Patterns of Participation in Lifelong Learning: do families make a difference?

Gorard, Stephen; Rees, Gareth; Fevre, Ralph

doi:10.1080/0141192990250407

Cited by 42 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 14 publications

(19 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…And, in our own analyses we have done both many times, and both approaches seem to show the same substantive results (Gorard et al 1999b, Gorard and Rees 2002, Gorard et al 2007). The findings are that inequalities in attainment patterned by SES and related variables start early in life and that secondary school events do little to remedy them (Gorard et al 1999c, Gorard et al 2003, Gorard and It also seems unfair of Connolly not to acknowledge that we have already described running several versions of the model, and that we had both a theoretical and pragmatic justification for retaining the model as it was.…”

Section: Connolly Saysmentioning

confidence: 96%

(Mis)Understanding underachievement: a response to Connolly

Gorard

Smith

2008

British Journal of Sociology of Education

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionIn a recent issue of this journal an author named Connolly (2008) presented what he termed a 'critical review' of some of our previous work on the relative attainment of male and female students in UK schools. He proposed three general areas for criticism -our use of attainment gaps, our consideration of outcomes other than at specific thresholds, and our querying of the idea of student 'underachievement'. These problems, he claimed, have 'given rise to a number of misleading conclusions that have questionable implications for practice ' (p.250). However, those of his 'criticisms' with any merit are actually the same as our own conclusions, transmuted by Connolly from our papers that he cites, while his remaining 'criticisms' are based on faulty elementary logic. In case readers have not read our work and were somehow misled by Connolly, we give here a brief reply to each criticism in turn. This matters, because a greater understanding of patterns of attainment and of the nature of underachievement is a precursor to the design of successful initiatives to overcome inequalities in educational opportunity and reward. This is both a practical and an ethical issue. Achievement gapsFollowing Arnot et al. (1996, appendix), the idea of an achievement gap was used by Gorard et al (1999a) to illustrate the proportionate difference in public examination attainment between males and females, after adjusting for differences in the numbers of each sex entering any examination. Thus, the overall achievement gap is composed 1 of the attainment gap (the proportionate male:female difference in numbers attaining a certain grade) minus the entry gap (the proportionate male:female difference in numbers entering the assessment). Gorard et al. (2001, p.137) pointed out that entry gaps between males and females in each A-level subject tend to be higher than they are at GCSE. Substantially more female than male students enter A-level English each year, for example, whereas the gap is less marked for entry to GCSE English. By contrast, the eventual gap in attainment between male and females students is generally lower at A-level than at GCSE. In English GCSE, female students attain more of the high grades than males, but the attainment gap is much less at A-level.One of the possible reasons for this difference is that the smaller proportion of each age cohort of males who choose to continue with A-level English once the constraints of the National Curriculum are over tend to be better at English. Thus, the entry gap between sexes is greater but the attainment gap is then lower than at GCSE where English was, and still largely is, compulsory.

show abstract

Section: Connolly Saysmentioning

confidence: 96%

(Mis)Understanding underachievement: a response to Connolly

Gorard

Smith

2008

British Journal of Sociology of Education

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The weight of the approach is on the value of the agent's capabilities understood as genuine opportunities or freedoms, as opposed to one's outcomes or results. Whilst VET is portrayed as an additional experience to be included among learning lives and learning trajectories (Gorard et al, 1999) and learning careers (Bloomer & Hodkinson, 2000), the research highlights the role of VET in expanding individual freedoms or, paraphrasing Sen (1999), removing various types of unfreedoms that leave people with little choice for exercising their values and agency. By focusing on the student voices in VET, it leaves room for diverse and distinct evaluations of VET and its value accounts for heterogeneous life plans.…”

Section: Inside the Collegementioning

confidence: 99%

The Discourses of Vocational Education and Training: A Developmental Response from a European Perspective

López-Fogués

2012

European Educational Research Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The article analyses the discourses underpinning formal vocational education and training (VET). More specifically, it presents three accounts of European VET with the twofold aim of reviewing them and of recommending a conceptual shift that leads to further theoretical discussion. The discussion is organised around the existence of three seemingly contradictory accounts in the management of VET -one centred in economic growth; one concerned about the experiences of students and professionals; and one that focuses on the social implications of those involved in VET. The article concludes that while there has been a degree of convergence between the three, social justice issues remain unresolved due to the eagerness to pursue measurable results, while neglecting individual heterogeneity as part of a rich society. Building on some core concepts of the capability approach developed by Amartya Sen, the article takes a step beyond the language of outcomes and reframes VET foundations through the lens of human development.

show abstract

“…Family background is influential in a number of ways, most obviously in material terms, but also in terms of what is understood to be the 'natural' form of participation. In one large study, for a number of those who had participated actively in post-school learning this is seen as a product of what was normal for their family or, less frequently, the wider community, rather than their own active choice (Gorard et al 1999). …”

Section: Student Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Families are universally acknowledged as a key determinant of educational performance in schooling and later education (Gorard et al 1999). In compulsory education, similar educational routes regularly occur within families.…”

Section: Early Childhood Experience and Science Participationmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Gorard

See

2009

Studies in Science Education

Self Cite

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 ) and a review of wider international research evidence in the literature relevant to the UK . 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.No conclusive evidence has been found to explain this satisfactorily. Plausible reasons suggested in the literature include the relative scarcity of local opportunities putting off those who do not wish to study away from home, or the perceived time demands of studying science, and so the difficulties of combining part-time study and part-time work for those needing to continue earning while studying. Direct support from professional parents may also lead to greater participation in post-16 science for students from higher SES. Perhaps the simplest explanation is that participation in science at any level is often predicated upon success at the previous educational stage. There are clear differences in science attainment at age 16 between students of differing backgrounds, which could explain the subsequent differential participation. However, these differences are not dissimilar to those for all subjects. The largest gap presented in the paper is between students eligible and not eligible for free school meals (FSM). We also show that these patterns appear early in the life of children. At ages 7 and 11, attainment in the three core subjects (English Maths and Science) is negatively related to living in an area of deprivation. The paper ends with a discussion of suggestions for research, policy and practice, emerging from this review of the evidence.

show abstract

Patterns of Participation in Lifelong Learning: do families make a difference?

Cited by 42 publications

References 14 publications

(Mis)Understanding underachievement: a response to Connolly

(Mis)Understanding underachievement: a response to Connolly

The Discourses of Vocational Education and Training: A Developmental Response from a European Perspective

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About