영국 교육정보

영국의 최신 교육정보를 확인해 보세요.

여름철 출생아동 평생 불이익 받을 가능성

Author
주영한국교육원
Date
01:01 15 Jul 2008
Views
1857
“여름 출생 아동 평생 불이익”

□ IFS 보고서 “여름 출생아 대학진학시까지 불이익” 주장
- Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) 보고서에서 여름출생아들이 심각한 불이익을 받고 있다는 보고
- 9월에 학년이 시작되는 관계로 여름철(특히 7,8월)에 출생한 어린이들이 겨울철 출생아 보다 성적이 낮고 대학진학률까지 영향을 받는 것으로 조사됨
- 이는 10대에 도달하면 여름 출생아들이 겪는 불이익은 대부분 사라진다는 일반적인 믿음과는 배치되는 주장임
- 이러한 불이익은 여름출생아들의 경우 중요한 시험들을 겨울이나 가을 출생아들보다 11개월이나 이른 시점에서 치러야 하기 때문으로 보임

□ 대학진학률의 차이
- 9월 출생아의 경우 여자 37%, 남자 29.6%가 대학진학 (19세에)
- 8월 출생아의 경우 여자 35.2%, 남자 28%로 나타나 상당한 차이를 보임

- Oxbridge 및 Russell 그룹 대학 등 일류대학 진학률에 있어 여학생의 경우 9월 출생아는 12.1%인 반면 8월 출생아는 11%에 그침. 남학생의 경우도 9.5% 대 8.7%로 비슷함

□ 불이익 평생 받을 가능성
- “일류대학의 학위가 봉급에 많은 영향을 주는 상황에서 태어난 달에 따라서 평생 불이익을 받으면서 살 가능성도 배제할 수 없다” - 보고서 저자들 주장
- 여름 출생아들이 받고 있는 성적에 있어서의 불평등을 해소하는 방안을 강구하면 최소한 2,600명의 학생들에게 대학에 진할할 수 있는 기회를 제공할 수 있을 것이라고 주장

□ 보완 및 해결방안
- 여름 출생아들이 불이익을 받지 않도록 GCSE까지의 모든 학교 시험성적에 출생월을 고려하는 방안 연구 필요
- 학년말 시험 결과를 바탕으로 학년을 진급시킬 것인지를 결정하는 방안에 대한 연구
- 5세 취학을 기본으로 하면서 준비가 덜 된 학생은 6세 취학을 허용하는 방안

□ 출처 : The Times "Summer babies face a lifelong penalty that begins at school"(08.07.14)


□ 기사 원문

Summer babies face a lifelong penalty that begins at school

Children born in the summer are significantly less likely than winter-born babies to go to university, according to a new report which challenges the belief that summer babies will catch up with their peers by their teens.
The reason for the summer-birth disadvantage is that those children have to sit important exams up to 11 months earlier than their autumn or winter-born counterparts, the report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) says.

It proposes a number of reforms to ensure that summer-born babies are no longer penalised because of an “unlucky birth draw”. Chief among these is the suggestion that all school test scores should be adapted to take account of students' birth month, right up to GCSE level.

The problems associated with summer babies have long been recognised by parents, teachers and children themselves and are the direct result of the administrative convenience demanded by local authorities and schools when admitting children into reception classes at the age of 5. But the issue has gained new prominence in the past two years, after the publication of a number of studies suggesting that the summer-birth disadvantage remains with children through life.

According to today's report, 37 per cent of girls and 29.6 per cent of boys born in September have started higher education by the age of 19. This compares with 35.2 per cent of girls and 28 per cent of boys born in August.

Fewer than 11 per cent of August-born girls enrolled at Oxbridge or another institution in the elite, research-intensive Russell group of universities by the age of 19, compared with 12.1 per cent of September girls. For boys the figures are 8.7 per cent and 9.5 per cent respectively.

“Given that a degree (particularly one from a high-status institution) often earns its holder a substantial wage premium, these differences suggest that children born at the end of the school year may not only face lower educational opportunities, but also lower lifetime earnings, simply because of the month in which they were born,” the report's authors, Claire Crawford, Lorraine Dearden and Costas Meghir, conclude. They add that at least 2,600 more children a year would have the potential to enter university if the Government were able to iron out the achievement discrepancies suffered by summer babies.

The Government has acknowledged the problems associated with birth month and last year ordered Sir Jim Rose, who is carrying out a review of the primary school curriculum, to consider “how we can design the curriculum to improve outcomes for summer-born children”.

Today's report discusses a number of potential solutions. One might be to test students at the end of each school year and to use these results to determine whether children should be allowed to progress to the next stage. The Conservative Party has already suggested that this could happen at the end of Key Stage 2, when most children are 11.

There are potential disadvantages with this approach, not least the risk of stigmatising children who are held back, which could demotivate them and delay their academic progress further. There is also the question of making sure that no children are held back wrongly and the administrative difficulty of delaying decisions on school transfer and progression until after end-of-year tests.

An alternative might be to allow children to start school at the age of 6 instead of 5 if they are not ready. This already happens in many other countries.

If this option of flexible school starting dates were to be implemented, the authors conclude that “full-time nursery provision would need to be offered as an alternative to full-time schooling”. This would be necessary to help poorer parents, who might otherwise be reluctant to delay entry because they are unable to make appropriate alternative childcare arrangements.