If what is taught is important but how well it is taught has only a trivial impact, then much of the work on 'school effectiveness' may be studying short term effects which quickly disappear from the system and have no long term consequences. If such were the case, then school effectiveness researchers would need to give greater consideration to what is studied, rather than simply how well it is studied. The influence of schools on curriculum choices may be more important than their influence on relative performance or "value added". In the UK 'A' levels represent a useful point at which to look at the impact of curriculum choice since students typically have to choose to study only two or three subjects for the final 2 years of secondary school. The choices are made at the age of 16 with little evidence available regarding the long term consequences. This article presents an exploration of the consequences of taking or not taking 'A' level mathematics. Evidence was available from a 5 year follow-up study of students who took 'A' levels in 1988. There were substantial differences between institutions in the extent to which students were attracted into mathematics, that is in the "Pulling Power" of mathematics departments. Focusing on students who appeared sufficiently able to have taken mathematics at A-level it was found that those who did and who were in high "Pulling Power" institutions, reported, 5 years later, a higher quality of life and a higher expectation for salaries than similarly able students who had been in institutions with low "Pulling Power" for mathematics and who had taken English at A-level.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Carol Taylor Fitz‐Gibbon (1999) studied this question.