Explain the influence of social class and gender on educational achievement
Explain the influence of social class and gender on educational achievement
'Sexual equality' and 'Classlessness' all echo from recent UK academic and media debates concerning education, and perhaps rightly so: according to the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (August 2000 results) girls' have now surpassed boys' achievement at G.C.S.E and A level examinations in some subjects and, yes Britain has moved a long way from the tripartite system which was said to mirror the three traditions of male labour (brain, non-manual, manual). However more recent studies suggest that these results 'mask both the strengthening grip that the British middle-classes have on educational advantage and privilege, and the continued exclusion of women from areas of education and employment' (Gaby Weiner, 1997).
Education is important. It takes up a significant proportion of our lives, and to some degree it affects the rest of our lives. Its expense must not be forgotten as in 1992 government expenditure on education in the UK was 32.3 billion pounds, 12.7% of all public expenditure (social trends, 1994).
A strict definition of what social class actually means is debatable; as Mahony and Zmroczek point out 'Class experience is deeply rooted, retained and carried through life rather than left behind (or below)', as some individuals find themselves in a different social class from that into which they were born (Mahony and Zmroczek, 1997:4).
For the purposes of this essay, a strict definition is not needed and so stereotypical definitions such as wealth and shared values will be sufficient to evaluate its influence on education and more importantly educational achievement.
There is significant evidence to show that the higher a pupils social class, the higher their level of educational achievement is likely to be.
Furthermore these pupils are more likely to stay on in post-compulsory education, and are more likely to achieve examination passes when at school, and are more likely to gain entrance into a university.
These findings are supported in 'Origins and destinations' by Halsey A H, Heath A F and Ridge J M (1990 cited in Haralambos, p253) who based their conclusions on the Oxford Mobility Study.
They found clear class differences among 8,529 males born between 1913 and 1952 in England and Wales. The sample included three groupings depending on their fathers' education (service class, intermediate class and working class). When comparing a boy from the service class to a boy in the working class they found that he had 4 times as great a chance of being at school at 16, 8 times the chance at 17 and 10 times the chance at 18. Further more they had 11 times greater chance of going to university.
This is supported perhaps by the official statistics from the General Household Surveys of 1985-1986 where it has been shown that 38% of service class children had a degree or equivalent compared to 2% of children from the working class.
More recently in the General Household Surveys of 1991-1992, which based upon 19,039 people aged 16 and over. It was show to mirror the results of the 1971 results. In the words of the 1991-1992 survey:
'Men and women whose fathers belonged to non-manual socioeconomic groups have consistently formed a higher proportion of those gaining higher qualifications than would be expected from their representation in the sample, while those from a manual background were over-presented among the unqualified' (General Household Survey 1991, 1994 p201).
.
A variety of causes have been suggested for the relative educational 'failure' of the working class with the most obvious differences in individual achievement being intelligence.
This is perhaps a view taken by functionalists who tend to assume that the educational system is a meritocracy and that educational merit may be reached through ability. Therefore some would argue that intelligence is in part determined by inheritance of genes. For example Hans Eysenck (1971) suggests 'what children take out of schools is proportional to what they bring into the schools in terms of IQ'. Therefore it could be argued that educational differences largely result from class differences in genetically based IQ.
However some argue that performance on IQ tests are mainly the result of individuals' motivation, knowledge and skills, largely acquired through learning. Therefore class differences may be the result of class background rather than genes. Thus demonstrating that IQ tests may be biased in favour of the middle classes. For example the language used in IQ tests may be closer to that of the middle classes than that of the working classes. This is a view perhaps supported by Bernstein B (1990 cited in Sociology in Focus, p297) who recognizes two types of speech codes. The first code ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
However some argue that performance on IQ tests are mainly the result of individuals' motivation, knowledge and skills, largely acquired through learning. Therefore class differences may be the result of class background rather than genes. Thus demonstrating that IQ tests may be biased in favour of the middle classes. For example the language used in IQ tests may be closer to that of the middle classes than that of the working classes. This is a view perhaps supported by Bernstein B (1990 cited in Sociology in Focus, p297) who recognizes two types of speech codes. The first code or 'restricted' code he identified with the working class speech and the second code or 'elaborated' code which he identified with middle class speech.
According to Bernstein middle and upper class children are socialized with both codes of speech with the working classes restricted to on code, and because the school system relies on the whole, on middle class teachers, working class children are at a distinct disadvantage as they are not accustomed to the 'elaborated' speech code.
Bowles and Gintis (1976) however quash the notion of achievement through merit and intelligence as their study which examines a sample of individuals with average IQ's, shows that they achieved a variation of educational attainment, thus leading them to conclude that there is hardly any relationship between IQ and Academic qualifications.
