One of Us Cannot Be Wrong: The paradox of achievement gaps
- 1 September 2000
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Taylor & Francis in British Journal of Sociology of Education
- Vol. 21 (3) , 391-400
- https://doi.org/10.1080/713655360
Abstract
There are two general groups of methods of calculating achievement gaps (between groups of students in education) in common current usage, similar to those used to calculate social segregation in space and social mobility over time. Each type of method clearly seems valid to its proponents, yet their results in practice are radically different, and often contradictory. This brief paper considers both of these methods and some related problems in the calculation of achievement gaps, in an attempt to resolve the contradiction. The issue is a relatively simple one, but one with significant implications for social researchers as well as commentators in many areas of public policy using similar indicators of performance.Keywords
This publication has 16 references indexed in Scilit:
- Markets and Stratification: A View from England and WalesEducational Policy, 2000
- Here we go again: a reply to ‘What's in a number?’ by Gibson and AsthanaResearch Papers in Education, 2000
- Reappraising the Apparent Underachievement of Boys at SchoolGender and Education, 1999
- Reasons for parental choice of urban schoolsJournal of Education Policy, 1999
- Under starters orders: The established market, the Cardiff study and the Smithfield projectInternational Studies in Sociology of Education, 1998
- The More Things Change ... The Missing Impact of Marketisation?British Journal of Sociology of Education, 1998
- The Measurement of Occupational Gender Segregation: Current Problems and A New ApproachJournal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society, 1995
- Measures of SegregationSociological Methodology, 1985
- Interactions in contingency tables: a brief discussion of alternative definitionsPsychological Medicine, 1979
- Multiplicative and additive interaction in contingency tablesBiometrika, 1974