success?},
  series = {CEPA Discussion Papers},
  journal   = {CEPA Discussion Papers},
  number    = {58},
  issn      = {2628-653X},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-56725},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-567253},
  pages     = {70},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {Many countries consider expanding vocational curricula in secondary education to boost skills and labour market outcomes among non-university-bound students. However, critics fear this could divert other students from more profitable academic education. We study labour market returns to vocational education in England, where until recently students chose between a vocational track, an academic track and quitting education at age 16. Identification is challenging because self-selection is strong and because students' next-best alternatives are unknown. Against this back- drop, we leverage multiple instrumental variables to estimate margin-specific treatment effects, i.e., causal returns to vocational education for students at the margin with academic education and, separately, for students at the margin with quitting education. Identification comes from variation in distance to the nearest vocational provider conditional on distance to the nearest academic provider (and vice-versa), while controlling for granular student, school and neighbourhood characteristics. The analysis is based on population-wide administrative education data linked to tax records. We find that the vast majority of marginal vocational students are indifferent be- tween vocational and academic education. For them, vocational enrolment substantially decreases earnings at age 30. This earnings penalty grows with age and is due to wages, not employment. However, consistent with comparative advantage, the penalty is smaller for students with higher revealed preferences for the vocational track. For the few students at the margin with no further education, we find merely tentative evidence of increased employment and earnings from vocational enrolment.},
  language  = {en}
}