SOCIOLOGY – EDUCATION REVISION GUIDE:

SOCIOLOGY – EDUCATION REVISION GUIDE:
EXAM REVISION – CREATED BY JASMINE ODIBO

TOPIC 1: CLASS DIFFERENCES IN ACHIEVEMENT (1) EXTERNAL FACTORS
EXAM REVISION

CULTURAL DEPRIVATION:
PARENTS EDUCATION: LANGUAGE: Douglas (1964) W/C parents place less value on education vs M/C parents, who find education very important. M/C parents less likely to visit the school. Feinstein (2008) Parents education must influential factor towards child’s academic success. (Parents can advance their children through educated socialisation) = Parenting style: Educated parents, emphasise discipline and have high expectation, for their child. They encourage achievement / learning. Parents educational behaviour: Educated parents, aware of what's needed to academically support their child achievement – they also form good relationships with teachers and always parents evening to support their child’s future academic success. Use of income: Bernstein & Young (1967) found, middle-class mothers are more likely to buy educational toys, books and activities that encourage reasoning skills and stimulate intellectual development. Working class subculture: Barry Sugarman (1970) Argues W/C subculture has 4 key features that act as a barrier to educational achievement: 1. Fatalism: A belief in fate, “whatever happens, happens” and you cannot change your status. 2. Collectivism: Valuing being in a group, rather than succeeding individuality. 3. Immediate gratification: Seeking pleasure now, rather than making sacrifices for the feature. 4. Present-time orientation: Seeing the present as more important than the future. Compensatory education: Compensatory education programmes aim to tackle the problem of cultural deprivation - by providing extra curriculum resources for deprived pupils, e.g Operation Head Start Sure, Sesame Street, Education action zones. Myth of cultural deprivation (CRITICMS): 1. Keddi (1973) describes cultural deprivation as victim-blaming = a child cannot be deprived of their own class. W/C children are culturally different. 2. Barry Troyna & Jenny Williams (1986) argues it is not the child’s language that is the problem, it is the schools attitude towards dealing with it. Language is an essential part of the process of education and the way in which parents communicate with their children affects their intellectual development and affects their achievement at school. Hubbs-tait et al (2002) When parents use challenging questions to their children (improves their intellectual development, makes them achieve in school). Leon Feinstein (2008) Educated parents more lively to use intellectual questions on children. Carl Beretier & Englemann (1966) Lower class communication in gestures and disjointed phrases. (As a result W/C children do not achieve academically because the school uses M/C code that should and could be understand by all students). Speech codes: Basil Bernstein (1975): Restricted code = W/C, limited vocabulary, broken sentences and grammatically simple. Sentences are often unfinished. Elaborated code = M/C, wider vocabulary, context free, detailed and explained sentences. Elaborated code give M/C pupils an advantage at school because the school use elaborated code in texts, exam and the way teachers speak to students. Restricted code causes W/C subculture and underachievement as W/C pupils cannot communicate with teachers and may not understand the exam. M/C pupils prepared for school vs, W/C who are not.

MATERIAL DEPRIVATION:
HOUSING: DIET & HEALTH: Close link between poverty and social class = W/C families much likely to have low incomes or inadequate housing. Poor housing affects child’s academic success. Overcrowding or cold and damp rooms mean pupils have no where quiet to do homework. Similarly, being homeless or living in temporary accommodations may mean frequent moves and changes of school. Poor diet can lead to illness, absence from school and lack of concentration in class due to hunger. Children from poorer homes = emotional behaviour. Marilyn Howard (2001) argues that young people from poorer homes have lower intakes of energy, vitamins and nutrition = meaning children become more sick and thus have they must skip school. Richard Wilkinson (1996) argues among 10 years, W/C had emotional disorders, were always anxious. Jo Blanden & Stephen Machin (2007) found that children from low income families involved themselves in externalising behaviour = ‘fighting & violence’.

FINANCIAL SUPPORT AND COST OF EDUCATION:
FEAR OF DEBT: David Bull (1980) argues poorer families can afford fewer educational opportunities; e.g trips, computers, private tutors. Emily Tanner (2003) argues children may be stigmatised or bullied for lacking the right uniform or latest fashion items. Teresa Smith & Michal Noble (1995) argues poverty acts as a barrier to learning in other ways, such as inability to afford private schooling or tuition, and poorer quality local schools. Higher education = Callender and Jackson (2005) found W/C students more debt aware. They saw more costs than benefits in going to University (e.g tuition fees) and this influences their decisions. When at university, they receive less financial supports from their families. Diane Reay (found that W/C students were more likely to apply to local universities so they could live at home and save on travel money = less opportunity to go to good universities. Summary: Peter Mortimore and Geoff Whitty (1997) argues material factors has the heaviest affect on underachievement. Peter Robinson says tackling poverty is the best way to solve underachievement.

CULTURAL CAPITAL: BOURDIEU: THREE TYPES OF CAPITAL
Bourdieu (1984) argues both cultural and material factors contribute to educational achievement & they are both interrelated. He uses the concept of ‘capital’ to explain why the m/c are more successful. He notes 3 types of capitalism: Cultural capital: Bourdieu uses cultural capital, to refer to the knowledge, attitudes, values, language, tastes and abilities of the m/c. He argues m/c culture gives advantage to anyone who possess it. Through their socialisation, m/c children grasp & express abstract ideas – m/c children develop intellectual interests for school = gives m/c children an advantage in school now. School carries m/c capital, makes it difficult for w/c students to feel attached = w/c pupils feel devalued in the school system. Many w/c children get the message, education is not for them & thus truant from Educational capital and Economic capital: M/c children with cultural capital are better equipped for school. Wealthier parents can transform their economic capital into educational capital, by sending their kids to private schools. Dennis Leech and Erick Campos (2003) study in Coventry, showed m/c parents can afford to move to the catchment area for their kids school = this is called ‘selection by mortgage’ as the prices near the school go up, and m/c parents can afford to move there, whilst w/c parents cannot. A test of Bourdieu’s ideas: Sullivan (2001) used questionnaires of pupils to assess their cultural capital = she found those who read complex fictions, were stimulated for school, and subjects such as English, those who did not lacked academic stimulation. Sullivan concludes, the greater resources and aspirations of m/c parents, the higher achievement for their child.

ESSAY PLANNING: Applying material from item B, analyse two factors outside schools that contribute to working class underachievement – 10 marks. One cultural factor outside the school, that contributes to working class underachievement is parent’s education; Douglas (1964) argues working class parents place less emphasis on education, whilst middle class parents, emphasise the importance of success and high achievement, and this is because middle class parents tend to be very well educated. Interestingly, Feinstein (2008) argues that parents education contributes to their child’s academic achievement. For example, educated parents can socialise their children with stimulating academic books, that prepare them for the middle class educational system. Feinstein adds there are different parenting styles from educated and uneducated perspectives, educated parents emphasise discipline and high achievement, because they understand the importance of education system and its ability to offer opportunities in wider life. Uneducated parents have a fragmented parenting style, whereby they shout, and may hit their children, attempting to control their behaviour, rather than their academic life – this is because uneducated parents do not have a good understanding of the importance of education and there do not have the ability to prepare their children for the middle class system. Many uneducated parents have a fatalistic view, whereby they see education and future success as ‘it is what it is’, as they have no control over it. However, Keddie (1973) argues cultural deprivation is a myth and sees it as a victim-blaming explanation – she argues working class children are simply culturally different, not culturally deprived. Another reason stems from material factors. Parent’s of the working class tend to be materially deprived, this meaning in income too, and may not afford spacious housing, this results in children living in an inadequate cramped space, that may have mould or damp – this could potential cause the child or children to fall sick and eventually miss school. Howard argues that diet and health is a huge factor contributing to academic failure or underachievement in working class children. Howard argues that children from low – income backgrounds, are also fed unhealthy food and this may mean they have low amounts of energy when coming to school, this could result in them sleeping in important lessons, and not understanding the work that is being taught. Additionally, the lack of space also means children will not have enough room to complete their homework. For teachers, a child not completing their homework, not only shows lack of academic interest, but a lack of understanding, and this may result in that particular child being streamed down into a lower set – unfortunately, because the child may feel insecure and uncomfortable talking about their inadequate housing, they may wish not to explain to teachers why they could not complete their homework. However, Williams would argue it is not a child’s fault for their material deprivation, it should be the school and the states role to improve the financial support of children.

TOPIC 2: CLASS DIFFERENCES IN ACHIEVEMENT (2) – INTERNAL FACTORS
EXAM REVISION

LABELLING: Labelling is attaching a meaning or definition to someone or something. Dunne and Gazeley found that teachers normalised the underachievement of w/c pupils and were unconcerned about their grades. Howard Becker (1975) carried out important interactionist study of labelling, based on interviews with 60 Chicago high school teachers. Teachers judged students based on their perception of the ideal student. This shows class differences = teachers would treat the w/c differently to m/c because they have labelled one positive and one negative. Dunne and Gazeley – argue the way teachers felt with underachievement showed class differences in attainment it has the effect of causing academic failure. However, Hempel-Jorgensen (2009) found that the ideal pupil varied depending on the social class make up of the school – Working class = in working class school, behaviour and discipline was biggest problem – ideal student was simply well behave, rather than smart & Middle class = in middle class school, ideal pupil was based on their ability and personality. Labelling in primary school: Ray Rist’s (1970) study in kindergarten, found that teachers would judge students based on information of child’s background and appearance = they would separate them and put them into different groups). Labelling in secondary schools: Dunne and Gazeley (2008) argue schools produce working class underachievement, because teachers have labelled w/c students based on assumptions. The teachers would call m/c clean students = ‘tigers’ and the rest = ‘clowns’ and ‘cardinals’ and gave them weaker books to read.

