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

这项研究试图回答以下问题：1.逃学、来自不太富裕的家庭、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.当相似的学生进入16岁后的不同教育机构，如继续教育、六年级学院或学校六年级时，我们是否看到了不同的影响(例如，对获得好工资的可能性)？如果一个年轻人在这些不同的机构获得了相同的资质水平，这对他们的前景有什么影响吗？我们是否看到来自富裕家庭和贫穷家庭的孩子在16岁及以上的时候做出了非常不同的决定？3.我们能够多准确地预测不同学生的就业和收入结果，利用他们的背景、学习和在学校和大学的成就的所有信息？该项目的核心是分析和评估一半没有接受大学教育的年轻人所遵循的教育和劳动力市场路径，从而为政府的社会流动议程做出贡献。戴维·卡梅伦在2015年10月的会议演讲中强调，这是政府的关键优先事项。这里提出的这项研究将是政府和社会流动性委员会的关键利益所在，政府负责解决英国在社会流动性方面的糟糕记录。当我们谈论社会流动性时，我们感兴趣的是贫困家庭出生的孩子能够在多大程度上获得高薪工作和职业生涯。更广泛地说，缺乏社会流动性是指出生于贫穷、富裕或介于两者之间的家庭，意味着无论你多么努力，无论你有什么才能，你都可能会发现自己处于与父母相同的地位。不幸的是，近几十年的证据表明，英国的社会流动性低于其他类似国家。我们将用来进行这项研究的行政数据通常由负责收税(HMRC)、处理失业补助(DWP)、负责继续教育(BIS)和在学校学习(DFE)的政府部门收集。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，将这些数据集联系起来是一个复杂的过程，这个项目的很大一部分将被用来联系这个过程。除了找出逃学对年轻人在学校的表现有什么影响之外，我们还将试图找出，即使他们离开学校，逃学对他们在学校的表现有什么影响，直到他们15岁获得GCSE成绩(以及其他同等资质的结果)。再来看看另一个例子：我们将对处于不利地位的年轻人--他们15岁时面临着一系列良好的教育选择--在多大程度上被认为做出了“糟糕”的选择--与处于优势的同龄人相比，他们面临着同样的选择。同样，这项研究将揭示16岁以上的年轻人做出的选择，他们来自更有利的背景，我们看到他们在15岁时面临的教育选择更有限；以及这些选择与面临同样有限选择的弱势背景的年轻人有何不同。

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.