Underachievement in Schools

Hazel Pennell, Anne West

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2003
• eBook ISBN:
  9781134549399
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

There is greater pressure for schools to meet certain levels of pupil achievement now more than ever before. Teachers and policy-makers are looking for ways to ensure pupils are not underachieving, and to do this must have some understanding of the causes of underachievement.

This timely book examines different levels of achievement of pupil groups and the reasons behind them. The authors highlight ways in which schools and policy-makers might improve achievement through changes in policy and practice. Some of the topics considered are:

* What is underachievement?
* Social background and achievement
* School structures and achievement
* Schools raising attainment

Underachievement in Schools will be a valuable resource for anyone involved with school policy as well as teachers and those training to teach.

Part 1
Facets of underachievement

Chapter 1
What is underachievement?

Introduction

In recent years considerable attention has been devoted to the issue of ‘underachievement’ in schools. This is reflected in its high political profile and is perhaps not surprising given that governments of both political persuasions have for many years focused their educational policies on improving ‘standards’ in schools.

The debates on ‘underachievement’ have changed somewhat over the years, but there is one constant feature, namely that at any given time there is concern that one group of pupils or another is failing to achieve its potential. Sometimes the concern is about the achievement of particular social classes, sometimes about boys, sometimes about those from particular ethnic groups, sometimes about those who are from very disadvantaged backgrounds, and so on. Since the advent of the Labour government in 1997, there has been another concern, namely about those who are at risk of ‘social exclusion’ particularly as a result, for example, of poverty. All of these issues are legitimate causes for concern not only for politicians, but also for teachers, government policy makers, academics and indeed all those who seek to understand the causes of underachievement and possible remedies.

Underachievement tends to be talked about very generally or, conversely, in much more specific terms–for example in relation to the achievements of boys or of certain ethnic minority groups. The aim of this book is to examine a wide range of different factors that affect levels of attainment. These are the subjects of the chapters that follow. In addition to providing an up-to-date account of the current state of play in relation to research carried out in the UK, examples of how practitioners might seek to remedy low levels of attainment amongst particular groups of pupils are provided where feasible.

It is important to note at this stage that the findings we report relate to the results of groups of pupils and are not necessarily applicable to the individual. This is a very important point to bear in mind–it would be totally incorrect to assume that all pupils who are from a particular background are going to underachieve.

The research and statistical material that we refer to derives, in the main, from that produced since 1988. That year was a landmark in education in England and Wales as it marked the coming into law of the Education Reform Act and signalled a fundamental change in the way in which education was delivered. Not only were market principles introduced into the curriculum (see West and Pennell 1997a) but, for the first time, a national curriculum was introduced for pupils between the ages of 5 and 16 in England and Wales.

However, before reviewing and discussing the research evidence and examples of possible remedies, a discussion of the concept of ‘underachievement’ is necessary. For whilst there may be some consensus about what is meant by levels of attainment or levels of achievement, the concept of ‘underachievement’ has different connotations to different individuals. It is thus important to explain how the concept is used in this book and this is what the following section seeks to do.

The concept of underachievement

Unfortunately, the concept of ‘underachievement’ is not one about which there is much clarity and although the term is often used it is rarely clearly defined. Indeed, Plewis notes that it ‘lacks a universally agreed and applied definition’ (1991: 377). Given that there is no consensus about the concept, this section examines what we mean by the term ‘underachievement’ in the school context.

For some psychologists educational achievement is seen in terms of the discrepancy between a child’s measured intelligence quotient (IQ) and his or her score on an educational test. One of the implications of this definition is that IQ is seen as the main factor causing underachievement in education (Plewis 1991). A major problem with this view is that IQ tests are designed to be measures of mental aptitude or potential, not as tests of achievement or attainment. However, it has been argued that it is not logically possible to separate potential from actual behaviour (for a discussion see Gross 2001) and, moreover, Bee (1994) argues that all IQ tests are achievement tests to some extent; she argues that the difference between tests we call ‘IQ tests’ and those we call ‘achievement tests’ is in essence a matter of degree.

