Think back to these groups and poor young Bob and his rubbish day at school Middle and upper class working class You task: List all the things in their HOME ENVIRONMENT that you think might help/ hinder their educational performance
Objectives • Be able to outline 3 theories of class based under achievement using subject ‘specific terminology’ (Key words) (E) • Be able to give relevant examples of the real life hardships of children experiencing this deprivation. (D upwards) • Be able to explain how these examples link to poor educational performance with reference to key scholars (C upwards)
Your task: I will be splitting you into groups today to look at 3 theories that have been developed to explain why middle children out perform working class children at school. You will then teach other theories you have not covered. And then use this new knowledge to answer exam questions 1)What does this theory describe/ suggest? 2) What are the key words you would associate with this theory & what do they mean? 3)Who are the key scholars associated with this theory, and What were their findings/ ideas? 4)What according to them is school like for working class and middle class children? 5)What do they have to say about parents and their role in their children’s achievement (or lack of it) in school? You will be split into 9 groups of 3/2 You are going to produce A 3 study boards which use the information I give to answer these 5 questions. You need to work as a team to do this in the time given.
Group 1 Group 4 Group 7 Group 2 Group 5 Group 8 Group 3 Group 6 Group 9 We will then have teaching time First up groups 1, 2, & 3 will teach the rest of the class about Material deprivation Then group 4, 5 & 6 will teach about cultural deprivation theory Then group 7, 8 & 9 will teach about cultural capital theory
Time for this task • http: //ipadstopwatch. com/timerfullscreen. html
Cultural deprivation You have 15 min for this task Material deprivation Cultural capital Using what you have learnt from each other complete the 3 questions, any of which could appear in your real exam!
Marking each others work Swap your answers with another person and mark it using the above mark scheme. Please write peer assessed in the margin as I will be teacher assessing them also
Go back your list and put MD, CC, CD next to factors you think fit into theory. Add sociologists who agree with your ideas. Middle and upper class working class You task: List all the things in their HOME ENVIRONMENT that you think might help/ hinder their educational performance
Material Deprivation Theory This describes the impact of poverty on a home and refers to the fact that poor people lack money and resources to use to further their educational success. Smith and Noble (1995) identify a range of material factors that act as barriers to learning, these include: • Lacking somewhere to study and do homework. • A lack of computers and books. • Not being able to participate effectively in school education, either through lack of classroom materials or not going on extra-curricular activities such as trips because of the cost.
Material Deprivation Theory In addition, material deprivation can result in children suffering from a shortage of attention from their parents, because their working hours are unsocial or because they are preoccupied with persistent housing and income problems. Poor housing conditions include: • Accommodation being cold, damp and draughty. • Overcrowding leading to lack of personal space for family members.
Material Deprivation Theory A low family income can also mean that children’s diet is poor nutritionally. This could also undermine a child’s health or limit their ability to concentrate in the classroom. These factors have found a correlation between areas of poverty and schools as they tend to have lower examination results in school league tables. The outcomes is that children experiencing material deprivation are more likely to attend failing schools, as Tess Ridge (2007) points out that poorer children are aware that their experiences of school will not be of the same quality as those of richer people.
Material Deprivation Theory Furthermore, material deprivation can also put pressure on pupils to leave school at 16, dropout of post-16 education or not go to university. Forsyth and Furlong (2003) found that the most significant factor deterring the working class from going to university was the costs of tuition fees, and the prospect of student loans and bank overdrafts.
Cultural Deprivation Theory This theory suggests that working-class pupils underachieve because their home culture is ‘not as good’ as the culture of the middle-class or because working-class parents do not value education. Charles Murray (1990) argues that this underclass is allegedly lazy and worthless, often engaged in criminal and delinquent behaviour and dependent on welfare benefits.
Cultural Deprivation Theory- Parents Attitudes Douglas (1964) observed that working-class parents attended parent’s evenings less often than middle-class parents. It has argued that middle-class parents are more child-centred and encourage their children to plan ahead for their future more than working-class parents.
Cultural Deprivation Theory- Socialisation Saunders believes that middle-class are more intelligent, but he also suggested that they work harder. When Saunders examined how committed children were to school and to academic achievement, he found that the children who were determined and worked hard did better later on in life. Saunders argued that the middle-class children in his study were motivated than their working-class peers.
