Download here

SCLY2 (Old Specification) Education Past Exam Questions
Although June 2016 will be a new specification and exam structure much of the material you have learnt Education
applies to the new exam. Below are examples of questions taken from the old exam papers that you should practice
writing plans for as they are still relevant.



You will have 30 minutes to write a 20 mark answer.
The essays will consist 4 paragraphs and a conclusion containing new information.
The command word for your 20 mark question will be ‘evaluate’ not ‘assess’.
How to use this document:



Use the extract from the mark scheme and examiners’ advice to create essay plans of the questions.
You may not have heard of all of the concepts in the mark scheme but there should be at least some that are
familiar to you.
The examiner’s advice usually outlines bad, moderate and good answers to the question so pick out the
ways in which you can achieve top band and incorporate this into your plan.
June 2015
Item A
Since 1988, a major focus of government education policies has been to establish an education market. Many
politicians have argued that policies to promote competition between schools and choice for parents will drive up
standards and raise pupils’ achievement. These policies include the publication of examination ‘league tables’ and
Ofsted inspection reports. But such policies may in fact widen the achievement gap between different social groups.
However, policies such as compensatory education may help to narrow this gap by creating greater opportunities for
previously disadvantaged groups.
Using material from Item A and elsewhere, assess the impact of government education policies on inequalities of
achievement between social groups. [20 marks]
The Mark Scheme Says:
Concepts and issues such as the following may appear: marketisation; parentocracy; privatisation; academies/City
Academies; free schools; diversity, choice and competition; cultural capital; skilled, semi-skilled and disconnected
local choosers; cream-skimming and silt-shifting; selection by postcode; SATS/National Tests; 1988 ERA; Ofsted
inspections; the National Curriculum; league tables; voucher systems; open enrolment; formula funding;
sponsorship; the tripartite system; comprehensive schooling; fee paying schools; meritocracy; compensatory
education; EMAs; EAZs; Sure Start; Operation Headstart; Pupil Premium; GIST; WISE; meritocracy; liberal feminism;
single-sex schooling; gender, class and ethnic differences in achievement; the A*-C economy. Analysis and evaluation
may be developed for example through a debate about how far policies widen or narrow achievement differences
between groups, or have other aims or effects (eg social integration).
Examiner’s Advice:
Most students understood what is meant by government education policies and had some knowledge of one or
more such policies. Many answers took a broadly chronological approach, usually beginning with the 1944 Act and
the tripartite system and ending with marketisation policies (although a few went back as far as to the introduction
of compulsory schooling). Many took their cue from the Item and organised their answers into policies that may
have widened inequalities and those that may have narrowed them (such as the Education Maintenance Allowance
or Sure Start). Most were able to offer some description of the features of the policies they identified. Better
answers were more specific in their details of the policies and in explicitly assessing their effects on inequality. These
answers applied appropriate sociological concepts and the findings of relevant studies. Most answers concentrated
on social class inequalities, but some considered policies in relation to ethnicity (such as whether the National
Curriculum was ethnocentric) and/or gender (such as WISE and GIST, or more recent policies aimed at improving
boys’ achievement).
June 2014
Item A
Functionalist sociologists see the education system as a vital social institution in modern society. They argue that the
education system exists to perform a range of essential functions for individuals, for institutions such as the
economy, and for wider society. Functionalists regard these functions as positive ones that enable society to operate
efficiently, fairly and without conflict. However, other sociologists criticise the functionalists for wrongly assuming
that education serves the interests of society as a whole.
Using material from Item A and elsewhere, assess the contribution of functionalist sociologists to our understanding
of the role of the education system in society. [20 marks]
The Mark Scheme Says:
Concepts and issues such as the following may appear: school as the focal socialising agency; particularistic versus
universalistic standards; achieved versus ascribed status; meritocracy; role allocation; social solidarity/integration;
specialist skills; the division of labour; economic efficiency; social justice; capitalism; the myth of meritocracy;
ideological state apparatuses; the correspondence principle; the hidden curriculum; new vocationalism; patriarchy;
diversity of schools/school experience. Analysis and evaluation may be developed, for example, through a debate
with other perspectives (eg Marxism, feminism, New Right) or through consideration of empirical evidence on
differential achievement.
Sources may include: Althusser; Blau & Duncan; Bowles & Gintis; Buswell; Chubb & Moe; Davis & Moore; Durkheim;
Finn; MacDonald; Marx; Parsons; Tumin; Willis; Wrong.
