Socioeconomic Inequality and Student

Outcomes Cross National Trends

Policies and Practices Louis Volante
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/socioeconomic-inequality-and-student-outcomes-cros
s-national-trends-policies-and-practices-louis-volante/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Myth and Reality of the Legitimacy Crisis: Explaining

Trends and Cross-National Differences in Established
Democracies 1st Edition Carolien Van Ham

https://textbookfull.com/product/myth-and-reality-of-the-
legitimacy-crisis-explaining-trends-and-cross-national-
differences-in-established-democracies-1st-edition-carolien-van-
ham/

Online Hate and Harmful Content Cross National

Perspectives Teo Keipi

https://textbookfull.com/product/online-hate-and-harmful-content-
cross-national-perspectives-teo-keipi/

Cross Border Mergers EU Perspectives and National

Experiences Thomas Papadopoulos

https://textbookfull.com/product/cross-border-mergers-eu-
perspectives-and-national-experiences-thomas-papadopoulos/

Socioeconomic Environmental Policies and Evaluations in

Regional Science Essays in Honor of Yoshiro Higano 1st
Edition Hiroyuki Shibusawa

https://textbookfull.com/product/socioeconomic-environmental-
policies-and-evaluations-in-regional-science-essays-in-honor-of-
yoshiro-higano-1st-edition-hiroyuki-shibusawa/
Teaching for Excellence and Equity Analyzing Teacher
Characteristics Behaviors and Student Outcomes with
TIMSS Nathan Burroughs

https://textbookfull.com/product/teaching-for-excellence-and-
equity-analyzing-teacher-characteristics-behaviors-and-student-
outcomes-with-timss-nathan-burroughs/

Socioeconomic Effects of the National Flood Insurance

Program 1st Edition James P. Howard

https://textbookfull.com/product/socioeconomic-effects-of-the-
national-flood-insurance-program-1st-edition-james-p-howard/

EU Emergency Response Policies and NGOs: Trends and

Innovations 1st Edition Daniela Irrera (Auth.)

https://textbookfull.com/product/eu-emergency-response-policies-
and-ngos-trends-and-innovations-1st-edition-daniela-irrera-auth/

Corporate Governance: Principles, Policies and

Practices 3rd Edition E. K. Satheesh

https://textbookfull.com/product/corporate-governance-principles-
policies-and-practices-3rd-edition-e-k-satheesh/

Talent Management in Small and Medium Enterprises

Context Practices and Outcomes 1st Edition Aleksy
Pocztowski

https://textbookfull.com/product/talent-management-in-small-and-
medium-enterprises-context-practices-and-outcomes-1st-edition-
aleksy-pocztowski/
Education Policy & Social Inequality 4

Louis Volante · Sylke V. Schnepf ·

John Jerrim · Don A. Klinger Editors

Socioeconomic
Inequality and
Student Outcomes
Cross-National Trends,
Policies, and Practices
Education Policy & Social Inequality

Volume 4

Series Editor
Trevor Gale, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
This series publishes monographs and edited collections that investigate relations
between education policy and social inequality. Submissions that provoke new and
generative ways of thinking about and acting on relations between education policy
and social inequality are particularly invited from early career, emerging and
established scholars.
While education policy has often been understood as having a normative
function and is proposed as the solution to social inequality, the series is interested
in how education policy frames, creates and at times exacerbates social inequality.
It adopts a critical orientation, encompassing (1) innovative and interdisciplinary
theoretical and conceptual studies – including but not exclusively drawing on
sociology, cultural studies, social and cultural geography, history – and (2) original
empirical work that examines a range of educational contexts, including early years
education, vocational and further education, informal education, K-12 schooling
and higher education.
The series sees critique and policy studies as having a transformative function. It
publishes books that seek to re-articulate policy discourses, the realm of research, or
which posit (1) new dimensions to understanding the role of education policy in
connection with enduring social problems and (2) the amelioration of social
inequality in ways that challenge the possibility of equity in the liberal democratic
state, as well as in other forms of governance and government.

Education Policy and Social Inequality is edited by Professor Trevor Gale.

Please contact the publishing editor, Nick Melchior (email: nick.melchior@springer.
com) if you are interested in submitting a proposal to this series.
Members of the series editorial board include:
Professor Nafsika Alexiadou (Umeå universitet, Sweden)
Dr. Annette Braun (Institute of Education, University of London, UK)
Professor Aslam Fataar (University of Stellenbosch, South Africa)
Professor Jane Kenway (Monash University, Australia)
A/Professor Zeus Leonardo (University of California – Berkeley, USA)
Professor Bob Lingard (University of Queensland, Australia)
Professor Chris Lubienski (University of Illinois - Urbana Champaign, USA)
Professor Ka Ho Mok (Hong Kong Institute of Education, China)
Professor Mark Olssen (Surrey University, UK)
A/Professor Wanda S. Pillow (University of Utah, USA)
A/Professor Taylor Webb (University of British Columbia, Canada)
Professor Agnes Van Zanten (Science Po/CNRS, France)

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/13427

Louis Volante Sylke V. Schnepf
• •

John Jerrim Don A. Klinger

•

Editors

Socioeconomic Inequality
and Student Outcomes
Cross-National Trends, Policies, and Practices

123
Editors
Louis Volante Sylke V. Schnepf
Faculty of Education DG Joint Research Centre
Brock University European Commission’s Joint
Hamilton, ON, Canada Research Centre
Ispra, Varese, Italy
John Jerrim
UCL Institute of Education Don A. Klinger
London, UK University of Waikato
Hamilton, New Zealand

ISSN 2520-1476 ISSN 2520-1484 (electronic)

Education Policy & Social Inequality
ISBN 978-981-13-9862-9 ISBN 978-981-13-9863-6 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-9863-6
© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar
methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from
the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained
herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard
to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721,
Singapore
This volume is dedicated to the millions
of teachers and educators worldwide who
devote tireless energy to improve the
educational outcomes and life chances
of disadvantaged students.
Foreword

For over 50 years, international comparisons of educational achievement have been

part of the world research and evaluation enterprise. Starting with comparisons led
by academics and funded haphazardly and periodically, the comparative enterprise
has transformed into more regularly occurring, government-sanctioned, and
methodologically sophisticated studies. This book, Socioeconomic Inequality and
Student Outcomes—Cross-National Trends, Policies, and Practices, focuses
attention on comparisons within and among countries relative to differences in
student status and implicitly raises the question of the utility of international
comparisons focused only on achievement at the margin. Countries obviously differ
dramatically in their culture, economy, stability, diversity of population as well as
educational systems. Simple bottom-line comparisons seem to relegate have and
have-not nations to a pre-ordained rank order. Should the policy lesson from such
data simply be to try harder?
Data from other fields, for instance, healthcare, show that wealthy countries do
not predictably attain the optimal outcomes assumed by their “advanced” status and
level of expenditures. In education, the situation is similar. Although the credibility
of educational achievement measures is somewhat more suspect than hard data like
mortality rates, contrasts of achievement among countries of different sub-groups,
identified by socioeconomic and ethnic membership have much to recommend
them from a policy and improvement viewpoint. Comparisons of achievement
moderated by classification variables demonstrate whether and how much rhetorical
claims about equity and opportunity can be trusted as well as the efficacy of policy
interventions. Studies over time of the range and disparity of performance by
gender, region, group, and individual differences can highlight the areas where
policies have been effective. They can identify principal outcomes and unantici-
pated side effects of compensatory investments. But, at the heart of the matter is
whether there is a sustainable commitment by authorities and by practitioners to
raise the quality and level of performance of all of the nation’s students.
The extent and depth of commitment to improved learning by all is often jus-
tified within countries in competitive, economic terms rather than from a moral
stance. Even so, the rise of “nationalism” has new implications for this line of

vii
viii Foreword

inquiry. Nationalism may explicitly or tacitly imply the deserved right of differ-
ential success. Nevertheless, an inhibitor to success may be the structural nature of
opportunity in communities as well as schools. The latter is likely exacerbated by
the increased and hardened political divisions emerging within countries across the
world. On a larger scale, the emergence of nationalism as a reaction to refugee
migration or to other perceived or manufactured threats to sovereignty could pre-
sage a wider rejection of globalism. Such dismissals must be short-lived and
self-defeating, given connected nature of economies, of international corporations,
of systems of higher education, and of the ecology of the planet itself.
This book then anticipates a continued future of international studies that pro-
vide lenses on how various nations attempt to achieve quality and equity in their
educational systems. Noteworthy is the approach taken by the editor and authors to
demonstrate their own commitment to quality and equity. They do so by preparing
provocative chapters using state of the art methods and analyses and teams of
authors. The writers of these chapters are illustrious scholars whose collaboration
produces unusual value for the reader. Value, then, is the watchword of this vol-
ume, in its focus, methods, authors, and message.

