• No results found

4.4 Substance use among specific groups: gender and educational level

4.4.2 Educational Level

The German educational system is composed of four main educational institutions: Gym- nasium, Gesamtschule, Realschule, and Hauptschule. Only the “Gymnasium” (equivalent to the English grammar school) and part of the pupils in the “Gesamtschule” are later given access to university education, whereas all others are directed to a more professional- oriented education (i.e, “Berufskolleg”). Among the latter, the “Realschule” can be con- sidered a medium level institution, whereas the “Haupschule” is the lower educational path in the German school system (with a subsequent high rate of unemployed among its former pupils).

Changes from one type of school to another are possible, but rather difficult and demand- ing. The “Gesamtschule” is an attempt to overcome such a problem, since it includes within one institution all three school typologies, and should encourage a better distribu- tion of the pupils. Because of this characteristic, it is difficult to place the “Gesamtschule” on a continuum from lower to higher educational level together with the other schools. Remarkable is, that within a “Gesamtschule” there is much more social heterogeneity (with all its consequences) than within any other school-type.

4.4. Substance use among specific groups: gender and educational level

The access to a specific school is regulated on the basis of the skills and notes achieved by the pupil in the primary school. Although the decision to which school a pupil will be assigned is mainly a task of the teachers, the parents are given the chance to influence such a decision. It is then obvious, that only engaged parents will be actively involved in shaping the future of their children. This system is widely criticised for enhancing and perpetuating social inequalities; the weaker part of the society - such as immigrant, unemployed, low-income workers and lower class families - in fact, is overrepresented in the lower institutions of the educational system (i.e. “Realschule” and “Hauptschule”). The descriptive statistics for the educational level have to be distinguished in two different tables. The first table reports the sample distribution among the above mentioned four types of school in the town of Duisburg. The second table refers to the last measurement point in 2006 and distinguishes only between three groups: subjects still in school (i.e., in “Gymnasium” or “Gesamtschule”), those who now attend a professional training (“Beruf-

skolleg”), and those who left completely the educational system.

This is necessary because after the 10th class pupils attending either “Realschule” or “Hauptschule” (and the corresponding classes in the “Gesamtschule”) obtain their grades and are confronted with different choices. “Realschule” pupils can move to a professional- training institution or, after additional exams, are given access to the last two years of the “Gymnasium”. “Hauptschule” pupils are given the same possibilities, but having a lower educational level than their colleagues in the “Realschule”, face more difficulties to gain admission to the “Gymnasium”. Thus, most of them move on to professional education. Table 4.14 shows the pupils’ choices after the 10th class:

Table 4.14: Crosstab between school attended before and after the 10

th

class

Up to 10

th

class

After 10

th

class

In school

Berufskol.

Not in sc.

P

Gymnasium

356

27

4

387

Gesamtschule

222

254

21

497

Realschule

135

212

14

361

Hauptschule

26

207

20

253

P

739

700

59

1,498

Most of the pupils that were in the “Gymnasium” remain in the same institution. After two more years they obtain the “A-level” and gain the right to pursue university education. On the contrary, most of the pupils in the “Hauptschule” move on to profes- sional education. Really few succeed to gain access to the “Gymnasium”.

Table 4.15 reports the distribution across the four school types between time point one (2002) and five (2005), whereas Table 4.16 reports the new distribution after the 10th class (2006).

Table 4.15: School up to the 10

th

class

Freq.

%

Cum.

Gymnasium

392

25.2

25.2

Gesamtschule

517

33.3

58.5

Realschule

373

24.0

82.6

Hauptschule

270

17.4

100.0

P

1,552

100.0

Table 4.16: School after the 10

th

class

Freq.

%

Cum.

In school

739

47.6

47.6

Berufskolleg

700

45.1

92.7

Not in school

59

3.8

96.5

Missing

54

3.4

100.0

P

1,552

100.0

As already mentioned in Chapter 3, up to the 10thclass, the lower educational level (“Hauptschule”) is underrepresented compared to the other institutions. For what concern the year after, the subjects are equally distributed between “in school” and “Berufskolleg”. Only a small 3% of the pupils have left school.

Life-time prevalence

Table 4.17 and Table 4.18 report life-time prevalence of drug and heavy alcohol consump- tion.

Table 4.17: Life-time prevalence for drug use in percent

%

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Gymnasium

3.6

8.9

14.5

22.5

25.8

Gesamtschule

5.5

14.3

20.4

25.4

25.1

Realschule

8.9

11.6

19.6

22.8

28.4

Hauptschule

7

18

24.5

30.4

30.5

4.4. Substance use among specific groups: gender and educational level

The most striking difference is the high prevalence value for the pupils attending “Haupschule”. 30% of them, by the end of the covered time span, reported having tried illicit substances in their life. The other schools show smaller values around 22-25%, with the “Gymnasium” reporting the lowest prevalence rate. Illicit drug use seems to be a problem especially in the lower section of the educational system.

Table 4.18: Life-time prevalence for alcohol use

%

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Gymnasium

18.7

34.2

50.5

66.6

76

Gesamtschule

24.2

40.2

51.9

60.8

66.7

Realschule

23.6

41

57.3

67.9

76.1

Hauptschule

25

41.5

52.9

62.3

67.4

Heavy drinking shows a completely different trend. Although all schools report high prevalence rates, the highest values are measured in the middle-upper section of the German school system. In 2006, in fact, the higher prevalence are measured for the “Gymnasium” and the “Realschule” with about 76%. However, at the same time, the

other two school types also show remarkable prevalence values of about 67%.

Frequencies

The frequencies of use for the different school types are presented only for the use of illicit drugs, since there are no remarkable differences for what concern heavy drinking.

Table 4.19: Frequency of drug use

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Gymnasium

.17

.66

1.84

1.81

2.92

Gesamtschule

.46

1.33

5.07

6.12

6.56

Realschule

.33

1.52

4.32

3.68

5.62

Hauptschule

.46

3.15

7.66

9.45

8.86

Similar to the pattern outlined in the section above, pupils in the “Hauptschule” report not only the highest prevalence rate, but also higher frequencies than any other school type. Whereas in “Gymnasium” drug use seems to be more an experimental behavior with an average frequency of only two times in twelve months, the pupils in the other school types report a more frequent consumption. Pupils in the lower part of the educational system seem to be involved in a more systematic consumption, especially at time four (2005), exactly before leaving the school for a professional training.

For a more precise description of these phenomena, differences in the last measurement point should be compared with the new educational institution attended by the subjects

in that year.

Table 4.20 represents the life-time prevalence for drug use and heavy drinking in 2006.

Table 4.20: Life-time prevalence of drug and alcohol use after the 10

th

class

%

Drug use

Alcohol use

In school

22.7

68.2

Berufskolleg

30

75

Not in school

40.7

69.5

The proportion of those who have used illicit drugs in their life is much bigger among the subjects who left school than among those who either stayed in school or went to a professional training. Furthermore, the latter show a higher prevalence compared to pupils in school.

The values for heavy drinking do not show comparable large differences as illicit drug use, but still highlight the higher prevalence for the subjects in professional training.

Table 4.21 shows differences in the frequency of drug use in 2006.

Table 4.21: Frequency of drug use after the 10

th

class

Mean

In school

2.78

Berufskolleg

7.79

Not in school

9.01

These patterns are similar to those seen before. Subjects still in school show a lower frequency compared to the other two categories, which suggests a more experimental behavior. The same cannot be said for the other two groups: frequency values between 7% and 9% suggest a slightly more established consumption habit.