case studies paper 1: education

bull (1980)

agrued that free education is never free as there are many ‘hidden costs’ of free schooling e.g. uniform and tech

smith and nobel (1995)

barriers to learning for low income students include:

-inability to afford school uniform, trips, transport etc leads to working class being bullying

-less likely to have access to the internet, a desk and a space to do homework

-older children are more likely to have a part Time job or look after younger siblings taking away study time

webb (2008)

90% of ‘failing’ ( ofstead pre current government thinking that a school requires improvement) are in deprived areas

webber and butler (2007)

the biggest indicator of achievement is the type of area students live in

Conner et al (2001)

costs of higher education (student debt increasing as annual fees triple) and its tuition fees deters working class from going into higher education institutions

howard (2001)

poorer children have a lower intake of vitamins/minerals, causing poor health and therefore negatively impacting attendance

Hirsch (2007)

students from better off backgrounds were more likely to

-afford out of school actavties in school, which helps them achieve better grades

-have more space to study and do homework

-benefit from private education or tutoring

Hyman (1967) and Sugarcane (1970)

social classes have diff attuides, values and beliefs. working class subcultures may impose a personal barrier as they don’t value education

Douglas (1964) and Feinstein (1998)

working class parents less likely to:

• be interested in their child’s achievements

• be supportive or discipline their child

• have knowledge and values that boost achievement (no museam trips for example)

• to vist schools for parents evenings

Basil Bernstein (1975)

language deprivation- when he found out about the restricted and elaborated code

Bourdieu (1984)

cultural capital- mc parents have a advantage within the education system because of their cultural capital so they will:

• better support their kids emontially and academically

• better prepared to research and choose schools as knowledgeable to league tables that rank local school’s exam results and ofstead reports

• know how to ‘play’ the system

• can teach their children the necessary values required to succeed in school

sullivan (2001)

GCSE students who read complex fiction, watch docs and have graduate parents develop wider vocab so achieve higher grades

Putnam (1995)

social capital (who u know). middle class parents have contacts that allow their children to forge ahead of working class children,

kreddie (1978)

it blames the working class child- the victim

Blackmoor and moritmore (1994)

we’re overlooking material factors as material deprivation is more sig then cultural deprivation

labov (1973)

working class speech patterns aren’t inferior, only different and both codes are apporiate in context

rutter (1979)

students spend 15,000 hours in school from recpetion to year 11; it highlights how critical school is for determing a child’s success or failure

howard beeker (1971)

in secondary teachers sterotype students based on appearance, personality, speech, social class and notably NOT ability.

as teachers see middle class kids as the closest to the “ideal” pupil they create a halo effect with that child that then influences future interactions positively.

Rosenhall+Jacobsen (1968)

told teachers that random pupils had a higher IQ (from a fake IQ test) than others and those pupils were called spurters- academic success in future.

Teachers contuinde to treat those pupils well as they were perched to be high achieving. So when researchers returned a year later and discoved that the sputters were doing better it confirmed their theory that higher expectations lead to higher academic success.

Hargreaves (1976)

agrures that anti-school subcultures are a negative consequence of setting/streaming

-anti school values to reject school and won’t work hard to invert school values. see value in respect from peers by mucking about.

Lacey (1970)- polarisation

as schools different their students a gap grows into polar extremes between the successful and not successful.

keddie (1971)

teachers aren’t evenly distributed throughout the sets- students in higher sets (where generally the middle class are) are challenged and able to access higher status knowledge; vice versa in lower sets.

ball (1980)

in mixed ability classes polarisation decrease, however middle class/working class will still differante.

Swann report (1985): why black people underachieve

social class accounts for a high proportion of differences in achievement between ethnic groups.

Flaherty(2004)

ethnic groups more likely to experience poverty, underemployment or lower payed jobs:

-pakistanti parents twice as likely to have semi/unskilled jobs.

-15% of minority groups live in overcrowded homes.

Arnot (2004)

media creates a anti-school role model for black pupils (being against school values).

dr tony sewell (1997)

black male culture emphasis Immedidate gratification and that learning is ‘white’.

basit (1995)

older generations of asian families have cultural capital as they install values essential for academic success in their kids as they see that education is a blessing.

archer and Francis (2007)

Chinese parents place a high value on education.

