Bourdieu [1971], who was a French Marxist, put forward a theory that schools are middle class institutions that offer greater advantage to middle class students and so increasing the likelihood of their success and higher achievement. He argued that a habitus was present in every social class and this provided a framework of ideas for members to adopt. However, those from middle or upper classes were able to gain more access to the culture of the bourgeoisie and thus allowing them to adopt a cultural capital that would assist them in the education system as this was an institution that gave a higher status to dominant class values and norms. This cultural capital includes ideas of preferable language, attitudes and lifestyle. However, arguably more importantly is the view that the cultural capital contains ideas of superior knowledge, this being evident in the use of the 11+ exam as an entrance requirement to better schooling as the questions asked were culturally biased in that they referred to typically middle class lifestyles. For example asking for facts about various composers, which students from working classes may be unaware of, whilst those from middle class families may have encountered through their upbringing and subsequent socialisation. Failure to pass the 11+ exam severely limited the educational potential of working class students, whilst the increased opportunity of passing the exam that the middle classes had due to their ability of adopting the dominant class cultural capital enabled them a greater chance of educational success. Although, the 11+ exam has been removed in the majority of cases and so this may reflect a move away from the importance of culture as a factor determining educational achievement, however, this cannot be entirely true as there remains a select number of schools, wherein the 11+ exam is a necessary requirement for entrance.
This explanation, presented by Bourdieu is widely accepted by Marxists as they view a close relationship between the education system and work, arguing that schools perpetuate class inequality to maintain the privilege and power of the bourgeoisie. They suggest that schools act as an ideological apparatus indoctrinating students with bourgeoisie norms and values, whilst ensuring the educational failure of those who experience conflict with such principles, namely the proletariat, thus prolonging class restrictions in work. This has been entitled by other sociologists, cultural deprivation, as students from the working classes experience a clash of values between home and school meaning that later their educational achievement is compromised, whilst middle class students experience benefits from the similar culture. This clash of cultures in education experienced by working class students may mean that they associate school with conflict and become demoralised perhaps leading to truancy and therefore a lack of achievement. However, for middle class students it may be that their experience of school life is merely an extension of their home life and so the harmony of values that this creates grants them a better chance of success.
Also, it has been argued that parents of working class students may also have experienced cultural deprivation leading to a lack of value of the importance of education overall. This limits the achievement of their children as they will be socialised into acceptance of such values and so are more likely to replicate anti-school behaviour within a classroom setting, for example “surviving” lessons by doing as little work as possible. This in itself may mean that the individual is placed in a lower stream and so may limit their achievement, particularly as at GCSE level a large number of exam boards and subjects create tiered papers meaning that the students in lower streams who appear less able but are predominately working class so suggesting a link between class and achievement as opposed to a meritocratic system, are restricted to obtaining the lower grades. On the other hand middle class students may be placed in higher sets as they meet the cultural requirements of the school and thus appear more intelligent and so they are unrestricted as to which grades they can achieve whilst being encouraged by their parents and teachers to aim for the highest grades, which may in itself create a self-fulfilling prophecy that may explain their achievement in comparison to the corresponding working class students.
This illusion of superior intelligence of the middle class students may be supported as they tend to use the elaborated code of language as opposed to the restricted code of the working classes. The use of the elaborated code of language would also benefit the middle class students in an exam situation as the questions would be written in that way and so the working classes are disadvantaged from the beginning as they are unlikely to achieve high grades in exams where they can’t understand the question as easily as their middle class counterparts who are more likely to succeed.
Ball et al [1994] conducted a study in order to determine the effect of recent governmental reforms of education that encouraged parental choice by publishing national league tables and therefore insisting that schools compete for students. Ball et al found that the publication of such league tables meant that schools were increasingly keen to attract academically able students and so devoted a larger amount of time to develop marketing strategies and produce prospectuses. Also, this had negative implications for students who were less able and particularly those with learning difficulties as they were viewed by the majority of schools as undesirable. The educational reforms also had significant effect upon parental choice in that middle class parents tended to exploit the educational market ensuring that their child went to the best school. They were able to do this because unlike working class parents they were more likely to possess the knowledge and contacts to manipulate the system as well as more cultural capital. Also, Ball et al found that many working class parents preferred for their child to go to a local school because of complex structural limitations as well as a great amount of value placed on community and the continuation of early friendships through the education system. This limits the educational success of working class children as schools in working class areas are most likely to lack funding due to an apparent lack of success in the national league tables. It also may limit their academic success later as a great deal of value being placed on these early friendships may lead to an over dependency on peer groups and so this may mean that students may value the status they gain from their peer group higher than that which they may achieve through school. Also, within a peer group where members are interdependent may mean that manipulation could occur more easily and so this could lead to the development of an anti-school subculture that would limit the achievement of those individuals involved.
In conclusion, a number of cultural factors exist to enhance the achievement of students from a middle class background, whilst simultaneously serving to hinder the progress of those from the working classes.
- There is much debate over whether underachievement of certain social groups, particularly ethnic minorities and the working classes, underachieve in education because of their lifestyle at home or their school environment.
