Notes for Sociology

Class Difference in Achievement- External Factors

Explaining class differences

Social class background has a powerful influence on a child's chance of success in the education system.

One explanation of class differences in achievement is that better off parent can afford to send their children to private schools, which many believe provides a higher standard of education.

Cultural Deprivation

Theorists believe that most of us begin with basic values, attitudes and skills which are needed for educational success through primary socialisation.

According to cultural deprivation theorists, many working class families have failed to socialise their children adequately which leads these children to grow up culturally deprived which leads them to underachieve at school.

There are three main aspects of cultural deprivation: Intellectual Development-. Theorists argue that many working class homes lack the

books, educational toys and activities that would stimulate a child's intellectual development, thus children leave the home without developing intellectual skills needed for progress. J.W.B. Douglass (1964) found working class parents are less likely to support their children's intellectual development through reading to them- leading them to do worse than middle class children.

Language- Bernstein (1975) talks about how there are two types of speech roles between the working and middle class language. The Restricted Code is used by the working class. It has a limited vocabulary and is based on the use of short, grammatically simple sentences. The Elaborated Code is used by the middle class. It has a wider vocabulary and is based on longer, more grammatically complex sentences. Speech is more varied and communicates abstract ideas. These differences give middle class children an advantage at school because the elaborated code is the one used by textbooks and exams. Early socialisation into the elaborated role means that middle class children are fluent uses of the code when they start school thus they are more likely to succeed as they feel 'at home'.Criticism of Bernstein- Critics argue that Bernstein finds the working class speech to be inadequate, however unlike most cultural deprivation theorists, Bernstein recognises that the school influences children's achievement. He argues that working class pupils fail not because they are culturally deprived, but because schools fail to teach them how to use the elaborated code.

Attitudes and Values- Theorists argue that parents' attitudes and values affect education achievement. E.g. Douglas found that working class parents took less interest in their education. As a result, their children had lower levels of achievement motivation. A lack of parental interest in their children's education reflects the sub cultural values of the working class. Herbert Hyman (1967) argues that the lower class believe that they have less opportunity for individual advancement and place little value on achieving high status jobs, so they see no point of education (leave for manual work). Parents pass

on the values of their class to their children through primary socialisation. Middle class values equip children for success, whereas working class values fail to do this.

Compensatory education- is a policy designed to tackle the problem of cultural capital by providing extra resources to schools in deprived areas. E.g. Operation Head Start in the US which was a multi billionaire dollar scheme of pre-school education in poorer areas introduced in the 1960s.

Criticisms of Cultural Deprivation:

Neil Keddie (1973) describes cultural deprivation as a 'myth' and she points out that working class children are simple culturally different not deprived. They fail because they are put a disadvantage by the education system which is dominated by middle class values.

Blackstone and Mortimore (1994) reject the view that working class parents are not interested in their children's education. They argue that they attend fewer parents' evenings because they work longer hours, not because they are not interested.

Finally some critics argue that compensatory education acts as a smokescreen concealing the real cause of underachievement, social inequality and poverty.

Material Deprivation:

The term 'Material Deprivation' refers to poverty and a lack of material necessities such as adequate housing and income.

Facts: In 2006, only 33% of children receiving free school meals (used to measure

poverty) gained give or more GCSEs at A*-C, against 61% not receiving free school meals.

Nearly 90% of 'failing' schools are located in deprived areas. Working class families are much more likely to have low incomes and

inadequate housing which shows the link between poverty and social class.

Housing

Poor housing can affect achievement directly and indirectly. E.g. Overcrowding can affect it directly as the child has less room for educational activities, nowhere to do homework, disturbed sleep from sharing beds and so on.

Families living in temporary accommodation may find themselves having to move frequently, resulting in constant change of school and disrupted education.

Indirect effects include the child's health and welfare. E.g. Children is crowding homes have a higher risk of accidents. Also cold and damp housing can cause ill health which can lead to more absences in school.

Diet and Health

Marilyn Howard (2001) found that young people from poorer homes have lower intakes of energy, vitamins and minerals. Poor nutrition affects health.

Richard Wilkinson (1996) found that among ten year olds, the lower the social class, the higher rate of hyperactivity, anxiety and conduct disorders, all of which are likely to have a negative effect on the child's education.

Financial support and the costs of education

A lack of financial support means that children from poor families have to miss out on experiences that would enhance their educational achievement. Bull (1980) refers to this as 'the costs of free schooling'.

Tanner (2003) found that the cost of items like uniform and transport puts a heavy burden on poor families.

Flaherty talks about how the fear of stigmatisation may help explain why 20% of people entitled with free school meals do not take up their entitlement.

A lack of funds means that children from low income families often need to work. This helps us explain why many working class pupils leave school at 16.

Dropout rates are also higher for universities with a larger proportion of poorer students e.g. at Sunderland there is 13% drop out rate.

However material factors only play a part in achievement as some children from poor families have gone on to succeed.

Cultural Capital

Bourdieu: Three types of Capital

Pierre Bourdieu (1984) argues that both cultural and material factors influence achievement and are not separate but interrelated. Bourdieu also talks about 'educational capital' and 'cultural capital'. He argues that the middle class possess more of all three types of capital.

Cultural Capital

Cultural Capital refers to the knowledge, attitudes, values, language, tastes and abilities of the middle class.

Bourdieu sees the middle class as a 'capital' because it gives advantage to those who possess it. He argues that through socialisation, middle class children are more likely to develop intellectual interests and an understand what the education system needs to succeed.

The working class find that school devalues their culture as inferior and their capital leads to exam failure. Some pupils 'get the message' that school is not for them thus leading to early leaving and truanting.