THE SELF-FULFILLING THEORY:
A prophecy is a production made about something or someone – e.g he’s stupid, he will fail. Self fulfilling prophecy will come true because it has simply been made. Teachers create self-fulfilling prophecies through the labels they attach to pupils. Teachers believe m/c students are bright and w/c pupils are stupid and will fail because of this = Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) showed self – fulfilling prophecy coming true, through the study of the school and ‘false test’, that showed signs of grade spurts. Teacher’s expectations: Rosenthal and Jacobson suggest that the teacher’s belief about the pupils has been influenced by the tested results. Self-fulfilling prophecy can produce underachievement if a teacher has low expectations of a student, and show this, then the child will actively fail, because the school cannot help them. This can also create pupil identity insecurity = as they believe they will never succeed.

STREAMING: STREAMING AND THE A-C ECONOMY:
Streaming involves separating children into different ability groups or classes, called ‘streams’ = Streaming is an extreme form of labelling within the education system. ‘bright pupils’ are placed in higher streams, whilst “thick” pupils are placed in lower streams. Lacey (1970) describes ‘differentiation’ = separating the dumb and smart into sets. Streaming creates a sense of self-fulfilling prophecy = students may include their streams and accept it and may allow it to be true. Douglas = found that the IQ of pupils labelled as less able and placed in the bottom stream, actually fell over time, whereas, pupils put in the top stream, achieve greater grades. Gilborn and Youdell (2001) shows that teacher’s use stereotype notions of ability to stream pupils. They found that teachers are less likely to see w/c and black pupils as having the ability. These pupils are more likely to be placed in lower streams and entered for lower – tier GCSE’s. Gillborn and Youdell link streaming to the policy of publishing exam league tables – schools need to achieve good league table position if they are to attract pupils and funding. Publishing league tables = creates the A-C economy, in school. This is a system in which schools, focus their time, effort and resources on those pupils they see as having the potential to get 5 grade C’s or above.

PUPIL SUBCULUTRES: A pupil subculture is a group of pupils who share the same values or behaviour patterns. Ingratiation: Being the teacher’s pet. Colin Lacey (1970) explains how pupil subcultures develop: Ritualism: Going through motions and staying out of trouble. Differentiation: the process of teachers separating students based on their academic ability, attitude and behaviour. Retreatism: Daydreaming and mucking about. Rebellion: Outright rejection of everything the school stands for. Polarisation: Process where students respond to streaming by moving towards one of the opposite poles = Lacey found polarised boys or girls go into anti schools subculture or pro school subculture. Moreover, John Furlong (1984) observes many pupils not committed to simply one response, they may move between different responses, acting differently in each lesson, with different teachers. The pro-school subculture: Criticisms of labelling theory: Pro school subculture: Usually formed by m/c students in higher streams, they accept the school’s values and goals of hard work, regular attendance, respect for teachers. They also enjoy the school. Labelling theory is useful in showing that schools are not neutral or fair to all students, as cultural deprivations assume. Anti-school subculture: Formed by the w/c – they completely reject the values of the school and thus rebel against it. Labelling theory is too deterministic, it assumes all pupils who have been labelled will have no choice, but to accept the prophecy and will eventually fail. Abolishing streaming: Marxists criticise the labelling theory for ignoring the wider structures of power within, which labelling takes place. Labelling theorists blame teachers for labelling, but fails, to explain why they do so. Stephan Ball (1981) found in comprehensive school, streaming was banned, in favour of teaching mixed ability groups. Banding produced the kind of polarisation produced by Lacey – Ball found when they abolished streaming – pupils anti-subculture disappeared. Although, polarisation stopped, differentiation continued – teachers were judging students and labelling them either cooperative and able. Since Ball’s study, and education reform act (1998), there has been a trend towards more streaming. The variety of pupil responses: Pro and anti school subcultures are 2 possible responses to labelling and streaming = However, as Peter Woods (1979) argues, there are other probable responses.

PUPIL’S CLASS IDENTITIES AND THE SCHOOL:
HABITUS: SYMBOLIC CAPITAL AND SYMBOLIC VIOLENCE: Habitus is a social class’ habitual way of thinking, being and acting, e.g. lifestyles and expectations about what is normal for people ‘like us’ – the m/c has the power to describe its habitus as superior and impose it on the education system, so the school holds m/c values. Bourdieu’s concept of cultural capital – because the school has a middle class habitus, this gives m/c pupils an advantage – while w/c class culture is regarded as inferior. School commits symbolic violence by devaluing w/c pupil’s habitus. (They degrade it) The school judge their clothing, accent and interests, etc, causing them tasteless, illegitimate and inferior, denying them symbolic capital – recognition and status. WORKING CLASS IDENTITY AND EDUCATIONAL SUCCESS: NIKE IDENTIES: Ingram (2009) found that ‘fitting in’ was a problem for working class grammar school boys. They experienced a tension between their neighbourhood’s habitus and that of the m/c school. They faced being judged worthless at school for wearing ‘street’ clothes or worthless in their community for not doing so. Evans (2009) found that even successful w/c pupils girls faced hidden barriers. These girls had strong attachment to their families and preferred to stay at home to study. Symbolic violence leads to pupils creating alternative class identities and gain symbolic capital from peers, through consuming brand goods. However, this leads to conflict with the schools mc habitus. Nike play plays part in w/c rejection of the school. Believe the school doesn’t understand them and the school is simply for the rich, clever children. Archer et al argues succeeding at school means bring inauthentic, changing how you presented yourself to fit in. Nike identities are authentic – but they can cause conflict with the school.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL FACTORS:
CLASS IDENTITY AND SELF-EXCLUSION: Sarah Evans (2009) girls faced hidden barriers (they were attached to family, so they would stay at home to study). Bourdieu’s (1984) many w/c people think of college as being ‘not for the lives of us’ = comes from their habitus. Working class pupils habitus and identities formed outside school may conflict with the school’s middle class habitus, resulting in symbolic violence and pupils feeling that education is not for the likes of them. Working class pupils using the restricted speech code – an external cultural factors, may be labelled by teachers as less able, leading to a self- fulfilling prophecy – an internal factor. As Dunne and Gazeley show – an internal factor, what teachers believe about working class pupil’s home backgrounds – actually produces internal factors.

ESSAY PLANNING: Applying material from item A, and your knowledge, evaluate the claim that factors outside the school are the main cause of working-class underachievement – 30 marks.

TOPIC 3: ETHNIC DIFFERENCES IN ACHIEVEMENT
EXAM REVISION.

EXTERNAL FACTORS AND ETHNIC DIFFERENCES IN ACHIEVEMENT:
1. CULTURAL DEPRIVATION: Intellectual and linguistic skills: Sewell argues that Chinese and Indian pupils benefit from supportive families – with an Asian work ethic = he contrasts this with black lone parent families. This is a cause of underachievement in minority children. White working class families: In low income black families, they lack intellectual stimulation and enticing experiences, leaves them poorly equipped for the school. White pupils also underachieve – this is because they always have low aspirations that any other minority ethnic group – result of white w/c culture, that lack parental support. Beretier and Engelmann argue black spoken language is inadequate for academic success. Lupton (2004) studied 4 w/c schools with different ethnic groups – teachers reported poorer levels of behaviour and discipline in white w/c schools – which they linked to lower levels of parental support and the negative attitudes of white w/c parents towards education. Attitudes and values: Lack of motivation from Black w/c parents, reason why only they fail. Evans (2006) argues street culture in white w/c areas can be brutal and is brought into school. The result is a strong pressure to reject education. Most children socialised into mainstream culture – motivates them to be competitive. Compensatory education: This equips them for academic success. Compensatory education is an educational policy that aims to counter the effects of cultural deprivation. Family structure and parental support: Moynihan (1965) argues because black families are headed by lone parent mothers = children receive inadequate care – because mother has to work and struggle to provide and the absence of a male role model and breadwinner creates fragmented structure. E.g.: operation head start in the USA, was established to compensate children for the cultural deficit they are said to suffer – because of deprived backgrounds. Sure start: In the UK aims to support the development of pre-school children in deprived areas. Boys lack role model, and the cycle repeats again, because father wasn’t there for them = they won’t be there for their children. Criticisms: Pryce (1979) impact of slavery = black Caribbean culture is less resistant to racism = because of experience of slavery – many black students have low esteem. Victim-blaming: Keddie argues that it is a victim blaming explanation. Minority ethnic group children are culturally different – not culturally deprived. Sewell – fathers, gangs and culture: Cultural exclusion: Ball argues that minority ethnic group parents are at a disadvantage because they are less aware of how to negotiate the British education system – this results in cultural exclusion. Sewell (2009) argues lack of fatherly nurture leads to black boys underachieving. Street gangs offer black boys an alternative perverse loyalty and love. Cultural domination: compensatory education imposes the white m/c culture on minority ethnic group pupils. Academically, successful black boys felt the greatest barrier to success was peer pressure – speaking standard English made them seem like ‘sell outs’ Driver (1977) argues cultural deprivation theorists ignore the positive aspect of ethnicity on education. Asian families:

3. RACISM IN WIDER SOCIETY: 2. MATERIAL DEPRIVATION AND CLASS:
Material deprivation among minority ethnic groups clearly effects pupils achievement – it may be the product of racism in wider society. Members of minority ethnic groups face direct and indirect discrimination at work and in the housing market. As a result they are more likely to have low pay or be unemployed and this affects their children's academic achievement. John Rex (1986) shows how racial discrimination leads to social exclusion and hoe this worsens poverty faced by ethnic minorities. Material deprivation or poverty is a lack of physical or economic resources essential for normal life in society. Material deprivation explanations of ethnic differences in achievement argue that educational failure is the result of material factors such as substandard housing and low income. Sociologist – Guy Palmer argues – half of ethnic minority children live in low income household’s. Ethnic minorities are almost twice as likely to be unemployed. Minorities face discrimination in the housing and labour market.

