ArticleThe British journal of educational psychology2025
Ability grouping in German secondary schools: The effect of non-academic track schools on the development of Math competencies.
Article in The British journal of educational psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Unlocking math potential in students from lower SES backgrounds - using instructional scaffolds to improve performance.NPJ science of learning · 2025Article
- Ability grouping in German secondary schools: The effect of non-academic track schools on the development of Math competencies.The British journal of educational psychology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDifferences in competence gains between academic and non-academic track schools are often attributed to selection effects based on students' primary school performance and socioeconomic status (SES). However, how the competencies of comparable students (in terms of school performance and social background) at different tracks develop is often neglected.
aimsWe investigated whether comparable students diverge in their math competencies due to attending different types of secondary schools, contributing to the ongoing debate on whether inaccurate stratification may lead to disadvantages.
methodsUsing data from the National Education Panel Study (Kindergarten Cohort SC2, N = 4180), we examined students' competence development from the fourth to seventh grade. We employed a quasi-experimental design (propensity score weighting, PSW) comparing similarly capable students at academic and non-academic school tracks to make causal inferences. The outcome variable was students' math competence in seventh grade. PSW used fourth-grade competency measures in math and reading and other variables such as sex, migration background, SES, class composition, special educational needs, school grades and school location.
resultsResults revealed a significant average treatment effect on the treated, indicating that comparable students attending non-academic track schools show lower math performance than those at academic track schools.
conclusionNon-academic tracks seem to hinder the full development of students' competencies. We conclude that the effects of preconditions like the students' SES, ability and aspirations on competence development are lower than assumed and that school learning environments should be given greater importance. We discuss practical solutions and provide suggestions for future research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.