Educational and Economical Capital

Leech and Campos' (2003) study shows that middle class parents are more likely to be able to afford a house near a desirable school. This is known as 'selection by mortgage' because it drives up demand for houses near successful schools.

Similarly, wealth parents can convert this cultural capital into educational capital by sending their children to private schools.

A test of Bourdieu's ideas

Alice Sullivan (2001) used questionnaires to conduct a survey of 465 pupils in four schools to assess their cultural capital. She asked them to do a range of activities e.g. reading. She found that those who read complex fiction and watched serious TV

documentaries developed greater cultural knowledge thus a higher cultural capital. These pupils were more likely to be successful at GCSE.

However, she also found that these students with greater cultural capital were more likely to be middle class.

Gewirtz: Marketisation and Parental Choice

One example of how cultural and economic capital can lead to differences in educational achievement is via the impact of marketisation and parental choice.

Sharon Gewirtz (1995) examined class differences in parental choice of secondary school. She used interviews in her study of 14 London school and concluded that there was three main types of parents who were categorised into privileged-skilled choosers, disconnected-local choosers and semi-skilled choosers.

Privileged-skilled choosers- These were mainly middle class parents with high cultural capital who used their economic and cultural capital to gain educational capital for their children. They also use their economic capital to afford to move their children around the educational system to the best deal out of it.

Disconnected-local choosers- These were mainly working class parents with a lack of economic and cultural capital. They found it difficult to understand the school system and were less confident with dealings with school. The cost of travel and distance were major restrictions when choosing a school and heir funds were limited.

Semi-skilled choosers- These were mainly working class parents but unlike the disconnected-local choosers, there were ambitious for their children. However they also lacked cultural capital and found it difficult making sense of the education market.

Gewirtz concluded that middle-class families with cultural and economic capital were better placed to take advantage of opportunities for a good education.

Class Differences in Achievement- Internal factors

Labelling

To attach a meaning or definition to someone. Teachers attach labels on the basis of stereotyped assumptions about their

background. Working class pupils negatively and middle class pupils positively.

Labelling in Secondary Schools

Becker (1971) carried out a study with 60 Chicago teachers using interviews. He found that teachers judged pupils according to how closely they fitted the image of the 'ideal pupil'. Children from a middle class background were the closest to the ideal image and working class children were further away.

Cicourel and Kitsuse's study shows how labelling can disadvantage working class student. They found that counsellors assessed students on social class or race instead of ability. Students who had similar grades were labelled middle class and were more likely to have higher level courses.

Labelling in Primary Schools

Ray Rist's study found that the teachers used information e.g. home background to place them in separate groups. 'Tigers' were the fast learners and tended to be majority middle class. They had a clean appearance and were given the greatest encouragement.

'Clowns' and 'Cardinals' were seated further back and tended to be the working class. They were given low level books and fewer opportunities to demonstrate their ability.

High and Low Status Knowledge

Gilborn and Youdell studied how schools use teachers' notions found that working class and black pupils are less likely to have that ability to achieve 5 A* to C grades at GCSE..

They are more likely to be placed in lower sets which deny the knowledge and opportunity needed to gain good grades which widens the class gap in achievement.

The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy (SFP)

The self-fulfilling prophecy is a prediction that comes true simple by virtue of it having been made.

Step 1- The teacher labels a pupil and makes a prediction about them. Step 2- The teacher treats the pupil according to the prediction. Step 3- The pupil internalises the teacher's expectation and becomes the kind of

pupil the teacher predicted.

Teachers' Expectations

Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) study shows how the SFP works. They told the school that they had a new test specially designed to identify those pupils who would 'spurt' ahead. This was untrue because the test was an IQ test. The researchers tested all the pupils and then picked 20% of them randomly, and told the school that they were 'spurters'. When they returned a year later, they found that almost half (47%) of those 'spurters' had made significant progress especially the younger children.

They suggested that the teachers had been influenced by the test and the teachers' beliefs were conveyed to the pupils e.g. body language thus showing how the SFP works.

The SFP can also produce under-achievement. If a teacher has low expectations from a child and communicates these expectations to them, it might lead the child to develop a negative self- concept thus leading to failures.

Streaming and the SFP

Streaming involves separating children into different ability groups called 'streams'. They are taught separately from the other.

Becker shows that teachers don't see working class children as ideal pupils because they tend to see them as lacking ability thus working class children are found to be in lower streams. Once they are streamed, it is less likely for them to move up the

streams. The children in the lower streams 'get the message' that the teachers have written them off as no-hopers.

This creates the SFP in which pupils live up to their teachers' low expectations by underachieving. By contrast, middle class pupils tend to benefit as they are closer to the 'ideal pupil'.

Pupil Subcultures

A pupil subculture is a group of pupils who share similar values and behaviour patterns. They often emerge as a response to the way pupils have been labelled. Lacey's (1970) concepts of differentiation and polarisation are used to explain how pupil subcultures develop:

Differentiation- the process of which teachers categorise pupils on how they perceive their ability, attitude and behaviour. Streaming is a form of differentiation since it categorises pupils into separate classes.

Polarisation- the process in which pupils respond to streaming by moving towards one of the two opposite 'poles' or extremes.

In Lacey's study of Hightown Boys' Grammar School, he found that streaming polarised boys into a pro-school and an anti-school subculture.

The pro-school subculture

Pupils in high streams (majority middle class) tend to remain committed to the values of the school. They gain their status in the approved man, through academic success.

The anti-school subculture

Those placed in low streams (majority working class) suffer a loss of self-esteem which leads them to push themselves in other methods of gaining success. Usually this is through inverting the school's value of hard work obedience and punctuality.

Lacey's study is a striking example of the power of labelling and streaming to actually create failure. These boys had been successful at primary school and were among the elite of about 15% who passed the eleven plus exam to get into the grammar school.