The concept of underachievement may also be used as a characteristic of groups not just individuals. Using this definition, some groups of pupils, for example those from disadvantaged backgrounds or certain ethnic groups, may be said to underachieve regardless of their IQ. This approach towards underachievement has been used by educational sociologists rather than by psychologists, so ‘generating some operational confusion, especially as there is no necessary connection between the two definitions’ (Plewis 1991: 377).

In his discussion of approaches used, Plewis stresses the problems associated with the statistical approaches used by psychologists, but argues that the approach adopted by educational researchers whereby underachievement is defined by a group’s relative position is ‘simple and unambiguous’ (1991: 383). However, it is important to stress that this approach says nothing about individuals as opposed to groups.

In spite of the fact that the concept of underachievement is somewhat problematic, it remains the case that teachers are able to discriminate between pupils in terms of whether their achievement is in line with their ability. Indeed, one major research project carried out in the 1980s (Tizard et al. 1988) found that teachers do perceive that some of their pupils are underachievers and that these perceptions do seem to vary systematically by age, sex and ethnic group.

However, as noted by Plewis (1991), a preferable concept may be that of relatively low-attaining groups. This is a clearer concept than that of underachievement and does not have the various connotations and lack of clarity that are associated with the concept of underachievement. In fact this is the definition that was used by Gillborn and Gipps (1996). In their review of the achievements of ethnic-minority pupils they use the concept of ‘relative achievements’ of pupils of different ethnic groups.

Gorard et al. also address the issues of underachievement and low achievement. They note that: ‘The terms are used almost synonymously in policy documents as though low achievement is automatically also underachievement, in a way that high achievement presumably never can be’ (2001b: 137).

Finally, Gillborn and Mirza (2000) are also critical of the concept. They argue in relation to black pupils that ‘underachievement’ came into particular prominence in the debates about ethnic diversity in British education through the work of the Rampton and Swann Committee Reports (see Rampton 1981; Swann 1985). The term was used to refer to the differential outcomes among ethnic minority groups. They also note:

Unfortunately, there has been confusion about the meaning of the term. It is often assumed, for example, that the reason for‘underachievement’ must lie with the pupils and/or their families rather than the education system itself. It has been argued that the notion of ‘underachievement’ undermines ethnic minority efforts to succeed and the desire to do well … What began life as a useful concept, meant to identify an inequality of opportunity, has sometimes slipped into a pervasive ‘discourse of despair’ among and about ethnic minorities.

(Gillborn and Mirza 2000: 7)

Since the advent of the Labour government in 1997, there has been a broader approach, namely targeting those groups who are at risk of ‘social exclusion’ particularly as a result, for example, of poverty. Social exclusion, as opposed to underachievement, is a shorthand term for what can happen when people or areas suffer from a combination of linked problems such as unemployment, poor skills, low incomes, poor housing, high crime environments, bad health and family breakdown. This is an overarching multifaceted concept. It is useful also for teachers, government policy makers and, last but not least, academics who seek to understand the causes of ‘underachievement’ as it explicitly acknowledges that problems are commonly associated with each other.

The concept of social exclusion has been criticised as being a ‘catch-all’ phrase meaning ‘all things to all people’ (Johnston et al. 2000: 3). Under this portmanteau term a complicated array of social issues have been grouped together. Whilst there are linkages between experiences in, for example, the housing market and education, and income, each involves a different set of factors. Such problems cannot be reduced merely to unemployment and income inequality (Jeffs and Smith 2001). However, the debates around social exclusion do highlight the ‘diverse and interconnected problems which face young people’ and ‘the processes whereby some young people become socially included and some do not’ (Johnston et al. 2000: 3).

Morris et al. provide a critical review of the literature relating to disadvantaged young people, one aim of which was to identify the extent of disadvantage among those aged 14 to 19 years, but with a specific focus on those between 16 and 17 years of age. They note that ‘there is a disparate collection of definitions of “disadvantage”, comprising those which are related to a threshold or a norm (for instance, measures of poverty …), as well as ideological definitions’ (1999: 7).

The report also highlights problems in identifying and quantifying disadvantage; one key problem noted was that:

data on different forms of disadvantage are not collected in the same way, nor with a uniform set of characterising variables (i.e. gender; age; ethnic and socio-economic background; ability). It is not possible, therefore, to determine the extent to which young people are multiply disadvantaged.

