Soc

 material DreaMipvtion: Finance and Debt

Financial Support and the Costs of Education

Bull (1980) found that often poorer families could not afford equipment or to pay for experiences for their children; he referred to this as the ‘costs of free schooling’ whereby although tuition was free they could not enhance it themselves. Tanner et al (2003) supported these findings and as a result of their research found the cost of transport, uniforms, computers and other educational equipment placed a heavy burden on poorer families and make do with hand me downs and cheap equipment leading to stigmatisation.

Free School Meals (FSM) is a programme run by the UK government to ensure all children can afford to eat in school. However, up to 20% do not take up the entitlement.

Flaherty (2004) argued the fear of stigmatisation may have been a key factor in why up to 20% of those eligible for free school meals do not take up the entitlement. In order to fit in they would rather pay for meals themselves than be ridiculed for being poor.

Smith and Noble (1995) argued that poverty acted as a barrier to learning in more ways than simply equipment and food, that by being unable to afford private tutors or private schools then having to settle for poorer quality schools. And in many cases Ridge (2002) found children of low-income families often got jobs to supplement their parents income, these had a negative impact on their schoolwork thus sacrificing their education to prevent financial problems.

Educational Maintenance Allowances (EMAs) were financial support for low-income students post-16 education. This allowed them to purchase or receive free textbooks and other items related to study such as transport and food costs.

However, in 2011 this was abolished by the coalition government, recently this has been replaced by the 16-18 bursary.

Covid-19 Lockdown

During the coronavirus lockdown in 2020 education moved online and that meant students had to have access to the internet, a device or multiple devices. Middle class students often had more devices and had parents who could work from home, thus reducing sharing of devices and increased assistance at home, whereas working class pupils has to either share or had no devices to do schoolwork on, even down to if they had internet access.

A laptop scheme was adopted by the government in order to get laptops to disadvantaged students, however it did not account for access to internet and the cost of electricity. It was underfunded and not all pupils could get one and had to share between households, widening the social class gap.

Fear of Debt

Callendar and Jackson (2005) conducted a survey of nearly 2000 prospective students and found that working-class pupils were more debt averse, meaning they were less likely to take on debt and associate it negatively than middle class pupils. They often saw more cost than benefit to going to university and thus affecting applicants, with working class pupils 5x less likely to apply to university than the middle class (debt-tolerant)

For example, in 2012 tuition fees were raised to a maximum of £9000 per year which affected decisions on going to university with UCAS (2012) reporting the number of UK applicants dropped by 8.6% in 2012 from the previous year. Recently it has risen to £9250.

The National Union of Students (2010) did an online survey of 3863 university students and found 81% of the highest social class students would receive financial support from home compared with 43% of the lowest social class. This could account for why despite working class people making up 50% of the population they only account for 30% of university students.

Reay (2005) found that working class pupils were more likely to apply to local universities to save on costs, and often this gave them less opportunity to attended high ranking universities. They also worked part-time and this meant they were less likely to receive a first or 2:1. Dropout rates at majority working class universities; London Met 16.5% vs majority private schooled Oxford 1.5%.

The National Audit Office (2002) found that working class students spent twice as long in paid work than their middle class counterparts to reduce their debts. So they neither could afford to relax, go on holiday or buy educational capital for their children.

Cultural Deprivation: Criticisms

Keddie (1973) sees cultural deprivation theory as a victim-blaming explanation, and dismisses the idea that someone can be culturally deprived instead pointing out they are simply culturally different. They are only considered deprived because the education system prioritises middle class values. Rather than seeing them as deficient we should build upon working class values and challenge the anti working class views in education.

Critics argue that teachers rank speech in a hierarchy, and therefore restrict educational success for working class and black students based on their speech.

Troyna and Williams (1986) support Keddie’s ideas and argue that the problem is not with the child’s language or speech but the school’s attitude towards it. They found that teachers have a speech hierarchy which places middle class speech at the top, working class second and lastly black speech. And thusly underachievement being a result of internal factors rather than external.

This directly challenges Bernstein’s speech codes as he argues that speech in the home inherently affects cognitive ability but Troyna and Williams argue the opposite, that the speech itself isn’t important it’s how it’s acted upon and treated within the education system that affects the underachievement in working class and black students.

Blackstone and Mortimore (1994) reject the views that working class or less educated parents don’t care about their child’s education, rather that they cannot take time off or have other working committments. These may be second jobs, or unsociable working hours; they may have young children requiring childcare. Schools in deprived areas may also have less effective systems of parent contact with the school which may prevent information being shared and home-calls less frequent.

Like Troyna and Williams this also challenges another sociologist, this challenges Douglas’ argument that less educated parents do not value education, as with Blackstone and Mortimore they found that often these parents will have other committments which mean they cannot attend parents’ evenings. Douglas did not take this into account as he mainly got data from the school rather than interviewing parents.

Cultural Deprivation: 3 Main Aspects

Language

Often the language used by parents during primary socialisation affects how their child will speak, and learn later on in life

Hubbs-Tait et al (2002) found that parents which challenged their children with critical thinking questions and encouraging cognition helped them to evaluate and learn more about their environment which Feinstein (2008) finding more educated parents would use language in this way. Whereas less educated parents used descriptive statements which were read out of context and simple.

Bereiter and Engelmann (1966) claimed that working class families deprived their children of the ability to think critically and become cognitive, and therefore they were unable to interact with education and that hindered their ability to take advantage of educational opportunities and free schooling.

Bernstein’s Speech Codes

Bernstein (1975) identified two speech codes that differed between the working class and middle class that later affected achievement in education later on in life:

• Restricted Code
• Typically used by the working class
• Limited vocabulary, simple sentences, context-bound.
• Assumed the listener had the same experiences as the speaker.
• Reduces ability to analyse text and scenes, not used by the education system.

• Elaborated Code
• Typically used by the middle class.
• Wide vocabulary, complex sentences, context-free.
• Allows anyone to hear and be able to comprehend it.
• Increases cognition and aids in analysis and learning, is preferred by the education system.

The middle class used and heard the elaborated code at home, since it was also used/preferred by the education system they were at an advantage as they felt more at home and immediately understood the way teachers and exams spoke and taught. By contrast the working class did not speak it and therefore were at a disadvantage, feeling alienated and inadequate in education, thus more likely to develop anti-school sentiments.

Critics argue that describing working class speech as deprived unfairly penalises parents due to their financial situation. However, Bernstein acknowledges that the school not just the home influences achievement, he argues that they are not culturally excluded but instead the school fails to teach them the elaborated code.

Parental Education

Douglas (1964) found that less educated parents would place less value in education which resulted in:

• Less encouragement to the child as well as less attendance to parent-teacher conferences.
• This then manifested negative views of education within the child
• They also had reduced motivation and ambition which negative affected achievement.

However, he was only accessing this type of data from schools rather than asking the parents directly, which meant he could not fully understand or obtain valid data to why exactly parents may appear to be disinterested in their child’s education. For example, they may have had longer work hours/a second job or childcare committments.

Feinstein (2008)

Feinstein supported Douglas’ ideas and argued that parental education is the most important factor impacting a child’s achievement. He found there were four factors to educational achievement based on parental education:

• Parenting Style
• Educated parents like the school would consistently discipline their children and have ambition for them. By giving reasonable positive and negative sanctions.
• Less educated parents were likely to sway between being overly harsh it completely removed with less ambition for their children, so they’d feel confused at school.

• Use of Income
• Educated parents were usually higher earners which meant they could afford educationa toys and books to further enrich their child’s education.
• Less educated parents often did not have the funds to gain this educational equipment and fund enrichment as well as having less time to engage with the things they do have.

• Parental Education
• Educated parents are more likely to be able to understand what their children needed to succeed in education and obtain them, they could also understand and help with homework.
• Less educated parents were either unsure or couldn’t obtain the help eeded for educating their child which included trips to museums and libraries.

• Class, income and education
• Feinstein argues that parental education is a factor that exceeds class and income barriers.
• Educated working class families achieve better than those with less educated parents.
• Middle class families which are less educated receive lower grades than their highly educated parents’ peers.

As to investigating parental attitudes towards education, parents with poor personal experiences with education may mean they identify the researcher with the school and refuse to participate. Additionally if questions of educational support by parents arise they may see this as an attempt to portray them as bad parents.

If the researcher could gain their trust then they may find it as an opportunity to speak about the school, however parents are not easily contacted and schools will have to relay this through their contact systems which may be poor in deprived areas. Some parents may also have literacy or language problems which will affect their ability to articulate their feelings fully.

Working-Class Subculture

Sugarman (1970) argued that their were four key features of the working class subculture that affected their ability to perform well in education:

• Fatalism: the belief that whatever happens will happen and they have no control over it, so they do not work hard as they believe they are destined to fail.
• Collectivism: the value of being part of a group and deferring personal achievement to stay within a group may cause them to act out during school hours to be part of their anti-school subculture.
• Immediate Gratification: the seeking of pleasure in immediate timescale, therefore a lack of patience for reward thus not working towards longer goals like university degrees.
• Present-time Orientation: thinking in the short-term and how this will affect them now rather than if this will clash with themselves in the long-term which could affect financial or educational stability later on in life.

This subculture is internalised and often due to how geographically it is placed often with working class people concentrated in more affordable housing outside of the middle-class estates, often there is a large sense of collectivism and thus the perpetuation of these values continues.

Cultural Deprivation: Intro and Combatting it

Cultural deprivation theory argues that during primary socialisation, children have not been entirely taught the norms and values of society, which deprives them of their culture and find it harder to fit in.

They call this cultural equipment and it includes: language, self-discipline and reasoning skills (cognition). And there are three main aspects of cultural deprivation that we study: language, parents’ own educational experience and working-class subculture.

Cultural Capital

Illustration on cultural capital (by Chris Johnston)

Bourdieu argued that the middle-class excelled in 3 types of capital rather than just the economic:

• Cultural Capital:
• Refers to the knowledge, attitudes, vocabulary, values and abilities of the middle-class.
• By possessing it they achieve a larger advantage in the education system and thus communicate abstract ideas.
• Economic Capital:
• The money, assets and business that the middle class own which allows them to afford to buy resources and other items in educational capital.
• Educational Capital:
• This is the educational advantages that can be bought or held by those with economic capital.
• This may be books, private schooling or tuition; uniforms and other resources which enhance education. It can also include having highly educated parents in the first place.

Studies supporting Bourdieu’s theory

Leech and Campos (2003) found in Coventry, middle-class families were able to afford homes near schools with high league table rankings, this has become known as ‘selection-by-mortgage’ where good schools drive up house prices in their catchment area and working-class families cannot move into those areas. This being an example of economic and educational capital.

Sullivan (2001) did a questionnaire of 465 pupils which asked about TV habits, reading and extracurricular trips and then cultural knowledge questions. They found that those who read complex fiction and serious TV documentaries had greater cultural capital.

However, they noted that those with cultural capital were more likely to be middle-class. But even in classrooms of similar cultural capital middle-class still performed better showing there was still other factors.

Compensatory Education

Sure Start, UK

Operation Head Start, USA

Compensatory Education aims to tackle the gap between the working class and middle class before they enter education, it provides primary socialisation that children may not receive in the home as well as providing resources in childcare and teaching to parents. Often more prevalent in deprived areas.

• Sure Start (1999), UK
• Part of New Labour’s plan to tackle social inequality and by 2010 had 3500 centres.
• Provided integrated education, care, family support, health services and employment for parents.
• Intended to promote the social development of babies and children.
• There however, have been cuts in funding since 2011, with many closing.

• Operation Head Start (1960s), USA
• Multibillion dollar scheme of preschool education in poorer areas e.g. rural south.
• Improved parenting skills, childcare and provided home visits by child psychologists.
• Intended to enrich deprived children’s environment and develop skills and embed achievement motivation.
• Included entertainment such as Sesame Street to transmit the values and norms nationally.

Social Class Differences

Social class is a social construct and is measured in different ways, most sociologists distinguish between working class and middle class via parental occupation.

• Working class: Manual occupations including skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled/routine work such as a plumber, waitress and cleaner.
• Middle class: Non-manual occupations including professional, white-collar office workers and owners of businesses such as teachers, accountants and lawyers.

Middle class pupils are more likely to stay on in education and take the majority of university places, this is because from an early age they already achieve higher than their working class peers and this gap widens throughout the education process

Private School

State School

Private schools are attended by those whose parents’ pay the privelage for them to attend and usually have specialised facilities from donations and funding from their trusts.

State schools can be attended by anyone and are funded by the government, both schools follow the same curriculum and syllabus to exam boards.

External factors are those which are outside the school, internal factors are inside the school. Example are:

• External
• Parents’ attitudes to education
• Debt aversion by WC
• Less funds for WC to buy educational equipment
• Differences in speech code
• Less time to spend on education (childcare)

• Internal
• Teacher labelling
• Streaming
• Less resources in state schools
• Less funding for state schools in deprived areas
• Stereotyping and ridicule of WC in school

Primary socialisation is the learning of values, language and vocabulary inside the home, when you go to school this is the secondary socialisation where you learn more about interactions within society

Pupil Identities

Habitus is shared between all members of a social class/group

Habitus is something Bourdieu (1984) defined as the dispositions, or learned, taken-for-granted ways of doing thinking, being and acting that are shared by a social class. This includes preferences about lifestyles and consumption like fashion and leisure. What is realistic for ‘people like us’. It is formed as a response to its position in social class status.

Schools have a middle class habitus and pupils who are socialised to middle class tastes gain symbolic capital. But it devalue the working class and deems their habitus to be tasteless and worthless subjecting them to symbolic violence, and by doing so it reproduces class inequalities within the school and keeps the working class in their place according to Marxist thinking.

Archer et al (2010) found that due to the status they do not receive from the school they seek it elsewhere such as from their peers, therefore they thought of educational success as being attributed to being middle class and they felt they would need to lose their working class identity to become academic and therefore would not push themselves to access university or professional careers.

‘Nike identities

Some critics argue that the constant attribution of Nike and other brands to the working-class allows them to profit off of class inequalities due to their excessive prices

Archer also found that many pupils who were conscious of the way society and the school, made them subject to symbolic violence this led them to seek alternatives ways of creating self-worth, status and value. Therefore they formed ‘styles’ or identities, especially through branded clothing like Nike.

This allowed them to be themselves without feeling inauthentic, often strongly gendered these style performances were heavily policed by peers and not conforming was seen as social suicide, the right appearance allowed them to earn symbolic capital from peers. However, this clashed with the school’s dress code and teachers saw these ‘street’ styles as bad taste or even a threat to the school’s middle class habitus.

Archer argues that the school’s middle class habitus stigmatises working-class identities, so the pupils have no choice but to seek other ways of recognition whilst the middle class see this as tasteless, to young people it is seen as a measure of worth. They also play part in how the working class reject higher education:

• Unrealistic: They say it as not for ‘people like us’ but for richer, posher, cleverer people and they would not fit in. It was also seen as unaffordable and a risky investment.
• Undesirable: It would also not suit their preferred lifestyle or habitus. For example, they did not want to live on a student loan as they would be unable to afford their street styles that gave them their identity.

As a result, the working class self-eliminate and exclude themselves from education, due their investment in ‘Nike identities’ and they ‘get the message’ that they are unwanted there but actively choose to reject it.

Working-class identity and educational success

Amongst all places in the UK, Northern Ireland has many larger pockets of deprivation than other places in the country.

Ingram (2009) studies two groups of Catholic boys in the same deprived neighborhood in Belfast. One had passed their 11-plus exam and gone to a grammar school, the other group had failed and gone to the local secondary school. They found:

• Working-class identity was inseparable from belonging to the working class locality. The networks of friends and family were key to the boys habitus and gave them intense sense of belonging.
• They placed a great emphasis on conformity and the grammar school boys experienced a pressure to ‘fit in’ and experienced tension between their locality and middle-class school.
• For example, one boy Callum, was ridiculed by his classmates on non-school uniform days for wearing a tracksuit made feeling worthless for showing his working-class identity. Thus experiencing symbolic violence.

‘the working class cultural capital of my childhood counted for nothing in this new setting’

Meg Maguire (1997)

Evans (2009) studied a group of 21 working class girls from a South London comprehensive studying for their A-Levels. She found that they were reluctant to apply for elite universities or Oxbridge and those who did felt a sense of hidden barriers and of not fitting in. And only 4 of the 21 intended to move away for university.

Reay et al (2005) pointed out that self-exclusion from far or elite universities narrowed the options for many working-class pupils and limited their success

Relationship between internal and external factors

• Working class pupils habitus and identities are formed outside of school may conflict with the school’s middle class habitus, resulting in symbolic violence and pupils feeling that education is not for them.
• Restricted speech codes may cause labelling by teachers which leads to the self-fulfilling prophecy.
• Dunne and Gazeley show that what teachers believe about a working class pupils home backgrounds actually produces underachievement.
• Poverty may lead to bullying and stigmatisation by peer groups, and lead to truanting or failure.
• Wider external factors such as national educational policies may affect school policies such as streaming. With the A-C economy and marketisation of education.

