Another study that supports the idea that the home factors can cause a child to underachieve at school is the study that was carried out by Sugarman in the 1970s. He found out that the working-class tended to be fatalistic and defeatist and they had a desire for immediate gratification, whilst the middle-class preferred deferred gratification. This may mean that the middle-class pupils may have high ambitions in life, so they may work hard in school to achieve the grades needed to progress to further education. However, this may mean that the working-class pupils may set rather easy and limited targets in life- they may just decide to get any job at an early stage in their lives in order to financially help their family. This is an issue because the working-class pupils may not concentrate on their education but they may focus more on getting a job as soon as possible because maybe their parents also got a job when they too were at a young age, so the working-class pupils may follow their parents’ footsteps and this may mean that they may end up not being bothered about their education, which would mean that they may stop working hard in school, which would then eventually lead to them to underachieve at school.
However, the study by Sugarman has got some weaknesses. One weakness is the fact that it lacks validity because the study is androcentric (he only used males in his study), so generalisation cannot be made. It cannot be assumed that all the working-class pupils will seek immediate gratification.
In 1984, Bourdiue (a Marxist) stated that the working-class are culturally and economically deprived. This may mean that working-class children may not have enough resources and support from home that would help enhance and further develop their knowledge and motivate them to work hard at school. Unlike the middle-class, who possess the cultural and economic capital, the working-class pupils may be led to follow their parent’s footsteps, which may simply be to get any low skilled jobs, so instead of working hard at school to be able to get a good job, they working-class pupils may just end up not being bothered about education, which may cause them to underachieve at school.
On the other hand, it could be argued that home factors are not the only cause of working-class underachievement. School factors, such as teachers labelling pupils, can also contribute to underachievement at school. Labelling is the process of attaching a definition or a meaning to an individual or group of people. For example, teachers may label a pupil as ‘bright’ or ‘thick’. There are many studies that show that teachers often attach such labels regardless of pupil’s actual ability or attitude. Some sociologists may argue that labelling can affect pupils’ achievement by creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Rosenthal and Jackson conducted a labelling experiment and they found out that the teachers’ attitudes towards the children, who were predicted to make rapid progress after a year, changed and also nearly half of those pupils did make rapid progress. This study supports the idea that labelling does exist in schools and the label that a child is given could influence their achievements. So, for example, if a working-class child is labelled as being ‘unsuccessful’ they may actually end up being unsuccessful. However, this study does lack validity because it was done in America, it is ethnocentric, and so it is rather hard to make generalisation to the rest of the population.
Another study that suggests that school factors may cause working-class underachievement is the study by Douglas in 1964, where Douglas found out that the working-class children are more likely to be put into lower sets than middle-class pupils. Some sociologists may argue that this may mean that the working-class pupils would not get access to the same curriculum as those in higher streams which would mean that they would be limited in what they are taught, which would mean that they are likely to underachieve. So, this reproduces inequality of achievement that the New Labour tried to reduce since 1997.
However, other sociologists may argue and say that even if the working-class pupils were given the same curriculum as those in the higher streams, they would still underachieve because they would lack the extra help and support needed from home. For example, if a child was given homework that they don’t understand, their parents wouldn’t be able to help them with their homework anyway as they may also lack knowledge and understanding or they may not have time to sit down to help their child, so if that child had to do the same curriculum as the middle-class pupils, who get the extra support from home, then it may be rather inevitable that the child would underachieve at school.
Overall, there is no doubt that the working-class underachievement is not caused by home factors alone, but that other factors such as school factors can contribute to the underachievement too.
by
rodzable (student)
