Furthermore, many studies have shown that pupil subcultures may play a part in creating differences in achievement. Lacey’s concept of differentiation is the process of teacher’s categorising pupils according to ability, attitude and behaviour. Those who the school deems more able are put into the higher streams and those who are not are placed in the lower streams. Polarisation is the process in which pupils respond to streaming. Lacey’s study is an example of the power of labelling and streaming creating failure. Hargreaves found a similar response to labelling and streaming in a secondary modern school – the boys were in lower streams, failed their 11+ exams and were labelled negatively.
However apart from the school, a child’s social class background has a powerful influence on their chances of success. Children from middle class families on average perform better than working class children this may be because they are more likely to stay longer in full time education and take great majority of university places.
To start off with, many working class families fail to socialise their children adequately, hence grow up culturally deprived. Cultural deprivation gives children basic values, attitudes and skills such as language, self discipline and reasoning skills. If children lack these cultural equipment they cannot perform as well as they could if they had these hence they under-achieve. The three main aspects of cultural deprivation are intellectual development, language and attitudes and values. Cultural deprivation theorists argue that many working class homes lack books, educational toys and activities that help stimulate a child’s intellectual development. J.W.B. Douglas (1964) found that working class pupils scored lower on tests of ability than middle class pupils. He argues this because working class parents are less likely to support their children’s intellectual development through reading with them or other educational activities in the home. Basil Bernstein and Douglas young (1967) found similar conclusions. They found that the way mothers think about and choose toys has an influence on their children’s intellectual development. Middle class mothers are more likely to choose that encourage thinking and reasoning skills to prepare children for school. This puts working class children at a disadvantage from middle class children who have had these intellectual developments as they will start school without these skills whereas the middle class children would already have these skills.
Furthermore, Carl Bereiter and Siegfried Engelmann (1966) argue emphasise the important of language for educational achievement. They claim that the language used by lower class homes is deficient; they communicate by gestures, single words or disjointed phrases. As a result of this, their children fail to develop the necessary language skills and therefore grow up incapable of explaining, describing, enquiring or comparing things. Bernstein has a similar view. He distinguishes between two types of speech codes –the restricted code and the elaborated code - between the working class and middle class and their influence on achievement. He argues that these differences give the middle class pupils a higher advantage than working class pupils at school. This is because the elaborated code is used by the teachers, textbooks and exams that the middle class pupils are familiar with. By contrast, the working class pupils that lack the elaborated code are likely to feel excluded and be less successful. Though, unlike most cultural deprivation theorists, Bernstein recognises that the school – and not just the home – influences children’s achievement. He argues that working class children fail not because they are culturally deprived, but because schools fail to teach them how to use the elaborated code.
Moreover, cultural deprivation theorists argue that parents’ attitudes and values are also a key factor affecting education achievement. Douglas found that working class parents placed less value on education, were less ambitious for their children, and gave them less encouragement and took less interest in their education. They visited schools less often and were less likely to discuss their children’s progress with teachers. As a result, their children had lower levels of achievement motivation. Leon Feinstein (1998) agreed with this view and found that working class parents’ lack of interest was the main reason for their children’s under-achievement. He argues that middle class children are more successful because their parents provide them with the necessary motivation, discipline and support.
Another factor that can affect children’s achievement is material deprivation. Many sociologists see this to have a great effect on children’s achievement. Poverty is closely linked to educational under-achievement. Children from poorer families are more likely to truant or be excluded from school and the children who are excluded are unlikely to return to mainstream education, while a third of all persistent truants leave school with no qualifications. Linked to social class, working class families are more likely to have low incomes or inadequate housing. Poor housing can affect pupils’ achievement. For example, overcrowding can make it harder for the pupil to study as they may have less room for educational activities or nowhere to do homework etc. Poor housing could also have an effect on the child’s health and welfare. Cold or damp housing may result in the pupil having ill health which results in more absences from school. Marilyn Howard (2001) found that children from poorer homes have lower intakes of energy, vitamins and minerals. Poor nutrition may result in weakening the immune system and lowering children’s energy levels which again may result in more absences from school and also difficulties concentrating in class. Additionally, low incomes may result in the pupil having to do without equipment and miss out on experiences that would enhance their educational achievement. David Bull (1980) refers to this as ‘the costs of free schooling’. The costs of items such as transport, textbooks, and calculators cause a heavy burden on poor families. Hence they have to do with hand-me downs and cheaper equipment. This may result in the pupil being stigmatised or bullied by peers.
Though all these factors contribute to children’s achievements, ultimately it could be argued that the child’s social class background is the most important factor as all the external factors play a major role and all have key effects on the child’s chance of success.