In reaction to the Robbins Report in the 1960s, the government set about making higher education available to all capable. New universities and polytechnics were built in response to the need for a more vocational line of education (Haralambos & Holborn, 2004, pg 691). The 1970s focused on the underachievement of girls within the education system. Originally taught more feminine subjects, such as cookery and needlework, in preparation for motherhood, girls were now able to study the same classes as boys including woodwork and metalwork. Women were starting to combine work and a family. In the 1980s Britain was lagging behind in industry and was struggling to deal with high youth unemployment. The Ruskin Speech saw the introduction of work based training such as the YTS scheme. Such initiatives were aimed to encourage youth opportunities through the technical colleges. Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative government were very pro private education and the Assisted Places Scheme provided finance to public schools to take bright students. The late 1990s saw major reforms to the national curriculum making certain subjects compulsory in a bid to a fairer education for all. Children sit SAT tests at the ages of 7, 11 and 14 and the outcome of these tests has resulted in children being put into ‘sets’. The end result of this is not too dissimilar to the tripartite system abolished in the 70s with children categorised by their groups those from lower income background tending to fall into the lower sets.
So why it is that middle class children go on to do better than working class children?
In Jack Demaine’s book ‘The Sociology of Education today’, David Gillborn and Deborah Youdell ask why, at a time of rising overall achievement, there has also been a consistent increase in relative inequalities of attainment, especially in relation to social class.
Some believe that working class children under achieve simply because their parents aren’t very bright and therefore bright children come from bright families. If your parents have middle class jobs you are more likely to want to get one. However, not many people are of this opinion these days.
Haralambos & Holborn (2004, pg 748), state that financial affluence provides many advantages to parents, affording them access to educational resources, tools, private tuition and education. Heaton and Lawson (1996, pg 69) believe that material deprivation in working class families, such as poor diet and unsatisfactory housing conditions, can affect a child’s ability to succeed at school. One example given was that of overcrowded housing leads to lack of space for homework thus reflects badly in their overall educational performance. Numerous studies carried out, such as Douglas (1964) and the Plowden Report (1967), as cited in Heaton and Lawson (1996, pg 70), suggest that “working class parents offer less encouragement and support towards their children’s education than middle class parents do”. Whilst this may be true in some cases, it is unfair to label all working class families in such a way. Tizard et al (1981) argue that it is in fact the parent’s lack of confidence or knowledge in dealing with schools that hinders a child’s progress, rather than a disinterest in their schooling (cited Heaton and Lawson (1996, pg 70)). However middle class parents are not intimidated by teachers, they are likely to have been through the educational system know how it works, they how to play it to get the best outcomes for their children. They might even be teachers themselves, or at least have friends who are. Also to be taken into account is Bernstein’s language code theory (1975) (cited Heaton and Lawson, 1996, pg 73) which argues that teaching is a middle class profession therefore the language spoken at school will be the same as that by the parents of middle class children. This immediately gives middle class students an advantage over those from working class backgrounds because schools are middle class institutions and students are assessed on their ability to grasp such cultures. Heaton and Lawson (1996, pg74) reference Bourdieu’s culture capital theory whereby those groups with influence over economic wealth (middle class) can pass on their lifestyle, knowledge, demeanour and tastes (culture) to their children. Due to the middle class environment of schools, this ‘capital’ is essential if education is to be obtained.
Some argue that the middle class succeed in education because there is more of an educational ethos at home and their children are given educational toys from an early age. More middle class fathers read at home than those from working class backgrounds. The culture of reading is passed on to their children, more importantly their sons, giving them more positive male role models and also preparing them better for the classroom and in society in general (class handouts, January 2008).
Geography also plays large part in the education of children, those families that live in a more expensive are will have access to a middle class schools due to catchment. Middle class parents outside the catchment area also stand a better chance of placing their child as they are more likely to know how to appeal to get a bright student into a certain school or may have access to people who know who to appeal the system through their contacts culturally. Working class children in working class areas will have to go to schools at the lower end of the educational scale unless their parents can drive them to another area. This then restricts opportunities to those families who can afford a car and have jobs that are flexible enough to allow parents to drive them out of the area. Competition for places in good schools is also high and can be expensive causing working class students to be put off from applying to university due to financial implications.
The subjects that children learn and the ways that they are taught are sympathetic to middle class students. It has also been said that teachers themselves are guilty of not allowing working class children to achieve. They label them and write them off as incapable of being educated because of their social class status. Whilst carrying out research at two separate secondary schools, Gillborne and Youdell (cited Demaine, J, pg 82) found that they we taken back by how teacher’s ideas of ‘ability’ seemed to be reflected in their judgements about the nature of particular groups, such as working class children. They felt that working class pupils faced a particular hurdle in convincing teachers that they have ability and that their social class acts as a powerful marker of ability. They went on to say that, although it is not expressed openly, teachers often imply that working class students are naturally lacking in effort and the necessary skills to achieve. The pupils from these schools were reported to have complained that the teachers favoured certain groups over others.
Overall there are many differing viewpoints on the sociology of education. Marxists would say that working class people are kept at this level as the government does not want them to achieve. The economy needs factory owners and workers and therefore schools just train the working class to make profits for the ruling class. They argue that because of this, education has been made a middle class environment so that working class children do not fit in. Functionalists would counteract that with the argument that society needs people who are prepared to do working class jobs and that schools act as sieves, grading out the higher ability children. The least able therefore fail. (Moore, S, 1994, pg 196)
Conclusion
When considering social class differences in educational outcomes, I do not believe we can simply blame it on one factor. The above information clearly shows that there are many contributing factors that can be, and usually are, interlinked. Regardless of class, if a child is receiving support and encouragement at home, in an environment where education is viewed as an important aspect of their life, they can achieve in the classroom. If education is seen as pointless by parents then there is a greater chance that this attitude will be inherited by their children as part of their family culture. Factors such as higher household income and middle class cultures can greatly benefit a child’s progress through the educational system and there is no doubt that financial advantages, such as class specific extra-curricular activities and private tuition, can equip students with a wider knowledge and a more thorough preparation for life inside and outside of education.
Individuals in this country have the opportunity to overcome poverty via success in childhood education, however if the support, encouragement and inclination are not present at that time then success is inevitably made more difficult and moving up the social ladder can prove almost impossible.
Recent research and statistics have in fact shown that social class may no longer be the key factor in different educational outcomes and that ethnicity and gender differences are now being regarded as having the same, if not more, importance.
Bibliography
Taylor, P, Richardson, J et al, 2005
Sociology in Focus. 1st Edition
Ormskirk: Causeway Press
Haralambos, M & Holborn, M, 2004
Sociology. Themes and Perspectives. 6th Edition
London: Harper Collins
National Statistics Online
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1003
Published on 7 December 2004 at 9:30 am
Accessed: 6th February 2008
National Statistics Online
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=461
Published on 21 February 2006 at 0:01 am
Accessed: 7th February 2008
National Statistics Online
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=434
Published on 8 January 2004 at 0:01 am
Accessed: 7th February 2008
Moore, S, 1994.
A Level Sociology. 2nd Edition
London: Letts Educational
Demaine, J, 2001
The Sociology of Education Today. 1st Edition
Basingstoke: Palgrave Publishers
Heaton, T and Lawson, T. 1996
Education and Training. 1st Edition
Basingstoke: Macmillan Press
