A Comment on: “ Goals and Gaps: Educational Careers of Immigrant Children” by Michela Carlana, Eliana La Ferrara, Paolo Pinotti
中文摘要
随着经合组织（OECD）国家的移民人数不断增加，如何确保移民学生取得成功已成为一个愈发关键的问题。在欧洲，普遍存在的学生早期分流做法，即在学生年龄尚小时便将其分入不同类型的学校，使这一问题更加复杂。一个令人担忧的问题是，移民学生进入大学预备轨道的比例可能低于成绩相近的本地学生。本研究记录了意大利高成就移民学生在分流选择方面的差距，并评估了一项旨在使这些学生的选择与其学业潜力相匹配的干预措施。由此，该研究为移民教育和教育分流这两个领域都提供了重要证据。在美国，围绕黑人和西班牙裔学生代表性不足的项目也存在相关争论，例如资优教育、校内进阶轨道和大学预备课程。一方是分流及其他相关政策的倡导者，他们推崇根据学生能力水平匹配课程与教学的益处；另一方是批评者，他们认为分流会强化隔离和不平等。然而，双方的目标并非总是相互冲突。分流中的隔离往往由与学生能力无关的因素所驱动，例如信息壁垒、隐性偏见，或家长支持及为子女争取机会方面的差距。消除这些障碍并推动弱势群体中有能力的学生完成更高层次教育的政策，既可以改善匹配质量，也可以促进社会融合并增加经济机会。此外，这类政策还可能通过帮助改变家长、教师和未来几代学生的看法并提高其期望，产生重要的溢出效应。越来越多的证据表明，将决策过程中的某些步骤自动化或予以简化，可以缩小选择和代表性方面的社会经济差距。对于能力较高的小学生，以基于测试的普遍筛查取代家长和教师提名制度，可以缩小资优项目参与率方面的差距（Card and Giuliano，2016a）。对于高中生而言，是否上大学以及到哪里上大学的决定，可能受到扩大大学入学考试的政策（Bulman，2015；Goodman，2016）、协助申请经济资助的政策（Bettinger等，2012），或通过定向邮寄提供信息的政策（Hoxby and Turner，2013）的影响。对于这类程序性和信息性干预，一个担忧是，它们只是临时性的补救措施，可能无法解决导致代表性不足的深层原因，例如信息搜集能力、家长支持和期望方面的差距。这些差距可能使代表性不足的群体更有可能在具有挑战性的项目中失败。例如，关于大学辅导的证据表明，轻度“助推”可能不足以对弱势学生产生持久影响，特别是在学生缺乏家长支持的情况下（Carrell and Sacerdote，2017；Cunha、Miller和Weisburst，2018）。不过，也有证据并不支持这种“错配”担忧。在一项……中
Abstract
AS IMMIGRATION TO OECD COUNTRIES has risen, the question of how to ensure the success of immigrant students has grown more critical. In Europe, the question is complicated by the common practice of tracking students at an early age into different types of schools. One concern is that immigrants may enroll in college preparatory tracks at lower rates than natives with similar achievement. The present study documents gaps in track choice among high-achieving immigrant students in Italy, and evaluates an intervention aimed at aligning the choices of these students with their academic potential. It thereby provides important evidence both on the education of immigrants and on educational tracking. In the United States, there are related debates about programs in which Black and Hispanic students are under-represented: for example, gifted education, advanced tracks within schools, and college prep coursework. These debates pit advocates of tracking and other policies, who extol the benefits of matching curriculum and instruction to levels of student ability, against critics who argue that tracking reinforces segregation and inequality. But the goals of the two sides are not always at odds. Segregation in tracking is often driven by factors unrelated to student ability—such as information barriers, implicit biases, or gaps in parental support and advocacy. Policies that remove these barriers and push capable students from disadvantaged groups to complete higher levels of education can improve match quality, while also promoting social integration and economic opportunity. Further, such policies may have important spillover effects by helping to change perceptions and raise expectations among parents, teachers, and future generations of students. There is mounting evidence that socioeconomic gaps in choice and representation can be reduced through policies that automate or simplify steps in the decision process. Among high-ability elementary school students, gaps in gifted program participation can be reduced by replacing a system of parent and teacher nominations with test-based, universal screening (Card and Giuliano (2016a)). Among high school students, decisions about whether and where to attend college can be influenced by polices that expand college admissions testing (Bulman (2015), Goodman (2016)), facilitate applications for financial aid (Bettinger et al. (2012)), or provide information through targeted mailings (Hoxby and Turner (2013)). One concern about such procedural and informational interventions is that they are temporary fixes and may not address underlying sources of under-representation, such as gaps in information gathering skills, parental support, and expectations. Theses gaps could make under-represented groups more likely to fail in challenging programs. For example, evidence on college mentoring suggests that light-touch “nudges” may be insufficient for producing lasting effects among disadvantaged students, especially when students lack parental support (Carrell and Sacerdote (2017), Cunha, Miller, and Weisburst (2018)). But there is also evidence that discounts such “mismatch” concerns. In a