Скачать презентацию Cycles of Disadvantage Poverty Education Inequalities and Social Скачать презентацию Cycles of Disadvantage Poverty Education Inequalities and Social

f6c20348bad4d4f884dba02cc130e2be.ppt

  • Количество слайдов: 71

Cycles of Disadvantage: Poverty, Education, Inequalities and Social Exclusion Andy Green Professor of Comparative Cycles of Disadvantage: Poverty, Education, Inequalities and Social Exclusion Andy Green Professor of Comparative social Science and director of the Centre for Learning and Life Chances in Knowledge Economies and Societies (LLAKES), Institute of Education NESSE Seminar, Brussels, May 20, 2010

The Persistence of Educational Inequality • Major inequalities have mired education since national systems The Persistence of Educational Inequality • Major inequalities have mired education since national systems were first created in the early nineteenth century. • Even as participation in each phase of education - from elementary, to secondary, then upper secondary - became universalized, according to the Enlightenment dream, divisions, by social class, ethnicity, religion and gender, remained. • When a certain phase became less segmented, so the frontier of educational selection, as Boudon remarked, moved forward. So that today it is at upper secondary and tertiary level where the final sorting of students occurs and future life opportunities are decided.

Plus Ça Change • Since the Coleman report on ‘Equality of Educational Opportunity’ in Plus Ça Change • Since the Coleman report on ‘Equality of Educational Opportunity’ in the US (1966), countless studies have found that social background is the main determinant of achievement in education. Social class has been the overriding factor, although ethnicity and gender have also been linked to under-achievement, but the picture here is much more complex. • A century of reforms have ensured that all social groups get more education than before but the relative chances of children from different social groups achieving at the highest level has not changed dramatically. • Studies of comprehensivization in a range of countries (Shavit and Blossfeld, 1983) found little evidence of reductions in the social gaps in achievement, although PISA suggests a more positive interpretation in recent years. • The main beneficiaries of university post-1960 s expansion have been the middle classes, and particularly their daughters, rather than children of the less skilled working class families.

Educational Stratification Occurs through Effects at Different Levels • Family background impacts on educational Educational Stratification Occurs through Effects at Different Levels • Family background impacts on educational achievement 1) directly through family socialisation and 2) indirectly through its influence on the choice of school. • Schools play a part in stratification through 1) ‘pure school effects’ (some schools are better resourced and provide better teaching than others) and 2) ‘school peer effects’ (which in many countries have a greater impact on individual student outcomes than direct background influences) (Mostafa, 2009). • School System effects: the design of a national education system also affects the degree of stratification in education.

Terms • Social inequality in education refers to the inequalities between social groups (class, Terms • Social inequality in education refers to the inequalities between social groups (class, ethnicity or gender) in educational opportunities, treatment or outcomes. • Unequal opportunities occur as a result of factors external to the school which impact on a child’s opportunity to access educational programmes and to learn and achieve on them. • Unequal treatment refers to differences in educational experience encountered in EIs (and so include school and peer effects).

Structure of the Workshop • Evidence of inequality through the life course and lifelong Structure of the Workshop • Evidence of inequality through the life course and lifelong learning system. • Theories explaining the effects of poverty and social class on educational achievement. • Evidence across countries on system effects on levels of inequality. • The impact of education on social and economic outcomes for individuals. • The impact of educational inequality on economic and social outcomes at the country level.

Educational Inequality through the Life Course • ‘Education is linked to various dimensions of Educational Inequality through the Life Course • ‘Education is linked to various dimensions of social disadvantage throughout an individual’s life span. This includes their time in pre-primary education, in the compulsory schooling system during their childhood years, as young adults in post-compulsory education and during the years of adulthood. ’ • Stephen Machin (2006)

Early and Enduring Influence of Social Class on Children’s Cognitive Test Scores. • Feinstein Early and Enduring Influence of Social Class on Children’s Cognitive Test Scores. • Feinstein (2003) uses data from the British Cohort Study for children born in 1970 and assessed at 22 and 42 months and at years: 5 , 10, 16, 26 and 30 (achieved sample: 11 200). • Uses Principle Components Analysis to develop single index of development at each stage. • Scores at 22 months are good predictor of educational attainment at 26. • 15% of children in the bottom quartile of cognitive scores at 22 months achieved no general academic qualifications by age 26 compared to only 8% of those in top quartile. (Significant = P˂0. 01). • A social class differential already evident at 22 months. The gap in scores between the top and bottom SES groups is already 13 percentage points.

