OUTLINE AND ASSESS THE VIEW THAT CLASS DIFFERENCES IN EDUCATION ARE DUE TO THE CULTURE OF THE HOME.

by superteve (student)

Outline and assess the view that class differences in education are due to the culture of the home.

With an average of a 40% difference in achievement between the middle and lower classes at secondary GCSE level, in addition to a lack of widening working class participation in higher education, principally with regards to the highest performing universities, there is little dispute over a class divide within the education system. However, it is the extent to which the norms and values of the home influence this convergence in class performance and the impact of other factors. More interestingly, are pupils advantaged or disadvantaged by home culture or is the void in performance deep rooted by the nature of society, or material edge?

Cultural capital, a concept placed forth by Bourdieu places great emphasis on home culture, correlating home culture to educational achievement, or rather Bourdieu stated that middle class achievement was in part due to cultural, non-financial assets, advantage possessed by the middle class. In this sense, the culture of the home transmitted by parents are an influencing factor to achievement and an achievement divide exists, it is this difference in the norms and values of homes which can be most attributed to the class differences in education. In addition to the work of Bourdieu, is the work of internationalist Douglas. Douglas concluded that a key factor in differences between classes is as a result of parental interest, - similarly to Bourdieu, due to the culture of the home. Douglas however observed that it was middle class parents who showed a greater interest in their child’s education and where most likely to attend parents evenings, which in combination with the convergence of class achievement at GCSE level provides a compelling case for home culture influencing most, the difference in educational achievement between classes. Perhaps however, it is not a lack of interest, but prioritisation within working class homes because of material circumstance, as working class jobs tend to be rigid and whilst parents have an active interest and value education, they cannot attend parent’s evenings because of the nature of their work. Indeed, in defense of Douglas his study was longitudinal and also considered a range of factors, from health and school quality in order to make his assumption, which does not limit the insight his study and conclusion provides, as it has been undertaken with a wide aim and not short sighted and flawed manor. Furthermore, his sample could also be seen as largely representative as 5,000 students is a large amount, especially within the reality of working parameters. Nonetheless, the use of the word “interest” suggests that he has ignored home money circumstances, or in the words of Bourdieu the material factors within the home. It is this, which brings forward the notion that cultural and material factors cannot be separated, and that the two are intertwined, - high home culture, such as attending the theatre to support their child’s studies or even have a subscription to a broadsheet newspaper cannot be maintained without material capital. In this sense, the conclusions of Douglas only part support the view that differences in education are because of the culture of the home, as parental attitudes towards home culture may have appeared to Douglas to be a lack of interest, when in reality it was a lack of ability, and hence the measure of parents attending parents evenings could be seen to be a limited insight into parental interest as it simply shows parental ability to attend. Indeed, though this analysis we can observe that cultural advantage is inseparable from material edge, and hence therefore middle class children are more likely to succeed because of the financial circumstance, rather than home culture alone. In defense of Bourdeu, he does allow some insight into other areas without a neo-Marxist undertone, he did not simply put forward the notion that differences in achievement exist because of cultural factors alone, and neither did he state that it was because of economic or finical advantage. Here therefore, Bourdieu offers a rounded explanation, broadly supporting the view whilst demonstrating along with Douglas, that cultural factors alone contribute to the class divide in educational achievement, but it is a multifactor issue.

This is a preview of the whole essay

A study into speech patterns conducted by sociologist Bernstein is useful in assessing the impact on home culture, on educational achievement. In asking working and middle class students to describe a series of pictures depicting an event, Bernstein concluded that middle class students were more likely to speak in an elaborated code, using more detailed and complex language. Whilst however, working class students spoke in a restricted manner, using less detailed and more simple language. This therefore shows the extent to which home culture has had an impact on the educational development of children, with middle class homes generally producing children, according to Bernstein, with a higher caliber of vocabulary, whilst working class students are at an educational disadvantage, as they are unable to fully articulate their thoughts in an academically rewarding manor. Nevertheless, could it be the education system which has influenced the language development of these children? It could be stated, especially from a Marxist perspective, that the education system is a system of social reproduction, causing class fixation. In this sense, Bernstein’s study does demonstrate the differences in educational performance amongst classes, but does not necessarily single out a factor which has most influence: here two factors could have a significant impact; the culture of the home as suggested by Bernstein; or the concept of social reproduction as promoted by Marxists such as Bowles and Gintis.