Eva L. Baker
Distinguished Professor of Education
University of California
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Acknowledgements

Understanding the relationships between socioeconomic inequality and student

outcomes across a range of countries is particularly challenging. The editors of this
volume would like to thank each of the contributors for their willingness to engage
in this timely project and the resulting research and insights they have provided for
the international community.
Portions of this edited volume were supported by the Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC).

ix
Contents

Part I Socioeconomic Inequality in Education Systems

1 Socioeconomic Inequality and Student Outcomes Across
Education Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
John Jerrim, Louis Volante, Don A. Klinger and Sylke V. Schnepf
2 The Impact of Education Policies on Socioeconomic Inequality
in Student Achievement: A Review of Comparative Studies . . . . . . 17
Rolf Strietholt, Jan-Eric Gustafsson, Nina Hogrebe, Victoria Rolfe,
Monica Rosén, Isa Steinmann and Kajsa Yang Hansen

Part II National Profiles

3 Socioeconomic Inequality and Student Outcomes
in English Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Jake Anders and Morag Henderson
4 Socioeconomic Inequality and Student Outcomes
in German Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Horst Entorf and Maddalena Davoli
5 Socioeconomic Inequality and Student Outcomes in Italy . . . . . . . . 81
Nicola Pensiero, Orazio Giancola and Carlo Barone
6 Socioeconomic Inequality and Student Outcomes
in Spanish Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Álvaro Choi and Jorge Calero
7 Socioeconomic Inequality and Student Outcomes
in the Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
Jaap Scheerens, Anneke Timmermans and Greetje van der Werf
8 Socioeconomic Inequality and Student Outcomes
in Swedish Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
Petra Löfstedt

xi
xii Contents

9 Socioeconomic Inequality and Student Outcomes

in Finnish Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
Katariina Salmela-Aro and Anna K. Chmielewski
10 Socioeconomic Inequality and Student Outcomes
in Canadian Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
Alana Butler
11 Socioeconomic Inequality and Student Outcomes in Australia . . . . 189
Philip Parker, Jiesi Guo and Taren Sanders

Part III Cross-Cultural Trends

12 Cross-National Trends in Addressing Socioeconomic Inequality
in Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
Sylke V. Schnepf, Don A. Klinger, Louis Volante and John Jerrim
Editors and Contributors

About the Editors

Louis Volante (Ph.D.) is a Professor of Education at Brock University,

Professorial Fellow at UNU-MERIT/Graduate School of Governance, and
President of the Canadian Educational Researchers’ Association (CERA). He is
currently a Visiting Professor at the UCL Department of Social Science. His
research, which has been widely disseminated and cited by scholars around the
world, is focused on education and public policy analysis; international large-scale
assessments and the politics of education reform; metrics, performance monitoring,
and education governance; and migrant integration policies and social inequality in
education. He serves on various advisory boards for academic journals and
scholarly associations. He consults with governments, professional organizations,
and universities around the world. With over 100 journal articles, technical reports,
book chapters, and books that include diverse cultural contexts, Prof. Volante is an
internationally recognized scholar in educational policy analysis.

Sylke V. Schnepf (Ph.D.) is a Senior Researcher in the Competence Centre on

Microeconomic Evaluation of the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre
(Ispra, Italy) and a Research Fellow at the Institute for the Study of Labour IZA
(Bonn, Germany). Previously, she was Associate Professor in Social Statistics at the
University of Southampton. Her main research interests regard patterns of
cross-national educational inequalities and counterfactual impact evaluation of
policies aimed to mitigate these inequalities. She is also interested in survey design
and has published a number of papers examining potential errors of achievement
estimates deriving from cross-national educational achievement surveys.

John Jerrim (Ph.D.) is a Professor in Educational and Social Statistics at the

Institute of Education, University College London. Professor Jerrim’s research
interests include the economics of education, access to higher education, inter-
generational mobility, cross-national comparisons, and educational inequalities.

xiii
xiv Editors and Contributors

He has worked extensively with the OECD Programme for International Student
Assessment (PISA) data, with this research reported widely in the British media.
John was the recipient of an ESRC Research Scholarship 2006–2010 and awarded
the prize as the “most promising Ph.D. student in the quantitative social sciences” at
the University of Southampton. In October 2011, he was awarded a prestigious
ESRC post-doctoral fellowship to continue his research into the educational and
labor market expectations of adolescents and young adults. Since then he has won
the inaugural ESRC Early Career Outstanding Impact award and has just received
an ESRC grant to study cross-national comparisons of educational attainment and
social mobility.

Don A. Klinger (Ph.D.) is the Dean of Education in the Te Kura Toi Tangata
Faculty of Education at the University of Waikato in Hamilton, New Zealand. His
research explores measurement theory, the evolving conceptions of formative and
summative assessment, the uses of classroom assessment to inform teaching and
learning, and the uses and misuses of large-scale assessments and databases to
inform educational policy and practice. With over 130 research manuscripts and
reports, and research projects that include both national and international contexts,
Dr. Klinger is one of Canada’s leading scholars regarding assessment practices,
policies, and student achievement. He has served as the president for both the
Canadian Society for the Study of Education (CSSE/SCEE) and the Consortium for
Research on Educational Assessment and Teaching Effectiveness (CREATE).

Contributors

Jake Anders (Ph.D.) is Associate Professor of Educational and Social Statistics in

the Department of Learning and Leadership at UCL Institute of Education, and
Director of CREATE (Conducting Research, Evaluations, and Trials in Education)
in UCL’s Centre for Education Improvement Science. His research interests focus
on understanding the causes and consequences of educational inequality and the
evaluation of policies and programmes aiming to reduce it. His research, which has
been funded by the Economic and Social Research Council, the Nuffield
Foundation, the Education Endowment Foundation, the Sutton Trust, and the UK
Department for Education among others, has been published in education, eco-
nomics, sociology, and psychology journals. Recent projects include experimental
and quasi-experimental evaluations of school-based interventions, investigations
of the importance of curriculum in explaining inequality in university access, and
explorations of continuing inequalities into the labor market.
Carlo Barone (Ph.D.) is Professor of Sociology at Sciences Po (Paris), where he is
affiliated to the Observatoire Sociologique du Changement (OSC) and to the
Laboratory for the Interdisciplinary Evaluation of Public Policies (LIEPP). His
research focuses on the relationship between educational inequalities and social
mobility in dynamic and comparative perspective. His recent work involves the
Editors and Contributors xv

