Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Direct and Indirect Influences of School System on Youth Delinquent Offending Among Migrant and Native-Born Students in Eight Countries

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Minority Youth and Social Integration

  • 370 Accesses

Abstract

Stratified school systems select children into different educational tracks according to ability, in some countries as early as age 10. Tracks substantially determine future education and career opportunities. Comprehensive school system have no such selection before age 15. Children with a migrant background are often overrepresented in lower tracks, and possible negative consequences may affect them more than native-born children. We use data from the third wave of the International Self-Report Delinquency study (ISRD3) to examine direct and indirect influences of school system on self-reported life-time offending of native and migrant students in eight countries, four countries with comprehensive and four with stratified school systems. We find that migrant students are indeed overrepresented in lower tracks and report higher levels of offending across all tracks than native students. No such differences exist for comprehensive systems. Our analysis also shows a stronger (direct) relationship between lower-track enrolment and offending for migrant than for native students, while (indirect) protective influences in the school system are reduced and risk influences are magnified for migrant students.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Total effect = direct effect + indirect effect, or: c = c’ + a × b.

  2. 2.

    Low-High: Wald χ 2(1) = 10.22, p = 0.001; Low-Mix: Wald χ 2(1) = 9.28, p = 0.002.

  3. 3.

    Wald χ 2(1) = 35.80, p = 0.000.

  4. 4.

    Wald χ2(1) = 9.66, p = 0.002.

  5. 5.

    Low-high: Wald χ2(1) = 11.79, p = 0.001; mix-high: Wald χ2(1) = 15.49, p = 0.000.

  6. 6.

    Low-high: Wald χ 2(1) = 17.23, p = 0.000; mix-high: Wald χ 2(1) = 41.03, p = 0.000.

  7. 7.

    Direct effect low × migrant.

  8. 8.

    Low-mix: Wald χ 2(1) = 7.11, p = 0.008; low-high: Wald χ 2(1) = 3.82, p = 0.051 (not significant).

  9. 9.

    High: Indirect high + indirect high × migrant = −0.051 + 0.032 = −0.019 (= − 2%); low: −0.029 + 0.037 = 0.008 (+1%); mix: −0.020 + 0.028 = 0.008 (+1%).

  10. 10.

    Total low + total low × migrant = 9%.