Pupil Subcultures

Pupils often separate into different subcultures and this affects how they interact with the school

A pupil subculture is a group of pupils who share similar values and behaviour patterns. Pupil subcultures often emerge as a response to the way pupils have been labelled and in particular as a reaction to streaming.

Lacey (1970) discovered 2 different ways pupil subcultures develop, one is perpetrated by the teacher and the other by the pupils:

• Differentiation is the process of teacher’s labelling and streaming students, categorising pupils according to their perceived ability or behaviour.
• Polarisation is when pupils respond to differentiation and move to either pole of response/two extremes. They can be pro or anti school.

Pro school subcultures develop as a response to positive labels and high streams mainly composed of the middle class and are committed to the values of the school. They gain status through ‘approved’ methods such as academic achievement and their values match the school’s.

Anti-school subcultures

Students can develop an anti-school subculture and will refuse to participate in lessons

Anti school subcultures develop as a response to negative labels and low streams mainly composed of the working class they disapprove and reject the values of the school and gain status through other pupils.

• It often causes low self-esteem and undermines self worth by placing them in inferior status and therefore they search for alternative ways to gain status.
• They often flout school rules and invert the school values of hardwork, obedience and punctuality to ‘sabotage the system’
• By forming an anti-school subculture they can gain status among peers e.g. cheeking a teacher, truanting, not doing homework or smoking/vaping. Therefore likely to enter the self-fulfilling prophecy.

In the past there was the 11+ exam this was a tripartheid system which separated students into 3 different types of school and this often affected if they joined an anti or pro school subculture. They could join: a grammar school, secondary modern, or technology school and this would be a method of ‘cream skimming’ only selecting the best students from the whole population.

Hargreaves (1967) studied the impact of labelling and streaming in modern secondary schools, and from the point of the education system found boys in lower streams were triple failures they had failed their 11+ exam, placed in low streams and labelled as worthless louts. A solution to this status problem was to seek similar pupils and status was ascribed to flouting school rules and they formed a delinquent subculture which guaranteed their educational failure.

Abolishing Streaming

Ball (1981) studied Beachside Comprehensive a secondary school in the process of abolishing banding (a type of streaming) in favour of mixed-ability groups. So for example when comparing top bands which were mostly MC and middle bands which were mostly WC, teachers in the middle bands spent more time maintaining order than teaching and gave out more detentions.

Top band students saw middle band students as thick, rough, boring and simple; whereas middle band students saw the top band as brainy, unfriendly, stuck-up and arrogant. So when they abolished banding he found:

• There was no basis for polarisation so pupil subcultures stopped developing and declined.
• But pupils were still being differentiated and teachers continued to categorise them into labels.
• The self-fulfilling prophecy still occured and thus showed that class inequalities can continue as a result of teacher labelling even without the effect of streaming and pupil subcultures.

Since his study the Education Reform Act (1988) has creates further trend towards more streaming and towards a variety of school with some a more academic curriculum than others. Which creates new opportunities for schools and teachers to differentiate pupils based on class, gender, ethnicity and treat them unequally.

Woods (1979) identified 4 other responses to labelling and streaming:

• Ingratiation: becoming the Teacher’s pet
• Ritualism: just going through the motions and not exceeding
• Retreatism: daydreaming and mucking about
• Rebellion: absolute rejection of the school’s values and everything it stands for.

Fuller (1984) she found in a study of working class Black girls in London, that they rejected their schools label and streaming and instead worked hard outside of school to achieve their grades. This resulted in the self-refuting prophecy whereby the prophecy being made, the pupil rejects and tries to unattach themselves from it.

Streaming

This slide from a PowerPoint shows the difference between streaming and setting, with streams focusing on entire school path, but sets ability in the subjects.

Streaming is the process of separating children into different groups of classes based on ability called streams. Each ability group is taught separately from the other for all subjects and studies show when streamed children are more likely to achieve the self-fulfilling prophecy.

Once streamed it is difficult to move up the hierarchy to a higher stream but easy to move down, as they are locked into their teachers expectations. Pupils in low streams ‘get the message’ that their teachers have written them off as no-hopers. Which creates the self-fulfilling prophecy, living up to the teachers low expectations.

Douglas (1964) found that children placed in a lower stream at age 8 had suffered a decline in IQ by age 11. By contrast middle class pupils are more likely to be placed in a higher stream and improve their IQ and reflect the teacher’s idea of an ideal pupil. As a result middle class gained confidence and a more positive self-esteem, work harder and improve grades.

A to C Economy

Gillborn and Youdell (2001) studied two London secondary schools to show how teachers use stereotypical notions of ability to stream pupils. And they found:

• Teachers are less likely to see working class or black pupils as having ability thus placing them in lower streams and for lower tier exams
• Denying low streams knowledge and opportunities widening the gap of achievement
• They link this to the A to C economy

The A to C economy refers to the marketisation of education and the publishing of exam league tables which meant that schools had to compete to achieve a pass to an A* to be reflected well in the league tables. Now this often meant that schools would focus effort and resources only on the pupils they could help pass rather than those considered too underachieving to gain potential for at least a C.

This led to a process called Educational Triage, similar to a hospital the school categorises students into 3 streams: Those who will pass anyway, those who have no hope of gaining a C, and finally those who are borderline C/D grades.

They would then focus their attention on those with borderline C/D grades in order to improve their exam league table ranking.

However, they often use perceived ability and labels to make these triage streams, so it isn’t meritocratic and often undermines achievement for students of working class or ethnic minority backgrounds (Black, Bangladeshi, etc)

Whilst Gillborn and Youdell make use of interactionist concepts such as teacher labelling and stereotyping in micro-level, face-to-face interactions with pupils. they also put these processes into a broader context. School’s operate within a wider education system whose ‘marketisation’ policies directly affect these micro-level processed to produce social class differences in achievement. These policies include the publication of exam league tables.

Labelling and the Self-fulfilling Prophecy

Labelling is the process of attaching meaning to someone or defining someone even if they aren’t factual based on perceived characteristics regardless of actual ability or merit. With labels such as bright or thick, a troublemaker, lazy or hardworking.

Interactionists are those who study small-scale, face-to-face interactions between individuals like in a playground or classroom and labelling is a process that can present in these types of interactions.

Department of Education (2017) conducted a longitudinal study over 7 years, using questionnaires of 4300 teens across 600 schools in England. In order to find if teacher encouragement gave pupils any educational boosts. They found that you were more likely to be encouraged if you had a positive label (clever, hardworking)

They asked the students if they were encouraged by a teacher to continue on to A-Levels: 74% who did get encouraged carried on to A-Levels compared to 66% of those who did not. Often those who were already positively labelled were being encouraged and increased their performance whilst low achievers were not. Bartlet calls this “cream-skimming” by selecting only the high achieving students in order to get the best results for a subject.

Labelling Research

Secondary Schools

• Becker (1971) studied 60 Chicago high school teachers and interviewed them, based on this he found:
• They judged pupils according to how they fit the ‘ideal pupil’ and working class were labelled as badly-behaved.
• Pupil’s work, conduct and appearance were key factors influencing teacher’s judgements.
• Dunne and Gazeley (2008) interviewed teachers on 9 English state secondary schools and found that:
• They normalised working-class underachievement and we’re unconcerned by it, believing they could not overcome underachievement whereas they believed the middle class could.
• Teacher’s believed working class parents were disinterested in their child’s education but labelled middle class parents we supportive.
• Setting extension work for middle class underachievers, but entering the working class pupils for ‘easier’ exams. Those who break this are considered overachievers.

Primary Schools

In Rist’s (1970) study they found that the teacher labelled students as clowns or tigers

• Hempel-Jorgenson (2009) studied two schools, one mainly working class, the other middle class on differing notion of the ideal pupil.
• In the working class school Aspen, their ideal pupil was one who was quiet, positive and obedient as they had many discipline problems. Focusing on behaviour.
• In the middle class school Rowen, had very few discipline problems and defined the ideal pupil as one who is kind, good personality and academic rather than non-misbehaving.
• Rist (1970) in their study of American kindergartens found:
• The teacher used information on appearance and home background to separate them into different groups/tables.
• The fast-learners labelled as tigers tended to be middle class and were ‘clean’ in appearance seated at the fron of the class with the most encouragement and engagement.
• The other two – clowns and cardinals were placed further away more likely to be working class and given fewer chances and opportunities to learn.

Investigating teacher expectations

• Teachers have a duty of care for their pupils so they may face disciplinary action or damage to their reputation if seen to be unfairly and negatively affecting pupils and therefore likely to conceal from researchers.
• Teachers main form of interaction is classroom interaction and it is relatively easy to study as a small social space however, they can be transmitted in other ways such as streaming, grades and teacher-teacher interactions.
• Heads may be concerned that the research will create the impression the school has a problem of negative teacher expectations.

• Teachers and pupils may be unaware that the teacher expectations are affecting their interactions and performance, so directly questioning them would be ineffective.
• Pupils may also be unwilling to talk about their perceptions of teacher expectations if they fear getting into trouble if the teacher finds out what they have said.

Self-fulfilling Prophecy

The Pygmalion Effect is the original name of the self-fulfilling prophecy derived off a book that first described it.

A self-fulfilling prophecy is a prediction that comes true simply by virtue of having been made. Interactionists argue that teacher labelling can affect underachievement as it creates the self-fulfilling prophecy.

For example:

1. Teacher attributes a positive label to a middle class student such as ‘hardworking’.
2. Teacher than behaves by praising and encouraging them, extending deadlines and giving extension work.
3. The student the internalised the label by working hard to meet expectations and attain success.
4. Lacey may go on to say they would join a pro-school subculture.

Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) conducted a field experiment on Oak School in California, telling them that they had discovered and were conducting a test to find ‘spurters’ (those who would achieve further in achievement) although just a simple IQ test. They randomly picked 20% of the students to be ‘spurters’ and came back a year later.

They found that 47% of the ‘spurters’ had improved with 4 point IQ difference higher improvement than regular students. And found this effect was the greatest in younger children. They concluded that the teachers by knowing of the positive label treated them better and encouraged them thus resulting in an improvement of achievement and therefore the self-fulfilling prophecy.

However, there were many unethical practices in this experiment with 80% of students neglected therefore it was not meritocratic as well as the self-refuting prophecy was not shown whereby pupil try to detach themselves from that label.

Criticisms of Labelling Theory

Labelling theory assumes that those who are labelled have no choice but to accept the prophecy, however this is not true as studies published such as that of Mary Fuller (1984) found that working class black girls in a London school taught themselves outside of school to supercede the expectations of their teachers.

Marxists criticise labelling theory for ignoring the wider structures of power within society which is that labelling occurs within a class hierarchy and this is perpetuated by capitalism, so it isn’t the result of a single teachers prejudices but as of society as a whole due to capitalism. A system which produces class divisions.

Ethnicity: Institutional Racism

Troyna and Williams (1986) argue that ethnic differences in achievement should be explained by examining how schools (and the education system) as a whole routinely, and even unconsciously discriminate against ethnic minorities. Rather than looking at individual teachers’ racism we should distinguish between individual prejudice and institutional racism.

A recent example in the UK of a case that has brought institutional racism to light is the case of Child Q involving a 15 year old girl in Inner London. A teacher had suspected a Black girl was holding drugs and called the police, who then strip-searched the girl including her sanitary towel with no appropriate adult or informing the parents as a result the girl was traumatised and was home-schooled leading to underachievement. In this case there was an admission that institutional racism and stereotyping was involved when targeting and searching the girl, and that this may have been a common occurrence.

BBC News (2018) found that there was a drastic lack of Black teachers in the education system. In the 19 secondary schools in Bristol there were 1346 teachers and out of them only 26 were Black. Meaning only 1.9% of teachers were Black despite 6% of the population in Bristol being Black. This meant that Black pupils felt they were underrepresented in schools and thus could not find role models to look up to and aspire to more professional roles with only 1.2% of trainee teachers coming from Black backgrounds.

Critical Race Theory

Critical Race Theory is the idea that racism is an ingrained feature of society and therefore not the intentional actions of individuals but, more importantly, and element of our institutions (institutional racism). According to the founders of the Black Panther party in the USA, Carmichael and Hamilton (1967), institutional racism is: ‘less overt, more subtle, less identifiable in terms of specific individuals committing acts. It originates in the operation of established and respected forces in society.’

In countries like America where slavery wasn’t abolished until 1865 and it took a further 100 years to remove segregation laws during the civil rights movement in 1964 and 1965. Politicians like Donald Trump banned the teaching of Critical Race Theory as he and many others believed that racism wasn’t an element of America’s institutions despite overwhelming evidence of the opposite. This was overturned by the Biden administration, and CRT is allowed to be taught federally although some states are considering and have put up their own bans.

Roithmayr (2003) argues institutional racism is a ‘locked-in inequality’. The scale of historical discrimination is so large that there no longer needs to be any conscious intent to discriminate as it is self-perpetuating. Gillborn (2008) then applies this concept of locked-in inequality arguing that ethnic inequalities are “so deep rooted and so large that it is a practically inevitable feature of the education system.”

According to critical race theorists, the education system is institutionally racist through five ways:

• Marketisation, selection and segregation: An internal market of education, with schools encouraged to get the best results lest they fall in league table rank.
• Ethnocentric curriculum: A curriculum entirely structured around British White culture and religion.
• Assessment: The way schools assess skill and examinations can fundamentally disadvantage minority ethnic groups.
• Access to opportunities: With minority ethnic groups offered less opportunities to higher education, etc.
• The ‘New IQism’: The use of IQ as a measure of talent and therefore excluding pupils that show ‘no potential’.

Marketisation, Selection, and Segregation

Marketisation is the process of involving elements of supply and demand with state services such as education. With the Education Reform Act 1988 bringing in these neoliberal ideas of competition between schools allowing better innovation and services for pupils and parents in an education market. With this brought new methods of selection such as cream-skimming and silt-shifting which pushed ‘low-performing’ students to the worst schools and ‘high-performing’ students to the ‘best’ schools, legitimising segregation of students by social class, ethnicity, and gender.

Gillborn (1997) argues that because marketisation gives schools more scope to select pupils, it allows negative stereotypes to influence decisions about school admissions (i.e. which pupils are selected and allowed to become a part of the school community.

Moore and Davenport (1990) in America found that these selection procedures led to ethnic segregation, with minority ethnic pupils failing to get into better secondary schools due to discrimination. For example, primary school reports were used to screen out pupils with language difficulties whilst the application process was difficult for non-English speakers to understand. This favoured white pupils and disadvantaged ethnic minorities, with them concluding that selection leads to an ethnically stratified education system.

The Commission for Racial Equality (1993) identified similar biases in the British education system, noting that school admission procedures mean that ethnic minority pupils are more likely to end up in unpopular schools. Identifying four reasons:

• Reports from primary schools stereotyped minority pupils
• Racist bias in interviews for school places.
• Lack of information and application forms in minority languages
• Ethnic minority parents are often unaware of how the waiting list system works and the importance of deadlines.

Ethnocentric Curriculum

Ethnocentric curriculum refers to the biases towards British White culture within the education system and what is taught in schools and includes everything from the subjects/courses offered like modern foreign languages that mainly focuses on European languages as well as hidden curriculum like attitudes of obedience, etc.

In language, literature and music:

• Troyna and Williams (1986) found that there was meagre provision for teaching Asian languages compared with European languages; French, German, Spanish, and not many non-European languages at university.
• David (1993) noted the National Curriculum as ‘specifically British’ that ignores non-European languages, literature and music.

In history:

• Ball (1994) criticises the National Curriculum for ignoring ethnic diversity and promoting ‘little Englandism’. For example, the history curriculum tries to recreate a mythical age of empire and past glory rather than showing Black and Asian history.
• Coard (2005) argues the ethnocentric curriculum leads to underachievement. Such as the use of ‘primitive’ to refer about colonised countries native cultures. This argued ‘inferiority’ can undermine Black children’s self esteem.

However, it is not clear the impact of the ethnocentric curriculum has. For example, while it may ignore Asian culture, Indian and Chinese pupils’ achievement is above the national average. Similarly, Stone (1981) argues that Black children do not in fact suffer from low self-esteem.

Assessment

Gillborn (2008) argues that ‘the assessment game’ is rigged in order to validate the dominant culture’s superiority. Arguing that is Black children succeed as a group, ‘the rules will be changed to re-engineer failure’.

For example, primary schools used ‘baseline assessments’ which tested students before they started compulsory schooling, these were replaced in 2003 with the foundation stage profile (FSP). This overnight showed Black pupil performing worse than White pupils. In one local authority, where Black pupils were performing 20% higher than average, by 2003, were performing worse than White pupils across all 6 developmental categories. Gillborn attributes this to the fact that FSPs are based on teacher’s judgements compared to BAs which were written test as well as the fact FSPs take place at the end of the year. This increased the influence of teacher stereotyping.

Sanders and Horn (1995) found, in their study of GCSE, that more weighting was given to tasks assessed by teachers rather than written exams, the gap between the scores of different ethnic groups widened.

Access to Opportunities

The ‘Gifted and Talented’ programme aimed to meet the needs of more able pupils in inner-city schools. While this might seem to benefit bright pupils, it may actually cause/reproduce inequality; Gillborn (2008) found that White pupils were 2x as likely than Black Caribbeans to be identified as gifted and talented and 5x more likely than Black Africans.

Tikly et al (2006) found in 30 schools in the Aiming High initiative to raise Black Caribbean achievement were still entered for lower tier GCSEs, only getting a grade C at best.

Strand (2012) analysed large scale data from the Longitudinal Study of Young people in England and found that the White-Black achievement gap in maths and science tests at age 14, Black pupils were systematically underrepresented in entry to higher-tier tests suggesting tier tests reflect teachers’ expectations.

The ‘new IQism’

Gillborn argues that teachers and policymakers make false assumptions about the nature of pupils’ ‘ability’ or ‘potential, and refers to this as the new IQism. Where they see potential as a fixed quality that can be easily measured so they can be entered into the ‘right’ exams, and ‘best fitted’ programmes (Gifted and Talented).

Gillborn and Youdell (2001) noted that secondary schools are increasingly using old-style IQ tests to allocate pupils to different streams on entry. Gillborn arguing there is no true measure of potential and all the test can do is tell us what they can do now or have learnt already. Gillborn concludes that education system is institutionally racist creating an environment in which ethnic minority pupils are routinely disadvantaged.

Criticisms of Gillborn

Sewell rejects the view of institutional racism as although he does not believe racism has been eliminated, he argues it is not powerful enough to prevent individual achievement, rather external factors like his study on ‘tough love’ are the real reason.

Other critics point out the overachievement of model minorities which reject the idea of institutional racism. But Gillborn argues that this image of a ‘model minority’ only serves as an ideological function to justify the underachievement of other minorities; as it makes the system seem fair and meritocratic and ignores the fact that Chinese and Indian pupils still face racism and harassment similar to other ethnic minorities.

Ethnicity, Class and Gender

Evans (2006) argues that to fully understand the relationship between ethnicity and achievement, we need to examine how ethnicity interacts with gender and class. For example, she claims that in examining Black children’s achievement, sociologists tend to look at culture and ethnicity, but rarely at social class.

Connolly (1998) conducted a study of 5-6 year olds in a multi-ethnic inner city primary school. And it showed that teachers construct masculinity differently depending on a child’s ethnicity. For example, teachers saw Black boys as disruptive underachievers and controlled them with more punishment and channelling energy into sport. They then sought status in non-academic ways. By contrast, teachers saw Asian boys as passive, conformist, and academic; when they misbehaved, they were seen as immature rather than threatening. Both teachers and pupils saw Asian boys as more ‘feminine’, vulnerable, and in need of protection from bullying.

Ethnicity: Labelling, Identity and Responses

Gillborn and Mirza (2000) found in one local education authority, Black children were the highest achievers, +20% above the local average, but by the time they did their GCSEs they had the worse results of any ethnic group, -21% below the local average.

Similarly, Strand (2010) analysed the entire national cohort of 530,000+ 7-11 year olds showing how many Black pupils fall behind after starting school, finding that Black Caribbean boys not entitled to FSM, especially the more able pupils, made significantly less progress than their white peers

This tells us that there must be something occurring within school that is causing this underachievement rather than external factors, if they are entering education at a much higher achievement level than their peers as well as challenging the idea by cultural deprivation theorists that Black children are unprepared compared to other ethnic groups.

Teacher Labelling and Racism

Gillborn and Youdell (2000) found that teacher were quicker to discipline Black pupils than others for the same behaviour due to racialised expectations; teachers expected Black pupils to present more discipline problems and misinterpreted behaviour as threatening or a challenge to authority. When teachers acted on this, the pupils responded negatively and further conflict arose, Black pupils felt teacher underestimated their ability and picked on them. They conclude the conflict between White teachers and Black pupils stems from the racial stereotypes teachers hold rather than actual behaviour, leading to higher exclusion rates from schools of Black pupils/boys.

They also studied the internal factor is streaming and found that Black pupils were placed in lower streams/sets and triaged into the hopeless cases. Foster (1990) found that teacher’s stereotypes of Black pupils as badly behaved could result in them being placed in lower sets than other pupils of similar ability, and could cause the self-fulfilling prophecy of underachievement.

Bourne (1994) found that schools tend to see Black boys as a threat and label them negatively, leading eventually to exclusion; and being excluded heavily affects achievement, with only a fifth of excluded pupils achieving 5 GCSEs.

Osler (2001) found that where there were higher rates of official exclusions, Black pupils appeared more likely to suffer from unrecorded unofficial exclusions and from internal exclusions (sent out of class). They were also more likely to be placed in pupil referral units that exclude them from the mainstream curriculum.

Asian Pupils

Wright (1992) studied a multi-ethnic primary school and found that Asian pupils can also be victims of teacher labelling. Despite the school’s apparent commitment to diversity, many of the teachers had ethnocentric (bias towards a certain culture/ethnic group) views, prioritising Western culture.

Teachers assumed that they had a poor grasp of English and thus would leave them out of class discussion and using simple, childish language. This further made Asian pupils feel isolated alongside disapproval of customs or mispronunciation of names. Instead of being seen as a threat, they were seen as a problem to be ignored, with Asian pupils especially girls being marginalised, pushed to the edge and prevented from participating fully.

Pupil identities

Archer (2008) found that teachers’ dominant discourse (way of seeing something) defined ethnic minority pupils’ identities as lacking the favoured identity of the ideal pupil, finding pupils were categorised into three pupil identities by this discourse.

Ideal Pupil

• White
• Middle Class
• Masculinised
• Normal sexuality
• Achieving in the ‘right’ way

Pathologised Pupil

• Asian
• ‘deserving poor’
• Feminised
• Oppressed sexuality
• Overachiever, hard work

Demonised Pupil

• Black/White
• Working Class
• Demonised
• Hypersexual
• Unintelligent, peer-led, underachiver

Shain (2003) noted that when Asian girls challenge this stereotype of being quiet, passive and docile by misbehaving, they were often dealt with more severely than other pupils.

Archer argues that even minority pupils that perform successfully can be pathologised. Chinese pupils were simultaneously praised and viewed negatively by teachers. Whilst successful, Chinese students were perceived to be achieving in the ‘wrong‘ way, through passive conformism rather than natural individual ability, so they could never occupy the role of the ideal pupil. This is seen as the ‘negative positive stereotype’. Teachers would stereotype Chinese families as being tight and close, whilst seeing South Asian families as the opposite, overall tending to see Asian families as middle-class.

Pupil Responses

Fuller (1984) studied the self-refuting prophecy and how pupils can reject negative teacher labels. In a London comprehensive she studied Black working-class girls in Year 11 and studying for their GCSEs. Instead of fulfilling the labels their teacher gave them they refuted it and channelled their anger into surpassing the expectations of them. They conformed and went through a form of ritualism at school in order to maintain their social status amongst other Black boys who had an anti-school subculture; but outside of school they worked hard together in order to achieve. Presenting how pupils can reject the education system and still succeed, by realising the value of their own success.

Mac and Ghaill (1992) supported Fuller’s conclusions through their study of Black and Asian A-Level students at a sixth form college. Finding that students who believed teachers labelled them negatively did not accept the label, and how they responded depended on many different factors such as their ethnic group or gender or nature of their previous schools. For example, some girls felt their academic commitment was given by their attendance of an all-girls secondary school and helped them overcome negative labels.

Failed strategies for avoiding racism

Mirza (1992) studied ambitious Black girls who faced teacher racism and found that racist teachers discouraged Black pupils from being ambitious through the kind of advice they gave them about careers and option choices. For example, teachers discouraged them from aspiring to have professional careers, identifying three main types of racism:

• Colour-blind: those who believe all pupils are equal but in practice allow racism to go unchallenged and therefore legitimise the stereotypical views
• Liberal Chauvinists: teachers who believe Black pupils are culturally deprived and have low expectations of them, therefore treating them less academically.
• Overt Racists: teachers who believe Black pupils are inferior and actively discriminate against them.

Most of the time the girls spent was avoiding racist teachers and therefore were selective of which teachers they asked for help, getting on with work without taking part in lessons. and not choosing certain lessons to avoid teachers with racist attitudes. However, with high self-esteem, these strategies put them at a disadvantage by limiting their options.

Boys responses

Sewell focused on the absence of fathers and the influence of peer groups and street culture to explain the underachievement of Black boys, but he also examined the responses that Black pupils chose to cope with teacher racism and identified 4 responses:

• Rebels: most visible and influential group, a minority of pupils.
• They are usually excluded from schools and reject the goals and values of the school. They express opposition through peer group membership, anti-authority, anti-school, ‘Black macho lad’. With the idea of black masculinity being sexual experience, virility; compared to white boys seen as effeminate which they alike to conformist Black boys.
• Conformists: the largest group
• They are keen to succeed, and accept the goals and rules of the school with multi-ethnic friend groups and not being part of subcultures but are anxious to avoid being stereotyped either by teachers of peers.
• Retreatists: a minority of isolated individuals
• They are disconnected from both school and Black subcultures, they are despised by the rebels for keeping a low profile and selling out to the white establishment.
• Innovators: the second largest group
• Similar to Fuller’s girls, they were pro-education but anti-school, seeking success but not the approval of the teachers and school. They distance themselves from conformists in order to maintain social status and credibility.

He shows that actually, only a small minority of boys fit this Black Macho Lad. But teachers tend to see all Black boys this way which contributes to the underachievement of Black boys, and many of the negative attitudes are a response to this racism. Despite this Sewell maintains that external factors play a larger role than internal.

AO3

Labelling theory shows how teachers’ stereotypes can be the cause of failure, rather than blaming a child’s background. However, there is a danger of seeing these stereotypes as isolated individuals of teachers rather than the larger mechanisms they work within. Gillborn and Youdell argue the publishing exam league tables creates an ‘A-C economy’ where Black and WC pupils are low streamed and therefore entered for lower-tier exams. As well as the danger of assuming that once labelled, pupils automatically fall victim to self-fulfilling prophecy rather than being able to get out of the loop.

Ethnicity: Material Deprivation

Palmer (2012) found that:

• Almost half of all ethnic minority children live in low-income households, against a quarter of white children.
• Ethnic minorities are almost 2x more likely to be unemployed compared to white people.
• Ethnic minority households are around 3x more likely to be homeless.
• Almost half of Bangladeshi and Pakistani workers earned £7/h compared to only a quarter of British workers.
• Ethnic minority workers are more likely to be engaged in shift work
• Bangladeshi and Pakistani women are more likely than other to be engaged in low-paid housework.

Ethnic minorities may be at a greater risk of material deprivation that results from unemployment, low pay and overcrowding in housing.

• They may be living in deprived areas with high unemployment and low wage rates.
• Cultural factors like the tradition of purdah in some Muslim households which prevents women from working outside the home.
• A lack of language skills, as well as foreign qualifications not being recognised by UK employers.
• Asylum seekers may not be allowed to work.
• Racial discrimination in the labour and housing market.

Free School Meals compared to percentage of ethnic background students getting into university.

We can measure poverty using free school meals eligibility, Indians whose achievements are generally above average are likely to be from wealthy or better-off backgrounds, they are likely to attend private schools – at twice the rate of white people and 5x black people. Which may explain why Pakistani and Bangladeshi pupils.

Does social class override ethnicity?

The Swann Report (1985) estimated that social class accounts for at least 50% of the difference in achievement between ethnic groups. We may overestimate the effect of cultural deprivation and underestimate the effect of poverty and material deprivation.

However, Indian and Chinese pupils who are materially deprived still do better than most. For example, in 2011, 86% of Chinese girls who received FSMs achieved 5+ higher grade GCSEs, compared with only 65% of white girls who were not receiving FSMs.

Modood (2004) found that while children from low-income families generally did less well, the effects of low income were much less for other ethnic groups than for white pupils.

Racism in Wider Society

Rex (1986) showed how racial discrimination in deprived areas where there were worse schools lead to social exclusion and this actually led to worsening poverty in ethnic minorities. They are found to accept substandard accommodation more than white people of the same social class.

Wood et al (2010) sent closely matched applications to each of almost 1000 job vacancies and used names associated to specific ethnic groups. Only one-sixteenth of ‘ethnic minority’ applications were offered an interview against one-ninth of ‘white’ applicants, explaining why they are likely to face unemployment.

Ethnicity: Cultural Deprivation

Cultural deprivation theory in ethnicity does touch upon the same factors that exist in social class differences in achievement, and are based upon similar ideas.

Intellectual and Linguistics Skills

African American Vernacular English is often used by the online community as well as those in the LGBTQ+ community despite originating in the vernacular speech of Black people in America. This language can often be seen as low-class by the education system

Cultural deprivation theorists argue that many children from low-income Black families lack intellectual stimulation (i.e. toys and books) and lack enriching experiences which makes them poorly equipped for school due to a lack of cognitive skills, reasoning and problem-solving.

Bereiter and Engelmann (1966) argued that the language spoken by low-income Black American families is inadequate for educational success, considered to be ungrammatical, disjointed and incapable of expressing abstract ideas. This is also supported by Bernstein’s (1975) speech codes, specifically the restricted speech code.

There has been concern that children who learn English as an additional language may be held back educationally due to the language barrier. But statistics show that this is generally not a major factor. With 2010 data suggesting a minor difference in achieving 5 A*-C grades passes at GCSE; 55.2% vs 52%. Although this does depend on the year group at which they joined an English school.

Gillborn and Mirza (2000) note that Indian pupils do very well despite often not having English as their first language.

Attitudes and Values

Cultural deprivation theorists cite lack of motivation as the major cause of failure of many Black children, specifically Black Caribbean. Arguing that most children are socialised into the mainstream culture which instils ambition, competitiveness and willingness to make the sacrifices necessary to make long-term goals for educational success. In contrast, some Black pupils are socialised into a subculture which instils fatalistic, ‘live for today’ attitudes that do not value educational success. Linking to Sugarman’s (1970) working-class subculture.

Family Structure and Parental Support

Family Diversity by Ethnicity

Moynihan (1965) argues that because many black families are headed by a lone mother (90% of all lone-parent families are headed by a mother across all ethnic groups), their children are deprived of adequate care due to the financial struggles in absence of Parson’s (1955) instrumental role (breadwinner) which meant black boys lacked an appropriate male role model. They see cultural deprivation as a cycle where children go on to fail in ‘unstable’ families and become inadequate parents themselves.

Murray (1984), a new right sociologist, argues that high rates of lone parenthood and lack of positive male role models lead to underachievement of some ethnic minorities. With Scruton (1986) seeing low achievement from these ethnic minorities as a symptom of lack of integration into or embracement of the mainstream British culture.

Pryce (1979) argues that Asians are higher achievers because their culture is more resistant to racism which gives them a greater sense of self-worth. In contrast, he argues that Black Caribbeans have a less cohesive culture that is less resistant to racism which results in low self-esteem and underachievement. He argues this difference is due to the impact of colonialism on the two ethnic groups with the impact of slavery being culturally devastating for black people, meaning they lost much of their religion, language and family system. By contrast, Asians were able to keep much of their culture and most was not destroyed by colonial rule.

However, this does not mean that Asian people are not susceptible to racism with a rise of stereotyping and discrimination over the COVID-19 pandemic causing more disparity and harm to Asian minorities living in the ‘Western’ sphere of influence. And arguably the often ‘positive’ stereotypes can be damaging especially when they’re considered something that they should live up to when interacting with other ethnic groups.

Sewell: fathers, gangs and culture

Often what Arnot describes as the ultra tough ghetto superstar was inspired by the MTV music channel which included some black artists which were heavily-inspired by this gang imagery.

Sewell (2009) disagrees with Murray’s theory that the absence of fathers as role models leads to black boys underachieving. But rather than the lack of a fatherly nurturing or ‘tough love’ which has firm, fair, respectful and non-abusive discipline, this makes it hard for black boys to overcome emotional and behavioural difficulties of adolescence. And then with the absence of a nurturing father, street gangs of other fatherless boys offer black boys a ‘perverse loyalty and love’ presenting a media-inspired role model of anti-school black masculinity. Which Arnot (2004) describes as the ‘ultra tough ghetto superstar’.

The majority of academically successful black boys felt high anti-school peer pressure from their peers and felt this was the main barrier to their educational success, as they were seen to be selling out to the white establishment. With Sewell arguing we need to talk about how other black boys discourage achievement in their peers, despite the fact they felt this was the greatest barrier to their success. He argues that whilst black boys were looking for role models on MTV, Asian students were clocking up the educational hours.

However, critical race theorists like Gillborn (2008) challenge Sewell as they argue that it is not peer pressure, but institutional racism within the education system itself that produces the failure of many black boys.

Asian Families

Portrait Of Multi-Generation Chinese Family Relaxing In Park Together Smiling To Camera

Sewell (2009) argues that Indian and Chinese pupils do the best due to having supportive families, which he says have an ‘Asian work ethic’ that places a high value on education and working hard to achieve. Driver and Ballard (1981) support this idea, arguing that Asian families often have large extended networks of familial support which garner a pro-school attitude with higher aspirations for their children’s future they are more encouraging and supportive.

