Education: Social Class AO3 Flashcards
Evaluation of material deprivation theory
-Overlap with cultural factors-Hard to separate material and cultural deprivation.E.g., parents’ education levels (cultural) impact their ability to support learning, shaping outcomes alongside income.
-School interventions-Schools offer Free School Meals, breakfast clubs, pupil premium funding, etc.Helps reduce the impact of poverty, though may not fully close the gap.
-Deterministic-Assumes all WC students will fail due to poverty.Ignores students who succeed despite disadvantage (resilient individuals). Material deprivation doesn’t affect all groups equally.E.G.Chinese and Indian FSM pupils often outperform white FSM pupils, suggesting cultural values (e.g. high aspirations) can help overcome poverty.
-Ignores in-school factors-Over-focuses on home background.Fails to consider teacher labelling, streaming, and school-based inequalities that also impact achievement.
-Cultural capital theory offers alternative explanation-Bourdieu argues MC students succeed due to having the “right” cultural knowledge and skills, not just money.Even with the same income, WC students may lack the cultural capital that schools reward.
Evaluation of sugarmans research (1970)
-Outdated? But further supported by a more recent study-
-Mac an Ghail (1994)- The Real Englishmen(MC subculture) succeeded academically but rejected hard work, valuing effortless achievement. The Academic Achievers, (WC)valued education and worked hard for success.(values not always shared)
Evaluation of cultural deprivations
-Cultural differences, not deficiencies: WC students have different cultural values, but this doesn’t mean they are inferior; the education system just doesn’t value their culture.E.G Keddie (1973)-Cultural deprivation is a myth that blames WC students. They are not deprived of their culture but are simply culturally different, and the education system is biased towards MC values.
-Material factors: Cultural explanations often ignore material deprivation (e.g., poverty), which also plays a significant role in educational underachievement.
-Deterministic view: Cultural explanations can be deterministic, assuming all WC students will fail, without considering individual variation and potential for success. E.G In Sewell’s (1997) study of Black Caribbean boys in inner-city schools, while some boys rejected academic success and adopted a ‘gangsta’ identity, others, despite facing similar challenges, chose to engage with education and succeeded.
-Labelling and stereotyping: Cultural explanations can reinforce stereotypes and lead to lower teacher expectations, contributing to self-fulfilling prophecies.
-Bourdieu’s cultural capital: The education system rewards MC cultural capital (values, language, etc.) over WC culture, giving MC students an advantage.
Evaluation of Bourdieu (1984)
-Doesn’t give economic capital (material factors) enough credit within the theory (Sullivan).
-Exaggerates the extent to which children end up in the same class as their parents. E.G the Oxford Mobility Study revealed significant upward social mobility among WC children.
Evaluation of Sullivan (2001)
the study was based on only four schools in England, so may lack generalisability. Also based on interviews- limits our knowledge (classroom interactions??)
Evaluation of Putnam (1995)
the theory may overlook the role of economic capital and other factors in creating educational inequalities.
Evaluation of Beck (1971)
Based on interviews with 60 teachers, so it may not reflect actual classroom behaviour or the real impact of labelling
Evaluation of Rosenthal and Jacobsen (1968)
-Ethical issues due to deception of teachers and students.
-Limited generalisability-conducted in a primary school so effects may differ in secondary education.
Evaluation of Dunne and Gazeley (2008)
-Doesn’t fully explore the student perspective, limiting our understanding of the impact of these expectations.
-Not all teachers stereotype WC students, many actively work to challenge it.
Evaluation of Jorgensen (2009)
The study may lack generalisability-focused on a specific geographical area and age group, (primary schools in Hampshire)so findings may not reflect experiences in all schools.
Evaluation of the labelling theory
-Too deterministic – Assumes that once labelled, pupils will inevitably conform to that label (e.g. underachieve), ignoring those who reject it. E.G Fuller (1980) found that a group of black girls in a London comprehensive school resisted negative teacher labels and worked hard to succeed-shows that labels do not always lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy.
-Ignores wider structural factors – Doesn’t explain where labels come from or how they relate to broader issues like social class, racism, or school funding.
-Overemphasises teacher influence – Focuses too much on teacher-pupil interactions and not enough on external influences (e.g. family, peers, community).
-Limited long-term evidence – Not enough research to prove that labelling has lasting effects on life outcomes.
Evaluation of setting and streaming
-Too deterministic- implies that students in lower streams are destined to underachieve, ignoring the possibility of overcoming barriers with support.
-Teacher Bias and Labelling-teacher expectations may not be solely based on class but also on individual student characteristics E.G behaviour, making the theory too simplistic.
-Changes in Education Policy-Modern policies promoting mixed-ability teaching and individualized support challenge the relevance of traditional streaming practices in determining achievement.
-May underestimate the importance of external factors E.G poverty and family background.
Evaluation of Willis (1977)
-only studied 12 white WC boys from one school in the 1970s- Generalisable??
-Ignores the experiences of girls. Feminists E.G McRobbie argue that this reinforces sexist stereotypes by ignoring how girls experiences
Evaluation of subculture explanations within school
-Not all working-class students form anti-school subcultures; this explanation can ignore diversity within social classes
-Focuses on culture and pupil choices, but underplays material deprivation, teacher labelling, and institutional bias.(structural factors)
-Often overlooks how gender and ethnicity intersect with class to shape experiences and responses. E.G most studies only focus on white males.
-Outdated – Subcultures may look different today due to changes in the labour market, curriculum, and education policy.
Evaluation of Archer (2010)
-Risks reinforcing negative stereotypes of working-class students as anti-school
-May neglect wider structural and economic inequalities beyond cultural conflict.
Evaluation of Ingram (2009)
-Focuses too much on cultural conflict, underplaying structural factors (e.g. funding, curriculum inequality).
-Small-scale study in one Catholic grammar school – findings may not apply more widely.
Evaluation of Evan’s (2009)
-Focuses mainly on class and gender, ignoring other influences E.G ethnicity or individual motivation.
-Small, specific sample of working-class girls – limits generalisability.
Evaluation of identities
-Overemphasis on Culture:-May overlook structural factors like poverty and economic disadvantage, which also contribute significantly to educational outcomes.
-Limited Focus on Change:-Focuses on students’ perceptions and reactions, but doesn’t provide solutions or account for potential systemic changes that could help overcome educational barriers.
-Overgeneralisation- Relies on broad generalizations about working-class or middle-class identities, which can oversimplify complex individual experiences and fail to capture variation within groups.
