Differential Education Achievement PDF

Education T2: Differential Education Achievement: Class, Gender and Ethnicity  EDUCATIONAL ACHIEVEMENT FACTORS EFFECTING ACHIEVEMENT When sociologists examine the issue of differential educational achievement they split factors into two broad categories: external and int...

Education T2: Differential Education Achievement: Class, Gender and Ethnicity  EDUCATIONAL ACHIEVEMENT FACTORS EFFECTING ACHIEVEMENT When sociologists examine the issue of differential educational achievement they split factors into two broad categories: external and internal. Whilst external factors examine issues outside of the education system e.g. the influence of the home/family and wider society. Internal factors examine issues within the education system e.g. interactions between pupils and teachers and inequalities between schools. CLASS AND EDUCATIONAL ACHIEVEMENT ▪ When examining the effect of social class upon achievement, sociologists focus upon three external factors: cultural deprivation, material deprivation and cultural capital. ▪ Whilst, three internal factors are also focused upon by sociologists: labelling and self-fulfilling prophecy, pupil subcultures and educational policies. ▪ Perry and Francis (2010) argue that: social class remains the strongest predictor of educational achievement in the UK. EXTERNAL FACTOR 1: CULTURAL DEPRIVATION Sodha and Margo (2010) suggest the culmination of a range of different cultural factors create disengagement for the W/C from education. ▪ Cultural deprivation theorists argue individuals begin to acquire the basic values, attitudes and skills needed for educational success during in primary socialisation. However, many W/C families fail to socialise their children into these values, thus many W/C children grow up culturally deprived leading to educational underachievement/failure. There are two main aspects to cultural deprivation: language and attitudes and values. ▪ Cultural Deprivation: a lack or deficit of values, norms, attitudes, skills or knowledge. LANGUAGE ▪ Bereiter and Engelmann (1966) highlighted the importance of language for educational achievement, they suggest the language used in W/C homes is deficient, communication is through gestures, single words and disjoined phrases. As a result, W/C children fail to develop the necessary language skills to succeed in education. ▪ Bernstein (1975) also highlights the importance of language in educational achievement. He suggests there are differences in the way the M/C and the W/C use language and this difference has a detrimental effect upon education achievement. ▪ He argues whilst the M/C use elaborated code the W/C use restricted code. - RESTRICTED CODE: this is speech typically used by the W/C; it has a limited vocabulary and is based on short, grammatically simple and often unfinished sentences. This code assumes a shared context/experience. - ELABORATED CODE: this is speech typically used by the M/C; it has a large vocabulary and is based on longer, grammatically more complex sentences. This code does not assume context. ▪ These differences in language between the W/C and M/C place the M/C at an advantage, as elaborated code is the language used within the education system, by teachers, textbooks and examinations. This elaborated code assists in the development of analysis and reasoning – skills vital for educational success. ▪ The M/C are socialised during primary socialisation to use this language, by time they enter school, and they feel confident and are already fluent. Whereas, the W/C are not and feel excluded to tend to be less successful. Rejecting Bernstein:  : Bernstein homogenises and generalises about both the M/C and W/C – do all M/C share the same level of elaborated code? Do all W/C share the same level of restricted code? There is likely to be diversity among the classes. : Bernstein has been criticised for failing to give examples to support his claim an elaborated and restricted code exist, Rosen suggests Bernstein ‘creates a myth of superiority around M/C speech.’ : Troyna and Williams (1986) the problem is not the child’s language but the school’s attitude towards it. Teachers hold a ‘speech-hierarchy’ of which M/C is at the top.  ATTITUDES AND VALUES ▪ Douglas (1964) highlights the importance of parental attitudes; he argues it is the most important factor for educational achievement. W/C parents attend less parent’s evenings, show less interest, little encouragement, place less value, are less ambitious and rarely visit school. ▪ C.D.T argue that lack of parental interest/value on education reflects subcultural values of the W/C. W/C parents hold different values to the rest of society and this is way their children fail at school. Rejecting Attitudes and Values:  : Blackstone and Mortimore (1994) reject the view that W/C parents are not interested in their child’s education rather and their failure to attend parents is due to long/irregular working hours and are put off by the M/C school environment. Furthermore, W/C parents don’t assist their children because they lack academic knowledge, not lack of interest. ▪ The C.D.T Hyman (1967) argues the values and beliefs of the W/C subculture are a self-imposed barrier to educational and career success. The W/C believe they have little opportunity for achievement therefore place little value upon education. ▪ The C.D.T Sugarman (1970) furthers this view and suggests the W/C subculture has four key features that act as a barrier to educational success: fatalism, collectivism, present time orientation and gratification. EDUCATIONAL POLICY: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION ▪ Governments around the world have introduced policies in an attempt to tackle the issue of cultural deprivation. These policies direct educational opportunities/resources at deprived or under-achieving pupils. They intervene in the early stages of socialisation to compensate for the deprivation suffered at home. ▪ In America the programme Operation Head Start (1960s) was introduced and in the UK Educational Priority Zones (1960s) and Education Action Zones (1990s) and Sure Start (2000).  