Lupton (2004) found that adult authority in Asian families was revered and there was a instilment of respect and authority in the older generations which was similar to how the school hierarchy operates. This meant that disciplinary action and authority were not challenged by Asian pupils when teacher and the education system asked them to follow rules or to commit to tasks with respect to adults ingrained heavily within Asian families.

However, despite high achievement in education some see the Asian family as an obstacle to success. Khan (1979) describes the Asian families as ‘stress ridden’, bound by tradition and with a controlling attitude towards children, especially girls.

White Working-Class Families

Lupton (2004) did a study on working class schools with differing ethnic compositions; 2 mostly white, 1 Pakistani and the last a mixed diversity. They found that in the majority white schools, teachers reported poorer levels of behaviour and discipline despite having fewer children being on free school meals; blaming lower levels of parental support and negative attitudes toward education linking to ideas from Douglas (1964).

In contrast, the majority Pakistani and ethnically diverse schools, the parents saw education as a way up and supported the school’s behaviour policy and educational ethos.

Sutton Trust (2004) found that whilst 80% of 11-16 year olds in ethnic minorities aspired to go to university whilst only 68% of white students did. Similarly McCulloch (2014) survey of 16,000 pupils found that ethnic minority pupils are more likely to aspire to go to university.

Evans (2006) argued that the street culture in White working-class areas can be brutal, this intimidation forces them to become resistant to intimidation by withstanding it as well as intimidating others. This can then play out in the classroom where pupils engage in power games in and out of school. Thus bringing disruption to the classroom and therefore making it harder to succeed.

Criticisms

Driver (1977) criticises cultural deprivation theory for ignoring the positive effects of ethnicity in achievement. Black Caribbean families are far from dysfunctional with strong female role models and independent women which may be the reason why black girls tend to be more successful in education than black boys.

Lawrence (1982) challenges Pryce’s view that Black pupils fail because their culture is weak and they lack self-esteem. She argues that black pupils underachieve not because of low self-esteem but because of institutional racism.

Keddie (1973) sees cultural deprivation theory as a victim blaming explanation and argues ethnic minority children are culturally different not deprived. They underachieve because schools are ethnocentric; biased in favour of White British culture and against minorities.

They offer 2 main alternatives to ethnocentric education:

• Multicultural education: a policy that recognises and values minority ethnic cultures and includes them in the curriculum. For example, in religious education, schools now teach topics of Islam, Judaism and other religions as well as atheists and agnostics. This is because the UK is now more religiously diverse with Christianity not being the only dominant religion.
• Anti-racist education: a policy that challenges the prejudice and discrimination that exists in schools and wider society.

Ethnicity: The Data

Lawson and Garrod (2000) defined ethnicity as: ‘people who share common history, customs and identity, as well as in most cases, language and religion and who see themselves as a distinct unit’

There is a difficulty in operationalising ethnicity, due to the fact that there can be issues in defining ethnic groups such as ‘Asian’ which can refer to a wide variety of cultures, customs, languages and religions. We cannot think of ethnic groups as always being defined by physical features as we may think many ethnic minorities are non-white, there are ethnicities within the ‘White’ grouping, although the majority of minority groups in the UK are non-white.

There are some clear trends throughout the data:

• Chinese pupils tend to do the best performing well across class, gender and SEND against all pupils, with the only disparity being with non-SEND and SEND students which is to be expected.
• Black Caribbean and Gypsy Roma pupils tend to perform the worst, for Gypsy Roma pupils this tends to be due to the disruption to education when moving.
• On average, White and Asian pupils do better than Black pupils.
• There are significant variations between Asians, for example Indians do better than Bangladeshi and Pakistani pupils.
• Among most ethnic groups, girls do better than boys
• Within each ethnic group, middle class children do better than working class, but in some ethnic groups this disparity is low.
• White pupils’ achievements are very close to the national average – which is not surprising considering since whites are far by the largest group (accounting for 80% of all pupils in Britain.
• However, if we look more closely we find major differences amongst the majority white ethnic group: many WC white pupils are actually performing at a lower level than that of other ethnic groups.

White Working-Class Underachievement

BBC News (2021) highlighted the Education Select Committees findings on white working-class (WC) underachievement. The ESC argues white WC pupils have been failed by decades of neglect by England’s education system.

White privilege suggests that white pupils are at an advantage in education but this is the opposite of reality for the poorer WC pupils. Warning that white WC pupils on free school meals (FSM) underachieve from early years in school, at GCSE, A-Levels, and University entry compared to those of other ethnic groups also on FSM.

The report highlighted many reasons as to why white working-class pupils tend to underachieve:

• Poor local jobs market and lack of opportunity
• Lack of community assets and social organisations, poor local services and transport
• Families with “multi-generational poverty”
• Disengaged parents with a poor experience of education

In 2019, 18% of white pupils on FSM achieved a Grade 5 (C+) in English and Maths at GCSE. This is compared to 23% of all pupils on FSM. And of all pupils on FSM, white pupils have the lowest university entry levels, with only 16% of white FSM pupils going to university compared to:

• 59% of Black Africans
• 59% of Bangladeshi
• and 32% of Black Caribbeans

With previous data suggesting the other way round, in 2004, Bangladeshi, Black Caribbean and Pakistani pupils being less likely than White British to have a university degree or equivalent. However, there were still some ethnicities that had more university degrees which were Chinese with 31% having a degree, and Indians with 25% compared to 17% of White British.

The Department for Education (2010) found that only 23% of white boys on FSM gained 5 A*-C grades at GCSE. Similarly Hastings (2006) found white pupils make less progress between 11 and 16 than Black or Asian pupils, with white pupils likely to become the worst performing ethnic group.

Gender: Subject Choice

There still tends to be a pattern of fairly traditional subject choices for boys and girls. In 2013, the most male dominated subjects were Computing, Physics and Further Maths, compared to female which were Sociology, English and Drama. This is also reflected in apprenticeship choices with males preferring IT and Telecoms, and Engineering. And females Health and Social Care, and Childcare.

When there is a choice in the National Curriculum, boys and girls choose differently, such as in DT where boys are more likely to choose resistant materials and girls textiles or food tech. However, at AS and A-Level this significantly increases with a large gendered choice shown in subject choices

Explanations of Gender differences

Gender role socialisation

• Oakley (1973) says that gender role socialisation is the process of learning the behaviour expected of males and females in society
• Norman (1988) found that from an early age in the home, boys and girls are dressed differently, often given different toys and encouraged to take part in different activities.
• Byrne (1979) looked at secondary schools, and found that teachers encourage boys to be tough and show initiative and not to be weak or behave like ‘sissies’. Whereas girls are told to be quiet, helpful, clean, and tidy.
• Murphy and Elwood (1998) found that boys and girls develop different tastes in reading. This shows how they lead to different subject choices. Boys pick a hobby and non-fiction books leading to sciences and maths, whereas girls read stories leading to creative subjects like English and drama.

Browne and Ross (1991) argue gender domains dictate the tasks and activities that are considered ‘for boys’ or ‘for girls’ and are shaped by their experiences and the expectations of adults. E.g. mending a car vs caring for a sick relative. Children are more confident when doing tasks in their gender domain with boys preferring maths or cars and girls food or nurture.

Murphy (1991) found that boys and girls pay attention to different details even when taking part in the same task. Girls focused on how people felt whereas boys focused on the mechanical insides and how it worked. Helping show why boys focus on humanities and arts subjects, and boys choose science

Gendered Subject Images

Kelly (1979) argues that science is seen as a boys’ subject because science teachers tend to be men, Examples used are often boys’ interests like cars, and in science, boys tend to monopolise on apparatus and dominate the laboratory.

Colley (1998) found that computer science is seen as a masculine subject because it works with machines, a part of the male gender domain. The way it is taught is also off-putting to females, with tasks tending to be abstract, and formal with few opportunities for group work (which girls favour)

Leonard (2006) studied how this was presented in single-sex compared to mixed-sex schooling. And found that in single-sex schools, there were fewer gender domains with girls choosing maths and science, and boys choosing creative, or humanities subjects. Girls from single-sex schools also tended to choose male-dominated subjects at university. The Institute of Physics also supported this finding girls in single-sex state schools were 2.4x more likely to take A-Level Physics than those in state schools with perceptions of physics forming outside and inside the classroom e.g. female physicists on television.

Gender identity and peer pressure

Subject choice can be influenced by peer pressure. Other boys and girls may apply pressure to an individual if they disapprove of their choice. For example, boys tend to opt out of music and dance because such activities fall outside of their gender domain and likely to attract a negative response from their peers.

Paechter (1998) found that pupils see sport as mainly male gender domain. Girls have to cope with the ‘sporty’ image as it contradicts the female image and may explain why girls drop out of sport. Dewar (1990) supports this as they found that male students would call girls ‘butch’ or ‘Lesbian’ if they were interested in sport mainly in the US.

In mixed-sex schools, this is true of some science subjects as the Institute of Physics found that “There is something about doing physics as a girl in a mixed setting that is particularly off-putting”. Peer pressure is a powerful influence on gender identity and how pupils see themselves in relation to particular subjects. However, in the absence of the opposite gender, there is a reduction is opposite gender peer pressure which may explain why girls in single-sex schools are more likely to choose traditionally male subjects.

Gendered Career Opportunities

An important reason for differences in subject choice is the fact is that employment is highly gendered; jobs tend to be sex-typed as ‘men’s’ or ‘women’s’. Women’s jobs often involve work similar to that performed by housewives, such as childcare, nursing and domestic work. Women are concentrated in a narrow range of occupations with over a half of all women’s employment falling within only 4 categories: clerical, secretarial, personal services, and cleaning. This sex-typing of occupations affects boys’ and girls’ ideas about what kind of jobs are acceptable or possible. This also helps explain what type of vocational courses are more gender-specific than academic courses.

There is a social class dimension to the choice to go into vocational courses. With working class pupils in particular making decisions about vocational courses based on traditional gender identities. Fuller (2011) studied working class girls, and most of them had ambitions to go into jobs such as childcare or hair and beauty reflecting Bourdieu’s working class habitus.

These ambitions may have arisen through work placements during school, in which they were placed in feminine jobs like nursery nursing and retail work, implicitly steering them towards those types of jobs, and hence the vocational courses they choose.

Barriers to women

Connell (1995) calls the dominance of heterosexual masculine identity and the subordination of female and gay identities – hegemonic masculinity. And finds it clear through a pupils’ experiences at school that they contribute to these male domination of school.

Double Standards

This is when one set of moral standards applies to one group but not the other or is different. Lees (1993) identified a double standard in sexual morality. Whilst boys got to boast about their sexual exploits (lad culture), girls were called slags if they did not have a steady boyfriend or dressed in certain ways. Sexual conquest was approved of and gave boys status through male peers, and were ignored by male teachers. Whereas ‘promiscuity’ among girls attracted negative labels.

Feminists see double standards as an example of a patriarchal ideology that justifies male power and devalues women. Double standards can be seen as a form of social control that reinforces gender inequality by keeping females subordinate to males. Often including victim blaming of rape victims as they were ‘asking for it’ because of what they were wearing.

Verbal Abuse

What Connell (1995) calls ‘a rich vocabulary of abuse’ is one of how dominant gender and sexual identities are reinforced. For example, boys use name-calling to put girls down if they behave or dress in a certain way. Lees (1986)found that boys called girls ‘slags’ or ‘easy‘ if they appeared to be sexually available, and ‘drags’ or ‘frigid’ if they didn’t.

Paechter (1988) sees name-calling as helping to shape gender identity and maintain male power. The use of ‘queer’, ‘gay’ or ‘lezzies’ were ways in which pupils policed each other’s sexual identities. Parker (1996) found that boys were labelled as gay for being friendly with girls or female teachers. both Lees and Paechter note these often have no relation to true sexuality but just to ridicule.

The Male Gaze

Mulvey (1975) coined the term the ‘male gaze’ to refer to how males looked at women. Mac an Ghaill (1997) further elaborated on this to the way male pupils and teachers look girls up and down, seeing them as sexual objects and making judgements about them based on their appearance. It is a form of surveillance through which dominant heterosexual masculinity is enforced and femininity devalued.

The male gaze is also a way boys prove their masculinity to their friends and is combined with constant telling and retelling of sexual conquests. Boys who do not display heterosexuality in this way run the risk of being labelled gay.

Male Peer Groups

Male peer groups also use verbal abuse to reinforce their definitions of masculinity. For example, as studies by Epstein and Willis show, boys in anti-school subcultures often accuse boys who want to do well of being gay or effeminate. Similarly, Mac an Ghaill’s (1994) study of Parnell School examines how peer groups reproduce a range of different class-based masculine gender identities. For example, the working class ‘macho lads’ were dismissive of other working-class boys aspirations calling them ‘dickhead achievers’. By contrast, middle-class ‘real Englishmen’ projected an image of effortless achievement. Redman Mac an Ghaill (1997) found that the dominant definition of masculine identity changes from that of the macho lads in lower school to that of real Englishmen in the sixth form reflecting the middle-class composition of the sixth form.

Female peer groups

Archer has shown how working-class girls gain symbolic capital from their female peers by performing a hyper-heterosexual feminine identity. This involves constructing a glamourous or ‘sexy’ Nike appearance using particular brands and styles. Female peers police this identity and girls risk making themselves unpopular and being called ‘tramps’ if they fail to conform.

Ringrose (2013) did a small study of 13-14-year-old working-class girls’ peer groups in South Wales. They found that being popular was crucial to the girls’ identity. As girls made a transition from a girls’ friendship culture into a heterosexual dating culture they found a tension between an idealised feminine identity (loyalty, non-competitive, friend-based) and a sexualised identity (competing for boys in a dating culture).

Currie et al (2007) argue that whilst relationships with boys can gain symbolic capital it is a high-risk game because girls are forced to perform a balancing act between their two identities. Girls who are too competitive/think themselves better are at risk of slut shaming, and girls who don’t may face frigid shaming. Shaming being a social control device in which pupils police, regulate, and discipline each others’ identities.

Reay (2001) found that girls who went to be successful in education may feel a need to conform to the schools’ ideal feminine pupil identity. Which is asexual, presenting themselves as lacking any interest in boyfriends or popular fashion. This was called the boffin identity and was disliked by the popular peer groups of girls. Francis (2010) found that middle class female boffins may respond in kind by defining other working-class girls as ‘chavs’

Teachers and Discipline

Research shows that teachers also play a part in reinforcing dominant definitions of gender identity. Haywood and Mac an Ghaill (1996) found that male teachers told boys off for ‘behaving like girls’ and teased them when they gained lower marks than girls. Teachers tended to ignore boys’ verbal abuse of girls and even blamed the girls for attracting it.

Askew and Ross (1988) show how male teachers’ behaviour can subtly reinforce messages about gender. For example, male teachers often have a protective attitude towards female colleagues, coming into their classes to ‘rescue’ them by threatening pupils who are being disruptive. However, this reinforces the idea that women cannot cope alone.

Gender: Boys and Achievement

DCSF (2007) argues the gender gap is mainly the result of boys’ poorer literacy and language skills as taught by the family in the home. One reason for this may be that parents spend less time reading to their sons. Another reason may be that it is mothers who do most of the reading to young children, due to their stereotypical expressive, nurturing role (Parsons), and the children, especially boys come to see reading as a feminine activity.

In addition, boys’ leisure pursuits, such as football, do little to help develop their language and communication skills. By contrast, girls tend to have a ‘bedroom culture’ centred on staying in and talking with friends. Poor language and literacy skills are likely to affect boys’ performance across a wide range of subjects. In response to this problem, the government have introduced a range of policies to improve boys’ skills in primary and secondary school.

• Raising Boys Achievement brought in 2003 which involves a range of teaching strategies, including single-sex teaching.
• National Literacy Strategy in 1988 included a focus on improving boys’ reading and involved a daily ‘literacy hour’.
• Reading Champions scheme uses male role models celebrating their own reading interests.
• Playing for Success initiative used football and other sports to boost learning skills and motivation among boys (1997-2011)
• The Dads and Sons campaign in 2002 encouraged fathers to be more involved with their son’s education.

Globalisation and the decline of traditional men’s jobs

Globalisation is the idea that societies are becoming more interconnected around the world due to advancements in technology, leading to western/non-western ideas being shared and increasing diversity. However, due to this, there has been an exportation of manufacturing industries to countries abroad, leading to a decline in manual labour jobs in the UK traditionally held by men.

Mitsos and Browne (1998) claim this decline has led to an ‘identity crisis’ in men with boys believing they have little prospect of a real job, undermining motivation and self-esteem, so they give up on qualifications. However, since this decline was in manual labour roles, which required low to no qualifications, it seems unlikely that this would demotivate boys from getting qualifications.

BBC News (2019) found that the gender attainment gap is particularly profound in literacy, with the proportion of boys receiving top grades 17% lower than girls. They also found that subliminal messaging due to societal expectations is being received by boys early on that English and reading are not for them so some would rather save face than not fail.

