Choosing 'in' Schools: Locating the Benefits of Specialisation
Saved in:
| Title: | Choosing 'in' Schools: Locating the Benefits of Specialisation |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Davies, Peter, Davies, Neil, Hutton, David, Adnett, Nick, Coe, Robert |
| Source: | Oxford Review of Education. Apr 2009 35(2):147-167. |
| Availability: | Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 21 |
| Publication Date: | 2009 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Research |
| Education Level: | High Schools Higher Education |
| Descriptors: | Educational Objectives, Outcomes of Education, Academic Achievement, Foreign Countries, Course Selection (Students), Student Educational Objectives, Educational Policy, Policy Analysis, Specialization, Majors (Students), Pretests Posttests, Alignment (Education) |
| Geographic Terms: | United Kingdom (England) |
| DOI: | 10.1080/03054980802643298 |
| ISSN: | 0305-4985 |
| Abstract: | Recent policy in England has suggested that educational outcomes will be raised if schools specialise in particular subjects. In contrast, calls for the reform of 16-19 education have suggested that these outcomes will be improved if students become less specialised in their studies. At present, there is a limited evidence base from which to judge these arguments. In particular, we do not know the extent to which students' achievements in 16-19 education are higher when they choose subjects which play to their perceived strengths. We also do not know whether students are more likely to choose to study subjects taught by more effective departments. That is, outcomes may be affected by the relative strengths of students or departments in circumstances where there is freedom to choose. In this paper we provide evidence of the existence and strength of these relationships. This evidence suggests that reducing the scope within schools for specialisation or competition will reduce average student attainment and these effects ought to be taken into account when evaluating alternative curriculum policies. (Contains 4 tables.) |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Number of References: | 35 |
| Entry Date: | 2009 |
| Accession Number: | EJ834864 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Recent policy in England has suggested that educational outcomes will be raised if schools specialise in particular subjects. In contrast, calls for the reform of 16-19 education have suggested that these outcomes will be improved if students become less specialised in their studies. At present, there is a limited evidence base from which to judge these arguments. In particular, we do not know the extent to which students' achievements in 16-19 education are higher when they choose subjects which play to their perceived strengths. We also do not know whether students are more likely to choose to study subjects taught by more effective departments. That is, outcomes may be affected by the relative strengths of students or departments in circumstances where there is freedom to choose. In this paper we provide evidence of the existence and strength of these relationships. This evidence suggests that reducing the scope within schools for specialisation or competition will reduce average student attainment and these effects ought to be taken into account when evaluating alternative curriculum policies. (Contains 4 tables.) |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 0305-4985 |
| DOI: | 10.1080/03054980802643298 |