Rejecting Cultural Deprivation:  : Keddie (1973) suggests cultural deprivation is a ‘myth’ and sees the idea as victim blaming, she dismisses the idea that failure at school results from cultural deprivation and argues W/C culture is simply different not deprived. W/C pupils fail because the education system is dominated by M/C values. Rejecting Compensatory Education:  : Critics argue that compensatory education act as a smokescreen hiding the real causes of underachievement: social inequality and poverty. EXTERNAL FACTOR 2: MATERIAL DEPRIVATION ▪ Material Deprivation: poverty and lack of material necessities e.g. adequate housing and income. ▪ Sociologists suggest there is a close link between poverty and social class. W/C families are much more likely to have low incomes/inadequate housing and therefore underachieve in education. HOUSING ▪ Douglas (1964) suggests there is a link between underachievement and housing. He argues often W/C homes are over crowed and this leads to lack of study space. Additionally, the house was often in poor condition e.g. damp, this resulted in pupils being absent from school and receiving no education for a period time. DIET ▪ Howard (2001) argues young people from poorer homes have lower intakes of energy, vitamins and minerals, this poor nutrition effects health, poor health effects educational achievement due to poor energy levels and absence from school. FINANCIAL SUPPORT AND THE COSTS OF EDUCATION Bull (1980) suggests there are ‘costs of free schooling.’ These costs often mean that pupils from W/C families go without equipment and experiences that would enhance their educational achievement. ▪ Tanner (2003) suggests costs such: transport, uniform, books, computers, calculators and sports, music and art equipment places a heavy burden on poor families. ▪ Often, pupils from W/C backgrounds have ‘hand-me downs’ and unfashionable, cheaper equipment, Ridge (2002) suggests this leads to stigmatisation. This also suggests why a sizeable proportion of pupils on F.S.M do not take up their entitlement. ▪ Lack of economic capital in the home often results in W/C pupils taking on part-time employment, having less free-time impacts upon the amount of time available to complete school work. ▪ Finance is also a reason for the lower participation of the W/C in higher education. Supporting Material Deprivation: ☺ Rejecting Material Deprivation:  : Mortimore and Whitty (1997): : If poverty is such a problem, then suggest that material inequalities have why don’t ALL W/C pupils fail in the greatest effect on achievement. education? It is therefore clear that Therefore, Robinson (1997) argues material deprivation is only part of the ending child poverty would be the most problem. Other factors e.g. cultural, effective way to boost achievement of religious and political values of the the W/C. family may pay an important part in the home life and motivation of the pupils. : What about the school? There are several in school factors that affect achievement e.g. setting, streaming, labelling. EXTERNAL FACTOR 3: CULTURAL CAPITAL ▪ The sociologist Bourdieu (1984) argues material and cultural factors are interrelated and both contribute to educational achievement. ▪ He uses the idea of cultural capital: the values, language, tastes, and knowledge that the middle class transmit to their children that contribute to their advantage in the education system. ▪ Usually ‘capital’ means wealth – Bourdieu sees middle class culture as a type of ‘wealth’ as it advantages those who possess it. ▪ Through socialisation the M/C acquire the ability to grasp, analyse and express abstract ideas (e.g. through participating in ‘high culture’) – therefore, when they are required to do this in an educational setting they are more likely to achieve as the education system favours the M/C. ▪ In constrast, the W/C find school devalues their culture as it suggests it is ‘rough’ and ‘inferior’ and the lack of culture capital leads to exam failure. ▪ Bourdieu further argues that the M/C possess education and economic capital along with cultural capital – all three he argues can be converted into one another: The sociologists Leech and Campos (2003) study Martin and Mary are of Coventry found that M/C parents are more likely Marie’s and Mark’s parents. to be able to afford a house in a catchment area They are wealthy due to the by a school that is highly placed in the school economic capital; they league tables – this is a process they term: have the ability to turn this ‘selection by mortgage’ and is again turning economic capital into economic capital into educational capital. educational capital by Furthermore, having the knowledge of school sending Marie and Mark to league tables come under the bracket cultural private school and pay for capital. extra tuition. This process drives up prices in areas near ‘good schools’ excluding W/C families.  