Education:

Class differences in achievement – EXTERNAL

FACTORS:

→Less likely to be found in nursery schools

→More likely to be poor readers when they start school
→More likely to be in low sets and streams in secondary
school
→More likely to underachieve at GCSE and A Level
→Less likely to go to university
→More likely to leave school early
→More likely to be excluded and suspended

Explanations: Intelligence

 EYSENK: suggests that working class children have lower

innate intelligence than m/c children
→Intelligence is inherited from parents which explains
the child’s educational performance and the lowly
social status of their parents

Cultural deprivation:
• Bourdieu “ Meritocracy is a myth’. Lack of cultural
capital
 A number of studies have argued that the values, attitudes
and aspirations of parents have an important effect on
their children's educational success
 Cultural deprivation is the theory that many w/c and
black children are inadequately socialised and therefore
lack the ‘right’ culture needed for educational success
 There are three main aspects of cultural deprivation:
→Intellectual Development
→The development of thinking an reasoning skills (e.g. –
to solve problems and use concepts)
→Cultural deprivation theorists argue that many W/C
homes lack the books, educational toys and activities
that are needed to stimulate and develop intellectual
skills
→DOUGLAS: W/C pupils scored lower on tests of ability
than M/C pupils because their parents were less likely
to support their intellectual development through
reading or other educational activities in the home.
→BERNSTEIN AND YOUNG: M/C mothers are more
likely to choose toys that encourage thinking and
reasoning skills to prepare them for school

→Language
→BEREITER AND ENGELMANN: claim that the language
used in lower-class homes is deficient: communicate
by gestures, single words and disjointed phrases
 As a result, children fail to develop the necessary
language skills, growing up to be incapable of
abstract thinking or use language to compare,
describe and explain. And so cannot take
advantage of the opportunities that school
offers.
→BERNSTEIN: two types of speech code that differ
between classes. These differences in speech code
 give the m/c an advantage over w/c pupils because at
school, elaborated code is used by teachers,
textbooks and exams.
 Restricted code: typically used by the w/c.
Limited vocabulary, and is based on the use of
short, grammatically unfinished and simple
sentences. It is context-bound.
 Elaborated code: typically used by the m/c. wider
vocabulary and is based on the use of longer,
more complex sentences. Speech is more varied
and communicates abstract ideas. It is context-
free.
HOWEVER: Critics argue that Bernstein is a cultural
deprivation theorist because he describes w/c
speech as inadequate (does however recognise
that the school, and not just the home influences
children’s achievement)
→Attitudes and values
→DOUGLAS: w/c parents placed less value on
education were less ambitious for their children and
gave them less encouragement. As a result, their
children had lower levels of achievement motivation
→FEINSTEIN: w/c parents’ lack of interest was the main
reason for their children’s underachievement and was
even more important that financial hardship factors
within school. – m/c children are more successful
being their parents provide them with the necessary
motivation, discipline and support.
→Cultural deprivation theorists argue that lack of
parental interest in their children’s education reflects
the sub cultural values of the w/c
 →HYMAN: believes that the values and beliefs of lower-
class subculture are a ‘self-imposed barrier’ to
educational and career success – their sub cultural
beliefs and values ensure that they neither want nor
know how to get educational success
→SUGARMAN: argues that w/c children internalise the
beliefs and values of their subculture through
socialisation which leads them to underachieving at
school. w/c subculture has 4 key features that act as
a barrier to educational achievement:
1) Fatalism – a belief in fate
2) Collectivism – valuing being part of a group more
than succeeding as an individual
3) Immediate gratification – seeking pleasure now
rather than making sacrifices in order to get rewards
in the future
4) Present-time orientation – seeing the present as
more important than the future, so have no long term
goals or plans
Compensatory education:
 A policy designed to tackle the problem of cultural
deprivation by providing extra resources to schools and
communities in deprives areas
 Compensatory education programmes attempt to
intervene early in the socialisation process to compensate
children for the deprivation they experience at home.
 Examples:
→Operation Head Start: Multibillion dollar scheme of pre-
school education in poor areas introduces in the 1960s
in the US. Its aim was ‘planned enrichment’ of the
deprived child’s environment to develop learning skills
and instil achievement motivation. It included improving
parenting skills, setting up nursery classes, home visits
by health visitors and educational psychologists and
intensive learning programmes
→Sure Start Programme: a British government policy
introduced in 2000 aimed at pre-school children and
their parents. Its aim was to tackle poverty and social
exclusion. It included the promotion of physical,
intellectual and social development of babies and young
children in order to break the cycle of disadvantage

