– Although girls appear to be reaching near parity with boys in terms of the gender profile of those
who take Triple Science, the stratification of students remains highly problematic in terms of social class and ethnicity.
– The social profile of those taking Triple Science appears to be skewed towards those from more advantaged social backgrounds.
– The existence of these differential award routes (and their differential status) means that Double Science is strongly associated with (and reinforces) the view among young people that post-compulsory science is ‘not for me’.
– In independent and more affluent schools, Triple Science was the norm and was offered within normal curriculum time to the majority of students. However in other schools, it was offered as an extra-curricular activity for a comparatively small group of students because the school could not accommodate it within the usual timetable.
– Students with higher levels of cultural and science capital seemed more likely to opt for Triple Science. In particular, these students’ parents had advised them about the transferability and status of Triple Science (as an ‘enabling’ choice) and, in some cases, exerted considerable influence to ensure their child took Triple Science.
– In order to assert and justify their own elite positioning, Triple Science students often constructed those taking Double Science as being ‘bad at science’ (as opposed to just seeing these students as, for instance, being ‘less interested’ in science).
– The authors propose that Triple Science, and the pedagogic work that creates and sustains it, can be understood as a technology for the reproduction of inequality, that is, the practice of selective
science routes at GCSE promotes and sustains social inequalities because (1) it functions as a filter for the STEM pipeline (2) it produces symbolic violence, through the association of the Triple Science route with ‘cleverness’ (3) it creates and reinforces differential cultures on the different routes (e.g. ‘excellence’ versus ‘normality’) (4) schools have a differential (inequitable) ability to offer the Triple Science route.
2017 - Stratifying science: A Bourdieusian analysis of student views and experiences of school selective practices in relation to ‘Triple Science’ at KS4 in England
Bourdieusian analytic approach to understanding the stratification of Key Stage 4 (KS4) science and, in particular, the social justice implications of the selective processes surrounding access to Double/Triple Science. Bourdieu proposed that pedagogic action is the ‘work’ undertaken by institutions to impose the cultural arbitrary (e.g. the taken for granted ‘culture’, normative assumptions and power relations within an institution or field – the dominant notion of ‘how things are’).
The authors draw on data collected via a national survey of over 13,000 Year 11 students aged 15/16 years and in-depth longitudinal interviews conducted with 70 students from this cohort (from age 10 to 16). The Aspires2 study comprises a quantitative online survey of the cohort and repeat (longitudinal) interviews with a selected subsample of students and their parents, in order to generate both a breadth and depth of data. The sample included a nationally representative survey of schools, completed by 13,42110 students in England, who were recruited from 340 secondary schools in England (296 state schools and 44 independent).
132 interviews were conducted in this phase with 70 students and 62 parents. Interview topic areas broadly mirrored the survey areas, in order to explore students’ meanings, understandings, experiences and identities in more depth. Interviewers probed responses to encourage participants to explain their views and to reflect on the potential sources or influences on their views.
The survey collected a range of demographic data (including gender, ethnicity, measures of cultural capital) and covered topics such as general aspirations, aspirations in science; subject preferences, attitudes towards school science (differentiated for Physics, Biology and Chemistry); post-GCSE choices, images of scientists, self-concept in science; perceptions of own and others’ gender identity; participation in science-related activities outside of school; parental attitudes towards science; peer attitudes towards school and school science; careers education and work experiences. The main variable of interest was whether they decided to participate in the double or triple science award routes, which are advanced curriculums in science. Schools are encouraged to offer the route selectively to higher attaining students.