Does What You Study at Age 14-16 Matter for Educational Transitions Post-16?

Autor/inn/en	Moulton, Vanessa; Sullivan, Alice; Henderson, Morag; Anders, Jake
Titel	Does What You Study at Age 14-16 Matter for Educational Transitions Post-16?
Quelle	In: Oxford Review of Education, 44 (2018) 1, S.94-117 (24 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Zusatzinformation	ORCID (Moulton, Vanessa) ORCID (Sullivan, Alice) ORCID (Henderson, Morag) ORCID (Anders, Jake)
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	0305-4985
DOI	10.1080/03054985.2018.1409975
Schlagwörter	Course Selection (Students); Prior Learning; Educational Attainment; Institutional Characteristics; Socioeconomic Background; Gender Differences; Ethnicity; Student Records; Outcomes of Education; Secondary School Students; Social Class; Longitudinal Studies; Performance Factors; Probability; College Bound Students; Foreign Countries; United Kingdom (England) + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Course selection; Student; Students; Kurswahl; Vorkenntnisse; Bildungsabschluss; Bildungsgut; Sozioökonomische Lage; Geschlechterkonflikt; Ethnizität; Schülerakte; Lernleistung; Schulerfolg; Sekundarschüler; Social classes; Soziale Klasse; Longitudinal study; Longitudinal method; Longitudinal methods; Längsschnittuntersuchung; Leistungsindikator; Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung; Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie; Ausland
Abstract	This paper considers whether subject choice at 14-16 influences post-16 transitions, taking into account prior academic attainment and school characteristics, and if so, whether this accounts for socioeconomic, gender, and ethnic differences in access to post-16 education. We consider post-16 progression to full-time education, A-levels, and studying two or more facilitating subjects at A-level. We use "Next Steps", a study of 16,000 people born in England in 1989-1990, linked to administrative education records (the National Pupil Database). We find that students pursuing an EBacc-eligible curriculum at 14-16 had a greater probability of progression to all post-16 educational outcomes, while the reverse was true for students taking an applied GCSE subject. Curriculum differences did not explain the social class differences in post-16 progression, but an academic curriculum was equally valuable for working-class as for middle-class pupils. Pursuing an EBacc-eligible curriculum particularly strongly increased the chances of girls and white young people staying in the educational pipeline, whereas applied subjects were particularly detrimental for girls. An EBacc-eligible curriculum at age 14-16 increased the chances of studying subjects preferred by Russell Group universities at A-level. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2020/1/01