Supporting Bourdieu Cultural Capital: ☺ ☺: Sullivan (2001) found those with a greater cultural knowledge, indicating a greater cultural capital were often the children of graduates and were more likely to be successful in GCSE attainment. However, she also acknowledges even with M/C and W/C pupils possessed the same level of cultural capital – the M/C child still did better? Why? She concluded that the M/C household had greater resources and aspirations for their child. ☺: Robertson (2003) found that possession of cultural capital in the form of participation in certain activities e.g. visiting the museums, zoos, theatre, opera, reading and playing a musical instrument greatly improved the chance of success within education. ▪ The Sociologist Gewirtz (1995) explores the link between educational policy and Bourdieu’s economic, educational and cultural capital. ▪ She argues the introduction of the 1988 Education Reform Act (which saw an increased competition between schools e.g. league tables and Ofsted inspections) allowed M/C parents who possessed greater cultural and economic capital to gain educational capital for their children. From her research she identifies three types of parents: Parent Type Explanation Privileged Skilled Chooser These are mainly M/C professional parents who use their economic and cultural capital to gain educational capital for their children. They possess knowledge of the school system e.g. admissions process, deadlines and appeal procedures and also have the financial capability to move to areas where there are successful schools. Disconnected Local Choose These are typically W/C parents whose choices are restricted by their lack of economic and cultural capital - they lacked knowledge about school systems and were restricted in their school choices by finances e.g. travelling. Thus were limited to the local comprehensive. Semi-Skilled Chooser These are also W/C parents but had ambition for their children, again they lacked cultural capital and often relied on other people’s thoughts about the school. Gewirtz concluded in her study that M/C families with greater cultural and economic capital were able to take advantage of the system – therefore in practice have more choice than others. Supporting Gewirtz: ☺ ☺: Whitty (1998): supports Gewitz and argues how the 1988 Education Reform Act although was a policy of marketisation and was designed to increase choice for ALL parents, instead allowed and gave greater choice to the M/Cs. INTERNAL FACTOR 1: LABELLING Labelling: the process of attaching a meaning or definition to a person/pupil. ▪ Sociological analysis shows that teachers often attach labels to students based on stereotypical assumptions e.g. when hearing about class background. ▪ The study of labelling emerges in the work of Interactionism most prominently in the work of Becker (1971). ▪ Becker’s research interviewed 60 teachers in Chicago and found that teachers judged pupils on how closely they fitted with the image of an ‘ideal pupil.’ Factors which influenced teacher’s judgement included: work, conduct and appearance. Becker found that M/C pupils were closer to the ideal pupil than W/C pupils because of their behaviour. Supporting Becker: ☺ Rejecting Becker:  ☺: Cicourel and Kitsue (1963): studied the effect of : Marxism: labelling theory ignores the labelling by career counsellors in American high schools wider structures of power within which and found that the advice students received was based labelling takes place. on the label given to them by their careers counsellor – if you came from a W/C background you were more likely to be disadvantaged. ☺: Rist (1970): studied an American kindergarten and : Labelling blames the teacher for found that teachers used the children’s home labelling the pupil, but fails to explain why background and appearance as a basis for grouping and they do so. seating arrangements. His study revealed that the : The theory is very deterministic – those labelled the ‘Tigers’ and whom were seated near assumes those pupils who are labelled will her and were showed the greatest encouragement were fulfil the label – can’t they reject label and often those who looked ‘neat’ and from a M/C achieve? Does every W/C pupil fail at background. Whereas, the other groups, the ‘cardinals’ school? and ‘clowns were often messy and W/C and seated further away, given less attention and lower quality work. INTERNAL FACTOR 2: THE SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY ▪ Self-fulfilling prophecy: a prediction that comes true because it has been made e.g. by labelling a pupil badly behaved, they become badly behaved. ▪ Interactionists argue that labelling can affect pupils’ achievement by creating a self- fulfilling prophecy. The S.F.P works as follows:  Teacher labels pupil e.g. Teacher treats pupil Pupil interalises teacher's intelligent, based on this accordingly - acts as expectation and it becomes label teacher makes the prediction has part of this self-concept, predictions about actions come true e.g. giving he becomes the pupil the e.g. make outstanding him more attendtion. teacher labelled - the progress prediction is fulfilled. ▪ Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) support the idea that labelling and a S.F.P can affect achievement. They found if teachers were told a group of pupils were ‘academically gifted’ (for example, the randomly selected ‘spurters’ group in their study), the teacher would ensure these beliefs were passed on through their actions e.g. more attention. ▪ The study highlights a key Interactionist idea: what people believe to be true will have real effects – even if the belief was not true originally. The same is also true if the teacher is told pupils are less academic. ▪ Streaming also contributes to the process of S.F.P. Why/how do you think this is? INTERNAL FACTOR 3: PUPIL SUBCULTURE ▪ Pupil subculture: a group of pupils who share similar values and behaviour patterns e.g. anti-school subculture. ▪ Pupil subcultures often emerge as a response to their labelling/reaction to streaming. Sociological analysis has found that subcultures can play an important role in creating class differences in achievement. ▪ Lacey (1970) explored two concepts to explain how pupil subcultures develop: differentiation and polarisation.  - Differentiation: this is the process of teacher categorisation of pupils according to their perceived ability, attitude/behaviour. Your stream will depend on the status you are given. Who do you think is given the most status? - Polarisation: the process used by pupils to response to streaming by moving towards one of the two ‘poles’ or extremes. These opposites produce either a pro school or anti-school subculture. ▪ The pro-school subculture: made of pupils mainly from a M/C background, they remained committed to the values of the school. They gained their status through an approved manner. ▪ The anti-school subculture: pupils who were based in low streams, often W/C, had low self-esteem rejected and turned upside down the school’s values, they gained status from others in the subculture, not from the teachers. How does this link to S.F.P? Supporting Lacey: ☺ ☺:highlights the power of labelling and streaming in creating failure – all pupils who attended the school of Lacey’s study (Hightown Boy’s Grammar) had been successful at primary. But once inside the school and having undergone the internal process of labelling began to underachieve and become anti-school. ☺: Hargreaves (1967): found similar results in his study of boys in a secondary modern, who had failed the 11+ and then placed in lower streams, these were deemed triple failures and considered ‘worthless louts.’ ▪ The sociologist Ball (1981) also examines the issue of subcultures and streaming and found if the process of streaming was removed the issue of pupil subcultures was lessened.  T3: Differential Education Achievement: Gender GENDER AND EDUCATIONAL ACHIEVEMENT FEMALE ACHIEVEMENT ▪ When examining the effect of gender (female) upon achievement, sociologists focus upon three external factors: - The impact/rise of Feminism - Changes in women’s employment - Girls changing perceptions and ambitions ▪ Additionally, sociologists focus upon four internal factors: - Equal opportunities policies - Positive role models within school - GCSE and Coursework - Challenging stereotypes in the curriculum  EXTERNAL FACTOR 1: THE IMPACT/RISE OF FEMINISM (GIRLS) ▪ Feminism is a social movement that strives for equal rights for women in all areas of social life. ▪ Since the 1960s there has been a steady success in the improvement of women’s rights/opportunities in many areas of social life e.g. women’s representation in the media. These improvements have raised women’s expectations and self-esteem. This has in turn improved their success/achievement within education. EXTERNAL FACTOR 2: CHANGES IN WOMEN’S EMPLOYMENT (GIRLS) ▪ There have been a number of important changes in the employment of women in recent years, these include: - The Equal Pay Act (1970): this makes it illegal for women to be paid less than men for the same work. - The Sex Discrimination Act (1975): this makes it illegal to discriminate of the grounds of sex for employment. - Women have recently been breaking through the ‘glass-ceiling’ in employment. ▪ All these changes have encouraged girls to see their future in terms of paid employment rather than a housewife. Greater career opportunities, better pay and the number of female role models provide girls with an incentive to gain qualifications, thus succeed within education. EXTERNAL FACTOR 3: CHANGING AMBITIONS (GIRLS) ▪ The rise in feminism and greater equality for women has seen girl’s ambition rise. ▪ Sharpe (1994) compared interviews with girls from the 1970s to the 1990s and found a major shift in the way girls see themselves and their future. Whilst in 1970s the girls had low aspirations and felt educational success was unfeminine and intelligence would lead to them being seen as unattractive, in  the 1990s girls were more likely to value and see the worth in educational success, seeing their future as independent women, not dependent on men for money. ▪ Similarly Francis (2001) found the career ambitions of females in the 2000s were aspirational and in constrast to traditional female jobs. INTERNAL FACTOR 1: EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES POLICIES (GIRLS) ▪ Boaler (1998) suggests the impact of equal opportunity policy is the key reason for changes in girls’ achievement. Through policy, many barriers have been removed and schooling has become more meritocratic – allowing those girls who work hard, to achieve. ▪ The rise of feminism and equality outside of the education system has lead the policies being developed inside the education system to ensure the same opportunities are given to both males and females: - Girls into Science and Technology (GIST) and Women into Science and Engineering (WISE): policies have developed to encourage/increase the number of females into ‘non-traditional’ areas. - National Curriculum: when introduced in 1988 it removed one source of gender inequality by making males and females study the same set of subjects, Kelly (1987) argues making Science part of the N.C helped equalise opportunities for all. INTERNAL FACTOR 2: POSITIVE ROLE MODELS (GIRLS) ▪ In recent years there has been an increase in the number of female teachers and head teachers, these women are in positions of authority and seniority and may act as role models for girls. ▪ However, in some education sectors