Which class achieves better? WHY?

Which class achieves better? WHY? Upper Class? Lower Class?

Who said that…… ‘Children learn the importance of hard-work, individualism and competition’? Parsons Durkheim

Who said that…… ‘Subjects like History and RE enables children to feel a sense of belonging to society’? Parsons Durkheim

Who said that…… ‘Working-class products of the education system are passive, accept failure without question and are forced to become factory-workers’? Bowles and Gintis Althusser

Who developed the correspondence theory which suggested that…… “What goes on in schools ‘corresponds’ with the needs of the workplace. Therefore capitalism requires a passive workforce that is prepared to accept low skills and low pay’’. Bowles and Gintis Althusser

Material Deprivation Theory Cultural Deprivation Theory Cultural Capital Theory

CLASS DIFFERENCES At all stages of education, from primary school through secondary school to university, students from working-class backgrounds achieve less than their middle-class counterparts. It has been found that the children of the middle classes are three times more likely to get a professional job than working-class children. Reasons for this situation, including ‘external factors’ to the school such as material and cultural deprivation and ‘internal factors’ associated with teacher-pupil interaction within the school.

Material Deprivation Theory • This describes the impact of poverty on a home and refers to the fact that poor people lack money and resources to use to further their educational success. Smith and Noble (1995) identify a range of material factors that act as barriers to learning, these include: • Lacking somewhere to study and do homework. • A lack of computers and books. • Not being able to participate effectively in school education, either through lack of classroom materials or not going on extra-curricular activities such as trips because of the cost.

Material Deprivation Theory • In addition, material deprivation can result in children suffering from a shortage of attention from their parents, because their working hours are unsocial or because they are preoccupied with persistent housing and income problems. Poor housing conditions include: • Accommodation being cold, damp and draughty. • Overcrowding leading to lack of personal space for family members.

Material Deprivation Theory A low family income can also mean that children’s diet is poor nutritionally. This could also undermine a child’s health or limit their ability to concentrate in the classroom. These factors have found a correlation between areas of poverty and schools as they tend to have lower examination results in school league tables. The outcomes is that children experiencing material deprivation are more likely to attend failing schools, as Tess Ridge (2007) points out that poorer children are aware that their experiences of school will not be of the same quality as those of richer people.

Material Deprivation Theory Furthermore, material deprivation can also put pressure on pupils to leave school at 16, dropout of post-16 education or not go to university. Forsyth and Furlong (2003) found that the most significant factor deterring the working class from going to university was the costs of tuition fees, and the prospect of student loans and bank overdrafts.

Sure Start Sure Start was introduced in 1999; by providing clinic and nursery support to improve deprived children’s health, education and employment prospects. The New Right would agree that such policies simply involve throwing money at a materially deprived group who are poor for reasons of their own making. They see the poor as an underclass who share a deviant sub-cultural set of values centred on laziness, work-shyness, promiscuity and welfare dependency that promotes a cycle of deprivation from generation to generation. What is needed, they argue, is not extra money but a shift in attitudes with parents and children taking on more personal responsibility to improve themselves through hard work. Who is likely to say this?

Cultural Deprivation Theory This theory suggests that working-class pupils underachieve because their home culture is ‘not as good’ as the culture of the middle-class or because working-class parents do not value education. Charles Murray (1990) argues that this underclass is allegedly lazy and worthless, often engaged in criminal and delinquent behaviour and dependent on welfare benefits.

Cultural Deprivation Theory- Parents Attitudes Douglas (1964) observed that working-class parents attended parent’s evenings less often than middle-class parents. It has argued that middle-class parents are more child-centred and encourage their children to plan ahead for their future more than working-class parents.

Cultural Deprivation Theory- Socialisation Saunders believes that middle-class are more intelligent, but he also suggested that they work harder. When Saunders examined how committed children were to school and to academic achievement, he found that the children who were determined and worked hard did better later on in life. Saunders argued that the middle-class children in his study were more motivated than their working-class peers.

Cultural Deprivation Theory- Language Bernstein (1971) identified two different speech patterns or codes in use in the UK, the ‘restricted’ and ‘elaborated’ codes: The ‘elaborate’ linguistic code of the middle-class is the same as the language of textbooks and the classroom. According to Bernstein, only the middle-class can communicate in this code. Working-class children, who use shorthand speech – ‘restricted code’- in which meanings are not clearly spelled out, because it is used among family and friends, are therefore clearly disadvantaged as it is frowned upon in the classroom and educational writing.

Cultural Deprivation Theory- Language Bernstein (1971) argues that the use of these codes originates in the kinds of jobs we do: factory jobs require few verbal skills whereas in office work you might spend time communicating ideas on a telephone or giving presentations and reports using elaborated code. Language use is also dependent upon family relationships, and, he argues, in working-class families children are not encouraged to question adult decisions, whereas in middle-class families parents supposedly encourage their children to communicate through the use of discussion and negotiation.

Cultural Deprivation Theory One of the functions of the education system, Bernsteinargues, is to discriminate in favour of the middle-class. New qualifications, such as vocational courses or newly introduced A levels like Media Studies, which suit working-class children as they come across as relevant and accessible are discredited as ‘easy’.

Cultural Deprivation Theory- Value It has been argued that the values of the middle classes are more in tune with those of the educational system. For example, working-class pupils may be reluctant to do homework and revision when they could be playing football or computer games. Middle-class pupils have a different mindset to academic work, seeing it as having long-term benefits and are therefore mentally tuned in to putting up with it in return for future success and career opportunities. Brown (1987) found that working-class children may be under pressure from some parents and certainly peer-pressure to drop-out early from school. They are taught to avoid coming across as a ‘geek’ especially males. Brown (1987) found that achieving students in working-class schools often suffered bullying and isolation.

Cultural Capital Theory Bourdieu (1994) argues that middle-class children come into the education system equipped to do well because their cultural backgrounds is similar to that of the dominant class. Their values, attitudes and behaviour therefore coincide quite closely with teacher expectations- an advantage that Bourdieu described as cultural capital. He argued that working-class children may find their knowledge and values dismissed as inferior and irrelevant. ‘Habitus’ refers to the lifestyle, values and expectations that develop out of the experience of particular social groups.Bordieu views habitus as recognising a ‘feel for the game’, whereby many working-class pupils see the system as stacked against them and that they are unlikely to succeed.

Cultural Capital Theory Bourdieu (1994) a Marxist , suggests that it is the middle-class nature of the education system that is to blame for working-class failure rather than the character of working-class culture. “it’s not all booze, fags and football” Bourdieu suggested that knowledge in schools can be made more relevant to the experiences of the working class in terms of music, literature, poetry and so on. He points out that if we make working-class pupils feel that their experiences are relevant and valued they may be more motivated by the educational process.

Cultural Capital Theory- Labelling Theory Howard Becker (1963) found that teachers had a very clear idea about what constituted ideal work, appropriate conduct, attitude and appearance. Their view of pupils who conformed to middle-class standards came closest to an ‘ideal-type’ they carried in their heads. They interpreted working-class behaviour as indicating lack of interest and motivation, so such pupils were viewed as furthest away from their ideal-types. This is a classic example of ‘labelling’. When it is backed by the authority of the teacher, labels can result in a self-fulfilling prophecy whereby the pupil internalise and conforms to the behaviour and expectations associated with the label.

Cultural Capital Theory Schools decide which children are capable of being educated to the highest degree and which are not.For example, schools may decide that top streams receive academic knowledge while bottom streams receive practical knowledge. However, some aspects of schooling, such as streaming or negative teacher treatment, may create unmanageable children. Schools can then decide not to manage such children by excluding them. It is suggested that pupils may see themselves as ‘bright’ or ‘thick’ or whatever and act accordingly.

Cultural Capital Theory Willis argues that his ladsrejected schooling well before the school rejected them, because they wanted working-class jobs. Their ‘failure’ therefore was not the result of teacher labelling. Rather, they chose to resist the value system of the school.

Cultural Capital Theory Keddie (1973) noted that streaming can have a very negative consequence for pupils in the bottom streams. ‘A’ streamers were encouraged to think, ‘C’ streamers were encouraged to make things. Also that in mixed-ability classes the behavioural problems disappeared, although labelling did not disappear. Teachers continued to distinguish between ‘bright’ pupils and those seen as ‘average’ and to treat them according to those labels. Research has suggested that working-class children may be streamed or placed in sets according to behaviour rather than ability.

What is meant by an ideal pupil?

Why are upper social classes more likely to gain places at elite universities?

Why does poverty make educational attainment more difficult?

‘Assess the view that factors within schools are the greatest influence on social-class differences in educational achievement’ (20 marks) Question can be found in your Sociology Education booklet - ‘eye on the exam – Class and Educational Achievement’.

Which class achieves better? WHY?