Flexibility in educational systems - Concept, indicators, and directions for future research Citation for published version (APA): Wessling, K., & van der Velden, R. Flexibility in educational systems - Concept, indicators, and directions for future research. Maastricht University, Graduate School of Business and Economics. GSBE Research Memoranda No.2021006 Document status and date: Published: 06/04/2021 DOI: 10.2021006 Document Version: Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Please check the document version of this publication: • A submitted manuscript is the version of the article upon submission and before peer-review.
There can be important differences between the submitted version and the official published version of record. People interested in the research are advised to contact the author for the final version of the publication, or visit the DOI to the publisher's website. • The final author version and the galley proof are versions of the publication after peer review. • The final published version features the final layout of the paper including the volume, issue and page numbers.
Link to publication General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal. If the publication is distributed under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the “Taverne” license above, please follow below link for the End User Agreement: www.nl/taverne-license Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us at: repository@maastrichtuniversity.nl providing details and we will investigate your claim.
Download date: 26 Jun. 2023 Katarina Wessling, Rolf van der Velden Flexibility in educational systems – Concept, indicators, and directions for future research RM/21/006 ISSN: 2666-8807 Flexibility in educational systems – Concept, indicators, and directions for future research Katarina Weßling1 2 and Rolf van der Velden1 ABSTRACT This conceptual contribution discusses the idea of flexibility of educational systems from a multidisciplinary perspective. We define flexibility as possibilities that are provided by an education system to modify standard (predetermined) learning paths, which result from the structured organization of education. Flexibility at the macro level (i., educational system) can relate to policies such as the mobility between educational tracks within stratified systems.
At the meso level (i., school, classroom), flexibility can entail practices of differentiated instruction. We believe that a systematic integration of flexibility in educational research can provide new insights on individuals’ educational outcomes. Implicitly and unconnectedly, the idea of flexibility exists in several strands of research, typically focusing on educational-system effects on individual outcomes such as (1) sociological research on structural features of the education system, (2) psychological literature on educational effectiveness, and (3) economic research drawing on the education production function. We bridge these three fundamental strands of research with the aim to exemplify the concept of flexibility.
In doing so, we propose a definition of flexibility, outline dimensions as well as corresponding indicators. To conclude, we provide some directions for future research. Key words: flexibility, education systems, educational effectiveness, education production function macro-meso-micro model 1 Research Centre for Education and the Labour Market (ROA), Maastricht University P. Box 616 NL-6200 MD Maastricht +31 43 38 82 842 k.nl 2Federal Institute for Vocational Education and Training (BIBB) Robert‐Schuman‐Platz 3 D‐53175 Bonn T +49 228 107 2723 katarina.de Acknowledgements: This work is part of the project “How the flexibility of the Dutch educational system affects (social inequality in) educational outcomes”, which is financed by the Netherlands Initiative for Education Research (NRO).
We would like to thank Tim Huijts, Kars van Oosterhout, Dinand Webbink, Christoph Janietz, Roxanne Korthals, Per Bles, Melline Somers, Steffen Hillmert, and Dominik Becker for helpful comments. Introduction The basic question in organizing education is: How can we guarantee that all students learn in such a way that they can reach their full potential, while at the same time being restrained by limited resources in the organization of education? An ideal-typical system would take every student’s ability at every point in time in their educational career into account and offer educational input in line with Vygotsky’s “zone of proximal development” (Kozulin et al. The optimal education system would hereby consider that students’ learning potential and their developments are heterogeneous. However, time and budget constraints restrict the possibilities of individualized education and learning offers.
Thus, education systems are arranged in a (more or less) formalized way, primarily focusing on the average student. A large body of literature in the social sciences addresses the question of how the overall organization of education systems (macro level) and the organization of learning on the school and classroom level (meso level) addresses the tension between individual students’ needs on the one hand, and structural restrictions on the other hand. Frequently analyzed characteristics of education systems at the macro level are standardization and stratification (Allmendinger, 1989; Shavit and Mueller, 1998; van de Werfhorst and Mijs, 2010) 1. However, when looking at effects of these characteristics on individual educational outcomes such as the overall level of performance, evidence is often mixed.
A different strand of literature focusses on school effectiveness at the meso level (e., Hattie, 2008; Kyriakides and Creemers, 2008; Teddlie and Reynolds, 2000). The problem here is that this strand of literature often does not incorporate how processes at the meso level are constrained by the structural features at the macro level, leading to mixed findings as well. We argue that both caveats are partly due to an overlooked feature: The flexibility potential of an education system. We define flexibility as possibilities to change (prior) decisions and actions, which resulted from the structured organization of education.