Examiner’s Advice:
Among the weakest answers, knowledge of the functionalist view of education was confined to a few scant points,
often largely recycled from the Item, amid a rather common sense account of the benefits of education for
individuals. However, most students had some valid knowledge of one or more functionalist contributions (usually
from Durkheim, Parsons and Davis and Moore). These varied in their degree of depth, detail and accuracy, with the
best accounts being structured around a series of clearly articulated concepts and issues such as value consensus,
secondary socialisation, specialist skills, the social division of labour, particularistic versus universalistic norms,
meritocracy, and selection and role allocation. Most students attempted to offer some evaluation of the
functionalist contributions, however many of these simply juxtaposed alternative views of the role of education,
usually from a Marxist perspective or, less often (and generally less effectively), a feminist or New Right standpoint.
By contrast, the most effective evaluation was explicit and well-placed within the answer. For example, material on
the myth of meritocracy or on differential educational achievement was generally most effectively used when it was
placed immediately following, and in direct opposition to an account of Parsons’ views on meritocracy, rather than
subsumed within a general narrative on the Marxist view.
June 2013
Item A
The educational achievements of both boys and girls have improved since the 1980s, but girls’ results have improved
more rapidly. They have overtaken boys in Key Stage tests, at GCSE and at A level. Girls are also more likely than
boys to go to university. However, gender differences in subject choice remain relatively unchanged in both
academic and vocational courses. Sociologists argue that these patterns of achievement and of subject choice are
the result of factors both within the education system and in wider society.
Using material from Item A and elsewhere, assess sociological explanations of gender differences in achievement
and in subject choice. (20 marks)
The Mark Scheme Says:
Concepts and issues such as the following may appear: equal opportunities policies; subject-choice policy initiatives
(GIST, WISE, mentoring); gender routes; single-sex schooling; feminisation of education; role models in school and at
home; changes in family structure; legislation; labour market changes/career opportunities; girls’ changing priorities;
de-industrialisation; crisis of masculinity; ‘laddism’; absentee fathers; curriculum changes; coursework; early
socialisation; gender regimes; teacher attention; peer pressure; stereotyping; sexual harassment; patriarchy;
meritocracy; liberal feminism. Analysis and evaluation may be developed, for example through a debate between
perspectives (eg New Right, postmodernism, feminism) or different varieties of feminism, or through consideration
of the impact of class or ethnicity on gender differences in achievement.
Sources may include: Boaler; Browne & Ross; Colley; Dewar; Elwood; Epstein; Francis; Gorard; Jackson; Kelly;
Leonard; Mitsos & Browne; McRobbie; Murphy; Myhill & Jones; Norman; Paetcher; Pirie; Prosser; Sewell; Sharpe;
Slee; Stables & Wikeley; Swann; Weiner.
Examiner’s Advice:
Most students were aware of some possible explanations for gender differences in achievement and/or subject
choice, though the range and quality of their accounts of each of these varied considerably. At the lower end of the
range, many students neglected to deal with one or other of the two main aspects of the question. Where they
opted to focus on differential achievement, the answer was often confined to one or two reasons, such as the
introduction of coursework or changes in girls’ priorities, whereas the best answers provided a full range of
explanations and were often organised in terms of internal versus external factors. When it came to explaining
gender differences in subject choice, weaker responses often had little idea of the actual patterns and fell back on
assertions such as that boys prefer practical subjects, harder subjects, academic subjects or vocational subjects, with
sometimes strange ideas about which subjects might belong in these categories. In these answers, explanations of
the patterns often failed to rise above the notion that boys and girls prefer ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ subjects
respectively. Other weak responses attempted to assert, against the evidence in the Item, that gender differences in
subject choice were a thing of the past. Better answers, by contrast, showed a clear understanding of the main
patterns and discussed a range of explanations, such as gendered subject images, gendered career opportunities and
peer pressure. Many answers, including some with a good grasp of relevant explanations, failed to apply this
knowledge explicitly to the question, for example describing changes in the family or labour market without then
linking these clearly to changes in achievement. Even in the best answers, explicit evaluation was in short supply,
though many were able to provide conceptually detailed, analytic accounts of the explanations that they put
forward.