References

  • Allen, K., Kern, M. L., Vella-Brodrick, D., Hattie, J., & Waters, L. (2016). What schools need to know about fostering school belonging: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 30(1), 1–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ansalone, G. (2003). Poverty, tracking, and the social construction of failure: International perspectives on tracking. Journal of Children and Poverty, 9(1), 3–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Antonakis, J., Bendahan, S., Jacquart, P., & Lalive, R. (2010). On making causal claims: A review and recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(6), 1086–1120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berends, M. (1995). Educational stratification and students’ social bonding to school. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 16(3), 327–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borgna, C., & Contini, D. (2014). Migrant achievement penalties in Western Europe: Do educational systems matter? European Sociological Review, 30(5), 670–683.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunello, G., & Checchi, D. (2007). Does school tracking affect equality of opportunity? New international evidence. Economic Policy, 22(52), 782–861.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crosnoe, R. (2002). High school curriculum track and adolescent association with delinquent friends. Journal of Adolescent Research, 17(2), 143–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crosnoe, R. (2009). Low-income students and the socioeconomic composition of public high schools. American Sociological Review, 74(5), 709–730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crul, M. (2013). Snakes and ladders in educational systems: Access to higher education for second-generation Turks in Europe. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 39(9), 1383–1401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demanet, J., & Van Houtte, M. (2012). School belonging and school misconduct: The differing role of teacher and peer attachment. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41(4), 499–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dronkers, J., & de Heus, M. (2012). The educational performance of children of immigrants in sixteen OECD countries, CReAM discussion paper series 1210. London, UK: Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration (CReAM), Department of Economics, University College London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dronkers, J., Van Der Velden, R., & Dunne, A. (2012). Why are migrant students better off in certain types of educational systems or schools than in others? European Educational Research Journal, 11(1), 11–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eccles, J. S., & Roeser, R. W. (2011). Schools as developmental contexts during adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(1), 225–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egli, N. M., Lucia, S., & Berchtold, A. (2012). Integrated vs. differentiated school systems and their impact on delinquency. European Journal of Criminology, 9(3), 245–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ennett, S. T., & Bauman, K. E. (1993). Peer group structure and adolescent cigarette smoking: A social network analysis. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 34(3), 226–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Entorf, H., & Lauk, M. (2008). Peer effects, social multipliers and migrants at school: An international comparison. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 34(4), 633–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford, J. A., & Schroeder, R. D. (2010). Higher education and criminal offending over the life course. Sociological Spectrum, 31(1), 32–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gamoran, A., & Berends, M. (1987). The effects of stratification in secondary schools: Synthesis of survey and ethnographic research. Review of Educational Research, 57(4), 415–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gottfredson, G. D., Gottfredson, D. C., Payne, A. A., & Gottfredson, N. C. (2005). School climate predictors of school disorder: Results from a national study of delinquency prevention in schools. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 42(4), 412–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griga, D., & Hadjar, A. (2014). Migrant background and higher education participation in Europe: The effect of the educational systems. European Sociological Review, 30(3), 275–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanushek, E. A., & Wößmann, L. (2006). Does educational tracking affect performance and inequality? Differences- in-differences evidence across countries. The Economic Journal, 116(510), C63–C76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, A. F., & Preacher, K. J. (2014). Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical independent variable. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 67(3), 451–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henry, K. L., Knight, K. E., & Thornberry, T. P. (2012). School disengagement as a predictor of dropout, delinquency, and problem substance use during adolescence and early adulthood. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41(2), 156–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann, J. P., Erickson, L. D., & Spence, K. R. (2013). Modeling the association between academic achievement and delinquency: An application of interactional theory. Criminology, 51(3), 629–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ireson, J., & Hallam, S. (2009). Academic self-concepts in adolescence: Relations with achievement and ability grouping in schools. Learning and Instruction, 19(3), 201–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Junger-Tas, J., Marshall, I. H., Enzmann, D., Killias, M., Steketee, M., & Gruszczynska, B. (2012). The many faces of youth crime. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mood, C. (2010). Logistic regression: Why we cannot do what we think we can do, and what we can do about it. European Sociological Review, 26(1), 67–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Müller, C. M., & Hofmann, V. (2016). Does being assigned to a low school track negatively affect psychological adjustment? A longitudinal study in the first year of secondary school. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 27(2), 95–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Müller, C. M., Hofmann, V., Fleischli, J., & Studer, F. (2016). Effects of classroom composition on the development of antisocial behavior in lower secondary school. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 26, 345–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2013). PISA 2012 results: What makes schools successful?: Resources, policies and practices (Vol. IV). Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2015). Immigrant students at school: Easing the journey towards integration. Paris: OECD.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Payne, A. A. (2008). A multilevel analysis of the relationships among communal school organization, student bonding, and delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 45(4), 429–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, F. T. (2015). Equality and quality in education. A comparative study of 19 countries. Social Science Research, 51, 350–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • PISA. (2012). OECD programme for international student assessment (PISA). Retrieved from https://pisa2012.acer.edu.au/downloads.php

  • Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, 36(4), 717–731.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rumberger, R. W., & Palardy, G. J. (2005). Does segregation still matter? The impact of student composition on academic achievement in high school. Teachers College Record, 107(9), 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, R. J., & Groves, W. B. (1989). Community structure and crime: Testing social-disorganization theory. American Journal of Sociology, 94(4), 774.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savolainen, J., Hughes, L. A., Hurtig, T. M., Ebeling, H., & Taanila, A. M. (2013). Does vocational schooling facilitate criminal offending? A study of educational tracking in Finland. European Journal of Criminology, 10(5), 606–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, C. R., & McKay, H. D. (1942). Juvenile delinquency and urban areas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, E. A. (2003). School social bonds, school climate, and school misbehavior: A multilevel analysis. Justice Quarterly, 20(3), 575–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van de Werfhorst, H. G., & Mijs, J. J. B. (2010). Achievement inequality and the institutional structure of educational systems: A comparative perspective. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 407–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Houtte, M. (2016). Lower-track students’ sense of academic futility: Selection or effect? Journal of Sociology, 52(4), 874–889.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Houtte, M., & Stevens, P. A. J. (2008). Sense of futility: The missing link between track position and self-reported school misconduct. Youth & Society, 40(2), 245–264. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118x08316251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vieluf, S., Hochweber, J., Klieme, E., & Kunter, M. (2015). Who has a good relationship with the teachers? A comparison of comprehensive education systems with education systems using between-school tracking. Oxford Review of Education, 41(1), 3–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiatrowski, M. D., Hansell, S., Massey, C. R., & Wilson, D. L. (1982). Curriculum tracking and delinquency. American Sociological Review, 47(1), 151–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Renske S. van der Gaag

  2. Verwey-Jonker Institute, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Majone Steketee

  3. Erasmus School of Social and Behavioural Science, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Majone Steketee

Authors
  1. Renske S. van der Gaag
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Majone Steketee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Renske S. van der Gaag .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. National Centre of Scientific Research (CNRS), PACTE, Sciences-Po/Grenoble-Alpes University, Grenoble, France

    Sebastian Roché

  2. School of Law, Birkbeck, University of London, London, United Kingdom

    Mike Hough

Appendix

Appendix

  1. 1.

    Relative direct, indirect and total school-level effect —full model (see Table 6.5)

 

Unstandardised coefficient

Bootstrapped standard error

Standardised coefficient

Total last year offending

 School disorganisation

0.078***

(0.023)

0.023***

 School bonding

−0.196***

(0.013)

−0.105***

 Teacher bonding

−0.009

(0.012)

−0.005

 Perc. achievement

−0.095***

(0.013)

−0.046***

 Future aspiration

−0.020**

(0.006)

−0.021**

 Truancy

0.168***

(0.009)

0.148***

 Delinquent friends

0.269***

(0.006)

0.305***

 Comprehensive

(ref.)

  

 Low

0.076***

(0.013)

0.069***

 Mix

0.048***

(0.012)

0.046***

 High

0.047***

(0.012)

0.045***

 Constant

0.104***

(0.012)

 

School disorganisation

 Comprehensive

(ref.)

  

 Low

0.005

(0.003)

0.014

 Mix

0.053***

(0.003)

0.174***

 High

−0.038***

(0.003)

−0.123***

 Constant

−0.016***

(0.003)

 

School bonding

 Comprehensive

(ref.)

  

 Low

0.023**

(0.007)

0.039**

 Mix

0.000

(0.007)

0.000

 High

0.055***

(0.006)

0.099***

 Constant

0.001

(0.006)

 

Teacher bonding

 Comprehensive

(ref.)

  

 Low

0.004

(0.008)

0.006

 Mix

0.015*

(0.007)

0.024*

 High

0.030***

(0.007)

0.046***

 Constant

0.001

(0.007)

 

Perc. Achievement

 Comprehensive

(ref.)

  

 Low

0.020**

(0.006)

0.037**

 Mix

0.025***

(0.006)

0.049***

 High

0.028***

(0.006)

0.055***

 Constant

−0.033***

(0.006)

 

Future aspiration

 Comprehensive

(ref.)

  

 Low

−0.498***

(0.014)

−0.424***

 Mix

−0.398***

(0.013)

−0.359***

 High

−0.213***

(0.012)

−0.191***

 Constant

0.837***

(0.010)

 

Truancy

 Comprehensive

(ref.)

  

 Low

−0.058***

(0.011)

−0.060***

 Mix

−0.073***

(0.011)

−0.079***

 High

−0.076***

(0.011)

−0.083***

 Constant

0.227***

(0.009)

 

Delinquent friends

 Comprehensive

(ref.)