INTERNAL FACTORS (1) LABELING, IDENTITIES AND RESPONSES:
1. LABELLING AND TEACHER RACISM: 2. PUPIL IDENTITIES: Some sociologists focus on the impact of factors within the school and the education system as causing ethnic differences in achievement. These internal factors include: Labelling Pupil subcultures Ethnocentricity and institutional racism Example: black pupils are seen as disruptive and Asians are passive – negative labels lead teachers to treat ethnic minorities differently. Black pupils and discipline: Gilborn and Youdell (2000) found that teachers were quicker to discipline black pupils than others for the same behaviour. They argue this is a result of racialized expectations. Teachers expect black students to present more problems and teachers find their behaviour threatening. Jenny Bourne (1994) – schools see black boys as a threat. Black pupils and streaming: Gillborn and Youdell found teachers focus on students they believe will either pass or fail. Peter Foster (1990) black students being labelled a threat can result in them moving down a set – placed in lower streams because of A-C economy. Asian pupils: Cecil Wright (1992) found that Asian primary pupils were stereotyped by their teachers and treated differently = Teachers thought they had poor English and symbolic language. Teachers assumed the children would have poor English and so they used symbolic language when speaking to them. They mispronounced children’s names and they saw them as a problem that they could ignore. Colloney: (1998) found that primary school teachers saw Asian pupils as passive and conformists. Both teachers and pupils saw Asian boys as more feminine, vulnerable and less able to protect themselves. Archer (2008) argue teacher’s dominant discourse = believe ethnic minorities' are lacking identity of the ideal pupil. The ideal pupil identity: white, m/c, masculinised identity, with normal sexuality = pupil must achieve naturally through ability and intuition. The pathologiesed pupil identity: an Asian, feminine identity, they’re conformists and overachievers and have to work hard to achieve their grade. The demonised pupil identity: a black or white, w/c, hyper- sexualised identity – this pupil is seen as an intelligent, peer- led, culturally deprived under achiever & archer argues teachers stereotyped Asian girls as quiet, passive and good. Chinese pupils: Archer and Francis (2007) – view Asians as ‘negative-positive’ stereotype – they are too passive, too quiet and too repressed, but still achieve very good grades.

3. PUPIL RESPONSES AND SUBCULTURES:
Fuller and Mac an Ghaill -rejecting negative labels: Sewell: the variety of boys’ responses: Teacher and student racism = could lead to students retreatism or withdrawing from the school. Sewell found that black boys adopted a range of responses to teacher’s racist labelling of them as rebellions and anti-school. Studies show that not all minority ethnic groups who are negatively labelled accept and conform to the labels – some may want to succeed regardless of the negative labels. Conformists: largest group, keen to succeed, accepted the schools goal and had friends from different ethnic backgrounds. Innovators: second largest group, pro education, but anti-school, they valued success, but not teacher’s approval. Fuller (1984) studied group or high achieving black girls in year 11 in a London comprehensive school- girls maintained a positive self image by rejecting teachers stereotypes of them – they recognised the value of education and were determined to achieve – they would do homework and schoolwork, but would not outwardly show this. They did not seek teacher’s approval and maintained friendships with black girls in lower streams. Reatreatists: tiny minority, isolated individuals, disconnected with school and black subcultures outside it. Rebels: small, but influential and easy to notice, they reject the school goals and values – conformed instead to the stereotype of black macho men – they hated white boys and conforming black boys. Mac an Ghail (1992) – study of black and Asian a level students at a sixth form college found that they did not necessarily accept teacher’s negative labels – e.g. some girls felt that the all girls school had previously attended gave them a greater academic commitment. However, although small minority were rebels, teacher’s saw all black boys the same – resulted in underachievement of many boys. Evaluation of labelling and pupil responses: Mirza – failed strategies for avoiding racism: Rather than blaming the child’s home background, as cultural deprivation theorists do, labelling theory considers the stereotypes children experience in the school. Mirza (1992) fount that black girls strategies for dealing with teachers e.g. not asking certain staff for help, limited them, academically, they were still at a strong disadvantage. Assumes once a child is labelled, pupils automatically fall victim to self-fulfilling prophecy, however this is not true. Colour-blind teachers: all pupils are equal, but lets racism go unchallenged. Liberal chauvinists: understand that blacks are disadvantage and low expectation. The overt racists: teachers who believe blacks are inferior and actively discriminate against them.

INTERNAL FACTORS (2) – INSITUTIONAL RACISM:
CRITICAL RACE THEORY: MARKETISATION AND SEGREGATION: Troyna and Williams (1986) argue that to explain ethnic differences in achievement, we need to go beyond simply examining individual teacher racism. Individual racism: that results from the prejudiced views of individuals teachers and others. Institutional racism: discrimination that is built into the way institutions such as schools and collages operate. Critical race theory see’s institutional racism as deep rooted ‘locked’ in feature of the education system = critical race theories see the education system, as institutionally racist in several different ways. Locked in inequality: Roithmayr (2003) argues institutional racism is a ‘locked in’ inequality – the scale of historical discrimination is so large – it becomes self- perpetrating, it feeds on itself. Gillborn (1997) argues that because marketization gives schools more scope to select pupils, it allows negative stereotype to influence decisions about school admissions. Gillborn’s view is supported by Moore and Davenport’s (1990) American research – they showed how selection and procedures lead to ethnic segregation. Racial equality act (1993) showed racism in school admissions procedures means that ethnic minorities children more likely to end up in unpopular school.

THE ETHNOCENTRIC CURRICULUM:
ASSESSMENT: Gillborn (1997) argues that assessment is rigged to validate the dominant cultures – white superiority. For example, baseline assessments showing blacks were ahead of whites was replaced in 2003. Instead teachers allow influence of their own stereotype – thus underachievement of student will take place. Assessments found now be completed by class teachers who could use their own stereotype to judge a child – rather than sending it off to an examiner to mark. This is an important example of institutional racism – ‘ethnocentric’ = refers to an attitude or policy that prioritises the culture of one particular ethnic group while disregarding or downgrading others. Many sociologists argue that the curriculum of British schools is ethnocentric. Language, literature and music: Troyna and Williams’ argues it gives priority to unite culture and the English language – David (2013) argues national curriculum is a ‘specifically British curriculum’ that ignores non-European languages. History: Ball (1994) see’s the history curriculum in British schools as recreating a ‘mystical age’ – while ignoring black history and the seriousness of it. Ethnic minorities will think their culture is not valued in the system.

ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITIES: THE ‘NEW IQISM’:
The gifted and talented programme: aimed to meet the needs of more able students in inner city schools – benefit brighter pupils from minority ethnic groups. Gillborn shows that whites are more likely to be gifted and talented. Exam tiers: similarly, Tilky et al (2006) found that in 30 schools, the ‘aiming high’ initiative, to encourage high grades = blacks still expected to get lower entry for the exam. Access to opportunities such as higher sets or the gifted and talented programmes, depend heavily on teacher’s expectations and beliefs of the student, and their ability. Teachers place students in sets because of attitude and ability and also behaviour. Youdell and Gillborn found teachers had racial expectations that black pupils would cause more problems. Gillborn = the new IQ’ism = teachers and policymakers make assumptions about the nature of pupils ability or potential. They see pupil’s ability as measured and fixed = once a pupil has a certain grade, they will be streamed to suite it. Youdell and Gillborn = (2001) argue secondary schools use old style intelligence to allocate pupils into streams. Gillborn and Youdell = all exams show is how much you can remember. They argue by having gifted and talented sets = shows schools alienation and discrimination Criticisms: Black boys’ underachievement Gillborn argues that institutional racism is the main cause of underachievement – Sewell rejects this, he argues racism is evident within the school – we need to focus on external factors for this. Critics argue how is there institutional racism when there are over-achieving minorities, ‘model minorities’ = Gillborn argues this is a false illusion – the education system appears to have a fair, meritocratic way, but does not.

ESSAY PLANNING: Applying material from item B, analyse two factors inside schools that lead to ethnic differences in educational achievement – 10 marks.

