Department of Education

Gillian Hampden-Thompson, Education, University of YorkGill Main, Social Policy, University of York

EDUCATIONAL OUTCOME INDICATORS OF YOUNG PEOPLE IN ENGLAND BY FAMILY STRUCTURE

Department of Education

LSYPE DATAOverview of Data

Longitudinal Study of Young People in England (LSYPE)/Next Steps

Directly managed by the Department for Education’s (DFE)

Current contractor is BMRB Social Research (previously Isop MORI)

Large-scale longitudinal study of young people in England with the first wave collected in 2004

First wave participants were in year 9 (13/14 years of age)

Department of Education

LSYPE DATAOverview of Data

Collected annually and includes information on various aspects of young people’s lives (family background, socio-economic status, attitudes, experiences and behaviours etc.)

Wave 1 approximately 16,000 participants (wave 6 10,000)

Seven waves of collection in which waves 1 to 4 included data collection from young person and parent/guardian.

Department of Education

LSYPE DATAOverview of Data

Waves 1 to 3 were face-to-face interviews

The LYPSE data can be linked to the National Pupil Database (NPD)

These data sources provide a unique opportunity to

construct indicators of young people’s educational achievement, attainment, and persistence overtime

Department of Education

FAMILY STRU

CTURE AN

D EDU

CATION

Overview of Research

Family structure is an important contributor to young people’s well being across a range of social and economic outcomesIn education, young people living in non-intact families (e.g., lone-parent and guardian families) are less academically successful than their peers who reside in households in which both parents live togetherBehind this generalisation, there are notable differences across different family structures. Furthermore, family structure is not a fixed characteristic and a child’s living arrangements are subject to change overtime.

Department of Education

MEASU

RING EDU

CATION

AL O

UTCO

MES

Outcome Measures

Achievement/Attainment

Key Stage 3 scores (NPD data)

GCSE grades (NPD data)

Participation in post-16 education/dropping out (LYSPE)

In addition,

Post-16 aspirations for further study (LSYPE)

Department of Education

MEASU

RING FAM

ILY STRUCTU

RE

Married co

uple family

Cohabiting couple fa

mily

Lone-m

other family

Lone-fa

ther family

No-parent (guardian) fa

...

Change in fa

mily st

ructure

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

67

8

22

2 1

68

8

21

2 1

67

8

22

2 1

63

4

18

1 1

13

2004 2005 2006 2004-2006

The percentage of youths residing in various family structures in 2004, 2005, 2006 and between 2004 and 2006 (n=11,449).

Department of Education

SUM

MARY

Differences by family structure

The majority of youth’s resided in a married family between 2004 to 2006

Around one-fifth of youths resided in a lone-mother household between 2004 to 2006

13 percent of youths experienced a change in their family structure between 2004 to 2006

Department of Education

KEY STAGE 3 SCORES

Married couple fam-ily

Cohabiting couple family

Lone-mother family Lone-father family No-parent (guardian) family

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

35.3 33.2 32.6 31.929.0

Mean KS 3 average point score percentage for youths (year 9) residing in various family structures: 2004.

Department of Education

GCSE POIN

T SCORE

Mean GCSE point score percentage for youths (year 11) residing in various family structures: 2006.

Married co

uple family

Cohabiting couple fa

mily

Lone-m

other family

Lone-fa

ther family

No-parent (guardian) fa

mily

Changing family

structu

re0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

329292 278 271 250

274

Department of Education

GCSE POIN

T SCORE

Percentage of youths achieving 5 GCSEs at A-C grade by family structure: 2006.

Married co

uple family

Cohabiting couple fa

mily

Lone-m

other family

Lone-fa

ther family

No-parent (guardian) fa

mily

Changing family

structu

re0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

70.5

56.2 51.3 46.7 47.4 48.6

Department of Education

SUM

MARY

Differences in achievement scores by family structure

Youths in married households achieved higher KS3 scores and achieved better GCSE qualifications than other family structures

Youths in cohabiting households achieved higher KS3 scores and achieved better GCSE qualifications than those in lone parent, no-parent, and changing households

Similarities in KS scores and GCSE achievement for youths residing in lone-mother households and those residing in a household that has changed its structure.

