When considering the factors involved in differential achievement we need to recognise that the social characteristics of by different children have an affect on the way they are treated within the education system. Simply because we may refuse the idea that something like "parental attitudes" alone does not explain differential achievement does not mean that, in the context of the way in which teachers behave towards children in the school, for example, such factors are unimportant.
As we have seen in relation to the relative achievement levels between children of the same measured intelligence and different social class, it is evident that the school environment does have an impact upon achievement.
If a working class child can, through their behaviour, appearance, etc., convince a teacher they are from a "good background", their chances of educational success are enhanced. Since a "poor home background" is associated in the mind of the teacher with low ability, the labelling of a child in this way leads to a progressive interpretation and confirmation (in the teacher's mind) of a child's ability. Bad behaviour, for example, is taken to be indicative of a poor home background which is taken, in turn to be indicative of low ability.
Working-class children are less successful in the education system. Sociologists have explained this by the facts that, the home background is often not as helpful for educational success as that of the middle class; the neighbourhood may also weaken the chances of the working-class child; and what happens inside the school, particularly the actions of the teachers and the peer group, can help the middle-class child and harm the working-class child.
Hyman ("The Value Systems of Different Classes", 1967), argues that the value system of the working classes acts as a barrier to their educational advancement, in terms of the way they place a lower value on:
- Educational success
- High occupational status
- Opportunities for personal advancement through education
Despite the evidence put forward by the above witnesses, there is also a large number of contrary interpretations based mainly around the idea that the concept of class sub-cultures takes it for granted that, in a society with a highly-competitive, highly-differentiated, education system dominated by "middle class norms, values, attitudes, beliefs and ideologies", the children who succeed are those who can adapt most easily and successfully to the school environment and the beliefs / attitudes of their teachers. Thus, the picture we get is:
- Schools are middle class institutions.
- Learning involves a process of:
a. Conforming to middle class norms
b. Accepting middle class values relating to learning, teaching, knowledge, etc.
- To learn, the pupil must immerse themselves in the culture of the school.
This "realistic" view of schools as a social institution means that the children who succeed are those who learn how to conform and "learning to conform" is a socialisation process that starts in the family and involves parental attitudes and motivations "socialised into" their children.
Thus, "success" is not simply a matter of class background (although there is a relationship between class and educational success). Rather, children who succeed are those, regardless of their objective class background, whose parents socialise them into the norms and values of middle class life.
Approaches were concerned to expose class differences in attitudes towards education. Working class attitudes were seen as a 'deficit system'. Douglas (1964) argued that working class parents offer less encouragement and support towards their children's education
The effect of studies like that of Douglas was to 'blame the victim’; working class culture was seen as problematic. One result was the idea that certain students needed 'compensatory education' and gave rise to Educational Priority Areas as a result of the Plowden Report of 1967. In the USA there was a similar scheme called 'Operation Headstart'.
"Sociology is the objective study of human behaviour in so far as it is affected by the fact that people live in groups". Sugarman ("Sociology", 1968)
Sugarman claimed that many middle-class occupations provide an opportunity for continuous advancement in income and status. This encouraged planning for the future: for example, the investment of time, energy and money in training to meet requirements of higher-status jobs. (Aneil Patel)