Education and inequality: introduction.

Green, Andy ; Mason, Geoff ; Unwin, Lorna 等

Disparities in educational opportunities and attainments contribute a great deal to social and economic inequalities in the UK and other developed countries. First, it is well known that educational attainments are strongly positively related to employment rates and to pay. For example, among persons aged 25-59 in the UK, about 89 per cent of university graduates were employed in 2009 compared to 78 per cent of those whose highest qualifications were classified to Level 2 of the National Vocational Qualifications (NVQ) framework. (1) At the same time average gross hourly earnings for 25-59 year old graduates in employment were roughly 80 per cent higher than for people in the same age group with NVQ Level 2 qualifications. (2)

Second, there is much evidence that education and training helps to determine individuals' life chances in terms of broader social outcomes. For example, more educated people tend to be healthier, to live longer, to commit less violent crimes and to experience a greater sense of well-being (McMahon, 1999; Schuller et al., 2001). They are also more likely to be tolerant of others and other cultures, to trust in other people and in institutions, to be active citizens, participating in their communities and engaged in politics (Putnam, 2000).

In cross-country comparisons, it is often the distribution of education and skills, rather than the average level of education, which is most highly correlated with social outcomes. Countries which produce more equal skills outcomes tend also to display greater income equality, higher rates of social mobility, better health and more social cohesion (Green, Preston and Janmaat, 2006; Wilkinson and Pickett, 2009). By contrast, in countries such as the UK, where the skills distribution is relatively wide, the resulting disparities in parental income and occupational status contribute to marked disparities in home learning environments in early childhood and subsequently to gaps in educational attainments in both primary and secondary education (Goodman and Gregg, 2010).

The impact of social backgrounds on secondary education attainments is strikingly illustrated by the 2009 results of the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) study which showed that, not only is the UK in the top third of OECD countries in terms of the spread of 15-year-olds' achievements in literacy but that a large part of this dispersion is explained by the impact of social background on student performance. The OECD produces a composite measure of student background characteristics, the index of Economic, Social and Cultural Status (ESCS), which includes the occupation and education level of parents and indicators of cultural and educational resources at home such as books. The so-called 'socio-economic gradient' predicts the increase in students' scores associated with a one unit increase in ESCS. The UK ranked eighth amongst 34 OECD countries on this measure of the impact of social background on student performance (figure 1).

Variations in school performance in the UK are also heavily determined by the social backgrounds of pupils. One of the factors that distinguishes more egalitarian school systems, such as those in the Nordic countries, is that their schools are relatively similar. The social mix of their students does not vary significantly, nor does their average performance. These factors are closely related since, in many countries, including the UK, who children learn with (the 'peer effect') has considerable influence on their achievements alongside the effect of their own social backgrounds (OECD, 2007; Mostafa, 2009). The UK has slightly below-average variation between schools compared to other OECD countries, as might be hoped given that pupil admissions in UK state schools are meant to be largely non-selective by ability. However, amongst the richer OECD countries with largely non-selective secondary schools, only Japan, Italy and Greece have larger performance differences between schools than is found in the UK. What is more, in the UK it is mostly the differences in schools' social intakes which account for how well they do, since these affect average student performance in schools both through the direct impact of students' backgrounds on their performance, and through the indirect 'peer effect' of fellow students from similar backgrounds. Across OECD countries 57 per cent of the performance difference between schools can be accounted for by social-intake differences. In Finland, Iceland and Norway the figure is less than 30 per cent. However, in the UK, the USA and New Zealand it is over 70 per cent (OECD, 2010, p. 185)

It is notable that disparities in early childhood learning environments and in primary and secondary education attainments have lasting effects on subsequent participation in different forms of education and training. In recent years UK policymakers have been greatly concerned about the limited participation in higher education of young people from relatively poor neighbourhoods. Analysis of linked administrative data suggests that the main barriers to higher education participation in poor neighbourhoods are not financial in nature but rather derive from weaknesses in academic attainments in secondary schools in those neighbourhoods (Chowdry et al., 2008).

These kinds of educational disparity are compounded by the fact that less well educated people are also less likely to engage in different forms of learning in later life. In 2009 some 31 per cent of all people aged 25-59 were engaged in formal education, job-related training or leisure education (Mason, 2010). Figure 2 shows that in that year, and throughout the preceding 16-year period, adult participation in all three learning activities was markedly lower for lower-qualified people than for people who were already well qualified. The gaps between qualification groups in adult participation in formal education and job-related training have narrowed somewhat over this period but remain substantial.