January 2013
Item A
According to some sociologists, the main function of the education system is to reproduce and legitimise social
inequalities. For example, they argue that schools systematically fail the majority of working-class pupils, whose
destiny is to end up in the same kind of working-class jobs as their parents. This reproduces the class structure from
one generation to the next. The education system then legitimises these inequalities by claiming that every pupil has
an equal chance to succeed. However, some critics argue that schooling is in fact meritocratic and that failure is the
fault of the individual, not of the education system.
Using material from Item A and elsewhere, assess the view that the main function of the education system is to
reproduce and legitimise social inequalities. (20 marks)
The Mark Scheme Says:
Concepts and issues such as the following may appear: exploitation; class conflict; meritocracy; the myth of
meritocracy; the correspondence principle; ideology; hegemony; ideological and repressive state apparatuses;
cultural capital; shopfloor culture; pupil subcultures; educational policies; Fordism and post-Fordism; gender and
ethnic inequalities; patriarchy; racism; reproduction of sexual identities; role allocation; secondary socialisation.
Analysis and evaluation may be developed, for example through a debate between perspectives or between
different varieties of Marxism (eg Bowles & Gintis vs Willis), or by discussing the reproduction/legitimation of eg
gender or ethnic inequalities.
Sources may include: Althusser; Ball; Bourdieu; Bowles & Gintis; Durkheim; Davis & Moore; Gramsci; Marx;
McRobbie; Morrow & Torres; Parsons; Whitty; Willis.
Examiner’s Advice:
Some weaker responses were accounts of class differences in educational achievement that were largely or wholly at
a tangent to the question. Others were more focused on the issue of functions but heavily reliant on the Item to
provide some momentum to the answer. However, most were able to identify the view in the question as a Marxist
one and to provide some supporting material, usually from Althusser and/or Bowles and Gintis, although many were
unable to distinguish successfully between reproduction and legitimation. Some went on to contrast Marxist with
functionalist (or occasionally feminist or postmodernist) views of the role of education, though usually without a
focus on the issue of the ‘main’ function. The best answers often made sophisticated evaluative comparisons, for
example using Willis to challenge more deterministic versions of Marxism.
June 2012
Item A
There are important differences in the educational achievement of pupils from different ethnic groups. For example,
at GCSE, on average, Chinese and Indian pupils perform better than White, Bangladeshi, Pakistani or Black pupils.
Within all ethnic groups, girls out-perform boys – but not to the same extent. For example, gender differences have
more impact on the achievement of Black Caribbean pupils than on the achievement of Chinese pupils. Similarly,
class differences have more impact on achievement among White pupils than among Black pupils. One possible
reason for ethnic differences in achievement lies in the school system. For example, Black Caribbean boys are far
more likely to be permanently excluded than any other group. However, many sociologists also draw attention to
the importance of factors outside school.
Using material from Item A and elsewhere, assess sociological explanations for ethnic differences in educational
achievement. (20 marks)
The Mark Scheme Says:
Answers will deal with the achievements of a range of ethnic groups. Concepts and issues such as the following may
appear: labelling; self-fulfilling prophecy; streaming; the A*-C economy/triage; pupil subcultures; the ethnocentric
curriculum; institutional racism; teacher racism; discipline and exclusions; stereotyping in learning materials;
educational policies; selection; parental choice; parental support; family structure; cultural deprivation; cultural
difference; material deprivation; language barriers. Analysis and evaluation may be developed, for example through
consideration of the relative importance of factors internal and external to the school, or of the interaction of
ethnicity with gender or class.
Sources may include: Bereiter & Engelmann; Bourne; Coard; Connolly; David; Evans; Flaherty; Fuller; Gewirtz;
Gillborn; Keddie; Lupton; Mac an Ghaill; Mirza; Murray; Moore & Davenport; Pryce; Sewell; Swann; The Sutton Trust;
Troyna & Williams; Wright.
Examiner’s Advice:
A common limitation of many less successful answers was an inability to distinguish between different ethnic groups
and their achievements. These tended to make the erroneous assumption that all minority ethnic groups
underachieve (despite the information contained in the Item). Some used the offensive term ‘ethnics’. Many of
these answers ended up presenting sociological material on underachievement (eg on labelling, material
deprivation, etc) that was generic and lacked substantive reference to ethnic groups via relevant studies.
