June 2016: AS Paper 1

Mark scheme

Examiner's comment

Most students answered this successfully by identifying extra support for disadvantaged groups. Many provided examples such as Sure Start to illustrate or clarify their answers. However, some had no clear idea of the meaning of the term, substituting instead definitions of comprehensive or compulsory education.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• 2 marks for a full definition (e.g. extra support/programmes for deprived groups to overcome underachievement)
• 1 mark for a partial definition or an example only
• most answered well, often citing Sure Start
• some confused it with comprehensive or compulsory education

Mark scheme

Examiner's comment

The most popular response was to identify league tables or parental choice as a marketisation policy and then explain how this may advantage middle-class pupils because of their parents’ greater cultural or economic capital. However, a significant minority failed to identify any specific marketisation policy, while a few misidentified the tripartite or comprehensive systems as examples of marketisation policies. Some scored one mark for identifying a relevant policy without explaining its effect on class differences in achievement.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• 1 mark for a named marketisation policy (parental choice, league tables, free schools) +1 for explaining its effect on class differences
• common answers: league tables or parental choice favouring middle-class pupils via cultural/economic capital
• some named no specific policy or wrongly cited the tripartite or comprehensive systems

Mark scheme

Examiner's comment

A wide range of policies from both within and outside the education system were identified, such as GIST or WISE, the Equal Pay Act, the Sex Discrimination Act, the Divorce Law Reform Act and the introduction of coursework. Most students who identified such policies were able to explain how these may have affected girls’ achievement. However, others misunderstood the policy thrust of the question and offered examples of non-policy factors, such as the influence of feminist ideas on girls. These responses failed to score.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• 2 marks for each of three policies clearly outlined, 1 if only partially outlined
• creditworthy policies included GIST/WISE, coursework, equal opportunities legislation, expansion of higher education
• answers giving non-policy factors (e.g. feminist ideas) scored nothing

Mark scheme, including the levels grid and indicative content

Examiner's comment

This question required students to apply their knowledge of one area of the specification (the role of the education system) to another area (educational achievement). However, weaker answers often focused solely on outlining some of the factors affecting pupils’ achievement without attempting to link these to the functions of education. Better answers had knowledge of one or more functions of the education system, usually from a functionalist and/or Marxist perspective. These included role allocation, socialisation into shared values, transmission of specialist skills, or reproduction of class inequality. However, this knowledge was sometimes patchy, often accompanied by a tendency to present a loose amalgam of different functions rather than a clear and coherent account. The best answers applied a good knowledge and understanding of the functions of the education system to the issue of achievement. For example, an account of the meritocratic nature of selection (from a functionalist perspective) led onto the idea that equal opportunities and being judged by universalistic standards would raise achievement levels by motivating all pupils to achieve to the maximum of their abilities.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• must link functions of education to achievement, not just list factors affecting achievement (drift caps at 1–3)
• best answers took a clear functionalist or Marxist function (meritocratic role allocation, class reproduction) and applied it to achievement
• weaker answers offered a loose mix of functions

Mark scheme, including the levels grid and indicative content

Examiner's comment

There were a range of different responses to this question and many made appropriate use of the Item. Weaker answers reflected a limited knowledge and understanding of home background factors and only offered a thin, undeveloped account of one or two of these, with few if any sociological concepts. Others showed more developed knowledge and understanding of relevant material. This often included the concepts of cultural and material deprivation, and featured home background factors such as speech codes; parental education, interest, attitudes or income; cultural and economic capital; housing; diet; the cost of ‘free’ schooling; and selection by mortgage. Many went on to consider factors within school such as teachers’ labelling, streaming and pupil subcultures. However, some were content to describe these internal processes without linking them explicitly to social class or to achievement, while a few drifted into ethnic or gender differences instead. By contrast, in better answers students were able to apply their knowledge explicitly to class differences in achievement. Most answers tended to lack explicit evaluation of the role or importance of the factors that they had discussed, but some good responses considered the suggestion in the Item that internal and external factors might be interlinked and used this to good effect in evaluation.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• top band weighs home background against school factors or their interrelationship (hook in Item A)
• weaker answers thin on home factors and light on concepts
• some described internal processes without linking them to class or achievement, or drifted into gender/ethnicity
• evaluation often missing

Mark scheme, including the levels grid and indicative content

Examiner's comment

The most important factor in answering this question successfully was the extent to which students applied their understanding of group interviews to the specific issue of boys’ underachievement. However, some students were content simply to present a range of strengths and limitations of the method without applying them to the issue in the question. Some of these answers picked up on the idea in the Item that group interviews tend to be largely unstructured and then focused on an account of unstructured interviews without further reference to the ‘group’ dimension. Other responses presented some generic research characteristics of investigating education, such as that head teachers may wish to protect the reputation of their school and therefore be unwilling to allow research to take place. More developed versions of this approach pointed to the possible negative consequences for a school’s reputation, in a marketised education system, of research into underachievement among its pupils. Better responses identified specific characteristics of underachieving boys, for example that they may be members of anti-school subcultures, and may therefore treat the interviewer as an authority figure to be mocked, refuse to cooperate, or be truanting and thus be unavailable for interview. The best responses connected issues such as these to the strengths or limitations that result from the group nature of the method. For example, some argued that peer pressure arising from an anti-school subculture within the group, or embarrassment at having to talk about the reasons for their underachievement (such as their home and family life) in front of friends, may distort the outcome of the group interview.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• must apply group interviews to boys' underachievement specifically
• education in general caps at 13–16
• little or no reference to group interviews = max 4
• many treated it as unstructured interviews and ignored the group dimension
• best answers linked peer pressure in anti-school subcultures and embarrassment in front of friends to validity