Working class children are at an immediate disadvantage to their middle class peers when it comes to the formal learning process because they effectively have to learn this "new" elaborated language code, and may be criticised and punished by their teachers for using this type of language as opposed to theirs.
However, Bernstein’s views have been criticised by Labov, who states that the working class kid’s language is “different” rather than restricted.
Teachers perceived the middle class closest to what they regarded as the ideal pupil. This would be a disadvantage to working class pupils as the teachers would not take a liking to them as much as they would with the middle class pupils. The teachers would then go on to label their students, praising their ideal pupils and punishing their “bad” pupils. Identified by Rosenberg and Jacobson, this process is called “Self-fulfilling Prophecy”, in which a person in authority (teacher) labels their student who eventually internalises that label and becomes it.
The 1944 Butler Education Act introduced three types of schools, Grammar schools, Secondary moderns and Technology schools. Grammar and Secondary Modern schools would be viewed as "separate but equal" in status. However this was not the case for long. Grammar schools would be viewed as a higher status school as it was more difficult to gain entry as high marks were required in the 11+ exams for any chance of attending. Secondary modern schools would be for the pupils who failed that test, and the technology schools were more focused on vocational subjects. It would soon become apparent that the majority of the pupils attending the Grammar schools came from middle class backgrounds. This is because pupils were home tutored in order to pass these exams, this was no the case with working class pupils as their parents were unable to afford home tutoring, and in other cases, there was a lack of parental interest.
Material deprivation, as well as a lack of parental interest affected working class pupils. Working class pupils were deprived of educational toys, books, resources and a quiet study area among other things. This was because their parents were either unable to afford them or did not want to invest too much into what they thought would be a lost cause. Sugerman summed this up in his “fatalistic” theory. He stated that working class families would not try to improve their condition and would only plan in “present time orientation”. They would also seek immediate gratification by sending their children off to low paid jobs as soon as they left compulsory education as opposed to investing in universities so their child could get qualifications to gain better paid jobs.
Many of the points made in relation to class factors affecting achievement can be equally applied to ethnic group experiences in our education system. This should be kept in mind when considering this area of the course.
Many pupils from ethnic backgrounds cannot speak English too well and so would suffer from the language differences. Their parents may not have high paying jobs or may even be on state benefits and so therefore are unable to afford educational resources, and the same would go for the state of their home which would most probably be a cramped council house in a deprived area. On top of these points, pupils of an ethnic background usually experience racial discrimination from both pupils and teachers. Receiving racial abuse from other pupils can be demoralising and lowering self esteem and morale, this will then go to show in class work and test results. Teachers, on the other hand, will place these students in low sets not because they are dumb, but because they may not understand as their language is different. Theses students were excluded from classroom discussions and were widely ignored by the teachers.
Fullers study on afro-Caribbean pupils studied both boys and girls and their reaction to the labelling by the teachers. Afro-Caribbean girls rejected the label and tried hard to prove their teachers wrong by succeeding, but the boys went too far and rejected schooling altogether and developed anti-school subcultures. This study is also an example on how a single factor cannot be viewed in isolation, as the similarities in ethnicity but the differences in gender gave two different outcomes in the pupil’s educational achievement.
An ethnocentric curriculum also did not benefit ethnic minorities. A curriculum designed for the white middle class pupils meant that pupils from an ethnic background were at an immediate disadvantage. Children's books depicted “white” as good and “black” as bad, and mainly followed the lives of a young white boy.
All of these factors placed the ethnic pupil at a disadvantage and gave them a less likely chance of passing.
Gender in education, historically, has been dominated by males. Girls have not been given a full and equal education to boys until recently when the 1988 Education Reform Act passed. Since then, girls where either encouraged to stay at home and become housewives, or to go to school and do domestic subjects such as cookery, cleaning and needlework which became compulsory for girls but not for boys in 1902.
The 1944 Education act did not help girls either, as the pass marks for the 11+ exams were set higher than boys; the reason behind this was because girls matured earlier than boys. But, the 1988 Education act introduced the national curriculum. This encouraged gender equality and gave boys and girls the options of choosing whichever subjects they wished other than the core subjects. This was the turning point, as girls started to achieve better than boys from this point onwards.
Sue Sharpe’ research of “Just like a girl” in 1976 found that a girl’s priorities were marriage and family life rather than jobs and careers, but she then later did the same research in 1994, after the education act, and found that girls priorities had changed and more now wished to gain a career.
These explanations may answer a part of the reason why girls are now achieving better than boys, but there is more. The introduction of coursework is an advantage for girls, as they are better organised and use their free time to do work as opposed to boys who are less organised and would rather go out or sit in front of the television than do work. In the classroom, boys are more likely be sent out of for being disruptive or excluded for getting into fights, which results in them falling behind. Another factor is, that the majority of the boys are working class, and they want the same manual labour job their fathers had, but because of a lack of these boys are not conforming to new types of jobs such as in call centre’s, which is regarded as feminine.
Therefore many working class boys will not strive to succeed whereas the girls will as they have an opportunity to have a future career ahead of them.
In conclusion, as single factor, whether it be gender, ethnicity or class, cannot be viewed in isolation. If it where the case, then the only people we see succeeding in life would be white middle class boys and white working class girls as working class boys underachieve. This example alone shows that one factor cannot be viewed in isolation.