  

 Low

−0.013

(0.014)

−0.01

 Mix

−0.011

(0.014)

−0.01

 High

−0.049***

(0.014)

−0.042***

 Constant

0.625***

(0.012)

 

 var(e.totlyp)

0.151***

(0.001)

 

 var(e.schdocls)

0.013***

(0.000)

 

 var(e.schbopc)

0.053***

(0.001)

 

 var(e.teabopc)

0.071***

(0.001)

 

 var(e.achievpc)

0.045***

(0.000)

 

 var(e.aftsch2)

0.195***

(0.001)

 

 var(e.truancyp)

0.143***

(0.002)

 

 var(e.delfrndp)

0.227***

(0.001)

 

 N

22,745

  

 SRMR

0.047

(<0.05 = good fit)

 

 Coefficient of determination

0.455

  
  1. Note: sem controlled for gender, grade, openness, country
  1. 2.

    Influence of school system and migrant background —full model (see Table 6.7)

 

Unstandardised coefficient

Robust SE

min95

max95

Total last year offending

 School disorganisation

0.066**

(0.023)

(0.020

0.111)

 School bonding

−0.194***

(0.013)

(−0.220

−0.167)

 Teacher bonding

−0.011

(0.011)

(−0.033

0.010)

 Perc. Achievement

−0.094***

(0.013)

(−0.120

−0.068)

 Future aspiration

−0.022***

(0.006)

(−0.034

−0.010)

 Truancy

0.166***

(0.008)

(0.150

0.182)

 Delinquent friends

0.268***

(0.006)

(0.257

0.280)

 Comprehensive

(ref.)

   

 Low

0.050***

(0.014)

(0.022

0.078)

 Mix

0.044***

(0.013)

(0.019

0.069)

 High

0.039**

(0.012)

(0.015

0.063)

 Native

(ref.)

   

 Migrant

0.017

(0.010)

(−0.002

0.036)

 Native

(ref.)

   

 Low × migrant

0.034*

(0.016)

(0.004

0.065)

 Mix × migrant

−0.009

(0.015)

(−0.038

0.019)

 High × migrant

0.002

(0.015)

(0.027

0.031)

 Constant

0.124***

(0.012)

(0.101

0.147)

School disorganisation

 Comprehensive

(ref.)

   

 Low

−0.017***

(0.004)

(−0.024

−0.010)

 Mix

0.037***

(0.003)

(0.030

0.043)

 High

−0.043***

(0.003)

(−0.049

−0.036)

 Native

(ref.)

   

 Migrant

0.020***

(0.003)

(0.014

0.026)

 Native

(ref.)

   

 Low × migrant

0.027***

(0.004)

(0.018

0.036)

 Mix × migrant

0.022***

(0.004)

(0.013

0.030)

 High × migrant

−0.002

(0.004)

(−0.010

0.006)

 Constant

−0.048***

(0.003)

(−0.053

−0.043)

School bonding

 Comprehensive

(ref.)

   

 Low

0.041***

(0.008)

(0.025

0.056)

 Mix

0.007

(0.007)

(0.006

0.021)

 High

0.073***

(0.007)

(0.060

0.086)

 Native

0

(.)

(0.000

0.000)

 Migrant

0.004

(0.006)

(−0.008

0.015)

 Native

(ref.)

   

 Low × migrant

−0.032***

(0.009)

(−0.051

−0.014)

 Mix × migrant

−0.012

(0.009)

(−0.029

0.005)

 High × migrant

−0.044***

(0.009)

(−0.061

−0.027)

 Constant

0.055***

(0.006)

(0.043

0.066)

Teacher bonding

 Comprehensive

(ref.)

   

 Low

−0.005

(0.009)

(−0.023

0.013)

 Mix

0.001

(0.008)

(−0.015

0.017)

 High

0.036***

(0.008)

(0.020

0.052)

 Native

(ref.)

   

 Migrant

0.024***

(0.007)

(0.011

0.038)

 Native

(ref.)