Increasing impact of Social Class through Childhood • High SES children scoring in the Increasing impact of Social Class through Childhood • High SES children scoring in the top quartile for cognitive development at 22 months continue to do well aged 10, scoring on average just under the 70 th percentile. • By contrast, the low SES group scoring in the top quartile at 22 months experience a relative decline, scoring on average at the 40 th percentile aged 10. • The low SES group in lowest quartile at 22 months scored on average at the 27 th percentile at aged 10, compared to average scores at the 58 th percentile for the high SES children in lowest quartile at 22 months. • High SES children scoring in lowest quartile at 22 months have overtaken low SES top quartile group at 22 months by aged 10.

Relative Cognitive Progress Of High SES Children (Blue) and Low SES Children (Red) between Relative Cognitive Progress Of High SES Children (Blue) and Low SES Children (Red) between 22 Months and 10 years in the UK

Effects of Poverty on Early Learning • Research by Goodman and Gregg (2010) using Effects of Poverty on Early Learning • Research by Goodman and Gregg (2010) using longitudinal data for the UK shows that the gap in attainment between children from the poorest fifth and the richest fifth is already large by the age of 5, grows more rapidly during the primary school years and increases at a lower pace during the secondary years. They explain the gap in terms of attitudes. • By age 11 only around three quarters of children from the poorest fifth of families reach the UK Gov’t’s expected level at KS 2 compared to 97% of the richest fifth. • By the end of lower secondary education only 21% of poorest fifth of children get 5 A-C grades including Maths and English, compared with 75% of those from the richest fifth.

Performance of Immigrant Students in PISA • • We do not have data on Performance of Immigrant Students in PISA • • We do not have data on the average performance of different ethnic groups across a range of countries. PISA tells us only about 1 st and 2 nd generation immigrant children. Across OECD countries there a higher proportion of top performers amongst native students than amongst those with an immigrant background, but this partly reflects different in socio-economic backgrounds. In half of the countries, if you control for student SES, the differences are no longer significant. Relative performance of native and immigrant students varies from country to country depending on various factors, including immigration policies. Countries where immigrants do as well or better than natives include: Australia, Canada, Greece, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway, and Portugal.

Estimated Effects of Family Background of Students’ Test scores Across Countries Estimated Effects of Family Background of Students’ Test scores Across Countries

Youths Participating in Tertiary Education by Educational Attainments of their Parents, 1994 -95 Youths Participating in Tertiary Education by Educational Attainments of their Parents, 1994 -95

Participation Rate in Non-Formal Job-Related Continuing Education and Training for the Labour Force 25 Participation Rate in Non-Formal Job-Related Continuing Education and Training for the Labour Force 25 -64 Years, by Level of Educational Attainment, 2003

Explanation of the Links between Poverty and Educational Attainment. • Micro level explanations focus Explanation of the Links between Poverty and Educational Attainment. • Micro level explanations focus on the characteristics of children and their families, pointing to differences in child health, parenting styles, family material and cultural resources, and attitudes towards learning. • Meso level explanations focus on the neighbourhood and the school, focussing on the negative effects of neighbourhoods with high unemployment and low social capital on aspirations and positive attitudes towards the school. Schools with high concentrations of disadvantaged children may exercise negative peer effects on achievement. • Macro-level explanations focus on the way in which school systems reproduce social inequality and systematically disadvantage children from poor families (through poorly resourced schools , low aspirations, stereotyping of students

Levels of Explanation Raffo, Dyson, Gunter, Hall, Jones and Kallambouka (2007) distinguish between ‘functionalist’ Levels of Explanation Raffo, Dyson, Gunter, Hall, Jones and Kallambouka (2007) distinguish between ‘functionalist’ and ‘socially critical’ theories, each of which operate at three levels: • Micro • Meso • Macro

The Importance of Values, Attitudes and Attitudes. Research on educational disadvantage has focussed on The Importance of Values, Attitudes and Attitudes. Research on educational disadvantage has focussed on the importance child and parental aspirations since Douglas (1964) identified the importance of the mother’s educational aspirations for her children. Goodman and Gregg (2010) in their recent report on poverty and achievement in the UK follow in this tradition. • 81% of the richest fifth of mothers hoped their 9 year old children would go to university compared to 37% of the poorest mothers. • The authors claim this factor explains 6% of the attainment gap by 11 • Children of poorer families tend to see themselves as less scholastically able, are less concerned with school results and exhibit higher levels of hyperactivity. • The differences in child attitudes and behaviours, according to the authors, account for 12% of the attainment gap at 11 years. • 25% of the test score gap is associated with factors present across the generations (like not being read to as a child).