The work of two sociologists Hyman and Sugarman also supports the notion that home culture has significant impact upon the convergence in educational achievement between classes. The work of both sociologists support the view that home attitudes have the most weighting in determining educational success. Hyman concluded that working class families tended to have “different value systems” whilst the value systems of middle class families were more in line with what the education system demanded, or indeed, what is needed for educational success. Hyman suggested that the home culture of working class students placed them at an educational disadvantage, as there was a pessimistic attitude within working class homes. Perhaps here, as the education system could be have seen to not provide social justice to the parents of working class students, that a fatalistic attitude emerges for both the parents and child. Conversely however, the opposite could be true, rather than parental apathy affecting the children from working class homes, parents could be encouraging their children to do well, - hoping to use the education system as a jettison for social mobility. Sugarman also concluded to a similar end, that work place environments had a direct impact upon creating sub cultural differences within working class and middle class homes. Sugarman concluded that as there were fewer opportunities for promotion in working class occupations, within working class homes there was less focus of long term planning, whilst within middle class homes, middle class children observe that individual benefit is finically rewarding, so therefore they are more likely to have a strong work ethic within the education system. However, data from both questionnaires and interviews only show attitudes and do not reflect the reality,- indeed there may be a difference in what middle class students and parental attitudes are, as to what is written down. It may also be suggested that the lack of long term planning by working class families is down to realities, rather than pessimism. This view may be further compounded by the admission by the secretary for education Michael Gove that “rich thick kids do better than poor unintelligent kids”, which also again places much emphasis on material factors, rather than home factors. Notably, the work of Hyman and Sugarman again presents us with a question, - to what extent does wider society influence home or student attitudes? Before this however, the work of Roker can be used to argue against the work of Hyman and Sugarman. Roker interviewed two sets of middle class school girls, both from good schools, with one difference, - one set were from a state school and one from a public school. Roker found that, although both girls were middle class, from backgrounds in which their parents were in professionals or managerial occupations, differences in aspirations and political awareness existed, with public school girls with higher political interest and more aspirational career aims. Here, the work of Roker shows that it is not just the culture of the home which influences educational outcome, but school factors. However, it is true to say that the work of Roker sampled two sets of girls, who were targeted to do well in education, so therefore not exactly showing differences in class performance. Nevertheless, the work of Roker does suggest that there are interclass differences in attitudes and school factors which are important to observe when such a question is asked. Moreover, Ball came to similar conclusions to Kiddie when he observed banding within comprehensive schools. Ball found that whilst only 36% of pupils from the top band were from working class homes, 78% were from such homes in the middle band. In addition to this, he found that the middle band saw tests marked at 50% or higher at around 11%, whilst the top band has tests marked at 50% or above at 58%. Ball’s study of banding again compounds the view that it is the structure of the education system which influences the class divide, rather than home attitudes,- with educational disadvantage coming from not home culture, but school organization placing working class pupils at a disadvantage.

Although however, Marxists would argue that it is the structure of society, rather than home attitudes which influence the educational achievement divide. Marxists would look towards the fabric of society, and say that the education system is not a system of social mobility, but social reproduction and injustice. Marxists would very much suggest that material factors and the structure of the education system have more influence over personal choice or home culture, in that it is not home culture or attitudes which influence most significantly the class divide. Keddie, who observed the introduction of a new subject in a comprehensive school in London, found that because of streaming, classroom knowledge was withheld from pupils who were perceived to be of lesser ability, most of whom were from working class backgrounds. Kiddie found that there was a relationship between perceived ability and social class. The study observed that despite the school was comprehensive, the teachers, which Marxists would argue would be the structure of education, withholds higher level knowledge from pupils who were perceived to be of lower ability based upon class and hence therefore, even if home attitudes were different, it is the education system which contributes the most to the class divide in achievement.

Whereas however, to varying degree of success have politicians aimed to use the education system in order to promote social mobility and compensate for the culture of the home. Labour leader and Prime Minister from 1997-2007 came to power with a policy of “education, education, education” and indeed a number of policies have been introduced which aim to improve working class achievement and indeed participation within the education system beyond the compulsory age,- again attempting to decrease the achievement gap. Indeed, the introduction of the Educational Maintenance Allowance, Comprehensivation in the 1960’s, and the latest proposal of a pupil premium and a levy on any universities charging the most in a proposed new tuition fee rise which do not target the poorest pupils, all help to support the view against Marxism, that it is not society which influences the divide the most: but home culture? Although, despite such policy, the gap in achievement still exists, and if it were not because of the structure of the education system, - then it could very well be because of the culture of the home.

In conclusion, it is apparent that the factors which influence the convergence in class achievement are numerous, and it is not a straight forward matter. In isolating and attempting to analyze each factor, it is not home culture which has the biggest influence over the educational achievement divide, but the perceived home attitude and in addition to this, the ability, or inability of working class pupils to obtain cultural insight which would most place them in line with what happens in school,- as the work of Boudieu suggests. Working class students are at the biggest disadvantage, with material factors influencing parental attendance at parent’s evenings, perhaps creating a view that such parents do not care, as Douglas concluded, when it could be in fact not the case. In addition to this, working class students also are placed at a disadvantage when it comes to the curriculum, in the words of Bourideu they case a “clash of culture”, which middle class students do not face. Nonetheless, Roker found that differences within the middle class also do exist, and in her study it was placed on school factors, as all girls were middle class but attitudes and aspirations varied,- although grades were above average for all girls. Indeed, the issue of the class divide and the politics of such is a wide issue, one which will continue to trouble working class students, teachers, politicians and socialists until the biggest single contributing factor can be isolated.