recourse to randomized controlled trials for the design and evaluation of inter-
ventions to reduce inequalities in early skills accumulation, track choices, and
access to Higher Education.
Alana Butler (Ph.D.) is an Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Education at
Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario. In 2015, she graduated with a Ph.D. in
Education from Cornell University in Ithaca, New York. Her specialization was
Learning, Teaching, and Social Policy. She has worked on various research projects
related to literacy, schooling, and race in education. She has taught in a range of
settings that include preschool, ESL, adult literacy, and university undergraduate.
Her research interests include race and gender studies, equity and inclusion, risk
and resilience processes, student development, immigration and settlement studies,
and multicultural education.
Jorge Calero (Ph.D.) is a tenured Professor of Applied Economics at the
University of Barcelona, Department of Economics. He is also a researcher of the
Barcelona Institute of Economics (Institut d’Economia de Barcelona). Professor
Calero is currently the coordinator of the Interdisciplinary Research Group on
Educational Policies GIPE-IGEP and previous Head of the Council of the
Educational System Evaluation (Catalonia). His main research interests are the
economics of education, educational policies evaluation, equity issues in education,
and economics of the welfare state.
Anna K. Chmielewski (Ph.D.) is an Assistant Professor of Educational
Leadership and Policy at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE)
of the University of Toronto. She holds a Ph.D. in Education and M.A. in
Sociology from Stanford University. Chmielewski’s research examines trends and
patterns of educational inequality, both internationally and over time. She has
studied socioeconomic disparities in academic achievement, school segregation,
curricular differentiation/streaming/tracking, the consequences of childhood
inequality for adult outcomes, and methods for the analysis of international
large-scale assessments. Her research has been published in the American
Educational Research Journal and the American Journal of Education.
Álvaro Choi (Ph.D.) is an Associate Professor at the University of Barcelona as
well as Researcher at the Barcelona Institute of Education (IEB) and the
Interdisciplinary Group on Educational Policies (GIPE-IGEP). His main research
fields are related to the Economics of Education, Public Economics, and the
Evaluation of Public Policies. He has participated in the evaluation of a number of
educational policies and has led a project funded by the Ramón Areces Foundation
which aimed to identify effective policies for enhancing educational achievement in
Spain. He has worked intensively with international large-scale assessments and is
an OECD’s Thomas J. Alexander fellow.
Maddalena Davoli is a Ph.D. Candidate in Economics and Research Assistant at
the Department of Applied Econometrics and International Economic Policy at
Goethe University, Frankfurt. She holds a Master Degree in International Relations
xvi Editors and Contributors

and Economics from the University of Bologna. Her research interests lie in the
fields of applied microeconometrics, the economics of education and labor eco-
nomics.
Horst Entorf (Dr. rer. pol.) is Professor of Econometrics at Goethe University.
He has held previous research positions at the Université Catholique de
Louvain-la-Neuve, CREST-INSEE, at Darmstadt University of Technology,
CERGE-Prague, and at the University of Mannheim. He was SPES-fellow of the
EU and a fellow of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. Horst has contributed to
various interdisciplinary fields, including labor economics, economics of education,
migration, and the economics of crime. He has been affiliated with the Institute for
Labor Economics (IZA) since 1997. He has published in international journals in
the fields of economics and migration.
Orazio Giancola (Ph.D.) is a Researcher in the Department of Social and
Economic Sciences of the Sapienza University of Rome. His main fields of study
are the analysis of educational policies, the comparison of educational systems, the
dynamics and processes that produce educational and social inequalities. His recent
works concern the methodological analysis of the large-scale assessments in edu-
cation, the effects of tracking and differentiation in educational systems, and the
processes of educational choice at various levels of students’ academic careers.
Jiesi Guo (Ph.D.) is a Research Fellow at the Institute for Positive Psychology and
Education at the Australian Catholic University. His areas of interest include
educational and developmental psychology with a particular focus on how multiple
systems on the cultural, social, motivational, and behavioral development of youth
shape individual and gender difference in achievement choice. He completed his
Ph.D. at the Australian Catholic University and had multiple international research
stays with a fully funded scholarship to collaborate with prestigious researchers in
Germany and Finland. He has published in international journals in the fields of
psychology and education.
Jan-Eric Gustafsson (Ph.D.) is Professor Emeritus of education at the University
of Gothenburg. His research has primarily focused on basic and applied topics
within the field of educational psychology, and particularly on developing models
for the structure of cognitive abilities, as well as assessment and development of
abilities, knowledge, and skills. In parallel with the substantively oriented research,
he has also been involved in the development of quantitative methodology,
focusing on measurement and statistical analysis. To an increasing extent, he has
become involved in national educational policy issues and he recently chaired a
governmental School Commission, aiming for improvements of the quality and
equity of the Swedish school system.
Kajsa Yang Hansen (Ph.D.) is Professor of education at the University of
Gothenburg and at the West University, Sweden. The main focus of her research
lies on educational quality and equity from a comparative perspective. To explain
the variation in academic achievement between individuals, schools, across
Editors and Contributors xvii

countries, and over time has always been her primary research interest. Her
methodological interests focus on the analytical techniques for large-scale survey
data. Currently, she is conducting projects investigating the impacts of the recent
educational reforms in Sweden on the opportunity to learn, and consequently
influence on educational quality and equity.
Morag Henderson (D.Phil.) is a quantitative sociologist and co-investigator of
Next Steps, a longitudinal study of educational transitions in England. She currently
works in the Department of Social Science at UCL Institute of Education as an
Associate Professor. Henderson achieved her D.Phil. in Sociology from the
University of Oxford. Her main research interest is educational inequalities and she
has written extensively on the socioeconomic attainment gap; educational transi-
tions; the influence of subject choice on subsequent educational and labor market
outcomes; intergenerational educational mobility; the influence of parenting prac-
tices on attainment and academic self-concept.
Nina Hogrebe (Ph.D.) teaches and conducts research at the Department of
Education, University of Münster. Her main fields of interest are early childhood
education and care, educational inequalities, as well as educational governance and
funding. As a response to observed social and ethnic segregation processes in early
childhood, she has explored the effects of different demographic makeups in day-
care centers on children’s language skills in a project funded by the German
Research Foundation. Beginning in 2019, she will be analyzing whether there is a
connection between the provider of settings (e.g., parental initiatives, church-based)
and segregation in a study which is funded by the German Ministry of Education
and Research. Additionally, she is involved in analyses focusing on the effects of
preschool participation on children’s (cognitive) competencies based on interna-
tional comparative data.
Petra Löfstedt (Ph.D.) has been an investigator at the Unit for Mental Health,
Children and Youth at the Public Health Agency of Sweden since 2009. Petra’s
work mainly involves monitoring and analyzing health determinants, and is focused
on children, young people, and mental health. Petra is the Principal Investigator
of the Swedish team participating in the international study of Health Behavior in
School-Aged Children since 2009. She is responsible for the collection, processing,
and analysis of data. Recently, Petra has focused on the relation between young
people’s mental health and different factors in school. Petra has been affiliated with
Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy,
University of Gothenburg since November 2018.
Philip Parker (Ph.D.) is a Professor and deputy director of the Institute for
Positive Psychology and Education (IPPE) at the Australian Catholic University.
His research uses large longitudinal databases from countries such as Australia, US,
UK, Germany, and Finland where he focuses on career pathways, educational
attainment, and individual differences related to youths’ transition from school to
xviii Editors and Contributors

