The role of schools in explaining individuals’ subject choices at age 14

References

• Anders, J., Henderson, M., Moulton, V., & Sullivan, A. (2017). The role of schools in explaining individuals’ subject choices at age 14 ( CLS Working Paper). London: Centre for Longitudinal Studies, UCL Institute of Education.
   Google Scholar
• Barrance, R. & Elwood, J. (2018). Inequalities and the curriculum: Young people’s views on choice and fairness through their experiences of curriculum as examination specifications at GCSE. Oxford Review of Education, 44(1).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bell, J. F. (2001). Patterns of subject uptake and examination entry 1984–1997. Educational Studies, 27, 201–219.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burgess, S., Propper, C., Slater, H., & Wilson, D. (2005). Who wins and who loses from school accountability? The distribution of educational gain in English secondary schools ( CMPO Working Paper 05/128). Bristol: Centre for Market and Public Organisation, University of Bristol.
   Google Scholar
• Chowdry, H., Crawford, C., Dearden, L., Goodman, A., & Vignoles, A. (2013). Widening participation in higher education: Analysis using linked administrative data. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A, 176, 431–457.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Codiroli, N. (2015). Inequalities in students’ choice of STEM subjects ( CLS Working Paper 2015/6). London: Centre for Longitudinal Studies, UCL Institute of Education.
   Google Scholar
• Coe, R., Searle, J., Barmby, P., Jones, K., & Higgins, S. (2008). Relative difficulty of examinations in different subjects (CEM Centre Summary Report). Durham: Centre for Evaluation and Monitoring, Durham University.
   Google Scholar
• Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., McPartland, J., Mood, A. M., Weinfeld, F. D., & York, R. L. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics, US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
   Google Scholar
• Davies, P., Adnett, N., & Turnbull, A. (2003). Market forces and diversity: Some evidence from the 14–19 curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 35, 479–498.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davies, P., Telhaj, S., Hutton, D., Adnett, N., & Coe, R. (2008). Socioeconomic background, gender and subject choice in secondary schooling. Educational Research, 50, 235–248.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dilnot, C. (2018). The relationship between A-level subject choice and league table score of university attended: The ‘facilitating’, the ‘less suitable’ and the counter-intuitive. Oxford Review of Education, 44(1).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Francis, B. (2000). The gendered subject: Students’ subject preferences and discussions of gender and subject ability. Oxford Review of Education, 26, 35–48.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henderson, M., Sullivan, A., Anders, J., & Moulton, V. (2018). Social class, gender and ethnic differences in subjects taken at age 14. The Curriculum Journal. doi:10.1080/09585176.2017.1406810.
   Google Scholar
• Henderson, V., Mieszkowski, P., & Sauvageau, Y. (1978). Peer group effects and educational production functions. Journal of Public Economics, 10, 97–106.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hodgson, A., & Spours, K. (2008). 14–19 education and training: Curriculum, qualifications and organisation. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Hoxby, C. (2000). Peer effects in the classroom: Learning from gender and race variation ( NBER Working Paper 7867). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
   Google Scholar
• Iannelli, C. (2013). The role of the school curriculum in social mobility. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 34, 907–928.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jin, W., Muriel, A., & Sibieta, L. (2011). Subject and course choices at ages 14 and 16 amongst young people in England: Insights from behavioural economics (DfE Research Report DFE-RR160). London: Department for Education.
   Google Scholar
• Kolenikov, S., & Angeles, G. (2009). Socioeconomic status measurement with discrete proxy variables: Is principal component analysis a reliable answer? Review of Income and Wealth, 55, 128–165.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lavy, V., & Schlosser, A. (2011). Mechanisms and impacts of gender peer effects at school. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 3(2), 1–33.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lupton, R. (2005). Social justice and school improvement: Improving the quality of schooling in the poorest neighbourhoods. British Educational Research Journal, 31, 589–604.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lupton, R., & Thrupp, M. (2012). Headteachers’ readings of and responses to disadvantaged contexts: Evidence from English primary schools. British Educational Research Journal, pp. 1–20.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marks, G. N. (2006). Are between- and within-school differences in student performance largely due to socio-economic background? Evidence from 30 countries. Educational Research, 48, 21–40.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marks, G. N. (2015). Are school-SES effects statistical artefacts? Evidence from longitudinal population data. Oxford Review of Education, 41, 122–144.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCrone, T., Morris, M., & Walker, M. (2005). Pupil choice at Key Stage 3—Literature review (NFER Report). Slough: National Foundation for Educational Research.
   Google Scholar
• Mortimore, P. (1988). School matters. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Moulton, V., Henderson, M., Anders, J., & Sullivan, A. (2018). Does what you study at age 14–16 matter for educational transitions post-16? Oxford Review of Education, 44(1).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mundlak, Y. (1978). On the pooling of time series and cross section data. Econometrica, 46, 69–85.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ofsted. (2013). The report of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills 2013/14: Schools (Annual Report). London: Ofsted.
   Google Scholar
• Olsson, U. (1979). Maximum likelihood estimation of the polychoric correlation coefficient. Psychometrika, 44, 443–460.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Open Public Services Network. (2015). Lack of options: How a pupil’s academic choices are affected by where they live (OPSN Report). London: Open Public Services Network.
   Google Scholar
• Proud, S. (2014). Girl power? An analysis of peer effects using exogenous changes in the gender make-up of the peer group. Regional and Sectoral Economic Studies, 14, 5–18.
   Google Scholar
• Russell Group. (2013). Informed choices: A Russell Group guide to making decisions about post-16 education. Russell Group guide.
   Google Scholar
• Rutter, M. (1982). Fifteen thousand hours: Secondary schools and their effects on children. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, D. J., Tomlinson, S., Bonnerjea, L., Hogarth, T., & Thomes, H. (1989). The school effect: A study of multi-racial comprehensives. London: Policy Studies Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Smyth, E. (2018). Working at a different level? Curriculum differentiation in Irish lower secondary education. Oxford Review of Education, 44(1).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sullivan, A. (2009). Academic self concept, gender and single sex schooling. British Educational Research Journal, 35, 259–288.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sullivan, A., Joshi, H., & Leonard, D. (2009). Single-sex schooling and academic attainment at school and through the lifecourse. American Educational Research Journal, 47, 6–36.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sullivan, A., Zimdars, A., & Heath, A. (2010). The social structure of the 14–16 curriculum in England. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 20, 5–21.
   Google Scholar
• Tripney, J., Newman, M., Bangpan, M., Niza, C., MacKintosh, M., & Sinclair, J. (2010). Subject choice in STEM: Factors influencing young people (aged 14–19) in education. A systematic review of the UK literature ( Wellcome Trust Report). London: EPPI Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London.
   Google Scholar
• Van Houtte, M. (2004). Gender context of the school and study culture, or how the presence of girls affects the achievement of boys. Educational Studies, 30, 409–423.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Willms, J. D. (1986). Social class segregation and its relationship to pupils’ examination results in Scotland. American Sociological Review, 51, 224–241.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woods, P. (1976). The myth of subject choice. British Journal of Sociology, 27, 130–149.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar