class and differential achievement Flashcards
patterns of class and differential achievement
children from w/c backgrounds are:
- less likely to be found in nursery schools
- more likely to fall behind in literacy and numeracy
- more likely to be placed in lower sets
- more likely to leave school at 16 in the past
- less likely to stay on and enter further education
- less likely to be found in higher education (only 1 in 5 w/c children go to university)
examples of external factors affecting class
- intelligence
- material deprivation
- cultural deprivation
- linguistic deprivation
- cultural capital
examples of material deprivation
- cannot afford private education
- cannot afford educational resources (books, educational toys, tutors etc)
- poor overcrowded housing
- poor diet (poor concentration)
- hidden costs of free education (trips, uniform, calculators etc)
- can’t afford to move to catchment area of better schools
ONS statistics on material deprivation
found that 29% of the poorest households in Britain had no computer access but 99% of the richest households had one
Douglas - impacts of poor housing
found that the group with unsatisfactory housing conditions had lower educational abilities than those with satisfactory conditions
Howard - impacts of poor diet
not being able to afford nutritional food may cause children to lose concentration and do worse in education
Tanner - hidden costs of education
w/c children may have to rely on second hand or unfashionable items which can lead to bullying and doing worse in education
Leech and Campos - catchment area
m/c families can afford to get children to travel to better schools or move to the catchment area of a good school
strengths of material deprivation theory
- highly influential in developing many compensatory education initiatives
weaknesses of material deprivation theory
- lack of money does not always influence educational achievement
- does not take into account cultural factors (Phillips - may be due to poor teaching or parenting)
- policies aimed at combatting deprivation have limited success (sure start schemes, EAZs etc)
cultural deprivation
the idea that the w/c do not have the language or values needed to do well in education so they are placed at a disadvantage
Bernstein - linguistic deprivation
restricted code - shorthand speech consisting of a narrow vocabulary with short and broken sentences, relying on gestures and slang (w/c)
elaborated code - use of full sentences and a wider vocabulary, with explanations and details provided (m/c)
strengths of linguistic deprivation theory
- takes into account how cultural factors interact with the school environment
- empirical evidence (Bernstein showed boys’ storyboards)
weaknesses of linguistic deprivation theory
- out of date (Gaine + George argue differences in speech patterns have declined
- small, unrepresentative sample of boys aged 5
Douglas - parental interest
suggested m/c parents were more likely to visit their children’s schools and encourage them to stay on in education when w/c parents will not
criticism of Douglas (parental interest)
parents may not attend their children’s school due to shift work or not being able to afford childcare rather than not being interested
Sugarman - characteristic of working class subculture
fatalistic - there is no way to change your status so there is no point trying as you will fail anyway
collectivistic - value being part of a group rather than individual success
present time orientated - seeing the present as more important than the future
immediate gratification - seeking immediate pleasure rather than making sacrifices to get bigger rewards in future
strengths of cultural deprivation theory
- highly influential over government policy
- can explain why people who are materially deprived can succeed
- Feinstein found cultural deprivation was the most important factor in educational achievement
weaknesses of cultural deprivation theory
- cultural deprivation is a myth (Keddie - education system is simply biased against w/c culture)
- w/c people are interested in their children’s education
- research has not measured parental interest adequately (Blackstone and Mortimore - teacher assessments are not an accurate reflection)
- material or internal factors may be the main cause of differences
- Whitty - policies focus too much on child’s background and not societal inequality as a whole
Bourdieu - cultural capital
the knowledge, attitudes, values, tastes and likes of the middle class, which gives advantage to those who possess it
m/c children succeed in education because they have been socialised into this culture already
strengths of cultural capital theory
- Bourdieu takes a positive view of w/c culture
- evidence of difference in cultural capital of m/c and w/c (Sullivan -tested children on their cultural knowledge and found m/c had most cultural capital)
- evidence that m/c use cultural capital to get children into the best schools (Gewirtz - m/c utilised cultural capital and knowledge of the education system)
weaknesses of cultural capital theory
- weakly defined concept that may not exist
- over exaggerate differences between m/c and w/c
- fails to account for internal factors
examples of internal factors
- labelling
- setting and streaming
- pupil subcultures
- school policies
Rosenthal and Jacobson ‘Pygmalion in the Classroom’ (labelling theory)
carried out IQ tests on children and told teacher 20% of them (randomly selected) would be ‘spurters’ and make above average progress in the the next year
teachers accepted and utilised the label on these children, giving them more encouragement, meaning they did make above average progress
