1. Department of Education Gillian Hampden-Thompson, Education, University of York Gill Main, Social Policy, University of York EDUCATIONAL OUTCOME INDICATORS OF YOUNG PEOPLE IN ENGLAND BY FAMILY STRUCTURE

2. Department of Education LSYPE D ATA Overview of Data  Longitudinal Study of Young People in England (LSYPE)/Next Steps  Directly managed by the Department for Education’s (DFE)  Current contractor is BMRB Social Research (previously Isop MORI)  Large-scale longitudinal study of young people in England with the first wave collected in 2004  First wave participants were in year 9 (13/14 years of age)

3. Department of Education LSYPE D ATA Overview of Data  Collected annually and includes information on various aspects of young people’s lives (family background, socio-economic status, attitudes, experiences and behaviours etc.)  Wave 1 approximately 16,000 participants (wave 6 10,000)  Seven waves of collection in which waves 1 to 4 included data collection from young person and parent/guardian.

4. Department of Education LSYPE D ATA Overview of Data  Waves 1 to 3 were face-to-face interviews  The LYPSE data can be linked to the National Pupil Database (NPD)  These data sources provide a unique opportunity to construct indicators of young people’s educational achievement, attainment, and persistence overtime

5. Department of Education F AMILY STRUCTURE AND EDUCATION Overview of Research  Family structure is an important contributor to young people’s well being across a range of social and economic outcomes  In education, young people living in non-intact families (e.g., lone-parent and guardian families) are less academically successful than their peers who reside in households in which both parents live together  Behind this generalisation, there are notable differences across different family structures.  Furthermore, family structure is not a fixed characteristic and a child’s living arrangements are subject to change overtime.

6. Department of Education MEASURING E DUCATIONAL OUTCOMES Outcome Measures Achievement/Attainment  Key Stage 3 scores (NPD data)  GCSE grades (NPD data)  Participation in post-16 education/dropping out (LYSPE) In addition,  Post-16 aspirations for further study (LSYPE)

7. Department of Education M EASURING FAMILY STRUCTURE The percentage of youths residing in various family structures in 2004, 2005, 2006 and between 2004 and 2006 (n=11,449).

8. Department of Education SUMMARY Differences by family structure  The majority of youth’s resided in a married family between 2004 to 2006  Around one-fifth of youths resided in a lone-mother household between 2004 to 2006  13 percent of youths experienced a change in their family structure between 2004 to 2006

9. Department of Education K EY S TAGE 3 SCORES Mean KS 3 average point score percentage for youths (year 9) residing in various family structures: 2004.

10. Department of Education GCSE POINT SCORE Mean GCSE point score percentage for youths (year 11) residing in various family structures: 2006.

11. Department of Education GCSE POINT SCORE Percentage of youths achieving 5 GCSEs at A-C grade by family structure: 2006.

12. Department of Education SUMMARY Differences in achievement scores by family structure  Youths in married households achieved higher KS3 scores and achieved better GCSE qualifications than other family structures  Youths in cohabiting households achieved higher KS3 scores and achieved better GCSE qualifications than those in lone parent, no-parent, and changing households  Similarities in KS scores and GCSE achievement for youths residing in lone-mother households and those residing in a household that has changed its structure.

13. Department of Education P OST -16 EDUCATION ASPIRATIONS Percentage distribution of young person’s reported post-16 intentions by family structure: 2006.

14. Department of Education S CHOOL PERSISTENCE / DROPPING OUT Percentage distribution of school persistence/dropping out by family structure: 2008.

15. Department of Education I NTENTIONS VERSUS REALITY Percentage of youth’s reporting they would stay on in fulltime education in 2006 and their educational status in 2008 by family structure: 2006 and 2008.

16. Department of Education M ULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS ( LOGISTIC ) Factors associated with dropping out of education Significant factors associated with dropping out at 16: 1.Family structure - those residing in cohabiting families and changing family structures more likely to drop out than those with married parents 2.Ethnicity - all ethnicities less likely to drop out than white young people 3.Siblings - those with two, three or four siblings more likely to drop out than those with none 4.Family income - those in upper and middle income quartiles less likely to drop out than those in lowest income quartile

17. Department of Education M ULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS ( LOGISTIC ) Factors associated with dropping out of education Significant factors associated with dropping out at 17: 1.Family structure - those in a changing family structure more likely to drop out than those with married parents 2.Ethnicity - Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi and black Caribbean youths less likely to drop out than white youths 3.Family income - those in lower middle and highest income quartiles less likely than those in lowest income quartile to drop out

18. Department of Education M ULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS ( LOGISTIC ) Factors associated with dropping out of education Significant factors associated with dropping out at 18: 1.Ethnicity - Pakistani, black Caribbean and black African youths less likely than white youths to drop out 2.Family income - those in middle or highest income quartiles more likely than those in lowest income quartile to drop out Note: Family structure is not a significant factor for drop out at 18.

19. Department of Education M ULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS ( LOGISTIC ) Factors associated with going to university Significant factors for going to university: 1.Family structure - those in cohabiting or changing family structures less likely than those with married parents to go on to university 2.Ethnicity - all groups other than black Caribbean more likely than white youths to go on to university 3.Siblings - those with three or four siblings less likely than those with none to go on to university 4.Family income - odds of being in university increases with income

20. Department of Education CONCLUSIONS 1.LSYPE is a rich source of data 2.Young people experience changes to their family structure. In the case of this analysis, 13 percent of youths experienced a change during a two year period. The educational impact of this change in family structure requires further investigation. 3.Young people’s family composition is associated with educational outcomes (i.e., scores on national tests and examinations) and likelihood of dropping out of education and likelihood of attending university

21. Department of Education CONCLUSIONS 4.There is a disconnect between young people’s aspirations for further education and their actual reality. Differences between aspirations for further study and actions differed across family structures. 5.Family structure was still a significant factor after controlling for ethnicity, family income, and sibling size. 6.Further analysis can be completed with the LSYPE data to see what reasons young people gave for not continuing in further and higher education.