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

Autor/inn/en	Siddiqui, Nadia; Gorard, Stephen
Titel	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
Quelle	In: International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 46 (2023) 2, S.118-132 (15 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Zusatzinformation	ORCID (Siddiqui, Nadia) ORCID (Gorard, Stephen)
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	1743-727X
DOI	10.1080/1743727X.2022.2094359
Schlagwörter	Foreign Countries; Family Income; Outcomes of Education; Reliability; Measurement; Data; Eligibility; Lunch Programs; Accuracy; Disadvantaged Youth; Identification; United Kingdom (England) + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Ausland; Familieneinkommen; Lernleistung; Schulerfolg; Reliabilität; Messverfahren; Daten; Eignung; Mittagessen; Benachteiligter Jugendlicher; Identifikation; Identifizierung
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. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2024/1/01