Interactionist sociologists tend to argue that it is teacher – pupil relationships that are paramount in determining achievement. They have put forward a theory of labelling that could be applied to students of ethnic or working class origin to account for their underachievement. This theory argues that the teacher, however unintentionally, judges the students and reinforces this label that can lead to the creation of a self-fulfilling prophecy in the student. For example, Afro Caribbean boys often have the label of “unruly” or “disrespectful and difficult to control” applied to them. Gillborn [1990] found that Afro Caribbean pupils were more likely to be given a detention than other pupils. This would suggest to Interactionists that this was the teacher reinforcing the negative label, by revealing it to the student and acting on it. The teachers interpreted their dress and manner of speech as representing a challenge to their authority and so the pupils reacted to their perceived mistreatment in accordance with their labels, thus creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. This could lead to underachievement of Afro Caribbean students as if they tend to be in detention and regularly in trouble then they may become demoralised and give up trying to impress the teacher by working hard and instead concentrate on the conflict in so doing increase the likelihood of their educational underachievement. For Asian students, particularly Asian or Muslim girls the teacher may lack adequate understanding of their culture and so view them as oppressed and so treat them with pity or simply avoid too much contact with them and so this could lead to underachievement. However, Item C suggests that although ethnic minorities continue to underachieve, they do have higher staying-on rates than whites. This information limits the usefulness of the Interactionist approach in relation to ethnic minorities as it would be expected for such labelling to occur throughout school life and not simply at post-16. This therefore, implies that other elements must play a more important role in causing underachievement of such students or in countering the effects of labelling as students do not appear to be demoralised or maintain a negative view of education, in the way that the Interactionists imply.
However, a different scenario may occur for those from working class backgrounds in that they may be more affected by labelling. Becker [1971] showed how teachers perceived the “ideal” pupil to be one who conforms to middle class standards of behaviour. This suggests that the working class students are immediately disadvantages as they cannot meet such requirements and so may obtain a label of “rude” or even “unintelligent” as they will tend to use the restricted code of language rather than the elaborated one of the middle classes. Once such a label is applied and reinforced through the student’s perception that the teacher lacks interest or value in them, a self fulfilling prophecy is likely to occur wherein they view themselves in terms of their label and meet its expectations. However, it could be argued that it is cultural factors, for example the use of a restricted code of language would be the result of socialisation, that have led to the teacher applying such a label and so override the importance of the Interactionist explanation.
Marxists disagree with the view of the Interactionists and suggest that it is the culture of the students that limit their educational achievement and so it is home factors rather than the in-school experience that causes underachievement. They argue that schools are institutions that adopt the values of the dominant classes and so increasing the likelihood of success in those students who have been socialised into similar values. Bourdieu, a French Marxist, argued that a habitus was present in all social groups and provided a framework of ideas for members to adopt. Cultural capital describes a habitus that is preferable as it allows those who can obtain it the privilege of success as it means in a school environment that students accept the values and norms of the school as an institution in so doing restricting any conflict. However, it is the middle and upper classes that are most able to adopt this cultural capital and so the working classes are most likely to underachieve. Those from ethnic minorities tend to also lack cultural capital as they too are likely to experience poverty and so be positioned subordinate to that of the middle and upper classes. This is worsened by the fact that there is a possibility that the British culture is not the one into which they were socialised and so they would be strongly disadvantaged to achieve the cultural capital as not only is it British it is also middle class culture that would assist their success.
Marxists argue that the close relationship they view between the education system and work means that school actively sorts the bourgeoisie from the proletariat to maintain the power and privilege of the dominant class. They argue that the school is an ideological apparatus that indoctrinates students with bourgeoisie values and it is those students that experience the least conflict with these values that are likely to succeed. In this sense those from working class or ethnic backgrounds can be said to be culturally deprived as they have not been socialised by their families into acceptance of such values and so are likely to experience the most conflict with the school.
Other sociologists disagree and suggest that in-school factors are more important, for example the curriculum. They would argue that the curriculum is ethnocentric in that it focuses on the perspectives of the white middle and upper classes and so alienating those from ethnic minorities and the working classes as they may feel that the cannot connect with the subject matter as it does not apply to them. For example, history is a subject wherein students tend to learn about British or European Kings, Queens and politicians as opposed to Asian or African history or even simply from the view of ordinary, working class people. Coard [1971] agreed with this view in terms of those from ethnic minorities, as he argued that such isolation would lead to low self esteem among black pupils and this in turn may assist their underachievement. However, this assertion was refuted by the Swann Report [1985] and Stone [1981] who noted that despite feelings of discrimination, West Indian children maintained a positive self image. This, therefore, limits the bearing of the curriculum as causing underachievement.
Other sociologists disagree that it is the school environment that is the cause of underachievement and would highlight that both the working classes and ethnic minorities are likely to experience high levels of poverty and so argue that this is the main factor causing underachievement amongst these groups. They highlight that the British education system despite outwardly displaying an image that it is free, tends to harbour a number of hidden costs that will help to determine success or failure. For example, the importance placed upon coursework at GCSE level to achieve the higher grades means that a computer with access to the internet is essential to meet those needs and for many of those from ethnic minorities and the working classes this is too much of a strain on a low income. Therefore, it can be argued that underachievement is made more likely for those who are on low incomes, namely those of ethnic or working class origin, as they are likely to experience material deprivation in that it is much more difficult for them to achieve an educational advantage, for example with revision guides, school trips and tutors than their white middle class counterparts.
However, this view is limited by the fact that the government has attempted to reduce such material deprivation of particularly working class students through schemes such as Education Action Zones and positive discrimination in the form of compensatory education. Much more money has been recently given to local authorities in poorer areas in an attempt to raise standards. For example, the Conservative government in the 1990s allocated up to 25% more money to these areas. This therefore limits material deprivation as an explanation of the underachievement of these social groups. Although, the effectiveness of such schemes has been disputed by Item B, which was written approximately 9 years later than such action was taken, and states that “despite efforts from many sides, social class still dictates educational prospects”, thus suggesting that attempts have so far been failures in their strive to raise standards of working class students.
In conclusion, there remains much debate as to whether it is the home experience and culture of the student that increases the likelihood of underachievement or whether it is in fact the school that does this.