Internal Factors

Sewell (2006) argues that boys fall behind in education because it has become ‘feminised’. By this he means that masculine traits such as competitiveness and leadership are not promoted in schools, instead celebrating feminine traits like methodical working and attentiveness. He sees coursework as a major cause of gender inequality and wants to see some coursework replaced with final exams with greater emphasis on outdoor adventure in the classroom.

Male Teachers

Some sociologists argue that a lack of male role models in the home and classroom is said to be a cause of boys’ underachievement, with 1.5 million female-headed lone-parent families in the UK. Only 14% of primary school teachers are male, with YouGov (2007) finding that 39% of 8-11 year old boys have no lessons with a male teacher. 42% of boys argue they’d behave better and work harder with a male teacher. It could be argued that due to the high percentage of female primary school teachers, it has become feminised and boys don’t listen or behave.

BBC News (2010 onwards) found that 1/4 of primary schools have no male teachers with only 48 male teachers in state nurseries (2011). The DfE (2016) later found that 26% of all teachers were male, with 38% of secondary school teachers being male. A programme called Teach First is encouraging more men into the profession due to a lack of male role models for young children.

However, Read (2008) is critical of the claims more male teachers are needed, she identified two types of language or ‘discourse’ that teacher’s used to express criticisms or disapproval of pupils’ work. She studied 51 teachers, 25 male, 26 female.

• A Disciplinarian discourse: the teacher’s authority is made explicit and visible, e.g. shouting, exasperated tone of voice, or sarcasm. Associated with masculine traits.
• A Liberal discourse: authority is implicit and invisible. Child-centred discourse involves ‘pseudo adultification’, whereby the teacher speaks to the pupils as if they were an adult and expects them to be kind, sensible, and respectful to the teacher. Associated with feminine traits.

Teachers preferred disciplinarian discourse to control pupils’ behaviour, no matter their gender. So Read came to two conclusions: the fact more favoured one mode of control disproved the claim that the culture of the school had become feminised; and female teachers using the disciplinarian discourse disproves the claim only male teachers can provide stricter classroom culture for boys to think.

Haase (2008) supports Read’s first conclusion, that because most teachers favoured a ‘masculine’ disciplinarian discourse primary school culture was not feminised. They therefore argue that, although women make up most of the workforce, primary schools are male-dominated/masculinised. For example, although a minority in schools males have a 1/4 chance of becoming headteacher compared to 1/13 for women.

Laddish Subcultures

Some sociologists have argued that the growth in ‘laddish’ subcultures has contributed to boys’ underachievement. Epstein (1998) examined the way masculinity is constructed within the school and found that WC boys were more likely to be bullied, labelled as ‘sissies’, and subjected to homophobic rhetoric if they appear to be ‘swots’. Francis’ (2001) study is supported by this, finding boys were more concerned with being labelled by their peers as swots than failing. This is because working-class subculture, masculinity is equated to manual work and by extension not doing schoolwork; with Epstein noting ‘real boys don’t work’. Increasingly, boys are trying to appear unfeminine and attribute to the lad culture.

Moral panic about boys

Critics of feminism argue that policies to promote girls’ achievement are no longer needed. These critics speak of ‘girl power’, of girls today ‘having it all’ and of women taking men’s jobs. They believe that girls’ success is a result of boys’ disadvantage from these policies.

Ringrose (2013) however, argues these views have led to a moral panic about ‘failing boys’, reflecting a fear that working class boys will become a dangerous, unemployable underclass that threaten social stability. Thus, shifting educational policy to focus on boys. They argue that thus has led to two negative effects:

• By narrowing the equal opportunities policy down simply to ‘failing boys’, it ignores the problem of disadvantaged working class and minority ethnic pupils.
• By narrowing the gender policy down solely to the issue of achievement gaps, it ignores problems faced by girls in school. These include sexual harassment (i.e. lad culture) and bullying, self-esteem, and identity issues, and stereotyped subject choices.

Osler (2006) notes that the focus on underachieving boys has led to a neglect of girls. This is partly because girls disengage more passively than boys who will act out and display ‘laddish’ masculinity attracting the attention of policymakers and teachers. For example, mentoring schemes aimed at reducing school exclusions among Black boys ignore the exclusion among girls which is on the increase. Furthermore, self-exclusion is not included in official rates and hides girls’ disengagement.

Gender, class and ethnicity

It would be wrong to conclude that boys are a ‘lost cause’. Recent data shows that the performance of both sexes has improved considerably in recent years, so although boys are lagging behind girls, they are achieving more today than they did in the past.

McVeigh (2001) highlighted that the similarities in girls’ and boys’ achievement are greater than the differences especially when comparing social class, or ethnicity. For example, the social class gap in achievement is three times wider than the gender gap. As a result, girls and boys of the same social class tend to achieve fairly similar exam results. In any typical year, the gender gap is no greater than 12 percent, in contrast pupils of the same gender but different social class can have a gap of 44%. Showing social class is more important than gender.

Fuller found that Black girls are successful at school because they define their femininity in terms of educational achievement and independence. In contrast, Sewell found that some Black boys underachieve because they define their masculinity in opposition to education which they see as effeminate. Therefore we should consider the interplay of class, gender and ethnicity in underachievement.

Gender: Internal Factors

Equal Opportunities Policies

Feminist ideas have had a major impact on government policy. Policymakers are much more aware of gender issues and teachers are more sensitive to the need to avoid stereotyping. The belief that boys and girls are entitled to the same opportunities is now part of mainstream thinking and it influences educational policies.

GIST and WISE encourage girls to enter male-dominated subjects such as science, engineering and technology with female scientists visiting schools to act as role models with efforts to raise awareness on gender issues and non-sexist career advice. The National Curriculum (1988) removed one source of gender inequality by making boys and girls mostly have to study the same subjects, which was often not the case previously.

Boaler (1998) sees the impact of equal opportunities policies as the key reason for the change in girls’ achievement. Many of the barriers have been removed and schooling has become more meritocratic so that girls, who generally work harder than boys, achieve more.

Positive role models

There has been an increase in the proportion of female teachers and headteachers over the last few years in the UK. For example, in 2012, 71% of headteachers in primary schools were female compared to 50% in 1992. A similar picture can be shown in secondary schools with 37% in 2012 compared to 22% in 1992. These women in senior positions may act as positive role models for girls, showing them that women can achieve positions of importance, and giving non-traditional goals to aim for. Women as teachers are particularly important role models as far as girls’ educational achievement is concerned as to become a qualified teacher the individual must undertake a lengthy and successful education herself, e.g. A-Levels, undergraduate degrees, and teacher training (PGCE).

GCSE and Coursework

Some sociologists have argued that changes in the way pupils are assessed have favoured girls and disadvantaged boys:

• Gorard (2005) found that the gender gap in achievement was fairly constant from 1975-1989. But increased significantly in 1989 when GCSE was introduced bringing coursework as a major part in nearly all subjects. The gender gap is a product of a changed system of assessment.
• Mitsos and Browne (1998) argued some factors enabled girls to be more successful in coursework, they were: girls spend more time on their work; they take longer on presentation; girls are better at meeting deadlines; and they bring the right equipment and materials to lessons.

Along with GCSE came the greater use of oral (verbal) exams; this is also said to benefit girls due to their generally better-developed language skills e.g. their use of the elaborated speech code (Bernstein). Sociologists argue this is the result of early role socialisation in the family. Such as girls being encouraged to be neat and patient.

Elwood (2005) argued although coursework has some influence, it is unlikely to be the only cause of the gender gap. Exams have a greater influence on final grades than coursework, therefore not explaining the wider achievement gap.

Teacher attention

French (1993) analysed classroom interaction via observations and found that boys received more attention because they attracted more reprimands (being told off more or shown more signs of disapproval.

Francis (2001) found that boys received more attention but were disciplined more harshly and felt picked on by teachers, who tended to have lower expectations of them.

Swann (1998) found that gender differences in communication style were a main factor in achievement; boys dominate in whole class discussions, whereas girls prefer pair-work and groupwork, making them better at listening and cooperating. Girls took turns speaking without hostile interruptions as characterised by boys.

This may explain why teachers respond more positively girls (as they see them as cooperative) than to boys (as they see them as potentially disruptive). This may lead to the halo effect or a self-fulfilling prophecy in which successful interactions with teachers promote girls’ self-esteem and raise their achievement levels.

Challenging stereotypes in curriculum

Processed with VSCO with c1 preset

Some sociologists argue that the removal of gender stereotypes from textbooks, reading schemes, and other learning materials in recent years has removed a barrier to girls’ achievement. Research in the 1970s and 80s found that reading schemes portrayed women mainly as housewives and mothers, that physics books showed them as frightened by science and that maths books depicted boys as more inventive. Weiner (1995) argues that since the 1980s, teachers have challenged such stereotypes. In general, sexist images have been removed from learning materials which may have helped to raise girls’ achievement by presenting them with more positive images of what women can do.

BBC News (2021) found that calling girls ‘sweeties’ and boys ‘mate’ perpetuates gender stereotypes. The curriculum and language used reinforce ideas of how girls and boys should behave or look; this is seen a lot in books. They argue that schools should actively challenge gender stereotypes from an early age before they become ingrained. If this happens it will lead to an improvement in other areas like encouraging more girls to study STEM subjects, improve boys reading skills, and increase children’s wellbeing. Despite improvement since the 1980s however, there is still an issue with gender stereotypes.

Selection and League Tables

Marketisation policies have created a more competitive climate in which schools see girls as desirable recruits because they get better exam results. Jackson (1998) highlights that the introduction of exam league tables has improved opportunities for girls; high-achieving girls are attracted to schools whereas low-achieving boys are not. This tends to create a self-fulfilling prophecy – because girls are more likely to get recruited by ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ schools (as rated by Ofsted), they are more likely to do well.

Slee (1998) argues that boys are less attractive to schools because they are more likely to suffer from behavioural difficulties and are 4 times more likely to be excluded than girls. As a result, boys may be seen as ‘liability’ students – i.e. they are seen as obstacles to the school improving its league table score. They give the school a ‘rough, tough’ image that deters high-achieving girls from selecting and applying to that school.

A03: Feminism

• Liberal Feminists:
• Celebrate the progress made so far, believing that continuing development of equal opportunity will lead to further progress.
• Similar to functionalist view that education is a meritocracy where all individuals are given an equal chance to succeed.
• Radical Feminists:
• They are more critical of the education system, arguing it is patriarchal conveying it is still a man’s world.
• There is still sexual harassment of girls in school: upskirting, double standards, male gaze.
• Education still limits girls’ subject choices and career options, and although more female head teachers exist; male teachers are still more likely to become secondary school head teachers.
• Women are underrepresented in many areas with their contribution to history ignored. Weiner (1993) describes the secondary school history curriculum as a ‘women-free’ zone.

Identity and Class

Vicky Pollard, a WC female identity stereotype

Archer et al (2010) argued that one reason for the social class difference in girls’ achievement is the conflict between working-class feminine identities and the ethos/middle-class habitus of the school.

Working class feminine identities allowed them to gain symbolic capital from their peers; this conflicted with school values preventing the girls rom acquiring educational capital and therefore economic capital. Several strategies were created to allow a valued sense of self.

• Hyper-heterosexual feminine identities:
• Spending considerable time and effort and money constructing desirable glamourous identities. E.g. a girl spends her entire £40/week on her appearance on Black urban American styles of unisex sportswear, ‘sexy’ clothes, makeup and hairstyles.
• This is done to avoid being called a tramp or being ridiculed for not fitting in. The style however, clashes with the school dress code, so teachers see it as a pre-occupation and a distraction. Leading to the school othering the girls and seeing them as incapable of educational success and thus unworthy of respect (symbolic violence).
• Archer argues the ‘ideal female pupil’ is desexualised and middle class, excluding many working-class girls.
• Boyfriends:
• They bought symbolic capital, however it got in the way of schoolwork and lowered their aspirations into male subjects such as science or professional careers.
• They wanted to settle down, have children, with working-class feminine jobs like in childcare. With one girl having to drop out after becoming pregnant.
• Being Loud:
• Outspoken, independent, and assertive they questioned the teacher’s authority, therefore not conforming to the ideal female pupil being passive and submissive.
• They conflicted with teachers as they interpreted their behaviour as aggressive rather than assertive.

Working-class girls had to choose between symbolic capital from their peers with hyper-heterosexual feminine identities or gaining educational capital by rejecting their working-class identity and conforming to the school’s middle-class habitus.

Successful WC girls

Evans (2009) did a study of 21 working-class sixth form girls in South London finding that the girls wanted to go to university, but not for themselves, rather to help their families. ‘The one thing I want to do is give back to my family really, that’s the most important thing to me and helping my nan and all’

Skeggs (1997) notes that ‘caring’ is a crucial part of this identity with economic necessity as another reason. Fear of getting into debt, so they lived at home and chose local universities to make it more affordable. Archer showing a hyper-heterosexual feminine identity putting working-class pupils at odds with the school.

Evans showed that ‘successful’ working-class girls have a desire to be caring and live at home, excluding themselves from elite universities and putting a limit on their success.

Gender: Internal Factors

Equal Opportunities Policies

Feminist ideas have had a major impact on government policy. Policymakers are much more aware of gender issues and teachers are more sensitive to the need to avoid stereotyping. The belief that boys and girls are entitled to the same opportunities is now part of mainstream thinking and it influences educational policies.

GIST and WISE encourage girls to enter male-dominated subjects such as science, engineering and technology with female scientists visiting schools to act as role models with efforts to raise awareness on gender issues and non-sexist career advice. The National Curriculum (1988) removed one source of gender inequality by making boys and girls mostly have to study the same subjects, which was often not the case previously.

Boaler (1998) sees the impact of equal opportunities policies as the key reason for the change in girls’ achievement. Many of the barriers have been removed and schooling has become more meritocratic so that girls, who generally work harder than boys, achieve more.

Positive role models

There has been an increase in the proportion of female teachers and headteachers over the last few years in the UK. For example, in 2012, 71% of headteachers in primary schools were female compared to 50% in 1992. A similar picture can be shown in secondary schools with 37% in 2012 compared to 22% in 1992. These women in senior positions may act as positive role models for girls, showing them that women can achieve positions of importance, and giving non-traditional goals to aim for. Women as teachers are particularly important role models as far as girls’ educational achievement is concerned as to become a qualified teacher the individual must undertake a lengthy and successful education herself, e.g. A-Levels, undergraduate degrees, and teacher training (PGCE).

GCSE and Coursework

Some sociologists have argued that changes in the way pupils are assessed have favoured girls and disadvantaged boys:

• Gorard (2005) found that the gender gap in achievement was fairly constant from 1975-1989. But increased significantly in 1989 when GCSE was introduced bringing coursework as a major part in nearly all subjects. The gender gap is a product of a changed system of assessment.
• Mitsos and Browne (1998) argued some factors enabled girls to be more successful in coursework, they were: girls spend more time on their work; they take longer on presentation; girls are better at meeting deadlines; and they bring the right equipment and materials to lessons.

Along with GCSE came the greater use of oral (verbal) exams; this is also said to benefit girls due to their generally better-developed language skills e.g. their use of the elaborated speech code (Bernstein). Sociologists argue this is the result of early role socialisation in the family. Such as girls being encouraged to be neat and patient.

Elwood (2005) argued although coursework has some influence, it is unlikely to be the only cause of the gender gap. Exams have a greater influence on final grades than coursework, therefore not explaining the wider achievement gap.

Teacher attention

French (1993) analysed classroom interaction via observations and found that boys received more attention because they attracted more reprimands (being told off more or shown more signs of disapproval.

Francis (2001) found that boys received more attention but were disciplined more harshly and felt picked on by teachers, who tended to have lower expectations of them.

Swann (1998) found that gender differences in communication style were a main factor in achievement; boys dominate in whole class discussions, whereas girls prefer pair-work and groupwork, making them better at listening and cooperating. Girls took turns speaking without hostile interruptions as characterised by boys.

This may explain why teachers respond more positively girls (as they see them as cooperative) than to boys (as they see them as potentially disruptive). This may lead to the halo effect or a self-fulfilling prophecy in which successful interactions with teachers promote girls’ self-esteem and raise their achievement levels.

Challenging stereotypes in curriculum

Processed with VSCO with c1 preset

Some sociologists argue that the removal of gender stereotypes from textbooks, reading schemes, and other learning materials in recent years has removed a barrier to girls’ achievement. Research in the 1970s and 80s found that reading schemes portrayed women mainly as housewives and mothers, that physics books showed them as frightened by science and that maths books depicted boys as more inventive. Weiner (1995) argues that since the 1980s, teachers have challenged such stereotypes. In general, sexist images have been removed from learning materials which may have helped to raise girls’ achievement by presenting them with more positive images of what women can do.