Through their effects on economic and social inequalities, such disparities in educational attainment and in lifelong learning activities may have profound effects on wider UK society. In this issue of the National Institute Economic Review, Andy Green, Germ Janmaat and Helen Cheng argue that inequality undermines

y social cohesion by reducing trust between different social groups and reducing the sense of common citizenship. Their analysis of World Values Survey data shows that liberal market economies such as the UK and US--with relatively high levels of income inequality have experienced sharp declines in social and political trust in the past 50 years while trust has increased in the more egalitarian Nordic countries.

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

Inter-country differences of this kind become particularly important when societies are placed under strain by economic recession, rising unemployment and fiscal austerity. Green, Janmaat and Cheng, in this Review, suggest that social cohesion in liberal societies like the UK depends heavily on widespread beliefs in individual opportunity and rewards based on merit. Social mobility is one indicator of how far opportunities are available to all and, as shown by Esping-Andersen (2005), levels of mobility across countries correlate strongly with levels of income equality. If unemployment and cuts in public spending fall unequally on different groups and increase inequalities further, this could reduce opportunity and mobility, thus exacerbating the decline in trust and jeopardising social cohesion.

As is well known, the 2008-9 recession in the UK has had particularly adverse effects on younger age groups. Some of the main reasons for this are delineated by David Bell and David Blanchflower in the second article in this issue of the Review. In contrast to previous recessions in the 1980s and 1990s, much of the labour market adjustment during the recent recession took the form of reductions in hours worked rather than in jobs lost. Since older workers typically possess more firm- and occupation-specific human capital than do less experienced younger workers, and older workers are also more expensive to lay off, the burden of this adjustment fell disproportionately on younger workers. At the same time prospective new entrants to the labour force are less likely to find jobs at a time of slow growth in new recruitment.

As a result unemployment rates are substantially higher among younger age groups than they are among older members of the workforce. In addition Bell and Blanchflower report evidence of significant levels of under-employment among younger age groups which takes the form of working fewer hours than they would prefer. Young people with relatively low levels of education are particularly disadvantaged.

In the past 20-25 years one largely positive development in UK society has been the change from an elite system of higher education to one of mass higher education. This development met a pent-up demand for higher education among individuals and employer demand for graduate-level skills seems to have largely matched the growth in supply over this period since average returns to graduate education have held up fairly well (Machin, 2003; Walker and Zhu, 2008). However, evidence is now accumulating of a widening dispersion of returns around the average graduate salary level, with much lower earnings for graduates who regard themselves as 'overqualified' for the jobs they hold (Green and Zhu, 2010).

Inequalities between graduates who attend different types of higher education institution feature strongly in the third article in this Review in which Martin Carnoy assesses the relationship between higher education growth and income distribution. He suggests that, contrary to widespread beliefs, the mass expansion of higher education may in some circumstances contribute to or coexist with greater income inequality. Drawing primarily on data from developing countries, he identifies some key mechanisms by which this may occur.

One of these mechanisms is rising returns to university education relative to other levels of education which tend to widen income dispersion even when rising participation in higher education is helping to narrow the distribution of educational qualifications. Another is disparities between different types of university in average public spending per student. Carnoy argues that inequality may be exacerbated if higher education growth is largely confined to low-cost institutions which do not provide the same opportunities for later career development and salary growth for graduates as do elite universities. This observation fits with UK evidence which has found that, after controlling for a number of university- and student-level characteristics, average expenditure per student is significantly and positively related to graduate earnings (Hussain, McNally and Telhaj, 2009).

Taken together, these three papers lead to several conclusions which are relevant to the UK at a time when education is exposed to cuts or limited growth in public spending. The evidence they present suggests that, if current disparities in educational opportunities and attainments are allowed to persist, they will continue to contribute to economic and social inequality and this is likely to reduce the willingness of disadvantaged groups to believe that UK society offers opportunities and security for all its citizens. Young people are particularly susceptible to disadvantage in the form of unemployment and under-employment, and even many young university graduates face uncertain prospects in the labour market. The latter issue can only add to university students' unwillingness to pay much more for higher education than was expected of previous generations.

DOI: 10.1177/0027950111401139

REFERENCES

Chowdry, H., Crawford, C., Dearden, L., Goodman, A. and Vignoles, A. (2008), 'Widening participation in higher education: analysis using linked administrative data', Report R69, London, Institute for Fiscal Studies.

Dorsett, R., Lui, S. and Weale, M. (2010), 'Economic benefits of lifelong learning', Research Paper 13, London, Centre for Learning and Life Chances in Knowledge Economies and Societies (LLAKES).

Esping-Andersen, G. (2005), 'Inequality of incomes and opportunities', in Giddens, A. and Diamond, P. (eds), The New Egalitarianism, Cambridge, Polity Press.

Goodman, A. and Gregg, P. (2010), Poorer Children's Educational Attainment." How Important are Attitudes and Behaviour?, London, Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Green, A., Preston, J. and Janmaat, G. (2006), Education, Equality and Social Cohesion, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan.

Green, F. and Zhu, Y. (2010), 'Overqualification, job dissatisfaction and increasing dispersion in the returns to graduate education', Oxford Economic Papers, 62(4), pp. 715-39.

Hussain, I., McNally, S. and Telhaj, S. (2009), 'University quality and graduate wages in the UK', Discussion Paper 99, London, Centre for Economics of Education.

Machin, S. (2003), 'Wage inequality since 1975', in R. Dickens, R., Gregg, P. and Wadsworth, J. (eds), The Labour Market under New Labour, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan.

Mason, G. (2010), 'Adult learning in decline? Recent evidence at UK national and city-region level', Research Paper 15, London, Centre for Learning and Life Chances in Knowledge Economies and Societies (LLAKES).

McIntosh, S. (2006), 'Further analysis of the returns to academic and vocational qualifications', Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 68(2), pp. 225-51.

McMahon, W. (1999), Education and Development, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Mostafa, T. (2009), 'The anatomy of inequalities in educational achievements: an international investigation of the effects of stratification', Research Paper 4, Centre for Learning and Life Chances in Knowledge Economies and Societies (LLAKES).

OECD (2007), PISA 2006: Science Competences in Tomorrow's World, Paris, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

--(2010), PISA 2009 Results: Overcoming Social Background: Equity in Learning Opportunities and Outcomes. Vol. II, Paris, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Putnam, R. (2000), Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, New York, Simon and Schuster.

Schuller, T., Bynner, J., Green, A., Blackwell, L., Hammond, C. and Preston, J. (2001), Modelling and Measuring the Wider Benefits of Learning, London, Centre for the Wider Benefits of Learning, Institute of Education.

Walker, I. and Zhu, Y. (2008), 'The college wage premium and the expansion of higher education in the UK', Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 110, pp. 695-709.

Wilkinson, R. and Pickett, K. (2009), The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost always Do Better, London, Allen Lane.

NOTES

(1) NVQ Level 2 qualifications include GCSE grade A-C, O level, CSE grade one and equivalent Scottish awards, and City & Guilds awards below craft level. See notes to figure 2 for further details.

(2) Population-weighted employment and pay estimates derived from Labour Force Survey, April-June 2009. For further information on employment rates by qualification level, see Dorsett, Lui and Weale (2010); for analysis of wage returns to qualifications, see McIntosh (2006).

Andy Green, * Geoff Mason ** and Loma Unwin *

* Institute of Education, University of London, and ESRC Centre for Learning and Life Chances in Knowledge Economies and Societies (LLAKES). e-mail: Andy.Green@ioe.ac.uk. **NIESR. e-mail: g.mason@niesr.ac.uk.

Figure 1. Increase in student literacy scores associated
with a one unit increase in the OECD's index of
Economic, Social and Cultural Status

OECD average 38
New Zealand 52
France 51
Hungary 48
Austria 48
Begium 47
Czech Rep 46
Australia 46
United Kingdom 44
Germany 44
Sweden 43
Israel 43
United States 42
Slovak Republic 41
Switzerland 40
Luxembourg 40
Japan 40
Slovenia 39
Poland 39
Ireland 39
Netherlands 37
Norway 36
Denmark 36
Greece 34
Korea 32
Italy 32
Canada 32
Finland 31
Chile 31
Portugal 30
Turkey 29
Spain 29
Estonia 29
Iceland 27
Mexico 25

Source: OECD (2010), PISA 2009 Results: Overcoming Social Background:
Equity in Learning Opportunities and Outcomes, Vol. II, Table
11.1.2., p. 153.

Note: Table made from bar graph.