However some argue that performance on IQ tests are mainly the result of individuals’ motivation, knowledge and skills, largely acquired through learning. Therefore class differences may be the result of class background rather than genes. Thus demonstrating that IQ tests may be biased in favour of the middle classes. For example the language used in IQ tests may be closer to that of the middle classes than that of the working classes. This is a view perhaps supported by Bernstein B (Sociology in Focus) who recognizes two types of speech codes. The first code or ‘restricted’ code he identified with the working class speech and the second code or ‘elaborated’ code which he identified with middle class speech.
According to Bernstein middle and upper class children are socialized with both codes of speech with the working classes restricted to on code, and because the school system relies on the whole, on middle class teachers, working class children are at a distinct disadvantage as they are not accustomed to the ‘elaborated’ speech code. This also shown by the 11+ examination, as the education system is largely controlled by the middle classes. Those who share these characteristics may well be viewed more positively and more likely to succeed in the tests and exams created to assess their abilities it is said that it makes many working class pupils feel under-valued and demotivated by an education system that fails to recognize their qualities which are based on their class.
Bowles and Gintis (1976) however quash the notion of achievement through merit and intelligence as their study which examines a sample of individuals with average IQ’s, shows that they achieved a variation of educational attainment, thus leading them to conclude that there is hardly any relationship between IQ and Academic qualifications.
It has therefore been suggested that class stratification is directly related to educational attainment, and in particular material and cultural practices of social classes.
Evidence suggests that attainment rises with family income in general and this is shown in ‘Origins and Destinations’ (1980) by Halsey, Heath and Ridge mentioned previously. They found that the most important factor of low working class chances in education was due to ‘the cost to parents of supporting students between the ages of 16 and 18’. They therefore see the lack of maintenance grants for 16-18 year olds as a major obstacle to working class educational achievement.
Others emphasize cultural factors such as the values, aspirations and attitudes of parents. They argue that if they vary between social classes then this may account impart for differences in educational attainment.
Douglas (1964) found that his study on the degree of educational interest shown by parents was the single most important factor affecting achievement, with middle class parents appearing to take more interest in their children’s education and giving more encouragement for continuance after the minimum age. However inadequacies have been found with his findings as teachers will tend to assess parental interests in terms of number of visits which is perhaps invalid as he founds that working class fathers seldom visited the school which may have more to do with work practices than interest. However the findings are still valuable.
This argument is pursued by the cultural deprivation theory, stating that those at the bottom of the classroom are deprived or deficient in certain values, attitudes and skills essential for educational success and its affects are cumulative. However it does face considerable criticisms as people question whether the values and attitudes of different classes are actually that different. For example Rutter M and Madge N in ‘cycles of disadvantage (1976) argue that although children from poor backgrounds were more likely to underachieve at schools, cycles of disadvantage do not exist.
Bourdieu P (1977) takes a Marxist view and has developed his own distinctive cultural explanation for achievement and suggests that there is an element of ‘cultural capital’ in society. Thus the higher a persons position in the class system, the greater the amount of dominant culture they are likely to have. Culture is regarded generally as superior as those at the top define it as such. Thus it becomes highly sought after and highly valued and consequently it forms the basis of the educational system. Thus because middle class culture is closer to that of the school culture they therefore are more likely to succeed. Evidence of this has already been discussed through Bernstein’s studies.
Cultural and material factors however according to Heath, Halsey and Ridge (1980) have a neglible affect on attainment once pupils have reached secondary school, as working class students were found to be almost as successful as those from the service class. They conclude that the main difference in attainment was primarily due to the fact that the service class stayed on at education because material aspects permitted.
So far explanations have centered on factors over which individuals have little control. Interactionalists argue that we need also to look into the classroom, where it is believed that perspective class differences in educational attainment are socially constructed in the class room.
One of the most important views is the way teachers respond to, and make sense of pupils behaviour. Howard Becker (1977) found from interviews with 60 Chicago teachers, that teachers tended to have and share an ideal picture of the ideal pupil: ‘highly motivated’, ‘intelligent’ and ‘well behaved’. The pupils who fitted into this picture were likely to come from the middle classes and those furthest from were likely to be working class. Thus he found that the working class children were often labeled as being ‘unmotivated’, and ‘unlikely to succeed’. He therefore concluded that working class pupils may therefore be at disadvantage. Also it is said that there are untaught school rules that are taught in the classroom via ‘the hidden curriculum’ which favours the middle classes and the middle class values that are passed on by this. The middle class children are therefore more inclined to follow these untaught rules and conform to them whereas working class children are more than likely to feel undervalued and therefore reject education completely. Such research has been carried out by Paul Willis identified that working class boys were much susceptible to this as it was the middle class values that were prized in the classroom via the hidden curriculum which influenced the boys into working against the education system. ‘The lads’ believed that there was no point conforming to the rules in the education system as they believed that working class children should go on to working jobs after compulsory education because of the favoured middle class values. I think that this is a significant finding as it gives us a clear understanding about the current attitude of the working class, that they do not believe that they can succeed in higher education.
Hargreaves D (1975) argues that whether a label ‘sticks’ and is accepted by the pupil or not depends a number of factors such as the extent to which others support the label and the context in which the labeling takes place. Furthermore research by Bird (1980 cited in sociology in focus) found that ‘academic labels’ were more likely to be accepted than ‘behavioural labels’. However the labeling theory still remains an important factor in the difference in attainment by pupils from different social class backgrounds.
Other explanations view streaming and setting in most secondary schools as a major factor in differences in achievement. For example Lacey (1970) along with others who found that middle class pupils in general are placed in higher groups than working class children, and that the ‘ability gap’ between these groups is likely to widen from year 7-11. Furthermore from research carried out by Peter Woods found that, educational attainment in the lower groups is hampered by the developments of anti-school subcultures, in which breaking school rules may become highly regarded, which leads to misbehaviour at the expense learning, and consequently teachers expect less and place them in lower tiers even if their ability is much greater. The net result is that streaming is at an advantage to those in higher groups and a disadvantage to those in the lower groups.
Considering the many explanations put forward for class differences in education it is perhaps more sensible to take the view that what happens inside and outside of the school are both significant contributory factors in explaining why exam tables despite government initiatives in the shifting from the tripartite system to comprehensives still show class differences, and obviously as long as there are still public schools which parents may pay for, there will still be class inequalities and perhaps the government should reintroduce assisted places to compensate for this.
However, although social class has a clear affect on the attainment of pupils it is evident that this is not the only factor affecting this. Gender is also an issue. For the past recent years girls have significantly outperformed boys in educational attainment. The GCSE results for 2000 and 2001 shows the degree to which the percentage of girls achieving grades A*-C exceeded that of boys. In 2002, 62.4% of female GCSE entrants achieved grades A*-C, compared with 53.4% of males. Research published in 2003 shows that the gap between girls and boys widens as they grow older. Another significant factor is because of the changing attitudes of marriage and how women’s priorities have changed. Sharpe has argued that these changes in attitudes towards marriage and work are factors in explaining why girls are performing better at school than they were twenty years ago.