BBC News (2021) found that calling girls ‘sweeties’ and boys ‘mate’ perpetuates gender stereotypes. The curriculum and language used reinforce ideas of how girls and boys should behave or look; this is seen a lot in books. They argue that schools should actively challenge gender stereotypes from an early age before they become ingrained. If this happens it will lead to an improvement in other areas like encouraging more girls to study STEM subjects, improve boys reading skills, and increase children’s wellbeing. Despite improvement since the 1980s however, there is still an issue with gender stereotypes.

Selection and League Tables

Marketisation policies have created a more competitive climate in which schools see girls as desirable recruits because they get better exam results. Jackson (1998) highlights that the introduction of exam league tables has improved opportunities for girls; high-achieving girls are attracted to schools whereas low-achieving boys are not. This tends to create a self-fulfilling prophecy – because girls are more likely to get recruited by ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ schools (as rated by Ofsted), they are more likely to do well.

Slee (1998) argues that boys are less attractive to schools because they are more likely to suffer from behavioural difficulties and are 4 times more likely to be excluded than girls. As a result, boys may be seen as ‘liability’ students – i.e. they are seen as obstacles to the school improving its league table score. They give the school a ‘rough, tough’ image that deters high-achieving girls from selecting and applying to that school.

A03: Feminism

• Liberal Feminists:
• Celebrate the progress made so far, believing that continuing development of equal opportunity will lead to further progress.
• Similar to functionalist view that education is a meritocracy where all individuals are given an equal chance to succeed.
• Radical Feminists:
• They are more critical of the education system, arguing it is patriarchal conveying it is still a man’s world.
• There is still sexual harassment of girls in school: upskirting, double standards, male gaze.
• Education still limits girls’ subject choices and career options, and although more female head teachers exist; male teachers are still more likely to become secondary school head teachers.
• Women are underrepresented in many areas with their contribution to history ignored. Weiner (1993) describes the secondary school history curriculum as a ‘women-free’ zone.

Identity and Class

Vicky Pollard, a WC female identity stereotype

Archer et al (2010) argued that one reason for the social class difference in girls’ achievement is the conflict between working-class feminine identities and the ethos/middle-class habitus of the school.

Working class feminine identities allowed them to gain symbolic capital from their peers; this conflicted with school values preventing the girls rom acquiring educational capital and therefore economic capital. Several strategies were created to allow a valued sense of self.

• Hyper-heterosexual feminine identities:
• Spending considerable time and effort and money constructing desirable glamourous identities. E.g. a girl spends her entire £40/week on her appearance on Black urban American styles of unisex sportswear, ‘sexy’ clothes, makeup and hairstyles.
• This is done to avoid being called a tramp or being ridiculed for not fitting in. The style however, clashes with the school dress code, so teachers see it as a pre-occupation and a distraction. Leading to the school othering the girls and seeing them as incapable of educational success and thus unworthy of respect (symbolic violence).
• Archer argues the ‘ideal female pupil’ is desexualised and middle class, excluding many working-class girls.
• Boyfriends:
• They bought symbolic capital, however it got in the way of schoolwork and lowered their aspirations into male subjects such as science or professional careers.
• They wanted to settle down, have children, with working-class feminine jobs like in childcare. With one girl having to drop out after becoming pregnant.
• Being Loud:
• Outspoken, independent, and assertive they questioned the teacher’s authority, therefore not conforming to the ideal female pupil being passive and submissive.
• They conflicted with teachers as they interpreted their behaviour as aggressive rather than assertive.

Working-class girls had to choose between symbolic capital from their peers with hyper-heterosexual feminine identities or gaining educational capital by rejecting their working-class identity and conforming to the school’s middle-class habitus.

Successful WC girls

Evans (2009) did a study of 21 working-class sixth form girls in South London finding that the girls wanted to go to university, but not for themselves, rather to help their families. ‘The one thing I want to do is give back to my family really, that’s the most important thing to me and helping my nan and all’

Skeggs (1997) notes that ‘caring’ is a crucial part of this identity with economic necessity as another reason. Fear of getting into debt, so they lived at home and chose local universities to make it more affordable. Archer showing a hyper-heterosexual feminine identity putting working-class pupils at odds with the school.

Evans showed that ‘successful’ working-class girls have a desire to be caring and live at home, excluding themselves from elite universities and putting a limit on their success.

Gender: External Factors

Individualisation Thesis sociologists such as Beck and Giddens argue that traditional gender roles and positions have declined over time. With Beck noting that in the past women had a standard biography that followed their life e.g. get married, have children. But today we’ve moved to a type of ‘DIY’ biography where we choose the path we want to take with less stigma attached to it.

Impact of Feminism

Feminism is the social movement that strives for gender equality and equal rights for women in all areas of life. Since the 1960s, the feminist movement has challenged the traditional stereotype of a woman’s role as solely that of a mother and housewife in a patriarchal nuclear family (Parson’s expressive role) and as inferior to men outside the home – in work, education, and the law.

Although feminists argue that we have not reached true equality between genders, it has still had considerable success in improving women’s rights and opportunities through changes in the law. Raising women’s expectations and self-esteem. With the removal of the expectation for women to be a mother or housewife, but rather what they decide they want to be. Some examples of law changes are the Abortion Reform Act and Divorce Reform Act in 1969, the Equal Pay Act of 1970, and the Sex Discrimination Act of 1975.

This was reflected partly in media images and messages with encouragement to better girls’ self-image and ambitions with regard to their family and careers. In turn, this may explain improvements to their educational achievement as they allow themselves to be career focused.

Sharpe (1994) did a longitudinal study of girls’ priorities finding girls in 1976 has a priority from most to least of love, marriage, husband, children and then possibly a career. But when done again in 1994 she found it was career, independence, then a relationship.

McRobbie (1994) studied magazines such as Jackie in the 1970s, and found they emphasised the importance of getting married and ‘not being left on the shelf’. Whereas nowadays priorities have changed and women are faced with more positive role models (assertive and independent) within the media.

Changes in the Family

There has been an increase in the divorce rate (42%, 2018), cohabitation, and a decrease in the number of first marriages. There has also been an increase in the number of lone-parent families which are 90% female, with families getting smaller to an average of 2 children.

Female-headed lone-parent families have a strong female role model, as they are the breadwinner, showing to girls that they can become independent with well-paid jobs. Divorce rate increases may suggest to girls that it is unwise to rely on a husband to be their provider; again, encouraging girls to get better qualifications and well-paid jobs to make a living.

Changes in women’s employment

In 1970, the Equal Pay Act made it illegal to pay women less than men for work of equal value and the 1975 Sex Discrimination Act outlawed discrimination at work. Since 1975 the pay gap has decreased from 30% to 15% with the proportion of women in employment rising from 53% in 1971 to 67% in 2013. The growth of the service sector and flexible part-time working has offered opportunities to women.

Some women are now breaking through the ‘glass ceiling’ – the invisible barrier that keeps them out of high-level professional and managerial roles. This has encouraged girls to see their futures in terms of paid work rather than as housewives with greater career opportunities for women. However, despite this legislation, the gender pay gap continues to exist and disadvantage women (BBC News, 2021).

Francis (2001) found through interviews with girls, that females have become a lot more ambitious and aim for ‘high professions’ such as a doctor, or solicitor.

Girls’ changing ambitions

Sharpe (1994) interviewed girls in the 1970s and 1990s showing a major shift in the way girls see their future. In 1974 girls had low aspirations, seeing educational success as unfeminine and ambition as unattractive. Prioritising Love, a husband, and children above a career. But in the 1990s she found girls had become more aspirational, they prioritised a career and education over getting married or children. They saw themselves to be independent and not to be reliant on a husband.

O’Connor (2006) supported Sharpe and found that 14-17yr old girls did not have a marriage or children as a major part of their life plan.

Beck and Beck-Gernsheim (2001) linked this to a trend towards individualisation in modern society, with independence more strongly valued than in the past. Women valued careers projecting strong recognition and economic self-sufficiency. And in order to achieve this self-sufficiency, many girls now recognise they need to have a good education, with Fuller’s (2011) study finding educational success was a central aspect of their identity, seeing themselves as creators of their own future with an individualised notion of self. With a belief in meritocracy aiming for a professional career to support themself.

However, there are social class differences in how far a girl’s ambition has changed with some working-class girls still having stereotyped aspirations towards marriage and children, and expect to go into traditional low paid women’s work. Reay (1998) argues these limited aspirations, reflect the limited job opportunities they perceive as available to them. By contrast traditional gender identities like a couple is attainable and girls strive towards it.

Biggart (2002) working-class girls are more likely to face a precarious position in the labour market and to see motherhood as the only viable option for their futures. Thus seeing less point in achieving well in education. E.g. Most low-aspiring working-class girls in Fuller’s study were not interested in staying on at school and expressed a desire for low-level jobs.

Gender: The Data

1. On starting school: (2013) At the end of year one, girls are ahead of boys by between 7 and 17% in all 7 areas of learning (literacy, language, maths, and personal, social and emotional development). With the Department for Education finding in state primary schools boys were 2 and a half times more likely to have special educational needs or disability (SEND).
2. Key stages 1 to 3: Girls consistently do better than boys, especially in English where it suddenly widens. Although narrower in science and maths the gender gap still exists
3. GCSE: The gender gap stands at around 10%
4. A-Level: Girls are more likely to sit, pass, and get higher grades than boys, though it is much narrower at GCSE. (2013) 46.8% of girls gained A or B grades, but only 42.2% of boys did. Even so-called ‘boys’ subjects like maths of physics, girls were more likely than boys to get grades A-C.
5. Vocational courses: These are for preparing students for a career, but still show a similar pattern. With a larger number of girls achieving a distinction in every subject including engineering and construction; where girls are a minority but still do better.

BBC (2020) found that girls are now 14% more likely to pass English and Maths GCSE than boys with a girl born in 2020 being 75% more likely to go to university than her male peers. There is also a relatively large gender gap in the English Baccalaureate with girls one and a half time more likely to pass all parts, with 28% of females passing all subjects and 18% of males passing all subjects.

Feminist Perspective of Education

Feminists agree that education performs an ideological function transmitting patriarchal values and the continuation of the oppression of women. Heaton and Lawson (1996) argue that the hidden curriculum taught patriarchal values in schools, noting traditional family structures in textbooks (gender stereotypes, gender-specific subjects, and division of labour in schools such as female arts teachers and male PE teachers).

Liberal feminists point out that there have been significant strides towards female equality in the education system, with the removal of the tripartite system allowing girls to enter school without requiring a higher 11+ score than boys. Girls also perform better than boys in the education system statistically, thus showing that the education system has become a better environment for learning for girls. However, Stanworth (1983) notes there are still higher expectations of boys and teachers are more likely to recommend boys to apply for higher education than girls at the same academic level.

Laws like the Equal Pay Act (1970) and the Sex Discrimination Act (1976) have improved job prospects for women and allowed them to access professional roles. This has created more role models for girls to aspire to and unlocked career opportunities. Although the glass ceiling and gender pay gap are argued to still exist and restrict the promotion of women to top managerial roles in companies.

Radical Feminists argue that the education system is still fundamentally patriarchal and continues to marginalise and oppress women. It does this by reinforcing patriarchal ideology through the formal and hidden curriculum as well as the normalisation of the oppression of women. Banyard (2011) discovered that sexual harassment in education is not treated as seriously as other forms of bullying, with girls being most likely to experience sexual harassment in school (male gaze, etc).

Intersectional/difference feminists point out that not all girls have the same experience in education and that minority-ethnic girls are often victims of specific stereotyping and assumptions. For example, teachers might assume that Muslim girls have different aspirations about careers and families from their peers. On the other hand, they may be seen as incapable or oppressed by their family and therefore may be given different advice from White British girls. Furthermore, racism can often undermine girls’ educational experience, making them feel devalued.

Marxist Perspective on Education

Marxism was started by Karl Marx (1818-1883) who described capitalism as a two-class system:

• The capitalist class (bourgeoisie), a minority who owned the means of production (factories, businesses, and land) and made profits by exploiting the labour of the working-class by paying them poorly for unsatisfying work.
• The working class (proletariat), a majority who are forced to sell their labour to the bourgeoisie, exploited they sell their labour and then buy back what they have made.

He argues that this leads to an alienation of the working class, where they are socially isolated, lacking the power to take control of their life/realise their true potential. This creates the potential for class conflict if they realise they are being exploited, Ultimately Marx believes at some point they will overthrow the capitalist system to create a classless, equal society. But the state tries to prevent this by using the education system to ensure the proletariat are controlled, and subdued.

Ideological State Apparatus

Althusser (1971) sees the state as how the capitalist ruling class maintain their dominant position. According to Althusser, the state consists of two elements or ‘apparatuses’, both of which serve to keep the bourgeoisie in power. The repressive state apparatuses maintain the rule of the bourgeoisie by force or threat of force such as the courts, police, and physical coercion to repress the working class. Whereas ideological state apparatuses maintain rule by controlling ideas, values and beliefs like religion, media, and education system.

In Althusser’s view, the education system is an important ISA as it performs two functions:

• It reproduces class inequality by transmitting it from generation to generation, by failing each successive generation of working-class pupils in turn.
• It legitimises class inequality by producing ideologies that disguise the true cause of inequality. It persuades workers to accept inequality is inevitable and they deserve to be subordinate as school is ‘meritocratic’ so they are less likely to challenge or threaten capitalism.

Cotton, Winter and Bailey (2013) found that schools place the highest value on efficiency and value for money, reflecting neoliberal policies. This gives a message to students that hard work and increased responsibility will meet them in this competitive world.

Bowles and Gintis

Bowles and Gintis (1976) argue that capitalism requires a workforce with attitudes, behaviour, and a personality type suited for the role of a subordinate worker; willing to be exploited, alienated, accept hard work/orders, and low pay. In their view the role of the education system is to reproduce an obedient workforce that will accept inequality as inevitable. They found from their study of 237 New York high school students that schools rewarded personality traits best for a submissive, compliant worker. Independent or creative minds were given low grades, whilst obedient and disciplined students gained high grades.

They argue that there are many similarities between work and school in a capitalist society:

• Both give rewards to ‘satisfy/justify’ the work; grades or pay.
• They both have hierarchies i.e. Headteacher/CEO, Teacher/Manager, Pupil/Worker.
• They emulate the lack of control you have over what work you do, such as the national curriculum or projects.
• Work is divided into different areas; subjects or tasks
• There is competition between workers/pupils such as for grades, streams, pay or promotions/titles.

Referring to these similarities as the correspondence principle whereby school mirrors work (hidden curriculum), with school taking place in the long shadow of work’ and ‘lessons’ being learned indirectly such as accepting the hierarchy. However, Cohen (1984) argues that youth training schools serve capitalism by teaching young pupils not genuine job skills but abilities for a subordinate labour force. Lowering aspirations to accept low-paid work.

Myth of Meritocracy

As capitalist society is based on inequality and exploitation, there is a danger that the poor will feel that this inequality is unfair and they will rebel against the system responsible for it. In Bowles and Gintis’ view the education system helps prevent this by legitimising working class inequality as fair, natural and inevitable, describing at a ‘giant myth-making machine’. A key myth is the ‘myth of meritocracy’, which means that everyone has an equal opportunity to achieve and that those who deserve it will get rewards as they are the most able and hard-working.

And unlike Functionalists, Bowles and Gintis argue that meritocracy does not exist, there is ample evidence that the main factor in achievement is social class not ability or talent. By disguising this fact, the myth of meritocracy serves to justify the privileges of the rich as they got qualifications ‘fair and square’. This therefore plays an important role in subduing any ideas that the inequality is unfair and perpetuates the ‘the poor are dumb’ argument.

Rejecting indoctrination

Willis’ (1977) study showed that working-class pupils can resist attempts to indoctrinate them. In his study, he used qualitative research methods such as participant observation and unstructured interviews whilst studying the counter culture of 12 working-class boys during the transition from school to work (‘the lads’).

He found that the boys’ distinct counter-culture opposed the school as they found school boring and meaningless, flaunting rules and values e.g. smoking and drinking, truanting, or disrupting classes. They were scornful of conformists (ear’oles). They had their brand of inflammatory humour ‘taking the piss’ out of the ear’oles and girls. They also rejected the con of the school’s meritocratic ideology that working-class pupils can achieve middle-class jobs through hard work.

He noticed a similarity between the lads’ anti-school counter-culture and the shopfloor culture of male manual workers; they both saw manual work as superior and intellectual work as effeminate or inferior, with themselves as superior to girls or effeminate ear’oles. However, their culture of resistance led to inferior skills, low pay, and poor-condition jobs.

Being accustomed to boredom and finding ways to amuse themselves meant they did not expect work satisfaction, and consequently found distractions to cope with the tedium of unskilled labour allowing themselves to be exploited. Rebellion also guarantees them to end up in low-paid jobs as they have no worthwhile qualifications.

Criticisms of the Marxist Perspective

Postmodernists criticise the idea that education plays an ideological status apparatus on the principle that in a post-Fordist economy, the skills required in the labour force and that schools must teach are very different to those described in Bowles and Gintis’ correspondence principle (factory/assembly lines).

