Ability tracking and social trust in China’s rural secondary school system

Figures & data

Figure 1. Comparison of student TIMSS test score between poor sample students and full sample students.

Data source: authors’ survey.

Table 1. Description of social trust variables.

Definitions	Descriptions
Interpersonal trust
Generally speaking, would you say that most people can be trusted or that you can’t be too careful in dealing with people?	Dummy equal to 1 if respondent says, “most people can be trusted”, and to 0 if he or she says, “you cannot be too careful”.
Confidence in public institutions
I am going to name some institutions in this country. As far as the people running these institutions are concerned, would you say you have a great deal of confidence, only some confidence, or hardly any confidence at all in them?	Dummy equal to 1 if respondent says, “they have a great deal of confidence”, and to 0 if he or she says, “only some confidence” or “hardly any confidence”.^a	Confidence in educational institutions
		Confidence in the media
		Confidence in banks and financial institutions
		Confidence in the government

^aWe categorized “only some confidence” and “hardly any confidence” together as zero because there might be upward bias due to the affirmative answers (Alesina & La Ferrara, 2000). A respondent may feel “good” about him- or herself if he/she answers affirmative answers, and this motivates us to categorize “only some confidence” as non-trusting. The same applies to confidence in the media, banks and financial institutions, and government.

Figure 2. Decision curve for selecting the threshold probability.

Data source: authors’ survey.

Table 2. The determinants of student track placement, probit regression.

	Students enrolled into high school program, 1 = yes
	(1)
Student individual characteristics
1. Student age, in years	−0.41***
	(0.05)
2. Female student, 1 = yes	0.28***
	(0.09)
3. Student plan to go to high school at the baseline survey, 1 = yes	0.31***
	(0.09)
4. Student normalized baseline TIMSS test score at the baseline survey	0.39***
	(0.05)
Parent characteristics
5. Mother’s education, in years	0.01
	(0.01)
6. Father’s education, in years	0.03
	(0.02)
7. Mother’s health, 1 = health	0.02
	(0.10)
8. Father’s health, 1 = health	0.10
	(0.11)
9. Mother has migrated before, 1 = yes	−0.05
	(0.10)
10. Father has migrated before, 1 = yes	0.03
	(0.11)
Family characteristics
11. Number of siblings	0.08
	(0.06)
12. Family asset, in ten thousand yuan	0.03
	(0.03)
School Fixed Effects	Yes
Constant	5.49***
	(0.78)
Observations	1,436
McFadden’s R^2	0.26
Maximum Likelihood R^2	0.33

Note: Robust standard errors in parentheses. ***p < 0.01. **p < 0.05. *p < 0.1.

Table 3. Predicted student track placement.

	Get into high school, T = 1	Did not get into high school, T = 0	Total
Estimated fast tracked, Z = 1	615	173	788
Estimated slow tracked, Z = 0	137	511	648
Total	752	684	1,436

Table 4. Differences in social trust between fast-tracked and slow-tracked students.

	Overall Students	Fast-tracked students	Slow-tracked students	Difference between fast- and slow-tracked students
Outcome variables	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4) = (2) – (3)
1. Interpersonal trust, 1 = most people can be trusted	0.51	0.59	0.42	0.17***
	(0.02)	(0.03)	(0.03)	(0.04)
2. Confidence in education institutions, 1 = yes	0.36	0.50	0.20	0.30***
	(0.02)	(0.02)	(0.02)	(0.03)
3. Confidence in media, 1 = yes	0.19	0.25	0.13	0.11***
	(0.01)	(0.02)	(0.02)	(0.03)
4. Confidence in banks and financial institutions, 1 = yes	0.41	0.48	0.32	0.17***
	(0.02)	(0.03)	(0.02)	(0.04)
5. Confidence in government, 1 = yes	0.38	0.49	0.27	0.22***
	(0.02)	(0.03)	(0.03)	(0.04)
No. of observations	1,436	788	648	1,436

Note: Cluster-robust standard errors in the parentheses. ***p < 0.01. **p < 0.05. *p < 0.1.

