Measuring Educational Achievement

Educational Achievement:

• The level of success an individual attains in their education, usually measured by factors like grades, qualifications, and the highest level of schooling completed, and is often studied in relation to social factors like class, gender, and ethnicity that can influence educational outcomes. 

Differential Educational Achievement: 

• Discuss social and structural factors and their relationship to educational achievement 

Internal Factors:  

• Labelling: Teachers may label students based on their social class, ethnicity, or gender. This can lead to students being treated differently and having lower self-esteem.  

• School ethos: The atmosphere of the school, including its values and policies.  

• Hidden curriculum: The norms and values that teachers teach, such as politeness, respect, and competition.  

• Setting: Grouping students based on their ability in a particular subject.  

• Streaming: Grouping students based on their general ability.  

• Curriculum: Issues with the curriculum, such as the content taught or how it is taught.  

• Assessments: Issues with assessments, such as how they are designed or how they are marked.  

• Role models: The influence of role models, such as teachers or other students.  

External Factors:  

• Material deprivation: A lack of resources, money, or other necessities that can affect a student's ability to attend school. This can include a lack of money for school supplies, uniforms, or school trips.  

• Cultural deprivation: A lack of the knowledge, skills, or attitudes needed to succeed academically. This can include a lack of parental interest in their child's education.  

• Cultural capital: The skills and knowledge that middle-class parents can pass on to their children to give them an advantage in school.  

• Parenting styles: The way parents support their child's education, including their level of interest, discipline, and motivation.  

• Linguistic differences: Differences in language use that can affect a student's ability to succeed in school.  

• Family structure: The structure of a student's family, including home circumstances and living conditions. 

Official Statistics:  

• Gender: Official statistics have shown that there are differences in educational achievement based on gender. For example, women in the UK are more likely to go to university than men.  

• Ethnicity: Official statistics have shown that there are gaps in attainment for white pupils eligible and ineligible for free school meals.  

• Parental support: Some sociologists argue that a child's level of parental support can explain why they succeed or fail in school.  

Methods used to measure educational achievement: 

• Raw GCSE Grades: 

  • They provide a quantifiable data point to analyse patterns of attainment across different social groups, allowing researchers to study how factors like social class, gender, and ethnicity correlate with overall academic performance at the end of secondary school, highlighting potential inequalities in educational access and achievement; essentially, the higher the GCSE grade, the greater the level of educational attainment is considered to be.  

• Progress 8: 

  • This score measures how much a student's GCSE score improves from Key Stage 2 to Key Stage 4. It compares a student's score to the average score of all students nationally. 

• Attainment 8: 

  • It compares a student's performance against other students with similar prior attainment. It's used to measure how much a student has progressed from Key Stage Two to Key Stage Four. 

• University Acceptances: 

  • By looking at how different groups perform in the application process and at university. This helps them understand how factors like social class, income, and school quality affect educational outcomes. 

Issues with using these measures of educational achievement: 

• Raw GCSE Grades: 

  • Social class bias: Students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds may achieve lower grades despite having similar abilities due to factors like access to resources, parental support, and school quality disparities, leading to underestimation of their potential.  

  • Grading inconsistencies: Different teachers and schools may grade exams differently, leading to variations in results even for students with similar abilities.  

  • Subject bias: Some subjects might be considered easier to achieve high grades in than others, potentially skewing comparisons between students across different subjects.  

  • Limited assessment of skills: GCSE exams often focus on rote learning and recall, not adequately capturing critical thinking, creativity, and other important skills valued in higher education and the workplace.  

  • Pressure to 'teach to the test': Focusing solely on exam results can lead to teaching practices that prioritise test preparation over broader learning objectives. 

• Progress 8: 

  • Limited subject scope: Progress 8 only considers a limited selection of subjects, often prioritising traditional academic disciplines, which can downplay the importance of subjects like sociology that delve deeper into social issues and critical thinking.  

  • Lack of contextualisation: Progress 8 does not adequately take into account factors like socio-economic background, cultural capital, or access to resources which significantly impact student engagement and performance in sociology.  

  • Overemphasis on standardised testing: Relying on standardized tests to measure progress in sociology can narrow the assessment to quantifiable elements, potentially overlooking important qualitative aspects of sociological understanding, like critical analysis and complex argumentation.  

  • Potential for bias against certain student groups: Schools with a higher proportion of students from disadvantaged backgrounds may appear to have lower Progress 8 scores in sociology, even if they are making good progress in the subject, due to the limitations of the measure.  

  • Neglect of key sociological concepts: Progress 8 may not effectively assess the development of essential sociological concepts like social stratification, power dynamics, and social change, which are central to the discipline. 

• Attainment 8:  

  • Lack of contextualisation: Progress 8 primarily relies on a student's prior attainment at Key Stage 2, not considering other factors like socioeconomic background or school environment, which can significantly impact student achievement and make comparisons between schools with different student populations unfair.  

  • Student mobility: If students transfer schools during their secondary education, their progress may not be fully reflected in the Progress 8 score as the calculation only considers their final school.  

  • Narrowing the curriculum: Schools might prioritise subjects included in the Progress 8 calculation, potentially neglecting other important areas of learning that are not assessed.  

  • Impact on target setting: The relative nature of Progress 8 can make it difficult for schools to set clear and specific targets for individual students.  

  • Ignoring student characteristics: Progress 8 does not account for factors like learning disabilities, language barriers, or personal circumstances that can influence student achievement.  

  • Potential for gaming the system: Schools may engage in practices like "off-rolling" where they remove students with lower potential from their rolls to artificially inflate their Progress 8 score. 

•  University Acceptances:  

  • Socioeconomic bias: Students from privileged backgrounds may have greater access to resources and support systems that facilitate university applications, leading to higher acceptance rates even if their academic performance is similar to students from disadvantaged backgrounds.  

  • University selectivity: Acceptance to a highly selective university doesn't necessarily reflect a student's absolute academic ability, but rather their ability to navigate the admissions process and potentially their social capital.  

  • Application strategies: Some students may be more strategic in their university applications, choosing institutions where they are more likely to be accepted, which can skew the data on educational achievement.  

  • Differential access to information: Students from certain backgrounds may not have the same access to information about universities and application processes, impacting their ability to apply to competitive institutions.  

  • Focus on attainment over quality of education: Simply getting accepted to a university doesn't necessarily reflect the quality of education received or the individual's actual learning outcomes.  

  • Ignoring other factors contributing to achievement: Important aspects of educational achievement like standardised test scores, high school grades, and participation in extracurricular activities can be overlooked when only considering university acceptances.