Berten et al. BMC Public Health 2012, 12:215 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/12/215 Page 6 of 9 Table 3 Multilevel logistic regression for alcohol and cannabis use: results for majority students Beer and wine Spirits (n = 594) Sig. OR(95% CI) Control variables girls age Family SES parent’s work status two parents working one parent working parents’ educational level two parents higher education one parent higher education Education type technical vocational * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001 Control variables girls age Family SES parent’s work status two parents working one parent working parents’ educational level two parents higher education one parent higher education Education type technical vocational * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001 OR(95% CI) 0.54 (0.27-1.11) 1.42 (1.14-1.77) 0.93 (0.46-1.89) 0.65 (0.12-3.50) 2.93 (1.24-6.93) 1.25 (0.53-2.97) 2.93 (1.31-6.56) 4.63 (1.81-11.86) Spirits (n = 894) OR (95% CI) 0.40 (0.18-0.88) 1.44 (1.16-1.78) 1.90 (0.74-4.89) 1.90 (0.75-4.82) 3.01 (1.10-8.21) 1.40 (0.58-3.40) 0.93 (0.37-2.34) 2.08 (0.95-4.57) Cannabis 0.37 (0.16-0.81) 1.82 (1.36-2.43) 0.96 (0.41-2.26) 0.50 (0.05-4.93) 2.36 (0.86-6.47) 1.82 (0.70-4.77) 1.55 (0.58-4.15) 6.44 (2.23-18.55) Cannabis OR (95% CI) 0.21 (0.08-0.54) 1.17 (0.92-1.48) 0.81 (0.25-2.59) 1.56 (0.62-3.91) 1.96 (0.47-8.14) 1.42 (0.52-3.87) 1.35 (0.49-3.69) 2.74 (1.14-6.59) Sig. * *** *** Sig. ** * OR(95% CI) 0.49 (0.30-0.81) 1.44 (1.22-1.69) 1.26 (0.75-2.09) 0.36 (0.09-1.40) 2.35 (1.27-4.38) 1.60 (0.90-2.85) 1.31 (0.68-2.54) 2.13 (1.00-4.53) OR (95% CI) 0.59 (0.29-1.21) 1.41 (1.14-1.75) 2.14 (0.88-5.23) 1.09 (0.43-2.77) 3.21 (1.20-8.59) 1.65 (0.68-4.04) 1.16 (0.50-2.70) 1.49 (0.65-3.45) Sig. ** *** ** Sig. ** * differences in students’ familial background characteris- tics. These findings are in line with the literature on the role of the educational system in the reproduction of inequalities (Bourdieu and Passeron, 1977). Schools socialize students into particular youth cultures. Although some of these socialization is intended and part of the school culture, much of it is an unintended consequence of the interactions among students and between students and staff. A question that arises immediately when interpreting these findings is which processes within these schools can explain the link between tracking and substance use. Here, research has shown that the specific subcul- tures that arise in lower educational strata are character- ized by a culture of demotion, feelings of held back with bleak future perspectives, feelings of futility, frustration and strain, or eroded self-esteem [42-45]. Furthermore, teachers in lower tracks have much less expectations from their students (i.e. Pygmalion effect) and also lea- dership styles clearly differ between education types [46]. All these experiences may push these students towards delinquency or substance use, not only to achieve alternative sources of status in the peer group, but also to handle the strain caused by their negative experiences in these lower educational tracks. The multicultural character of our study sample addi- tionally allowed us to explore whether the effects of education type differed according to students’ ethnic or cultural background. As we expected, effects of educa- tion type were observed in the sample of native Table 4 Multilevel logistic regression for alcohol and cannabis use: results for minority students Beer and wine ** * ** ** Sig. * ** *