Alternatively, studies that were actually about social class differences were made to act as proxies for ethnicity; for
example, many students asserted incorrectly that Bernstein’s concept of restricted speech codes applied to ethnic
minorities. By contrast, better answers focused on at least one named ethnic group (most often Black Caribbean)
and offered some relevant explanations, such as family structure, the ethnocentric curriculum, teacher racism,
institutional racism and material and cultural deprivation. The best answers distinguished clearly between different
ethnic groups, organising their answers around a range of conceptually detailed explanations (often grouped into
‘internal’ and ‘external’ factors) evaluated by reference to relevant empirical studies. Many students also took their
cue from the Item to discuss the differential impact of class and/or gender on the achievements of pupils of different
ethnic backgrounds. This often produced effective evaluation, but some less successful answers instead strayed into
lengthy but poorly applied accounts of class and gender differences in achievement without reference to ethnicity.
January 2012
Item A
According to some sociologists, cultural factors are the most important cause of social class differences in
educational achievement. In their view, there are deep-rooted differences between working-class and middle-class
subcultures. For example, they argue that working-class subculture encourages fatalism and collectivism, whereas
middle-class subculture encourages individuals to be achievement-oriented. Such subcultural differences originate in
the home, but they are reinforced through peer groups. However, critics claim that the importance of such cultural
factors has been overstated. Instead, they argue that material factors in pupils’ home background are the key to
understanding class differences in achievement.
Using material from Item A and elsewhere, assess the importance of cultural factors in causing social class
differences in educational achievement. (20 marks)
The Mark Scheme Says:
Concepts and issues such as the following may appear: norms and values; deferred and immediate gratification;
individualism and collectivism; fatalism and achievement-orientation; restricted and elaborated speech codes;
parental support and encouragement; educational play and stimulation; attitudes to education and the labour
market; cultural and linguistic deprivation; cultural capital; primary socialisation; poverty and material deprivation;
labelling, streaming and the self-fulfilling prophecy; pupil subcultures. Analysis and evaluation may be developed, for
example through a debate between different perspectives or consideration of the relative importance of material
and in-school factors as cultural factors, or their interrelatedness.
Sources may include: Ball; Becker; Bereiter and Engelmann; Bernstein; Bernstein and Young; Blackstone and
Mortimore; Douglas; Feinstein; Hyman; Keddie; Sugarman.
Examiner’s Advice:
Many students had a good knowledge and understanding of a range of relevant cultural factors, including speech
codes, subcultural attitudes and values, parental expectations and encouragement, cultural deprivation, cultural
capital and pupil subcultures. This knowledge was often applied effectively to the issue of social class differences in
achievement and sometimes formed the basis for a sophisticated evaluative response that reached the top mark
band. However, the main shortcomings were a somewhat limited range and depth in many accounts of cultural
factors, together with a strong tendency to offer ‘catch all’ answers that juxtaposed descriptions of material and/or
school factors alongside accounts of cultural factors, without using these explicitly to evaluate the importance of the
latter or to analyse the relationship between cultural and material factors. Many students also failed to link the
various factors they described specifically to class differences in achievement, while some took ‘cultural’ to refer to
ethnicity and focused on this rather than on class. Most appeared to think that cultural factors were purely homebased and made no reference to in-school cultural influences such as pupil subcultures. However, some good
evaluation was achieved, for example by using Keddie’s critique of cultural deprivation or by showing how school
factors such as labelling might be based on teachers’ stereotypical views of pupils’ cultural characteristics such as
their speech code.
June 2011
Item A
There are major social class, gender and ethnic differences in how well pupils do in school. There has been much
debate about the reasons for these differences. Many sociologists argue that factors and processes within the school
are the main cause of differences in the educational achievement of different social groups. For example, the
positive or negative labelling of pupils by teachers can have important effects on performance. Similarly,
organisational factors within the school, such as streaming or setting, and the way that pupils react to these factors,
may also cause differences in achievement. However, other sociologists argue that factors outside the school, such
as pupils’ home background, have a much greater effect on their achievement.
Using material from Item A and elsewhere, assess the view that factors and processes within the school are the main
cause of differences in the educational achievement of different social groups. (20 marks)
The Mark Scheme Says:
Answers are likely to deal with two or more different types of group (eg class, gender, ethnic). Concepts and issues
such as the following may appear: labelling; self-concept; self-fulfilling prophecy; streaming; high and low status
knowledge; the A*-C economy; educational triage; pro- and anti-school subcultures; ‘laddism’; differentiation and
polarisation; the hidden curriculum; the ethnocentric curriculum; institutional racism; teachers as role models;
teacher attention; discipline and exclusions; bullying; stereotyping in learning materials; coursework/assessment
systems. Analysis and evaluation may be developed, for example through a debate between different perspectives
or consideration of the relative importance of factors internal and external to the school, or their interrelatedness.
