In a split-stream educational system, pupils of the same age-group visit different school forms from which school leaving certificates of different quality can be acquired. In Germany the split-stream educational system begins after a joint elementary school (Primarstufe). The pupils are divided up into the different school types at the first secondary level school, such as the secondary general school, secondary modern school or grammar school. This selection occurs in most federal states in the fourth grade, when pupils are about ten years old. Berlin and Brandenburg have introduced a joint elementary school with six grades.
Along with Austria, Germany separates its pupils at an early age in an international comparison. Most other OECD countries that have had a similar system abandoned split streaming in the past decades and implemented reforms for longer periods of joint learning. A good example is Finland, the PISA test winner. Until the end of the 1970s (gradual introduction of the new comprehensive school: 1972-1977) Finland had a two-level split streaming and then introduced a school reform that kept pupils together until the age of 16. Only after this age is there a division into various types of further schooling.
The split-stream educational system has a long tradition in Germany. Although in some German federal states there is a trend away from three-level to two-level split streaming of the educational system, a total abolition of split streaming is not in sight.
Research results in educational economics speak mostly against the early separation of pupils. Different studies have examined the effects of reforms leading to longer periods of joint learning in other industrialised countries. The results point to mainly positive effects with regard to equal opportunity without accompanying negative results in terms of pupil performance. With a longer period of joint learning, the dependence of educational and later labour market success on family background, which is larger in Germany than in most other countries, is weakened. Those who especially benefit are children from families with low educational levels.
International studies on pupil performance also demonstrate that an early separation expands the distribution between stronger and weaker pupils in the following school years. In no other country does the disparity of pupil performance increase from the PIRLS elementary school tests to the PISA secondary school tests so strongly as in Germany. Germany has been criticised for this by the OECD.
Proponents of early streaming assert that with the creation of groups with similar performance levels, class instruction can be better tailored to the respective level, and that both the stronger and weaker pupils can be promoted more effectively. Opponents of early streaming point out that cognitive abilities cannot be precisely assessed after four (or six) years of schooling and that the separation into different school forms automatically leads to incorrect decisions. This is all the more a problem since in Germany it is very difficult to switch school forms. Early streaming thus leads to a reduction of equal opportunity. Furthermore, so it is argued, both stronger and weaker pupils could benefit from instruction in heterogeneous groups.
Based on its own and other studies, the Ifo Institute rejects an early split streaming. The PISA results and other international comparisons of pupil performance demonstrate that a longer joint learning improves the chances of pupils from families with low educational levels. This is especially important in light of the great disparities in educational opportunities in Germany. All in all, longer joint instruction for children leads – especially because of the economic importance of a good education – to better opportunities for an appreciable number of today’s disadvantaged. This brings about a more level playing field and promotes social coherence and acceptance as well as the long-term stability of our social system. Various studies in addition also demonstrate that early streaming is by no means necessary to achieve higher levels of pupil performance.
The Ifo Institute also stresses, however, that there are other aspects of the educational system that are more important for pupil performance than the question of the school structure. This includes, for example, centrally administered final examinations in connection with a greater amount of school autonomy and competition between schools, both public and private.
That more is necessary for a successful educational system than just reforms of the school structure is also seen, for example, in the different results of pupils in Bremen and in Bavaria in the PISA tests. On the scale of 45 countries’ PISA results in 2006, Bavaria despite its three-level school streaming falls among the top performers while Bremen ranks among the weaker countries.
Report on the Annual Meeting and the lecture and panel discussion on: “Education: an Engine for Growth and Social Cohesion in a Globalised World” Rachel, Thomas, Roland Berger, Peter Müller and Ludger Wößmann, "Bildung: Motor für Wachstum und gesellschaftlichen Zusammenhalt in einer globalisierten Welt", ifo Schnelldienst 13/2011, 6-15 ( Download )
Wößmann, Ludger, "International Evidence on School Tracking: A Review“, CESifo DICE Report 7 (1), 2009, 26–34 ( Download )
"Ende der Hauptschule – Ausweg aus der Bildungsmisere?“, with contributions by Dr. Annette Schavan, Siegfried Schneider, Prof. Dr. Wilfried Bos, Dr. Ernst Rösner, Prof. Dr. Klaus Klemm, Prof. Dr. Kerstin Schneider, Dr. Dieter Dohmen, ifo Schnelldienst 17/2008, 3-20 ( Download )
Sinn, Hans-Werner, "PISA und die deutsche Drei-Klassen-Gesellschaft", Ifo Viewpoint No. 73, 14 March 2006.
Schütz, Gabriela and Ludger Wößmann, "Wie lässt sich die Ungleichheit der Bildungschancen verringern?", ifo Schnelldienst 21/2005, 15-25 ( Download )
Ifo Policy Issue Education
RSS