e.g. primary school, it can be argued it has become ‘feminized’ – this may have an adverse effect on male achievement. INTERNAL FACTOR 3: GCSE and COURSEWORK (GIRLS) ▪ Some sociologists have argued the changes in assessment have favoured females and allowed them to achieve. Gorard (2005) argues when GCSEs and coursework was  introduced in 1988 the gender gap sharply increased. Mitsos and Browne (1998) support this view and argue girls are more successful in completing coursework for a number of reasons: - Spend more time on their work. - Take more care in the way it is presented. - Are better at meeting deadlines. - Bring the right material and equipment to lessons. ▪ These qualities sociologists argue emerge in the primary socialization of children, where ideas of a hegemonic femininity suggest girls are socialized to be neat, tidy and patient. Rejecting GCSE and Coursework:  : Elwood (2005): although coursework has some influence, when reviewing the weighting of exams and coursework, exams usually outweigh and have more influence upon final grades. INTERNAL FACTOR 4: CHALLENGING STEREOTYPES IN THE CURRICULUM (GIRLS) ▪ Some sociologists argue the removal of gender stereotypes from textbooks, reading schemes and other teaching resources has removed a barrier to girls’ achievement. ▪ Whilst in the 1970s and 1980s reading schemes portrayed women as mainly housewives and mothers and physics textbooks showed females as scared or amazed by science. Since the 1980s Weiner (1995) argues teachers have challenged these stereotypes and in general, gendered images have been removed from learning resources. ▪ This has helped raise girls’ achievements by presenting them with more positive images of what women can do. THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES ON FEMALE ACHIEVEMENT Liberal Feminists: celebrate the progress made so far in improving achievement for girls. They argue further progress will be made by the continuing development of equal opportunity policy, the increase in female role models and overcoming sexist and stereotypical attitudes.  Radical Feminists: are more critical, although they accept that girls are achieving more, they argue the system is still male-dominated and there is still a long way to go, they give a number of examples: girls still face sexual harassment at school; limiting subject and career options; still a dominance of male teachers and females are underrepresented in some curriculum areas e.g. history. MALE ACHIEVEMENT When examining the effect of gender (male) upon achievement, sociologists focus upon two external factors: - Boys poor literacy skills - Decline of traditional ‘men’s’ jobs ▪ Additionally, sociologists focus upon three internal factors: - Feminisation of education - Male role models - Laddish subcultures EXTERNAL FACTOR 1: BOYS POOR LITERACY (BOYS) ▪ The DSF (2007) suggests the gender gap within education is mainly the result of boys’ poor literacy and language skills. It was found parents spend less time reading to their sons’ and when reading does take place; it is usually by the mother, so boys see it as a female activity. ▪ Additionally, the leisure activities of boys e.g. football and video games do little to help develop their communication and language skills. In constrast, girls have a ‘bedroom culture’ where they stay in and chat with friends. ▪ As language skills are needed in a variety of subjects, it is common for boys’ to underachieve. EXTERNAL FACTOR 2: DECLINE IN TRADITIONAL JOBS (BOYS) ▪ Since the 1980s there has been a decline in heavy industries e.g. iron, steel, shipbuilding, mining and engineering – these careers were traditionally carried out by men as they have declined some sociologists argue it has causes a ‘crisis in masculinity’. ▪ Boys no longer believe they will be able to get a job and therefore lack motivation and self-esteem so give up and underachieve in education. Rejecting Decline in Traditional Jobs:  : However, although there is some truth in this claim, it must be acknowledged that the jobs described above were typically undertaken by W/C males with no qualifications – therefore it seems unlikely that these jobs disappearing would have an effect/impact on boys’ motivation. INTERNAL FACTOR 1: FEMINISATION OF EDUCATION (BOYS) ▪ Sewell (2006) argues that education has become feminized – schools do not nurture/promote ‘masculine’ traits e.g. competitiveness and leadership, but instead value and promote feminine ‘traits’ e.g. methodical working and attentiveness. ▪ He sees coursework as a major cause of gender difference and argues some coursework should be replaced with final exams and a greater emphasis should be placed on outdoor education, he argues: “we have challenged the 1950s patriarchy and rightly said this is not a man’s world. But we have thrown the boys out with the bath water.” Rejecting Feminisation of Education:  : Marshall (2006): rejects the work of Sewell and argues he does nothing more than reinforce stereotypical ideas about males and females. Additionally, he disagrees with the idea that assessment is predominantly through coursework and boys would do better if assessment was by terminal exam. INTERNAL FACTOR 2: MALE ROLE MODELS (BOYS) ▪ The increasing lack of strong male role models both at home and within the education system is said to be a cause of male underachievement. ▪ The DCSF (2007) argue that only 16% of primary school teachers are male. A YouGov (2007) poll argued that when primary school children were asked 75% said a male teacher made them behave better and 42% said it made them work harder. Rejecting Male Role Models:  : However, research shows this approach is too simplistic and the absent of a male- primary school teacher may not be a reason for boys underachieving e.g. Francis (2006) argues 75% of 7-8 year olds believed the gender of the teacher didn’t matter. INTERNAL FACTOR 3: LADDISH SUBCULTURES (BOYS) ▪ Some sociologists argue the growth of laddish subcultures has contributed to boys’ underachievement. ▪ Epstein (1998) examined the way masculinity is constructed within school, she argues it is difficult for W/C boys to achieve as they were harassed and faced verbal abuse. She found many boys had the view: ‘real boys don’t work.’ Furthermore, Francis (2001) argues that boys are more concerned with the label ‘swot’ because it threatens their masculinity – this behaviour is increasing she argues as females and males become more equal. SUBJECT CHOICE ▪ Colley (1998) suggested that the gender perception of different subjects are important influences on subject choice, generally, the arts and humanities are seen by students as feminine and maths, sciences and technology as masculine. ▪ Skelton et al (2007) suggested that males and females may be drawn to different subjects due to their own ideas of what is appropriate for their gender identity. ▪ Sociologists have suggested a number of reasons to explain the difference in subject choice, these include:  - Early Socialisation - Gender Subject Image - Peer Pressure - Gendered Career Opportunities SUBJECT CHOICE FACTOR 1: EARLY SOCIALISATION ▪ Oakley (1973) suggests during primary socialisation children are taught the correct behaviour expected for their gender within wider society. ▪ This process Norman (1988) means that from an early age boys and girls are dressed differently, given different toys and directed towards different activities. As a result of this process, Murphy and Elwood (1998) suggested this leads to different subject choice, they cite the example of reading. Where boys read hobby and information books – leading them to gain a preference for science subjects, girls read fiction books – leading them to gain a preference for English. ▪ A second process that occurs during early socialisation is children form their ideas about ‘gender domains.’ The sociologists Browne and Ross (1991) suggested that children learn the different tasks and activities that girls and boys are meant to see as male and female territory and therefore as relevant to themselves. They found that children appear more confident engaging in tasks that are seen as part of their own gender domain e.g. if setting a maths task, girls are more confident tackling it when it is situated in a situation surrounding food/shopping, whereas boys are more confident when the problem is situated in a situation surrounding cars. SUBJECT CHOICE FACTOR 2: GENDERED SUBJECT IMAGE ▪ The image that a subject ‘gives off’ affects who will want to choose it. ▪ Kelly (1997) argues that science ‘gives off’ a male image for a number of reasons: more male science teachers, examples draw on the experience of boys, rather than girls and in lessons observations find that boys take control of the lab and monopolise equipment. ▪ ▪ Similarly, Colley (1998) argues that computer science ‘gives off’ a male image for a number of reasons: it involves working with machines and the teaching tends to be abstract, formal and individual. ▪ Research has shown e.g. Leonard (2006) that these images are less important in single- sex schools – girls in a single-sex school are more likely to study male-dominated subjects and university and go on to earn higher salaries. SUBJECT CHOICE FACTOR 3: PEER PRESSURE ▪ Subject choice can be influenced by peers e.g. if a boy chooses dance/music they are likely to attract negative responses from their peers. ▪ Paetcher (1998) examined P.E./Sport, she found that girls who opt for sport are outside of their ‘gender domain’ and contradict conventional female stereotypes – this may explain why girls are more likely than boys to opt out of sport. SUBJECT CHOICE FACTOR 4: GENDERED CAREER OPPORTUNITIES ▪ The final factor affecting subject choice is gendered career opportunities, sociologists argue the world of employment is gendered: there are ‘male’ and ‘female’ jobs. ▪ Half of women’s employment is concentrated into 4 areas: clerical, secretarial, personal services or cleaning. ▪ If girls and boys have an idea about what career they wish to pursue this will affect what subjects they wish to take. This factor also helps explain why vocational courses are more gendered specific than academic courses. GENDER IDENTITY AND EDUCATION Pupils’ experiences of school can affect their gender identities through: 1. verbal abuse 2. male peer groups 3. teachers and discipline 4. the male gaze These experiences help to reinforce what Connell calls ‘hegemonic masculinity’ – the dominance of heterosexual masculine identity and the subordination of female and gay identities. 1. VERBAL ABUSE According to Connell boys use name-calling to put girls down if they behave in certain ways. Paetcher found that name-calling helps to shape gender identities and male dominance. The use of negative labels such as ‘gay’ and ‘queer’ are ways in which pupils can control each other’s sexual identities. 2. MALE PEER GROUPS Mac and Ghaill shows how peer groups reproduce a range of different working class masculine identities. For example, the ‘macho lads’ in his study were dismissive of other working class boys who worked hard and achieved. 3. TEACHERS AND DISCIPLINE Hayward found that male teachers told boys off for ‘behaving like girls’ and teased them when they achieved lower marks than female students. 