The impact of Socio‐economic status on participation and attainment in science

(2009) - Stephen Gorard, Beng Huat See

Journal: Studies in Science Education
Link:: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03057260802681821
DOI:: 10.1080/03057260802681821
Links::
Tags:: #paper #SES #Attainment #Education
Cite Key:: [@gorardImpactSocioEconomic2009]

Abstract

In this paper we combine the findings from two recent studies relating to participation and attainment in school science - a re-analysis of existing official data for England (Gorard et al. 2008) and a review of wider international research evidence in the literature relevant to the UK (Gorard and See 2008). Although the secondary data are drawn mainly from England, the comprehensiveness of these datasets, together with our inclusion of a review of international studies on maths and science participation (such as Wobmann 2003, Marks 2007), provides a useful reference point for an international audience. The research was prompted by concerns over a reduction in the uptake of the physical sciences post-16 and especially in higher education (HE), and interest in ways of encouraging the study of science by students from less prestigious socio-economic status (SES) backgrounds. Such concerns are not unique to the UK (Berends et al 2005, Fullarton et al 2003, Khoury and Voss 1985, Yang 2003). Using large-scale official datasets we show that participation and attainment in science are stratified by socio-economic status (SES). Students from poorer families are less likely to take sciences at post-16 than many other subjects, and those who do are then less likely to obtain grades high enough to encourage further study of the subject.

Notes

“we show that participation and attainment in science are stratified by socio-economic status (SES). Students from poorer families are less likely to take sciences at post-16 than many other subjects, and those who do are then less likely to obtain grades high enough to encourage further study of the subject.” (Gorard and See, 2009, p. 1)

“There are clear differences in science attainment at age 16 between students of differing backgrounds, which could explain the subsequent differential participation.” (Gorard and See, 2009, p. 1)

“It is generally unwise to separate consideration of SES from considerations of sex, ethnicity, first language, health, disability, and geography. For example, the relevance of being middle-class can vary over regions, for different cultural backgrounds and even for men and women. Therefore, where possible, we include consideration of the interaction of social class with such other SES-related variables.” (Gorard and See, 2009, p. 2)

“Herrnstein and Murray (1994) used occupation, education and income as their definition of SES. Many researchers have criticised this narrow definition. Loury (1995), for example, came up with a list of other factors including peer influences in education plans and hence choice of subject, parental expectations and aspirations, time mothers spent in the labour market, family structure (two-parents versus single parent), number of siblings, birth order, religious denomination, grandparents schooling, age of mother on giving birth, quality of stimulation in the home environment, including emotional and verbal responsiveness of the mother, provision of appropriate play materials, time and quality of maternal involvement with the child, parental instigation of and participation in intellectual activities, parental affection, rejection and nurturance and parental wealth.” (Gorard and See, 2009, p. 3)

“At present, we have a system in England in which science, as narrowly defined, is a core subject from primary stage onwards. Once students are faced with a choice of how to study science (usually at around age 14 in England) or whether to study science at all (usually post-16), there is a dropping off of participation, especially in physics and chemistry.” (Gorard and See, 2009, p. 31)

“But the drop-off is stratified to some extent by SES measures, which also relate to prior attainment.” (Gorard and See, 2009, p. 31)