Once in the grammar school, the competitive atmosphere and streaming meant that many boys were soon labelled as failures and showed extreme physical reactions e.g. bed wetting. By the second year, many boys had become distinctly anti school as they adjusted to their status as failures.

Abolishing Streaming

Stephen Ball (1981) found that when Beachside school abolished banding (a type of streaming) in favour of teaching mixed-ability groups, the basis for pupils to polarise into subcultures were largely removed and the influence of the anti-school subculture declined.

However differentiation continued as teachers categorised pupils differently and were likely to label middle class pupils as cooperative which lead to them doing better in exams thus suggesting a SFP had occurred. Ball's study shows that class

inequalities can continue as a result of teachers' labelling, even without the effect of subcultures or streaming.

Since Ball's study, the Education Reform Act (1988) has shown a trend towards more streaming and towards a variety of types of school which creates new opportunites for differentiation.

The variety of pupil responses

Peter Woods (1979) argues that there are other responses to labelling and streaming other than Pro- and anti-school subcultures. These include:

Ingratiation- being the 'teacher's pet' Ritualism- going through the motions and staying out of trouble Retreatism- daydreaming and mucking about Rebellion- outright rejection of everything the school stands for. John Furlong (1984) also observes that pupils don't stick to one response but tend to

move between different responses.The limitations of labelling theory The labelling theory is accused of determinism as it assumes that pupils who are

labelled have no choice but to fulfil the prophecy and will fail but Mary Fuller's (1984) study shows that this is not always true where the girls channelled their anger into the pursuit of educational success.

Marxists also criticise the labelling theory for ignoring the wider structures of power within which labelling takes place and fail to explain why teachers are blamed.

Marxists argue that labels are stems for the fact that teachers work in a system which reproduces class divisions.

Marketisation and selection policies

Marketisation brought in:

A funding formula that gives a school the same amount of funds for each pupil. Exam league tables that rank each school according to its exam performance and

make no allowance for the level of ability of its pupils. Competition among schools to attract pupils.

The A-to-C economy and educational triage

Gilborn and Youdell describe the 'A-to-C economy' as a system in which schools ration their time, effort and resources, concentrating them on those pupils who they perceive as having the potential to get five grade Cs at GCSE and so boost the school's league table position.

Gilborn and Youdell call this process the 'educational triage', triage means sorting. Schools categorise pupils into 'those who will pass anyway', 'those with potential' and 'hopeless cases'. Teachers do this using notions of 'ability' in which working class and black pupils are labelled as lacking ability('hopeless case') thus producing a SFP and failure.

Gilborn and Youdell's 'triage' is similar to Lacey's idea of differentiation, since they both involve treating pupil's differently and labelling. Gilborn and Youdell link the triage to marketisation policies (league tables) and show how these, when combined

Educational Triage

with teachers' stereotypical ideas about pupils' ability, lead to differences in achievement.

Competition and Selection

Marketisation also explains why schools are under pressure to select more able, largely middle class pupils who will gain the school a higher ranking in the league tables leading to even more able pupils joining the school thus increasing funding and making the school popular. An increased popularity will enable the school to select from a larger number of applicants and recruit the most able thus improving results once again.

By contrast, unpopular schools have to take up the least able students from disadvantaged backgrounds as they cannot afford to screen out the less able. These students tend to get worse results, thus leading the school to become less popular and see funding further reduced. These pressures have resulted in increased social class segregation between schools.Will Bartlett (1993) argues that marketisation leads to popular schools:

Cream-skimming- selecting higher ability pupils who gain the best results and cost less to teach.

Silt-shifting- off loading pupils with learning difficulties who are expensive to teach and get poor results.

An image to attract middle-class parents

Geoffrey Walford's (1991) research on CTC's (city technology colleges) found that although they were intended to provide vocational education in partnership with employers to recruit pupils from all social backgrounds, in practice they have come to be just another route to elite education. They became attractive to middle-class parents but because they were seen as the next big thing to a traditional grammar school.

There is evidence that marketisation and selection have created a polarised education system; popular, successful, well resourced schools with more able, middle class intake at one extreme and unpopular, failing, under-resourced schools with mainly low-achieving working class pupils at the other. Gewirtz describes this as a 'blurred hierarchy' of schools.

Ethnic differences in achievement

Evidence of Ethnic Differences in Society

Pupils

Triage

Those who will pass anyway

Hopeless casesBorderline C/D- Targeted for extra help

Webb found that white pupils make up around four out of five of all pupils. The DfES found that only 24% of all white male pupils who were on free school meals

gained 5 A*-C grades. White and Asian pupils on average achieve higher than black pupils. The DfES also tells us that within every ethnic group, the middle class do better than

the working class pupils. They also tell us that among all groups other than Gypsy/Roma children, girls

outperform boys.

External factors and ethnic differences in achievement

Cultural Deprivation

Intellectual and Linguistic skills- Cultural deprivation theorists see the lack of intellectual and linguistic skills as a cause of underachievement for minority children. They see children from low income black families as lacking intellectual stimulation and enriching experiences which leaves them poorly equipped for school. However the Swann Report (1985) criticises this by seeing language as a major factor of underachievement as Indian pupils do well despite the language barrier (Gilborn & Mirza, 2000).

Attitudes and values- Cultural deprivation theorists see black children having a lack of motivation while other children are socialised into mainstream culture which has many features like ambition which equips them for success. Also they argue that black children have a 'live for today' attitude which leaves them unequipped for success.

Family structure and parental support- Cultural deprivation theorists argue that the failure to socialise children adequately is the result of a dysfunctional family structure. Daniel Moynihan (1965) argues that many black families are headed by a lone mother which means boys have no male role model to look up to thus creating educational underachievement.