It has therefore been suggested that class stratification is directly related to educational attainment, and in particular material and cultural practices of social classes.
Evidence suggests that attainment rises with family income in general and this is shown in 'Origins and Destinations' (1980) by Halsey, Heath and Ridge mentioned previously. They found that the most important factor of low working class chances in education was due to 'the cost to parents of supporting students between the ages of 16 and 18'. They therefore see the lack of maintenance grants for 16-18 year olds as a major obstacle to working class educational achievement.
Material deprivation is further explored by Douglas (1964) in 'The Home and the School' where the educational careers of 5,362 British children born in the first week of March was traced. The sample was divided into two groups: those from families with sole use of hot water, a bathroom and a toilet and those who did not have these facilities or shared them with others.
Findings showed that those with 'unsatisfactory' living conditions scored significantly lower in ability and reading tests than those in 'satisfactory conditions'. Further conditions such as overcrowding and inadequate diet led to absence from school, tiredness and irritability when at school.
Others emphasize cultural factors such as the values, aspirations and attitudes of parents. They argue that if they vary between social classes then this may account impart for differences in educational attainment.
Douglas (1964) found that his study on the degree of educational intrest shown by parents was the single most important factor affecting achievement, with middle class parents appearing to take more intrest in their children's education and giving more encouragement for continuance after the minimum age. However inadequacies have been found with his findings as teachers will tend to assess parental interests in terms of number of visits which is perhaps invalid as he founds that working class fathers seldom visited the school which may have more to do with work practices than intrest. However the findings are still valuable.
This argument is pursued by the cultural deprivation theory, stating that those at the bottom of the classroom are deprived or deficient in certain values, attitudes and skills essential for educational success and its affects are cumulative. However it does face considerable critisms as people question whether the values and attitudes of different classes are actually that different. For example Rutter M and Madge N in 'cycles of disadvantage (1976) argue that although children from poor backgrounds were more likely to underachieve at schools, cycles of disadvantage do not exist.
Bourdieu P (1977) takes a Marxist view and has developed his own distinctive cultural explanation for achievement and suggests that there is an element of 'cultural capital' in society. Thus the higher a persons position in the class system, the greater the amount of dominant culture they are likely to have. Culture is regarded generally as superior as those at the top define it as such. Thus it becomes highly saught after and highly valued and consequently it forms the basis of the educational system. Thus because middle class culture is closer to that of the school culture they therefore are more likely to succeed.
Evidence of this has already been discussed through Bernsteins studies.
Cultural and material factors however according to Heath, Halsey and Ridge (1980) have a neglible affect on attainment once pupils have reached secondary school, as working class students were found to be almost as successful as those from the service class. They conclude that the main difference in attainment was primerly due to the fact that the service class stayed on at education because material aspects permitted.
So far explanations have centred on factors over which individuals have little control. Interactionalists argue that we need also to look into the classroom, where it is believed that perspective class differences in educational attainment are socially constructed in the class room.
One of the most important views is the way teachers respond to, and make sense of pupils behaviour. Howard Becker (1977) found from interviews with 60 Chicago teachers, that teachers tended to have and share an ideal picture of the ideal pupil: 'highly motivated', 'intelligent' and 'well behaved'. The pupils who fitted into this picture were likely to come from the middle classes and those furthest from were likely to be working class. Thus he found that the working class children were often labeled as being 'unmotivated', and 'unlikely to succeed'. He therefore concluded that working class pupils may therefore be at disadvantage.
Further evidence to support the effects of teachers expectations upon there pupils can be found in the famous study Rosenthal and Jocobson (1968). In which teachers were told in an elementary school in California that they ha identified a number of pupils - the 'spurters' - as likely to make rapid progress. Unknown to the teachers, the pupils had been selected at random. The results found that a year latter the spurters did indeed make better progress than their classmates. Thus Rosenthal and Jacobson concluded that their progress was due to the way they were defined. In particular teachers expected more of them and they acted in terms of this encouragement. Although their methodology has been questioned many researchers argue that it is valid and that labeling is important and that this is real evidence of the self-fulfilling prophecy.
Hargreaves D (1975) argues that whether a label 'sticks' and is accepted by the pupil or not depends a number of factors such as the extent to which others support the label and the context in which the labeling takes place. Furthermore research by Bird (1980 cited in sociology in focus) found that 'academic labels' were more likely to be accepted than 'behavioural labels'. However the labeling theory still remains an important factor in the difference in attainment by pupils from different social class backgrounds.