Swann report (1985): linguistic skills/language deprivation

found that language differences have little impact on academic achievement especially as Chinese pupils have both cantanose/manderin and excel in school.

noon (1993)

sent identical cover letters to top 100 uk companies alternating between ‘patel’ and ‘evans’; the responses that the latter surname generated were more helpful and informative.

rex (1993)

racism in education, housing, employment creates discrimination inside and outside of school.

gillborn and youdell (2000)

teachers hold racialised expectations of students making them quicker to discipline black pupils.

black pupil’s behaviour is misinterpreted by teachers thinking that they’re anti-black, creating conflict between pupil+teacher that then reinforces the stereotypes.

archer (2008)

teachers regard ethnic groups as lacking characstics of ‘ideal’ pupils, e.g. working hard. 2 assigned idenditys:

• the 'pathological pupil’ identity: femine presenting, asian perceived as plodding conformist (always working hard). their culture that makes them work hard is what makes them succeed, not any skills.

• the ‘demonised’ pupil identity; black or white, working class and viewed as being unintelligent, peer-led, culturally deprived under achiever

muslim boys

in response to rejection muslim boys idendifty with black macho subculture- focus on male dominance

Jasper (2002)

expectations that white teachers have off black boy’s behanvuors dictates their learning style that's not compatible with learning or academic success.

mizra (1992)

there are 3 types of racism in schools:

1: Colour blind- all pupils equal but doesn't challange racism

2:overt racists- black pupils inferior so they actively discriminate aganist them

3:liberal chauvinsts- black people culturally deprived so teachers have low. expections of them and encourage them to “cool-down” their expectations

+some pupils aren’t able to develop coping mechanisms with teacher’s racism leading to a lack of engagement and academic achievement as black girls avoid asking racist teachers leading to the above effect. This results in alienation and underperformance among black girls.

fuller (1984): rejection

pupils value education but not school values so they’re pro-education, anti-school

Mac an ghail (1992): survival

black/asian pupils develop various survival stagties i.e. by avoiding teachers with a racist reputation.

Sewell (1998)

as a responce to teacher’s racism 4 main subcultures formamong black boys:

- "innovators": pro-educadtion, anti-school

- "rebels" who reject both education and school values, reinforcing black machismo stereotypes

-"retreatists" who withdraw from school culture and subculture to maintain a low profile

- "conformists" who accept school norms and are eager to succeed in school.

basit (2013)

indian and pakistani families have a culture of gaining social capital and mobility from educational capital.

modood (2004)

even amongst working class, asian families pritoaze and encourage children to stay in education.

Francis (2007)

high value placed on education by both Chinese parents and child regardless of social class.

modood (2007)

parental cultural capital from previous occupations passed onto children.

Vincent et al (2011)

middle class black parents have a high level of interest in their child’s education.

shain (2010): reaction to setting/streaming

asian girls react in 4 different ways

1- gang girls: refuse to integrate into the mainstream culture as a reaction to the perceived racist behaviours

2-suriviors: they conform to the school’s values

3-rebels: they rebel against the norms and values of their home

4-faith girls: their parent’s beliefs and religion are still valued but adapted.

burgess (2009)

teachers are biased towards students from a ethnic minority when marking their exams.

croziert (2004)

Bangladeshi/pakistani students feels excluded by their peers, and are anxious about the racism they feel at school/ safety.

modood (2005)

white students have a 75% of getting a offer to study at a tip uni compared to the 57% a identical Pakistani pupil has.

troyana and Williams (1986)

the national curriculum is ‘specifically british’.

ball (1994)

national curriculum is ‘little englandism’ focusing on British triumph and the ‘glory days’ of the empire.

coard (1975 and 2005)

black culture and history is taught as primitive and that white people civilised them.

tikly et al (2006)

african-caribean pupils notice the absence of their invisibility within the currciulm- lowering their self-esteem.

Browne (2008)- rollar coaster of achievement

1980’s- concern about female’s poor academic achievement led to worry about it

1990’s- when females began to outperform males, esp working class

present day- concern that males are undeachieveing

Edward and Davis

boys allowed to be noisier and engage in more attention seeking behavuir, potentially hindering their ability to achieve academically as their character traits aren’t compatible with academic success

Angela McRobbie

argues that girls are socialised to not engage in crime and deviance through bedroom culture; this is because they're virtually trapped in their room. basically they stay inside and do educantional activacties i.e. read. or cos of female safety.

Wilkinson (1994)

-growing service sector created more ‘feminised’ careers e.g. teaching or healthcare.

-also agrued that female aspirations have undergone a ‘genderquake’ as women’s expectations have changed so not limited to family life, increasing achievement.

Francis and Skelton (2005)

increased employment opposed has raised girl’s ambitions as many aim for jobs that require a degree e.g. being a nurse or teacher requires a degree.