Asian families- Ruth Lupton (2004) argues that the adult authority in an Asian family is the same to the model that operates within schools. However some sociologists see Asian families as an obstacle to success e.g. Khan (1979) found Asian families as 'stress ridden', bound by tradition especially for girls.

White working-class families- White working class pupils underachieve might be because of a lack of parental support. Also Lupton found that teachers reported lower levels of behaviour and discipline despite there being fewer children on free school meals. Teachers blamed this on the negative attitudes that white working-class parents have on education.

Criticisms of Cultural Deprivation:

Driver (1977) criticises cultural deprivation theorists for not seeing the positive side of ethnicity e.g. strong independent women provide girls with a positive role model which explains why black girls tend to be more successful than black boys.

Lawrence (1982) argues that black pupils underachieve not because of low self esteem but because of racism.

Keddie argues that ethnic minority children are culturally different not culturally deprived, and they underachieve because schools are ethnocentric: biased to favour the white culture.

Material Deprivation & Class

Working class people are more likely to face poverty and material deprivation. Educational failure is a result of factors such as low income and substandard

housing.

Flaherty argues that ethnic minorities are more likely to face these problems: For example:

Pakistanis and Bangladeshis are over three times more likely than whites to be in the poorest fifth of the population.

Unemployment is three times higher for African and Bangladeshi/Pakistani people than whites.

15% of ethnic minority households live in overcrowded conditions, compared with only 2% of white households.

Pakistanis are nearly twice as likely to be in unskilled or semi-skilled jobs compared to whites.

Bangladeshi and Pakistani women are more likely to be engaged in low-paid homeworking, sometimes for as little as £1.50 per hour.

These inequalities reflect on educational achievement. E.g. Indians and Whites hold a higher social class position than Pakistanis and Bangladeshis who face poverty. This explains why Pakistanis and Bangladeshis do worse.

The Swann Report estimates that social class accounts for 50% of the difference in achievement between ethnic groups.

Racism in wider society

John Rex shows how racism leads to social exclusion and how this worsens the poverty faced by ethnic minorities. E.g. in housing, discrimination means that minorities are more likely to be forced into substandard accommodation.

In employment, there is evidence of direct and deliberate discrimination. Mike Noon (1993) sent identical letters about employment opportunities to the top 100 UK companies with the names of 'Evans' and 'Patel'. The companies were more encouraging towards the 'white' candidate.

This helps us explain why ethnic minorities are more likely to face unemployment and low pay and in turn has a negative effect on their children's educational success.

Internal factors and ethnic differences in achievement

Labelling and Teacher Racism

Labelling is to attach a meaning or definition to a person e.g. troublemaker. Wright studied a multi-ethnic primary school and found that Asian pupils can be

victims of teacher's labelling as the teachers held an ethno-centric view (British culture is superior).

The Asian pupils felt isolated when teachers expressed their disapproval. The effect was that Asian pupils, especially the girls were pushed to the edge and prevented from participating.

Gilborn and Gilborn found that teachers were quicker to discipline black pupils than others for the same behaviour.

'Racialised expectations'- teachers expected black pupils to have worse behaviour.

Pupil resources and subcultures

The colour blind teachers who believe all pupils are equal but in practice allow racism.

Fuller and Mac an Ghaill: rejecting negative labels- A good example of pupils responding by rejecting negative labels is minority ethnic groups do well. The study highlights two key points. First, pupils may still succeed even when they refuse to conform and negative labelling does not lead to failure e.g. as the black girls channelled their anger for being put into lower streams and succeeding in educational achievement.

Mirza found that racist teachers discouraged black people from being ambitious over their careers.

Sewell found that teachers in a secondary school had a black stereotype of 'black machismo' which sees all black boys as rebellious, anti-authority and anti-school. Sewell found that there were four ways in which black boys responded to this stereotype.

The rebels- The rebels were most visible and influential group but only a small minority were black. They were against what the school stood for and conformed to the stereotype of the 'black macho lad'.

The conformist- The largest group who were keen to succeed and were not a part of the subculture.

The retreatist- Tiny minority of isolated individuals who were disconnected from both the school and the black subculture.

The innovators- This was a group who only valued success but only conformed to schoolwork, not the teachers.

Evaluation of labelling and pupil response

Labelling theory shows how teachers' stereotypes can cause a failure. There is a danger as this can be seen as a teacher's prejudice and not racism in wider

society. Also outside factors can play a part e.g. influence of role models. Mirza shows that pupils may devise strategies to try to avoid teacher's racism which

can limit their opportunities.

The ethnocentric curriculum

Ethnocentric describes an attitude or policy that gives priority to the culture and viewpoint of one particular group.

Troyna and Williams describe the curriculum in British schools as ethnocentric because it gives priority to white culture and the English language.

Stephen Ball criticises the national curriculum for ignoring cultural and ethnic diversity and promoting an attitude of 'little Englandism'.

Miriam David describes the national curriculum as a 'specifically British' curriculum that teaches the culture of the 'host community'.

However it is not clear what impact the ethnocentric curriculum has. E.g. while the curriculum may ignore Asian culture, Indians, and Chinese pupils, achievement is still above the average.

Institutional Racism

Ethnocentric curriculum is a prime example of institutional racism. Troyna and Williams see the meagre provision for teaching Asian language as

institutional racism because it is an example of racial bias being built into the everyday workings of school and colleges.

Troyna and Williams argue that explanation of ethnic differences in achievement need to go beyond simply examining individual teacher racism to look at how schools and colleges routinely discriminate against ethnic minorities.

Individual racism- that results from the prejudiced views of individuals. Institutional racism- discrimination that is built into the way institutions such as

schools and colleges operate. Richard Hatcher found that school governing bodies gave low priority to race issues

and failed to deal with pupil's racist behaviour.