Other explanations view streaming and setting in most secondary schools as a major factor in differences in achievement. For example Lacey (1970) along with others who found that middle class pupils in general are placed in higher groups than working class children, and that the 'ability gap' between these groups is likely to widen from year 7-11. Furthermore educational attainment in the lower groups is hampered by the developments of anti-school subcultures, in which breaking school rules may become highly regarded, which leads to misbehaviour at the expense learning, and consequently teachers expect less and place them in lower tiers even if their ability is much greater. The net result is that streaming is at an advantage to those in higher groups and a disadvantage to those in the lower groups.
Considering the many explanations put forward for class differences in education it is perhaps more sensible to take the view that what happens inside and outside of the school are both significant contributory factors in explaining why exam tables despite government initiatives in the shifting from the tripartite system to comprehensives still show class differences, and obviously as long as there are still public schools which parents may pay for, there will still be class inequalities and perhaps the government should reintroduce assisted places to compensate for this.
Putting Class differences aside if this is at all possible, there are still many other inequalities within education. Notably Gender: as Social Trends (1990) reveal in 1984 42% of first degrees were awarded to woman compared to 58% to men. Why do women out perform boys in the earlier years of education, and latter fall behind?
In answer to this question various explanations have been provided, for example the most common explanation is that girls mature quicker than boys and thus this is why they do better in earlier years which explained their superior achievement to boys at the 11 plus exams. This argument has now been discarded generally as it does not explain why girls are now over taking boys at all levels, except degree level.
Another explanation put forward is the way in which girls are socialized at a young age, for example Sharpe S (1976) in her study of working class girls in London, 'Just like a Girl' found that girls priorities were marriage, family life rather than jobs and careers.
Furthermore she found that they had very traditional ideas of womanhood probably received from patriarchal ideology like 'A woman's place is in the home' (cited in sociology in focus' and thus she concludes:
'Marriage and homemaking appear as a meaningful distraction or welcome release for those with boring jobs or those who have no intention of making work a central part of their lives' (1976, p128-129).
Some may argue that this attitude is perhaps supported in a welfare state such as England where girls if pregnant may apply for state benefits, whereby she is provided with an income and a house, which is hardly an incentive for those bored of education.
Other explanations show that the occupational roles available to women such as office work, teaching and nursing generally do not require A-levels, thus continuance of education seemed pointless. However as lees' study 'Losing Out' (1986) which examined 15-16 year olds girl's attitudes from various class backgrounds in three London comprehensives found; despite greater emphasis on careers many seemed to hold the same attitudes found in Sharpes' study. Furthermore they were already participating in their future roles as domestic labourers to the detriment of their school-work.
A number of other explanations center on the interactions within the classroom.
Spender D argues in 'Invisible Women: The Schooling Scandal' (1983) that schools reinforce gender inequality through teachers attitudes and expectations and the content of the curriculum.
She found that Boys received over 60% of teachers' time. In her words the Girls were 'invisible' compared to the Boys. Furthermore she found that the same essays marked by teachers, got better marks when they were told it was written by boys. This finding is supported by Goddard-Spear (1989) who found that the same scientific work was deemed to be of higher scientific accuracy and organization of ideas if it was believed to have been produced by a boy. Spender therefore concluded that in mixed education , dice were loaded against girls.
Other studies support the view that teachers give more attention to boys and expect more from them. For example Stanworth M (1982) found that both male and female teachers expected boys to do better than girls in exams, and thus she concludes that:
' Girls may follow the same curriculum as boys -may sit side by side with boys in classes taught by the same teachers - and yet emerge from school with the implicit understanding that the world is a man's world, in which woman take second place' (1983, p 58)
Some argue that it is not simply a case of removing teachers sexist attitudes, and that classroom interaction is a two-way process. It is not just teacher led.
For example French J (1986) argue that pupils bring their own behavior to the classroom and that it was noted that boys from as early as infant school appeared to be more active and mobile compared with girls who were eager to learn and more likely to obey rules, and consequently they demanded more attention because they were more disruptive. French argues that boys become more aware of how to manipulate situations: 'it is not simply because they are boys' but it is partly to do with the way both boys and girls behave and how society conditions this.
French continues to argue that 'the most determined action taken within the school cannot effectively counter the influence of peer groups, magazines, television and family' (1986, p406)
The arguments put forward to explain gender differences, seem almost obsolete now, and According to the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (August 2000 results) girls are now surpassing boys in certain subjects at the key 'mile stones' in education. Perhaps the major cause of this is the introduction of single sex schools and the impact of feminism upon the media and politians, never the less as they approach into the labour market, discriminatory practices become more powerful. Furthermore as Dr Gillian Plummer's title of her article (Times, September, 2000) suggests: 'Forget gender, class is still the real divide'. She argues that reports of girls success mask the true picture and that perhaps the only reason for increasing success among girls is among the middle classes and so she challenges the government: 'what action is Labour taking to raise th academic performance of working class girls.