• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Critically Examine The Explanations Offered For The Fact That Working Class Students Are Relative Failures In The Education System

Extracts from this document...


CRITICALLY EXAMINE THE EXPLANATIONS OFFERED FOR THE FACT THAT WORKING CLASS STUDENTS ARE RELATIVE FAILURES IN THE EDUCATION SYSTEM The fact that working class students are relative failures in the education system is a fact because there is statistical evidence to prove it. In an article by Ivan Reid "Education and inequality" (November 1996), Figure 1 shows the 'percentage of persons with higher or no educational qualifications by social class, Great Britain, 1992'. The graph clearly shows that as the social class changes from 'professional workers' to 'unskilled manual workers', the percentage of people with no qualifications increases sharply as the percentage of those with higher education decreases dramatically. Whereas 78% of people in class 1 have higher education, almost the same percentage - 74% - of class 6 have no education. These statistics are an almost direct translation of the fact. This essay is based on educational underachievement in education. I intend to discuss these reasons chronologically, that is in the order the ideas became the talk of sociologists. The first explanation that was offered for differential educational achievement in the late 1960s/early 70s was that intelligence is inherited and measurable. This is a view put forward by psychologists known as 'hereditarians'. They focus on children with parents of high occupational status, and claim that the children also eventually gain the same status, as they inherit a high level of intelligence. ...read more.


Working class students are less likely to continue to higher education because their parents simply cannot afford tuition fees and the extra necessities of university. All these negative aspects of material deprivation are why many sociologists argue that material factors are why working class students are relative failures in the education system. However, as with inheritance and heredity, and cultural deprivation, material factors have also been criticised. Those who do not believe in material deprivation focus more on 'in school factors' and how these affect performance. They argue it is more important to look at how the school can provide materialistically, but overriding this, culturally. For example, they look at the dominant culture and value system of teachers. In school, teachers have authority and students of working class, in particular, feel intimidated and do not want to do well. This often results in a case of teacher versus student values debate. Where the teacher may encourage the benefits of education, the student may feel that the teacher's authority and 'nagging' is discouraging. There are many other in school factors that sociologists have put forward, which became the next explanation - interpretivist arguments. The interpretivist explanation for working class underachievement focuses on in school factors. They believe there are many things that happen inside school which prevent working class students performing as well as middle class students. ...read more.


The sociologists who argue that material deprivation at home is the cause for working class underachievement have a strong argument. They claim that working class parents are unable to afford the materialistic requirements of school and that this forces their children to fall behind and perform badly. Though this is a very valid argument, it is important to look at other factors as well as materialistic factors at home. For example, material and cultural factors at school are equally important, and should all be taken into consideration. The interpretivist argument focused on in school factors and how these affected the performance of students. The sociologists looked at things such as anti-school subcultures and teacher labelling and streaming. Like the sociologists who agree with material factors, interpretivists fail to look at other factors. They see in school factors as the sole reason for working class underachievement, which is not correct. Though it is also a valid argument like material deprivation, it should not be forgotten that the home background of a student is equally important to look at as well as the state of the school. I think that inheritance and heredity do not cause working class underachievement, but that a combination of cultural and material factors both at home and at school cause working class students to be relative failures in the education system. Where each individual theory counts out the others as valid reasons, I think this is wrong and that all count equally towards working class underachievement. 2430 words ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Sociological Differentiation & Stratification section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Sociological Differentiation & Stratification essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Outline and assess Functionalist explanations of the role of the education system.

    4 star(s)

    But, the true degree that this principle translates in reality is contestable, with Functionalism not being able to provide answers for differences in class performance, whilst Marxism can. Role allocation is another function of education put forward by Functionalists Davis and Moore.

  2. The education system is meritocratic

    work which would not necessarily be put to middle class boys see's the myth of meritocracy in place as they are not treated (boys and girls as well as working and middle class) the same. Post modern is a period of time which occurs after the 1970's the period between

  1. Assess the view that subcultures are the key to underachievment in school

    So it would therefore be wrong to suggest that the key to understanding educational under achievements is subcultures within schools as labelling and the self-fulfilling prophesy clearly have an impact on attainment. Leading on from setting and streaming Ball in his study of setting demonstrated how working class boys are

  2. Evaluate sociological explanations for working class underachievement.

    Sociological theorist Bernstein deliberated this theory. The core of Bernstein's original intuition, "an obstinate idea in me which I could neither give up nor properly understand" as he calls it, is that there is a difference between working class and middle class speech, and that this difference is fraught with educational consequence.

  1. Sociology of Education

    Middle class parents outside the catchment area also stand a better chance of placing their child as they are more likely to know how to appeal to get a bright student into a certain school or may have access to people who know who to appeal the system through their contacts culturally.

  2. Assess the view that working class underachievement in education is down to home circumstances ...

    as a result poor children may have to make do with hand-me-downs and cheaper but unfashionable equipment and the may result in being stigmatised openly by peers yet from many children suitable clothing are essential for self-esteem and fitting in.

  1. Black Male perception, of Secondary School Attainment and Opportunities. "Explore reasons for the academic ...

    indicates a White, British-Black Caribbean achievement gap by the age of 14, which isn't accounted for by socio-economic factors. This is interesting as it shows that Black males underachieve for reasons other than external factors such as capital. This finding show that both working class and middle class black males

  2. Biological and Social Constructionist explanations of Gender development

    Brenda consistently refused to have further surgery which Dr. Money insisted she had, at the age of 15 was having severe emotional and behavioural problems, even threatening her parents that she would commit suicide if they made her see Dr. Money again. Her parents then decided that she should be told the truth about who she was and Brenda finally knew she had been born a boy.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work