DfE: Early identification of young people at risk of poor educational and labour market outcomes: the role of educational institutions

本研究试图回答以下问题：1.逃学、来自不太富裕的背景、家庭破裂和学生在学校经历的一系列其他因素是如何导致教育和劳动力市场（就业和收入）结果不佳的？2.当类似的学生参加不同的16岁后教育机构，如继续教育，第六形式学院或学校第六形式时，我们是否看到不同的影响（例如获得好工资的可能性）？如果一个年轻人在这些不同的机构中获得相同水平的资格，他们的前景会有什么不同吗？我们是否看到来自富裕和贫穷背景的儿童从16岁及以上起就做出非常不同的决定？3.我们能够在多大程度上准确地预测不同学生的就业和收入结果，使用他们在学校和大学的背景，学习和成就的所有信息？该项目的核心是分析和评估一半未接受大学教育的年轻人所遵循的教育和劳动力市场途径，从而为政府的社会流动议程做出贡献;大卫卡梅隆在2015年10月的会议演讲中强调了这一点，并将其作为政府的关键优先事项。这里提出的研究将是政府和社会流动委员会的主要兴趣，政府负责解决英国的社会流动性的不良记录。当我们谈论社会流动性，我们感兴趣的是在何种程度上出生于贫困家庭的孩子可以使高收入的工作和职业生涯的旅程。更一般地说，缺乏社会流动性是一种情况，即出生于贫困，富裕或介于两者之间的地方，意味着你可能会发现自己处于与父母相同的位置，无论你多么努力，无论你的天赋如何。不幸的是，近几十年来的证据表明，英国的社会流动性低于其他类似国家。我们将用于进行这项研究的行政数据是由政府部门定期收集的，这些部门负责征税（HMRC），处理失业支持（DWP），负责继续教育（BIS）和学校学习（DfE）。这是一个非常重要和有用的资源，因为它有可能克服我们在使用调查时面临的一些限制（尤其是我们观察相关人群中的所有人，而不仅仅是相对较小的样本）。然而，将这些数据集连接起来是一个复杂的过程，本项目的很大一部分将用于连接过程。除了找出逃学对年轻人在学校的表现有什么影响外，直到他们获得GCSE成绩的15岁（以及其他同等学历的结果）;我们将试图找出即使他们离开学校，这种逃学是否继续产生影响。再看另一个例子：我们将揭示弱势青年在多大程度上被视为做出了“坏”的选择，当他们在15岁时面临着一套良好的教育选择时，与他们面临同样选择的更弱势的同龄人相比。同样，这项研究将揭示16岁以上的年轻人所做的选择，他们来自更广泛的背景，我们看到他们在15岁时面临更有限的教育选择;以及这些选择与来自弱势背景的年轻人面临同样有限的选择有何不同。

This study attempts to answer the following questions:1. How do things like truancy, coming from a less affluent background, family breakdown and a range of other factors that pupils experience at school; lead to poor educational and labour market (employment and earnings) outcomes?2. Do we see different impacts (for instance on the likelihood of securing good wages) when similar students attend different post-16 educational institutions, such as Further Education, Sixth Form College or School Sixth Form? Does it make any difference to a young person's prospects if they achieve the same level of qualification in these different institutions; and do we see children from rich and poor backgrounds making very different decisions from age 16 and above?3. How accurately are we able to predict the employment and earnings outcomes for different students, using all the information on their background, learning and achievement in schools and colleges?At its heart the project seeks to analyse and assess the educational and labour market pathways followed by the half of young people who do not pursue university level education, and therefore contributes to the government's social mobility agenda; emphasised by David Cameron as a key priority for government in his Oct 2015 conference speech. The research proposed here will be of key interest to government and the Social Mobility Commission charged by the government to address Britain's poor record on social mobility.When we talk of social mobility, we are interested in the extent to which children born to poorer families can make the journey to high paid jobs and professional careers. More generally, a lack of social mobility is a situation where being born to poverty, riches or somewhere in between, means that you are likely to find yourself in the same position as your parents, no matter how hard you try and whatever your talents. Unfortunately, the evidence over recent decades has been that there is less social mobility in the UK than in other similar countries. The administrative data we will use to carry out this study is routinely collected by the parts of government that collect taxes (HMRC), deal with unemployment support (DWP), are responsible for Further Education (BIS) and learning in schools (DfE). This is a very important and useful resource, as it has the potential to overcome some of the limitations we face when using surveys (not least that we observe all people in the relevant populations, not just a relatively small sample). However, it is a complicated process to link these datasets and a large part of this project will be taken up with this process of linking.As well as finding out what impact truancy has on a young person's performance at school, up to the age of 15 when they get their GCSE results (and results from other equivalent qualifications); we will try to find out if this truancy continues to have an impact even when they leave school. Consider another example: we will shed new light on the extent to which disadvantaged young people, with a good set of educational choices facing them at age 15, are seen to make 'bad' choices; when compared to their more advantaged peers, facing the same choice sets. Similarly, the study will shed light on the choices made by young people from age 16+ who are from more advantaged backgrounds, who we see facing a more limited set of educational choices at 15; and how these differ to young people from disadvantaged backgrounds facing the same limited choices.