Selection and Segregation

Parents do not want to send their white kids to schools with high Asian populations. The Commission for Racial Equality found that racism in school admissions

procedures means that ethnic minority children are more likely to end up in unpopular schools. The reasons for this are that reports from primary schools that stereotype minority pupils. Also there is racist bias in interviews for school places. There is a lack of information and application forms in minority languages. Ethnic minority parents are often unaware of how the waiting list system works and the importance of deadlines.

Gilborn argues that selection gives more scope to select pupils which puts ethnic minorities at a disadvantage.

Moore & Davenport argue that better schools discriminate against 'problem student' and that selection leads to an ethnically stratified education system.

Ethnicity, class and gender

Evans discusses how for a black child we examine their culture and ethnicity but for a white child we focus on their class and concludes that we have to look at all three factors (class, ethnicity and gender).

Studies like Evans shows us that we cannot just consider ethnicity but also look at gender and class when explaining differences in achievement.

Gender Differences in Education

The gender gap in achievement

On starting school- Children are given a baseline test in which the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority found that 62% of girls could concentrate without supervision for 10 minutes whereas only 49% of boys could do this.

At key stages 1 to 3- Girls do consistently better in English where the gender gap widens with age but in science and maths the gap is narrower but girls still do better.

At GCSE- The percentage difference is around 10% each year since 1985 and it favours the girls.

At AS level and A level- girls are more likely to pass and get higher grades but the gender gap is lower than GCSEs.

On vocational courses- A larger proportion of girls receive distinction in every subject than boys.

External factors and gender differences in achievement

The impact of feminism

The feminist movement has lead to more rights for women since the 1960's. However equal rights have not completely been achieved but there has been considerable success which is highlighted by Angela McRobbie who compared women's magazines from the 1970s and 1990s. In the 1970s the magazines were emphasising the importance of marriage and the 1990s one had images of independent women.

Changes in the family

There have been major changes in the family since 1970s. These include:

increase in divorce rate increase in cohabitation and decline in the number of first marriages increase in the number of lone-parent families (mostly female headed) smaller families.

These changes have affected girl's attitude towards education. E.g. An increase in the divorce rate encourages girls to look after themselves and to do well at school so they can become 'independent'.

Changes in women's employment

There have been important changes in women's employment. These include:

The 1970 Equal Pay act makes it illegal to pay women less than men for work of equal value.

The proportion of women in employment has risen from 47% (1959) to over 70% (2007).

Some women are breaking through the 'glass ceiling'- the invisible barrier which keeps them out of professional and managerial jobs.

These changes have encourages girls to see their future with greater opportunities which provides them with the incentive to gain qualifications.

Girls' changing ambitions

Sharpe compared interviews conducted with girls from 1970s and 1990s. She found major shifts in the way girls see their future now. In 1970s, the girls had low aspirations and prioritised marriage and the family. The girls in the 1990s wanted to support themselves and see their future as independent women.

Internal factors and gender differences in achievement

Equal opportunities policies

GIST (Girls into science and technology) and WISE (Women into science and engineering) encourage girls to pursue careers in non-traditional areas. Female scientists have visited school acting as role models so that girls become aware of these policies and use them to thrive in educational success.

The introduction of the National Curriculum made boys and girls study mostly the same subjects which removed one source of gender inequality.

Positive role models in schools

An increase in the amount of female teachers and head teachers means that there are more women in positions of authority and seniority which means they can act as role models for girls and push them towards educational success

GCSE and coursework

Gorard found that the gender gap was constant from 1975 till 1988 when it started to favour girls because of the introduction of GCSEs and coursework. Gorard concluded that the gender gap is a 'product of the changed system of assessment rather any more general failing of boys'.

Mitsos and Browne suggest that girls are more successful at coursework because they are better at meeting deadlines, more organised, spend more time on their work and more conscientious.

Teacher attention

Swann and Graddol found that boys attract the teacher's attention so they get more opportunities to speak. However they found that teachers interacted with girls more positively because the discussion focused on school work.

Swann found that boys dominate class discussions but girls prefer group work and are better at listening and cooperating. This may explain why teachers respond to them more positively as they are seen as cooperative.

Challenging stereotypes in the curriculum

Research from the 1970s found women to be portrayed as housewives and mothers in textbooks. However the removal of these stereotypes from textbooks have improved girl's achievement and removed a barrier.

Selection and league tables

Jackson sees the introduction of league table as favouring girl's achievement as schools want to attract high achieving pupils who tend to be girls and not low achieving pupils (majority boys). This leaves boys to be seen as 'liability students'- obstacles to the school improving its league system.

Two types of girls' achievement

Liberal feminists- They celebrate the progress made so far on improving achievement, but believe that more progress will be made by educational opportunities policies and overcoming stereotypes.

Radical feminists- They see the progress made but still see school as remaining patriarchal e.g. education still limits subject choices and there are still more male head teachers than female.

Boys and Achievement

Boys and Literacy

The DCSF (2007) found that the gender gap is mainly a result in boys' poorer literacy and language skills. One reason for this is because parents spend less time reading to their sons. Also boy's leisure pursuit (football) does little to develop these skills whereas girls adopt a 'bedroom culture' and stay in and talk to their friends.

In response to this problem, the government have introduced a range of policies to solve this. The National Literacy Strategy includes a focus on improving boys' reading.

Globalisation and the decline of traditional men's jobs

Since the 1980s, there has been a decline in the amount of traditional men's jobs such as heavy industries. This has the result of the globalisation of the economy which has led to industries shift to developing countries such as China to take advantage of cheap labour.

Many boys now believe that they have little prospect of getting a proper jobs which undermines their motivation and self-esteem and so they give up trying to get qualifications.

Feminisation of education

Sewell says that boys fall behind because education is more 'feminised', it focuses more on methodical work (which favours girls) than leadership (which favours boys).

