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

Abstract

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.

Social Class, Gender and Ethnic Differences in Subjects Taken at Age 14.

“…There is extensive evidence of gender disparity in the natural sciences (Gorard & See, 2009) and STEM (Tripney et al, 2010). Gorard and See (2009) show that students from higher socio-economic backgrounds and those with higher attainment are more likely to pursue STEM subjects (Tripney et al, 2010). There are gender and ethnic differences in science participation (The Royal Society, 2008).…”

Student experience of school science

“…As the influence of specialist science teachers on science take-up as well as the relationship between number of students taking free school meals (FSM) and school achievement is well documented (e.g. Gorard & See, 2009;Mensah & Kiernan, 2010;Royal Society, 2008), it was ensured that the schools selected for survey and interviews had specialist science teachers teaching science in upper and lower school and that the number of FSM students is comparable in each school. The average number of FSM students is 5% in the five schools -well below the 1% national average for that particular year (Department for Education 2012).…”

Which are the most suitable contextual indicators for use in widening participation to HE?

“…In many respects, the older outreach and early intervention combination is both legally fairer and perhaps more effective. The problem is that students move through the phases of education becoming more socially stratified with every choice or transition, including the option to drop out of education entirely (Lucas 2001, Gorard andSee 2009). So, those considering HE are very stratified in comparison to their original cohort, but actually not nearly as stratified in terms of each other.…”