Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Class Differences in Academic Achievement - Coggle Diagram
Class Differences in Academic Achievement
External factors
Cultural deprivation
Intellectual development
Young (1967)
MC mothers choosing toys which develop thinking and reasoning skills
Language
Bernstein
restricted and elaborated speech codes
Attitudes and Values
Douglas
WC parents placing less value on education
Feinstein (1998)
WC parents' lack of interest has more effect on their children's achievement than material deprivation or internal factors
Working class as a subculture
Hyman (1967) working class subculture
values and beliefs of WC subculture are a 'self imposed barrier' to success
Sugarman (1970) working class subculture
deferred and immediate gratification, fatalism, collectivism, present time orientation
Criticisms of cultural deprivation theory
Keddie (1973)
cultural deprivation is a 'myth' and victim blaming, WC have a
different
culture not a bad one
Material deprivation theorists
like Keddie argue cultural deprivation theory is a 'smokescreen' hiding the real problem: poverty and material deprivation
Tronya & Williams (1986)
problem is not children's language but schools' attitudes towards it, teachers' 'speech hierarchy'
Blackstone & Mortimore
WC parents do not attend parents due to lack of interest but due to lack of confidence or long shifts
Schools' response: Compensatory education
Education Action Zones
Pupil Premiums
Sure Start (2000)
Material deprivation
Housing
Overcrowding and poor ventilation causing illness and difficulty concentrating, no space to work
Diet
Howard
children from poor homes have lower intake of energy, vitamins, minerals
The hidden costs of schooling
Tanner et al (2003)
cost of transport, uniforms, books, technology, sports kit, music equipment palces financial burden on poor families
Fear of debt
Callender & Jackson (2005)
WC students x5 less likely to apply to university due to fear of debt
Cultural and Economic Capital
Bourdieu (1984)
you need
both
cultural and material capital to succeed
economic capital + cultural capital = educational capital
Cultural capital
Gerwitz & Ball study(1994)
MC parents using cultural capital to ensure children went to best schools by making good impressions at open days, 'working the system', knowing how to mount appeal
MC parents know how to 'work the system' (eg mounting appeals to get their children into schools
Economic capital
Academies Commission (2013)
selecting MC children using postcodes
Paying for transport to best schools
Paying for lawyers to support appeals against child not getting into best school
Internal (school-based) factors
Labelling and self-fulfilling prophecy
Hargreaves (1977)
observed teachers' speculation, elaboration, stabilisation stages of typing and classification of students
Rist (1970) Labelling in primary schools
pre-labelling American kindergarten pupils using home information thus pupils got varying levels of teacher attention (Tigers, Cardinals, Clowns)
Rosenthal & Jacobson
observed students in Californian elementary school 1 year after telling teachers half class were 'spurters', teachers labelled pupils and they became self-fulfilling prophecies
Counterevidence: Margaret Fuller
studied African-Caribbean girls in London who were labelled by teachers but they rejected labels and academically succeeded; this shows effect of who pupils view as a 'moral entrepreneur'
Deterministic - assumes individuals are passive and will inevitably succumb to their label by internalising it as their master status (forms the major part of their self concept)
Marxists - should blame the capitalist system and education system as an ISA rather than individual teachers!
Pupil Subcultures
Lacey (1970)
uses 'differentiation' and 'polarization' to explain how subcultures develop, found that streaming polarized boys into pro-school and anti-school subcultures
Peter Woods: Pupil Adaptions
argues there are not just pro and anti school subcultures as Lacey suggests: ingratiation, ritualists, retreatants, rebellion - it is more complex than Lacey suggests (not polarised)
Willis
- 'the lads' counter-school subculture features: having a laff, making fun of academic work and students (ere oles), hegemonic masculine identity - none of this conducive to academic success
Pupils may not remain in one distinct subculture or anti-school behaviour - eg could be a ritualist in maths but a retreatist in English
Streaming and marketisation
Gilbourn & Youdell - A-C Economy -
WC students likely to be in bottom sets (often due to teacher labelling and stereotypes) which are regarded as 'hopeless' cases in the
Educational Triage
and therefore given less support so underachieve
Gerwitz
- 'myth of parentocracy' - differentiates between privileged skilled choosers (MC) and disconnected local choosers (WC) - education marketisation policies (1988) have increased social class differences in education
David
- parentocracy - views marketisation policies as a positive change as they increase competition, choice, and standards of schooling
Functionalists - Davis and Moore
- role allocation - streaming and marketisation ensures that the most important jobs go to the most talented people - this is FAIR INEQUALITY
Pupil identities and policing
- schools and peers can reinforce and police pupils identities
Archer - Nike Identities
- schools shape working-class identities by rejecting the WC habitus - pupils develop identities indepedent of the school as
Symbolic capital
= status given by peers for performing desirable behaviours
WC students gain symbolic capital/status by conforming to WC habitus (eg wearing branded sportswear (Nike), collectivism)
whereas MC students naturally gain symbolic capital from the school since it reinforces their MC habitus/ values
Symbolic violence
= rejecting working-class habitus - regards it as worthless and has no value - this reproduces class divides
Habitus
= learned behaviours shared by a group which are a response to their social class - lifestyle and consumption preferences, exectations, etc
eg WC wearing sportswear brand logos, fatalistic attitudes, collectivism, hyper heterosexuality
WC felt like to succeed in ecuation was to 'lose your identity' (changing your appearance, acccent, behaviours, expectations, etc)
Therefore they sought out the alternative status hierarchy - gain symbolic capital from peers (rather than school) by wearing branded clothing - constructing a 'NIKE IDENTITY'
WC girls specifically developed 'hyper heterosexual feminine identity' - worth comes from having a boyfriend
Archer argues the MC school habitus stigmatised and rejected these identities as anti-school
Bourdeiu
- cultural, economic, and symbolic capital - these concepts are used by Archer
Sarah Evans
- Locality and self-exclusion from elite universities
WC girls in London comprehensive 'self-excluded' themselves from elite universities as they felt they wouldn't fit in - the MC habitus of the university did not align with their WC habitus and identity
These girls were more focused on locality and being near their home/ community where they could gain symbolic capital
Important point: we cannot look at internal vs external factors in isolation - they affect each other!
speech codes (external) leads to labelling (internal)
WC habitus and social class identity (external) conflicts with MC school habitus through symbolic violence (internal)
hidden costs of schooling and material deprivation (external) leads to bullying and truancy (internal)