4. THE MALE GAZE Mac an Ghaill refers to the ‘male gaze’ as a way of looking girls up and down and seeing them as sexual objects. He argues that the male gaze is a form of surveillance through which dominant masculinity is reinforced and femininity devalued. This is achieved, for example, through telling stories of sexual conquest.  T2: Differential Education Achievement: Ethnicity ETHNICITY AND EDUCATIONAL ACHIEVEMENT Overview of Ethnic Achievement ▪ In 2011/12, Chinese and Indian pupils were the highest attaining pupil groups. ▪ In 2011/12, Black Afro Caribbean, Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Roma pupils were the lowest attaining pupil groups. ▪ In 2011/12, White British pupils performed below the national average. ▪ When examining the effect of ethnicity upon achievement, sociologists focus upon three external factors: - Cultural Deprivation: attitudes and values and family structure/parental support - Material Deprivation and Class - Racism in Wider Society ▪ Additionally, sociologists focus upon four internal factors: - Labelling and Teacher Racism - The Ethnocentric Curriculum - Institutional Racism - Selection and Segregation EXTERNAL FACTOR 1: CULTURAL DEPRIVATION: 1: ATTITUDES & VALUES ▪ Cultural Deprivation Theorists see a lack of motivation as a major cause of underachieve for Black Afro-Caribbean pupils. ▪ Sociologists argue this is developed in Primary Socialisation as unlike other children, Black Afro-Caribbean’s are socialised into values such as fatalism and living for the day, these attitudes lead them to not value education and leave them unequipped for school. EXTERNAL FACTOR 1: CULTURAL DEPRIVATION: 2: FAMILY STRUCTURE AND PARENTAL SUPPORT ▪ Another cause of underachievement for Black Afro- Caribbean pupils suggested by Cultural Deprivation Theorists is socialisation into a dysfunctional family structure. ▪ The Sociologist Moynihan (1965) argues many Black Afro- Caribbean families are headed by a lone woman and as a result the children are deprived and receive inadequate care because of the mother’s financial struggles in the absence of a male breadwinner. Additionally, without a male in the house, boys lack an adequate male role model. Moynihan sees cultural deprivation as a cycle, inadequately socialised children from unstable families to go onto fail in education and become inadequate parents themselves. Supporting Family Structure ☺ Rejecting Family Structure:  ☺: The New Right Theorist, Murray : Pryce (1979): suggests the family (1984) also argues that lone parenthood structure of some ethnic minorities can be and lack of a positive male role model can beneficial to the pupil’s achievement. He lead to educational underachievement in argues that those pupils from Asian families some ethnic minorities. are instilled with values of self-worth and success leading to them achieving in education. Similarly, Lupton (2004) argues Asian families mirror the hierarchal structure found with schools, meaning children were more likely to be respectful and supportive of school policies.  ▪ Family structures and parental attitudes also play a part in the underachievement of those pupils from White British W/C backgrounds. Lupton (2004) suggests white W/C parents do not support or value education. Rejecting Cultural Deprivation:  ☺: Driver (1977): Ethnicity doesn’t just have a negative effect upon educational achievement, it can also be positive, he argues Black Afro Caribbean families provide girls with positive strong role models which encourage them to achieve in education. : Lawrence (1982): Educational failure has nothing to do with self-esteem and values, it is because of racism inside the education system. : Keddie (1973): Cultural deprivation is a ‘myth’ the idea is just victim blaming, she dismisses the idea that failure at school results from cultural deprivation. Ethnic minority children are not culturally deprived, but culturally different. Underachievement results from ethnocentrism within the school system. EXTERNAL FACTOR 2: MATERIAL DEPRIVATION AND CLASS ▪ Material Deprivation: living in poverty and lacking material necessities e.g. adequate housing and income. ▪ Flaherty (2004) suggests ethnic minority pupils are more likely to face material deprivation for a number of reasons: Reason Effect on Educational Achievement Unemployment is 3X higher for African, Bangladeshi and Pakistanis ethnic minorities when compared to White British. 15% of ethnic minorities live in houses which are overcrowded. Asian Pakistanis are 2x more likely to be in unskilled or semi-skilled jobs when compared to the White British population.  Supporting Material Deprivation: ☺ Rejecting Material Deprivation:  : Mortimore and Whitty (1997): : If poverty is such a problem, then suggest that material inequalities have why don’t ALL W/C pupils fail in the greatest effect on achievement. education? It is therefore clear that Therefore, Robinson (1997) argues material deprivation is only part of the ending child poverty would be the most problem. Other factors e.g. cultural, effective way to boost achievement of religious and political values of the the W/C. family may pay an important part in the home life and motivation of the pupils. : What about the school? There are several in school factors that affect achievement e.g. setting, streaming, labelling. EXTERNAL FACTOR 3: RACISM IN WIDER SOCIETY ▪ Rex (1986) argues that racial discrimination leads to social exclusion and for ethnic minorities this worsens the poverty e.g. because of discrimination ethnic minorities are more likely to live in substandard housing. ▪ Similarly, Noon (1993) suggests this racial discrimination continues within employment – he sent out identical