The decisive factors in a child’s educational success are therefore chiefly the education and income of the parents. Migration background carries less weight in the study. Overall, 42.8% of children without a migration background attend a Gymnasium, compared with 35.9% of children with one. The gap exists, but it does not explain the largest disparities.
Education and Income Still Decide
Among children whose parents do not have an Abitur, only 25.3% attend a Gymnasium. If both parents have one, the figure rises to 72.6%. A similar divide appears by income: the attendance rate is 24.6% in the lowest quartile and 64.9% in the highest.
The Opportunity Monitor confirms that the German education system still does little to offset social background. Children from highly educated, high-income households reach the Gymnasium far more often than those from low-income and less educated families. The difference remains visible even when other factors are taken into account.
Single parenthood is also linked to Gymnasium attendance and has a negative effect on children’s educational opportunities. Some 31.9% of children of single parents attend a Gymnasium, compared with 42.8% of those living with both parents. The study shows, however, that parental education and income carry greater weight here as well.
A direct comparison with the first Opportunity Monitor, based on the 2019 microcensus, is possible only to a limited extent because of methodological changes. Even so, the authors conclude that the overall picture has remained largely unchanged. In the lower-status groups, some figures are even lower than three years earlier. Inequality of educational opportunity has therefore become further entrenched.
Boys Fall Behind Across the Board
The new Opportunity Monitor also examines differences between girls and boys. Some 43.5% of girls attend a Gymnasium, compared with just 36.9% of boys. That leaves a gap of 6.6 percentage points. In relative terms, boys are therefore 15.1% less likely than girls to attend a Gymnasium.
The disadvantage appears in every group examined. It affects children with and without a migration background, those from high- and low-income households, children of single parents and those living with both parents. In highly educated and high-income households, the gap is smaller, but it does not disappear.
The inequality becomes particularly stark when background and sex are considered together. Among boys in the lowest group, the Gymnasium attendance rate is 14.0%. Among girls in the highest group, it is 82.4%.
The gap widens over the course of schooling. Among 10- to 12-year-olds, it is 4.4 percentage points. Among 13- to 15-year-olds, it rises to 5.3 percentage points. Among 16- to 18-year-olds, it reaches 9.6 percentage points, meaning it has more than doubled since the start of secondary school.
According to the authors, boys are more likely than girls to leave the academic track during the upper years of the Gymnasium.
The Opportunity Monitor also points to further findings from the education system. Boys are more likely to start school late, repeat grades more frequently, require special educational support more often and leave school with no qualification more often. Their disadvantage is particularly pronounced in reading skills. In mathematics, boys still perform better, while in science the gap between girls and boys has narrowed.
The Cost Reaches Beyond School
The authors warn that boys’ educational problems could increasingly shape their later life chances. Lower attainment can mean weaker employment prospects, a higher risk of unemployment and a greater likelihood of offending. The Opportunity Monitor therefore highlights a trend that often receives less attention in debates over educational opportunity, especially since policy has focused above all on promoting girls over the past 20 years.
Statistically, the pendulum has long since swung the other way and now marks boys out as the disadvantaged group in the system.
At the same time, social background remains the strongest factor influencing a child’s educational path. A boy from a low-income household whose parents do not have an academic background has particularly poor chances of entering the Gymnasium track. The study therefore shows a double disadvantage: background strongly shapes educational opportunity, and being male adds a further risk factor.
For children from disadvantaged families, the authors recommend several measures. They include early childhood education, stronger support for families, good teachers at schools with disadvantaged pupils, free tutoring programs, a later division into different school types and mentoring programs.
Yet such recommendations have been made for decades, while the results point instead to a steady deterioration.
For boys, the authors identify separate areas for action. They include more male early childhood educators and teachers, closer attention to gender stereotypes, early support for reading skills, better training in self-regulation, more intensive work with parents and extracurricular programs to strengthen educational aspiration.
The Opportunity Monitor therefore reveals a serious problem of unequal starting points in the German education system. Educational success continues to depend heavily on family background. At the same time, boys are falling behind in almost all social groups. Anyone serious about educational opportunity must consider both findings together.
