Statistical evidence demonstrating that middle class students are achieving at GCSE is the ‘Youth Cohort Study (2004/5)’. This is also evidence supporting my hypothesis and my first objective.
The study shows that the higher the parental occupation the higher the percentage of students achieving GCSE grades between A*-C:
PARENTAL OCCUPATION GCSE grades A*-C (%)
(Middle-class) (Middle-class)
Higher professional 77
Lower professional 65
Intermediate 53
PARENTAL OCCUPATION GCSE grades A*-C (%)
(Working-class) (Working-class)
Lower Supervisory 40
Routine 33
Other 33
The statistical difference between the two parental occupation shows that the parents
who are in a more professional employment (middle-class) effects the result of their children who are achieving, as they appear to obtain higher result such as 50% or higher, where as parents in a less qualified job (working-class), their children are achieving below 40% as shown in the results above.
This provides evidence for my second objective as this study examines that there is a difference in GCSE results favouring the middle class student.
When parents set high standards, children work harder and their school achievement is higher (Natriello and McDill, 1986). High school dropouts report their mothers have lower expectations for them (Ekstorm et al, 1986). Furthermore, high school
dropouts are likely to have a family history of dropping out (Mahan and Johnson, 1983), suggesting again the influence of family norms or expectations. I believe that social class will have an impact here, specifically that the working class parents will have a lack of interest.
When parents express high expectations about continuing schooling past high school, children are more likely to go on for further education after graduation (Conklin and Dailey, 1981). Once again I expect this to be typical of middle class parents and children.
High aspirations may be especially important for adolescents from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Parents who have aspirations may provide a strong influence that enables children to overcome other disadvantages (Davies and Kandel, 1981).
When parents attend parent-teacher conferences, help with home-work, and watch their children in sports or other activities, their children do better in school (Bogenschneider, 1997).
Parental participation and involvement is a key factor of pupils achieving their grades. This exemplifies my second objective.
When parents are not involved, their children receive lower grades, and are more likely to drop out, and have poorer homework habits (Baker and Stevensons, 1986, Epstein, 1982). Parental involvement is a powerful predictor of school success, regardless of ethnicity, parent education, family structure, or gender (Bogenschneider, 1997). This demonstrates a link to social class.
Liberal Functionalist, Douglas has identified parental interest as the major factor stating, ‘High Interest is closely linked to high attainment, good results in GCSE level examinations and a long school life in the next generation, whereas low interest is associated with poor performance and early leaving’
Douglas related educational attainment to a variety of factors, including the student’s health, the size of the family, and the quality of the school. The single most important factor appeared to be the degree of parents’ interest in their children’s education. Douglas had argued that middle class parents had frequent visits to their children’s school to monitor their progress. They much preferred to see the head teacher as oppose to seeing the class teachers about their children’s work. They were also more likely to want their children to stay at school beyond the minimum leaving age and to encourage them to do so. In contrast to working class parents, Douglas mentions that they were just happy in seeing their children’s class tutors and class teachers about their children’s progress. They did not have very high aspirations for their children doing further education. This relates back to my hypothesis as I mentioned that middle class pupils achieve higher because of the amount of parental interest.
Douglas (The Home and the School, 1964) conducted a longitudinal study. This had followed the educational careers of 5,362 British children born in the first week of March 1946, through primary and secondary up to the age of 16 in 1962.
Douglas divided the students into groups in terms of their ability measured by a battery of tests including IQ tests.
He also divided the students into four social-class groupings, and found significant variations in educational attainment between students of similar ability but from different social classes. He also found that within the ‘high ability’ group, 50 % of the students from the lower working class left secondary school in their fifth year, compared with 33% from the upper working
class, 22% from the lower middle class and 10% from the upper middle class.
This study provides evidence for my second aim as it demonstrates the difference in grades between working and middle class students at GCSE level.
The Liberal Functionalist perspective clearly supports my hypothesis in that the middle class achieve as a result of high level of parental interest.
However Douglas’s views on parental interest have been strongly criticised by Blackstone and Mortimore. They argue that working class parents may not attend their child’s school due to shift work, inflexible working hours and perhaps not because of lack of interest. They also argue that there are problems measuring parental interest. Douglas used factors like attending parents evening but is this fair? Douglas blames the parents rather than the poverty of their situation.
Blackstone and Mortimore stated a quote from the ‘National Child Development Study’, which found that 89% of middle class children attended a school with a well-established system of parent-school contacts, but only 75% of the working class children attended a school with well established contacts. Therefore it was easier for the middle class parents to keep in touch with the educational progress of their children. Furthermore, the middle class parents know more about the educational system than the working class parents as they probably have not been through the system themselves. Douglas had also been criticised on the basis it was carried out in 1968 so therefore poses the question of how applicable it is today in a modern society.
Tizard had criticised Douglas’s work too. He argues working class parents lack of interest may be a result of confidence or knowledge in dealing with schools and not indifferences to their children’s fate.
Another liberal functionalist named Kahl had attempted to explain differences in educational aspiration in small matched samples of American schoolboys. They came from similar homes and had similar abilities, but half aspired to go to college and half did not. Kahl had come to assume that this was down to ‘parental pressure’. Those boys with supportive parents tended to be sufficiently motivated towards their education, whereas those boys with less encouraging parents tended to do as they pleased. The modest educational or occupational aspirations of working class pupils may still require long-range social mobility. All in all Kahl concluded that the more parental interest the higher the children’s educational achievement.
Leon Feinstein (2003) has discussed more recent research conducted by him-self and others into the factors affecting success in education. Feinstein used data from the ‘National Child Development Study’ and the ‘British Cohort Study’ to examine whether parental support and other variables could explain differences in achievement.
Feinstein believed that the degree of parental support was measured by means of a four-point scale by which teachers assessed how much interest parents showed in their children’s education.
The data suggested it made a big difference if parents were very interested in how their children were doing. Feinstein states:
‘In tests of maths attainment the improvement between 11 and 16 of children whose parents exhibited high interest in education was 15% points greater than those of children whose parents exhibited no interest. By comparison, the average advantage of having two parents who both stayed on at school beyond the minimum leaving age and a father in a professional occupation was only 2% for maths’
He suggests that the positive effects of parental interest operate through ‘motivation, discipline and support’. I believe social class will also play a major role here, as I believe there values will be typical of the middle class.
It is now clear to see that in line with several Liberal functional sociologists that parental interest does play a major role in the educational achievement of both middle and working class. However it Liberal Functionalist perspectives are criticised by Marxists who argue that Liberal Functionalists fail to discuss the power of the middle class and ruling class who manipulate the education system to their own advantage. Symbolic Interactionists also argue that the Liberal Functionalists fail to study in school factors such as ‘labelling’ which teachers may do so due to stereotyping and discriminating based on social class. Interactionists also point out that this Liberal Functionalists is very deterministic suggesting that the middle class are only achieving higher in their studies due to high parental interest, involvement, participation and also due to social class.
