Conference Program

Education systems have been reshaped in response to the social challenges of globalisation, including changing labour markets, migration dynamics, and processes of individualization (van de Werfhorst 2014). In this context, many countries have adopted quasi-market reforms in education (Ichilov 2012), inspired by economic theory (Friedman 1962; Chubb and Moe 1990) and by international organisations (Sellar and Lingard 2013). Neoliberal education policies have promoted school autonomy, privatisation, and accountability (Levačić 1995; Clark 2009). These reforms have intensified competition among schools, encouraging strategies to attract or select higher-performing students. Among these strategies, school priority rules for admission have become increasingly important. Schools may use criteria such as prior achievement, recommendations from schools or parents, catchment-area requirements, and interest in specific programmes. However, the consequences of these rules for socio-economic segregation between schools remain insufficiently understood.

This study examines the diffusion of school priority rules across countries, distinguishing between performance-based and residence-based criteria, and investigates their effects on socio-economic segregation between schools. It addresses four research questions: (RQ1) Are schools increasingly adopting performance-based and residence-based priority rules? (RQ2) Is the diffusion of these rules greater in countries where they were initially less widespread, suggesting convergence over time? (RQ3) Does the adoption of these policies increase socio-economic segregation between schools, and which type has the strongest effect? (RQ4) Do performance-based and residence-based rules have cumulative effects when adopted jointly?

We use data from all eight waves of OECD-PISA, from 2000 to 2022. The analytical sample includes more than 122,000 schools in 72 countries, corresponding to 465 country-year observations. A school is defined as adopting priority rules when the principal reports that residence in an area or students’ academic record is sometimes or always used as an admission criterion. To address RQ1, we describe the share of schools adopting each rule across PISA waves. For RQ2, we estimate regression models in which the change in the share of schools adopting these policies between T and T−1 is regressed on the share observed at T−1. For RQ3 and RQ4, we regress the level of segregation between schools on the share of schools adopting residence-based and performance-based rules. Segregation is measured using the dissimilarity index (Duncan and Duncan 1955) for students’ ESCS, gender, and migrant background. These models include country fixed effects. Preliminary findings are presented for RQ1 and RQ2; analyses for RQ3 and RQ4 will be completed before the conference.

Preliminary results show different diffusion patterns for the two rules. Residence-based rules remained stable, increasing from an average of 55% of schools in 2000-2009 to 60% in 2012-2022. By contrast, performance-based rules grew substantially, from 48–52% in 2003–2009 to 65% in 2015, before declining to around 55% in 2018 and 2022. Results for RQ2 indicate that both types of rules tend to spread more rapidly where prior adoption was lower, while growth is more limited where adoption is already widespread. This pattern is robust to nonlinear specifications, suggesting cross-country convergence in the diffusion of priority rules. Analyses will explore ceiling effects and geographical heterogeneity.