Department of Education

POST-16 EDU

CATION

ASPIRATION

SPercentage distribution of young person’s reported post-16 intentions by family structure: 2006.

Married couple family

Cohabiting couple family

Lone-mother family

Lone-father family

No-parent (guardian) family

Changing family structure

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

91

87.8

89.3

83.9

85.5

82.4

8.8

11.9

10.3

13.7

14.5

16.5

0.2

0.2

0.4

2.4

0

1.2

Stay on in full time education Leave full-time education Leave full time education but return later

Department of Education

SCHOO

L PERSISTENCE/DRO

PPING

OU

T

All

Married couple family

Cohabiting couple family

Lone-mother family

Lone-father family

No-parent (guardian) family

Changing family structure

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

21.3

18.1

27.0

24.4

31.6

28.6

28.2

25.3

25.3

22.4

25.8

22.2

19.6

26.6

24.2

26.2

27.5

20.2

24.8

17.9

19.2

29.2

30.4

23.2

29.6

21.4

33.9

26.1

Drop out at 16 Drop out at 17 Drop out at 18 Still in education

Percentage distribution of school persistence/dropping out by family structure: 2008.

Department of Education

INTEN

TION

S VERSUS REALITY

Married co

uple family

Cohabiting couple fa

mily

Lone-m

other family

Lone-fa

ther family

No-parent (guardian) fa

mily

Changing family

structu

re0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

10091.0

87.8 89.383.9 85.5

82.4

30.4

23.229.6

21.4

33.9

26.1

Intention in 2006 Reality in 2008

Percentage of youth’s reporting they would stay on in fulltime education in 2006 and their educational status in 2008 by family structure: 2006 and 2008.

Department of Education

MU

LTIVARIATE ANALYSIS

(LOGISTIC)

Factors associated with dropping out of education

Significant factors associated with dropping out at 16: 1. Family structure - those residing in cohabiting

families and changing family structures more likely to drop out than those with married parents

2. Ethnicity - all ethnicities less likely to drop out than white young people

3. Siblings - those with two, three or four siblings more likely to drop out than those with none

4. Family income - those in upper and middle income quartiles less likely to drop out than those in lowest income quartile

Department of Education

MU

LTIVARIATE ANALYSIS

(LOGISTIC)

Factors associated with dropping out of education

Significant factors associated with dropping out at 17:

1. Family structure - those in a changing family structure more likely to drop out than those with married parents

2. Ethnicity - Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi and black Caribbean youths less likely to drop out than white youths

3. Family income - those in lower middle and highest income quartiles less likely than those in lowest income quartile to drop out

Department of Education

MU

LTIVARIATE ANALYSIS

(LOGISTIC)

Factors associated with dropping out of education

Significant factors associated with dropping out at 18: 1. Ethnicity - Pakistani, black Caribbean and black

African youths less likely than white youths to drop out

2. Family income - those in middle or highest income quartiles more likely than those in lowest income quartile to drop out

Note: Family structure is not a significant factor for drop out at 18.

Department of Education

MU

LTIVARIATE ANALYSIS

(LOGISTIC)

Factors associated with going to university

Significant factors for going to university:

1. Family structure - those in cohabiting or changing family structures less likely than those with married parents to go on to university

2. Ethnicity - all groups other than black Caribbean more likely than white youths to go on to university

3. Siblings - those with three or four siblings less likely than those with none to go on to university

4. Family income - odds of being in university increases with income

Department of Education

CON

CLUSIO

NS

1. LSYPE is a rich source of data

2. Young people experience changes to their family structure. In the case of this analysis, 13 percent of youths experienced a change during a two year period. The educational impact of this change in family structure requires further investigation.

3. Young people’s family composition is associated with educational outcomes (i.e., scores on national tests and examinations) and likelihood of dropping out of education and likelihood of attending university

Department of Education

CON

CLUSIO

NS

4. There is a disconnect between young people’s aspirations for further education and their actual reality. Differences between aspirations for further study and actions differed across family structures.

5. Family structure was still a significant factor after controlling for ethnicity, family income, and sibling size.

6. Further analysis can be completed with the LSYPE data to see what reasons young people gave for not continuing in further and higher education.