Goodman and Gregg Goodman and Gregg

Over-Arching Theories There are various over-arching theories about how social inequalities are reproduced through Over-Arching Theories There are various over-arching theories about how social inequalities are reproduced through Education. The most influential are currently those of: • Pierre Bourdieu • Raymond Boudon

Pierre Bourdieu and Social Reproduction • Bourdieu (1986) distinguished between three types of capital Pierre Bourdieu and Social Reproduction • Bourdieu (1986) distinguished between three types of capital which are unequally distributed across families of different social classes: 1) economic capital; 2) social capital and 3) cultural capital. • Cultural capital refers to the forms of knowledge, skills, education, and advantages that a person has, which give them a higher status in society. Habitus refers to acquired sensibilities, disposition and taste. • Parents provide their children with cultural capital and a specific habitus which correspond to what is demanded in school and allows them to succeed in the current educational system (Bourdieu and Passeron, 1973). • The theory was developed through research on the French education system but is offered as a relatively universal theory. It ignores varying ways in which different systems reproduce inequality.

Raymond Boudon and ‘Positional Theory’ Boudon (1974), a radical rational choice theorist, argues that Raymond Boudon and ‘Positional Theory’ Boudon (1974), a radical rational choice theorist, argues that family backgrounds also influence educational achievement through the way in which they affect choices made by parents and students. Depending on where they are positioned socially students are likely to make different calculations about the relative costs and benefits of selecting the most prestigious academic routes in education which will affect their educational achievements. Educational systems which offer more ‘branching points’ (opportunities for academic selection) are likely to allow social background to have more influence the achievement of individual students through the choices they themselves make.

Student Choices in France Duru-Bellat and Mingat’s (1999) analysis of streaming at the end Student Choices in France Duru-Bellat and Mingat’s (1999) analysis of streaming at the end of lower secondary education in 1990 in France well illustrates how this works. Looking at transitions to different types of lycée they show that: • 25 per cent of the social class differences in transitions to high or low streams could be attributed to ability, but • a further 25 per cent derived from the choices made by parents and their children which are unrelated to achievement.

School System Effects How comparing across education systems can help to explain what system School System Effects How comparing across education systems can help to explain what system characteristics impact on the level of inequalities in educational outcomes in different countries.

Nordic Countries – Low Variation • Nordic countries, on average, have the smallest variation Nordic Countries – Low Variation • Nordic countries, on average, have the smallest variation in individual scores of any country group (along with southern Europe). • Small differences between schools in social intake • Small differences between schools in average performance • School peer effects are low • Even in Nordic countries where individual background impacts substantially on performance, since the impact of the school is low, total variation between students remains quite low. • Norway, for instance, has a steeper social gradient than Spain, meaning that differences in social intake would predict larger differences in school performance than in Spain. However, in fact, schools have very similar social intakes in Norway so the overall differences between schools in mean scores remain very low and lower than in Spain, which has very high differences in social intakes between schools.

Countries with Selective Systems: Germany, Austria and Belgium • Highest between-school variation in average Countries with Selective Systems: Germany, Austria and Belgium • Highest between-school variation in average performance • Large differences in social intake of school • School peer effects are strong • Overall variation in student performance is high, as is the impact of social background on individual performance, measured both by the percentage of variance explained and the social gradient.

Countries with Selective Systems: Germany, Austria and Belgium • Highest between-school variation in average Countries with Selective Systems: Germany, Austria and Belgium • Highest between-school variation in average performance • Large differences in social intake of school • School peer effects are strong • Overall variation in student performance is high, as is the impact of social background on individual performance, measured both by the percentage of variance explained and the social gradient.

