Murray and Marsland would also agree with this broad statement. They also like Douglas, Newson and Newson pinpoint parents and the quality of home life to blame for working-class underachievement within the education system. Murray and Marsland argue that the so called ‘underclass’ is made up of parents who are afraid of work, are more of ten than not welfare dependant and according to them they are ‘inadequate’ in terms of transmitting positive values and norms to their children during the process of primary socialisation regarding education and the opportunities it may offer them in the future. Murray and Marsland can be criticised for making very general assumptions regarding working-class families and how they operate with regards to the education system. They fail to acknowledge that many parents from working-class families do work and moreover have high levels of double jobs in order to be able to support their family. Many of them are also not welfare dependant and either work or take care of the children at home. So is it fair to say for Murray and Marsland to say that they are inadequately preparing children for education? Many of them actually encourage their children to work at school as they are aware of the opportunities it will open for them and inform them on what they have previously missed out on. So is it really fair to make comparisons to middle-class families who find it easier to provide these educational resources and then blame working-class families because they find it difficult to live up to middle-class standards?
The feminist sociologist Melanie Philips would also agree with this statement. She states that modern family life in Britain is characterised by a rapidly increasing number of broken families in which effective socialisation has been disrupted and disordered. She is in the opinion that inadequate parenting among one parent, reconstituted families and cohabiting couples. She points out that working-class families have high levels of these broken families and thus their underachievement is caused by the family disruption and disorder. While Philips makes a valid point she fails to take into consideration the fact that many children strive and work hard at school despite being part of these family structures. So is it correct to say that working-class underachievement is caused by home circumstances and family background?
Bernstein focuses on the concept of cultural deprivation and how this has been an influential factor on educational achievement. Bernstein points out that working-class children are linguistically deprived due to the fact that they use a restricted code in contrast to middle-class children who use a more elaborated one. He feels that this places them at an advantage as they are able to meet the demands of what teachers and examinations ask of them as they understand what is being requested. Working-class students on the other hand find this difficult as they have been brought up with linguistic deprivation. As a result they find school and the tasks demanded a tricky concept to grasp. While Bernstein would generally agree that factors such as home-life and background contribute to underachievement among the working-class he has been criticised for his theory. Labov suggests that middle-class language codes are over rated and Bernstein offers little concrete evidence to back up his claims. Furthermore many working-class kids still succeed in the education system and this would suggest that it is not home circumstances and family background which dictates educational achievement.
Bourdieu and Passeron suggest that working-class students do not come equipped to school with what they highlight as the ‘right’ cultural capital in contrast to middle-class students and the more powerful and dominant classes in society today and thus are not fully prepared for educational success. They suggest middle-class students are an example of the closest to the correct cultural capital and working class kids are furthest away from having the correct cultural capital. They see middle-class students as having the correct cultural capital as teachers are of the same social class as them and so share the same level of cultural capital and thus are more able to relate to middle-class pupils. It is possible that this stereotype is a part to play in working-class pupil’s underachievement as teachers are not giving them the correct attention required in order to achieve academically.
Sullivan backs up Bourdieu and Passeron in their idea that middle-class students have the correct cultural capital. She handed out 465 questionnaires in four different schools and asked questions such as what do you read, what music do you listen to etc and found that it was students who had parents with degrees were more successful in G.C.S.E’s and thus pinpoints working-class families lack of cultural capital as of factor of their educational underachievement.
Some sociologists highlight that working-class families have a high level of material deprivation and thus are unable to afford learning materials and resources for their children and they ultimately do poorly in formal examinations and all aspects of school. Wedge and Prosser state that working-class children feel excluded from the education system because of economic deprivation. Lack of quiet place to study, healthy diet etc contribute to absenteeism and results in them underachieving. Halsey also points out that money becomes a barrier for working-class students from continuing in education despite having similar intelligence to middle-class children. If this is the case then we are nearly inclined to feel that home circumstances and family background is a reason for working-class underachievement.
In consideration of the points outlined I feel that while cultural capital, cultural deprivation and material deprivation have contributed to educational underachievement they are not the only reasons why working-class students are doing poorly in school. Internal factors which interactionists point out such as streaming, labelling, self-fulfilling prophecy and deciding what constitutes as the ‘ideal pupil’ have all greatly hindered how working-class students perceive school and how they act as a result. While indeed students may witness domestic violence or be a victim of child abuse within a working-class home or have lack of money or material this may not necessarily be the case for all working-class children. They may find the negative stereotypical nature of school and the view the teacher places upon them as greatly affecting their academic performance and thus they do poorly in school and are classified as underachieving. I personally feel that such factors which occur internally in schools are as much to blame for working-class underachievement as home circumstances and family life. These internal factors can have a profound affect on students and their educational achievement rather their home situations.