Social class differences in achievement Flashcards
(9 cards)
Cultural deprivation (EXTERNAL)
- INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENT- DOUGLAS found working class children score less well on ability tests than middle class pupils. He argues that this is because their parents are less likely to read to them/buy edicational toys as they value
education less.
AO3: working class parents don’t buy their kids educational toys due to a lack of money (material deprivation) - LINGUISTIC DEPRIVATION - BERNSTEIN argues working class people speak in restricted code, which has a limited vocabulary, and is context bound. Middle class people speak elaborated code, which has a wider vocabulary, and isn’t context bound. Speaking elaborated code benefits middle class students because this is the language used at schools, and so they can express their ideas better.
- ATTITUDES AND VALUES - DOUGLAS argues that working class parents value education less than middle class parents example - less
likely to attend parent’s evenings. This causes their children to be less
motivated, causing them to underachieve
AO3: working class parents may
not attend parents’ evenings because they may be working evening shifts
Government policies related to cultural deprivation
- Education Action Zones (UK): schools in poor areas were given extra funding and teachers to improve results.
- SureStart centres (UK): these were set up in disadvantaged areas and provided education, care, family support and health services.
Material deprivation (EXTERNAL)
Housing: overcrowded housing makes studying difficult.
Diet & health: poor diet causes a weak immune system, meaning illness/time off from school.
Financial support: some poor children may work to support parents, meaning less
time to study.
Fear of debt: CALLENDER & JACKSON found that working class pupils are more ‘debt averse’ and that such students were 5x less likely to apply to university, meaning
they end up with less
qualifications than middle class
students
AO3: Chinese girls on FSM do better than white girls who don’t get them: this shows that poverty doesn’t always cause underachievement
Government policies related to material deprivation
- Children from poor families receive free school meals to help combat poor
nutrition. - Schools receive Pupil Premium (additional funding) for the most deprived
students to offer support, resources, etc. - Bursaries are given to some students in Further education from low income
families to encourage them to stay in education after school.
Cultural capital (EXTERNAL)
BOURDIEU - Middle class students have more cultural capital because their parents may take them to art
galleries/museums which may benefit their education. Middle class parents also possess cultural capital in terms of
knowledge of the education system and use this to get their children into the best schools.
AO3: However, it was found that when children from different social class backgrounds had the same cultural capital, middle class students still achieved
more due to the greater resources and aspirations their parents had. This suggests that cultural capital isn’t the only factor that causes class differences in achievement.
Labelling (INTERNAL)
- BECKER interviewed 60 high school teachers in Chicago
and found they judged students based on how they fitted the image of the ‘ideal
pupil. Children from middle class backgrounds were seen as closest to the ideal, with
lower working class children the
furthest from the ideal, as they were seen as disruptive.
AO3: too deterministic: it assumes pupils will take on the labels teachers give them, when they may reject them as we have free will.
Self-fulfilling prophecy (INTERNAL)
- Interactionists argue that labelling creates self-fulfilling prophecies in students, which affect their achievement.
- ROSENTHAL & JACOBSON went into a school and told the teachers they were giving
the students a test to see which students would ‘spurt’ ahead when it was really just a standard IQ test. They then picked 20% of the students at random and told the teachers these children were ‘spurters.’
When they returned a year later, nearly half of the spurters had made significant progress. This was because the teachers would
have treated these students differently, such as giving them more attention, causing their achievement to improve.
Setting/Streaming (INTERNAL)
GILLBORN & YOUDELL argue teachers use ideas of ‘ability’ to stream pupils. They argue working class and black pupils are often seen as being of lower
ability, and so get placed in lower sets/streams and get entered for lower-tier GCSE papers, placing a limit on the grades they can achieve.
AO3: A study found that working class students placed in lower streams at the age of 8 had a lower IQ by 11
Pupil subcultures (INTERNAL)
LACEY argues that two processes in schools create subcultures:
- DIFFERENTIATION- Teachers categorise students based on how they view their ability, attitude and behaviour. Setting and streaming are forms of
differentiation as they involve putting students into classes based on academic ability.
- POLARISATION- how students respond to setting/streaming by moving towards one of two opposite ‘poles’ or extremes. Students in the top sets/streams= mainly middle class, form a pro-school subculture (gaining status through achievement). Those in the lower sets/streams= mainly
working class, form anti-school subcultures, gaining status by not doing work
