The impact of schools on young people's transition to university

<strong>The</strong> analysis identifies a cluster <strong>of</strong> 36 high-performing <strong>schools</strong> and another cluster <strong>of</strong> 40 <strong>schools</strong> that
perform poorly across the two outcomes. <strong>The</strong> high-achieving cluster is predominantly made up <strong>of</strong>
Catholic and independent <strong>schools</strong>, whereas the majority <strong>of</strong> low-achieving <strong>schools</strong> belong to the
government sector. However, four government <strong>schools</strong> are in the high-achieving cluster and one each
from the Catholic and independent sectors are among the low-achievers.
Table 4 provides a breakdown <strong>of</strong> influential school attributes by cluster. Data for all categorical
variables are reported in percentages, except for the variables Size, SES, and Student—teacher ratio.
<strong>The</strong>se variables are continuous and thus not reported in percentages. Size is reported in absolute
student numbers. Socioeconomic status is standardised to a mean <strong>of</strong> 0 and a standard deviation <strong>of</strong> 1,
and so SES is reported in standard deviation units. This means that the average socioeconomic status
<strong>of</strong> <strong>schools</strong> in the high-performance cluster is 1.1 standard deviations above the grand mean <strong>of</strong> 0.
Student—teacher ratio is reported as the ratio <strong>of</strong> X students to 1 teacher.
Table 4
Combined statistically significant school attributes by cluster
School attribute Categories Performance cluster
% High
(n = 36)
% Low
(n = 40)
% Other
(n = 251)
Sector Government 11.1 95.0 65.7
School demographics
Catholic 44.4 2.5 20.7
Independent 44.4 2.5 13.6
Size Continuous (number <strong>of</strong> students) 1,167 881 723
SES Continuous (standard deviations) 1.1 -0.7 -0.2
Gender mix Coed 30.6 100.0 88.8
LBOTE quartile
Resources and capacity
All male 36.1 0.0 4.4
All female 33.3 0.0 6.8
No LBOTE students, or Q1
(lowest)
33.3 97.5 60.2
Q2 27.8 0.0 13.6
Q3 16.7 2.5 13.6
Q4 (highest) 22.2 0.0 12.8
Student–teacher ratio Continuous (ratio) 12.6 : 1 13.3 : 1 13.6 : 1
Academic orientation
Parental acad. pressure Weak 33.3 87.5 64.5
Strong 66.7 12.5 35.5
Streaming For some subjects 94.4 95.0 88.5
Exposure to work
For no subjects 2.8 2.5 6.0
For all subjects 2.8 2.5 5.6
More than half <strong>of</strong> students
participate
Half or less <strong>of</strong> students
participate
0.0 30.0 6.8
38.9 37.5 58.6
Not <strong>of</strong>fered 61.1 32.5 34.7
Competition Against two or more <strong>schools</strong> 83.3 82.5 84.5
Against one other school 11.1 10.0 6.4
Against no other school 5.6 7.5 9.2
Table 4 shows that, when compared with low-performing <strong>schools</strong>, those in the high-performing
cluster are larger, predominantly from the non-government sector, with much greater numbers <strong>of</strong>
high-socioeconomic status students and students with a language background other than English and,
30 <strong>The</strong> <strong>impact</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>schools</strong> on young people’s transition to university