Differential Support Strategies in Primary Schools Dependent on Gentrification in the Local Context

• In Event: Park Central Roundtable Session 18

Abstract

Objectives and theoretical framework
Research shows that schools provide different learning opportunities dependent on the composition of the student body in the schools (Belfi et al., 2016; Rubie-Davis et al., 2012). Additionally, there is evidence that school improvement strategies are adapted to the social context (Harris et al., 2006). Consequently, schools’ support strategies differ between schools. But since specific compositions of the student body do not have the same effects for all groups of students (Belfi et al., 2016), support strategies differ also within schools. However, it remains open how schools adapt their support practices to the social context (RQ 1) and what differential support practices for different student groups look like (RQ 2). These research questions (RQ) were analyzed based on Fend’s opportunity-utilisation-model of school quality (Fend, 2006) and Weick’s sensemaking approach (Coburn, 2001; Weick, 1995).

Methods
The research followed the logic of contrastive case comparison by analyzing five primary schools in a larger city in Switzerland. All schools were situated in a disadvantaged social context. Further, in all schools the composition of the student body changed significantly due to a substantial gentrification in the local context which led to an increase in students with a higher socio-economic family background. The mixed-method design included quantitative surveys with students in grades 4, 5 and 6 (n=311, response rate: 63.7%) and qualitative analyses of a) five expert interviews with the school leaders and b) one group discussion within each school with teachers and other professionals (total 5 group discussions).

Results
1. RQ: Due to the change of the composition of the student body and the increase in parents with high aspirations, the schools modified their communication strategies (more transparent information), changed their pedagogical concepts (e.g., more separation of migrant children) and reduced the extra support for students from a low socio-economic background when preparing for ambitious tracks on secondary education.
2. RQ: Within three schools, we found a strong orientation towards differential support strategies. In line with results in the context of high stakes-testing (Booher-Jennings, 2005; Brown & Clift, 2010), the focus of support is on “bubble kids” – students from high socio-economic families or with Swiss nationality that the schools rate as willing to perform and that in the perspective of the schools have the potential to pass to the more ambitious tracks on secondary education. In school 6, no differential effects were evident and in school 3, particularly low achievers (independent on their family background) were in the focus of support. These results can be explained by a high collective perspective on teaching and learning (school 6) and a strong identification with ‘special need’ students (school 3).

Significance of the study
The study extends previous research by analyzing differential adaptation strategies when the composition of the student body in the schools changes. As a consequence, the “losers” of these changes can be identified: migrant students with a low socio-economic family background. However, there are substantial differences between the schools. Limitations and implications for further research will be discussed.

Authors

• Katharina Maag Merki, University of Zurich

• Marcus Emmerich

• Franziska Bühlmann

• Chantal Kamm, University of Zurich

• Annina Truniger