TOPIC 4: GENDER DIFFERENCES IN EDUCATION
EXAM REVISION

THE GENDER GAP IN ACHIEVEMENT:
Official statistics provide evidence of differences in the achievement of girls and boys. On starting school: In 2013, teacher assessments of pupils at the end of year one showed girls ahead of boy. At key stage 1 to 3: girls do consistently better than boys – especially in English. At GCSE: girls always achieve 10 percent higher than boys. At AS and A-level: girls are more likely to sit, pass and higher grades than boys – 46% girls got A-B in A levels, boys got 42%. Vocational courses: girls achieve a distinction across all subjects, such as engineering etc. Although there has been increase in both boys and girls, girls increase is rapid.

EXTERNAL FACTORS AND GENDER DIFFERENCES IN ACHIEVEMENT:
The possible reasons for improvement in girl’s educational achievement can be divided into external factors. The 1970 equal pay act – illegal to pay women less than men for work of equal value and the 1975 sex discrimination act outlaws discrimination at work. External factors: factors outside education system = such as home and family background, the job market and wider society. Since 1975, the pay gap between women and men have halved from 30% to 15%. Internal factors: factors within the school and the education system, such as the effect of schools and equal opportunities. Amount of women in employment has risen. 1. The impact of feminism: Women are now breaking through the glass celling. Since 1960’s, feminists have challenged patriarchy in all areas of social life and rejected the traditional stereotypes of women as inferior to men in the home – work, education and law. This has encouraged girls to see their future with paid work, rather than being housewives. 4. Girls’ changing ambitions: Feminists have had an impact on women’s rights and opportunities, through campaigns to win changes in the law, e.g. equal pay, outlawing rape in marriage. Sue Sharpe (1994) interview of girls, change s in the family have caused change in girls’ ambition. McRobbie's study (1994) found in 1970’s magazines, women were shown to either get married or left on the shelf. Sharpe study = 1970’s girls has no ambition, wanted to get married and be a housewife. 2. Changes in the family: By 1990’s girls wanted careers and wanted to support themselves effectively = without the need of a man. Increase in divorce rates. Similarly, O'Connor (2006) found girl’s between said marriage was not apart of their future plans. Increase in cohabitation and decrease in first marriages. An increase in the number of lone parent families. Beck and Beck (2001) link this to individualisation in modern society – where independence is valued much more strongly, than in the past. Smaller families. Many girls realise they need to academically succeed and thus they work hard in school = evident in Fuller’s study. These changes may influence girl’s – makes them feel like they should be the breadwinner in relationships = creates financially independent woman. To achieve this goal, women need well-paid jobs and good qualifications. Class, gender and domain: Increase in divorce rate = girls do not need to rely on a husband to be their provider. Class differences for female achievement = working class girls have marriage mentality. 3. Changes in women’s employment:

INTERNAL FACTORS AND GENDER DIFFERENCES IN ACHIEVEMENT:
1. Equal opportunities policies: Francis (2001) found boys were treated harshly for their behaviour. Feminism has had an impact on female success = policy makers are aware of female issues and teacher’s aim high to avoid stereotyping. Swann (1998) boys dominate class discussions individually = girls prefer group work. Causes teachers to focus on boys. The belief boys and girls have equal opportunities is taught within the school. Girls achieve by teachers seeing them more positively than boys. GIST = Girls into science and technology (policy introduced to encourage girls to do male recognised subjects). 5. Challenging stereotypes in the curriculum: Removal of gender stereotypes in academic books removes barriers to girl’s achievement. Introduction of national curriculum in 1988 removed source of gender inequality – by making boys and girls study the same subjects. Reading schemes portrayed women as housewives and mothers rather than business owners and hard workers. Joa Boaler (1998) sees the impact of equal opportunities in policies as a reason for female achievement = shows the school is meritocratic. Weiner (1995) argues teachers always challenge this stereotype – by presenting women in a positive light, girls can achieve. 2. Positive role models in schools: There are increases in female teachers and head teachers – these women act as good role models and may influence girls into working harder – this also gives them non-traditional goals to aim for, as women are not typically in this role. 6. Selection and league tables: Marketisation policies created competition – the school thus wants to recruit more women because they achieve better exam results. 3. GCSE and coursework: Jackson (1998) argues the introduction of exam league tables are good for girls because it makes schools want them more – because they are high achievers. Sociologists argue coursework has helped girls, but not boys in their achievement. Gorard (2005) argues there has been a gap in gender achievement since the 70’s = when GCSE’s were introduced and coursework there was a change = boys fail because of assessments and coursework. Slee (1998) argues boys are unattractive to the school because they suffer behavioural problems. Two views of girl’s achievement: Mitsos and Browne (1998) argue girls are more successful in coursework because they are organised, on time and take care with presentation. Liberal feminist: celebrate progress in female achievement – through policies more progress will be made = similar to functionalist view as they believe through meritocracy we can al achieve equally. Mitsos and Browne argue girls have had advantage through coursework and GCSE’s = introduction of oral exams also better for girls because they speak better than boys. Radical feminists: argue there is change, however education system is still patriarchal = sexual harassment of girls in school, male teachers tend to be head teachers, women not fully represented in history in text books. 4. Teacher attention: The way teachers interact with boys and girls – French (1993) saw that boys received more attention because of their bad behaviour.

IDENTITY, CLASS AND GIRL’S ACHIEVEMENT:
Social class differences impact girls achievement – working class girls, achieve lower than middle class = only 40%, on FSM (free school meals) achieved their GCSE’s. Boyfriends: Having boyfriends lowered w/c girls achievement because they became distracted heavily = they lost interest in university and instead aspired to be married mothers with average jobs. Symbolic Capital: Feminists such as Archer et al (2010) = one reason for working class feminine identity and school ethos – is ‘symbolic capital’. Being loud: W/c girls adopted ‘loud’ feminine identities – led them to be outspoken, assertive and independent, for example, questioning teacher’s authority = teachers however, saw these girls as aggressive. ‘Symbolic capital’ = this is the status or sense of worth that we obtain from others. Archer found that by performing working class feminine identities, the girls gained symbolic capital from their peers = however, this brought them into conflict with the school – preventing them from getting educational capital. Working-class girl’s dilemma: Working class girls have 2 dilemma’s – either gain their symbolic capital (from peers – however, go against the school) = or gain educational capital (reject symbolic capital and accepting the school m/c norms). Archer identifies other ways in which girls creates a valued sense of self = hyper-heterosexual feminine identity, having a boyfriend and being ‘loud’. As a response – w/c create a ‘good underneath’ image so teachers see them as good, regardless of bad image. Hyper-heterosexual feminine identities: Many w/c girls spent money and time looking glamorous – heterosexual feminine identities. Archer argues w/c identity goes against m/c school attitude. Successful working class girls: They constructed identities that combined black urban American styles with sexy sportswear = girls who dressed this way avoid being called ‘tramp’. Although w/c mostly underachieve – Evans (2009) study of 21 w/c sixth form students = showed girls wanted to be ambitious and go to a good university to have ‘earning power’ and give back to their families. However, this brought them into conflict with the school = for example, receiving punishment for makeup. Skeggs (1997) found w/c girls were very caring – thus feared going to uni to leave family and also feared debt, because of their financial position. The school labelled these girls ‘outsiders’ – Bourdieu argues this is symbolic violence = when someone’s identity or culture is degraded ‘worthless’. Archer found girls wanted to stay ‘local’ apart of w/c subculture and identity. Archer argues the ideal female pupil = de-sexualized and m/c girls.

BOYS AND ACHIEVEMENT: Boys and literacy:
Some argue the culture of the primary school has become feminised – female teachers cannot control male behaviour however = male primary teachers can control male dominated class, this shows primary school needs more male teachers. The gender gap is mainly the result of boys poorer literacy skills = one reason may be because parents do not spend personal time reading with their children. Are male teachers really needed?: Mothers reading to sons, may make them think reading is a feminine activity. Francis (2007) found primary school students said the gender of their teacher did not matter. Boys leisure activities do not encourage any academic form of support = girls have bedroom culture – doing activities within the home. Read (2008) argues culture of the primary school is becoming feminised = she identifies two types of language of discourse: Government has introduced policies = national reading scheme – to help boys literacy skills. A disciplinarian discourse: the teacher’s authority is made explicit and visible, for example, through shouting, an ‘exasperated’ tone of voice or sarcasm. Globalisation and the decline of traditional men’s jobs: Because of globalisation and decrease in manual jobs that were previously completed by men = Mitsos and Browne claim there is an identity crisis for men – many boys believe they have little prospect of getting a proper jobs. A liberal discourse: teacher’s authority is implicit and invisible, the teacher speaks to the child as if they were adults – expects child to be respectful. The disciplinarian discourse is associated with masculinity and liberal discourse is associated with feminity = however, Read found women used the masculine way of asserting authority. This undermines their self-esteem and thus they give up on trying tog et their qualifications = However, manual jobs do not require qualifications and thus this cannot be a full explanation for reasons for academic underachievement. Read argues that female teachers have ability to use authority – where boys can strive, so we do not need male teachers. Feminisation of education: Sewell argues boys are falling behind because education has become ‘feminised’ = schools do not nurture ‘masculinised’ traits such as competitiveness and leadership. Laddish subcultures: Epstein (1998) argues growth of laddish subculture meant that boys underachievement was being affected = masculinity was important in school, she found w/c students more likely to be harassed and labelled weak – Francis (2001) found boys cared more about being labelled than girls. Sewell see’s coursework as a cause of gender gap in achievement – coursework are feminised, through demanding, organisation etc = Sewell argues we should remove coursework and have exams only. Shortage of male primary school teachers: w/c culture demands masculinity and toughness = however, w/c students doing extra work and non-manual work could result in being labelled gay – thus w/c students reject doing any form of work for school to avoid label. Lack of male role models in school and home is a cause of boy’s underachievement = many males brought up in lone-parent household. Only 14% of primary school teachers are male = most male students said male teachers motivated them to work hard and behave.