work or further education. He completed his Ph.D. at the University of Sydney and
undertook a post-doctoral research fellowship in the PATHWAYS to Adulthood
program hosted at the University of Tübingen, Germany. He has published in
international journals in the fields of psychology, education, and sociology.
Nicola Pensiero (Ph.D.) is a quantitative sociologist at UCL Institute of Education,
University College London, where he joined in 2013 after completing his Ph.D. at
the European University Institute. His research focuses on stratification and
inequality, education systems, and income inequality. He has published extensively
on those topics and has provided consultancy for Department for Education and
Nuffield Foundation in the UK, as well as for the European Commission.
Victoria Rolfe is a Ph.D. Candidate in Education at the Department of Education
and Special Education at the University of Gothenburg. She holds a Master Degree
in Educational Research from the University of Gothenburg. Her research interests
are in educational equity, opportunity to learn, and international assessment.
Monica Rosén (Ph.D.) is Professor of Education at the University of Gothenburg.
Her main areas of research concern differences and change educational outcomes
and their determinants at individual-, group- and system levels. She also has a
strong interest in methodological issues related to educational measurement, edu-
cational evaluation and assessment, comparative educational research, and statis-
tical modeling techniques.
Katariina Salmela-Aro (Ph.D.) is Professor of Educational Sciences at the
University of Helsinki and at the moment Marie Curie Visiting Professor in the
ETH Collegium for Advanced Studies in Zurich. She is also a Visiting Professor in
the Institute of Education, University College London, and School of Education,
Michigan State University and was a Visiting Scholar at the School of Education,
University of California Irvine. She was previously a post-doctoral fellow at the
Max-Planck Institute in Berlin, Germany. Currently, she is the President of the
European Association for Developmental Psychology and was the previous
Secretary General (first female) of the International Society for the Study of
Behavioral Development (ISSBD). She is the director of several ongoing longitu-
dinal studies among young people: FinEdu, PIRE, LEAD, and Mind-the-Gap. Her
key research areas are school engagement, burnout, optimal learning moments,
life-span model of motivation and related interventions. She is the founding
member of Pathways International Interdisciplinary Post-doctoral fellowship pro-
gram and a founding member of Academy of Finland Strategic Funding Council.
She was Consulting Editor of Developmental Psychology (APA), and is an
Associate Editor for the European Psychologist journal. She has published over 250
papers and chapters and received several national/international grants, including 10
large-scale grants from the Academy of Finland, National Science Foundation, EU
Coordinator Marie Curie post-doctoral fellowship grant, and Horizon 2020.
Editors and Contributors xix

Taren Sanders (Ph.D.) is a Research Fellow at the Institute for Positive

Psychology and Education within the Australian Catholic University. His research
focuses on social epidemiology, especially as it relates to youth health behaviors.
His research covers topics such as predictors of physical activity and screen time,
social and environmental influences on children’s health, intervention development,
and behavioral measurement techniques. He is especially interested in the inter-
section between research and policy.
Jaap Scheerens (Ph.D.) is Professor Emeritus at the University of Twente in the
Netherlands. At the University of Twente, he coordinated a research program on
school effectiveness. During his career, he was the scientific director of the national
research school for postgraduate training in educational science ICO and director
of the research institute OCTO of the Faculty of Education at the University of
Twente. He was involved in many international research projects funded by
international organizations. He has published 20 books and approximately 100
articles in scientific journals, mainly addressing educational effectiveness and
educational evaluation.
Isa Steinmann (Ph.D.) is a researcher at the Technische Universität Dortmund.
Her main research interests lie in the field of educational effectiveness research
focusing on the outcomes of student achievement and educational inequality, as
well as in the field of international comparative research. From a methodological
perspective, she is interested in approaches that allow causal inference from
observational data and in educational measurement. She is a former recipient of a
scholarship of the German Academic Scholarship Foundation.
Rolf Strietholt (Ph.D.) is a researcher at Technische Universität Dortmund. He is
also affiliated with the University of Gothenburg. His current interests lie in the field
of international comparisons of educational systems, so-called comparative edu-
cation, and include educational effective research studies with a special focus on
measuring and explaining inequalities in student performance. He teaches courses
on educational measurement and causal analysis. Recently, he was a guest
researcher at the WZB Berlin Social Science Center and the Centre for Educational
Measurement at the University of Oslo (CEMO). Rolf is a former recipient of the
IEA Bruce H. Choppin Memorial Award.
Anneke Timmermans (Ph.D.) is an Assistant Professor at the Faculty of
Behavioral and Social Sciences at the University of Groningen, The Netherlands.
Her research interests include teacher expectations, factors related to the transition
from primary to secondary schools in tracked educational systems, multilevel
modeling, and the validity and reliability of school performance indicators. In 2016,
Anneke received the Early Career Researcher Award from the British Journal of
Educational Psychology for the paper “Accurate, inaccurate, or biased teacher
expectations: Do Dutch teachers differ in their expectations at the end of primary
education?”.
xx Editors and Contributors

Greetje van der Werf (Ph.D.) is Full Professor of learning and instruction and
vice-Dean of the Faculty of Behavioral and Social Sciences at the University of
Groningen, The Netherlands. Her main interests include educational effectiveness,
civics and citizenship education, and the influence of psychological precursors of
school success. Her expertise is in conducting large-scale multilevel longitudinal
research in secondary education as well as evidence-based field experiments.
 Part I
Socioeconomic Inequality in Education
Systems
Chapter 1
Socioeconomic Inequality and Student
Outcomes Across Education Systems

John Jerrim, Louis Volante, Don A. Klinger and Sylke V. Schnepf

Abstract This chapter provides an introduction to the topic of socioeconomic

inequality and student outcomes, including methodological challenges associated
with cross-cultural research on this topic. Particular attention is devoted to docu-
menting socioeconomic differences noted in prominent international achievement
surveys such as the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study
(TIMSS) and the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA),
including how these results have changed over time. We show how evidence
regarding socioeconomic inequalities from such large-scale international assess-
ments is limited due to challenges with missing parental education data and reliance
upon student proxy reports. A key conclusion is therefore that a different approach
to understanding socioeconomic inequalities across countries is needed if real
progress is going to be made in raising the achievement of young people from
disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds. A framework for the national profiles
presented in the second part of this book is then discussed.

Keywords Student achievement
Socioeconomic status
Inequality

Comparative analysis

J. Jerrim (&)
Institute of Education, University College London, London, UK
e-mail: j.jerrim@ucl.ac.uk
L. Volante
Brock University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
D. A. Klinger
University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand
S. V. Schnepf
European Commission’s Joint Research Centre, Petten, The Netherlands

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019 3

L. Volante et al. (eds.), Socioeconomic Inequality
and Student Outcomes, Education Policy & Social Inequality 4,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-9863-6_1
4 J. Jerrim et al.

