Suchergebnisse

1. What is disadvantage in education? -- 2. The quality of existing datasets -- 3. The quality of available evidence -- 4. The role of school intakes -- 5. The role of schools -- 6. The role of teachers -- 7. The wider outcomes of schooling -- 8. Post-school outcomes -- 9. Targeted approaches -- 10. The role of individuals -- 11. The role of 'parents' -- 12. The way forward in overcoming educational disadvantage.

Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to provide a response to Goldstein et al.'s (2017) attempted rebuttal of the authors' prior paper in this journal (See and Gorard 2015).


Design/methodology/approach
The prior paper reported a systematic review of interventions to involve engaging parents more in their children's education in order to raise school attainment. Goldstein et al. make a large number of unwarranted claims about its quality. They reproach the authors for using reports of unpublished evidence, for mis-labelling or mis-describing studies, and for denigrating studies by labelling them as "bad". The authors were very surprised when first alerted to this response and went back to look at all of the research reports that Goldstein et al. claimed the authors mis-represented in the authors' assessment.


Findings
The authors found that the Goldstein et al. claims are false and based on such a poor understanding of how evidence is reviewed that it was strange to see their paper in this journal.


Originality/value
In the authors' reply, they look first at why unpublished material must be included in a review, and why the outlet for publication is not relevant, then at appropriate designs for causal questions, and at the confusion in Goldstein et al. between evaluation quality and intervention impact. The authors look at many examples where the confusion leads to Goldstein et al. making incorrect assertions about the authors' paper, in order to make the point that their whole idea of how to conduct a systematic review is wrong.

Longitudinal social surveys are widely used to understand which factors enable or constrain access to higher education. One such data resource is the Next Steps survey comprising an initial sample of 16,122 pupils aged 13-14 attending English state and private schools in 2004, with follow up annually to age 19-20 and a further survey at age 25. The Next Steps data is a potentially rich resource for studying inequalities of access to higher education. It contains a wealth of information about pupils' social background characteristics - including household income, parental education, parental social class, housing tenure and family composition - as well as longitudinal data on aspirations, choices and outcomes in relation to education. However, as with many longitudinal social surveys, Next Steps suffers from a substantial amount of missing data due to item non-response and sample attrition which may seriously compromise the reliability of research findings. Helpfully, Next Steps data has been linked with more robust administrative data from the National Pupil Database (NPD), which contains a more limited range of social background variables, but has comparatively little in the way of missing data due to item non-response or attrition. We analyse these linked datasets to assess the implications of missing data for the reliability of Next Steps. We show that item non-response in Next Steps biases the apparent socioeconomic composition of the Next Steps sample upwards, and that this bias is exacerbated by sample attrition since Next Steps participants from less advantaged social backgrounds are more likely to drop out of the study. Moreover, by the time it is possible to measure access to higher education, the socioeconomic background variables in Next Steps are shown to have very little explanatory power after controlling for the social background and educational attainment variables contained in the NPD. Given these findings, we argue that longitudinal social surveys with much missing data are only reliable sources of data on access to higher education if they can be linked effectively with more robust administrative data sources. This then raises the question - why not just use the more robust datasets?

It is acknowledged that communication researchers need to develop more sophisticated and nuanced accounts of the social and individual dynamics of the internet in everyday life. Based on a household survey of 1001 adults with 100 in-depth follow-up interviews, the present article explores people's (non)use of the internet by asking: (1) who is (and who is not) using the internet in everyday life; (2) for what purposes people are using the internet and how are they developing their own constructions of the internet; and (3) how these understandings and uses of the internet are shaped by existing socioeconomic factors and circumstances. From this basis the article goes on to identify the key issues underlying adults' (non)use of the internet in terms of interest, relevance, mediation of significant others and the role of household dynamics. It also considers, from this basis, how non-users may be encouraged to make use of the internet.

Es ist allgemein anerkannt, dass die Kommunikationswissenschaft ausgeklügeltere und differenziertere Instrumente entwickeln muss, um die soziale und gesellschaftliche Dynamik, die das Internet im täglichen Leben auslöst, zu beschreiben. Der Beitrag untersucht auf der Basis einer Haushaltsbefragung von 1001 Erwachsenen, die von 100 Tiefeninterviews nachbereitet wurde, die (Nicht-)Nutzung des Internets mittels folgender Fragestellungen: (1) Wer nutzt (und wer nutzt nicht) das Internet im täglichen Leben? (2) Zu welchen Zwecken nutzen Menschen das Internet und wie entwickeln sie ihre eigenen Konstruktionen des Netzes? (3) Wie wird dieses Verständnis und der Gebrauch des Internets durch sozioökonomische Faktoren und Umstände beeinflusst? Auf dieser Grundlage werden die Kernfragen, die der Nutzung oder Nichtnutzung des Internets zugrunde liegen, identifiziert. Die Schlüsselbegriffe lauten: Interesse, Relevanz, Vermittlung signifikant anderer Erfahrungen und die Rolle des Kräftespiels im häuslichen Alltag. Darüber hinaus werden Vorschläge entwickelt, wie man Nicht-Nutzer zur Nutzung des Internets ermutigen kann. (UNübers.)

Examines patterns of social exclusion in the compulsory school system of England and Wales. Suggests that the weakening of local government control of the school system from the 1980s onwards led to a very real fear that market forces would lead to increased polarisation of school intakes and results in terms of social background. Lists key policy changes and early research relevant to the increased use of market forces in compulsory education. Describes the methods used to investigate the impact of this policy change on the secondary school system. Summarises the findings before presenting some tentative explanations and conclusion. States that the Local Education Authority still have a significant role to play.

Around the world, governments, charities, and other bodies are concerned with improving education, especially for the lowest-attaining and most disadvantaged students. Making Schools Better for Disadvantaged Students presents detailed research into how poverty affects student segregation and underachievement in schools. It contains the first ever large-scale evaluation of how funding can best be used to lower the poverty attainment gap for disadvantaged students. Drawing on a wealth of empirical research from England, India, and Pakistan as well as worldwide reviews of relevant studies, the book presents high-quality evidence on the impact of funding policy initiatives, such as the Pupil Premium funding in England, and the many variations of similar schemes worldwide. It analyses education measures which have been put in place and discusses ways in which these can be used efficiently and fairly to allocate funding to students who are persistently at risk of underachievement. The book is unique in synthesising many forms of evidence from around the world and finding a definition of educational disadvantage that can be used fairly across different contexts. Offering significant implications for ways to improve educational outcomes for disadvantaged students, the book will be essential reading for students of education policy, sociology of education and educational practices, and all researchers, school leaders, and policy-makers working in this area.