Data source: authors’ survey.

Table 5. The correlation between student track and social trust, OLS results.

	Student interpersonal trust and confidence in public institutions
	Interpersonal trust	Confidence in education institutions	Confidence in the media	Confidence in banks and financial institutions	Confidence in the government
Outcome variables	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)
Treatment variable
1. Students were fast tracked, 1 = yes	0.15**	0.15***	0.07*	0.13**	0.16***
	(0.07)	(0.06)	(0.05)	(0.06)	(0.06)
2. Student individual, parent, and family characteristics	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
3. School fixed effects	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Constant	0.92***	0.58**	0.20	0.12	0.81**
	(0.32)	(0.26)	(0.22)	(0.30)	(0.34)
Observations	1,436	1,436	1,436	1,436	1,436
R-squared	0.21	0.26	0.18	0.23	0.23

Note: Cluster-robust standard errors in parentheses. ***p < 0.01. **p < 0.05. *p < 0.1.

Data source: authors’ survey.

Table 6. Overachievers and underachievers: comparison of social trust.

	Panel 1: Predicted slow-tracked students			Panel 2: Predicted fast-tracked students
	Predicted slow-tracked students matriculated into high school (Overachievers)^a	Predicted slow-tracked students, who did not matriculate into high school	Difference	Predicted fast-tracked students, who did not matriculate into high school (Underachievers)^b	Predicted fast-tracked students, who matriculated into high school	Difference
Outcome variables	(1)	(2)	(3) = (1) – (2)	(4)	(5)	(6) = (4) – (5)
1. Interpersonal trust, 1 = most people can be trusted	0.61	0.39	0.21***	0.41	0.64	−0.20***
	(0.05)	(0.03)	(0.06)	(0.05)	(0.03)	(0.05)
2. Confidence in education institutions, 1 = yes	0.45	0.17	0.27***	0.19	0.56	−0.37***
	(0.05)	(0.02)	(0.06)	(0.04)	(0.02)	(0.04)
3. Confidence in media, 1 = yes	0.21	0.12	0.09*	0.15	0.27	−0.13***
	(0.04)	(0.02)	(0.05)	(0.03)	(0.03)	(0.04)
4. Confidence in banks and financial institutions, 1 = yes	0.51	0.28	0.24***	0.26	0.53	−0.27***
	(0.06)	(0.02)	(0.06)	(0.04)	(0.03)	(0.05)
5. Confidence in government, 1 = yes	0.50	0.23	0.28***	0.28	0.53	−0.21***
	(0.06)	(0.03)	(0.07)	(0.05)	(0.03)	(0.05)
No. of observations	137	511	648	173	615	788

^aPanel 1: we compare the overachievers with predicted slow-tracked students who unexpectedly matriculated into high schools.

^bPanel 2: we compare the underachievers with predicted fast-tracked students who unexpectedly did not matriculate into high schools.

Cluster-robust standard errors in parentheses. ***p < 0.01. **p < 0.05. *p < 0.1.

Data source: authors’ survey.

Table

	Obs.	Mean	SD	Min	Max
Outcome variables
1. Interpersonal trust, dummy variable, 1 = yes	1,436	0.51	0.50	0	1
2. Confidence in educational institutions, 1 = yes	1,436	0.36	0.48	0	1
3. Confidence in media, 1 = yes	1,436	0.19	0.39	0	1
4. Confidence in banks and financial institutions, 1 = yes	1,436	0.41	0.49	0	1
5. Confidence in government, 1 = yes	1,436	0.38	0.49	0	1
Treatment variables
6. Students were fast-tracked, 1 = yes	1,436	0.55	0.50	0	1
Control variables
7. Student age, in years	1,436	13.51	1.03	10.83	18.62
8. Student gender, 1 = female	1,436	0.51	0.50	0	1
9. Normalized TIMSS test score at the baseline	1,436	−0.06	1.01	−2.72	2.72
10. Plan to go to high school after jr. school at the baseline survey, 1 = yes	1,436	0.48	0.50	0	1
11. Mother’s education, in years	1,436	5.33	3.46	0	20
12. Father’s education, in years	1,436	7.07	2.89	0	19
13. Mother’s health, 1 = not health	1,436	0.37	0.47	0	1
14. Father’s health, 1 = not health	1,436	0.46	0.49	0	1
15. Mother had ever migrated, 1 = yes	1,436	0.48	0.49	0	1
16. Father had ever migrated, 1 = yes	1,436	0.80	0.40	0	1
17. Number of siblings	1,436	1.02	0.82	0	5
18. Family assets at the baseline, in 10 thousand yuan	1,436	3.72	2.62	0	17.36