Mac an Ghail (1994): the crisis of masculinity

lower achievement in boys is due to a male identity crisis because of three factors:

1-increased male employment means that men feel less motivation to achieve in school so just try less

2-breadwinner role for men reduced so they question their identity and motivation behind skilled degrees that make money.

3-changes in job market (decline in manual labour) reduces men’s employment oppos so they don’t see the point in trying.

Jackson (2006)

working class boys believe they’ll end up employed in low skill and low paid employment anyways so they see little value in educational qualifications like GCSE’s and A-levels.

Instead of gaining status from academic achievements, like girls do in their pro-school subculture, they gain status from publicly messing about and from their peers because academic work is “feminine”

willis (1970’s):learning to labour

a study that focuses on “the lads” ( a anti-school subculture formed by working class boys) to observe if students rly are puppets of the education system.

they rejected the values of their school and instead gained social status from their peers by misbehaving and for truancy.

spender (1983)

girls achieve more but receive less attention in the classroom compared to boys

Francis (2001)

boys more lilkely to be disciplined then girls

groddal (1994)

boys more boisterous and disruptive so they’ll attract more attention from the teacher

sukhanda et al (2001)

boys feel girls have higher expectations from teachers and that teachers will criticise them for non-academic reasons e.g. uniform or prensation.

Weiner(1995): teachers challenging gender roles

sexist images removed from textbooks and more positive female repenseation in resources

caffery and delamont 2000:schools have always been patristical

most senior staff in schools men and the ethos of many schools male (e.g. dominance and comptivness)

carrington et al (2007)

gender of teaching has little to none impact on learning

Pirie(2001)

pre-1988 exams were geared towards boys as there was high pressure and high risk exams at the end of the course with o-levels. but after the 1988 education reform act under thatcher girls began to do better

gorand (2005)

gender gap in education increased when GCSE’s were introduced and coursework became a major part of assessments

mitsos and brown (1998)

girls outperform boys in coursework because they have:

+better orginzational skills

+can substation motivation for longer thx to bedroom culture and their socialisation

hurst (2014)

boys overtook girls in coursrework in GCSE maths after shift back to exams after high pressure exams at end of course

Skelton, Francis and valkanova (2007)

the divide between girl’s and boy’s subjects begins when options are introduced in year 9.

colley

the subjects females tend to take are more likely to end up in a lower paid, lower respect job e.g. teaching or as a art teacher.

oakly(1973): gender role socialization

learning of behaviour expected of both genders

+parenting, activities, toys and books

+creates different attitudes towards subjects influencing future options choices

arnot (1998)

girls prefer open-ended tasks, project work and extended answers prominent in the humanities whereas boys generally pefer memorising unambiguous facts and giving rapid ‘correct’ answers in exams.

colley (1998)

ICT is masculine as it’s methodical, logical and involves machinery.

kelly (1979)

science experiments draw from boys interests e.g. burning things and taking control of stuff.

pletcher (1998)

girls who choose sport as BTEC or A-levels are stigamitized.

Colley (1998): peer pressure and subcultures

girls in single-sex schools are twice as likely to study maths at uni.

Davis and Moore (1945) :function of education for functionalists

+educadtion is a effective way of sorting people into approbate roles and postions in the social heirachry based on their talent in preparation for the workforce- talented people are allocated the important jobs in society e.g. doctors]

+exams encourage composition, hard work and indivuial achievement- hardest worker gets highest marks. SO your allocation in the social heircahoty is therefore legit as the education system is a meritoarcy therefore inequality is both desierable and inevitable so all roles in society are fulfilled.

Harvey and Slatin (1976)

+96 teachers where given photographs of various social classes from other schools that they didn’t teach who were then asked by teachers to rate their expected performance and attitude- pupils from higher social classes were seen as more likely to succeed.

Chubb and Moe (1988)

US state schools have failed the kids and are now unresponsive to the parents/the heads of pupils:

+state education fails disadvangted groups/parents reinforcing the poverty cycle.

+the pupils are unequipped for the world of work so later on down the line the economy will fail.

+private schools have to please ‘paying customers’- the fee payers- so the quality of education is generally higher with people trying to get their money’s worth from their school giving them a advantage in the workforce.

Gillborn and Youdell (2000):education triage

+league tables pressure schools into maintaining their positions and rates of pupils achieving a A-C grade leading to schools acting like a triage and catergorzing pupils based on their perceived ability to achieve:

-those who will achieve anyway.

