Is household income a reliable measure when assessing educational outcomes? A Jigsaw of two datasets (Next Steps and National Pupil Database) for understanding indicators of disadvantage

IF 1.5 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH International Journal of Research & Method in Education Pub Date : 2022-07-04 DOI:10.1080/1743727X.2022.2094359
N. Siddiqui, S. Gorard
{"title":"Is household income a reliable measure when assessing educational outcomes? A Jigsaw of two datasets (Next Steps and National Pupil Database) for understanding indicators of disadvantage","authors":"N. Siddiqui, S. Gorard","doi":"10.1080/1743727X.2022.2094359","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Robust indicators are important for identifying disadvantaged pupils in education, and for ensuring that they are rightly receiving relevant state-funded assistance. This paper compares the quality and completeness of data from England on student eligibility for free school meals (FSM) based on an administrative census, with more all-encompassing household income measures, from a smaller sample of young people. The first measure comes from the National Pupil Database (NPD), and the second from Next Steps (NS). The two datasets are linked at the individual student level. In this restricted group, FSM data is more complete (97%) than household income (47%). The bias created by missing data on income in NS calls into question its more general usefulness for analysts. FSM cannot be read neatly from income, such as referring to an income below a certain level, and vice versa. Many reportedly low-income children are not listed as FSM-eligible. However, the two values are linked, while each also provides unique information. Both measures predict attainment at school, to some extent. The paper concludes that FSM is the more practical measure at present, but also considers how access to limited income data could be made more widespread while maintaining individual data rights.","PeriodicalId":51655,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Research & Method in Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Research & Method in Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2022.2094359","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

ABSTRACT Robust indicators are important for identifying disadvantaged pupils in education, and for ensuring that they are rightly receiving relevant state-funded assistance. This paper compares the quality and completeness of data from England on student eligibility for free school meals (FSM) based on an administrative census, with more all-encompassing household income measures, from a smaller sample of young people. The first measure comes from the National Pupil Database (NPD), and the second from Next Steps (NS). The two datasets are linked at the individual student level. In this restricted group, FSM data is more complete (97%) than household income (47%). The bias created by missing data on income in NS calls into question its more general usefulness for analysts. FSM cannot be read neatly from income, such as referring to an income below a certain level, and vice versa. Many reportedly low-income children are not listed as FSM-eligible. However, the two values are linked, while each also provides unique information. Both measures predict attainment at school, to some extent. The paper concludes that FSM is the more practical measure at present, but also considers how access to limited income data could be made more widespread while maintaining individual data rights.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在评估教育成果时,家庭收入是一个可靠的衡量标准吗?了解劣势指标的两个数据集(下一步和国家学生数据库)的拼图
摘要强有力的指标对于识别教育中的弱势学生以及确保他们正确地获得国家资助的相关援助非常重要。本文比较了英国基于行政人口普查的学生免费学校餐资格数据的质量和完整性,以及来自较小样本的更全面的家庭收入衡量标准。第一项测量来自国家学生数据库(NPD),第二项来自下一步(NS)。这两个数据集在单个学生层面上是链接的。在这个受限制的群体中,FSM数据(97%)比家庭收入(47%)更完整。NS中收入数据缺失造成的偏见让人质疑其对分析师更普遍的有用性。FSM不能从收入中清晰地解读,例如指低于某一水平的收入,反之亦然。据报道,许多低收入儿童没有被列为密克罗尼西亚联邦的合格儿童。但是,这两个值是链接的,同时每个值还提供唯一的信息。在某种程度上,这两项指标都可以预测在校成绩。论文得出结论,FSM是目前更实际的措施,但也考虑了如何在维护个人数据权利的同时,更广泛地访问有限收入数据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
5.00%
发文量
48
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Research & Method in Education is an interdisciplinary, peer-reviewed journal that draws contributions from a wide community of international researchers. Contributions are expected to develop and further international discourse in educational research with a particular focus on method and methodological issues. The journal welcomes papers engaging with methods from within a qualitative or quantitative framework, or from frameworks which cut across and or challenge this duality. Papers should not solely focus on the practice of education; there must be a contribution to methodology. International Journal of Research & Method in Education is committed to publishing scholarly research that discusses conceptual, theoretical and methodological issues, provides evidence, support for or informed critique of unusual or new methodologies within educational research and provides innovative, new perspectives and examinations of key research findings. The journal’s enthusiasm to foster debate is also recognised in a keenness to include engaged, thought-provoking response papers to previously published articles. The journal is also interested in papers that discuss issues in the teaching of research methods for educational researchers. Contributors to International Journal of Research & Method in Education should take care to communicate their findings or arguments in a succinct, accessible manner to an international readership of researchers, policy-makers and practitioners from a range of disciplines including but not limited to philosophy, sociology, economics, psychology, and history of education. The Co-Editors welcome suggested topics for future Special Issues. Initial ideas should be discussed by email with the Co-Editors before a formal proposal is submitted for consideration.
期刊最新文献
Creating effective research partnerships with rural communities: a community culture framework Socially desirable resources and activities – evaluation of a new scale for the separate measurement of economic and cultural capital in educational research Catalyzing teacher moves in small-group problem solving: a quantitative discourse analysis Qualitative research during the COVID19 pandemic: the impact of remote research on the collaborative production of methodological knowledge Teacher reflection as a research method: using phenomenology to reflect on classroom events
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1