GENDER, CLASS AND ETHNICITY: THE MORAL PANIC ABOUT BOYS
Critics of feminism argue policies to promote girl’s education is no longer needed = they argue girls have succeed and boys are the new disadvantaged group. Ringrose (2013) feminist – argues there is a moral panic for ‘failing boys’ = fear of underachieving working class boys. Fear because there may be an underachieving and dangerous male working class that may become unemployable. Ringrose argues this moral panic has caused a major shift in educational policy – that focuses on rising male achievement = this has had 2 negative effects: Narrowing equal opportunities policy down to ‘failing boys’ ignored the problem of working class and ethnicity. By narrowing policy down to gender gaps = ignores problems faced in school by girls, e.g. sexual harassment. Osler (2006) argues policies focusing on boys, ignore female problems and leaves girls isolated. However, it would be wrong to conclude that boys are a lost cause – statistics show both boys and girls have improved in recent years = boys may be behind girls in achievement, but they are achieving more than they did in the past. More similarities between female and male achievement = than differences – especially when compared with class or ethnic differences. The class gap is wider than the gender gap in achievement. Girls and boys of the same social class tend to achieve similar results = regardless of their gender. Gender gap between female and male blacks is the greatest in comparison with other ethnicities – black girls are motivated to work, whilst males have anti-school subculture.

GENDER AND SUBJECT CHOICE:
There is a pattern for boys achievement = boys are still choosing subjects like maths and physics – girls are more likely to choose modern languages etc. National curriculum gives pupils little freedom to choose or drop subjects – by making most subjects compulsory until 16. Where choice is available, boys and girls choose gender domain subjects = this is evident in national curriculum, AS & A level options and vocations. National curriculum options: Where there is choice in national curriculum – boys and girls choose differently, for example, design and technology is compulsory, girls choose food tech and boys choose graphics and resistant materials. AS and A Levels: Gendered subject choices become evident at the age of 16 – for example, bigger differences in entries for A level subjects = boys opting for maths and physics and girls choosing sociology, English and a language – same differences in University. Patterns for A level physics, for girls is very low – 20% for 20 years. GIST – girls into science and technology, new policy to involve girls in male dominated subjects. Vocational subjects: Vocational subjects prepare students for a particular career – evident gender division in vocational training = one in 100 males in childcare apprentices.

EXPLANATIONS OF GENDER DIFFERENCES IN SUBJECT CHOICE:
1. Gender role socialisation: This is the process of learning the behaviour expected of males and females in society – Norman (1988) argues girls and boys are socialised early into different toys and activities = girls told to be quiet, helpful and clean & boys are told to be tough, not weak. This had led to differences in subject choice = boys prefer practical hobbies books – study science & girls prefer subjects such as English. 2. Gender domain: Browne and Ross (1991) argue gender domain is shaped by experiences children have whilst growing up = tasks that are either female or male dominated – for example, looking after the sick, female task = This is why girls are more likely to choose subjects like Health and Social Care. 3. Gendered subject images: Kelly (1998) = argues subjects associated with gender – for example, ‘science’ seen as a male subject because = Science teachers are likely to be men, textbooks show male students and boys dominate within the class & Anne Colley (1998) argue computer studies is seen as male dominated because = it involves working with machines (apart of male gender domain) = girls thus do not choose these subjects. 4. Gender identity and peer pressure: Subject choice can be influenced by peer pressure – for example, boys tend to opt out of doing music or dance, because they are seen as feminine. Paechter argues sports is seen as a male domain = girls risk being called “lesbian” stated by Dewar (1990). Girls may thus not choose these subjects – girls pressured to choose feminine subjects. 5. Gendered career opportunities: Reason for differences in subject choice – employment is highly gendered, jobs tend to either be for males or females – women’s jobs like being a teacher, similar to childcare and housewife role. Sex-typing of subjects affects girls and boys subject choices = they may opt out of subjects they are interested in.

PUPILS’ SEXUAL AND GENDER IDENTITIES:
1. Double standards: Double standards exists when one set of rules or standards applies to one group, but different with another. Sue Lee (1993) argues there is a double standard with sexual morality – boys boast about their sexuality = when girls do this, they are called ‘slags’ and given negative label. Feminists argue double standards is evidence of patriarchy and social control within the school. 2. Verbal abuse: Connell calls “a rich vocabulary of abuse”= for example, boys name-calling to put girls down if they dress a certain way. Boys would call girls ‘slags’ if they were sexually active & ‘drag’ if they weren’t. Paechter argues name-calling shapes gender identity –use of negative labels ‘gay’ or ‘queer’ ways in which pupils ‘police’ each others identity. Parker (1996) found boys were called ‘gay’ for being friendly with girls. 3. The male gaze: Visual aspect to how pupils control each other’s identities = Mac an Ghaill call this ‘male gaze’ = the way male pupils look girls up and down – seeing them as sexual objects and making judgements on their appearance. Mac an Ghaill argue this is a form of surveillance on girls = heterosexual masculinity is reinforced and femininity is devalued. 4. Male peer groups: Male peer groups use verbal abuse to abuse and reinforce their masculinity – for example, Epstein and Willis show boys in anti-school subcultures accuse boys who want to do well as gay. Redman and Mac an Ghaill (1997) argue boys definition of masculinity changes throughout school – until they become ‘real Englishmen’. 5. Female peer groups – policing identity: Archer shows w/c girls gain symbolic capital (status and popularity) from their female peers by performing a hyper-heterosexual feminine identity = this involves girls creating a ‘sexy’ Nike appearance = female pupils police each other to ensure they conform to this identity or they risk being called a ‘tramp’. Currie et al (2007) shows that w/c girls who were too competitive and think themselves better than anyone else, risk being labelled ‘sluts’ – they could also be excluded from groups. However, girls who don’t compete for boyfriends in school – risk being labelled ‘frigid’. 6. Teachers and discipline: Teachers contribute to dominant definitions of gender identity – Haywood and Mac an Ghaill (2006) found that male teachers told boys off for ‘behaving like girls’ & they also teased them when they got lower marks than girls. Askew and Ross (1988) argues male teachers show male identity by saving female teachers from disruptive male students.

ESSAY PLANNING: Applying material from item A, analyse 2 reasons for boys’ underachievement compared with girls – 10 marks.

TOPIC 5: THE ROLE OF EDUCATION IN SOCIETY
EXAM REVISION

FUNCTIONALIST PERSPECTIVE ON EDUCATION:
Functionalism is based on the view society is a system of independent parts held together by a shared culture or value consensus. Each part of society such as family and education system performs good functions to maintain society. DURKHEIM: SOLIDARITY AND SKILLS PARSONS: MERITOCRACY Durkheim (1903) – founder of functionalism, identified two functions of education = creating social solidarity and teaching specialist skills. Social solidarity: Durkheim argues society needs a sense of solidarity = individual members should be integrated together = without this, society would collapse. The education system helps create social solidarity by transmitting society’s culture – its shared beliefs and values – for example, Durkheim argues by teaching history, children feel apart society’s culture. School acts as a miniature society preparing us for wider society = for example, both in school and at work, we have to cooperate with people who are neither friends or family = similarly, at work we have to interact with others according to a set of rules. Specialist skills: Modern industrial economies have a complex division of labour = where the production of one product requires many specialist workers. This promotes social solidarity = but workers need to have specialist skills and knowledge to perform their role = Durkheim argues that education teaches individuals the specialist knowledge and skills people need to be apart of social division of labour. American functionalist, Parsons (1961) uses Durkheim’s ideas = Parsons see’s the school as the ‘focal socialising agency’ in modern society, acting as a bridge between the family and wide society. This bridge between the family and society operate differently = thus children need to learn how to operate in wider society. In the family, the child is judged with particularistic standards – rules that apply to that child are particular. Similarly, in the family, the child's status is ascribed – fixed by birth = for example, the son or daughter may have different rights and duties in the home (particularistic). Contrastingly, in both school and society = we are judged on universalistic and impersonal standards = for example, in society the law applied to everyone equally – similarly, in the school the same rules apply to everyone. We work to gain promotion = similar to school, we work hard to achieve good grades, we have to work hard to have an achieved status, because there is no ascribed status for us. Parsons bases his view on meritocracy = everyone is given an equal opportunity, and individuals achieve rewards through their own ability and effort.