Sources may include: Ball; Becker; Bourne; Coard; David; Douglas; Epstein; Francis; Furlong; Fuller; Gillborn and
Youdell; Gorard; Hargreaves; Keddie; Lacey; Mac an Ghaill; Mirza; Myhill and Jones; Rosenthal and Jacobson; Rist;
Sewell; Sharp and Green; Swann; Troyna and Williams; Weiner; Willis.
Examiner’s Advice:
There were relatively few very poor answers to this question, but unfortunately very good answers were also scarce.
The weakest responses were usually limited to a sparse account of labelling, anecdotal in application and lacking
reference to studies, specific social groups or even to educational achievement. At the other extreme were much
more successful answers that focused clearly on factors and processes within schools. These factors and processes
included labelling, the ideal pupil, streaming and differentiation, the self-fulfilling prophecy, polarisation and pupil
subcultures, the A* to C economy, the ethnocentric curriculum, coursework, the feminisation of education, teachers
as role models, teacher racism and institutional racism. These successful answers gave clear, conceptually detailed,
analytical accounts referenced to appropriate studies and explicitly applied to differences in the educational
achievements of different social groups (usually class, ethnic and gender groups). In these answers, evaluation was
well focused and explicit so that, for instance, accounts of external factors such as cultural, linguistic or material
deprivation were clearly linked to an assessment of the importance of internal factors such as labelling or streaming.
Some candidates also used studies such as Fuller’s to argue that labelling explanations are too deterministic.
However, more commonly, candidates produced ‘catch all’ accounts of underachievement consisting of a runthrough of one or two internal factors (usually labelling and the self-fulfilling prophecy, and often not extending
much beyond what was in the Item) followed by a similar, juxtaposed, list of material on external factors not applied
to the question. Some of these answers offered a broader range of social groups, while others were confined to only
one – usually social class. The question (and the Item) invited some final relative assessment of the importance of
internal versus external influences, but this rarely appeared. The conclusion, when present, was more commonly a
rather repetitive summary of the essay’s content.
January 2011
Item A
Sociologists see the education system as performing a vital role in modern societies. While the family can provide
young people with basic values and some useful practical skills, it cannot equip individuals with everything they need
in order to become fully functioning members of a large-scale society. In modern economies with a highly complex
division of labour, only the education system can equip individuals with the specialised knowledge and skills they will
need when they join the workforce. Furthermore, the education system not only provides young people with the
necessary training; it also selects and allocates them to their future work roles. However, while many sociologists
agree that education plays a vital economic role in today’s society, they disagree about whether this is done on the
basis of individuals’ abilities and efforts, and about who benefits as a result.
Using material from Item A and elsewhere, assess the view that the education system exists mainly to select and
prepare young people for their future work roles. (20 marks)
The Mark Scheme Says:
Concepts and issues such as the following may appear: meritocracy; the myth of meritocracy; legitimation;
reproduction; universalistic and particularistic norms; the social division of labour; social solidarity; human capital
theory; the correspondence principle; capitalism; new vocationalism; selection; specialist schools; business
sponsorship of schools etc. Analysis and evaluation may be developed, for example through a debate between
different perspectives or consideration of the relative importance of different functions of education.
In answering this question, candidates may refer to some of the following sources and/or relevant alternative ones:
Durkheim, Parsons, Davis and Moore, Blau and Duncan, Althusser, Bourdieu, Bowles and Gintis, Willis, Ball, Chubb
and Moe, Thompson, Whitty.
Examiner’s Advice:
Some weak responses were limited to either recycling material from Item A or to offering thin, undeveloped versions
of one or more theories, often with errors. For example, the concept of the hidden curriculum was sometimes
inaccurately located within functionalism. Many answers contained lengthy tangential sections on differential
achievement, labelling etc, with minimal linkage to the question of the relationship between education and future
work roles. However, most candidates were able to offer some account of functionalism and/or Marxism, while a
minority also included material on feminism. Relatively few candidates were able to clearly distinguish between
preparation and selection; many conflated the two or largely ignored one of them (more often, selection), while
some simply listed various functions of the education system without using this knowledge evaluatively to discuss
whether preparation and selection might be its main function(s).
June 2010
Item A
For the last 25 years, the main aim of government education policies has been to create an education market.
