investigating inequalities in educational attainment michelle jackson department of sociology...
TRANSCRIPT
Investigating Inequalities in Educational Attainment
Michelle JacksonDepartment of SociologyNuffield College, Oxford
Inequalities in educational attainment
Development of educational systems during 20th Century as response to changing economic and occupational structures
Sociological interest in class, ethnic and sex inequalities in educational attainment
E.g. Class inequalities Children of salariat (professional and managerial) background are
around five times more likely to take A-level courses, rather than taking vocational courses or leaving education than are children of working class background
In England&Wales, seems to be little change in extent of class inequalities over time
Primary and secondary effects
Boudon Primary effects – those that result from previous academic
performance (may be present due to range of factors – e.g. genetic, cultural)
Secondary effects – those that result from educational choices made by children
In this project, examining relative importance of primary and secondary effects in creating inequalities in educational attainment
Following results relate to class inequalities in transition to A-level in England and Wales (see reference)
Look at the transition to A level at three points in time When students are 16 in 1974, 1987, 1996
Data
Use data from National Child Development Study and Youth Cohort Study 1974: NCDS. Continuing birth cohort study covering all children born in
GB in one week in 1958 1987 and 1996: YCS. Study commissioned by DEE (now DfES).
Cohorts of young people in England and Wales aged 16 and upwards
Three variables in analyses Class background. Father’s (or head of household’s) Goldthorpe class.
Use 3 class simplification: salariat, intermediate+petty bourgeoisie, working class
Academic performance. Performance in public examinations in mathematics and English. Scores attached to grades summed, inverted, and standardised to be z-scores with mean of 0, s.d. of 1
Transition to A level In NCDS, whether student in education after age of 16 In YCS, question asking whether studying A/AS levels
Descriptive statisticsClass Year Per cent making transition 1: Information on
class&transition 2: Information on class, transition&performance
1974 40 51 Salariat 1987 62 65 1996 76 77 1974 19 29 Intermediate+PB 1987 40 44 1996 49 52 1974 10 17 Working 1987 28 33 1996 37 40 1974 21 33 All 1987 43 48 1996 58 61
Distinguishing primary and secondary effects
Run binary logistic regression Response variable: whether an individual reaches A level education or
not Explanatory variable: standardised performance scores (maths and
English scores)
Analyses run separately for each class
Three time points – 1974, 1987, 1996
Graphical representation of regression of transition to A level work on academic performance: 1974
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
-4 -3.5 -3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Academic performance
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f ca
ses
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Pro
bab
ilit
y o
f tr
ansi
tio
n
Salariat Intermediate Working Class Salariat Intermediate Working Class
Data Range
Graphical representation of regression of transition to A level work on academic performance: 1987
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
-4 -3.5 -3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Academic performance
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f ca
ses
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Pro
bab
ilit
y o
f tr
ansi
tio
n
Salariat Intermediate Working Class Salariat Intermediate Working Class
Data Range
Graphical representation of regression of transition to A level work on academic performance: 1996
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
-4 -3.5 -3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Academic performance
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f ca
ses
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Pro
bab
ilit
y o
f tr
ansi
tio
n
Salariat Intermediate Working Class Salariat Intermediate Working Class
Data Range
Primary effects Differences in performance distributions between three classes
Primary effects clearly operate, with no evidence of general decline
Salariat Intermediate Working Diff SI Diff IW Diff SW 1974 0.42 -0.06 -0.39 0.48 0.33 0.81 1987 0.39 -0.05 -0.35 0.44 0.30 0.74 1996 0.39 -0.20 -0.47 0.59 0.27 0.86
Graphical representation of regression of transition to A level work on academic performance: 1974
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
-4 -3.5 -3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Academic performance
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f ca
ses
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Pro
bab
ilit
y o
f tr
ansi
tio
n
Salariat Intermediate Working Class Salariat Intermediate Working Class
Data Range
Graphical representation of regression of transition to A level work on academic performance: 1987
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
-4 -3.5 -3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Academic performance
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f ca
ses
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Pro
bab
ilit
y o
f tr
ansi
tio
n
Salariat Intermediate Working Class Salariat Intermediate Working Class
Data Range
Graphical representation of regression of transition to A level work on academic performance: 1996
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
-4 -3.5 -3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Academic performance
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f ca
ses
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Pro
bab
ilit
y o
f tr
ansi
tio
n
Salariat Intermediate Working Class Salariat Intermediate Working Class
Data Range
Secondary effects
Over time, curves start sharp upward rise at lower levels of performance
Strong class differences in all three periods
Gaps between curves widest at intermediate levels of performance (around 0). Gaps narrow as move to either extreme of performance range
What is the relative importance of primary and secondary effects?
Integral to be evaluated:
By calculating integral, can distinguish two components of any class transition rate
Can calculate transition rates for each class Can carry out counterfactual analyses by combining performance
distribution for one class with transition propensities of another
Integrating
dxe
ee
bxa
bxax
12
14
4
2/)( 22
where μ is the mean of the performance scores and σ the standard deviation and a is the constant and b the performance coefficient from the regression model
Results of integrationsCounterfactuals
What would happen if we allowed intermediate and working class children to maintain their own performance distribution, but to have the same transition propensities as salariat children?
1974 1987 1996 Class per cent Salariat Actual 49 63 76 Intermediate Actual 28 43 50 Counterfactual 35 52 56 Difference 7 9 6 Working Class Actual 17 33 38 Counterfactual 27 44 47 Difference 10 11 9
Odds ratios
1974 1987 1996 Actual 2.49 2.24 3.17 Salariat/Intermediate Counterfactual 1.75 1.61 2.49 Actual 1.90 1.56 1.58 Intermediate/Working Counterfactual 1.51 1.36 1.43 Actual 4.72 3.48 5.03 Salariat/Working Counterfactual 2.63 2.18 3.57
Conclusions and future work
Both primary and secondary effects are important. If we eliminated secondary effects, there would be substantial impact on class differentials
Will examine later educational transition – school to university
Method can be used to look at other inequalities. Will also examine ethnic and sex inequalities in educational attainment
Conclusions and future work Datasets: NCDS, BCS, YCS
Comparative analyses with colleagues from Sweden, France, Germany, the Netherlands
Policy implications Policy which could eliminate primary effects would clearly have great
impact However, effects of pre-school intervention likely to wash out later on.
Eliminating secondary effects might be a more plausible policy goal
Reference Jackson, M., Erikson, R., Goldthorpe, J. H. and Yaish, M. (forthcoming)
‘Primary and Secondary Effects in Class Differentials in Educational Attainment: the Transition to A-Level Courses in England and Wales, Acta Sociologica