Shortage of male primary school teachers

The DfES found that men only make up 16% of primary school teachers which means there is a lack of strong positive male role models at school which leads to underachievement. This is also supported by the amount of female headed lone parent families which means there is also no male role model at home.

Recent studies however go against this claim as Myhill and Jones found that 13-15 year old boys felt that male teachers treat boys more harshly.

'Laddish' subcultures

Epstein found that working class boys are likely to be harassed as sissies and 'swots'. Francis supported this and found that boys were more concerned about being labelled as swots than girls as it is a threat to their masculinity. This is because working class culture is associated with being tough and manual labour. As a result, working class boys reject class work to avoid being called 'gay'.

Francis found that laddish culture is becoming increasingly widespread.

Gender, class and ethnicity

It is wrong to conclude that boys are failures as boys now do better than they did in the past.

McVeigh found the similarities in girls' and boys' achievement are far greater than the differences. The DfES found that the class gap in class achievement was three times greater at GCSE than the gender gap.

As a result, boys and girls of the same social class tend to get similar results e.g.at GCSE in 2006, the gender gap was never greater than 12%.

By contrast, pupils of the same gender but different social class achieve diverse results e.g. girls from the highest class were 44 points ahead of girls from the lowest cast.

Subject choice and gender identity

Subject choice

The introduction of the national curriculum reduced pupils' freedom to drop subjects by making them compulsory till the age of 16.

Boys and girls tend to follow 'gender routes' though the education system. Stables and Wikeley found that when there was a choice in the national curriculum,

boys and girls tend to choose differently. E.g. D&T is compulsory but more girls pick food technology whereas boys pick graphics.

There are big differences for A level subjects with boys opting for Maths and Physics and girls for Sociology and English.

There is gender segregation in courses as well with only one in 100 construction apprentices being a girl.

Explanations of gender differences and in subject choice

Early Socialisation

Early Socialisation shapes children's gender identity. Norman found that from an early age boys and girls are dressed differently. Boys are rewarded for being active and girls are rewarded for being passive.

School also plays a big part. Bryne found that teachers encourage boys to be tough and not sissies and girls are encouraged to be quiet and clean.

Gender Domains- Murphy found that boys and girls interpret tasks differently. Murphy asked boys and girls to design a boat and an estate agent advert. Boys tended to design a battleship and focused on masculine spheres such as the garage for the advert. Girls on the other hand designed cruise ships and focused more on the decor of a house.

Gender subject images

The gender image that a subject 'gives off' affects who will want to choose it. e.g. Science is seen as a boy's subject as science teachers are more likely to be men.

However the DfES found that pupils who go to a single-sex school tend to hold less stereotyped images.

Peer pressure

Subject choices can be influenced by peer pressure. Other boys and girls may apply pressure to an individual if they disapprove of his or her choice. E.g. Boys tend to opt out of music because it is out of their gender domain.

Gendered career opportunities

Jobs are sex-typed as 'men's' and 'women's'. Women's jobs tend to be similar to housework e.g. childcare. This sex-typing affects pupil's ideas of what jobs are acceptable or possible. E.g. if boys get the message that nursery nurses are women, then they'll be less likely to opt for that career.

Gender Identity

Verbal Abuse

Paetcher sees name calling as shaping gender identity and maintain male power. The use of words like 'queer' are ways in which pupils 'police' each other's sexual identity.

Male peer groups

Male peer groups use verbal abuse to reinforce their definitions of masculinity e.g. calling boys who want to do well as 'gay'.

Redman and Mac an Ghaill found that the definition of masculine identity changes from toughness in lower school to intellectual ability in sixth form.

Teachers and disciple

Teachers also play a part in reinforcing dominant definitions of gender identity e.g. male teachers often teased boys off for 'acting like girls'.

The male gaze

Mac an Ghaill see the male gaze as a form of surveillance through which dominant heterosexual masculinity is reinforced and femininity devalued. Boys who do not display this heterosexuality run the risk of being labelled gay.

Double standards

When we apply one set of moral standards to one group but a different sent to another group e.g. Boys boast about their own sexual exploits bur call a girl a 'slag' if she does the same or dresses in a certain way.

Feminists see this as a example of patriarchal ideology that justifies male power and devalues women.

The role of education: Functionalism and the New Right

The functionalist perspective on education

Durkheim: Solidarity and Skills

Two main functions of education:

Creating social solidarity Teaching specialist skills

Social Solidarity:

Durkheim argues that society needs a sense of solidarity; individual members must feel themselves to be part of a single 'body' or community.

He argues that without social solidarity, social life and cooperation would be impossible as each individual would pursue their own selfish desires.

The education system helps to create social solidarity by transmitting society's culture (shared beliefs) from one generation to another.

School acts as a 'society in miniature', preparing children for life in wider society. E.g. both in school and work you are taught to co operate with people who are not related to you.

Specialist Skills:

The cooperation of many different specialists promotes social solidarity but , for it to be successful, each person must have the necessary specialist knowledge and skills to perform their role.

Durkheim argues that education teaches individuals the specialist knowledge and skills that they need to play their part in the social division of labour.

Parsons: Meritocracy

Meritocracy- The idea that everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed and where individuals' rewards and status are achieved by their own efforts rather than ascribed by their gender, class or ethnic group.

Acts as a bridge between the family and wider society. The bridge is needed because family and society operate on different principles, so

children need to learn a new way of living if they are able to cope with the wider world.

Within the family, the child's status is ascribed; particular rules apply to only that particular child.

By contrast both school and wider society judge us all by the same universalistic and impersonal standards. Each pupil is judged against the same standards e.g. they all sit the same exam.