Marketisation policies such as league tables and open enrolment aim to create competition between schools and to
increase parental choice. It was claimed that such policies would raise standards. Competition for ‘customers’ in the
education market means that teachers and schools now have to work hard to get the best results for their pupils.
Schools that do not produce good exam results will lose pupils and funding. However, some government policies,
such as Education Maintenance Allowances (EMAs), help educationally disadvantaged social groups. Such policies
are more concerned with creating equality of educational opportunity than with producing an education market.
Using material from Item A and elsewhere, assess the claim that the main aim of education policies in the last 25
years has been to create an education market. (20 marks)
The Mark Scheme Says:
Concepts and issues such as the following may appear: marketisation, parentocracy, myth of parentocracy,
competition, choice, diversity, selection, testing, 1988 ERA, National Curriculum, National Tests (formerly SATs),
opting out, vouchers, league tables, open enrolment, formula funding, business sponsorship, academies, Ofsted
inspections, specialist schools, Sure Start, EAZs, EMAs, Aim Higher, GIST, Race Relations Act, EAL, New Right. Analysis
and evaluation may be developed, for example through an assessment of policies with alternative aims.
In answering this question, candidates may refer to some of the following sources and/or relevant alternative ones:
Ball, Chubb and Moe, David, Gewirtz, Leech and Campos, Thompson, Trowler, Whitty.
Examiner’s Advice:
Many candidates took the Item as a starting point. Weaker responses either recycled or merely added some further
elements of knowledge to the Item. More effective answers, which scored in the middle mark band, usually had
more knowledge or offered some limited explanation of how an education market works. There were some very
sophisticated answers that went a long way beyond the information in the Item. These candidates often made
reference to theory, policy detail, differences between Conservative and New Labour approaches, equal
opportunities policies and, in a few cases, the likely policies of the new Liberal Democrat-Conservative government.
The most successful answers explained how these policies developed an education market and offered some kind of
assessment of the effects of marketisation or of the balance between marketisation and equal opportunities policies.
Although the Item set up the evaluation aspect of the question by pointing candidates in the direction of policies
that appear to go against or mitigate marketisation, many candidates failed to utilise this guidance and presented
such policies as simply ‘other education policies’. Some candidates transgressed the 25 year reference in the
question, with some going back as far as the 1870 Education Act. Some of these answers developed into an historical
account of state education, which usually resulted in the first part of the answer going unrewarded.
January 2010
Item A
Although the educational performance of both girls and boys has improved over the past twenty years, a significant
gender gap in achievement has developed. Girls now outperform boys in most subjects and at most levels of
education. This is especially truw of pupils at GCSE where 10% more girls than boys achieve five or more A*-C
grades. Some sociologists claim that gender differences in achievement are the result of changes in wider society,
such as the impact of feminist ideas and changing employment opportunities for both girls and boys. However,
others argue that the education system has become feminised, for example through an emphasis on coursework in
assessment, which favour girls. Furthermore a lack of male primary school teachers means that many boys do not
have an adult male role model in their early experiences of school.
Using material from item A and elsewhere, assess the claim that gender differences in educational achievement are
primarily the result of changes in wider society. (20 marks)
The Mark Scheme Says:
Concepts and issues such as the following may appear: laddish subcultures, globalisation, decline in traditional male
employment opportunities, absence of male role models in the home, feminism, changes in family structure,
changes in women’s employment, changing girls’ ambitions, etc. Candidates may make reference to the impact of
class and ethnicity on gender patterns of achievement. Analysis and evaluation may be developed, for example
through an assessment of alternative school factors such as teacher expectations, changes to the curriculum,
feminisation of education, role models, coursework.
In answering this question, candidates may refer to some of the following sources and/or relevant alternative ones:
McRobbie, Prosser, Sharpe, Francis, DCSF, Epstein, Sewell, Gorard, Mitsos and Browne, Spender, French and French.
Examiner’s Advice:
This question was generally answered quite well. Most candidates were able to present a number of reasons for
gender differences in educational achievement. Some candidates did not differentiate between external and internal
factors or offered mainly descriptive accounts. Stronger responses drew on a wider range of reasons, dealt with both
male and female achievement patterns, and/or categorised reasons accurately into external and internal factors.
Sharpe, McRobbie and Mistos and Browne figured in many accounts. A few candidates relied primarily on dated
materials which point erroneously towards female under-achievement.