1.1 Introduction

Socioeconomic inequality in young people’s academic achievement has become

one of the key academic and political issues of the twenty-first century. Indeed,
public policymakers across the globe are now seeking to raise the cognitive skills of
young people from disadvantaged backgrounds, and to narrow the gap in
achievement between this group and their more affluent peers. There are at least
three reasons why this is now seen as such a pressing issue. The first is economic
efficiency. In a competitive world, it is vital that each country is making the most of
its human resources. Yet, if young people from poor backgrounds are failing to
reach their academic potential, then this is unlikely to be the case. The second
reason is social justice. Individuals do not pick the family and socioeconomic
position they are born into. Rather, it is luck of the draw. Hence many would deem
it to be “unfair” and inequitable if life chances are to a large extent determined by a
factor, such as family background, that is largely outside of one’s control. The final
reason is the persistence of inequality. Many view education as a key driver of
economic inequality and intergenerational mobility (Economic and Social Research
Council, 2012; Goldthorpe, 2014). Consequently, persistence in educational
inequalities will translate into continuing inequalities in later life. This is not only in
terms of labor market outcomes (occupation and income), but also other wider
factors that education is thought to influence, such as well-being and health (Chou,
Liu, Grossman, & Joyce, 2010).
Figure 1.1, drawn from Jerrim and Macmillan’s (2015) research, helps to for-
malize this argument by illustrating the link between parental education, their
offspring’s education, and their offspring’s later lifetime outcomes. It also illustrates
the three broad mechanisms that are thought to drive the parent–child relationship
in educational achievement. The first is the biological channel of heredity transfers
—genetic differences in individuals’ academic potential that may be transmitted
across generations. A growing body of research is highlighting the importance of
genetics for our understanding of socioeconomic gaps in educational achievement
(Ayorech, Krapohl, Plomin, & von Stumm, 2017), though the bio-molecular work
in this area is still somewhat in its infancy (Jerrim, Vignoles, Lingam, & Friend,
2015). The second mechanism is non-financial resources. This encompasses a
whole host of factors throughout childhood which, although not costing much
money, differ (on average) between high and low socioeconomic parents. Examples
include breastfeeding, reading and interactions with the child, helping regularly
with homework, and parenting styles, each of which are plausibly linked to chil-
dren’s educational achievement (e.g., Sacker, Kelly, Iacovou, Cable, & Bartley,
2013). Finally, parents with lower levels of education will have fewer financial
resources to invest in their children’s education. They are consequently less likely
to have access to the necessary educational materials that their children need to
achieve high outcomes in school. Possible examples include access to books/
computers, attending lower quality schools, and being unable to afford private
tutors. Along with macro-economic forces (e.g., income inequality), public
1 Socioeconomic Inequality and Student Outcomes … 5

Heredity (H)

Parental Non-financial Educational Offspring

Returns to
education (NF) attainment earnings
education
investments
λ

Private Public
investment in investment in
education education

Financial resources
(F)

Income
inequality

Fig. 1.1 Conceptual framework linking parental education to educational achievement and later
lifetime outcomes. Source Jerrim and MacMillan (2015)

investment (e.g., government expenditure on education), and institutional structures

(e.g., the design of the education system), these three forces combine to generate
significant disparities in educational achievement by family background that can be
observed across the developed world.
Figure 1.1 also serves as motivation as to why it is important to consider
socioeconomic differences in educational achievement from an international com-
parative perspective. In order to judge whether inequality in achievement is large or
small in any given country, it is necessary to have a yardstick to measure it against.
For instance, is a correlation of 0.5 between parent and child years of schooling weak
or strong? Drawing comparisons to other countries of a similar level of development
provides an important and insightful context against which we can judge such
results. Relatedly, Fig. 1.1 also has highlighted how heredity is thought to be one of
the three key intergenerational mechanisms driving the intergenerational transmis-
sion of education. Yet, although this may help to explain parent–child links within a
single country, it is difficult to see why this would cause differences between
countries. In other words, the role of heredity transfers in generating intergenera-
tional inequalities is likely to be approximately equal across nations. Hence, when
considering why socioeconomic inequality in academic achievement is stronger in
one country than another, we can largely rule this hereditary mechanism out. This
then leaves factors that can be influenced by public policy—such as parental
investments, macro-economic conditions, and institutional structures—as the
remaining drivers of any cross-national differences. Indeed, as previous research has
shown (e.g., Hanushek & Wossmann, 2006), cross-national comparisons also pro-
vide a natural way for one to consider how key institutional structures, such as the
design of education systems, influences inequality in young people’s outcomes.
6 J. Jerrim et al.

1.2 Measurement Issues Regarding Socioeconomic

Background

As the previous section has highlighted, there are important reasons to study
inequality in educational achievement within an international comparative frame-
work. There are, however, also important challenges, particularly with regards to
the measurement of educational achievement across multiple countries and two
generations. We provide an overview of these issues here, with a focus upon the
measurement of family background. Although challenges also exist with respect to
the robustness and international comparability of measures of children’s academic
achievement, we refer readers to chapters in previous edited volumes that have
addressed this matter in detail (e.g., Goldstein, 2017).
The first decision one has to make when studying socioeconomic inequalities is
which measure (or measures) of family background to use. Three main indicators
are widely used in the literature: parental education, parental occupation, and
(permanent) family income. Each has its advantages and disadvantages. For
instance, while family income is easy to understand and interpret by a wide audi-
ence, and is arguably the most cross-nationally comparable, young people are
unable to report it accurately, and it thus must be captured from parents directly.
This means that it can be limited in terms of availability. On the other hand, young
people generally can report parental occupation and parental education reasonably
well (Jerrim & Micklewright, 2014), with these indicators therefore available within
most datasets. Yet they suffer from a host of other measurement issues, as we shall
discuss below.
An alternative to using just a single indicator is to combine several measures into a
scale. This has been the preferred approach of the Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development (OECD) in the Programme for International Student
Assessment (PISA) study. This has the advantage of better capturing the multidi-
mensional nature of any one indicator alone (Marks, 2011). However, such composite
indicators are often difficult to interpret and communicate, while having also been
criticized for their cross-national comparability (Rutkowski & Rutkowski, 2013).
Additionally, composite indicators utilize cut scores to determine “low” versus
“high” SES which varies largely across countries and reminds us of the important
distinctions that exist between absolute versus relative poverty (Ravillion, 2016).
Throughout this volume, we have made a pragmatic choice of parental education
(the highest level out of the child’s mother and father) to be the preferred measure of
socioeconomic position (wherever possible). Although we recognize that previous
research has suggested that different family background indicators produce similar,
but not identical, orderings of countries in terms of socioeconomic inequalities in
student performance (Marks, 2011), we have decided to focus upon parental edu-
cation for a number of reasons. First, this information is routinely collected in most
social surveys across the world. Consequently, it is available in most national and
international data sources within our countries of interest. Second, despite criticisms
(Schneider, 2013), the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED)
1 Socioeconomic Inequality and Student Outcomes … 7

framework provides (to some extent) a harmonized framework that allows for
comparisons across surveys and international jurisdictions. This is not always true of
the alternatives, such as with parental occupation or composite measures, which are
sometimes recorded in datasets following national-specific categorizations. Third, as
Fig. 1.1 has already demonstrated, there are clear mechanisms by which higher levels
of parental education may cause their offspring to have higher levels of achievement
at school. Fourth, the meaning of parental education is widely understood as a valid
measure of family background among public policymakers and non-specialist
audiences. Finally, it has also been the preferred measure in other cross-national
research into socioeconomic inequalities (e.g., Bradbury, Corak, Waldfogel, &
Washbrook, 2015) meaning that the work presented in this volume is consistent with
much of the wider evidence base.
Yet it is also important that we highlight the potential challenges with parental
education as a measure of socioeconomic position, and the care that readers of this
volume will need to exercise when interpreting the results. As we shall illustrate in
more detail below, the distribution of parental education varies markedly across
countries. Consequently, a different proportion of the population will be classified
as coming from a “disadvantaged” background depending upon the country.
Whether this is a desirable property of a family background measure is open to
debate. The reason for such large differences across countries is likely due, at least
in part, to differences in the prestige of vocational qualifications across nations. For
instance, while some countries have well-established vocational routes leading to
highly regarded educational qualifications (e.g., Germany) other countries do not
(e.g., England and the United States). Hence, despite the usefulness of the ISCED
framework, there nevertheless remain some questions over whether one is truly
comparing like-with-like.
Another important issue with respect to parental education is measurement error.
Many surveys, including the large-scale international assessments, rely upon young
people to provide proxy reports of their mother’s and father’s education level.
However, as Jerrim and Micklewright (2014) illustrate, agreement between parent
and child reports is far from complete. Moreover, cross-national patterns of
socioeconomic inequality can vary in important ways, depending upon whose
reports are used. In a similar manner, missing data can also be a problem, either
because children are unwilling or unable to answer questions about their parents’
education level, or because parents fail to complete the background questionnaire.
Such issues may be particularly relevant for particular sub-groups. For instance, the
educational qualifications of immigrants often do not easily fit into national
reporting frameworks, and may, therefore, be particularly prone to non-response
and miss-report. Each of the above, therefore, has the potential to impact upon the
robustness of the conclusions that we can draw.
To conclude this section, we highlight these issues by illustrating the distribution
of parental education across countries. Children have been grouped in low (ISCED
0–2), average (ISCED 3–5B), and high (ISCED 5A and above) parental education
groups, along with those where this information is missing. Figures are presented
data from the 2015 round of the Trends in International Mathematics and Science
8 J. Jerrim et al.

