Date post: | 18-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | justina-morrison |
View: | 214 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Department of Education
Gillian Hampden-Thompson, Education, University of YorkGill Main, Social Policy, University of York
EDUCATIONAL OUTCOME INDICATORS OF YOUNG PEOPLE IN ENGLAND BY FAMILY STRUCTURE
Department of Education
LSYPE DATAOverview of Data
Longitudinal Study of Young People in England (LSYPE)/Next Steps
Directly managed by the Department for Education’s (DFE)
Current contractor is BMRB Social Research (previously Isop MORI)
Large-scale longitudinal study of young people in England with the first wave collected in 2004
First wave participants were in year 9 (13/14 years of age)
Department of Education
LSYPE DATAOverview of Data
Collected annually and includes information on various aspects of young people’s lives (family background, socio-economic status, attitudes, experiences and behaviours etc.)
Wave 1 approximately 16,000 participants (wave 6 10,000)
Seven waves of collection in which waves 1 to 4 included data collection from young person and parent/guardian.
Department of Education
LSYPE DATAOverview of Data
Waves 1 to 3 were face-to-face interviews
The LYPSE data can be linked to the National Pupil Database (NPD)
These data sources provide a unique opportunity to
construct indicators of young people’s educational achievement, attainment, and persistence overtime
Department of Education
FAMILY STRU
CTURE AN
D
EDU
CATION
Overview of Research
Family structure is an important contributor to young people’s well being across a range of social and economic outcomesIn education, young people living in non-intact families (e.g., lone-parent and guardian families) are less academically successful than their peers who reside in households in which both parents live togetherBehind this generalisation, there are notable differences across different family structures. Furthermore, family structure is not a fixed characteristic and a child’s living arrangements are subject to change overtime.
Department of Education
MEASU
RING
EDU
CATION
AL O
UTCO
MES
Outcome Measures
Achievement/Attainment
Key Stage 3 scores (NPD data)
GCSE grades (NPD data)
Participation in post-16 education/dropping out (LYSPE)
In addition,
Post-16 aspirations for further study (LSYPE)
Department of Education
MEASU
RING
FAMILY STRU
CTURE
Marri
ed couple fa
mily
Cohabiting couple fa
mily
Lone-m
other family
Lone-fa
ther family
No-parent (
guardian) f
a...
Change in fa
mily st
ructu
re0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
67
8
22
2 1
68
8
21
2 1
67
8
22
2 1
63
4
18
1 1
13
2004 2005 2006 2004-2006
The percentage of youths residing in various family structures in 2004, 2005, 2006 and between 2004 and 2006 (n=11,449).
Department of Education
SUM
MARY
Differences by family structure
The majority of youth’s resided in a married family between 2004 to 2006
Around one-fifth of youths resided in a lone-mother household between 2004 to 2006
13 percent of youths experienced a change in their family structure between 2004 to 2006
Department of Education
KEY STAGE 3 SCO
RES
Married couple fam-ily
Cohabiting couple family
Lone-mother family Lone-father family No-parent (guardian) family
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
35.3 33.2 32.6 31.929.0
Mean KS 3 average point score percentage for youths (year 9) residing in various family structures: 2004.
Department of Education
GCSE PO
INT SCO
REMean GCSE point score percentage for youths (year 11) residing in various family structures: 2006.
Marri
ed couple fa
mily
Cohabiting couple fa
mily
Lone-m
other family
Lone-fa
ther family
No-parent (
guardian) f
amily
Changing family
stru
cture
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
329292 278 271 250
274
Department of Education
GCSE PO
INT SCO
REPercentage of youths achieving 5 GCSEs at A-C grade by family structure: 2006.
Marri
ed couple fa
mily
Cohabiting couple fa
mily
Lone-m
other family
Lone-fa
ther family
No-parent (
guardian) f
amily
Changing family
stru
cture
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
70.5
56.2 51.3 46.7 47.4 48.6
Department of Education
SUM
MARY
Differences in achievement scores by family structure
Youths in married households achieved higher KS3 scores and achieved better GCSE qualifications than other family structures
Youths in cohabiting households achieved higher KS3 scores and achieved better GCSE qualifications than those in lone parent, no-parent, and changing households
Similarities in KS scores and GCSE achievement for youths residing in lone-mother households and those residing in a household that has changed its structure.
