Transcript Document

Social mobility and education
Anna Vignoles
Faculty of Education
Outline
• Social mobility and inequality – some reflections
• Socio-economic background and education achievement
• Beyond education
• Draws on joint work with Claire Crawford, Lindsey
Macmillan and Claire Tyler
2
Social mobility and inequality
• Large and rising income inequalities globally and within many
developed countries
• Distribution of wealth is even more unequal
• Globally the top 1% own 46% of the wealth
• Countries vary in the extent of income inequality
(Alvaredo, Facundo, Anthony B. Atkinson, Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, The World Top Incomes Database,
http://topincomes.g-mond.parisschoolofeconomics.eu/, 13/3/15, Alvaredo et al. 2013, Atkinson et al. 2011)
3
Top 1% - proportion of total income
UK
USA
13
87
18
82
4
Top 1% - proportion of total income
Sweden
France
7
93
8
92
5
Income inequality
is a social and
political problem
Social mobility is
seen as the
answer
6
Social mobility and inequality
• Social mobility
–Intergenerational correlation in income or SES
–Parent income – child’s adult income
–Parent SES – child’s adult SES
7
Social mobility and inequality
• Inequality is less of an issue if everyone
has a shot at success?
– In the UK 30% of income inequality is passed
on through generations according to Blanden
et al. (2005)
• What would complete social mobility feel
like?
–No correlation between your own success and
your child’s
8
Inequality and social mobility
9
Building
a meritocracy
• Income inequality
linked to education level is
more acceptable… more meritocratic
• But ...education is not the great leveller that
people hoped it would be
• Family background continues to be the key
determinant of educational achievement
10
Theory
• Most theories suggest socio-economic background and
education achievement are going to be closely linked
• Human capital theory
• Bourdieu’s cultural capital
11
SOCIO-ECONOMIC BACKGROUND AND
EDUCATION ACHIEVEMENT
12
The gap in HE participation in England at age 18/19 amongst
state school students by deprivation quintile group
Source: C. Crawford, November 2012, Socio-economic gaps in HE
participation: how have they changed over time?, IFS Briefing Notes , BN133
Crawford (2013)
The gap is small if look at the top 20%
achievers at Key Stage 5
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
4.4ppts
2.4ppts
0%
2004–05
2009–10
Most deprived quintile
2nd quintile
Middle quintile
4th quintile
Least deprived quintile Difference (least–most)
Source: C. Crawford, November 2012, Socio-economic gaps in HE
participation: how have they changed over time?, IFS Briefing Notes , BN133
Literature
• Inequality in university access largely reflects differences
in high school achievement
– Cunha et al 2006, Cameron and Heckman 2001, Cardak and Ryan 2009, Chowdry et al. 2012, Ermisch and Del Bono 2012. Not all
agree, Boliver 2013
• Expectations and aspirations, family and social norms,
and subjective beliefs also matter
– Jackson 2013
• Context specific
– Belley and Lochner (2007)
15
Socio-economic background and education
achievement
• Examine academic achievement trajectories by
socio-economic background
–Early high performers
–Prior attainment of those studying at high status
universities
Data
• National pupil database
• Census of school children with some personal
characteristics and achievement
• Cohort born in 1991/1992
• Measures of socio-economic background
– Eligibility for Free School Meals
– Neighbourhood measures (deprivation of neighbourhood based on
IMD)
17
Outcome
•
High status institution
–
–
Russell Group or institution with RAE score as good as lowest
performing RG university
41 research intensive institutions
18
SES gaps in the likelihood of attending a
high status institution
% of sample
60
37.3
40
38.9
18.2
20
9.7
8.9
2.8
7.4
2.4
0
Sample
average
Always
FSM
Not always
FSM
Most
deprived
Least
deprived
Non-select Selective
state
state
second.
second.
Studying for a degree at an elite university
Private
second.
Evidence
•
SES gaps remain in the likelihood of going to
high status universities for those with similar
levels of early prior attainment
•
Higher achievers at age 7 do not all go on to
success and there is a socio-economic gap….
Likelihood of attending high status institution if you
have high attainment at age 7 (KS1)
% of sample
60
55.6
50
43.1
40
34.7
30
23.5
20.5
20
10
9.3
8.1
0
Always
FSM
Not always
Most
FSM
deprived
Least
Non-select Selective
deprived
state
state
second.
second.
Private
second.
Achievement trajectories
A health warning:
• When we look forward at students’ education
trajectories, regression to the mean (RTM) is a
potential problem
• High achieving poor students will appear to fall
behind partly because of RTM rather than a
genuine decline (see Jerrim and Vignoles,
2012)
Methodology
• Using a different test at age 7 (KS1) to
determine the ability groups from the first
measurement point
• Focusing more on changes after age 11 (KS2)
since most of the RTM should occur between
the first and second measurement points
Defining ‘attainment’
•
•
•
•
•
Age 7 KS1 – maths, reading and science
Age 11 KS2 – English and maths
Age 16 KS4 – GCSE point score
Age 18 KS5 – A-level or equivalent point score
University – RAE ranking of institution attended
Evidence
•
Lower ability but more advantaged children catch
up with higher ability but poor children between
age 11 and 16 (KS2 and KS4)
Age 11 (KS2) to Age 16 (KS4) we see SES gaps
widening. Poor able students are falling behind whilst
richer low ability students gain more.