UK and USA – Highest variation and social gradients • Total variance between individual UK and USA – Highest variation and social gradients • Total variance between individual scores is very high in both countries because the education systems combine very high within-school variation with average levels of between-school variation (whereas most comprehensive systems have high within-school variation and low between-school variation). • The differences between schools in terms of social intake are high for ‘comprehensive systems’ (although average for OECD countries as a whole) • The impacts of individual background and the school peer group effects are above average in both countries • These combine to produce the very high social gradients. • Comprehensive schools in the US and the UK would appear to be both substantially more socially selective than those in the Nordic countries and more internally differentiated.

Japan and Korea • Combine high between-school variation in performance, with quite low within-school Japan and Korea • Combine high between-school variation in performance, with quite low within-school variation. • Differences between schools in social intakes are slightly below average. • Social background has relatively little impact on an individuals’ performance but there are strong school peer group effects. • Schools do not vary particularly highly in their social intakes, but small differences in the average social composition of the peer group seems to have a large effect on individual performance. One explanation of this may be the strong normative effect of pedagogies in Japanese and Korean schools which tend to standardise aspirations across student cohorts and thus enhance peer group effects.

Explaining Differences between Countries in levels of Inequality Different levels of inequality could be Explaining Differences between Countries in levels of Inequality Different levels of inequality could be explained by differences in national socio-economic contexts or by differences in education systems. Three main explanations by context: • Effects of income inequality • Political ideologies • Effects of welfare systems

Impact of Income Inequality Clearly where countries have greater variations in income and wealth Impact of Income Inequality Clearly where countries have greater variations in income and wealth there is a likelihood that the rich will buy advantages for their children through private schools, private tutoring etc. Given the embeddedness of cultural capital in economic relations, it is also likely that Bourdieu’s ‘cultural capital’ will be more unevenly distributed amongst families thus probably making a more unequal distribution of learning outcomes. In fact there is no clear correlation between income inequality (Gini measure) and inequalities of student achievement at 15 yrs (although there is a clear correlation between adult skills distribution and income distribution) (OECD)

Welfare System Effects Esping -Andersen argues that the more equal outcomes of Nordic countries Welfare System Effects Esping -Andersen argues that the more equal outcomes of Nordic countries has nothing to do with their schooling systems. He attributes it entirely to the effects of universalist welfare systems that include ample social support for parents, and particularly lone parents, and where all children are entitled to full-time pre-school education from infancy.

Welfare 2 • Universal and largely free pre school education ensures early socialisation of Welfare 2 • Universal and largely free pre school education ensures early socialisation of the children away from the home and thus mitigates the effects on learning of unequal social capital in the home. • Generous social support and family – friendly employment policies encourage the vast majority of mother to work. • Lone mothers are generally not poor these countries which means that the learning disadvantages of children of lone parents resulting from low family income in countries like England are not apparent in Nordic Countries

Political Ideologies It can be argued that creating egalitarian educational systems requires considerable political Political Ideologies It can be argued that creating egalitarian educational systems requires considerable political will and a strong consensus favouring equality. This is most likely to be achieved in countries like the Nordic states which are social cohesive and have strong social democratic ideologies. This could provide an alternative explanation of the relative egalitarianism of the East Asian (quite cohesive) and Nordic states. It would also suggest reasons why less cohesive states like the UK and USA find it harder to achieve consensus around such controversial issues. However, the explanation do not work so well for the southern European states which are neither strongly social democratic nor particularly cohesive.

The Country Clustering The most equal countries are in three groups: • Nordics • The Country Clustering The most equal countries are in three groups: • Nordics • North East Asian • Southern European The most unequal countries are in two group: • English-Speaking (and particularly USA and UK) • ‘Germanic’ : Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Belgium, Luxembourg.