As a result, postmodernists argue that the Marxists’ view of education is outdated (lacks temporal validity) as they claim that society has entered a postmodern phase where social class divisions are no longer important. Society is more diverse and fragmented, and the economy is now based on ‘flexible specialisation’ where production is customised for small specialist markets. They require a skilled, adaptable workforce able to use advanced technology. Post-Fordism calls for a different kind of education system that encourages self-motivation, creativity and life-long training due to the rapid technological advancements making existing skills obsolete quickly. So they argue that the education system reproduces diversity, meeting individual needs rather than inequality.

Another issue is that Marxists themselves disagree with each other about how the reproduction and legitimisation of social class inequality take place. Therefore it suggests that Marxism as a perspective lacks the concept of a paradigm; which is necessary to gain scientific status. Bowles and Gintis take a deterministic view as they assume pupils have no free will and passively accept indoctrination but fail to explain why some pupils reject this. Willis rejects the view that school simply ‘brainwashes’ pupils into accepting their fate. But some criticise Willis’ account of the ‘lads’ as they argue it romanticises them, portraying them as working-class heroes despite their anti-social behaviour and sexist attitudes, with his study being of only 12 WC boys it is unlikely to be representative and generalisable.

Critical modernists such as Morrow and Torres (1998) criticise Marxists for taking a ‘class first’ approach that sees social class as the key inequality and ignores other kinds. Instead, like postmodernists, they argue society is now more diverse and they see non-class inequalities, such as ethnicity, gender and sexuality as equally important. They argue sociologists must explain how the education system reproduces all these inequalities and how they intersect.

Similarly, Feminists like Macdonald (1980) argue that Bowles and Gintis’ view ignores the fact that schools reproduce not only capitalism but patriarchy too. McRobbie (1978) also points out that females are largely absent from Willis’ study, but it is argued their research has stimulated a greater deal of research into how school’s reproduce and legitimise other inequalities.

Neoliberalism and the New Right Perspective on Education

Neoliberalism is an economic doctrine that has had a major influence on education policy. Neoliberals argue that the state should not provide services such as education, health, and welfare. Their ideas have influenced all governments since 1979 – whether Conservative, Labour or Coalition.

They rely on meritocratic principles arguing that competition, consumer choice, and privatisation make the most efficient economies, leading to the marketisation of education. They argue that individuals are consumers, free to make choices and live with the consequences of companies competing and innovating to provide the best product for the consumer. We can see this in education through open enrolment, subject choice, and league table rankings.

The New Right

The New Right is a conservative, traditional, political view that incorporates neoliberal economic ideas, with a central principle of the New Right thinking is the belief that the state cannot meet people’s needs and that people are best to fend for themselves in the free market. For this, they favour the marketisation of education (1988, Education Reform Act under Margaret Thatcher (Conservative))

Similar to Functionalists they both believe that some people are more naturally talented; both favour meritocratic, competition-based education systems; and both also believe that education should socialise pupils into shared values such as competition and instil a sense of nationality. But one key difference is that the New Right believe the education system is not meeting these goals.

The New Right argue that the state education system is failing because:

• It takes a ‘one size fits all’ approach therefore having lower standards to ensure more pupils can succeed.
• It is too uniform and disregards specific needs that could be solved leading them to have an inefficient, money-wasting system that is not tailored.
• It is unresponsive to change, usually taking a long time to bring qualifications and training for new industries leading to a less qualified workforce and therefore less prosperous economy.

They argue that by creating an education market we can solve all these problems, as it encourages competition between schools fostering greater diversity amongst schools and efficiency for pupils to have their needs met.

Consumer Choice

Chubb and Moe (1990) argue that state-run education has failed in the US as it has not created equal opportunities, failed to meet the needs of disadvantaged groups and is inefficient because it fails to produce pupils with the skills needed for the economy. Instead, private schools deliver higher-quality education because, unlike state schools, they are answerable to paying consumers – the parents.

Using official statistics, surveys and case studies from 60,000 pupils in 1015 state and private high schools from working-class families, they found that working-class pupils did better by 50% in private than state schools. So Chubb and Moe call for an education market that puts control into the consumers’ hands rather than the schools/state to shape education to their local needs.

They came up with a solution where each family is given a voucher to spend on ‘buying’ education from a school of choice. Forcing parents into control and ensuring schools follow their wishes. Like private businesses, schools would have to compete to attract ‘customers’ by improving their ‘product’ (educational service)

Roles of the state

Although the New Right stress the importance of market forces in education, this does not mean they see no role at all for the state. In their view, there remain two important roles for the state:

• The state imposes a framework on schools in which they have to compete e.g. Ofsted inspections, and league tables; all of which give parents a choice between schools.
• The state ensures that schools transmit a shared culture e.g. National Curriculum which seeks to socialise pupils to a primary national heritage.

The New Right believe that education should affirm the national identity. For example, the curriculum should emphasise Britain’s positive role in world history and teach British literature, and Christian worship in school each day because Christianity is Britain’s main religion with the aim to be integrating pupils into a single set of traditions and cultural values (assimilation). They oppose multicultural education as this reflects diversity away from the Britain’s main culture.

Evaluation of the New Right Perspective

Gewirtz (1995) and Ball (1994) both argue that competition between schools benefits the middle class who can use their cultural and economic capital (as well as the elaborated code and MC habitus) to gain access to the more desirable schools; therefore, the working-class will be hugely disadvantaged marketisation policies, further reinforcing social class inequality.

Critics also argue that the real cause of low educational standards is not state control, but social inequality and a lack of funding (money) for state schools, thus questioning the New Right’s view on education. In addition, there is a contradiction between the New Right’s support for parental choice in education on the one hand, and the state imposing a compulsory National Curriculum on the other hand. This removes parental choice over what is being taught in the classroom, yet the New Right advocate this.

Marxists argue that the role of education is not to impose a shared national culture and identity, as the New Right claims, but to impose the culture of a dominant minority ruling class, which devalues and marginalises the culture of the working class and ethnic minorities, leading to social class inequality.

Functionalist Perspective of Education

Functionalism is based on the view that society is a system of interdependent parts (like the human body), held together by a shared culture or value consensus – an agreement among society’s members about what values are important. Each institution of society, such as the family, economy, criminal justice system, NHS and education performs specific functions that help to maintain order in society.

Durkheim

Durkheim (1903) believed that social solidarity was needed in a society, individuals needed to feel that they were part of the community (a single body) without this it would be impossible to have a social life and cooperate due to individual goals or desires. The education system helps to create a sense of social solidarity by transmitting shared culture and beliefs from one generation to the next. Schools are mini societies that prepare us for wider society after childhood. For example, teaching history instils shared heritage, and both school and work need cooperation.

He also argues that modern industrial economies have a complex division of labour where the production of even a single item usually involves the cooperation of many different specialists. This cooperation promotes social solidarity, but for it to be successful each person must have the necessary specialist knowledge and skills to perform their role effectively. Education teaches individuals specialist knowledge and skills that they need to play their role in the social division of labour.

Parsons

Parsons (1961) sees the school as the focal socialising agency in modern society, a bridge between family and wider society. Family and society operate on different principles so children need to learn to cope with the wider world. Within the family, children are judged by particularistic standards; rules that only apply to them. Similarly, the child’s status is ascribed e.g. elder son or younger daughter.

By contrast, in both school and the wider society, a person judges us all by the same universal and impersonal standards with the same laws for everyone. Just as in school, every pupil is judged against the same mark scheme, rules, etc. Likewise in school and society, a person’s status is achieved not ascribed e.g. gaining a promotion at work, while at school it could be passing or failing through individual efforts. Parsons sees schools as preparing is for moving away from the family into wider society as both school and society are based on meritocratic principles.

Role Allocation

Davis and Moore (1945) argued schools select and allocate pupils focusing on education and social inequality. They argue inequality is necessary to ensure the most important roles in society are filled by the most talented people e.g. it would be inefficient to have people with low communication skills as a pilot. They argue not everyone is equally talented and that society should offer more opportunities to those who are better, encouraging competition. With education as a proving ground for ability, sifting and sorting according to ability, the most able can get the qualifications they need for rewarding positions.

Blau and Duncan (1978) argued that modern economies rely on their prosperity by using human capital (worker’s skills). A meritocratic education system does this best since it enables each person to be allocated to a job better suited for their abilities, making the most effective use of talents and maximising productivity.

Evaluation of the Functionalist View

Some criticise Durkheim’s claims that the education system teaches specialised skills, pointing out that the education system does not teach these adequately. For example, the Wolf Review of Vocational Education (2011) claims that high-quality apprenticeships are rare and up to a third of 16-19-year-olds are on courses that do not lead to higher education or good, well-paid jobs. This therefore questions the roles that the education system plays according to Durkheim.

In addition, there is evidence to suggest equal opportunities in education do not exist, contradicting Parson’s role of education being focused on meritocracy. For example, achievement can be greatly influenced by social class background rather than academic ability. This challenges the functionalist view of the education system as meritocratic.

Tumin (1953) criticises David and Moore for putting forward a circular argument, how do we know that a job is important? It is highly rewarded. Why are some jobs more highly rewarded? Because they’re important. So it is therefore difficult to falsify their role of education, which raises a debate on whether Sociology is a science.

Marxists are also critical of the Functionalist view of the role of education. Functionalists identify the positive roles that education performs such as instilling the shared values of society as a whole to allow for social control, solidarity and harmony. In contrast, Marxists argue that education in capitalist societies, like the UK, only transmits and shares the ideology of a minority i.e. the bourgeoisie, and that education is used to perform a negative role i.e. maintaining the social class divide.

Wrong (1981), an interactionist, also argues that Functionalists have an ‘over-socialised view’ of people as mere puppets of society, rather than those with free will; wrongly implying pupils passively accept all the teachings and values of the school. This is simply wrong as the existence of anti-school subcultures and high exclusion rates among certain social groups contradicts this idea. Wrong argues that the functionalist view of education is rose-tinted and limited, as supported by the New Right who point out that the state education system can fail to prepare young people adequately for work.

Functionalist Perspective of Education

Functionalism is based on the view that society is a system of interdependent parts (like the human body), held together by a shared culture or value consensus – an agreement among society’s members about what values are important. Each institution of society, such as the family, economy, criminal justice system, NHS and education performs specific functions that help to maintain order in society.

Durkheim

Durkheim (1903) believed that social solidarity was needed in a society, individuals needed to feel that they were part of the community (a single body) without this it would be impossible to have a social life and cooperate due to individual goals or desires. The education system helps to create a sense of social solidarity by transmitting shared culture and beliefs from one generation to the next. Schools are mini societies that prepare us for wider society after childhood. For example, teaching history instils shared heritage, and both school and work need cooperation.

He also argues that modern industrial economies have a complex division of labour where the production of even a single item usually involves the cooperation of many different specialists. This cooperation promotes social solidarity, but for it to be successful each person must have the necessary specialist knowledge and skills to perform their role effectively. Education teaches individuals specialist knowledge and skills that they need to play their role in the social division of labour.

Parsons

Parsons (1961) sees the school as the focal socialising agency in modern society, a bridge between family and wider society. Family and society operate on different principles so children need to learn to cope with the wider world. Within the family, children are judged by particularistic standards; rules that only apply to them. Similarly, the child’s status is ascribed e.g. elder son or younger daughter.

By contrast, in both school and the wider society, a person judges us all by the same universal and impersonal standards with the same laws for everyone. Just as in school, every pupil is judged against the same mark scheme, rules, etc. Likewise in school and society, a person’s status is achieved not ascribed e.g. gaining a promotion at work, while at school it could be passing or failing through individual efforts. Parsons sees schools as preparing is for moving away from the family into wider society as both school and society are based on meritocratic principles.

Role Allocation

Davis and Moore (1945) argued schools select and allocate pupils focusing on education and social inequality. They argue inequality is necessary to ensure the most important roles in society are filled by the most talented people e.g. it would be inefficient to have people with low communication skills as a pilot. They argue not everyone is equally talented and that society should offer more opportunities to those who are better, encouraging competition. With education as a proving ground for ability, sifting and sorting according to ability, the most able can get the qualifications they need for rewarding positions.

Blau and Duncan (1978) argued that modern economies rely on their prosperity by using human capital (worker’s skills). A meritocratic education system does this best since it enables each person to be allocated to a job better suited for their abilities, making the most effective use of talents and maximising productivity.

Evaluation of the Functionalist View

Some criticise Durkheim’s claims that the education system teaches specialised skills, pointing out that the education system does not teach these adequately. For example, the Wolf Review of Vocational Education (2011) claims that high-quality apprenticeships are rare and up to a third of 16-19-year-olds are on courses that do not lead to higher education or good, well-paid jobs. This therefore questions the roles that the education system plays according to Durkheim.

In addition, there is evidence to suggest equal opportunities in education do not exist, contradicting Parson’s role of education being focused on meritocracy. For example, achievement can be greatly influenced by social class background rather than academic ability. This challenges the functionalist view of the education system as meritocratic.

Tumin (1953) criticises David and Moore for putting forward a circular argument, how do we know that a job is important? It is highly rewarded. Why are some jobs more highly rewarded? Because they’re important. So it is therefore difficult to falsify their role of education, which raises a debate on whether Sociology is a science.

Marxists are also critical of the Functionalist view of the role of education. Functionalists identify the positive roles that education performs such as instilling the shared values of society as a whole to allow for social control, solidarity and harmony. In contrast, Marxists argue that education in capitalist societies, like the UK, only transmits and shares the ideology of a minority i.e. the bourgeoisie, and that education is used to perform a negative role i.e. maintaining the social class divide.

Wrong (1981), an interactionist, also argues that Functionalists have an ‘over-socialised view’ of people as mere puppets of society, rather than those with free will; wrongly implying pupils passively accept all the teachings and values of the school. This is simply wrong as the existence of anti-school subcultures and high exclusion rates among certain social groups contradicts this idea. Wrong argues that the functionalist view of education is rose-tinted and limited, as supported by the New Right who point out that the state education system can fail to prepare young people adequately for work.

Privatisation and Policy to Reduce Inequality

Privatisation is the transfer of assets or services previously owned by the state (public sector) to private businesses and companies (private sector), who run them to make a profit.

The privatisation of education has created what Ball calls the ‘education services industry’:

• Private companies now build schools, provide supply teachers, give apprenticeships, careers advice, run multi-academy trusts, and run Ofsted inspection services
• When large-scale buildings are built they involve public-private partnerships (PPPs) where a private company provides money to design and build education services. These contracts last more than 25 years with the state paying a monthly lease and management fee with Ball (2007) finding that they make up to 10x more profit than non-educational contracts
• Local education authorities are often obliged to enter these agreements as there is no funding from central government for buildings as this was cut 60% by the Conservative party. With 2 companies holding 4 out of 5 national contracts for Ofsted inspection services.

Pollack (2004) notes that this flow of personnel of head teachers and LEA directors into the private sector has allowed companies to buy ‘insider knowledge’ to help them win contracts, showing that the privatisation of education has created a market focused on profit rather than reducing inequality between different social groups.

Sponsored Academies

Under Labour they started city academies in order to provide a fresh start and better education to severely deprived schools in the city which were entrenched in underachievement. At sponsored academies nowadays many teachers are not paid the national pay-scale and pupils are in a funding agreement, they usually care less about finance but invest in leadership and success in entrepreneurship of businesses.

However, governors are sometimes set by the company which goes against the democratic measures set to allow governors to make decisions which could be to represent the businesses values and not the sake of the education of children. This type of scheme is only seen in the UK compared to other OECD countries.

Globalisation

With many private companies in the education services industry foreign-owned such as Edexcel an exam board owned by Pearson the US educational publishing and testing giant, with Ball arguing some GCSE tests are being marked in Sydney and Iowa.

Similarly, Buckingham and Scanlon (2005), the UK’s four leading educational software companies are owned by global multinationals (i.e Disney, Mattel, Hasbro (American) and Vivendi (French)). Many of these contracts for educational services are sold to banks and investment funds which are then bought by overseas companies

Consequently, some UK style education policies are being exported abroad and then services are sold back to these countries. For example, Prospects has worked in China and Finland bringing Ofsted-style inspection services to them and providing the services to deliver these policies.

Cola-isation

The private sector is penetrating schools indirectly through vending machines on school property, developing brand loyalty from a young age through displays of logos and sponsorship called cola-isation.

Molnar (2005) found schools are targeted by private companies as they are built in goodwill and association defers legitimacy to brands (product endorsement) with the benefit to schools and pupils very limited.

Ball (2011) found that a Cadbury’s sports equipment promotion was scrapped after it was revealed students would have to eat 5440 chocolate bars to qualify for a set of volleyball posts.

Becker (2009) found that UK families spent £110,000 in Tesco supermarkets in return for a single computer for schools. This showing how private companies exploit the goodwill of schools and parents in order to make a profit.

Education as a commodity

Ball concludes that a fundamental change is taking place in which privatisation is becoming a key factor shaping educational policy. Policy is increasingly focused on moving educational services out of the public sector controlled by the nation-state, to be provided by private companies instead. In the process, education is being turned in to a ‘legitimate object of private profit-making’ a commodity to be bought and sold on the education market. However, some argue this may be a good thing, pushing competition and innovation but others disagree saying it will leave pupils worse off in the long-run.

