Educational Achievement / Social Class Flashcards
Bernstein (1971)
Linguistic deprivation
Elaborated code - which involves having a wide vocabulary and sophisticated grammar and which means explanations, verbal or written, are clearly understood by everyone
Restricted code - which is characterised by a limited vocabulary and limited use of grammar which means explanations, verbal or written, are not clearly understood by everyone, and those will often require more description and/or need to be supplemented by non verbal cues, such as gestures/ for other people to make sense of what they are saying
Middle class children can readily switch from one code to the other other, wile working class children are limited to the restricted code. The elaborated code is the one used in the educational system by teachers, exams, textbooks, university interviews, etc. This gives the middle class an educational advantage
Sugarman (1970)
Working class subcultures
Sugarman argues different social classes have different values and attitudes towards education. He argues that middle class parents value education in a way which underpins educational success and that working class values are different from those of the middle class. He has densifiée three major features of working class values. Each of these ‘subcultural’ values places children from a Woking class background at a disadvantage in the education system
~ immediately gratification. members of the working class tend to want rewards (gratification) ‘now’ rather than making sacrifices for the future rewards, eg, job = equals money = immediate material benefits. The middle class, on the other hand, practises differed gratification
~ fatalism. Working class children accept their social and economic position in life: they do not believe they can change or improve t with individual effort put into school
~ low parent interest. The working class is less likely to look at the long term benefits of being on the education system, and therefore less likely to value the importance of education
Paul Willis
Anti school subculture
Theories and studies about this, such as Paul Willis’ “Learning to Labour” are detailed in other study notes, but the key point is that some students (particularly working-class boys, according to Willis) form subcultures within the school that are hostile to the school. For them, praise from teachers is bad, getting into trouble is good. The norms and values of the subculture are of messing about and avoiding work and to welcome poor grades. The subcultures have little interest in achievement and therefore it is unsurprising that the students who are likely to form such subcultures are also statistically likely to underperform.
Bourdieu (1997)
Economic capital
According to Bourdieu, the middle class uses its economic capital to convert this into educational capital which helps their children to obtain good educational qualifications. This, in turn, leads to their children obtaining highly paid jobs. This ‘cultural capital’ is then passed onto their own children, thus reproducing the advantages of the middle class from one generation to the next
Cultural capital
He believes that in order to do well in education system, students must possess a certain level of cultural capital. It is for this reason that middle class families have higher educational success than working class families, because they have a greater ‘quantity’ of cultural capital
Becker (1915)
Labelling theory
Labelling refers to how teachers categorise pupils as ‘bright’, ‘troublesome’, lazy’, ‘enthusiastic’, etc. The labelling theory states that how teachers ‘label’ a student can affect their educational performance. Becker (1951) interviewed 60 teachers from Chicago high schools about their attitudes towards pupils, such as their ideal type of student (eg, work ethic, conduct, appearance and behaviour). He found that teachers held a positive and ideal view of middle-class pupils and preferred to teach them, whereas they held a negative view of working-class pupils and were less willing to teach them. Becker argues that the holding of such stereotypes would affect teachers’ perceptions of pupils, their interaction with them, and subsequent educational achievement.
Colin Lacey (1970)
Subcultures
Lacey found that streaming can lead to
— Pro-school subculture being formed by pupils in higher-stream classes. They accept the school’s rules, values and goals, such as homework, attendance and respect to teachers, and enjoy and conform to school life, lessons, activities, etc.
— Anti-school subculture often being formed by those in lower-stream classes. They will engage in behaviour that rejects the school’s rules, values and goals and often turns them upside-down, eg, disrespect towards teachers and a dislike of school, breaking school rules, avoiding doing schoolwork, playing truant and sabotaging their uniforms. Lacey argues that pupils form anti-school subcultures as a means of gaining status among their peer friends by, for example, rudeness, vandalism, smoking, bullying, and not doing their homework.
Working-class pupils tend to join an anti-school subculture which is likely to lead to educational failure. This becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy whereby schools and teachers will continue to deem working-class pupils as having lower ability when in reality they may have academic potential.