Data source: author’s survey.

Table

	Student who matriculated into high school	Student who did not matriculate into high school	Differences	Coefficient from OLS Regression
Outcome variables	(1)	(2)	(3) = (1) – (2)	(4)
1. Interpersonal trust, 1 = most people can be trusted	0.61	0.39	0.22***	0.20***
	(0.02)	(0.02)	(0.03)	(0.03)
2. Confidence in education institutions, 1 = yes	0.52	0.18	0.34***	0.26***
	(0.02)	(0.02)	(0.03)	(0.03)
3. Confidence in media, 1 = yes	0.25	0.12	0.13***	0.10***
	(0.02)	(0.01)	(0.02)	(0.03)
4. Confidence in banks and financial institutions, 1 = yes	0.50	0.29	0.21***	0.18***
	(0.03)	(0.02)	(0.03)	(0.03)
5. Confidence in government, 1 = yes	0.50	0.26	0.24***	0.20***
	(0.02)	(0.02)	(0.03)	(0.03)
No. of observations	752	684	1,436	1,436

Note: Cluster-robust standard errors in the parentheses. ***p < 0.01. **p < 0.05. *p < 0.1.

Data source: authors’ survey.

Table

	Student interpersonal trust and their confidence in public institutions
	Interpersonal trust	Confidence in education institutions	Confidence in the media	Confidence in banks and financial institutions	Confidence in the government
Outcome variables	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)
Panel 1: Predicted slow-tracked students
Treatment variable
1. Slow-tracked student successfully got into high school (Overachievers)^a, 1 = yes	0.18***	0.26***	0.10*	0.20**	0.30***
	(0.07)	(0.06)	(0.06)	(0.08)	(0.07)
2. Student individual, parent, and family characteristics	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
3. School fixed effects	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Constant	1.27**	0.45	−0.16	0.51	1.15*
	(0.59)	(0.44)	(0.35)	(0.51)	(0.59)
Observations	648	648	648	648	648
R-squared	0.33	0.32	0.27	0.30	0.32
Panel 2: Predicted fast-tracked students
Treatment variable
4. Fast-tracked student failed to get into high school (Underachievers)^b, 1 = yes	−0.20***	−0.32***	−0.12***	−0.29***	−0.18***
	(0.06)	(0.05)	(0.04)	(0.06)	(0.06)
5. Student individual, parent, and family characteristics	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
6. School fixed effects	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Constant	0.51	0.64	0.64	−0.41	0.97**
	(0.40)	(0.41)	(0.42)	(0.47)	(0.47)
Observations	788	788	788	788	788
R-squared	0.21	0.27	0.22	0.30	0.26

^aPanel 1: We compare the overachievers with predicted slow-tracked students who unexpectedly matriculated into high schools.

^bPanel 2: We compare the underachievers with predicted fast-tracked students who unexpectedly did not matriculate into high schools

Cluster-robust standard errors in parentheses. ***p < 0.01. **p < 0.05. *p < 0.1.

Data source: authors’ survey.

Alesina, A., & La Ferrara, E. (2000). The determinants of trust (Working Paper No. 7621). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. doi:10.3386/w7621. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w7621

 Google Scholar