Neoliberals and the New Right share functionalists view that education should be meritocratic and provide social integration arguing state involvement leads to bureaucratic self-interest. This privatisation of education with an internal market started in 1988 with The Education Reform Act which pushed state schools to act like businesses whilst still in the LEA, further on we have seen further neoliberal policies put in place to move education from the state to private sector.

With two types of marketisation; an internal market where schools act more like businesses but within the state system; or where the state ceases to provide educational services and instead commissions and regulates them.

However, Hall (2011); a Marxist, argued Conservative neoliberal policies are a ‘long march of neoliberal revolution’. Academies are an example of privatised public services being handed to capitalists, whilst neoliberals claim this will lead to competition and improved standards Marxists argue this is a myth used to legitimise profit-making and maintaining the social class divide.

Gender and Ethnicity

Gender

In the 19th Century, females were largely excluded from higher education. More recently, under the tripartite system of the Education Act (1944), girls often had to achieve a higher mark than boys on the same 11+ exam to obtain a grammar school place. Since the 1970s, however, policies such as Girls in Science and Technology (GIST) and Women in Science and Engineering (WISE) have been introduced to reduce gender differences in subject choice. In 1984, only 7% of engineering graduates were female; but by the year 2000 15% of engineering graduates were female.

Ethnicity

There have been several policies aimed at raising the achievements of children from minority ethnic backgrounds, which have gone through several phases.

Assimilation between the 1960s-70s where minority ethnic groups were encouraged to assimilate, especially pupils into mainstream British culture to raise their achievement. This included English lessons for those with a different first language similar to compensatory education. However, critics argued that some minority ethnic pupils who were at risk of underachieving, such as Black African and Caribbean pupils, already spoke English and the real cause was poverty and racism.

Multicultural Education (MCE) between the 1980s-90s promoted the achievements of ethnic minorities by valuing all cultures in the school curriculum thereby raising minority pupils’ self-esteem and therefore achievement. However, there has been criticism on several grounds:

• Stone (1981) argued that Black pupils do not fail for lack of self-esteem, so MCE is misguided.
• Critical Race Theorists argue that MCE is tokenism (being diverse to not be slandered or regarded as racist). Picking out stereotypical features of minority cultures for inclusion in curriculum whilst failing to tackle institutional racism (schools are organised in such a way that minority ethnic students are systemically disadvantaged; holidays celebrated, religious custom, uniform, etc.)
• New Right criticises MCE for perpetuating cultural divisions. They take the view that education should promote a shared national culture and identify into which minorities should be assimilated.

Social inclusion of pupils from minority ethnic groups, and policies to raise their achievement became the focus in the late 1990s. These included:

• Detailed monitoring of exam results by ethncity
• Amending the race relations act to place legal duty on schools to promote racial equality.
• Help for voluntary ‘Saturday Schools’ in the Black community
• English as an Additional Language (EAL) programme.

Mirza (2005) argues that there has been little genuine change in policy, and instead of tackling the structural causes of ethnic inequality like poverty and racism, it still takes a ‘soft’ approach that focuses on culture, behaviour, and the home.

Gillborn argues that institutionally racist policies in relation to the ethnocentric curriculum. Assessment and streaming continue to disadvantage minority ethnic pupils.

Marketisation

Marketisation refers the policy of introducing market forces of supply and demand into areas run by the state, such as the education system. This encourages competition between schools and choice for parents. This has been done in the education system by reducing direct state control, and increasing competition between schools and parental choice of school

In 1988, the Education Reform Act was introduced by Margaret Thatcher (Conservative PM), then in 1997 New Labour under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown followed similar marketisation policies emphasising standards, diversity and choice. From 2010 the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition created even further choice and marketisation by introducing academies and free schools.

The New Right and Neoliberals argue in favour of marketisation as they say it means schools have to attract customers (parents and pupils) by competing with each other in the ‘education market’ . Schools then have to offer exam success to thrive and others will be driven out unless they change.

Policies to promote marketisation

• Publication of league tables and Ofsted reports that rank and rated schools for parents to base their choice on.
• Business sponsorship of schools e.g. Co-op Academies
• Open enrolment, allowing successful schools to recruit more pupils
• Specialist schools specialising in IT, Languages, STEM allows wider parental choice
• Academisation allowed schools to opt-out LEA control
• Formula funding meant schools got the same money per pupil
• Competition to attract pupils to the best schools
• Tuition fees for Higher Education
• Allowing anyone to set up free schools

Parentocracy

Parentocracy or ‘Rule by parents’ is associated with marketised education systems, which are based on an ideology of parental choice of school. MC parents benefit as they have more economic and cultural capital than WC, and are better placed to exercise choice.

David (1993) describes marketised education as a ‘parentocracy’. The intention behind marketisation policies, argued by some sociologists, is that it shifts power away from the producers (teachers and schools) to the consumers (parents). This then encourages diversity among schools, gives parents more choice, and raised the standards of the schools as they have to compete with each other to get the ‘ideal’ and ‘best’ pupils.

However, Ball (1994) and Whitty (1998) argue that marketisation has increased inequalities. They point out that policies such as exam league tables and the funding formula reproduces class inequalities by creating inequalities between schools.

Parental Choice

Gewirtz (1995) did a study on 14 London Secondary schools and found that the differences in parents’ economic and cultural capital lead to social class differences in how far they can exercise choice of secondary school, identifying three main types of parents.

1. Privileged-skilled choosers: Professional, middle-class parents who used their economic and cultural capital to gain education capital for their children. Often prosperous, confident and well-educated they took full advantage of opportunities. They knew how the school admissions systems work, could visit schools and research options; they also could afford to move to go to the best schools, pay for extra travel costs and extracurriculars.
2. Disconnected-local choosers: Working-class parents with restricted choice due to lack of economic or cultural capital. They did not understand school admissions procedures, were less confident or aware of choices so could not manipulate the education system to their advantage. Looking for safety and quality of facilities rather than league table or ambition, as well as hindered by distance/travel costs with limited funds so the nearest school was realistic.
3. Semi-skilled choosers: They are mainly working-class but have ambitions for their children, but they lack the cultural capital to understand or research choices and therefore rely on the opinions of other parents and are frustrated by their inability to get their children into the desired schools.

So although in theory the education market gives everyone greater choice, Gewirtz concludes that in practice only middle-class parents possess the cultural and economic capital and therefore have more choice that working-class parents reproducing social class inequality

Myth of Parentocracy

Ball (1994) found that marketisation gave the appearance of a ‘parentocracy’ of free choice in schools. But it is a myth, rather it makes it seem all parents have some freedom when that is not true as different parents have different levels of capital and understanding to play the education market. Gewirtz (1995) on top of this finds that middle-class parents are better able to take advantage of the ‘free’ choice they are given; for example, Leech and Campos (2005) found in Coventry, the best schools raised mortgage prices and thus only middle-class can move in and get into the good schools known as ‘selection-by-mortgage’

Reproducing Inequality

The publishing of league tables has meant that schools with good results are more in demand, because parents are now attracted to those with good league table positions.

Bartlett (1993) argues that this encourages:

• Cream-skimming: Where the ‘good’ schools can be more selective and choose ‘customers’ and recruit high-achieving, mainly middle-class pupils giving them an advantage.
• Silt-shifting: Since ‘good’ schools can afford not admitting less able students, poorer schools are likely to get them receiving lower grades and damaging league table position.

The funding formula allocates funds to schools based on how many pupils they attract/admit. As a result more popular schools get more funding in order to fund better resources, facilities and teachers, which therefore allows them to be more selective, accepting more MC students and less WC students (cream-skimming and silt-shifting). Schools that fail to attract students get less funding.

Institute for Public Policy Research (2012) did a study of international patterns of educational inequality and found that competition-oriented systems such as the UK produce more segregation between children of different social class backgrounds, which contrasts to the functionalist view of the education system which argues education fulfils the essential function of social integration.

Government Policies

New Labour (1997-2010)

The New Labour government from 1997-2010 introduced several educational policies intended to reduce income inequality across the UK:

• Education Action Zones which were designated to some local areas in order to give them additional resources to assist in the development of children
• Aim Higher programme which encouraged further participation in higher education for underrepresented groups.
• Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) which gave regular payments to low-income students to allow them to progress in post-16 education and possibly go on to university.
• National Literacy Strategy increased literacy and numeracy hours and reduced primary school class sizes to benefit disadvantaged groups.
• City academies to give a fresh start for inner-city schools with working-class pupils
• Increased funding for state education

Bern (2012) however, sees a contradiction of Labour’s policies to tackle and reduce inequality, and its commitment to marketisation calling it the ‘New Labour paradox’. E.g. Despite introducing EMAs to encourage students to stay in further education, they introduced fees for higher education to £1000/yr in 1998 which would deter them from university.

Furthermore, they did not abolish fee-paying private schools, or their charitable status (estimated to be worth £165 million/yr. E.g. it costs £14,298/yr to go to Nottingham Girls High School sixth form which equates to 70 pupils worth of funding.

Conservative (2010-2024)

The conservative-led coalition from 2010-2015 and the conservative government from 2015 onwards accelerated the move away from comprehensives and LEA control with strong influence from neoliberal and New Right ideas about reducing state provision through marketisation and privatisation.

At the time from 2010-2016 the prime minister was David Cameron and his Secretary of State for Education was Michael Gove and he aimed to encourage excellence, competition and innovation by freeing the schools from the ‘dead hand of the state’ through academies and free schools, including large spending cuts in education to reduce state spending (austerity).

They also did try to reduce income inequality by introducing:

• The Pupil Premium (2011) which gave more money per pupil from a disadvantaged background (income threshold, FSM in the last 6 years, ever in care or parents in the armed forces)
• Free School Meals (2014) for all children in reception, year one and two.

Ofsted (2012) however found in many cases the pupil premium was not spent on those it is supposed to help, with 1/10 headteachers saying it significantly changed how they supported disadvantaged pupils.

Furthermore, as part of the ‘austerity’ programme they cut school building spending by 60%, and closed many Sure Start centres, abolished the EMA and tripled tuition fees to £9000/yr.

Academies and Free Schools

Academies are schools that are no longer under LEA control and have free choice to pick staff, change the curriculum and get their funding direct from the state.

Under the conservative government all schools were encouraged to academise and leave their LEA, by 2022 80% of secondary schools have converted to academies and 39% of primary schools. Primaries were reluctant to convert as they are smaller and had less funding for their own in-house training, HR, etc until multi-academy trusts could help them.

However, Labour’s goal of academies was to target disadvantaged schools whereas the Conservative policy allowed any school to, removing the focus off reducing income inequality.

Free schools were funded by the state but could be set up by anyone, the main focus was if parents or the local community didn’t like the schools or saw an area without a school they could set one up themselves. By giving control to the parents it allowed parents or teachers to create schools if they were unhappy with the current provision.

Allen (2010) argued that research from Sweden where 20% of schools are free schools showed that they only benefitted highly educated MC families, other critics arguing they are socially divisive and actually lower education standards which is supported by the fact that Sweden’s international education ranking has fallen since their introduction. Charter schools in America have been accused of strict pupil selection and exclusion policies reproducing inequality.

Department of Education (2012) found in the previous year only 6.4% of pupils at Bristol Free Schools were eligible for FSM compared to 22.5% of pupils across Bristol as a whole, showing that despite educational policies intended to reduce inequality, they actually reproduce it.

Criticisms

Ball (2011) argued that academies and free schools led to fragmentation and centralisation of control:

• Fragmentation: The comprehensive system is being replaced by a patchwork of diverse provision. Some are private and operate for a profit. Creating greater inequality of provision
• Centralisation: Central government alone has the power to allow/require academies and free schools to be set up. As they are funded directly by central government rather than the elected LEA. For example, Nottingham City votes Labour but the current government is Conservative.

Educational Policy before 1988

Before the industrial revolution in the late 18th to early 19th centuries, there were no state schools, and education was only available to a minority of the population, provided by fee-paying private schools for the wealthy or by churches and charities for few of the poor or materially deprived. Before 1833, the state spent no money on education.

During industrialisation in the 19th century, the need for an educated workforce increased as the state became more involved in education, it had started to become a separate institution in society. This became apparent when schooling was made compulsory in 1880 for children between the ages of 5 to 13.

In this period, the type of education received was based on social class background, with the middle-class given an academic curriculum and working-class vocational/limited literacy and numeracy. Doing little to change ascribed status.

Education Act (1944)

Meritocracy: An educational or social system where everyone has equal opportunity to succeed, and where individuals’ rewards and status in life are achieved through their own efforts and abilities, rather than it being ascribed at birth by their class, gender or ethnicity.

The Education Act (1944) introduced by the War Ministry (Conservative-Labour Coalition) to govern by principle of meritocracy in education, children were separated and selected to go to one of three schools supposedly on ability in the 11+ exam

• Grammar Schools: Academic curriculum, higher education, passed the 11+, mainly MC
• Secondary Modern Schools: Non-academic curriculum, manual work, failed the 11+, mainly WC
• Technical Schools: Technical curriculum, trade related work, failed the 11+, mainly WC (only found in certain areas, so more like bipartite system)

Although the intention of the tripartite system was to promote meritocratic education, it actually had the opposite effect and reproduced inequalities between classes by channelling the middle-class into grammar schools and the working-class into secondary modern that offered unequal opportunities and limited career prospects.

It also reproduced gender inequality with girls having to gain more marks on the 11+ to get into grammar schools. By justifying inequality through ideology that ability was innate through measurement in the 11+ for early years. However, external factors like environmental factors also greatly affected a child’s underachievement and may have led to their failure in the 11+ rather than the nature of the tripartite system.

Comprehensive School System (1965)

Established under the premiership of Harold Wilson (Labour PM) in 1965, the goal of the comprehensive schooling system was to overcome class divide of the tripartite system and make education more meritocratic. With the 11+ exam abolished and grammar/secondary moderns replaced with comprehensives that all could attend. However, it was left to the local education authority to make such a decision to convert, many did, but others did not so impact was limited.

Functionalists believed that the role of comprehensives was vital in social integration with all social classes mixed together. This meant a more meritocratic system that gave pupils longer to develop and show their ability. However, Ford (1969) found little social mixing between WC and MC pupils in comprehensive schools, mainly due to streaming.

Marxists on the other hand believed it was not meritocratic at all as it reproduced inequalities from one generation to the next through streaming, the working class were placed in lower streams, given less working, and discouraged to challenge the system which denied them equal opportunity by serving an ideological function for capitalists by justifying inequality. However, in the tripartite system they could blame the school for underachievement, but with the myth of meritocracy comprehensives can shift the blame to the pupil thus justifying inequality further.

Educational Policy Timeline

Pre-1988

Year	Policies/Acts
1700	No state schools
1760	Industrial revolution. Educated workforce needed
1833	State started to spend public funds on education
1880	Schooling made compulsory for ages 5-13. Schooling determined by social class, middle-class more academic
1944	Education Act: Meritocracy focus, tripartite system, free education 5-15y/o, free school meals introduced
1960s	Assimilation policies, compensatory education (Operation Head Start)
1965	Comprehensive schooling system. Overcome social class divide with decisions made by LEAs, optional to convert.
1970	Equal opportunities, gender inequality (GIST/WISE), new school leaving age set to 16
1976	Labour Government: Secretary of State could ask for LEAs to plan comprehensive schools to be built
1980s	Multiculturalism in education to reduce ethnic inequality

1988-1997

1988	Education Reform Act, Conservative – Thatcher: National Curriculum, Marketisation and the Funding Formula
1990s	Privatisation of state education: running schools as a business
1993	Exam league tables and Ofsted inspections, Specialist schools, programmes to increase choice
1997	Social inclusion policies, Race relations act amended, Voluntary Saturday school for Black pupils, English as an Additional Language programmes.

New Labour (1997-2010)

1998	New Labour – Blair/Brown Educational Action zones, National Literacy programme, City academies, Sure Start, Higher education fees now £1000/yr
1999	Educational Maintenance Allowance
2002	Academisation started with further privatisation of state education, not under LEA control, budget direct from government, choose own curriculum
2004	Aim Higher programme to get working-class pupils into A-Levels
2006	Higher education fees raised to £3000/yr changed from grants to student loan system.

Conservatives (2010-2024)

2010	Conservative and Lib Dem Coalition, Education Act, EMA stopped, Austerity (Education Cuts), Marketisation
2011	Free Schools anyone can set up a school and get funding from the government, 16-19 bursary, Introduced KS5
2012	Higher education fees rise to £9000/yr
2015	Compulsory schooling age rose to 18
2016	Brexit, consultation on education
2017	Conservative – May 68% of secondary schools converted to academies
2019	Conservative – Johnson higher education programme Erasmus converted to Turing
2020	Coronavirus Act – £400m in remote learning, £13m Laptop scheme, FSM voucher scheme (food packages)
2021	Higher education fees rise to £9250/yr
2024	UCAS to amend personal statement to questions to reduce inequality from tutors and middle-class schools