   

 Low × migrant

0.002

(0.011)

(−0.019

0.023)

 Mix × migrant

0.018

(0.010)

(−0.002

0.038)

 High × migrant

−0.031**

(0.010)

(−0.051

−0.011)

 Constant

0.045***

(0.007)

(0.031

0.059)

Perc. Achievement

 Comprehensive

(ref.)

   

 Low

0.020**

(0.007)

(0.006

0.035)

 Mix

0.024***

(0.007)

(0.011

0.037)

 High

0.036***

(0.007)

(0.023

0.049)

 Native

(ref.)

   

 Migrant

0.001

(0.005)

(−0.009

0.012)

 Native

(ref.)

   

 Low × migrant

0.000

(0.008)

(−0.016

0.017)

 Mix × migrant

0.003

(0.008)

(−0.013

0.019)

 High × migrant

−0.021**

(0.008)

(−0.037

−0.006)

 Constant

−0.023***

(0.006)

(−0.034

−0.012)

Future aspiration

 Comprehensive

(ref.)

   

 Low

−0.562***

(0.015)

(−0.591

−0.532)

 Mix

−0.435***

(0.014)

(−0.461

−0.408)

 High

−0.228***

(0.013)

(−0.254

−0.202)

 Native

(ref.)

   

 Migrant

0.023*

(0.010)

(0.003

0.044)

 Native

(ref.)

   

 Low × migrant

0.103***

(0.018)

(0.067

0.139)

 Mix × migrant

0.060***

(0.017)

(0.027

0.093)

 High × migrant

0.015

(0.016)

(−0.015

0.045)

 Constant

0.794***

(0.011)

(0.772

0.815)

Truancy

 Comprehensive

(ref.)

   

 Low

−0.092***

(0.012)

(−0.117

−0.068)

 Mix

−0.097***

(0.011)

(−0.118

−0.075)

 High

−0.094***

(0.011)

(−0.115

−0.072)

 Native

(ref.)

   

 Migrant

0.028**

(0.011)

(0.007

0.050)

 Native

(ref.)

   

 Low × migrant

0.042**

(0.016)

(0.011

0.074)

 Mix × migrant

0.029*

(0.014)

(0.001

0.058)

 High × migrant

0.024

(0.015)

(−0.006

0.053)

 Constant

0.174***

(0.010)

(0.155

0.193)

Delinquent friends

 Comprehensive

(ref.)

   

 Low

−0.055***

(0.017)

(−0.087

−0.022)

 Mix

−0.045**

(0.015)

(−0.075

−0.015)

 High

−0.072***

(0.015)

(−0.101

−0.042)

 Native

(ref.)

   

 Migrant

−0.02

(0.012)

(−0.043

0.003)

 Native

(ref.)

   

 Low × migrant

0.090***

(0.019)

(0.053

0.127)

 Mix × migrant

0.081***

(0.018)

(0.046

0.116)

 High × migrant

0.064***

(0.018)

(0.028

0.100)

 Constant

0.518***

(0.013)

(0.492

0.543)

 var(e.totlyp)

0.150***

(0.001)

(0.148

0.153)

 var(e.schdocls)

0.013***

(0.000)

(0.013

0.013)

 var(e.schbopc)

0.053***

(0.000)

(0.052

0.054)

 var(e.teabopc)

0.071***

(0.001)

(0.070

0.072)

 var(e.achievpc)

0.045***

(0.000)

(0.044

0.046)

 var(e.aftsch2)

0.194***

(0.001)

(0.191

0.196)

 var.(e.truancyp)

0.143***

(0.002)

(0.140

0.146)

 var.(e.delfrndp)

0.227***

(0.001)

(0.225

0.229)

 N

22,745

   

 LL

−30,478,965

   

 df

159

   

 AIC

61,275,93

   

 BIC

62,553,035

   
  1. Note: gsem controlled for gender, grade, openness, country and migrant background

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

van der Gaag, R.S., Steketee, M. (2018). Direct and Indirect Influences of School System on Youth Delinquent Offending Among Migrant and Native-Born Students in Eight Countries. In: Roché, S., Hough, M. (eds) Minority Youth and Social Integration. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89462-1_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89462-1_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-89461-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-89462-1

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation