© Institute for Fiscal Studies Drivers and barriers to educational success Haroon Chowdry, Claire Crawford, Alissa Goodman Institute for Fiscal Studies

© Institute for Fiscal Studies

Drivers and barriers to educational success Haroon Chowdry, Claire Crawford, Alissa Goodman

Institute for Fiscal Studies


Background and Motivation

• Why do children from poor backgrounds do worse at school (and in later life) compared to children from better off backgrounds?

• Related issue: concern about lack of ‘social mobility’ in UK

– Strong correlation between parental ‘socio-economic status’ (SES) as a child, and SES as an adult




• Educational attainment plays key role in transmission of (dis)advantage across generations

– 35-40% of correlation between parents’ and sons income (Blanden et al., 2005)

• Educational inequalities matter more generally:

– Socioeconomic inequality in HE participation

– NEETs (especially in current economic climate)

– Research has shown that attainment in school plays a crucial role

– Improving attainment early on may have compound impact



• This presentation focus on low achievement in secondary school

– ‘Routes’ through which children from poor backgrounds fare badly as teenagers

• Complex set of influences throughout childhood

– Early years: home learning environments, parenting styles, health-related behaviours

– Primary school: lasting influence of early years, maternal aspirations, child’s own ability beliefs

Teenage years: young person’s own attitudes and behaviours; lasting influence of parents; material resources in the home

• Important caveat: none of this is a causal analysis

– Does not tell us if we increased resources/social position, whether outcomes would change

– Cannot make specific policy recommendations© Institute for Fiscal Studies

The teenage “attainment gap”


Attainment gap: intuitive examples

Average outcome by SEP quintilePoores

t2 Middle 4 Richest

Key Stage 3 (age 14)% reaching expected level

51.9% 66.1% 77.4% 84.7% 92.7%

Key Stage 4 (age 16)% attaining 5 or more GCSEs A*-C

33.2% 46.4% 59.3% 70.6% 84.0%

% attaining 5 or more GCSEs A*-C (incl. English & Maths)

21.4% 33.6% 46.4% 57.9% 74.3%


Methodology

• Define a set of possible pathways (“transmission mechanisms”) between “family background” and attainment

• Family background

– Socioeconomic position (SEP)

– Parental education

– Demographics, family structure, etc.

• Possible transmission mechanisms

1. Schools (quality and composition)

2. Neighbourhoods (composition)

3. Material resources on educational items

4. Parental ‘attitudes and behaviours’

5. Child ‘attitudes and behaviours’© Institute for Fiscal Studies


Model of attainment at secondary school

Parental socio-economic status

Parental socio-economic status

Parental educationParental education

Other family background and demographics

Other family background and demographics

1. Schools1. Schools

2. Neighbourhoods2. Neighbourhoods

3. Material resources diverted to education

3. Material resources diverted to education

4. Parental attitudes and behaviours (“As and Bs”)

4. Parental attitudes and behaviours (“As and Bs”)

5. Young people’s attitudes, and behaviours(“As and Bs”)

5. Young people’s attitudes, and behaviours(“As and Bs”)

Key Stage 3 results

Key Stage 3 results

Changes in family background

Changes in family background

5. Changes in YP attitudes, and behaviours

5. Changes in YP attitudes, and behaviours

Key Stage 4 results

Key Stage 4 results

UnobservablesUnobservables

FAMILY BACKGROUND TRANSMISSION MECHANISMS OUTCOMES @ 14

CHANGES IN TRANSMISSIO

N MECHANISMS

OUTCOMES @ 16

Empirical analysis

• Estimate series of simple equations, starting with

– Yt = α + βSEP + ε (‘levels’)

– Yt = α + γYt –1 + βSEP + ε (‘value-added’)

These give the SEP gradient we are trying to explain

• Add in our ‘transmission mechanisms’ and observe size of SEP gradient with inclusion of each one:

– Yt = α + βSEP + δPED + ηFAM + ε

– Yt = α + βSEP + δPED + ηFAM + λSCH + μNBD + ρMATRES

+ κMPABS + σ YPABS + ε

These suggest how much the SEP gradient (β) can be explained by controlling for differences in each of these sets of factors

• But this is NOT a causal analysis (reverse causation/unobservables)


Data

• Longitudinal Study of Young People in England (LSYPE)

– Single academic year cohort born in 1989/90

– Study started in Year 9 (age 13), we have data up to Year 11

– Detailed questions from young person and parents

– Linked to administrative attainment records at age 11, 14, and 16

– Our sample: with complete administrative records (state school only), approximately 15,770


Variables derived from LSYPE

• SEP

– Income (averaged across waves)

– Occupation of both parents

– Housing tenure

– Financial difficulties

– Take principal component to derive SEP index, divide into quintiles

• Parental education

• Matched information from administrative school data

– School quality and composition

– Neighbourhood composition© Institute for Fiscal Studies

Variables derived from LSYPE

• Material resources devoted to education

– Private lessons

– Computer access

– Internet access

• Parental attitudes and beliefs

– Education values (‘getting a good education is important’)

– Aspirations for age 16

– Expectations for HE

– Education interactions (help with homework, talking about reports)

– Family interactions (sharing meals, arguing)

– Involvement in school activities (parents’ evenings etc.)© Institute for Fiscal Studies

Variables derived from LSYPE• Young person attitudes and behaviours

– Ability beliefs (‘I get good marks’)

– Locus of control (In control of destiny)

– Likes school (‘I like school’)

– School valuable (‘School is a waste of time’ )

– Aspirations for age 16 (Wants to stay on in FTE)

– Expectations for HE (Likely to apply to HE)

– Job/career values (‘Having a job that leads somewhere is important’)

– Experiences of bullying

– Anti-social behaviour (fighting, trouble with police, shoplifting)

– Truancy, suspension, exclusion

– Substance use (smoking, drinking, cannabis)

– Teacher child relations (I like my teachers)

– Positive activities (sport, reading etc.)© Institute for Fiscal Studies

Descriptives: parents


Descriptives: young people


Results

• How important are these transmission mechanisms for understanding the inequalities in school attainment?

• Answer in two stages:

1. Do transmission mechanisms have an impact upon attainment?

2. Do transmission mechanisms help to explain the socioeconomic gap in attainment?


1) Impact of TMs on KS4 scores (std. devs.)

Parental education, schools, material resources and attitudes

Key Stage 4 Key Stage 4 value added

Mother’s highest qualification NVQ Level 4/5

0.127** 0.037

Outstanding Ofsted report 0.137** 0.132**

Grammar school 0.300** 0.045

YP thinks most friends will stay on post 16 0.111** 0.044**

Computer access 0.132** 0.090**

Internet access 0.146** 0.062**

Parent thinks v/fairly likely YP will go to HE 0.232** 0.029

Family child interactions (scale) 0.037** 0.041**


Young person attitudes and behaviours


Ability beliefs (scale)0.244** 0.030*

Locus of control (scale)0.084** 0.035**

Likely to apply to HE, and likely to get in0.273** 0.117**

Experience of bullying (scale)-0.132** -0.058**

Education behavioural difficulties (scale)-0.123** -0.073**

Anti-social behaviour (scale)-0.057** -0.045**

Frequent smoker-0.292** -0.233**

Experience of bullying (scale)-0.132** -0.058**

Education behavioural difficulties (scale)-0.123** -0.073**


Changes between 14 and 16 in attitudes and behaviours


Stops thinking gets good marks -0.217** -0.109**

Stops liking school -0.057** -0.052**

Stops finding school valuable -0.083** -0.050**

Starts thinking it likely that they will apply to HE

0.216** 0.103**

Stops thinking it likely that they will apply to HE

-0.302** -0.161**

Starts playing truant -0.063** -0.057**

Starts being suspended from school -0.168** -0.122**

Starts being expelled from school -0.274** -0.320**

Starts smoking cannabis -0.045* -0.093**

Starts smoking cigarettes frequently -0.169** -0.146**

Starts drinking regularly 0.053* 0.051**

Starts liking their teachers 0.071* 0.066**


2) How much of KS4 gap can be explained by TMs

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

SEP None P Edu Fam Sch Nei MP M Res YP AllGap as a % of raw SEP gradient

2nd 0.344**

3rd 0.636**

4th 0.848**

Top 1.151**



(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)


2nd 0.344**

83% 55%

3rd 0.636**

82% 57%

4th 0.848**

79% 55%

Top 1.151**

75% 55%



(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)


2nd 0.344**

83% 55% 56%

3rd 0.636**

82% 57% 50%

4th 0.848**

79% 55% 46%

Top 1.151**

75% 55% 44%



(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)


2nd 0.344**

83% 55% 56% 52%

3rd 0.636**

82% 57% 50% 54%

4th 0.848**

79% 55% 46% 50%

Top 1.151**

75% 55% 44% 51%



(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)


2nd 0.344**

83% 55% 56% 52% 49%

3rd 0.636**

82% 57% 50% 54% 47%

4th 0.848**

79% 55% 46% 50% 40%

Top 1.151**

75% 55% 44% 51% 36%



(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)


2nd 0.344**

83% 55% 56% 52% 49% 33%

3rd 0.636**

82% 57% 50% 54% 47% 38%

4th 0.848**

79% 55% 46% 50% 40% 37%

Top 1.151**

75% 55% 44% 51% 36% 38%



(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)


2nd 0.344**

83% 55% 56% 52% 49% 33% 38%

3rd 0.636**

82% 57% 50% 54% 47% 38% 34%

4th 0.848**

79% 55% 46% 50% 40% 37% 30%

Top 1.151**

75% 55% 44% 51% 36% 38% 27%



(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)


2nd 0.344**

83% 55% 56% 52% 49% 33% 38% 26%

3rd 0.636**

82% 57% 50% 54% 47% 38% 34% 21%

4th 0.848**

79% 55% 46% 50% 40% 37% 30% 17%

Top 1.151**

75% 55% 44% 51% 36% 38% 27% 13%


Conclusions

• Large SEP gap in education outcomes

• Correlations of particular note:– Maternal education (causal analysis supports this too)

– Parents’ and young people’s educational aspirations

– Family child interactions

– Computer and internet access in the home

• Changing attitudes and aspirations – the answer?– Aspirations are high across the board at age 14 and still to an

extent at age 16: just raising them may not be enough

– Ability beliefs: kids from poor backgrounds more likely to think that they are good at school than young people from better off backgrounds after taking Key Stage 2 into account: no evidence of systematic under-estimation here

• This analysis identifies some key areas

– ...but not policy answers!© Institute for Fiscal Studies

Documents

© Institute for Fiscal Studies Drivers and barriers to educational success Haroon Chowdry, Claire Crawford, Alissa Goodman Institute for Fiscal Studies