100
80
60
40
20
0
Percentile KS1
Percentile KS2
Percentile KS4
Most deprived Low ability
Most deprived High ability
Least deprived Low ability
Least deprived High ability
Evidence
•
•
•
There is relatively little further widening of the
SES gap between age 16 (KS4) and HE
participation
Gap between children in state and private
provision widens
Suggests attainment at age 16 (KS4) is a key
determinant of HE participation
Between age 16 (KS4) and university the trajectories of
more and less deprived children are similar
100
80
60
40
20
0
Percentile KS1
Percentile KS2
Percentile KS4
Percentile KS5
Most deprived Average ability
Most deprived High ability
Least deprived Average ability
Least deprived High ability
Percentile
university
Findings
•
•
•
Early tests are better predictors of subsequent
HE participation for affluent students
Richer students have more consistent (high)
achievement
Poorer students who are high performing at
age 7 are more likely to fall off the high
attainment trajectory
Who goes to a high status university?
•
Very few children from deprived families attend
elite universities
–
–
•
0.3% of children (921) who always claimed FSM
2.7% of children (2569) who ever claimed FSM
This is largely explained by low prior attainment
Evidence
•
Poorer children who attend elite universities
have lower prior attainment than richer children
–
–
May suggest poor students are being offered grade
discounts (a contextual admissions systems
operating)
Or it could be that richer students exceed the
university offer to a greater extent than poorer
students
SES gaps are still evident at every key stage even
for the elite group of pupils who end up in high
status universities
100
% of sample
90.1
80
98.8
94.7
88
79.4
72.3
66.6
70.5
79.4
78.2
72.6
63.7
60
48.6
46.7
40
20
0
Always FSM Not always
FSM
Most
deprived
3+ A-B in any subjects at A-level
Least
deprived
Non-select
Selective
state second. state second.
5+ A*-C in EBacc subjects at GCSE
Private
second.
Findings
•
•
Even at A level (KS5), some scope for
improvement to ensure that highly qualified
students from poorer backgrounds apply to
high status institutions
But earlier intervention also key to prevent high
achieving poor children falling off the trajectory
BEYOND HE
34
Access to the professions
• High status occupations have higher earnings, higher
social status and greater social connections
• Access to these professions is crucially important for
social mobility
• Work funded by the Social Mobility and Child Poverty
Commission
35
Data
• Higher Education Statistics Agency Destinations of
Leavers from Higher Education Survey
• Focus on sample of new graduates (2006/07) and
occupation 3.5 years after graduation
• Final sample = 24,980
• Measure relative likelihood of entering particular high
status professions by socio-economic background and
whether went to private school
36
Methodology
• Compare family background of those in high
status occupations 3.5 years after graduation
- Higher managerial
- Higher Professional
• Allow for lots of other differences between
graduates
- Demographics, prior attainment, institution,
post-grad qualifications
37
Methodology
• Outcome NS-SEC I versus NS-SEC 2-7
• Measures of socio-economic background:
– private school indicator
– socio-economic status of parents
– neighbourhood HE participation (POLAR 3)
• Allowing for:
– Demographics – age, gender, ethnicity
– Prior attainment – subject, degree classification, UCAS tariff
point score, university attended, postgraduate qualifications
38
Private school attendance by occupation
25
Percent attended private school
20
15
Sample
average
10
National
average
5
0
% of
sample
Top NS-SEC
30%
Higher managerial
6%
Higher professional
Top NS-SEC
24%
NS-SEC 2-7
70%
Evidence
• More socio-economically advantaged graduates earn
more and get higher status jobs after graduation
• Mostly because they have higher levels of academic
achievement, attend elite institutions and take particular
degree subjects
• But comparing similarly qualified graduates, those who
attended private schools earn more and are 2-3% more
likely to be in a top occupation
40
Mechanisms
• The use of family/friend networks does not appear to be
driving the results
• Networks matter but do not explain the private school
advantage
• “Non-cognitive” skills
• Cultural capital
• Financial capital
41
What does all this mean for social mobility?
• Similarly qualified pupils have roughly equal chance of
going to university regardless of family background
–Focus on increasing achievement of poor students
–Some scope to increase applications to high status
institutions?
• A high achieving poor child is more likely to fall off their
trajectory, particularly in early secondary school
–Focus on early secondary?
42
What does all this mean for social mobility?
• Poor children who make it to a high status institution do so
with lower attainment
–Some evidence that universities are adapting their
admissions?
• After university, privately educated students do better in
the labour market
–University support for labour market entry?