Likewise in both school and wider society, a person's status is achieved not ascribed e.g. working hard for a promotion.

Parsons sees school as preparing us to move from the family to wider society because school and society are both based on meritocratic principles.

Davis and Moore: Role Allocation

Like Parson's, Davis and Moore also see education as a device for selection and role allocation, but they focus on the relationship between education and social inequality.

They argue that inequality is necessary so that the most important roles in society are filled with the most talented people.

Not everyone is equally talented, so society has to offer higher rewards for these jobs thus creating competition as everyone will now compete for these jobs.

Education plays a key part in this process as it acts as a proving ground for ability. Education 'sifts and sorts' everyone according to ability. The most able gain the highest qualifications, which then gives them entry to the

most important and highly rewarded positions.

Evaluation of the Functionalist Perspective

There is evidence that equal opportunities in education don't exist. E.g. achievement is greatly influenced by class background rather than ability.

Marxists argue that education in capitalist society only transmits the ideology of a minority- the ruling class.

The interactionalist, Dennis Wrong argues that functionalists have an 'over-socialised view' of people as mere puppets of society. Functionalists wrongly imply that pupils passively accept all they are taught and never reject the school's values.

The New Right argue that the state education system fails to prepare young people adequately for work. This is because state control of education discourages efficiency, competition and choice.

The New Right perspective on education

The New Right favour the marketisation of education as schools are run like businesses and have to attract consumers (parents) by competing with each other. Schools provide consumers with what they want (good exam results) so that they 'don't go out of business'.

The New Right is similar to Functionalism in many ways e.g. they believe that people are naturally talented.

However the key difference is that the New Right do not believe the current education system is achieving these goals. This is because it is run by the state.

The state take a 'one size fits all' approach. The local consumers who use the school such as parents, pupils as well as employers have no say or input in the educational system.

Schools in which waste money or have poor results are not answerable to their consumers. Which means that pupils potentially have lower standards of achievement.

Chubb and Moe: Consumer choice

Chubb and Moe argue that the American state education has failed and they make the case for opening it up to market forces of supply and demand. They make a number of claims:

Disadvantaged groups- The lower classes have been badly served by the state as it has failed to create equal opportunity.

State education fails to produce pupils needed by the economy. Private schools have higher quality education as they are answerable to those who

are paying- the parents.

Chubb and Moe based this on the achievements of 60,000 pupils from low income families in 1,015 state and private schools and parents' surveys. They found that low-income families do about 5% better in private schools. Chubb and Moe call for a market system that would put control in the hands of the consumers (parents) thus allowing them to meet their own needs. For this to work Chubb and Moe would propose the end of guaranteed funding to schools and the introduction of vouchers given to each family to spend on buying education.

Two roles for the State

The state imposes a framework on schools within which they have to compete e.g. by publishing league tables of exam results.

The state ensures that schools transmit a shared culture.

Evaluation of the New Right Perspective

Marxists argue that education doesn't impose a shared national culture, and argues that it imposes the culture of a dominant minority ruling class.

Gewirtz and Ball argue that competition between schools benefit the middles class. Critics would argue that real cause of low educational standard isn't the state control

but social inequality and adequate funding of state schools. There is contradiction between the support of new rights parents choice on one

hand and the state imposing a compulsory national curriculum all its schools on the other.

The role of education: Marxism

Althusser: The Ideological State Apparatus

Althusser focuses his work on the way that the working class learn to become passive and obedient. Althusser argues that the state exercises power over the working class. This can be achieved through two means:

Repressive State Apparatus (RSA)- Physical control of the W/C through the Police, Military, Judicial system etc.

Ideological State Apparatus (ISA)- A form of 'brain washing through socialisation'. This is the control over mind rather than by physical means.

The R/C's dominant ideology gets filtered through I.S.A (Media, education etc.) down to the W/C. Althusser argues that the education system performs two functions in the ISA:

Education reproduces class inequality by transmitting it from generation to generation.

Education legitimates class inequality by producing ideologies that disguise its true cause.

Bowles and Gintis: schooling in capitalist AmericaBowles and Gintis build on Althusser's point that the main purpose of education is to 'Reproduce Class Inequalities' I.e. Obedient workers. They believe that the school creates workers through two main ways; Hidden Curriculum and the Myth of Meritocracy.The correspondence principle and the hidden curriculum

Bowles and Gintis argue that there are close parallels between schools and work e.g. Both are hierarchies with head teacher and bosses. Bowles and Gintis argue that this principle operates through the hidden curriculum which are 'lessons' learnt without them being directly taught. In this way, schooling prepares working class pupils for their roles as exploited workers of the future.

The myth of Meritocracy Because there is inequality in a capitalist society, the poor may feel that it is

undeserved and unfair. Bowles and Gindis argue that meritocracy doesn't exist. Evidence from this shows that the main factor in determining whether or not someone has a high income is their family and class not their ability.

The myth of meritocracy justifies the privileges of higher classes, making it seem that they gain them through open and fair competition.

This helps persuade the working class to accept inequality as legitimate, making it less like to overthrow capitalism.

Willis: learning to labour Paul Willis looks at how working class pupils resist the attempts to indocrinate them

into this myth of meritocracy. Using qualitative methods (unstructered interview), Willis studied the counter-school culture of 'the lads', a group of 12 working class boys as they made a transition from school to work.

The lads opposed the school and 'took the piss' out of the ear'oles (conformist boys) and girls.

The lads find school boring so they flout its rules e.g. Smoking. These lads see such acts of defiance of ways of resisting the school.

Willis notes the similarity between anti-school counter-culture and shopfloor culture as both cultures see manual work as superior and the lads were strongly identified by this which explains why they see themselves as superior to the ear'oles and girls.

