The studies found that many social class factors affect a child’s academic achievements. ‘A clear link has been found between factors, such as low income, poor housing and family size and educational success.’(bowes et al, 1990, p118)
These working class factors include among others: poverty, class values, parental interest and linguistic codes.
Poverty or low disposable income often results in an inadequate environment and not only for the obvious lack of resources such as books, pens and paper. Damp housing can have severe effects on health resulting in lower school attendance rates, or low concentration levels if child is often feeling unwell. Not having an allocated area to study is also an important factor. Kellet and Dar (2007) discovered that in low income areas where housing was cramped, children claimed that ‘Television was a distraction from homework because of the noise… Other distractions in the home environment were smoking, swearing, banging and loud music.’ Also that homework clubs were vital to the success of children from disadvantaged families. This study was performed by children, with the guidance and research techniques of sociologists, there for it is perceived as having a deeper and more honest insight in to children’s issues.
Other class factors resulting in underachievement may be less obvious. Values differ between class perspectives and affect a child’s motivation. Bowes et al (1990, p119) states that working class children are more likely to leave school as soon as they can, to find a steady job.’ Where as the middle class value differed gratification and ‘Socialise their children in to wanting to remain in education in the hope of a better job when they do leave.’ This was confirmed by the Child Development survey, which found middle class students staying on at school and achieving better examination results.
The Home and The school study (1964) found that ‘the degree of parent’s interest in their children’s education was the single, most important factor affecting attainment.’ (Haralambos et al, 2004, p102). It found that ‘Middle class parents visited school more… and were generally more interested in their child’s education.’ It also states that ‘an upper middle class child was five times more likely to get in to grammar school than a child from the lower working class.’ Further more ‘most of the working class pupils who were successful, came from homes where the mothers were “sunken middle class.” They wanted their children to do well and ‘expressed much parental interest,’ Bowes et al (1990, p119). This is because parental interest not only has a direct affect on the motivations and values of a child, but also on the school environment. Middle class parents, who often have more spare time and disposable income to invest in fundraising and extra curricular activities, can raise the standards of a school immeasurably. Making school a fun place to be, that is enjoyed by all the family, creates the positive learning environment that children thrive in. Quite understandably most working class parents are to busy “earning a crust” to find the time and energy to invest in such endeavors and as such adopt an “Education is the schools job” attitude.
It is also understood that language has had a negative affect on the working class’s academic attainment. Professor Basil Bernstein has shown that the middle and lower classes use different patterns of speech. He called these patterns linguistic codes. According to Bernstein, most middle class children have been socialised in both restricted and elaborate codes, and are fluent in each. Whereas working class children are limited to the restricted code. Since teachers tend to be middle class and use the elaborate code, working class pupils are placed at a distinct disadvantage. There is also explanation for underachievement to be found in the “hidden curriculum” of a working class teacher, that is the subliminal messages he passes to children without intention.
The cultural depravation theory states that children in the bottom classes are ‘deprived of important values, attitudes, experiences and skills which are essential to educational success,’ (Haralambos et al, 2004, p102). This has been strongly criticised and there is evidence that if class differences in culture exist, they are slight and of little significance.
.
The most comprehensive information on class related health in Britain in the last twenty years comes from: the report of the working party on inequalities in health, known as The Black Report (1980), and The Health Divide, first published in 1987, and The Acheson Report (1998).
Despite rising standards in health since WWII black found several significant remaining inequalities. Firstly, that there remained a marked class gradient and that such class differences were wider in Britain than in most comparable countries. In fact in some respects, these class differences had actually increased since WWII, (Townsend and Davidson 1982, p15). The health divide confirmed these findings in 1992.
It is widely believed that these class differences in health have worsened through inequalities in the NHS. Browne (2006, p409) states that ‘poor working class communities tend to have the most over crowded facilities in the NHS because poorer people suffer more ill health,’ and yet those areas don’t get the extra money needed. This is known as the inverse care law and results in the people with the greatest need having the longest waiting lists.
There are two main theories to explain why the working class suffer more ill health than the middle class. The first suggests that cultural differences affecting attitudes and values mean that poorer people don’t look after themselves properly for example smoking and drinking too much, high salt diets from eating junk food and not bothering or having the time to take regular exercise. The material explanation suggests that ill health stems directly from lack of disposable income. Not having enough money to buy healthy food, poor housing and dangerous working conditions and so on.
There is a third, The Natural Selection Theory, which although widely critised is worth a mention. This theory is based on genetic pools within classes rather than environmental or cultural factors. Beginning in primary education, where if a child is often sickly, he will fall behind, thus remaining at the bottom of society in unskilled work. The children with better health will succeed academically and through meritocracy move up a class, marry and produce children with healthier genes. This results in sickness in the poor, and health in the wealthy.
It is possible to argue that the NHS has had little bearing on health improvements, and that instead it is largely to do with improvements in nutritional and health education and in public hygiene. This has been suggested by McKewen and proven at least partially true by the effect it has had on life expectancy in the third world, when compared to the effect of modern medicines.
What ever your view of the NHS, it is clear that it has not resulted in improved life chances for all. It has not improved the level of equality between the middle and working class, and has not improved the likelihood of meritocracy.
When it comes to education, the difference between the work houses, where children were seen as simply small adults, and the primary education and childhood pleasures enjoyed by today’s youth are vast. Whilst the opportunities offered to under privileged children and likelihood of meritocracy has clearly improved, it is not to the extent necessary for equality. The Commission on social mobility report (2009) confirms this with its conclusion that ‘equal opportunities needs to be Britain’s top priority.’
Mrs Jodieanne Dainter
Reference list
BOOKS
Bowes, Alison; Gleeson, Denis; Smith, Pauline (1990) , Oxford, Oxford University Press
Blundell and Griffiths, (2008) Sociology Since 2000, Lewes, Connect Publications.
Browne, k. (2006), An introduction to sociology, Cambridge. Polity Press.
, , , (2004), Sociology Themes and Perspectives. Collins Educational
News paper articles
Gaitskell, H, cited by Chitty, Letter to 5 July 1958, London, The Times.
Web pages
National Child Development Study http://www.cls.ioe.ac.uk/text.asp?section=0001000200030003 accessed 19/11/2009
Worsfold. A, Parents and Educational Attainment , accessed 19/11/2009