Book review: miseducation: inequality, education and the working classes by Diane Reay

In Miseducation: Inequality, Education and the Working Classes, Diane Reay draws on interviews with over 500 children to explore the class inequalities that persist in UK education today from the transition to secondary school up to university. The book’s personalisation of everyday working-class experiences of education, combined with statistical evidence on continued inequality, makes this engaging and timely reading, finds Natasha Codiroli Mcmaster

Book review: Miseducation: inequality, education and the working classes by Diane Reay

In Miseducation: Inequality, Education and the Working Classes, Diane Reay draws on interviews with over 500 children to explore the class inequalities that persist in UK education today from the transition to secondary school up to university. The book’s personalisation of everyday working-class experiences of education, combined with statistical evidence on continued inequality, makes this engaging and timely reading, finds Natasha Codiroli Mcmaster

Women are less likely to study STEM subjects - but disadvantaged women are even less so

The gender divide in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics study is more complicated than most researchers, policy makers, and practitioners previously thought, writes Natasha Codiroli Mcmaster. She explains that young women's social circumstances play a key role in whether they choose to study STEM at university

Book review: the equality effect: improving life for everyone by Danny Dorling

In The Equality Effect: Improving Life for Everyone, Danny Dorling delivers evidence that more equal countries enjoy better outcomes, with their populations being happier, healthier and more creative, producing less waste and committing fewer crimes. This optimistic book is a pleasure to read, writes Natasha Codiroli Mcmaster, and encourages us to see greater equality – and its social benefits – as being within our reach. If you are interested in this book, you may also like to watch a video or listen to a podcast of Danny Dorling’s recent LSE lecture, ‘The Equality Effect: Improving Life for Everyone’, recorded on 18 May 2017

Gendered Pathways of Internalizing Problems from Early Childhood to Adolescence and Associated Adolescent Outcomes

Despite trends indicating worsening internalizing problems, characterized by anxiety and depression, there is dearth of research examining gender differences in developmental trajectories of internalizing problems from early childhood to adolescence. Drawing on the UK Millennium Cohort Study (n = 17,206, 49% female), this study examines trajectories of parent-reported, clinically-meaningful (reflecting the top 10%) internalizing problems from ages 3 to 14 years and their early predictors and adolescent outcomes. Group-based modelling revealed three trajectories when examining boys and girls together, but there were significant gender differences. When examining boys and girls separately, four trajectories were identified including two relatively stable trajectories showing either high or low probabilities of internalizing problems. An increasing trajectory was also found for both boys and girls, showing an increasing probability of internalizing problems which continued to rise for girls, but levelled off for boys from age 11. A decreasing trajectory was revealed for boys, while a moderate but stable trajectory was identified for girls. Boys and girls in the increasing and high probability groups were more likely to report a number of problematic outcomes including high BMI, self-harm, low mental wellbeing, depressive symptoms, and low educational motivation than the low group. Girls on the increasing trajectory also reported more cigarette and cannabis use and early sexual activity at age 14 compared to girls on the low trajectory. Findings suggest that intervention strategies take a systemic view, targeting not only internal feelings, but also behaviours potentially associated with later negative outcomes

Stratification into field of study in Higher Education

This thesis analyses the extent students are stratified into subjects depending on their social background, and the consequences of this in the labour market. I draw on analysis from three longitudinal cohort studies; Next Steps, the 1970 British Cohort Study, and the US study National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY79). It makes four unique contributions to the literature on educational inequality and subject choice. Firstly, in a joint-authored paper, it offers an overview of the use of intersectionality as a method in quantitative educational research. We make the case that the method should be used more readily in research measuring inequalities in education. Secondly, I empirically test the relationships between students’ characteristics, including their social background, ethnicity and gender, and field of study in higher education. I find that parents’ level of education is more strongly associated with subject choices than either social class or financial resources, suggesting a preferred focus of future research into stratification by subject. I also find that gender and social background interact in determining choice of degree subject. Thirdly, I go on to explore the psychological mechanisms that may drive differences in subject choices. I find differing relationships between students’ personal attitudes and university choices depending on social background. Students from more advantaged backgrounds appeared most likely to choose subjects they enjoyed and thought they were good at. My final chapter compares the relationship between social background and subject choice in the UK and the US. I find that parental education was associated with subject choice for the US cohort, but not the UK cohort. I further test how far these differences explained disparities in earnings in adulthood, and do not find evidence that differences in field of study by background contribute to earnings inequalities in later life

Who studies STEM subjects at A level and degree in England? An investigation into the intersections between students’ family background, gender and ethnicity in determining choice

The relative lack of students studying post-compulsory STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) subjects is a key policy concern. A particular issue is the disparities in uptake by students’ family background, gender and ethnicity. It remains unclear whether the relationship between student characteristics and choice can be explained by academic disparities, and whether students’ background, gender and ethnicity interact in determining university subject choices, rather than simply having additive effects. I use data from more than 4000 students in England from ‘Next Steps’ (previously the LSYPE) and logistic regression methods to explore the interacting relationships between student characteristics and subject choice. There are four main findings of this study. Firstly, disparities by students’ ethnicity are shown to increase when controlling for prior attainment. Secondly, family background indicators are differentially related to uptake for male and female students, with parents’ social class and education larger predictors of choice than financial resources. Thirdly, gender, ethnicity and family background interact in determining choices. Particularly, as socio-economic position increases, young women are more likely to choose STEM over other high-return subjects. Finally, associations between student characteristics and subject choices, including interactions, largely persisted when accounting for A-level choices. Implications for policy and future research are discussed

The contribution of intersectionality to quantitative research into educational inequalities

Educational inequalities are one of the most critical issues facing contemporary societies. While there is a substantial body of quantitative literature tracking inequalities in education based on students’ characteristics, an emerging literature is applying the concept of intersectionality to acknowledge the multiple, overlapping impact of these characteristics. We discuss the contributions of intersectionality to quantitative research on (vertical and horizontal) educational inequalities (attainment and subject choice). We then discuss the limitations inherent in this work, along with methodological innovations aimed at addressing these limitations. Finally, we make recommendations for researchers, to encourage greater use of intersectionality in quantitative educational research and thereby to deepen our knowledge of inequalities

Mapping inequalities in school attendance:The relationship between dimensions of socioeconomic status and forms of school absence

In this article, we investigated whether and to what extent various dimensions of socioeconomic background (parental education, parental class, free school meal registration, housing status, and neighborhood deprivation) predict overall school absences and different reasons for absenteeism (truancy, sickness, family holidays and temporary exclusion) among 4,620 secondary school pupils in Scotland. Students were drawn from a sample of the Scottish Longitudinal Study comprising linked Census data and administrative school records. Using fractional logit models and logistic regressions, we found that all dimensions of socioeconomic background were uniquely linked to overall absences. Multiple measures of socioeconomic background were also associated with truancy, sickness-related absence, and temporary exclusion. Social housing and parental education had the most pervasive associations with school absences across all forms of absenteeism. Our findings highlight the need to consider the multidimensionality of socioeconomic background in policy and research decisions on school absenteeism. A more explicit focus on narrowing the socioeconomic gap in absenteeism is required to close the inequality gap in educational and post-school outcomes