Socio-economic inequality and education

Inequality in education has always been a central theme of the Oxford Review of Education. The very first issue of the journal, in March 1975, directly addressed the issue of ‘Equality and education’, presenting eight essays from widely read authors of the time, including James Coleman, and from fields such as sociology, psychology, child development and education. In 1991, to mark the 50^th issue of the journal (Vol 17, Issue 2), there was a Special Issue ‘Equality and education revisited’, inviting six of the contributors from the first issue to reflect on changes over the intervening 15 years. More recently, on the 40^th anniversary of its founding, the journal published a Special Issue on ‘Inequality and education: continuing the debate’ (Vol 40, Issue 6), with six invited papers spanning topics from families and pre-schools to higher education and labour market outcomes.

Unlike the above and other Special Issues, the current issue is not a set of specially commissioned papers. In preparing this thematic issue, we looked through those papers that had already been published online but not yet brought together into an issue. Unsurprisingly, given the history of the journal as outlined above, a significant proportion of these papers considered issues of equality and inequality in educational outcomes. From among these papers, I have selected eight papers which I feel span the range of phases from early years to higher education, cover a range of national contexts, include some that attempt to identify drivers and pathways to unequal educational outcomes, as well as others that consider policies or interventions intended to address educational disadvantage.

In the first paper, Chris Millward, the first Director for Fair Access and Participation at the Office for Students (OfS) in England, reflects on progress towards equalising opportunity in the 15 years between the initial establishment of an access regulator in 2006 and 2021. The proportion of young people entering higher education increased to over 50% of the age 18–30 cohort, but inequalities in relation to under-represented groups narrowed only slightly. The author concludes that, in competitive systems where universities have high autonomy, stronger legislation is needed in order for universities to prioritise more equitable outcomes ahead of other imperatives.

The second paper, by Titan, Otoiu, Paraschiv & Manea, again focusses on access to higher education, but this time in the context of Romania. The Romanian Ministry of Education has earmarked 2,000 places for baccalaureate holders from rural areas of the country. The authors report that, while the policy manages to fulfill the goal of admitting most eligible rural students, there are questions about equity with regard to disadvantaged students from urban areas and highlights the complexity and potential trade-offs involved in earmarking admission places.

A major determinant of entry to higher education is the qualifications young people achieve by the end of compulsory full-time education, often around the age of 15/16 years, at least in Europe. The next three papers deal with inequality at this secondary stage of education, in a range of national contexts. Kaye analyses data from two nationally representative samples of students from England, born some 10 years apart, and evaluate the associations of six indicators of socioeconomic disadvantage with students’ success in examinations at age 15/16. He demonstrates the particular importance of some indicators, but more importantly that these indicators tend to cluster, and it is exposure to multiple risk factors that has the most negative association with achievement, so that students exposed to three or more risks attain outcomes close to one standard deviation below their more advantaged peers. They also undertake longitudinal analyses that demonstrate that, although the socioeconomic status (SES) gap widens as young people progress age 11–16, the associations with disadvantage were already clear in relation to attainment at age 11. The policy implication is that intervention needs to be underway well before pupils enter secondary school.

Tan also explores educational outcomes at age 15/16, using PISA 2015 and focusing on science achievement with a nationally representative sample of young people from Hong Kong. In particular, the author contrasts the associations between measures of SES, parents’ views on science, students’ epistemological beliefs, interest and self-efficacy in science, school-level instructional variables and science achievement. The authors use structural equation modelling (SEM) to calculate both direct and indirect associations between SES and science achievement, and argue that students’ epistemological beliefs, interest and self-efficacy in science are themselves strongly patterned by SES, so (i) the total effect of SES is higher than would be estimated from the direct effects alone, and (ii) while attitudes and beliefs may be more malleable than SES, they may be much more constrained by social stratification than the ‘positive psychology’ movement might suggest. The authors conclude that schools must work closely with parents to impact on students’ attitudes and beliefs.

Parvez reports an analysis of the mathematics achievement gaps at age 15/16 and age 19/20 using data from children in the Indian component of the Young Lives Survey. They contrast the performance of the most successful students and the rest in terms of mathematics achievement, and report that the type of school attended (private vs. public), mothers’ education, and the time students can allocate to studying when not in school are the major drivers of the achievement gap at age 15/16. Because these factors allow young people to remain in education post-16, the major driver of the gap at age 19/20 is the student’s total years of schooling. The policy implication is that trying to incentivise disadvantaged young people to remain in schooling at age 16 may be valuable, but intervening in their early lives should be the priority.

The above three studies point to the importance of intervention in primary schools, as the inequalities observed at the end of compulsory schooling are typically already observable at the end of primary school. Indeed, much research has demonstrated socio-economic inequalities are large and apparent on- entry to formal schooling, and indeed are strong at age 3 before schooling has even started (e.g. Sylva, 2014). The sixth paper, by Tammy Campbell, adds a further dimension to these findings, using national data to show how faith schools in England admit proportionately fewer young children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) and fewer children from low-income families (those entitled to a Free School Meal [FSM]), than non-faith schools. SEND identified in pre-school or with a formal legal need, and entitlement to FSM in the first (Reception) year, are used to minimise endogenous effects. Effects are not large; a child with SEND and FSM is estimated to have a 22% chance of attending a faith school, compared to a 29% chance for a child without free school meals or SEND. Nevertheless, Campbell suggests that, in the quasi-marketised education system in England, the policy of ‘parental choice’ results in faith schools becoming hubs of relative advantage, somewhat of a contrast to their original mission, given they were initially established for the education of the poor.

The last two papers consider more generic issues. Spruyt, Van Droogenbroeck and Kavadias observe that in modern schooled societies, education is not only linked to social mobility but also to the perceived fairness of mobility chances, i.e. that education is seen as an authoritative and highly legitimate form of social stratification. They use the European Quality of Life Survey (n = 23,073 across 30 countries) to ask whether those who hold lower educational qualifications, have fewer material possessions, or are less satisfied with their own education differ from their more advantaged peers in how they view the quality, fairness, and level of corruption in their education systems. While the results are sometimes conflicting, for example, material deprivation and higher education seem to pull in opposite directions, the analysis is important in considering questions of perceived legitimacy in social stratification, and asking who will support policies aimed at counteracting social reproduction in and through education?

In the final paper, Smeplass, Rapp and Corral-Grandos consider education inequality in three Nordic countries (Sweden, Norway and Finland) widely lauded as social democratic welfare states. The authors contend that national and local policies, particularly in relation to domains such as housing, the spatial segregation of immigrant communities, free school choice and educational inclusion, act to inhibit Nordic countries from their ambitious policy goals of ensuring equity in education.

In pulling these eight articles together into a thematic issue, the intention is to raise the profile and impact of the research concerned. The thematic issue also highlights the continuing need to focus on inequality in education, and particularly on the central role of socio-economic factors as one of the most fundamental drivers of unequal educational outcomes (Strand, 2022). This issue demonstrates that, 50 years since its inception, the Oxford Review of Education continues to be a vibrant source for cutting-edge research in this important area.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Steve Strand

Steve Strand is Professor of Education at the University of Oxford. He is one of the three editors of the Oxford Review of Education.