(1999: 52)

The Department for Education and Skills (DfES) has adopted its own definitions of lower and higher attainment that are of interest in this context. Lower achievement is defined as being ‘at least two levels below the standard’ (DfES 2002a: 4), where the ‘standard’ is the ‘expected’ level in the key stage tests/assessments. So, for example, at Key Stage 2, the expected level is 4, and lower-achieving pupils are those who are at or below level 2 (although this excludes pupils who were absent or disapplied). Higher achievement, on the other hand, is defined as being at least one level above the expected level (at Key Stage 3 there are two expected levels, levels 5 and 6, and high achievers are those who reach level 7 or above). There is clearly some overlap between the concept of underachievement and that of ‘disadvantage’. Indeed, poor educational performance at school can be seen as a ‘common manifestation of disadvantage’ (Morris et al. 1999: 52).

Rather than looking at disadvantage solely at the individual level, it can also be considered at the school level or at the local education authority (LEA) area level. The report ‘Schools Plus: Building Learning Communities’ (DfEE 1999a) has defined and identified ‘disadvantaged schools’. These are schools where entitlement to free school meals exceeds 35 per cent (approximately twice the national average). Following on from the identification of schools, LEAs were themselves defined as ‘disadvantaged’ if a third or more of their schools were ‘disadvantaged schools’. (Most LEAs with high proportions of ‘disadvantaged’ primary schools also had a high proportion of disadvantaged secondary schools and all were urban.) The use of these two definitions enables areas with concentrations of disadvantage to be identified as well as pockets of disadvantage. The latter may be less visible in areas where overall affluence is high.

The concept of ‘multiple disadvantage’ is also important in looking at underachievement. Sammons (1995) notes that there is evidence of cumulative disadvantage–that experiencing one factor is less closely associated with low attainment than experiencing more than one factor. Research carried out in the former Inner London Education Authority (ILEA) demonstrated that seven background factors can be used to predict the increased risk of low attainment at the age of 11 years. These factors were:

• eligibility for free school meals (an indicator of poverty);
• large family size; •one-parent family;
• semi-skilled or unskilled manual parental occupation or being unemployed;
• pupil’s behaviour;
• lack of fluency in English;
• ethnic background.

More recently, Payne (2000) explored the progress of low achievers (young people in the bottom third of the national distribution of GCSE results in England and Wales) using data from the Youth Cohort Study (YCS) (see Appendix C). She reported that:

Young people had a higher risk of low achievement if their parents were in low level occupations, were not in full-time employment, or had poor educational qualifications. They were also more at risk if they lived in social rented accommodation, came from a lone parent family, or had several brothers or sisters. There was a very strong link between low achievement and truancy. Young black people and those of Pakistani and Bangladeshi origin had an above average risk of low achievement, while those of Indian origin tended to do better than whites.

(Payne 2000: 2–3)

Morris et al. (1999) in their review of disadvantaged youth also highlighted a number of associations between poor educational and economic outcomes and a range of dimensions of disadvantage, including: bullying, truancy, exclusion from school, residential care, early motherhood and living in poor and/or non-working households. Crucially, however, they note that there is often ambiguity between what constitutes a symptom and what a cause:

Arguably, there has been too much emphasis on dealing with symptoms and not enough on identifying and tackling the underlying causes, and on what pushes young people to become de-motivated, be disaffected and disengaged

(Morris et al. 1999: 53)

How we understand underachievement

We have seen that underachievement in schools is not a simple issue–the way in which the term is used varies and what is considered to be underachievement also varies. As we shall see in the chapters that follow, neither can underachievement be easily remedied.

We now outline briefly how we might conceptualise underachievement. Sparkes (1999) in her review of schools, education and social exclusion highlighted a number of background variables that are associated with educational attainment. These are:

• pupils’ personal characteristics: prior attainment, gender, health;
• socio-economic factors: low income, social class (of father), unemployment, housing;
• educational factors: parents’ educational attainment;
• family structure: family size, lone parent status, in public care;
• ethnicity/language: ethnic group, fluency in English;
• other: parental interest/involvement/practice, locally-based factors.

These factors can be further elabora...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• School Concerns Series
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Figures
• Tables
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• Abbreviations
• Part 1: Facets of underachievement
• Part 2: Policy, practice and solutions?
• Appendices
• Notes
• References