Evaluation of Marxist Approach However, Postmodernists criticise Bowles and Gintis’ correspondence principle on

the belief that schools now produce a different labour force than the one described by Marxists. They argue that education now reproduces diversity not inequality.

By contrast, Willis rejects the view that school simply ‘brainwashes’ pupils into passively accepting their fate.

However, critics argue that Willis’ account of the lads’ romanticises them, portraying them as working class heroes despite their antic-social behaviour and sexists attitudes.

Marxists disagree with one another as to how reproduction and legitimating takes place. Bowles and Gintis take a deterministic view. This approach fails to explain why pupils ever reject the school’s values.

Critical modernists such as Morrow and Torres (1988) criticise Marxists for taking a ‘class first approach that sees class as the key inequality and ignores all other kinds.

They argue that sociologists must explain how education reproduces and legitimises all forms of equality, not just class, and how the different forms of inequality are inter-related.

Educational policy and inequality

The main phases of educational policy in Britain

Selection: The Tripartite system

The 1944 Education Act brought in the tripartite system so children could be allocated to one of the three types of secondary schools. This was identified by eleven plus exams.

Grammar Schools offered an academic curriculum and access to higher education. These were students who had academic ability and passed the 11+ exams. These pupils tended to be middle class.

Secondary modern schools offered a non-academic curriculum and access to manual work for pupils who failed 11+. These pupils tended to be working class.

The third type (technical schools) only existed in few areas so this was more of a bipartite system.

The tripartite system discouraged meritocracy by reproducing class and gender inequality. This was done by channelling the two social classes into two different types of schools and girls were often given higher boundaries.

The system also legitimated inequality as it gave the ideology that ability is inborn rather than a child's upbringing and environment and upbringing.

The Comprehensive System

This system was introduced to overcome the class divide of the Tripartite system and make education more meritocratic. However it continued to reproduce class inequalities for two reasons.

Streaming- streaming into ability groups meant that the middle class were placed in higher streams than the working class.

Labelling- Even when streaming is not present, teachers continue to label working class pupils negatively.

Comprehensives also legitimate the 'myth of meritocracy' as every pupil now goes to the same school with the equal opportunities regardless of class background, however in reality this is not the case.

Marketisation and Parentocracy

Marketisation is introducing market forces of consumer choice and competition between suppliers in areas run by the state.

The Education Reform act introduced this and created an education market by reducing direct state control over education and by increasing competition between schools.

Policies such as the publication of exam league tables and Ofsted reports are used to promote marketisation.

Ball and Whitty look at how marketisation reproduces and legitimates inequality. They argue that it is reproduced through exam league tables and the funding formula.

Exam league tables- Schools that have poor league positions cannot afford to be selective with pupils and have to take less able pupils thus lower exam results. The effect of league tables is thus to produce unequal schools that reproduce social class inequality.

Funding Formula- Schools are allocated funds on how many pupils they attract. Popular schools get more funding so they can afford better facilities but unpopular schools lose income and find it difficult to keep up with popular schools which creates inequality.

The myth of Parentocracy

Ball argues that parentocracy is a myth as it makes it appear that all parents have the same freedom to choose what school to send their children to.

In reality, Gewirtz shows how middle class parents have more economic and cultural capital and so take advantages of these choices available to them e.g. moving to areas with desirable schools.

New Labour policies since 1997

Reducing Inequality

After 1997, Labour Governments have introduced a number of policies that aim to reduce inequality. These include:

Identifying deprived areas (Education Action Zones) and supplying them with additional resources.

The Aim Higher programme to raise the aspirations of groups who are under-represented in higher education.

EMA payments to students with low income backgrounds. Proposal to raise the school leaving age to 18 (currently passed)-hopefully this

reduces to the number of 'NEETS' (those 'not in education, employment or training').

Promoting Diversity and Choice

New Labour have aimed to create a system built around the needs of the individual child and where power is in the hands of the parents. To do this, the Labour Government introduced the following policies:

Secondary Schools were encouraged to apply for specialist school status in particular curriculum areas. By 2007, around 85% of all secondary schools had become specialist schools. It is argued that this offers parents a greater choice and raises standards of achievement.

Labour has also promoted academies as a policy for raising achievement and plans to have 200 academies by 2010.

Postmodernism and New Labour policies

Labour policies reflect ideas put forward by postmodernists. E.g. Kenneth Thompson argues that schools can break away from the 'one size fits all' system in a postmodern society.

Thompson argue that education becomes 'customised' to meet the needs of diverse communities.

Postmodernism is criticised as it neglects the continuing importance of inequality in education.

Criticisms of New Labour policies Whitty (2002) sees a contradiction between Labour's policies to tackle inequality and

its commitment to marketisation. EMA's encourage working class students to stay on until they are 18-tuition fees deter people away from university.

Also critics point out that there is a continued existence of both selective grammar schools and fee-paying private schools. Despite the Labour Party's long-standing opposition to private schools as bastions of middle and upper-class privilege.

Policies relating to gender and ethnicityGender

The triparte system has led girls to be included in higher education. Policies like GIST have reduced gender differences in subject choice.

EthnicityPolicies aimed at improving achievement of children from minority ethnic backgrounds have gone through several phases.

1. Assimilation policies focused on the need for pupils to assimilate into mainstream British culture as a way of raising their achievement.

2. Multicultural education (MCE) policies aimed to promote achievements from minority ethnic groups by valuing all cultures in the school curriculum thereby raising minority achievements. The MCE has been criticised on several grounds: Maureen Stone argues that black pupils do not fail for lack of self esteem, so

MCE is misguided. The New Right criticise MCE for perpetuating cultural divisions.

3. Social inclusion of pupils and policies to raise achievement of minority ethnic groups. Policies include: the detailed monitoring of exam results by ethnicity and help for voluntary

'Saturday schools' in the black community.