Study (TIMSS) fourth grade (age 9/10), TIMSS eighth grade (age 13/14), and PISA
(age 15/16) studies. Note that in TIMSS fourth grade, information on parental
education is reported by parents in response to a background questionnaire, while in
TIMSS eighth grade it is reported by participating children acting as proxy
respondents.
A number of gaps appear in the TIMSS results due to countries either not
participating in the study (Germany, Spain, Finland, and the Netherlands for the
eighth-grade sample) or not participating in the home background questionnaire
where information on parental education is reported (England and the United States
in the case of the fourth-grade sample). Moreover, even where countries do par-
ticipate, there continue to be serious problems with respect to missing parental
education data. For instance, more than half of the fourth-grade sample is missing
information on parental education in Australia and the Netherlands, mainly due to
parents not returning the background questionnaire. Likewise, more than a third of
the eighth-grade sample in Australia, Canada, England, and Sweden are missing
parental education data, due to children either skipping this question or reporting
that they “don’t know” their mothers’ and fathers’ education level. Similar issues
emerge with other socioeconomic background information in TIMSS, and in other
international studies such as the Progress in International Reading Literacy Survey
(PIRLS). There are, consequently, major limitations with using international
resources such as TIMSS and PIRLS for studying the educational achievement of
children from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds, due to the serious risks
posed by survey non-response.
In contrast, information on parental education is much more complete in PISA
for most of the countries included in this volume (with the notable exception of
Germany). Yet the distribution of parental education in the PISA study also helps to
illustrate how the proportion falling into each of the different groups varies sig-
nificantly across countries. For instance, whereas more than half of children report
that at least one of their parents hold a degree in Finland, less than a quarter do in
the Netherlands. Likewise, around a quarter of parents in Spain complete only basic
education (ISCED level 0–2), compared to less than 5% of observations falling into
this category in Finland, England, and Canada. Together, this helps to reiterate the
point that, despite our use of comparable data and an internationally harmonized
measure of educational qualifications, the size and composition of low parental-
education groups across countries varies quite substantially.

1.3 Parent–Child Education Links in TIMSS and PISA

Despite the important caveats with the parental education measures in the
large-scale international assessments documented above, it is nevertheless impor-
tant to consider what they can tell us about the educational achievement of
socioeconomically disadvantaged school children, and how this has changed over
time. Table 1.2, therefore, illustrates the average mathematics scores of low
1 Socioeconomic Inequality and Student Outcomes … 9

education pupils according to the TIMSS/PISA 2015 studies (upper panel), and the
size of the achievement gap relative to the high parental education group (lower
panel). Lighter (darker) shading refers to “better” (“worse”) performance relative to
other countries at a given age. Note that, when reading this table, comparisons
should only be made between countries at a single age, as it is not possible to
directly compare scores between the various PISA and TIMSS studies. In other
words, direct comparisons can be made when reading Table 1.2 vertically, but not
when reading across horizontally.
Starting with the top panel, Germany stands out as a country where the low
parental education group performs relatively well compared to the other countries.
However, readers should interpret this finding in light of Table 1.1, and the fact that
this group is larger (and hence likely to be somewhat less selective) than elsewhere.
Sweden, on the other hand, is a country where children with low educated parents
have comparatively poor mathematics skills. This is particularly true at age 15/16,
based upon the PISA data, where both Sweden and the United States have lower
levels of mathematics achievement than other countries. Otherwise, relatively few
consistent patterns emerge, with the magnitude of most cross-national differences
being relatively small. For instance, at age 9/10, Australia, Spain, Finland, and Italy
are separated by just 10 TIMSS test points—roughly equivalent to an effect size of
0.1 standard deviations or less. The same holds true for Australia, Canada, Spain,
Italy, and the Netherlands at age 15/16 with respect to the low parental education
group’s PISA scores. Our overall interpretation of the upper panel of Table 1.2 is
that, on the whole, cross-national differences in the average mathematics skills of
socioeconomically disadvantaged children are relatively small (at least with respect
to the 10 countries included within this volume).

Table 1.1 The distribution of parental education across countries

TIMSS 2015
Age 9/10 Age 13/14
Low Medium High Missing Low Medium High Missing
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
Australia 2 19 23 56 5 31 25 40
Canada 1 35 41 22 2 32 31 36
Germany 22 25 14 39 – – – –
Spain 19 38 25 18 – – – –
Finland 2 45 47 6 – – – –
England – – – – 5 20 23 52
Italy 20 54 16 10 21 49 16 14
Netherlands 0 11 13 75 – – – –
Sweden 4 36 40 21 4 26 31 40
USA – – – – 7 31 41 21
(continued)
10 J. Jerrim et al.

Table 1.1 (continued)

PISA 2015
Age 15/16
Low (%) Medium (%) High (%) Missing (%)
Australia 7 42 46 4
Canada 2 39 55 3
Germany 18 36 28 17
Spain 24 36 38 2
Finland 2 37 59 2
England 3 49 38 9
Italy 19 47 32 2
Netherlands 6 69 23 2
Sweden 5 39 52 4
USA 10 42 45 2
Notes Low refers to the highest parental education of ISCED level 0–2, medium ISCED level 3–
5B and high to ISCED level 5A and above. Figures are row percentages

The lower panel of Table 1.2 turns to the gap in achievement between the “low”
(ISCED level 0–2) and “high” (ISCED 5A/6) parental education groups. Similar
findings emerge with respect to Germany and Sweden; the achievement gap tends
to be comparatively small in the former and large in the latter (with the exception of
the TIMSS results at age 13/14). There are also perhaps some surprising findings;
achievement gaps in Finland do not stand out as particularly small, and are actually
larger than in some of the other comparator countries. Likewise, across all three
surveys, the magnitude of the mathematics achievement gap in Italy does not stand
out as being particularly large (though, as Table 1.1 has already illustrated, Italy
also has a greater proportion of children within the low parental education category
than elsewhere). The other notable result is that socioeconomic inequality is quite
pronounced in Australia relative to the other countries according to results from the
two TIMSS studies, but this is not the case in PISA. Overall, the lower panel of
Table 1.2 does provide some evidence that social inequality in educational
achievement does to some extent vary across our 10 countries of interest.
To conclude this section, we consider how the mathematics skills of children
from low parental education backgrounds have changed over time. As the survey
with the most complete data in terms of both country coverage and available
information on parental education, we have based this analysis upon PISA data
alone. These results can be found in Table 1.3, with the top panel referring to
average mathematics scores of the low parental education group, and the lower panel
the gap in achievement between children from low and high parental education
backgrounds. Note that the shading should now read across the table horizontally
(i.e., it aids with comparisons made within each country over time), with darker cells
indicating “worse” performance (lower average scores and larger achievement gaps).
1 Socioeconomic Inequality and Student Outcomes … 11

Table 1.2 The mathematics achievement of children from low parental education backgrounds

Mean scores
Age 9/10 Age 13/14 Age 15/16
Australia 478 454 455
Canada 464 491 459
Germany 509 - 479
Spain 473 - 455
Finland 480 - 437
England - 487 440
Italy 480 462 454
Netherlands - - 459
Sweden 460 470 420
USA - 490 420
Gap between low and high parental education groups
Age 9/10 Age 13/14 Age 15/16
Australia 86 88 68
Canada 72 68 72
Germany 52 - 58
Spain 64 - 57
Finland 74 - 89
England - 81 76
Italy 59 63 55
Netherlands - - 79
Sweden 85 55 92
USA - 55 74
Notes Estimates based upon children with available parental education data only. Age 9/10 based
upon TIMSS 4th grade, age 13/14 TIMSS 8th grade, and age 15/16 PISA. The Netherlands has
been excluded from age 9/10 estimates due to the small sample size of the low parental education
group. Shading is within age-group (i.e., should be read vertically), with darker shading indicating
“worse” outcomes (lower average scores and larger gaps) relative to the other countries

In terms of average scores, there has been some striking declines over the
12-year period considered. These have most notably occurred in the Netherlands,
Finland, Canada, Sweden, and Australia, where there has been at least a 30 PISA
test point drop between 2003 and 2015. (Note however that, for the Netherlands,
response rates also tended to be lower in earlier waves of PISA, which could be
having an impact upon the trends in this particular country.) In other nations, such
as England, Spain, and the United States, the performance of this group has
remained stagnant, with no obvious sign of progress having been made. Indeed, it is
only really Germany where mathematics skills of the low parental education group
has improved substantially over the last decade, with average scores in 2012/2015
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 Oriental traveller)
A real Indian Pilaw 613
Indian receipt for Curried Fish 614
Bengal Currie Powder, No. 1 614
Risotto à la Mayonnaise 615
Stufato (a Neapolitan receipt) 615
Broiled Eels with sage (Entrée) 616
(German receipt. Good)
A Swiss Mayonnaise 615
Tendrons de Veau 617
Poitrine de Veau Glacée 618
(Breast of Veal stewed and
glazed)
Breast of Veal simply stewed 618
Compote de Pigeons (Stewed 619
Pigeons)
Mai Trank (May Drink) 620
(German)
A Viennese Soufflé Pudding, 620
called Salzburger Nockerl
 INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER.

TRUSSING.

Page

Remarks on Trussing xxxiii

General Directions for Trussing xxxiii
To truss a Turkey, Fowl, xxxiv
Pheasant, or Partridge, for
roasting
To truss Fish xxxv
 INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER.

CARVING.

Page

Remarks on Carving xxxvii

No. 1. Cod’s head and xxxviii
shoulder (and Cod fish
generally)
No. 2. A Turbot xxxviii
No. 2a. Soles xxxviii
No. 3. Salmon xxxviii
No. 4. Saddle of Mutton xxxviii
No. 5. A Haunch of Venison (or xxxix
Mutton)
No. 6. Sirloin or Rump of Beef xxxix
No. 6a. Ribs of Beef xxxix
No. 6b. A round of Beef xxxix
No. 6c. A brisket of Beef xl
No. 7. Leg of Mutton xl
No. 8. Quarter of Lamb xl
No. 9. Shoulder of Mutton or xl
Lamb
No. 10. A Sucking Pig xl
No. 10a. A fillet of Veal xli
No. 10b. A loin of Veal xli
No. 11. A breast of Veal xli
No. 12. A tongue xli
No. 13. A calf’s head xli
No. 14. A ham xlii
No. 15. A pheasant xlii
No. 16. A boiled fowl xliii
No. 17. A roast fowl xliv
No. 18. A partridge xliv
No. 19. A woodcock xlv
No. 20. A pigeon xlv
No. 21. A snipe xlv
No. 22. A goose xlv
Ducks xlvi
No. 23. A wild duck xlvi
No. 24. A turkey xlvi
No. 25. A hare xlvii
No. 26. A fricandeau of veal xlvii
INTRODUCTORY CHAPTERS.
 TRUSSING.

Trussing Needles.

Common and untrained cooks are often deplorably ignorant of this

branch of their business, a knowledge of which is, nevertheless,
quite as essential to them as is that of boiling or roasting; for without
it they cannot, by any possibility, serve up dinners of decently
creditable appearance. We give such brief general directions for it as
our space will permit, and as our own observations enable us to
supply; but it has been truly said, by a great authority in these
matters, that trussing cannot be “taught by words;” we would,
therefore, recommend, that instead of relying on any written
instructions, persons who really desire thoroughly to understand the
subject, and to make themselves acquainted with the mode of
entirely preparing all varieties of game and poultry more especially
for table, in the very best manner, should apply for some practical
lessons to a first-rate poulterer; or, if this cannot be done, that they
should endeavour to obtain from some well experienced and skilful
cook the instruction which they need.
 GENERAL DIRECTIONS FOR TRUSSING.

Before a bird is trussed, the skin must be entirely freed from any
down which may be on it, and from all the stubble-ends of the
feathers;[3] the hair also must be singed from it with lighted writing
paper, care being taken not to smoke nor blacken it in the operation.
Directions for cleansing the insides of birds after they are drawn, are
given in the receipts for dressing them, Chapters XIV. and XV.
Turkeys, geese, ducks, wild or tame, fowls, and pigeons, should all
have the necks taken off close to the bodies, but not the skin of the
necks, which should be left sufficiently long to turn down upon the
backs for a couple of inches or more, where it must be secured,
either with a needle and coarse soft cotton, or by the pinions of the
birds when trussed.
3. This should be particularly attended to.
For boiling, all poultry or other birds must
have the feet drawn off at the first joint of
the leg, or as shown in the engraving. (In
the latter case, the sinews of the joint must
be slightly cut, when the bone may be
easily turned back as here.) The skin must
then be loosened with the finger entirely from the legs, which must
be pushed back into the body, and the small ends tucked quite under
the apron, so as to be entirely out of sight.
The wings of chickens, fowls, turkeys,
and pigeons, are left on entire, whether for
roasting or boiling. From geese, ducks,
pheasants, partridges, black game, moor-
fowl, woodcocks, snipes, wild-fowl of all
kinds, and all small birds, the first two joints
are taken off, leaving but one joint on, thus:
—
The feet are left on ducks, and those of tame ones are trussed as
will be seen at page 278, and upon roast fowls, pheasants, black
and moor-game, pigeons, woodcocks, and snipes. The thick coarse
skin of the legs of these must be stripped, or rubbed off with a hard
cloth after they have been held in boiling water, or over a clear fire
for a few minutes. The sharp talons must be pulled out, and the nails
clipped. The toes of the pigeons for roasting should be cut off.
Geese, sucking-pigs, hares, and rabbits have the feet taken off at
the first joint.
The livers and gizzards are served in the wings of roast turkeys
and fowls only.
The heads are still commonly left on pheasants, partridges, and
black game and moor-game; but the fashion is declining. Of this we
shall speak more particularly in the ensuing chapter.
Poultry and birds in general, except perhaps quite the larger kinds,
are more easily trussed into plump handsome form with twine and
needles proper to the purpose (for which see page 1), than with
skewers. The manner in which the legs and wings are confined is
much the same for all; the principal difference being in the
arrangement of the former for boiling, which has already been
explained.
There is a present mode of trussing very large fowls for boiling or
stewing which to our taste is more novel than attractive. The feet are
left on, and after the skin has been loosened from them in every part,
the legs are thrust entirely into the body by means of a slight incision
made in the skin just above the first joint on the underside, the feet
then appear almost as if growing out of the sides of the breast: the
effect of this is not pleasing.
TO TRUSS A TURKEY, FOWL, PHEASANT OR PARTRIDGE, FOR
ROASTING.

First draw the skin of the neck down over the back, and secure it
from slipping up; then thread a trussing needle of convenient size,[4]
for the occasion, with packthread or small twine (the former, from
being the most flexible, is best); pass it through the pinion of the bird,
then through the thick part of the thigh, which must be brought up
close under the wing, and in a straight line quite through the body,
and through the leg and pinion on the other side; draw them close,
and bring the needle back, passing it through the thick part of the
leg, and through the second joint of the pinion, should it be left on
the bird; tie it quite tight; and then to secure the legs, pierce the
sidebone and carry the twine over the legs, then pass the needle
through the other sidebone, and tie them close down. If skewers be
used they should be driven through the pinions and the legs, and a
twine passed across the back of the bird, and caught over the points
of it, and then tied in the centre of the back: this is only needful when
the trussing is not firm.
4. These may be had, of various sizes, at any good ironmongers.
When the head is left on a bird, it may still
be trussed in the same way, and the head
brought round, as shown here, and kept in
place by a skewer passed through it, and
run through the body. When the bird is
trussed entirely with skewers, the point of
one is brought from the other side, through the pinions and the
thighs, and the head is fixed upon it. The legs are then pressed as
much as possible under the breast, between it and the side-bones,
where they are lettered a b. The partridge in the engraving is shown
with the skewers just withdrawn after being roasted.
Hares, after being filled with forcemeat, and sewn or securely
fastened up with skewers, are brought into proper roasting form by
having the head fixed between the shoulders, and either fastened to
the back by means of a long skewer, run through the head quite into
it, or by passing one through the upper part of the shoulders and the
neck together, which will keep it equally well in place, though less
thrown back. The fore-legs are then laid straight along the sides of
the hare, and a skewer is thrust through them both and the body at
the same time; the sinews are just cut through under the hind-legs,
and they are brought forward as much as possible, and skewered in
the same manner as the others. A string is then thrown across,
under the hare and over the points of both skewers, being crossed
before it is passed over the second, and then tied above the back.
The ears of a hare are left on; those of a rabbit, which is trussed in
the same way, are taken off.
Joints of meat require but little arrangement, either for the
spit or for boiling. A fillet of veal must have the flap, or part to
which the fat adheres, drawn closely round the outside, and
be skewered or bound firmly into good shape: this will apply
equally to a round of beef. The skin or flank of loins of meat
must be wrapped over the ends of the bones, and skewered
on the underside. The cook should be particularly careful to
separate the joints when it has not been done by the
butcher, and necks of veal or mutton also, or much trouble
will often arise to the carver.
Past
e To flatten and bring cutlets into
Brus uniform shape, a bat of this form is
h. used: and to egg or to cover them
with clarified butter when they are to
be crumbed, a paste-brush should Cutlet Bat.
be at hand. Indeed, these and many other
small means and appliances, ought to be
provided for every cook who is expected to perform her duty in a
regular and proper manner, for they save much time and trouble, and
their first expense is very slight; yet many kitchens are almost
entirely without them.
 TO TRUSS FISH.

Salmon, salmon-peel, pike, and some few other large fish, are
occasionally trussed in the form of an S by passing a string through
the head, and tying it securely, then through the centre of the body,
and next round the tail, which should be turned the reverse way of
the head, and the whole should then be drawn closely together and
well fastened. Whitings and other fish of small size are trussed with
the tails merely skewered into their mouths. Obs.—It is
indispensable for cooks to know how to carve neatly for pies,
puddings, fricassees, and curries, at the least, hares, rabbits, fowls,
and other birds. For those who are quite without experience in this
branch of their business, the directions and the illustrations in the
next chapter for carving a fowl into joints, will be found useful; and
probably many of the other instructions also.
 CARVING.

Fish Carvers.

Whether the passing fashion of the day exact it of her or not, a

gentlewoman should always, for her own sake, be able to carve well
and easily, the dishes which are placed before her, that she may be
competent to do the honours of a table at any time with propriety and
self-possession.[5] To gentlemen, and especially to those who mix
much in society, some knowledge of this art, and a certain degree of
skill in the exercise of it, are indispensable, if they would avoid the
chance of appearing often to great disadvantage themselves, and of
causing dissatisfaction and annoyance to others; for the uncouth
operations of bad carvers occasion almost as much discomfort to
those who witness, as they do generally of awkwardness and
embarrassment to those who exhibit them.
5. As this can only be accomplished by practice, young persons should be early
accustomed to carve at home, where the failure of their first attempts will
cause them much less embarrassment than they would in another sphere,
and at a later period of life.

The precise mode of carving various dishes must of course

depend on many contingencies. For a plain family-dinner, or where
strict economy is an imperative consideration, it must sometimes, of
necessity, differ from that which is laid down here. We have confined
our instructions to the fashion usually adopted in the world.
Carving knives and forks are to be had of many forms and sizes,
and adapted to different purposes: the former should always have a
very keen edge, and the latter two prongs only.
 No. 1. COD’S HEAD AND SHOULDERS (AND COD FISH
GENERALLY.)

The thick part of the back of this, as of all large fish—salmon

excepted—is the firmest and finest eating. It should be carved
across, rather thick, and, as much as possible, in unbroken slices,
from a to b. The sound, which is considered a delicacy, lies
underneath, and lines the back-bone: it must be reached with a
spoon in the direction c. The middle of the fish, when served to a
family party, may be carved in the same manner, or in any other
which convenience and economy may dictate.
 No. 2. A TURBOT.

In carving this most excellent fish, the rich gelatinous skin attached
to it, and a portion of the thick part of the fins, should be served with
every slice. If the point of the fish-knife be drawn down the centre of
the back through to the bone, in the lines a b c, and from thence to d
d d, the flesh may easily be raised upon the blade in handsome
portions,. The thickest parts of all flat fish are the best. A brill and a
John Dory are served exactly like a turbot.
 SOLES.

The more elegant mode of serving these, and the usual one at
good tables, is to raise the flesh from the bones as from a turbot,
which is easily done when the fish are large; but when they are too
small well to admit of it, they must be divided across quite through
the bone: the shoulders, and thick part of the body, are the superior
portions.
 No. 3. SALMON.

It is customary to serve a slice of the thick part of the back of this

fish, which is marked from a to b, with one of the thinner and richer
portions of it, shown by the line from c to d. It should be carved quite
straight across, and the fine flakes of the flesh should be preserved
as entire as possible. Salmon-peel, pike, haddocks, large whitings,
and all fish which are served curled round, and with the backs
uppermost, are carved in the same manner; the flesh is separated
from the bone in the centre of the back, and taken off, on the outer
side first, in convenient portions for serving. The flesh of mackerel is
best raised from the bones by passing the fish-slice from the tail to
the head: it may then be divided in two.
 No. 4. SADDLE OF MUTTON.

The manner of trussing this joint varies almost from season to

season, the mode which is considered in good taste one year being
obsolete the next, in families where passing fashions are closely
observed. It seems really immaterial whether it be served as shown
in the engraving; or whether two or three joints of the tail be left on
and surrounded with a paper frill. This joint is now trussed for
roasting in the manner shown in the engraving; and when it is dished
a silver skewer replaces the one marked e. It is likewise often still
served in good families with only two or three joints of the tail left on.
The most usual mode of carving it is in thin slices cut quite along the
bone, on either side, in the line a to b; but it is sometimes sliced
obliquely from c to d: this last fashion is rather gaining ground. The
thick end of the joint must then, of course, be to the left of the carver.
A saddle of pork or of lamb is carved exactly in the same manner.
 No. 5. A HAUNCH OF VENISON (OR MUTTON.)

An incision must first be made entirely across the knuckle end of

this joint, quite down to the bone, in the line a b, to let the gravy
escape; it must then be carved in thin slices taken as deep as they
can be, the whole length of the haunch, from c to d. A portion of the
fat should invariably be served with the venison.