We focus on institutionally provided modifications, i., the leeway for changing standard learning paths for individuals throughout their educational career that are explicitly facilitated by the education system (i., macro level) and the organization of learning in schools and classrooms (i. 1 A third feature of educational systems that is frequently discussed is vocational orientation (Shavit and Mueller, 1998; van de Werfhorst and Mijs, 2010). Since our concept of flexibility concerns predominantly primary and secondary general education, and not the relation of the education system and the labor market, we discuss flexibility in the following against the background of standardization and stratification. 2 An example at the macro level is the possibility to change an educational track or ability group after students have been placed in distinct educational tracks or ability groups.
A binary distinction between tracked and non-tracked systems falls short of the extent, frequency, and the manner at which education systems re-evaluate the initial track placement of students and enable them to change the track. For instance, while one educational system might be characterized by clear and strict rules under which upward or downward track mobility is possible (e., certain GPA), another system might in principle enable track changes without clear rules and regulations (e., based on student’s or parent’s choices), while yet other systems might not facilitate track mobility at all. As a consequence, the organization of track mobility in an educational system might affect the practices of track placement in the first place. At the meso level, forms of differentiated instruction and teaching such as tools that respond to a student’s individual learning capacity but also additional learning opportunities such as summer schools or extra tutoring can also be considered examples of flexibility in education.
All instruments representing flexibility have in common that they are geared towards modifying predefined learning paths with the aim to (more or less continuously) adjust the organization of education to a student’s current educational need. Although measures relating to flexibility have been studied separately (e., Hillmert, 2004; Kyriakidis and Creemers, 2008), previous research failed to make them an explicit and overarching concept. This is partly because different lines of research that refer to flexibility measures operate isolated from one another. These isolated perspectives obstruct a systematic view on the relationship between measures that map the flexibility potential at different levels of the education system.
For instance, the possibility of track mobility (macro) could be considered as an instrument of flexibility, with the aim to adjust the track placement to a student’s current performance level and thereby modify the student’s educational path, while instruments such as summer schools or extra tutoring (meso) could be considered as an alternative but also in addition to changing a school track. Because these instruments are applied at different levels of the education system they are usually studied in isolation. Thus, we argue in favor of an integrative perspective that relates these instruments at meso and macro level since they are provided by an education system with the same aim: adjusting a student’s learning path in order to account for the cognitive development and the current state of performance. We identify three research strands of literature that (more or less) implicitly reference flexibility; (1) sociological research on structural features of the education system, (2) psychological literature on educational effectiveness, and (3) economic research on the allocation of a system’s resources based on the education production function.
In this paper, we aim to bridge these three strands of research with the aim to come up with an overarching concept of flexibility. In doing so, 3 the paper proceeds as follows: In the next section, we discuss the idea of flexibility and how it is (more or less) implicitly embedded in three strands of literature in question. In section three, we describe empirical research that deals with distinct aspects of flexibility. Following this, we propose systematic dimensions and corresponding indicators that map flexibility.
Subsequently, we propose some directions for future research. In the final section, we will summarize the pros and cons of our concept and provide some concluding remarks. Flexibility in a multidisciplinary perspective Understanding the effect of the organization of education systems on individual educational outcomes requires a multilevel perspective in the tradition of the structural-individualistic scheme most prominently represented by “Coleman’s boat model” (cf. The central idea of this approach is that macro-level conditions structure the possible courses of action that individuals can take at the micro level.
In turn, these individual actions affect social outcomes at the macro level. Based on the idea that the meso level of institutions—in our case represented by the organization of learning in schools and classrooms—mediates the link between macro (system) and micro (individual) level, we follow up on the concept of Gross et al. FIGURE1 ABOUT HERE This is particularly relevant for flexibility because—following the example of track mobility versus extra tutoring or summer schools—specific instruments at macro and meso level of education can be complementary or supplementary. Thus, characteristics at the two levels should not only be observed separately but in the form of specific configurations if we want to understand how the education system affects educational outcomes at the micro level.1 (Mostly) Sociological research on features of the education system Particularly since cross-country data such as PISA is available a large body of empirical research has focused on comparing features at the macro level and their effects on core functions of education (e., 4 Ammermüller, 2013; Bol and van de Werfhorst, 2016; Korthals, 2015; Pfeffer, 2015; van de Werfhorst and Mijs, 2010).
In the seminal work by Allmendinger (1989), a typology of education systems along two key features—stratification and standardization—has been provided. Stratification represents “the proportion of a cohort that attains the maximum number of school years […] coupled with the degree of differentiation within given educational levels (tracking).” (Allmendinger, 1989: 233) In other words, stratification is the hierarchical structure of an education system.