Cultural Deprivation Theory- Language Bernstein (1971) identified two different speech patterns or codes in use in the UK, the ‘restricted’ and ‘elaborated’ codes: The ‘elaborate’ linguistic code of the middle-class is the same as the language of textbooks and the classroom. According to Bernstein, only the middle-class can communicate in this code. Working-class children, who use shorthand speech – ‘restricted code’- in which meanings are not clearly spelled out, because it is used among family and friends, are therefore clearly disadvantaged as it is frowned upon in the classroom and educational writing.
Cultural Deprivation Theory- Language Bernstein (1971) argues that the use of these codes originates in the kinds of jobs we do: factory jobs require few verbal skills whereas in office work you might spend time communicating ideas on a telephone or giving presentations and reports using elaborated code. Language use is also dependent upon family relationships, and, he argues, in working-class families children are not encouraged to question adult decisions, whereas in middle-class families parents supposedly encourage their children to communicate through the use of discussion and negotiation.
Cultural Deprivation Theory One of the functions of the education system, Bernstein argues, is to discriminate in favour of the middle-class. New qualifications, such as vocational courses or newly introduced A levels like Media Studies, which suit working-class children as they come across as relevant and accessible are discredited as ‘easy’.
Cultural Deprivation Theory- Value It has been argued that the values of the middle classes are more in tune with those of the educational system. For example, working-class pupils may be reluctant to do homework and revision when they could be playing football or computer games. Middle-class pupils have a different mindset to academic work, seeing it as having long-term benefits and are therefore mentally tuned in to putting up with it in return for future success and career opportunities. Brown (1987) found that working-class children may be under pressure from some parents and certainly peer-pressure to drop-out early from school. They are taught to avoid coming across as a ‘geek’ especially males. Brown (1987) found that achieving students in working-class schools often suffered bullying and isolation.
Cultural Capital Theory Bourdieu (1994) argues that middle-class children come into the education system equipped to do well because their cultural backgrounds is similar to that of the dominant class. Their values, attitudes and behaviour therefore coincide quite closely with teacher expectations- an advantage that Bourdieu described as cultural capital. He argued that working-class children may find their knowledge and values dismissed as inferior and irrelevant. ‘Habitus’ refers to the lifestyle, values and expectations that develop out of the experience of particular social groups. Bordieu views habitus as recognising a ‘feel for the game’, whereby many working-class pupils see the system as stacked against them and that they are unlikely to succeed.
Cultural Capital Theory Bourdieu (1994) a Marxist , suggests that it is the middle-class nature of the education system that is to blame for working-class failure rather than the character of working-class culture. “it’s not all booze, fags and football” Bourdieu suggested that knowledge in schools can be made more relevant to the experiences of the working class in terms of music, literature, poetry and so on. He points out that if we make working-class pupils feel that their experiences are relevant and valued they may be more motivated by the educational process.
Cultural Capital Theory- Labelling Theory Howard Becker (1963) found that teachers had a very clear idea about what constituted ideal work, appropriate conduct, attitude and appearance. Their view of pupils who conformed to middle-class standards came closest to an ‘ideal-type’ they carried in their heads. They interpreted workingclass behaviour as indicating lack of interest and motivation, so such pupils were viewed as furthest away from their ideal-types. This is a classic example of ‘labelling’. When it is backed by the authority of the teacher, labels can result in a self-fulfilling prophecy whereby the pupil internalise and conforms to the behaviour and expectations associated with the label.
Cultural Capital Theory Schools decide which children are capable of being educated to the highest degree and which are not. For example, schools may decide that top streams receive academic knowledge while bottom streams receive practical knowledge. However, some aspects of schooling, such as streaming or negative teacher treatment, may create unmanageable children. Schools can then decide not to manage such children by excluding them. It is suggested that pupils may see themselves as ‘bright’ or ‘thick’ and act accordingly.
Cultural Capital Theory Willis argues that his lads rejected schooling well before the school rejected them, because they wanted working-class jobs. Their ‘failure’ therefore was not the result of teacher labelling. Rather, they chose to resist the value system of the school.
Cultural Capital Theory Keddie (1973) noted that streaming can have a very negative consequence for pupils in the bottom streams. ‘A’ streamers were encouraged to think, ‘C’ streamers were encouraged to make things. Also that in mixed-ability classes the behavioural problems disappeared, although labelling did not disappear. Teachers continued to distinguish between ‘bright’ pupils and those seen as ‘average’ and to treat them according to those labels. Research has suggested that working-class children may be streamed or placed in sets according to behaviour rather than ability.
- Slides: 25