Decentralisation One common factor shared by all the unequal systems is that have a Decentralisation One common factor shared by all the unequal systems is that have a degree of decentralisation to regional levels. They are either effectively federal systems (USA, UK, Germany) or give strong powers to individual regions or cantons. This may lead to the unequal allocation of resources and thus to educational inequality. The more equal countries do not generally have federal systems (although Spain in southern Europe comes close to this. ) OECD statistical analysis shows that there is a strong correlation between degree of regional decentralisation and inequality of outcomes

Decentralisation One common factor shared by all the unequal systems is that have a Decentralisation One common factor shared by all the unequal systems is that have a degree of decentralisation to regional levels. They are either effectively federal systems (USA, UK, Germany) or give strong powers to individual regions or cantons. This may lead to the unequal allocation of resources and thus to educational inequality. The more equal countries do not generally have federal systems (although Spain in southern Europe comes close to this. ) OECD statistical analysis shows that there is a strong correlation between degree of regional decentralisation and inequality of outcomes

Differences between Comprehensive Systems If selective secondary school organisation is associated with outcomes inequality, Differences between Comprehensive Systems If selective secondary school organisation is associated with outcomes inequality, and comprehensive organisation with more equal outcomes, how then do we explain the differences between comprehensive systems in terms no inequality? One strategy is to identify different characteristics within the structures of comprehensive schools which may be conducive to equality and to see if we can identify different forms of comprehensive school systems.

Nordic and East Asian Countries These all had (in the relevant reference period) a Nordic and East Asian Countries These all had (in the relevant reference period) a number of characteristics which may be seen to favour low levels of inequality. : • • Mixed ability teaching throughout Low levels of school diversity Low social segregation in intakes Low levels of school choosing (most children going to their local school) – encouraged in Nordic countries by the unique system of all-through comprehensive schools where few children change school in transition to lower secondary.

Features of Quasi Market Comprehensive Systems • High level of school diversity within the Features of Quasi Market Comprehensive Systems • High level of school diversity within the state system (specialist schools, Academies, Faith schools etc in England. • Strong promotion of school choice • Culture of league tables and inter-school competition • High level of in setting and streaming in schools

Branching Points What is common to the ineqalitarian systems, and more absent in the Branching Points What is common to the ineqalitarian systems, and more absent in the egalitarian systems, is – to use the generic American term – tracking. The Germanic countries track through formal selection to different types of school. The English-speaking systems track through ability grouping in schools and through more subtle forms of selection to different types of school (which are inevitably hierarchically ranked. ) Tracking creates more ‘branches points’ and it is the proliferation of these which Raymond Boudon claims makes some education systems more inegalitarian than others.

Individual Economic Benefits Individual Economic Benefits

Earnings Differential by Educational Attainment in 2002 Earnings Differential by Educational Attainment in 2002

Education Earnings Premium • Earnings increase with each level of education. • The earnings Education Earnings Premium • Earnings increase with each level of education. • The earnings premium for tertiary education is substantial in most countries and exceeds 50% in 17 out of 28 OECD countries. • Males with Type A tertiary education earn on average 80% more than those with only upper secondary or post-secondary mom-tertiary in Hungary, Czech Republic, Poland, Portugal, Israel and the USA. • The education earnings gap increases with age in most countries.

Employment Rates by Educational Attainment Employment Rates by Educational Attainment

Individual Social Benefits Individual Social Benefits

Social Benefits Research in various countries has show that higher levels of education are Social Benefits Research in various countries has show that higher levels of education are associated with a variety of social benefits to the individual including: • Better health (Taubman and Rosen, 1982; Feinstein et al, 2003) • Reduced propensity to crime (Behrman and Stacey, 1996) • Reduced risk of teenage pregnancy and drug abuse (Bynner and Parson, 1998) • Increased social capital (trust, civic association and political engagement (Putnam, 2000)

Macro-Social Effects Macro-Social Effects

Macro Social Benefits Cross-country studies show that higher average levels of education are associated Macro Social Benefits Cross-country studies show that higher average levels of education are associated with: • Lower levels of violent crime (Mc. Mahon, 1999) • Improved human rights, political stability and democratization( Mc. Mahon, 1999) • Greater income equality (Mcmahon, 1999) • Reduced family size (Sen, 1999) • Increased social capital (Putnam, 2000) More equal distributions of skills and qualifications are also associated with wider social benefits (Green, Janmaat and

Educational Inequality and Social Cohesion Educational Inequality and Social Cohesion

Social Mobility Social Mobility

The Centre for Learning and Life Chances in Knowledge Economies and Societies (LLAKES) is The Centre for Learning and Life Chances in Knowledge Economies and Societies (LLAKES) is an research Centre funded by the UK Economic and Social Research Council. Details can be found at: Llakes. org