Underachievement of particular students on the basis of their background.

UNDERACHIEVEMENT OF PARTICULAR STUDENTS ON THE BASIS OF THEIR BACKGROUND

There have been many theories about over the causes of underachievement of students. Many published findings have found that there is a correlation between educational success and the ethnicity, gender and social class of a student. In an educational system that is supposed to be a meritocracy, an idea put forward by functionalist sociologists, why are these factors still determinants of educational attainment?

Many sociologists have studied and developed theories on the issue of differential educational achievement. Also the factors that are most reported today in the mass media on this issue are usually based on gender and ethnicity. This may be because certain ethnic minority groups make up a large proportion of the working class. However working class Afro-Caribbean boys seem to come out last overall in educational attainment. Dr Gilborn commented on the BBC news website, ” If you are from working class home and African Caribbean, Pakistani or Bangladeshi, the chances are that you will not do as well as a white pupil in the same position, regardless of whether you’re a boy or girl”.

The studies therefore on educational attainment in relation to social class solely tend to be older and possibly may be out of date but can be related to more recent research.

Originally, when studies were carried out on the underachievement of ethnic minorities, the research presumed that all ethnic minorities were underachieving at the same rate, and therefore studies seem to focus on white students in comparison to children from ethnic minority backgrounds as a whole.

A study by Bernstein (1975) developed a theory on linguistic deprivation. He found that speech patterns of the lower class pupils inhibited their ability to understand their teachers. The lower class children used a restricted code of speech, their sentences of speech was short, simple, grammatically incorrect and relied on body language and voice tone to express themselves. Middle class children used elaborate codes of speech. This nature of speech comprised of well-constructed sentences, which is required of the situation they are in within education.

As teachers and the educational materials use a elaborated language code the ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

As teachers and the educational materials use a elaborated language code the middle class student is at an advantages, as they are more likely to understand what they are being asked, whereas the working class will struggle to understand what they are being asked and will find it difficult to understand textbooks. This theory on educational failure refers back to the primary socialisation of students in the home. It is in the home where a child first learns to speak.

There is evidence to show that pupils of black British backgrounds are labelled as less able due to the form of language they converse in. Mac an Gail (1988) found that as a direct cause of the labelling, the students used their language to resist schooling. So black students are not only disadvantaged by the restricted code of speech they use as working class students, but also by their language as black pupils.

In the government report, “Mapping Race, Class and Gender”, by David Gilborn and Heidi Mirza (2000), it was found that all the minority groups were progressively attaining better results than a decade ago, but the gap between white students and their African Caribbean classmates was continually widening.

The report stated that the black students were better prepared at the start of school than any other groups but as they passed though the educational system they fall behind.

So what or who is responsible for the underachievement of ethnic minorities, especially African Caribbean boys who have the highest percentage of permanent exclusion rates (0.76), as shown in the table in Appendix B from the Department of Education and Skills website,

Many sociologists such as Douglas (1964), Sugarman (1970) and Hyman (1960) argue that it is the family and their attitudes to the education system that is the root cause of educational unachievement.

In an article ” The Value Systems of Different Classes“ Hyman outlined the differences between working class and middle class systems. He argued that the value system of the lower classes created “a self imposed barrier to an improved position”. Using results from data taken from opinion polls, and surveys, he found that” members of the working class placed a lower value on education” and” compared to their middle-class counterparts, members of the working class believe that there is less opportunity for personal advancement.

Sugarman (1970) identified that attitudes of the working class, like those expressed in the article by Hyman, were responsible for their academic failure. He claimed that aspects of middle and working class subculture was linked to differential educational attainment. He claimed, “middle class occupations provide opportunities for continuous advancements in income and status. This encourages planning for the future, for example the investment of time, energy and money in training, to meet the requirements of higher status jobs”.

“Whereas working class occupations reach full earning capacity relatively quickly, they provide fewer promotion prospects and less income for investment. He argues that differences in the nature of jobs tend to be to produce difference in attitude and outlook. Since they have less control over the future, less opportunity to improve their position, and less income to invest, manual workers tend to be fatalistic, present-time orientated and concerned with immediate gratification”. (Sociology: Themes and perspectives 2nd edition)

Sugarman went on to say that immediate gratification highlights the fulfilment of pleasures of the present rather than forfeiting them for future rewards. This immediate gratification of the working class relates to the lower number of working class pupils going into higher education.

From the table in Appendix C, on the family background of applicants to full-time and sandwich undergraduate courses in the UK for the entry years 1994 through to 1999, you can see that the unskilled family background has the smallest percentage of students going onto higher education, with the figure of 2.2% in 1999.

In relation to students of an intermediate background, they make up 43.2% of students going onto higher education.

These findings support the Sugarman findings on working class students going for immediate gratification, whereas middle class students go for future rewards, by attending university, deferred gratification. Sugarman accuses working-class subculture of placing students at a disadvantage in the educational system.

Though the data in appendix C does agree with the suggestion of working class students choosing immediate gratification ahead of planning for the future, this could be the result of cultural deprivation.

Studies such as Douglas’s” The home and the school”(1964) focuses on the level of attendance of parents at parents evenings, related to social class. He found that middle class parents attended parent’s evenings more often than working class parents, and concluded from this that they expressed more interest in their child’s educations.

This idea has been criticised by sociologists as non-attendance at parents evening doesn’t only show a parents disinterest in their child’s education, but that they may have other commitments. Working class parents are more likely to have financial burdens, and therefore may be unable to take the time off work to attend.

While sociologist such as Douglas, Hyman and Sugarman take the stance of blaming the working class family for the educational attainment of their children, other sociologists believe that it is the school that controls the educational attainment of students.