@Paterson2007

(2007) - Lindsay Paterson, Cristina Iannelli

Journal: Sociology of Education
Link:: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/003804070708000403
DOI:: 10.1177/003804070708000403
Links::
Tags:: #paper #Attainmnet #SocialClass #Education
Cite Key:: [@Paterson2007]

Abstract

This article examines variations among England, Wales, and Scotland in the association between social origin and educational attainment and the role that different national educational policies may have played in shaping these variations. The findings show that country variation in the association between origins and attainment was mostly or entirely due to variations in overall levels of attainment. Moreover, inequality was the highest where the proportions attaining a particular threshold were the highest—upper secondary school or higher in Scotland. The authors propose a refinement of Raftery and Hout's theory of maximally maintained inequality that takes into account that the trajectory of inequality is not linear: inequality can widen in the initial phase of expanding opportunity, en route to an eventual contraction, because the most advantaged groups are the first to exploit any new opportunities that policy changes offer. The results show that country differences in educational policy have not yielded different changes over time in the association between origin and educational attainment.

Notes

“The findings show that country variation in the association between origins and attainment was mostly or entirely due to variations in overall levels of attainment. Moreover, inequality was the highest where the proportions attaining a particular threshold were the highest—upper secondary school or higher in Scotland.” (Paterson and Iannelli, 2007, p. 330)

“propose a refinement of Raftery and Hout’s theory of maximally maintained inequality that takes into account that the trajectory of inequality is not linear: inequality can widen in the initial phase of expanding opportunity, en route to an eventual contraction, because the most advantaged groups are the first to exploit any new opportunities that policy changes offer” (Paterson and Iannelli, 2007, p. 330)

“Müller and Karle (1993:19) found that variation among nations in educational inequality is caused mainly by the overall level of participation in each country: “The unequal distribution of education to the various social classes . . . results chiefly from the cross-national variation in the global opportunities to attain the various levels of education and less from national differences in the class effects on given educational progressions.”” (Paterson and Iannelli, 2007, p. 331)

“The striking feature of all three educational systems in Britain is how similar they are in these respects by broader comparative standards. Smith and Gorard (2002), analyzing the data from the PISA study, found that social-class differences in the British systems are alike and smaller than in most OECD countries, although they are generally higher than in Scandinavia” (Paterson and Iannelli, 2007, p. 332)

“uses the British Household Panel Study (BHPS)” (Paterson and Iannelli, 2007, p. 332)

“Higher education expanded broadly in parallel with the changes at the secondary level, first gradually in the 1950s and then to a much greater extent in the 1970s and 1980s. The expansion followed the recommendations of the Robbins report on higher education published in 1963, which created new universities and upgraded some of the largest technological colleges to university level but left most colleges as polytechnics that provided higher education both at the degree level and at levels below it (Committee on Higher Education 1963).” (Paterson and Iannelli, 2007, p. 333)

“The two sets of reforms—ending most selection for secondary schools and expanding higher education—mainly involved increasing overall levels of participation.” (Paterson and Iannelli, 2007, p. 333)

“Reynolds, Sullivan, and Murgatroyd (1987: 16–21) noted that there were two main motives for ending selection for secondary school: the reaction by policy makers to changing social views of social justice, so that inequality of participation and attainment was taken as prima facie evidence of inequality of opportunity, and a growing belief that the selective system wasted talent and was denying the full productive capacity of people of lower-class origins to the economy.” (Paterson and Iannelli, 2007, p. 333)

“he higher education reforms were less strongly influenced by the arguments for social justice. But the Robbins report, which inaugurated the process, paid close attention to social inequalities of access, largely on the grounds of wasted talent.” (Paterson and Iannelli, 2007, p. 334)

“Whatever may have been true of the reformers’ motives, there is no doubt that attention to the social-class consequences of the reforms has subsequently dominated sociological discussion (Breen and Jonsson 2005; Croxford 1994; Halsey et al. 1980; Heath 1990, 2000; Heath and Clifford 1990; Kerckhoff et al. 1996; McPherson and Willms 1987; Reynolds et al. 1987).” (Paterson and Iannelli, 2007, p. 334)

“Table 1. Summary of Educational and School-Leaving Experiences of Five Cohorts” (Paterson and Iannelli, 2007, p. 336) This would be great to emulate

“In nearly all the cohorts, Scotland had higher average proportions who attained at least an upper-secondary certificate than did England and Wales, but it also had higher levels of inequality when attainment was averaged across the cohorts.” (Paterson and Iannelli, 2007, p. 348)