Advertisement

Investigating Inequalities in Educational Attainment

  • Michelle JacksonEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Understanding Population Trends and Processes book series (UPTA, volume 2)

Abstract

The research reported in this chapter is based on data from the Youth Cohort Study to examine educational inequalities for a cohort of English and Welsh students who were aged 16 in 2004. The chapter contends that in trying to understand how inequalities in educational attainment are created, it is important to take into account the distinction between “primary” effects that are due to differences in performance between children of different groups, and “secondary” effects that describe the different choices made by children from different groups, conditional on performance. The chapter uses a “counterfactual” method to estimate the relative importance of primary and secondary effects for different social groups.

Keywords

Youth Cohort Study (YCS) General Certificate Of Secondary Education (GCSE) GCSE Performance GCSE Examinations Department For Education And Skills (DfES) 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

During the time that this chapter was being prepared, funding was provided by the Economic and Social Research Council, under the Understanding Population Trends and Processes initiative (RES-163-27-1002). I would like to thank Robert Erikson, John Goldthorpe and members of the “Primary and Secondary Effects” team in the EU-funded Equalsoc network for many interesting and productive discussions on this topic.

References

  1. Boudon, R. (1974) Education, Opportunity and Social Inequality. Changing Prospects in Western Society, Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  2. Breen, R. and Goldthorpe, J.H. (1997) Explaining educational differentials: Towards a formal rational action theory, Rationality and Society, 9: 275–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Breen, R. and Jonsson, J. (2005) Inequality of opportunity in comparative perspective: Recent research on educational attainment and social mobility, Annual Review of Sociology, 31: 223–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Buis, M. (2008) Direct and Indirect Effects in a Logit Model, Presented at 6th German Stata Users Group meeting, Berlin, 27 June.Google Scholar
  5. Erikson, R., Goldthorpe, J.H., Jackson, M., Yaish, M. and Cox, D.R. (2005) On class differentials in educational attainment, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102: 9730–9733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Erikson, R. and Jonsson, J.O. (1996) Explaining class inequality in education: The Swedish test case in Erikson, R. and Jonsson, J.O. (eds.), Can Education be Equalized? The Swedish Case in Comparative Perspective, Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, pp. 1–64.Google Scholar
  7. Goldthorpe, J.H. (2007a) Class analysis and the reorientation of class theory: The case of persisting differentials in educational attainment in Goldthorpe, J.H. (ed.), On Sociology, Second Edition, Volume 2: Illustration and Retrospect, Stanford University Press, Stanford, pp. 21–44.Google Scholar
  8. Goldthorpe, J.H. (2007b) The theory evaluated: Commentaries and research in Goldthorpe, J.H. (ed.), On Sociology, Second Edition, Volume 2: Illustration and Retrospect, Stanford University Press, Stanford, pp. 73–100.Google Scholar
  9. Halsey, A.H., Heath, A.F. and Ridge, J. (1980) Origins and Destinations: Family, Class and Education in Modern Britain, Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  10. Jackson, M. (2008) The relative importance of primary and secondary effects in creating ethnic inequalities in educational attainment, Paper presented at RC28 Conference, Stanford, 7 August.Google Scholar
  11. Jackson, M., Erikson, R., Goldthorpe, J.H. and Yaish, M. (2007) Primary and secondary effects in class differentials in educational attainment: The transition to A-Level courses in England and Wales, Acta Sociologica, 50: 211–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jonsson, J.O., Mills, C. and Müller, W. (1996) A half century of increasing educational openness? Social class, gender and educational attainment in Sweden, Germany and Britain in Erikson, R. and Jonsson, J.O. (eds.), Can Education Be Equalized? The Swedish Case in Comparative Perspective, Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, pp. 183–206.Google Scholar
  13. Office for National Statistics (2000) Standard Occupational Classification 2000, Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
  14. Rose, D. and Pevalin, D.J. (2003) A Researcher’s Guide to the National Statistics Socio-Economic Classification, Sage, London.Google Scholar
  15. Rose, D., Pevalin, D. and O’Reilly, K. (2005) The National Statistics Socio-Economic Classification: Origins, Development and Use, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.Google Scholar
  16. Shavit, Y. and Blossfeld, H.-P. (eds.) (1993) Persistent Inequality: Changing Educational Attainment in Thirteen Countries, Westview, Boulder, Colorado.Google Scholar
  17. Social, T.N.S., Prior, G. and Hall, L. (2005) Youth Cohort Study: Survey of 16 Year Olds (Cohort 12, Sweep 1), Technical Report, Department for Education and Skills, London.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Research Methods in the Social Sciences and Nuffield CollegeUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations