Material Deprivation - Smith & Noble (1995)

Question 1

What did S&N claim affected the achievement of working-class pupils? (1)

Answer 1

material factors such as family income,

Question 2

What are the consequences of material deprivation? (3)

Answer 2

• greater risk of underachieving
• poverty-penalty
• barriers to learning

Question 3

Define poverty-penalty

Answer 3

The phenomenon that poor people ted to pay more to eat, buy, and borrow than the rich and are inadvertently punished for it

Question 4

Define barriers to learning

Answer 4

Anything that prevents a student from being fully engaged in the learning process
- leads to barriers to success

Question 5

Eval of Smith&Noble’s claim (1)

Answer 5

• overly generalise i.e overlooking many working class pupils who ‘defy the odds’
  
  • accused of presenting a deterministic view of the link between material dep and underachievement

Question 6

Eval of Smith&Noble’s claim (2)

Answer 6

• overlook the intersectionality of external factors
  
  • the impact of *ethnicity** combined with social class
• white pupils from poor backgrounds much more likely to underachieve compared to chinese pupils from poor backgrounds

Question 7

Eval of Smith&Noble’s claim (3)

Answer 7

• there are now measures to tackle material deprivation
• The Pupil Premium is available to pupils who have been entitled to FSM in the past six years
• schools receive £1000 for every eligible pupil to spend on books, oe-to-one catch up tutoring etc..
• S&N work could be outdated

Question 8

BBC News Article on how students studied during Covid

Answer 8

• children from wealthier families spent more time studying during lockdown
• children from middle-class homes averaged an additional 7 days a month studying
• poor had fewer educational resources, technology, and parent support
• this validates S&N research