Streaming (or setting)
Streaming is the act of putting students with similar abilities in the same class and teaching them together for some or all subjects (eg, top set for the bright pupils, bottom set for the ‘thick’ pupils). Lacey (1970) argues that when streaming, setting or banding systems are in operation at school, working-class students were more likely to be consigned to lower streams, sets or bands even when in reality they often had very good academic potential. A study by David Gillborn and Deborah Youdell (2001) examined teachers’ ideas of ability to decide which pupils have the potential to achieve five GCSE A*-C. They found that working-class and black pupils are less likely to be perceived as having the potential, and are more likely to be in a lower stream and be entered for lower-tier GCSEs. This process of institutional labelling and streaming not only widens the class gap between the working and middle class in terms of educational achievement but also creates a self-fulfilling prophecy: poor exam performance confirms the teacher’s initial predication.
See and Davis (2010)
Parents’ attitude to education
See and Davis (2010) high parental interest leads to better exam results than those children whose parents show no interest. Middle class parents are more likely to frequently visit the school and take an interest in their education, encourage children when they are older by helping with exam options and encouraging them to stay in school after the minimum leaving age. The age of leaving has now been increased
Perry and Francis (2010)
Attitudes and values
Perry and Francis (2010) suggest that class subcultures can affect educational achievement. Those in middle classes have jobs which offer the promise of career progression, through effort and educational qualifications which leads to a future orientation and differed gratification. Individual effort ad intelligence are seen as the key to success. This means that children are socialised into values and attitudes high encourage ambition and educational success. A future orientation and deferred gratification create a recognition of the need for individual hard work and effort. Those in working classes often have jobs which do not require educational qualifications and te lack of promotion opportunities leads to a present time orientation (lack of future planning), mediate gratification (getting pleasures now at her than having to wait for them) and fatalism (an acceptance of the situation rather than trying to change it). Working together provides more gains than working alone. This means that children are socialised into values and attitudes which do not encourage ambition. Immediate granitisation discourages working hard in school for long term gains
Gillborn and Youdell (2001)
A study by David Gillborn and Deborah Youdell (2001) examined teachers’ ideas of ability to decide which pupils have the potential to achieve five GCSE A*-C. They found that working-class and black pupils are less likely to be perceived as having the potential, and are more likely to be in a lower stream and be entered for lower-tier GCSEs. This process of institutional labelling and streaming not only widens the class gap between the working and middle class in terms of educational achievement but also creates a self-fulfilling prophecy: poor exam performance confirms the teacher’s initial predication.
Louise Archer et al (2010)
Education stigmatises working-class habitus
Louise Archer et al (2010) examined the relationship between social identity and the aspirations of working-class students who were identified as being at risk of dropping out of education or unlikely to progress into post-16 education. Archer argues that many working-class pupils were conscious that society and school looked down on them.
This symbolic violence led them to seek alternative ways of creating self-worth, status and value. They did so by investing heavily in ‘style’ (eg, clothing, hairstyle, make-up and jewellery), especially through consumer brands such as Nike which they associated with being ‘cool’ or ‘hard’ or having ‘street cred’-which brought status recognition—or earned approval from peer groups. However, buying into such lifestyles brings conflict with schools and colleges (eg, dress codes). The school’s middle-class habitus stigmatises working-class identities as rule-breakers and having ‘poor’ taste to the point where certain items of clothing associated with working-class youth such as ‘hoodies’ have become linked with criminality. Archer, believes that working-class pupils’ investment in ‘Nike-like’ identities, not only caused them to be marginalised at school; but they also actively choose to reject education because it does not fit in with their identity or way of life.
Bernstein and Young
Cultural deprivation
Bernstein and Young claim that middle-class family culture contains aspects which benefit a child’s schooling, such as visiting museums or libraries. These activities encourage extracurricular knowledge and curiosity, which benefits the child in school. Pupils not from a white middle-class background are less likely to have these opportunities and therefore face cultural deprivation.
Douglas and Feinstein
Douglas and Feinstein (1964, 1998) suggested that middle-class parents had greater knowledge of how to ‘work the system’ in schools than working-class parents. They saw this as beneficial to the success of middle-class pupils.
The parents of these students are more aware of how to tackle sexual discrimination, disagreements with teachers and have the ability to purchase extra books and equipment to excel their child’s learning. Some argue that middle-class parents are more interested in the ability of their children and therefore are more involved in their school life.