DAVIS AND MOORE – ROLE ALLOCATION:
Functionalists argue that schools also perform the function of selecting and allocating pupils their future work roles. By assessing individuals aptitudes and abilities = school helps to match them to their best suited jobs. Davis and Moore (1945) see education as a device for selection and role allocation – they focus on the relationship between education and inequality. Davis and Moore argue inequality is needed to ensure the important roles in society is filled by the best suited for the role = For example, it would be dangerous to give a non-talented worker the role of a doctor. Not everyone is equally talented, some are talented than others = society has to reward everyone differently. This will encourage people to compete for the best jobs and society can pick their best workers for their suited roles. Education shows us our ability – it sorts individuals into groups, according to our ability = most able gain the highest qualifications = gets them better roles. Human capital: Blau and Duncan (1978) argue that modern economy depend on human capital – it’s workers skills = they argue that a meritocratic system is best to produce human capital. Evaluation of functionalist perspective: The education system does not teach specialised skills adequately, as Durkheim claims. There is evidence that the education system is not equal = achievement relies on class achievement. Marxists argue that functionalist ignore that we live in a capitalist society that exploits their workers.

NEOLIBERALISM AND THE NEW RIGHT PERSPECTIVE ON EDUCATION:
Neoliberalism is an economic doctrine that has had a major influence on the education policy = neoliberals argue that the state should not provide services such as education – health and welfare. Neoliberals argue that the state should not be involved in education – they argue school should become like businesses and we need marketization. THE NEW RIGHT: CHUBB AND MOE: CONSUMER CHOICE: The new right is a conservative political view = argue the state cannot meet the needs of the public – the new right favour marketization. There are similar views between the functionalists and the new right: 1. Both believe that some people are naturally more talented than others. 2. Both favour an education system based on meritocracy. 3. Believe the education system should socialise pupils into shared values. However, difference between new right and functionalists= they do not believe the current education system is achieving these goals – new right believe the school is failing because they rely on the state. New right argues the state takes a ‘one size fits all’ perspective – ignoring the voices of parents and students = state schools are unresponsive and waste money by not addressing parents. This means there is a lower standard of education system, poor results, less qualified workers and less prosperous economy. New right solve this problem, by introduction of marketization = creating an education market – believe competition between schools is good – brings diversity and choice. Example of the new right perspective – Chubb and Moe = they argue that the state-run education in America has failed because: It has not created equal opportunities and has failed the needs of the disadvantage. It is inefficient because it fails to produce pupils with right skills. Private schools run better because they answer demands of the parents. Chubb and Moe base their argument on a comparison of the achievements of 60,000 pupils from low-income families. = they found in private schools, w/c students achieved higher grades than in state schools. Chubb and Moe – demand a market system in state education = parentocracy should take part = consumerism can meet the needs of pupils and would improve quality. Chubb and Moe = propose families should be given a voucher to spend on buying education – forces the school to become more education based – like private businesses focuses on their consumers. Two roles of the state: The state imposes a framework on schools within which they have to complete – by publishing Ofsted reports and league tables = gives more choice between schools. The school produces a shared culture – by imposing a national curriculum to all. Evaluation of the new right perspective: Gewirtz (1995) and Ball (1994) both argue competition between schools benefits the m/c = they use their cultural capital and economic capital to go to a good school. Marxists argues the school creates inequality = there is no true social values shared.

THE MARXIST PERSPECTIVE ON EDUCATION:
Marxists see society based on class division and capitalist exploitation and functionalists see society and education based on a value consensus. KARL MARX: ALTHUSSER – THE IDEOLOGICAL STATE APPARATUS: Marxists see society as based on class division and capitalist exploitation – Karl Marx argues capitalism has two classes: Capitalist class: minority class, they own the means of production = land, factories, machines and offices. They make profit by exploiting the working class. Working class: they sell their labour power to the capitalist class – because they own no means of production = as a result they are alienated and exploited and have no control over control. This creates class conflict = if workers realise they are being exploited, they will demand high wages or even abolish capitalism – this will turn the two classes against each other. Marxists argued hopefully there would be a Marxist revolution = where the working class over throw the elite = However, this cannot happen because the capitalist class control the state – including education. Marxists argue that the education system prevents capitalist revolution and maintains capitalism, through its values, that reproduce social inequality between the working class and middle class. Althusser argues the state consists of two apparatus – these both keep the bourgeoisie in power. The repressive state apparatus: (RSA) which maintain the rule of the bourgeoisie – include the police, courts and army – they may use physical power to repress the working class. The ideological state apparatus: (ISA) which maintains the rule of the bourgeoisie by controlling people’s ideas, values and beliefs = ISA include religion, media and education system. Althusser argues that the education system is an important ISA. Education reproduces class inequalities by transmitting it from generation to generation, by failing each successive generation of working pupils in turn. Education legitimates (justifies) class inequality by producing ideologies – set of ideas and beliefs and values = that persuade workers to accept inequality and that they are subordinate in society = this makes workers less likely to threaten capitalist state.

BOWLES AND GINTIS – SCHOOLING IN CAPITALIST AMERICA:
American Marxists – Bowles and Gintis = argue that capitalist workforce requires workers with ‘specialist role’ attitude. Workers need to have the right behaviour and personality-type to accept being alienated and exploited workers. Bowels and Gintis thus argue role of education system in capitalist society – is to reproduce an obedient workforce that will accept inequality. Bowles and Gintis study = showed the school rewarded students with obedient and submissive character – students with independence and creativity received low grades, whilst those who were obedient were high achievers. Bowles and Gintis argue education system helps produce obedient workers that capitalism needs = do not believe education offers personal development – it distorts student’s development. The correspondence principle and the hidden curriculum: Bowles and Gintis argue there are similarities between the school and the workforce = both the school and workforce have hierarchy – with Headteachers and bosses at the top, making big decisions and workers and students at the bottom, obeying. ‘Correspondence principle’ operates through hidden curriculum = what we learn that is not attached to school curriculum – for example, not being late, being polite and being organised. School prepares w/c pupils for their role as exploited workers in the future – reproducing workforce capitalism and exploitation. Cohen (1984) argues that youth training schemes serves capitalism by teaching workers to accept exploitations = this lowers their academic aspirations. The myth of meritocracy – the legitimation of class inequality: Capitalist society is based on inequality = Bowles and Gintis criticise Parsons = they believe there is no meritocracy in society – ability means nothing, most people are judged based on their class, being middle class or working. Education system justifies poverty through Bowles and Gintis ‘poor are dumb’ theory = blaming poverty for lack of achievement – we should reject meritocracy.

WILLIS – LEARNING TO LABOUR:
Willis believes capitalism cannot function without a workforce willing to accept exploitation and Marxists also argue education reproduces class inequality. Through their lack of achievement at school, they are clearly unskilled workers. Through their rebellion they are guaranteed to fail = perfect for capitalist workforce, that require unskilled workers. Willis (1977) we can reject the ideology of capitalist class = Willis addresses how schooling can contribute to capitalism & he combines this with interactionist approach = focuses on the meanings pupils give their situation. Willis argues it is ironic that by resisting the schools ideology, they end up in the unskilled work that capitalism needs. The lads counter-culture: Evaluation of Marxist approaches: Qualitative research method, included participant observation and unstructured interviews of 12 working class boys = The ‘lads’ formed a counter-culture opposed to the school. Marxists approaches are useful in exposing ‘myth of meritocracy’ = they show the role that education plays an ideological state apparatus –serving the interests of capitalism. They were scornful towards conformists and did not like listening to what teachers told them = the ‘lads’ found school boring and meanings – they would drink and smoke in school. Postmodernists disagree with Bowles and Gintis they argue the school is now very diverse and there is no inequality. Critics argue that Willis’ study romanticises the working class counter-culture, making them seem as hero’s against capitalist society. They rejected meritocracy that w/c boys could achieve in a m/c system. Critics argue Marxism focuses on class too much and ignores other factors such as ethnicity and gender. Similarity between lad’s anti school counter-culture and male manual workers = both cultures see manual work as superior and masculine and better than intellectual work – the lads could relate to male manual culture. Marxists disagree with each other, Bowles and Gintis take a deterministic view = assume pupils have no free will and accept indoctrination – this fails to explain why pupils still fail. However, lad’s counter-culture, ended them up in the very jobs that helped capitalism – a system they hated:

EXAM PLANNING: Applying material from item B and your knowledge, evaluate the view that ‘while Marxist and functionalist approaches focus on similar issues, they reach very different conclusions about the role of education’ – 30 marks. Introduction: From Item B, it is clear Marxists (class conflict view) and Functionalists (consensus view) share ‘similar functions’ found within the education system, for example, teaching values, preparations for work and role allocation. However, both perspectives contrast with each other, as Marxists concludes that education is based on capitalist exploitation and functionalists argue that it is based on social solidarity. Paragraph 1: Karl Marx – We live in capitalist society, divided into two, the capitalist class and the working class. The capitalist class oppress and exploit the working and create a ‘false class consciousness’, through education system that teaches we should accept being submissive, passive workers, who do not question ‘status-quo’. The education system prevents a capitalist revolution, where w/c break free from oppressive control. Paragraph 2: Contrastingly, Durkheim – education brings social solidarity, by transmitting society’s main values = individuals feel like ‘one’. School acts a miniature society, for example, both in school and at work, we mix with people we do not know = we have to follow set of rules in work and at school. Similarly, argues education system provides specialist skills = we learn the right skills and knowledge for special roles in workforce. Paragraph 3: On the other hand, Althusser – argues ideological state apparatus (school, media, family and religion) & repressive state apparatus (police, government and army). The education system is an important ISA – it reproduces class inequality by transmitting ideologies from generation to generation – it fails each working class generation by supressing their w/c culture and instilling capitalist one. Education persuades individuals to accept class inequality & subordination in society. Paragraph 4: Alternatively, Parsons – argues of ‘meritocracy’ = see’s the education system based on ability and effort, those who work hard can achieve in society, as status is achieved, not ascribed. Education acts a ‘focal socialising agent’ creates bridge between the family and society – through education children learn the norms and values demanded in society. In the family there are particularistic standards (rules apply to individual within family) and outside society there are universalistic standards (rules that apply to all) = we work to gain achieved status, meritocracy is important. Paragraph 5: Bowles and Gintis – argues capitalist workforce requires ‘specialist role’ attitude from workers – workers need to have the right behaviour and attitude to accept being alienated and exploited. Bowles and Gintis argue role of education system is to reproduce obedient workforce. Bowles and Gintis study showed the school rewarded ‘obedient’ and ‘passive students’, whilst ‘independent’ students failed (not make good capitalist workers). Both the school and workforce have hierarchy – with Headteachers and bosses at the top, making big decisions and workers and students at the bottom, obeying. ‘Correspondence principle’ operates through hidden curriculum = what we learn that is not attached to school curriculum – for example, not being late, being polite and being organised. Cohen (1984) argues that youth training schemes serves capitalism by teaching workers to accept exploitations = this lowers their academic aspirations. Paragraph 6: Similarly, Davis and Moore - see education as a device for selection and role allocation – they focus on the relationship between education and inequality. Davis and Moore argue inequality is needed to ensure the important roles in society is filled by the best suited for the role = For example, it would be dangerous to give a non-talented worker the role of a doctor. Not everyone is equally talented, some are talented than others = society has to reward everyone differently. This will encourage people to compete for the best jobs and society can pick their best workers for their suited roles.

I have broken down the essential aspects of the essay
I have broken down the essential aspects of the essay! It is important that you should remember this is not how you should write in the exam, but instead develop concise, yet detailed responses – it does not matter whether your essay is 30 marks or 10, those marks define whether you will achieve an A/A*.

TOPIC 6: EDUCATIONAL POLICY AND INEQUALITY
EXAM REVISION.

EDUCATIONAL POLICY IN BRITAIN BEFORE 1988:
SELECTION: THE TRIPARTIE SYSTEM: THE COMPREHENSIVE SCHOOL SYSTEM: From 1944, education was influenced by the idea of meritocracy. Meritocracy – Children should achieve their status in life through their own efforts and abilities – rather than having it ascribed (given at birth). 1944 Education Act brought the Tripartite System = Children would be selected and allocated in one of three schools (based on aptitude and ability). Children competed the 11 + exam to help allocate them in the right school. Grammar Schools: Had an academic curriculum and access to non-manual jobs& higher education, like University. This school for pupils who passed the (Mainly M/C) Secondary Modern Schools: Non-academic, practical curriculum & access to manual jobs. For pupils who failed the 11+. (Mainly W/C) The third school – ‘Technical Schools’ existed in certain areas, so there was a bipartite rather than tripartite system. Instead of promoting meritocracy, the tripartite system & 11+ reproduced class inequality – it divided the classes into two groups, ensuring they had unequal opportunities, academically. The education system also reproduced gender inequality, as girls were pressured into getting higher than boys on the 11+, so they can go to grammar schools. The Tripartite system also justified inequality through the ideology that ability is inborn. They ignore children’s environment influence their chances of passing, the W/C and M/C children had different experiences. From 1965, the Comprehensive school system was introduced. It aimed to overcome the class divide of the tripartite system and make education more meritocratic. The 11+ was to be abolished, along with Grammar and Modern Schools, to then be replaced with Comprehensive school. Comprehensive schools were placed all over the country. Not all the local authority agreed on the comprehensive school = too much inequality. Grammar-secondary Morden schools, still exist as a result. Before industrial revolution (18th Century), there were no state schools. The state made schooling compulsory from 5 – 13 in 1880 – showing their focus on education. Education was available to a minority of the population. M/C or well off children received education. Education was provided by fee- paying schools, the church and charities. Schooling did little to affect children’s ascribed status. M/C children were given academic curriculum to prepare them for their careers. Before 1833, the state spent no public money on education. Industrialisation increased the need for an educated workforce. W/C children were given basic numeracy and literacy to prepare them for the manual workforce. From 19th Century, state became more involved in education system.

TWO THEORIES OF THE ROLE OF COMPREHENSIVES:
Functionalists: Marxists: Marxists and Functionalists see the role of education very differently. Functionalists = School serves essential functions, such as, social integration and meritocratic selection for the future workforce. Functionalists argue that the comprehensives promote social integration by bringing children of different classes together. Julienne Ford (1969) found little social mixing between working class and middle class pupils – because of streaming. Functionalists like the comprehensive because it gives pupils longer period in which to develop and show their abilities , unlike the tripartite system. Marxists = See education as serving the interests of capitalism, by reproducing and legitimating class inequality. Argue Comprehensive schools are not meritocratic. Comprehensive schools = reproduce class inequality from one generation to another – through the continuation of the practice of streaming and labelling. By selecting children at 11, t may appear that there is an “equality”, but this is just a “myth of meritocracy”.

MARKETISATION: Critics argue Marketisation has increased inequality. Example, Stephen Ball (1994) and Geoff Whitty (1998) argue Marketisation policies such as Exam league tables and funding formula reproduce inequalities = by creating inequalities between schools. Marketisation refers to the process of introducing forces of consumer choice and competition between suppliers into areas run by the state – such as education. Marketisation has created an ‘education market’, this is done by: League tables and cream skimming: Reducing direct state control over education. Publishing league tables ensures that schools that achieve good grades are on high demand = Parents are attracted to schools with good league table rankings. Will Barrett (1993) argues this encourages: Increasing both competition between schools & parental choice of schools. Marketisation was a central theme of government education policy, since (Education Reform Act), introduced by Margret Thatcher, a Conservative. 1. Cream-skimming: Good schools can be more selective when choosing their students – aiming on choosing high achievers (mainly M/C) = gives an advantage to students and school. In 1997, New Labour government followed similar policies that emphasised standards, choice and diversity = Conservative & Liberal democratic government took this further & and introduced = Academies and free school meals. 2. Silt-shifting: Good schools can avoid taking pupils who are less able and students who will get poor results – because this will damage league table (mainly W/C). Neoliberals & New right favour Marketisation. Marketisation means schools have to attract consumers (parents) by competing with each other in the market (school). For schools with low league table position cannot afford to be selective and must take less able, W/C students = their results remain the same, because students aren’t highly able. Schools who provide consumers with what they want, e.g exam success – will thrive = Schools who do not meet the needs of these consumers will fail. Low league positioned schools remain unattractive to M/C parents = Overall effect of league table is to produce unequal schools that reproduce social class inequalities. Parentocracy: There are policies that promote Marketisation: The funding formula: Publication of league tables – if the school is high on the table, they will likely be good schools. Schools are given funding depending on their students = Popular schools get higher funding and so they can afford better quality teachers and better facilities & Popularity of some schools allows them to be selective – they can choose ambitious, bright, M/C pupils. Business sponsoring schools. Specialist schools meet to the needs of parents – e.g Science schools. Unpopular schools lose income and find it difficult to match their teacher skills & facilities to their rival schools. Schools competing to attract pupils. Introduction of tuition fee’s for higher education. Popular schools, with good results and M/C pupils thrive – unpopular schools fail to attract pupils and their funding is ultimately reduced. Miriam David (1993) Describes marketised education as ‘parentocracy’ (ruled by parents). Supporters of Marketisation argue that power moves away from school and teachers to parents = this encourages diversity and choice among schools. Public Policy Research (2012) found competition-oriented education systems such as Britain's = produce more segregation between children of different backgrounds. The reproduction of inequality:

GEWIRTZ – PARENTAL CHOICE: THE MYTH OF PARENTOCACY:
Marketisation policies benefit the M/C by creating inequalities between schools. Marketisation advantages M/C parents, they can use their economic and cultural capital to choose ‘good’ schools for their children. Gewirtz (1995) study of 14 London secondary schools = found that differences in parent’s economic and cultural capital lead to class differences in how far they can choose secondary schools for their children. She identified 3 main type of parents: 1. Privileged-skilled choosers: Professional M/C parents. Use their economic capital and cultural capital to gain educational capital = allows children to be prosperous, confident and well educated. These parents know how the school’s admission system works, through their cultural capital. For example, they knew that you had to put a certain school as your first choice. Their economic cultural meant they could afford to move their child around, to fully benefit from the school – paying extra travel, so their child can go to the best schools. 2. Disconnected-local choosers: W/C parents, whose academic choices were limited, due to their lack of cultural and economic capital. They do not understand the schools admission procedures. They were concerned about safety and the schools quality of facilities, than the league table and long term ambitions. Distance and cost of travel posed as a big problem, parents would keep the children closer to home because of their insufficient funds. 3. Semi-skilled choosers: These were ambitious W/C parents. However, they lack the cultural capital to understand the education systems admissions procedure. Relied on other people’s opinions of the school – they were always annoyed at the fact they couldn’t get their child into their preferred school. Although the education market gives parents greater choice, Gewirtz argues it still favours middle class parents because they have the economic and cultural capital for it, in comparison with W/C parents. Marketisation reproduces inequality and legitimises it by hiding its true cause and existence. Ball argues Marketisation gives an appearance of parentocracy – it makes it appear all the parents have the same freedom to choose a school, in reality, this is not true. Ball argues parentocracy is a myth. Gewirtz shows M/C parents can take advantage of their educational capital. Schooling continues to reproduce class inequality, the myth of parentocracy makes inequality in education seem inevitable. NEW LABOUR AND INEQUALITY: New labour government tried to reduce educational inequality, by introducing new policies: Making some deprived areas, education action zones – providing them with extra academic resources. Aim Higher = aimed at groups who were under-represented in higher education. EMA’s = payments to students from low income families, to encourage them to stay in school and get better qualifications. Increased funding for state education. Melissa Benn (2010) Argued there is a ‘New Labour Paradox’, when the labour party introduced policies that stopped educational inequality, yet still supported Marketisation. For example, although introducing EMA’s, they increased the cost of higher education. Conclusively = new labour government neither abolished academic inequality or progressed it.

COALITION GOVERNMENT POLICIES FROM 2010:
Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition government elected in 2010 = moved away from state based education system. Encouraging free school meals and academies to take place. Conclusively, the government was in support of Marketisation of school and parentocracy. David Cameron wanted to emphasis ‘innovation’ and ‘competition’. Policies were heavily influenced by Neo-liberals and New right. Thus, he made cuts on state spending on the school. ACADEMIES: FRAGMENTED CENTRALISATION: From 2010 = all schools were encouraged to leave local authority and become academies. Funding was removed from local authority and given to academies, by central government. By 2012, over half secondary schools changed to academies. Some academies were run by private businesses and funded directly by the state. The coalition government by encouraging academies – removed focus on reducing inequality. Ball (2011) = argues that promoting academies and free schools has led to increased fragmentation and centralisation of control over educational provision in England: 1. Fragmentation: The comprehensive state being replaced by patchwork of diverse provision. Involves private providers and greater inequality in opportunities. 2. Centralisation of control: Central government have the power to allow schools to become academies or free schools. These schools are funded by central government – growth of these schools, reduces local authorities involvement in school. FREE SCHOOLS: COALITION POLICIES AND INEQUALITY: Although funded directly by the state, free schools are ran by parents, teachers and faith organisations or businesses. Supports of free schools argue it improves educational standards because it takes power away from the state. Free schools allow teachers and parents to make changes if they are unhappy. Rebecca Allen (2010) found in Sweden, free schools only benefited educated families. However, in England, its shown that free schools take more disadvantage students than local schools. Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition’s introduced policies aimed at reducing academic inequalities: 1. Free school meals: For all children in reception, year one and year two. 2. The pupil premium: Money that school received for each disadvantaged student. However, Ofsted (2012) found Head teachers did not use the money from pupil premium to help disadvantaged students. Critics argue cutting EMA’s and Sure Start reduced opportunities for working class pupils & increased university fee’s discouraged students.

THE PRIVATISATION OF EDUCATION:
Large scale school building projects involve public private partnerships (PPPs) = private sector companies provide capital to design, build, finance and operate educational services (these contracts can last 25 years). Privatisation involves transfer from public assets such as schools to private companies. Privatisation influencing education system. Ball argues companies involved in this work make 10 x amount of profit than with normal contracts. Education becomes a source of profit for capitalists – Ball calls this ‘Education service industry’ (ESI). Local authorities often forced into these contracts because of lack of funding from central government. Private companies in the ESI offer = Supply teachers, work-based learning and Ofsted inspection services. BLURRING THE PUBLIC/PRIVATE BOUNDARY: PRIVATISATION AND THE GLOBALSATION OF EDUCATION POLICY: Many private companies in education services industry are foreign owned. The exam board Edexcel is owned by US educational publishing and testing giant. According to Ball, Pearson GCSE exam answers are now marked in Sydney and Iowa. According to Buckingham and Scanlon, UK’s leading educational companies are owned by global businesses. As a result, nation-states are becoming less important in policymaking, which is shifting to a global level – also often privatised. Many senior officials in the public sector = such as directors of local authorities & Headteachers, work with private sector education businesses. These companies bid for contracts to provide services to schools and local authorities. Pollack (2004) states this flow of personnel allows companies to buy ‘insider knowledge’ = to help win contracts.

THE COLA-ISATION OF SCHOOLS: EDUCATION AS A COMMODITY:
The private sector is penetrating the education system, slowly. Example, through vending machines, and the development of brand loyalty – through promotion certain brands and logo’s. This is called the cola-isation of the school. According to Molnar (2005) schools are targeted by private businesses because they have a reputation of being trustworthy and good willed = they are a product endorsement. However, the benefit for teachers and pupils is very limited. According to Ball, Cadbury’s equipment sponsorship was scrapped, because it was said students would have to eat 5,000 pieces of chocolate to get volleyball equipment. Ball argues fundamental change is taking place = privatisation is shaping educational policies. Policies are increasingly focused on moving educational policies out of the public sector – controlled by nation-state. Education is being turned into ‘legitimate object of private profit making’ – a commodity to be bought and sold in an education market. Privatisation means the state is losing its role as the provider of educational services. More areas of education are now subject to business practices and financial logics. Marxists, Stuart Hall (2011) see coalition government policies – long march of neoliberals revolution. Hall see’s academies as an example of handing over public services to private capitalists. POLICIES ON GENDER AND ETHNICITY: 1. Assimilation: Policies in 1960’s & 1970’s focused on ethnic minorities assimilating themselves into mainstream British culture. (Helping those, whose first language, isn’t English). We have focused on policies affecting class differences in achievement. Policies have impact on gender & ethnicity. Gender: Critics argue, Blacks tend to speak English & cause of underachievement is poverty + racism. 19th century = females were largely excluded from higher education = Under tripartite system, girls had to achieve higher than boys to do better. 2. Multi-cultural education: 1980’s – 1990’s aimed to promote the achievements of children from minority ethnic groups, by valuing all cultures in school cultures. Policies in 1970’s, such as GIST (Girls in Science & Technology) were introduced to reduce gender differences in subject choice. Critics, Maureen Stone (1981) argues black pupils do not fail for lack of self – esteem, so (MCE – Multi-cultural education) is misguided. Ethnicity: Policies aimed at raising the achievements of children from minority ethnic backgrounds have gone through several phases: 3. Social Inclusion: Late 1990’s, pupils from minority ethnic groups, aimed on raising their achievement – they helped Black students in Saturday schools. Critics, Mirza (2005), argues these policies have had little change on society.

ESSAY PLANNING: Outline and explain the effects of two Marketisation policies – 10 marks. One policy introduced through Marketisation is the ‘funding formula’ provided by the government, for each pupil that joins a school, more funding will be provided to the institution. With this, it is evident that popular schools receive more funding and can thus, afford high-quality teachers and improved specialist equipment for certain departments around the school. However, through the popularity of the school, enrolment officers within the school are able to choose their ‘ideal pupil’, for majority of schools across the country, ‘bright’ ‘passive’, ‘middle-class’ pupils make the best consumers, as they can ‘boost’ the overall grade results of the school. As a result more middle class parents will be attracted to this school, to the extent the school becomes ‘rich in numbers’. On the other hand, school’s with low number’s of pupils will receive less funding than popular schools, and may not be able to afford a efficient teachers and this makes the competition between other schools difficult. Overall, the funding formula has benefited many schools – However, the Public Policy Research, found that the ‘British’ competition ethos between schools, caused classed based inequalities, whereby the working class and middle class are divided between different ‘popular’ and ‘unpopular’ schools. Marketisation is the process in which production of consumer choice is introduced into a business, in this case, it is the education system; By raising the consumer choice between schools, inevitable competition is created and this causes the introduction of policies such as the publishing of the league tables. The publication of the league tables ensures that schools that achieve good grades, are on high demand, this is important because parents are attracted to ‘top- quality’ schools. Barrette argues that league tables encourage ‘cream-skimming’, this is meaning good schools can be selective with their students, choosing ‘high achievers’ (tend to be middle class pupils) and those who will sustain their position in the league table. Contrastingly, Barrette argues this can also encourage schools to use ‘silt-shifting’ – good schools can avoid taking on less able pupils, as they feel this will threaten their position of the league table. Barrette furtherly found that low positioned schools on the league table, could not afford to be selective, therefore had to accept less able students to popularise the school, however, this resulted in poor exam results and maintained their low position on the league. However, Whitty argues that the publication of exam results and funding formula, reproduced class inequalities between schools and ignore working class underachievement.

SOCIOLOGY – EDUCATION REVISION GUIDE:

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "SOCIOLOGY – EDUCATION REVISION GUIDE:"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

SOCIOLOGY – EDUCATION REVISION GUIDE:

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "SOCIOLOGY – EDUCATION REVISION GUIDE:"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback