Exploring Educational Attainment between the Elite and the NEET: A contemporary analysis of British Household Panel Survey Data

() - Dr Susan Murray, Professor Vernon Gayle, Roxanne Connelly

Journal:
Link::
DOI::
Links::
Tags:: #paper #NEET #Unemployment #LabourMarket
Cite Key:: [@murrayExploringEducationalAttainment]

Abstract

In this paper we attempt to explore the mid-ground between these two educational groups. We undertake secondary analysis of the British Household Panel Survey (BHPS) to characterise members of this ‘middle’ group. The BHPS is a major longitudinal data resource which tracks young people within households and facilitates analyses of educational attainment, and activities in young adult life. We examine the ‘middle’ group in early adulthood and comment upon how their education and economic activities compare with the activities of their more or less educationally advantaged peers. Our results indicate that there is not a clearly defined ‘middle’ group between those that are NEET and those that are elite. We are therefore cautious of making extended claims about the middle without further exploration. What is perhaps more clear, however, is that young people in the ‘middle’ group differ in their economic activity in early adulthood compared with other groups. The ‘middle’ group make the transition from education into employment more readily. The consequences of these successful early transitions into employment may have consequences later in the life course. This is an area that requires further research.

Notes

“Our results indicate that there is not a clearly defined ‘middle’ group between those that are NEET and those that are elite.” (Murray et al., p. 2)

“young people in the ‘middle’ group differ in their economic activity in early adulthood compared with other groups. The ‘middle’ group make the transition from education into employment more readily. The consequences of these successful early transitions into employment may have consequences later in the life course.” (Murray et al., p. 2)

“Roberts (2011) makes an appeal to youth researchers to concentrate more analytical attention on ordinary young people and he deploys the term ‘missing middle’ to describe this group of young people who are often absent in the accounts produced within youth research.” (Murray et al., p. 3)

“Whereas many researchers remain convinced that this is a valuable field of study (for example MacDonald et al. 2001; Bynner 2005; Roberts 2003, 2007; Côté and Bynner 2008).” (Murray et al., p. 3)

“Youth transitions appear to have become more diverse over the post-war period. MacDonald and Marsh (2005) assert that there has been a continuing search within the sociology of youth for the most appropriate metaphor to describe transitions within the youth phase. Various terms such as ‘careers’, ‘pathways’, ‘trajectories’, and ‘routes’ have been deployed by youth researchers” (Murray et al., p. 4)

“We observe that integral to such discussions are commentaries on changes in the linearity of youth transitions (see du Bois-Reymond 2009). A noteworthy example is the work of Wyn and Woodman (2006) which argues against the idea of a linear process of transitions. Furlong et al. (2005) assert that linearity has been replaced by a protracted set of movements, that are less predictable, involve frequent breaks, backtracking and the blending of statuses” (Murray et al., p. 4)

“Pollock (2002) reports that labour market instability thought to be typical of the contemporary labour market was not uncommon earlier in the twentieth century” (Murray et al., p. 4)

“Jones (2002) conceives of fast and slow-tracks, and Bynner et al. (2002) similarly refer to fast and slow lanes. Furlong and Cartmel (1997) develop the analogy of young people travelling in cars with different speeds, notably Jaguars and Porsches rather than Ladas and Skodas (pp. 6-7). Wallace (1987) refers to unemployed ‘sinkers’ and mainly employed ‘swimmers’. There is an inherent polarisation in these conceptions of youth transitions and this supports the idea of a ‘missing middle’, which Roberts (2011) espouses.” (Murray et al., p. 4)

“Sociologists of youth are in general agreement that the background against which young people grew up in the closing decades of the twentieth century wa” (Murray et al., p. 4)

“5 transformed by dramatic changes in education, employment, unemployment, training and access to welfare benefits (Gayle, Lambert and Murray 2009b)” (Murray et al., p. 5)

“As Goldstein (1997) assert, during the 1980s and early 1990s, considerable attention was given to school effectiveness research and to the production and use of so called ‘performance indicators’ as measures of school efficacy.” (Murray et al., p. 5)

“The final decades of the twentieth century witnessed startling changes in the youth labour market. Historically there was a high concentration of young school leavers that entered the labour market in a restricted number of industrial and occupational sectors in Britain (Ashton et al. 1982). Maguire and Maguire (1997) state that since the 1980s the demand for youth labour has declined dramatically” (Murray et al., p. 5)

“Simultaneously there was a sharp decline in the number of apprenticeships, which is well documented (see Gospel 1995).” (Murray et al., p. 6)

“Green and Owen (2006) report that there are substantial numbers of jobs at the lower end of the labour market with limited skills requirements despite the professionalization of employment.” (Murray et al., p. 6)

“MacDonald and Marsh (2005) draw attention to the prevalence of ‘fiddly’ jobs, where less qualified young people commonly experience a succession of insecure, unpredictable and informally organized work.” (Murray et al., p. 6)

“The UK has been criticised for failing to address its low skills equilibrium (see Chitty 1991; Whiteside 1992). Youth training received a reasonably large amount of analytical attention (see Raffe 1982, 1983; Chapman and Tooze 1987; Stoney and Lines 1987; Roberts 1984; Deakin 1996). The introduction of youth training was coupled with a number of reforms to the welfare system that changed young people’s entitlement to state benefits, and the effects of these changes were the subject of analyses (see Maclagan 1992; Irwin 1995; Dean 1997; CPAG 1998; Mizen 2004” (Murray et al., p. 6)

“As far as we are aware the acronym NEET, Not in Education, Employment or Training, has its genesis in a Social Exclusion Unit Report (1999)” (Murray et al., p. 7)

“Roberts (2011) states that ‘establishing where such ordinary youth reside, ascertaining social characteristics and how qualified they might be is achievable through secondary analysis of data sets’ (p. 22)” (Murray et al., p. 7)

“There was a lacuna in the UK birth cohort study portfolio because there was no new national birth cohort established in either the 1980s or the 1990s.” (Murray et al., p. 8) Important to justify my own research

“The BHPS, although not specifically collected as youth data, offers a potential resource for studying the lives of young people growing up in Britain in the 1990s (Gayle 2005).” (Murray et al., p. 8)

“Young people with low levels of GCSE attainment are usually more likely to leave education at the minimum school leaving age and their qualification level frequently disadvantages them in the labour market (Gayle et al. 2009b).” (Murray et al., p. 8)

“For young people who choose to leave education at the minimum age, their GCSE examination results are often their only educational qualifications (Leckie and Goldstien 2009).” (Murray et al., p. 8)

“The explanatory variables are gender, parental social class, parental education, and housing tenure.” (Murray et al., p. 10)

“Parental social class is operationalised as the three category version of the National Statistics Socio-Economic Classification, which classifies parents as holding either managerial/professional occupations (the most advantaged), intermediate occupations, or routine/manual occupations (the least advantaged) (Rose and O’Reilly 1998)” (Murray et al., p. 10)

“Parental education is a three category variable which classifies parents with degree level qualifications, those with qualifications at a sub-degree level qualifications (e.g. school qualifications) and those parents who have no qualifications.” (Murray et al., p. 10)