Advertisement

Socioeconomic Inequality and Student Outcomes Across Education Systems

  • John JerrimEmail author
  • Louis Volante
  • Don A. Klinger
  • Sylke V. Schnepf
Chapter
Part of the Education Policy & Social Inequality book series (EPSI, volume 4)

Abstract

This chapter provides an introduction to the topic of socioeconomic inequality and student outcomes, including methodological challenges associated with cross-cultural research on this topic. Particular attention is devoted to documenting socioeconomic differences noted in prominent international achievement surveys such as the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), including how these results have changed over time. We show how evidence regarding socioeconomic inequalities from such large-scale international assessments is limited due to challenges with missing parental education data and reliance upon student proxy reports. A key conclusion is therefore that a different approach to understanding socioeconomic inequalities across countries is needed if real progress is going to be made in raising the achievement of young people from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds. A framework for the national profiles presented in the second part of this book is then discussed.

Keywords

Student achievement Socioeconomic status Inequality Comparative analysis 

References

  1. Ayorech, Z., Krapohl, E., Plomin, R., & von Stumm, S. (2017). Genetic influence on intergenerational educational attainment. Psychological Science, 28(9), 1302–1310.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617707270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bradbury, B., Corak, M., Waldfogel, J., & Washbrook, L. (2015). Too many children left behind: The U.S. achievement gap in comparative perspective. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  3. Chou, S. Y., Liu, J. T., Grossman, M., & Joyce, T. (2010). Parental education and child health: Evidence from a natural experiment in Taiwan. American Economic Journal. Applied Economics, 2(1), 63–91.Google Scholar
  4. Cunha, F., Heckman, J., Lochner, L., & Masterov, D. (2006). Interpreting the evidence on life cycle skill formation. In E. Hanushek & F. Welch (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of education (pp. 698–812). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Holland North.Google Scholar
  5. Economic and Social Research Council. (2012). Education vital for social mobility (ESRC social mobility evidence briefing). Retrieved from http://www.esrc.ac.uk/files/news-events-and-publications/evidence-briefings/education-vital-for-social-mobility/
  6. Goldstein, H. (2017). Measurement and evaluation issues with PISA. In L. Volante (Ed.), The PISA effect on global educational governance (pp. 49–58). New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Goldthorpe, J. (2014). The role of education in intergenerational social mobility: Problems from empirical research in sociology and some theoretical pointers from economics. Rationality and Society, 26(3), 259–265.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1043463113519068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hanushek, E., & Wossmann, L. (2006). Does educational tracking affect performance and inequality? Differences-in-differences evidence across countries. The Economic Journal, 116(510), C63–C76.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2006.01076.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jerrim, J., & Macmillan, L. (2015). Income inequality, intergenerational mobility and the Great Gatsby Curve: Is education the key? Social Forces, 94(2), 505–533.  https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sov075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jerrim, J., & Micklewright, J. (2014). Socioeconomic gradients in children’s cognitive skills: Are cross-country comparisons robust to who reports family background? European Sociological Review, 30(6), 766–781.  https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcu072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jerrim, J., & Vignoles, A. (2013). Social mobility, regression to the mean and the cognitive development of high ability children from disadvantaged homes. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, 176(4), 887–906.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-985X.2012.01072.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jerrim, J., Vignoles, A., Lingam, R., & Friend, A. (2015). The socio-economic gradient in children’s reading skills and the role of genetics. British Education Research Journal, 41(1), 6–29.  https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Marks, G. (2011). Issues in the conceptualisation and measurement of socioeconomic background: Do different measures generate different conclusions? Social Indicators Research, 104(2), 225–251.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-010-9741-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2010). PISA 2009 results: What students know and can do. Paris, France: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/48852548.pdf
  15. Ravillion, M. (2016). Poverty comparisons. London: Routledge Press.Google Scholar
  16. Rutkowski, D., & Rutkowski, L. (2013). Measuring socioeconomic background in PISA: One size might not fit all. Research in Comparative and International Education, 8(3), 259–278.  https://doi.org/10.2304/rcie.2013.8.3.259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sacker, A., Kelly, Y., Iacovou, M., Cable, N., & Bartley, M. (2013). Breast feeding and intergenerational social mobility: What are the mechanisms? Archives of Disease in Childhood, 98(9), 666–671.  https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2012-303199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Schneider, S. (2013). The international standard classification of education 2011. In G. E. Birkelund (Ed.), Class and stratification analysis (Comparative social research (Vol. 30, pp. 365–379). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Jerrim
    • 1
    Email author
  • Louis Volante
    • 2
  • Don A. Klinger
    • 3
  • Sylke V. Schnepf
    • 4
  1. 1.Institute of EducationUniversity College LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.Brock UniversityHamiltonCanada
  3. 3.University of WaikatoHamiltonNew Zealand
  4. 4.European Commission’s Joint Research CentreIspraItaly

Personalised recommendations