Education- Cultural factors Flashcards
Cultural Deprivation
Some (such as the New Right) argue that working-class pupils are likely to be culturally deprived, often because of inadequate socialisation. They argue that the norms and values of many working-class families are not those that lead to getting the best out of the education system.
The Marshmallow Test
The experiment measured how well children could delay immediate gratification to receive greater rewards in the future- an ability that predicts success later in life. Children who could hold out longer before eating the marshmallow performed better academically, handled frustration better, and managed their stress more effectively as adolescent
Barry Sugarman (1970)
Immediate gratification- Focussing on the pleasures of the moment, rather than putting them off for future reward (e.g. leaving school as soon as possible to seek out work). Middle class children can delay gratification. They understand that the longer they remain in education and bare the struggles of education they will receive a high paying job.
Present time orientation- Being more focussed on the present time, rather than thinking about the future
Fatalism- accepting your situation, rather than putting in effort to try and change it. WC children are not motivated to try and improve their performance in the classroom as they don’t think it will change the outcome anyway
Collectivism- Placing more emphasis on loyalty to a group, rather than your individual achievements, which is required in school.
Evaluation of Sugarman (AO3)
Members of the working-class are realistic rather than fatalistic…
Working-class subculture may be a response to the circumstances of working-class life. If they had the necessary resources to defer gratification (money), they may do so. Similarly, if they realistically had opportunities to succeed in the future, they may be more focussed on them rather than the present. Their norms and values are not different, they are just unable to express them in the same was as the middle-classes are.
Sugarman’s methodology could also be criticised as he used interviews and questionnaires…
The validity of the responses could be low because people may just give the answers that they feel are expected of them, or what they think the interviewer wants them to say. Therefore, their responses may not give an accurate indication of how they behave in other day-to-day situations.
Parental attitudes towards education
Two influential studies have been conducted on the relationship between the achievement of working-class children in school and the attitudes and involvement of their parents in their education.
Douglas (1970) and Feinstein (2003) both found that parents had a huge role to play in the outcomes of their children in the education system.
Read pages 74 and 75 of Haralambos and Holborn, and take notes summarising their arguments in no more than 5 bullet points for each theory
Douglas (1970)
Longitudinal study of over 5,000 British children up to the age of 16.
Found that the degree of parental interest was the single most important factor in determining children’s success.
Middle-class parents were more interested in their children’s education, making frequent visits to the school to discuss progress. They were also more likely to encourage their children to stay on in education.
Douglas also found that a child’s early years had a big impact on their later success, arguing that middle-class children received more attention from their parents early on.
Evaluation (AO3)
It may be that working class parents are less able to make frequent visits to schools due to working unsociable hours, and having limited rights to request time off for parents evenings.
Working class parents may be intimidated by the middle class habitus (norms, values, attitudes) of schools. They may have had negative experiences at school themselves, and find it difficult to interact with teachers in the same way that middle-class parents are able to.
Both these sociologists used data about teacher’s perceptions of parental interest which may be invalid. Teachers may stereotype working class parents. Teachers may have more favourable perceptions of middle class parents, because of the way they interact with the teachers when they attend school events.
Gillian Evans (2007)
Gillian Evans (2007)- relationships between parents and children in w/c families are different, but not necessarily deprived. W/C parents want their children to do well, and they do value education. However, less formal learning takes place in the home (e.g. counting, shapes, colours etc.)
Bernstein: Language Codes
The restricted code: used by working-class-Limited vocabulary
Short, unfinished, grammatically simple sentences
Predictable speech, single words or just gestures and is descriptive not analytic
Context bound: (The speaker assumes the listener shares the same experiences).
The elaborated code: used by middle-class-Extensive vocabulary
Longer, complex sentences
Speech is varied and abstract ideas communicated
Context free: (language is used to make meaning explicit).
Bernstein: Language Codes
Education in schools is conducted in terms of elaborated code placing working class children at a disadvantage because they tend to be limited to restricted code
The elaborated language is used by teachers and is present in textbooks and exams and is perceived to be the ‘correct’ way to speak and write.
This prevents working class children from being able to acquire the skills demanded by the education system
Evaluation of Bernstein
Bernstein provides very little evidence to support the existence and use of elaborated and restricted code. Some suggest he implies that working-class speech patterns are inferior to middle-class speech patterns. The use of interviews may impact validity due to interviewer bias/interviewer effect.
Victim blaming?- Nell Keddie
Nell Keddie (1973): Cultural deprivation is a myth and it is a victim blaming explanation.
Working class culture is not inferior, just different. Working class speech patterns are different not inferior.
Working class children do less well simply because schools are dominated by middle class values.
Schools should recognise and value working class culture and teachers should not have anti-working class prejudices.
