J.W.B.Douglas (1964) did a longitudinal study of 5,362 children who were born in the first week of March in 1946, and came to the outcome that the key factor in children’s success in education is parental interest. This is because middle class parents gave greater attention to their children’s education, than working class parents did. Also, middle class parents expected more from their children and gave them more rewards. He came to the assumption that the working class were ‘culturally deprived’. He, also, suggested that during primary socialisation, middle class children receive greater attention and stimulus from their parents. This forms the basis for high attainment in education. Douglas concluded ‘We attribute many major differences in performance to environmental influenced acting in the pre-school years’.
A number of arguments have been advanced to suggest that working class parents are not necessarily less interested in their children’s education, just because they go to their children’s schools less frequently than middle class. Blackstone and Mortimore (1994) gave these criticisms; one, working class parents have less time to attend school because of demands of their jobs; and two, working class parents may be interested in their child’s education but they are put off going to school because of the way teachers interact with them.
Hyman argued that the value system f the lower classes was ‘a self imposed barrier to an improved position’. Thus, meaning that the working class have created this barrier by being working class, and not doing anything to improve themselves. He used existing research and suggested that the value system of middle and working class people were different. He believe that the working class placed less value on education, they placed less emphasis on achieving occupational status and that they believe that there is less opportunity for personal advancement.
One criticism of Hyman is that he used existing data. Therefore he did not know how up-to-date it is, and didn’t know how reliable it is. This then means that his assumptions lack validity. Also he didn’t know how well the information was researched.
Sugarman (1970) argued that the nature of manual and on manual jobs accounted for class differences. He said that middle class jobs promote educational advancement, training, opportunities, more secure jobs and individual advancement. Whereas working class jobs are less secure, they do not have a career structure, and that union activity was the only way to get more money or better conditions. These differences in jobs produced different attitudes, and these values will form the basis of working class socialisation of their children.
Bernstein (1972) uses class differences in speech codes to explain the differences in educational attainment. He states that education uses the elaborated code. This puts the working class students at a disadvantage already. This is because they are limited to the restricted code. Therefore they will not understand their lessons, so do badly in them. Also, the restricted code reduced the chances of working class pupils to successfully acquire some of the skills demanded by the educational system.
Harold Rosen states that Bernstein’s view of social class is vague. Bernstein lumps together all non manual workers into a middle class whose members from top to bottom appear equally proficient in the elaborated code. Also, Rosen accuses Bernstein of creating a myth that the middle class elaborated code is superior in important respects to working class speech patterns.
In conclusion, cultural deprivation can, to some extent, be used to explain working class underachievement. If they received the norms, values and skills needed to educational success, they wouldn’t underachieve. This comes down to the parents, when socialising their children, to teach them what they need. But this is not always the case, because they are only teaching their children what they know and what has been taught to them. Therefore they cannot provide the skills needed for educational success. However, they could improve their children’s success by taking an interest in their education, and by encouraging their children to stay on at school. Thus, them being socially mobile.