Social Class Differences in Achievement Flashcards
Language - Berstein
Cultural Deprivation
lang codes/ way use speech, vocab & grammar of MC & WC children = respon for dif achieve
MC speech = broader vocab, m detail & grammatically sound struc - teachers edu at higher level & = m MC - MC have advan - edu success judged on quality of commun skills
restricted code - spoken mainly by WC children lacks vocab detail & gram struc
Language - Hubbs-Tait
Cultural Deprivation
parents who challenge children to evaluate thinking have higher cog abil
Feinstein - m likely to happen in MC fams where parents = edu
Parents Education
Cultural Deprivation
Douglas - p atts to edu & own levels impact edu ach - WC p’s place less NBance on edu - push less - causes lower levels of motivation & ach
Feinstein - p’s level of edu impacts ach - MC soc children dif - parenting style - m consistent w/ disci & edu behavs
Working Class Subculture
Cultural Deprivation
Sugarman - WC have dif sub cul to Mc = barrier to edu acheivement
1. Fatalism
2. Collectivism
3. Immediate Grat
4. Present time orientation
link to under achieve - links to security of MC jobs - room for progression - encours ambition & LT planning - children soc & apply to edu
Immediate Gratification
Cultural Deprivation - WC Subculture
WC used to low wages weekly - spend immed - idea of working thro 2ndary school for no fin reward for 5 yrs means unlikely to have right attitude
MC emph def grat - parents have attitude can wait for reward - were students - instills patience & commitment
Cost of Education
Material Deprivation
= hidden costs of edu - WC disadvan
Tanner - transport, books, comprs, uniform, equip & trips
Flaherty = stigma on FSM - prevs some taking
Smith & Nobel - WC can’t afford priv tuition / schools
Ridge - WC may need to work to help HH - takes time from edu
Housing & Health
Material Deprivation
direct & indirect impact - overcrowding - lack of study space, disturbed sleep, lack of develop play - indirect - health & welfare - cold & damp
Howard - children in poorer fams have poorer diets & nutrition - lack of energy & higher absence rates
Wilkinson - high rate of hyperactiv & ADHD amoungst 10 yr olds from lower income backgrounds - impacts
Becker - Ideal Pupil
Teacher Expectations
may label as troublemaker / have image of ideal pupil - hardworking, concientious, studious, helpful & articulate - stereo of some soc groups - MC, White maybe female
Labelling Theory
Becker - in rela to dev others develop for edu
teachers subcon label pupils - well behav / naughty - effects interacs - student reacts - can internalise, accept and live up to = SFP
m likely WC boys - could create low ach
Self Fulfilling Prophecy
ppl act in response to pred made about behav - causes preds to come true - live up to label
eg lazy = demotiv - stop trying - clever = confident & motiv
Ball Beachside Comprehensive
= 3 bands
1. non manual 2. mixed 3. manual
teachers = worried mixed would have X outcomes so focussed m even if started w/ sim attitudes those in 2 & 3 m WC & anti-school - left w/ fewer quals 1 did better
Rosenthal & Jacobson (1968)
SFP
effects of teacher labelling - random 20% = unusally intel from fake IQ test - on av gained m IQ over yr than others
= interactionist so not inevitable - can reject
Interactionist Evaluation
focuses on small sale interactions in schools = detailed accounts & evidence
may ignore factors of wider soc - seen as dated
Setting & Streaming
streaming - sep into dif ability groups
WC don’t conform to image of ideal pupil - in lower stream - once streamed = dif to move - feel written off - SFP & underach
Douglas - children in lower streams at 8 suffered IQ dec by 11
Educational Triage
Gilborn & Youdell
schools perform triage:
1. achieve anyway - don’t require much input
2. hopeless - waste of resources
3. borderline- attention & input so get 5 Cs
linked w/ pressure of league tables & A- C could = connection w/ edu pol - marketisation
Teacher Expectations Evaluation
deterministic
labels can = rejected - Fuller (1984)
gives too much agency to teachers
setting & streaming can sup students
changes to teacher training
Pro School Sub Cultures
academically able, commited to school values, approval via academic success
Anti School Sub Cultures
lower streams, reject school values, truanting, disruptive behav, breaking school rules
praise = X trouble = good - n’s & v’s = messing around avoiding work - welcome bad grades & have little interest in achievement = unsurprising students in sub culs = likely to under perform
Sub Cultures Evalution
not all join
Bourdieu - WC habitus seen as anti school
Lacey: Differentiation & Polarisation
dif - teachers categorise pupils - often in streams based on percieved abil
pol - pupils respond by moving to opposite poles - pro/anti school - caused by dif - studied boys gram
Students Class Identities
students from dif soc classes have dif idens - WC m likely to come from homes where col = valued - TUs - habitus will = dif - leads to dif expers of school - respond to edu dif based on class iden
Symbolic Capital
arises from indus soc position - includes resources that come w/ prestige/honor/rep eg in edu
Symbolic Violence
harm done by denying someone’s sym cap as worthless
MC = SC WC = SV
Archer
WC students would need to change how speak and present selves to gain SC - those who don’t = devalued & judged neg by school so suffer symbolic violence