-the boarderline cases who can achieve but only with support, they have the most priority in support/help from teachers.

-those ‘helpless cases’ who are written off as teachers assume the’ll fail. generally they could be working class or black.

+this leads to a A-C grade economy.

Gewritz (1995)

+The marketisation of education only benefits the middle class. Links to the concept of selection by mortgage as only the middle class can afford to move to the catchment area of a good quality school.

+economic capital (known as material deprivation in questions about achievement and class): the middle class have better choices and the disopbale income to be able to travel to/live in catchment areas to access the better quality schools.

Ball (2003)

+the middle class are skilled choosers whereas the working class are disconnected choosers (basically the middle class are more informed about league tables/Ofstead so they have a advantage over the working class).

Althusser (1970): the ISA- idealogical state apparatus

+Institutions such as education, family, and religion that propagate dominant ideologies and reinforce capitalist values, shaping individuals' perceptions and maintaining the status quo.

+The more successful and effective the ISA is, the less the RSA have to do as it ensures compliance and support for the ruling class without the need for coercive measures. When schools transmit the dominant ruling class ideology they are presented as the ‘normal common sensebeliefs in society, making it difficult for individuals to question or resist these ideologies. SO it influnces people subconsciously ensuring capitalism counties.

Brown (1997)

workplace requires teamwork NOT odicenace of authority so marxist outlook is outdated and hasn’t adapted with the times

Reynolds (1984)

Some subject in schools promote critical thinking such as history and sociology

Willis (1977)

The hidden curriculum isn’t always accepted (the lads) so marxism is deterministic.

Willis (1970): learning to labour

Bowles and Gintis are too deterministic and simple. study of the 12 wc boys who created a anti school subculture actively reject school’s values and capitalism/educastion system BUT they still ended up in manual labor jobs being exploited so really Bowles and Gintis were overestemitating people’s compleance to go along with their exploitation.

Bowles and Gintis (1971): Correspondence Principales

+schools mirrors work

+link bewteen values learnt at school which are promoted and encouraged at work; they agure that the role of education is to reproduce the workforce

Bowles and Gintis (1976): The Hidden Curriculum

+captialaim requires a hard working yet docile, obideaant and conforming workforce

+the values are taught informally (not In the official school curriculum) to ensure there are workers who will work in low-paid, manual labour jobs.

+for example:

motivated by external rewards: school is house points and exams and in work it’s pay and promotion

accepting hierarchy: school is pupils and teachers while work is boss and worker

discpince: detention in school, being fired in work

based on compontion: grades for school and pay for work

based on alienation: repeated uncommon tasks in both school and work

Heaton and Lawton: The hidden curriculum

students are taught patriarchal values informally through the hidden curriculum, which includes:

• Subjects aimed at specific genders, which often leads to the reinforcement of traditional gender roles.

• Representation of traditional family structures and gender stereotypes in textbooks, perpetuating outdated societal norms.

• Gendered division of labor in schools, where female teachers are often assigned to less respected roles while male heads and managers hold more prestigious positions, reinforcing hierarchies and expectations related to gender.

Banyard (2011)

Banyard highlights that girls are increasingly subjected to various forms of sexist bullying, which has become normalized in society. This normalization is exacerbated by the pervasive influence of pornography, which shapes attitudes and behaviors towards gender and sexuality. As sexist bullying becomes more common, many girls feel disempowered to report such incidents, as schools largely fail to address these issues adequately or provide effective reporting mechanisms. The lack of action from educational institutions fosters an environment where girls may internalize the belief that such bullying is acceptable or inevitable, leading to long-term consequences on their willingness to seek help.

reay

the working class see uni as not for ‘likes of them’

Francis (2005)

girls form ‘Boffin idendites’- girls who have a drive to succeed in education, but conforms to the female hyper- heterosexual identity.

ward (2015)

boys can reject macho culture and adopt geek culture idendtires (big bang theory)

archer 2007

formation of nike identities as a form of symbolic capital.

Francis (2005): genderd expectations and behaviour

-girls are perceived as docile and invisible in the classroom.

-boys monopolise discussions, equipment, space and time in the classroom.

-lower exceptions of boys, thus reducing their efficiency in tasks.

-higher exceptions of girls, increasing pressure on them to achieve.

Finn (1987) - vocational unemployment

Vocational unemployment serves several functions:

• It offers a source of inexpensive labor.

• It diminishes the influence of trade unions.

• It lowers the overall unemployment rate.

• It contributes to a reduction in crime rates. Additionally, these three effects act as a diversion to mask a government's shortcomings.