Department of Education
POST-16 ED
UCATIO
N ASPIRATIO
NS
Percentage distribution of young person’s reported post-16 intentions by family structure: 2006.
Married couple family
Cohabiting couple family
Lone-mother family
Lone-father family
No-parent (guardian) family
Changing family structure
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
91
87.8
89.3
83.9
85.5
82.4
8.8
11.9
10.3
13.7
14.5
16.5
0.2
0.2
0.4
2.4
0
1.2
Stay on in full time education Leave full-time education Leave full time education but return later
Department of Education
SCHO
OL PERSISTEN
CE/DRO
PPING
O
UT
All
Married couple family
Cohabiting couple family
Lone-mother family
Lone-father family
No-parent (guardian) family
Changing family structure
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
21.3
18.1
27.0
24.4
31.6
28.6
28.2
25.3
25.3
22.4
25.8
22.2
19.6
26.6
24.2
26.2
27.5
20.2
24.8
17.9
19.2
29.2
30.4
23.2
29.6
21.4
33.9
26.1
Drop out at 16 Drop out at 17 Drop out at 18 Still in education
Percentage distribution of school persistence/dropping out by family structure: 2008.
Department of Education
INTEN
TION
S VERSUS REALITY
Marri
ed couple fa
mily
Cohabiting couple fa
mily
Lone-m
other family
Lone-fa
ther family
No-parent (
guardian) f
amily
Changing family
stru
cture
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
10091.0
87.8 89.383.9 85.5
82.4
30.4
23.229.6
21.4
33.9
26.1
Intention in 2006 Reality in 2008
Percentage of youth’s reporting they would stay on in fulltime education in 2006 and their educational status in 2008 by family structure: 2006 and 2008.
Department of Education
MU
LTIVARIATE ANALYSIS
(LOG
ISTIC)Factors associated with dropping out of education
Significant factors associated with dropping out at 16: 1. Family structure - those residing in cohabiting
families and changing family structures more likely to drop out than those with married parents
2. Ethnicity - all ethnicities less likely to drop out than white young people
3. Siblings - those with two, three or four siblings more likely to drop out than those with none
4. Family income - those in upper and middle income quartiles less likely to drop out than those in lowest income quartile
Department of Education
MU
LTIVARIATE ANALYSIS
(LOG
ISTIC)Factors associated with dropping out of education
Significant factors associated with dropping out at 17:
1. Family structure - those in a changing family structure more likely to drop out than those with married parents
2. Ethnicity - Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi and black Caribbean youths less likely to drop out than white youths
3. Family income - those in lower middle and highest income quartiles less likely than those in lowest income quartile to drop out
Department of Education
MU
LTIVARIATE ANALYSIS
(LOG
ISTIC)Factors associated with dropping out of education
Significant factors associated with dropping out at 18: 1. Ethnicity - Pakistani, black Caribbean and black
African youths less likely than white youths to drop out
2. Family income - those in middle or highest income quartiles more likely than those in lowest income quartile to drop out
Note: Family structure is not a significant factor for drop out at 18.
Department of Education
MU
LTIVARIATE ANALYSIS
(LOG
ISTIC)Factors associated with going to university
Significant factors for going to university:
1. Family structure - those in cohabiting or changing family structures less likely than those with married parents to go on to university
2. Ethnicity - all groups other than black Caribbean more likely than white youths to go on to university
3. Siblings - those with three or four siblings less likely than those with none to go on to university
4. Family income - odds of being in university increases with income
Department of Education
CON
CLUSIO
NS
1. LSYPE is a rich source of data
2. Young people experience changes to their family structure. In the case of this analysis, 13 percent of youths experienced a change during a two year period. The educational impact of this change in family structure requires further investigation.
3. Young people’s family composition is associated with educational outcomes (i.e., scores on national tests and examinations) and likelihood of dropping out of education and likelihood of attending university
Department of Education
CON
CLUSIO
NS
4. There is a disconnect between young people’s aspirations for further education and their actual reality. Differences between aspirations for further study and actions differed across family structures.
5. Family structure was still a significant factor after controlling for ethnicity, family income, and sibling size.
6. Further analysis can be completed with the LSYPE data to see what reasons young people gave for not continuing in further and higher education.