How is the Educational Performance of the Working-Class affected by their in-school experience?

Edwin Loo 13K 06/12/2007

Sociology Essay

Members of the Woking-Class tend to do worse than members of the upper and middle classes in terms of educational performance. In every ethnic group and regardless of gender, middle class pupils do better in academic examinations than working class pupils (Institute of Education, 2000). The working-class deficiency in achievement can be explained through investigating in-school factors and experiences- namely labelling, streaming and subcultures. Some sociologists, such as Willis and Cohen, say that the creation of subcultures amongst working class students leads to poorer educational performance. Other sociologists, including Hargrevaes, discuss the role of structural factors such as streaming and setting within schools as a cause of differential educational achievement. Finally, sociologists such as Abraham, Nash and Becker would point to the role of teacher-student interaction and labelling within the causing in causing differential achievement.

It can be said that working class pupils underperform due to negative labelling within schools, resulting in a self fulfilling prophesy of failure (Rosenthal and Jacobsen, 1968) and in turn lower educational achievement. Nash (1972) argued that the role of the teacher within education was active, and helped to determine the outcome of education- with a strong correlation between how a teacher (positively) perceived a student and their achievement. This perception is formed through the home background of a student (determined by behaviour, appearance etc.), with working class students more likely to come through has having a “bad” home background. This would result in the application of a negative label and in turn lower achievement in education. Becker (1971) and Keddie (1971) noted that teachers were more likely to evaluate pupils in terms of an ideal student by looking at appearance, personality and social class- meaning that working class pupils were more likely to be seen in a negative light. This links in with the Model Pupil Hypothesis advocated by Hargreaves, which states that every teacher has an idea of what constitutes a good student built largely on non-academic factors including appearance and behaviour. Working Class pupils were more likely to possess certain characteristics which would alienate them from the idea, and hence lead to unfavourable treatment by teachers. However, labelling theories can be critically evaluated. From a research methods perspective, it is possible to argue that the studies in question are not valid or reliable, mainly because they are interpretivist and qualitative. This means that they are not repeatable, and are plagued by the possibility of researcher bias and reflexivity. New Right sociologists, such as Murray, would criticize labelling theories for failing to take into account other factors including cultural deprivation and biological factors in regards to failure in schools. Mac an Ghaill (1992) in a study on ethnicity noted that many students labelled as failures worked even harder due to the label. This tells us that negative labelling may not automatically result in failure- as students can choose to ignore the label in question, or work even harder to prove the labeller wrong. In this case we can say that labelling theory is to an extent too deterministic.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Streaming is also a significant factor in contributing to the lower educational achievements of working class pupils. Streaming and setting placed pupils of a similar ability into the same class. Ball (1981) found that the pupils within the top streams and bands tended to come from higher social classes, perhaps due to the positive labels they received as a result of their higher class background. On the other hand, working class pupils were more likely to end up in lower bands and classes. This meant that they were taught differently from those in the higher bands, with teachers setting lower expectations for them- resulting in lower educational achievement. Hargreaves (1975) also found the same correlation between higher sets/streams and higher social class, using this to develop a theory on subcultures. Keddie (1973) found that lower sets and streams and in turn working class pupils were ‘knowledge deprived’ as they were only given access to lower-standard knowledge, and were given easier work. She argued that this resulted in working-class and lower-band students being unable to perform well in academic examinations as they were denied access to the higher-level material necessary for higher grades. Streaming and setting also increased the likelihood of the development of anti-school and deviant subcultures, due to the difficulty in gaining high-level status in lower bands (Cohen, 1960), resulting in status frustration. However, theories based on streaming can be criticized. Some sociologists, including Eysenck (1971) would argue that working class pupils going into lower streams and sets was a result of their lower intelligence, not due to negative labelling. From a research methods perspective, the theories can also be criticized for their interpretivist and qualitative nature, with positivist sociologists pointing to possible problems with researcher self-presentation leading to the studies in question being either less reliable, less valid or both.

Working class pupils may also underperform due to the development of, and involvement in anti-school and deviant subcultures within the school. This can be seen as a consequence of negative labelling as well as status frustration. Cohen (1960) in ‘Delinquent Boys’ argued that working class pupils, who were unable to gain status through legitimate means e.g. through academic excellence tried to gain status through the framework of their own anti-school subculture, which advocated anti-school behaviour, delinquency and disobeying teachers in return for higher status. This resulted in even lower educational achievement. Hargreves (1975) found that students in the lower streams, who were more likely to be working-class, were also more likely to be non-conformist, and in turn were more likely to be involved in anti academic/anti school subcultures. Willis (1977) in ‘Learning to Labour’ found that working-class pupils were more likely to form anti-school subcultures- mainly because they believed that they were destined to fail within the educational system, hence rejecting school and turning to a culture that was more suited to preparing them for the low-skilled work they were destined for. However, the studies here can be evaluated critically. ‘Learning to Labour’ by Willis is criticized for using a small and hence unrepresentative sample. Other sociologists such as Blackedge & Hunt (1984) also point out the fact that Willis ignored other cultures within the school, and the decline of manual, low-skilled work. Cohen’s ‘Delinquent Boys’ is criticized by feminist sociologists for ignoring females, and assuming the existence of a dominant (pro-school) values system. Sub-cultural theories can also be criticized for being too deterministic- as not all working-class pupils fall into subcultures, and upper-class pupils also have their own, and in some cases, equally non-conformist subcultures. From a general research methods perspective, the theories presented can all be questioned for being both quantitative and interpretivist- with the same problems as previous theories discussed.

In conclusion, it can be said that although the performance of working class pupils is to a good extent impacted if not worsened by the effects of in-school factors, it must be noted that other causes, mainly out of school factors, must also be taken into account when trying to determine the causes for working-class underachievement in education. New Left and Marxist sociologists would emphasis the role of material factors, such as material deprivation, as well as structural factors, such as exploitation in underperformance, while New Right and Functionalists would see underperformance as a result of the working of the meritocratic system which penalizes working class pupils for their language deprecation and reliance upon the state. Although in-school factors do play a role, other factors must be considered in order to reach a balanced and credible picture of working class underachievement in education.

Page of