43
References
• Alvaredo, Facundo, Anthony B. Atkinson, Thomas Piketty, and Emmanuel Saez. The top 1 percent in international and
historical perspective. No. w19075. National Bureau of Economic Research, 2013.
• Atkinson, Anthony B., Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez (2011). Top Incomes in the Long Run of History, Journal of
Economic Literature, 49(1), pp. 3-71.
• Belley, P. and Lochner, L. (2007) ‘The Changing Role of Family Income and Ability in Determining Educational Achievement’,
Journal of Human Capital, 1(1): 37 – 89.
• Black, D. (2006) ‘Estimating the Returns to College Quality with Multiple Proxies for Quality’, Journal of Labor Economics,
24(3): 701 – 728.
• Blanden, J. and Machin, S. (2007) Recent Changes in Intergenerational Mobility in Britain. Sutton Trust, London. (Available
from http://www.suttontrust.com/public/documents/summaryintergenerationalmobility.pdf.)
• Blanden, J. and Machin, S. (2010) Intergenerational Inequality in Early Years Assessments. In Children of the 21st century: The
first five years (eds K. Hansen, H. Joshi, and S.Dex), pp. 153-168. Bristol: The Policy Press.
• Boliver, V. (2013) ‘How fair is access to more prestigious UK universities?’ British Journal of Sociology 64 (2): 344-364.
• Cameron, S. and Heckman, J. (2001) ‘The Dynamics of Educational Attainment for Black, Hispanic, and White Males’, Journal
of Political Economy, 109(3): 455 – 499.
• Cardak, B. and Ryan, C. (2009) ‘Participation in Higher Education in Australia: Equity and Access’, The Economic Record,
85(271), 433 – 448.
• Chevalier, A. and Conlon, G. (2003), ‘Does it Pay to Attend a Prestigious University?’, Centre for the Economics of Education
(CEE) Discussion Paper number 33. Accessed 18th October 2012 from http://cee.lse.ac.uk/ceedps/ceedp22.pdf
• Crawford, C., Macmillan, L. and Vignoles, A. (2014) Progress made by high-attaining children from disadvantaged
backgrounds, Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission Research report, June 2014.
• Cunha, F., Heckman, J. and Lochner, L. (2006) ‘Interpreting the Evidence on Life Cycle Skill Formation’. In Eric Hanushek and
Finis Welch (eds) Handbook of the Economics of Education, Amsterdam: Holland North.
44
References
• Chowdry, H., Crawford, C., Dearden, L., Goodman, A., & Vignoles, A. (2013). Widening participation in higher education:
Analysis using linked administrative data. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 176, 431–457.
• Ermisch, J. and Del Bono, E. (2012) ‘Inequality in Achievements during Adolescence’ in J. Ermisch, M. Jantti and T. Smeeding
(eds) Inequality from Childhood to Adulthood: A Cross-National Perspective on the Transmission of Advantage, New York: Russell
Sage Foundation.
• Duncan, G. and Magnuson, K. (2011) The Nature and Impact of Early Achievement Skills, Attention Skills and Behavior
Problems. In Whither Opportunity? Rising Inequality, Schools, and Children’s Life Chances (eds G. Duncan and R. Murnane), pp.
47-69. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
• Feinstein, L. (2003) Inequality in the Early Cognitive Development of British Children in the 1970 Cohort, Economica, 70, 73-97.
• Goodman A. Sibieta L. and Washbook E. (2009) Inequalities in Educational Outcomes Among Children Aged 3 to 16, Final
report for the National Equality Panel, Institute for Fiscal Studies, London. (Available from
http://sta.geo.useconnect.co.uk/pdf/Inequalities%20in%20education%20outcomes%20among%20children.pdf.)
• 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 (Statistics in Society), 176: 887–906.
• Krueger, Alan. "The rise and consequences of inequality." Presentation made to the Center for American Progress, January
12th. Available at http://www. americanprogress. org/events/2012/01/12/17181/the-rise-and-consequences-of-inequality (2012).
• Macmillan, L., Tyler, C. and Vignoles, A. (2014) ‘Who gets the top jobs?’, Institute of Education Research Briefing No.89,
http://www.ioe.ac.uk/Research_Expertise/RB89_Who_gets_the_top_jobs_MacmillanTylerVignoles.pdf .
• Parsons, S. Schoon, I. Rush, R. and Law, J. (2011) Long-term Outcomes for Children with Early Language Problems: Beating
the Odds, Children and Society, 25, 202 – 214.
• Schoon, I. (2006) Risk and Resilience: Adaptations in Changing Times, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Walker, Ian, and Yu Zhu. "The College Wage Premium and the Expansion of Higher Education in the UK*." The Scandinavian
Journal of Economics 110.4 (2008): 695-709.
• Walker, Ian, and Yu Zhu. "Differences by degree: Evidence of the net financial rates of return to undergraduate study for
England and Wales." Economics of Education Review 30, no. 6 (2011): 1177-1186.
45