Working class parents are interested in their children’s education but may miss parents’ evenings because they work longer hours. Also, they may feel intimidated by the middle-class atmosphere.
Pierre Bourdieu
The concept of cultural capital comes from French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu (1970s). He was heavily influenced by Marxist ideas.
Bourdieu argues that middle class people are advantaged in society because they possess high amounts of capital (economic, social, cultural).
Economic capital- financial resources (income and wealth)
Social capital- A social network that can be used as a resource
Cultural capital- the culture of the dominant classes which can be translated in to wealth, income, power, and prestige
Cultural capital
The children of middle-class or wealthier parents are likely to have knowledge, behaviour, attitudes and cultural experiences that ensures that they succeed in education (and society).
This can be translated in to wealth, income, power, and status via the education system.
Cultural deficit – the view that working class culture is deficient in terms of values, norms, tastes and this acts as a disadvantage in education.
How is Cultural capital different to cultural deprivation?
Students often struggle to explain the differences between the two concepts….
Cultural deprivation theory suggests that people from disadvantaged backgrounds lack important cultural resources (knowledge, norms, values, experiences) that are important for educational achievement and social mobility. They attribute “deficiency” to factors such as parental education and attitudes, and disadvantaged home backgrounds.
Cultural capital theory highlights how individuals from privileged backgrounds possess valuable cultural advantages, which includes knowledge, skills, and habits that are valued by society. This theory suggests that individuals with more cultural capital have advantages in education, employment, and other areas of social life.
Habitus
the amount of cultural capital an individual possess is based on their habitus: “the values, attitudes, dispositions (qualities), and expectations held by particular groups”
Habitus is learned through primary socialisation, and contains a set of assumptions about what counts as good and bad taste
This influences the kind of leisure activities different classes engage in, the kind of places they visit, where they go on holiday, the kind of TV shows they are likely to watch and the type of music they are likely to listen to.
In the “field” (context) of education, the middle-class habitus is more valuable because schools are middle class institutions
Culture clash
Middle class culture is also the dominant culture in most schools, and schools place high value on the above types of middle-class skills and knowledge.
Middle class children thus ‘just fit in’, they don’t need to do anything else other than be themselves in order to belong and thrive at school.
Some sociologists have suggested that working-class children experience a culture clash between their life at home and their experiences within the education system
Louise archer
“University’s not for me- I’m a Nike person” Louise Archer (2007)
Archer suggested that one of the reasons for lower participation in HE for these groups was the culture clash between the habitus of working-class pupils and the environment of Higher Education which was better suited to the habitus of the white middle-class – who knew the ‘rules of the game’.
The working class identified themselves as ‘Nike’ is comparison to the middle class ‘Gucci’- this is how they constructed their identities
The development of these ‘Nike’ identities led these students to clash with teachers over wearing trainers instead of shoes, or wearing make-up and jewellery. This led to them being further marginalised within the field of education.
Capitals and School Choice
Ball, Bowe, and Gerwitz conducted a study called “Market Forces & Parental Choice” in 1994 which looked at class differences in choosing schools.
M/C parents have wider knowledge/ more informed research of choices available
M/C parents more able to move house or cheat to get into ‘best’ school
M/C parents can afford coaching/ tutoring
M/C parents have wider network for advice and can use their social capital to support their children throughout education.
Reay (1998)- Mothers and Class Work
Based on interviews with 33 children at 2 London primary schools, Reay argues that it is mothers who have the main influence on their children’s education
She argues that working class mothers are just as involved with their children’s education as middle class mothers. However, middle class mothers had more cultural capital available to them (as well as economic capital).
Middle class mothers had more of an understanding of how the education system worked. They felt more confident dealing with teachers when problems occurred at school, and were able to help their children with their homework.
More than half of the middle class mothers had cleaners, au pairs (or both), giving them more time away from domestic work to spend with their children. They could also afford private tutors.
Compensatory education policies- part one
Education Action Zones (EAZs) and Excellence in Cities (EiC)- programmes set up to improve the attainment levels of underachieving students in deprived areas from low-income backgrounds. EAZs set up homework and breakfast clubs, and later, EiC set up learning mentors and low cost leasing for computers. Both had limited success.
Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA)- Weekly cash allowance for 16-19 year olds from low-income families who remained in further education.
Compensatory education policies- part two
Sure Start Programme- Targeted under 5s whose families lived in the most deprived areas, providing extra support and resources such as home visits and professionally run play centres
The aim of this policy was to intervene early, to improve the future educational, health, and employment prospects for deprived children.
In 2010, the DFE claimed the benefits of Sure Start centres were “modest”, but many mothers in the areas reported to find them useful.
Recent research has found that children from low-income families who grew up near a Sure Start centre did better than their peers at GCSEs (Institute for Fiscal Studies, 2024).