letters for employment opportunities within the top 100 companies of the UK, the only difference, one name was ‘Evans’ and the other ‘Patel’ – he found companies were more encouraging to the ‘white’ candidate. ▪ Cline et al (2002) also found that racism was common among pupils, ethnic minority pupils commonly report racist name calling e.g. Paki, Chocolate Boy, Malteser. Overtime, this was reduce self-esteem. ▪ If ethnic minorities know they are going to face this discrimination, it will have a negative effect upon their education. Supporting Racism in Wider Society: ☺ ☺: This is still very must the case today, according to the 2013 NatCen British Social Attitudes Survey, almost a third of British people – 30% – report that they have some feelings of racial prejudice. INTERNAL FACTOR 1: LABELLING AND TEACHER RACISM ▪ Interactionist Sociologists focus on the different labels teachers give pupils based on their ethnic background, they suggest those pupils from ‘Black’ and ‘Asian’ backgrounds are furthest away from the idea of the ‘Ideal Pupil’ and this disadvantages them, causing them to underachieve within the education system. ▪ Gillborn and Youdell (2000) found that teachers have ‘racialised expectations’ when teaching ‘Black Afro-Caribbean pupils.’ Their research found that teachers expected Black, Afro-Caribbean pupils to present challenging and threatening behaviour within the classroom and as a result acted negatively towards them, regardless of their actual behaviour, this caused conflict. This explains the high rate of exclusions from school for Black, Afro-Caribbean pupils. ▪ Similarly, Strand (2012) argues that teachers often mixed perceptions of behaviour and academic ability together, though the two are not necessary related, it was therefore common for Black Afro-Caribbean pupils to be placed in lower sets. ▪ Both exclusion and allocation to lower sets results in Black, Afro Caribbean pupils (especially boys) underachieving within education. ▪ Wright (1992) found labelling was also a factor that led to Asian students underachieving. He found that teachers often assumed they had a poor grasp of English and as a result left them out of class discussions. Teachers often expressed disapproval of their customs and mispronounced their name. Teachers felt that Asian pupils were problems they could ignore. ▪ These factors all lead to feelings of isolation and marginalisation causing Asian pupils, especially girls, to underachieve. ▪ Similarly, Mirza (1992) found that Black, Afro-Caribbean Girls although ambitious underachieved due to teacher racism and discouragement of certain careers and options.  Rejecting Labelling and Teacher Racism:  : Some sociologists reject the idea that teacher labelling leads to educational underachievement. Fuller (1984) in her study found rather than accepting the negative stereotyping and labelling Black, Afro-Caribbean Girls channelled their anger into educational success. : Also, Sewell (1998) found that Black, Afro-Caribbean Boys responded in a number of ways, whilst some did underachieve and actively rebel against the school culture, others conformed, worked hard and went on to achieve. He argues only a small proportion of Black Afro-Caribbean Boys fulfil the ‘black macho lad’ stereotype. However, he does acknowledge there are factors both within and outside school which are highly influential in ethnic minority underachievement e.g. low aspirations, absent fathers and media role models. : Marxism: labelling theory ignores the wider structures of power within which labelling takes place. INTERNAL FACTOR 2: THE ETHNOCENTRIC CURRICULUM ▪ Ethnocentric: an attitude or policy that gives priority to the culture and viewpoint of one particular ethnic group whilst disregarding others. ▪ Troyna and Williams (1986) describe the curriculum in British schools as ethnocentric, it gives priority to white culture and the English language. ▪ David (1993) argues the British curriculum ignores non-European languages, literature and music. ▪ Ball (1994) similarly argues that the National Curriculum ignores cultural and ethnic diversity and promotes an attitude of ‘little Englandism.’ ▪ Coard (2005) suggests an ethnocentric curriculum may produce underachievement. Rejecting an Ethnocentric Curriculum: ☺ ☺: Although the curriculum ignores Asia, Indian and Chinese culture, Chinese pupils achieve above the national average? How can this be the case?  INTERNAL FACTOR 3: INSTITUTIONAL RACISM ▪ Troyna and Williams (1986) to explain patterns to ethnic minority underachievement there needs to be an examination of how the education system routinely discriminates against ethnic minorities. They argue that the education system is institutionally racist this means: discrimination is built into structure of the social institution. ▪ For example: an ethnocentric curriculum, the lack of Asian languages on offer for study and the low priority governing bodies give racial incidents. ▪ This causes underachievement as it creates an environment where the needs of ethnic minority pupils are routinely ignored and disregarded. ▪ INTERNAL FACTOR 4: EDUCATIONAL POLICY: SELECTION AND SEGREGATION ▪ Gillborn (1997) argues that marketisation has given schools greater power to select pupils, this puts ethnic minority pupils at a disadvantage. ▪ The Commission for Racial Equality (1993) found that school admission procedures are racist and mean ethnic minority pupils’ are more likely to attend unpopular/failing schools. ▪ Evans (2006) suggest when looking at the achievement of ethnic minority pupils we also need to examine their class and gender as, each factor cannot be considered alone.