The myth of cultural deprivation?

 The cultural deprivation theory has been widely criticised
as an explanation of class differences in achievement…
 KEDDIE: Cultural deprivation is a ‘myth’ and is a victim-
blaming explanation
→Failure at school cannot be blamed on a culturally
deprived background – a child cannot be deprived of
its own culture
→w/c children are simply culturally different, not
culturally deprived – they fail because they are put at
a disadvantage by an education system that is
dominated by m/c values
→rather than seeing w/c culture as deficient, schools
should recognise and build on its strengths and
 should challenge teachers’ anti-working class
prejudices
 TROYNA AND WILLIAMS: problem is the schools attitude
towards a child’s language – teachers have a ‘speech
hierarchy’, labelling m/c highest, w/c, then Black speech
 Some critics argue that compensatory education schemes
act as a smoke screen, concealing the real cause of under-
achievement, namely social inequality and poverty – the
real problem isn’t cultural deprivation but poverty and
material deprivation.
Material Deprivation:
 Material deprivation refers to poverty and a lack of
material necessities such as adequate housing and
income
 Poverty is closely linked to education under-achievement:
→in 2006, only 33% of children on free school meals
gained 5+ A*-C at GCSE (vs. 61% not receiving)
→FLAHERTY: money problems in the family were a
significant factor in younger children’s non-
attendance at school
→Nearly 90% of ‘failing’ schools are located in deprived
areas
→Close link between poverty and social class. w/c
families are much more likely to have low incomes
and inadequate housing
 Numerous factors can affect a child’s education:
→Diet and health:
 HOWARD: young people from poorer homes have
lower intakes of energy, vitamins & minerals
  Poor nutrition affects health (e.g. – if a child has poor
nutrition = weak immune system = more absences)
 Children from poorer homes are more likely to have
emotional or behaviour problems: WILKINSON:
researched 10 year olds – the lower the social class,
the higher rates of hyperactivity, anxiety and conduct
disorders (all likely to have a negative effect on child’s
education)

→Housing:
 poor housing can affect pupils’ achievement both
directly and indirectly
✓ young children especially affected – development
can be impaired through lack of space for safe play
and exploration (direct)
✓ families living in temporary accommodation may
move more frequently, and therefore children will
change schools more often, disrupting their
education (direct)
✓ it may affect the child’s health and welfare –
crowded homes create a greater risk of accidents
and temporary accommodation may cause
psychological distress, infections and accidents,
leading to more absences (indirect)
→Financial support and the costs of education:
 Lack of financial support means that children from
poor families have to do without equipment and miss
out on experiences which would enhance their
educational achievement (BULL: ‘the costs of free
schooling’)
  TANNER et al: cost of items such as uniform,
transport and books places a heavy burden on poor
families
 as a result of this burden, children may have to do
with hand-me-downs and may be stigmatised against
or bullied for this – FLAHERTY: fear of stigmatisation
may help explain why 20% of those eligible for free
school meals do not take up their entitlement
 Lack of funds also means that children from low-
income families also need to work – RIDGE:
found that children in poverty take on jobs such as
baby sitting and this often has a negative impact on
their school work. (these financial restrictions help to
explain why many w/c pupils leave school at 16, and
few go to university)

 Evidence that fear of debt deters poor students from applying to university
 Dropout rates are higher among poor students
 The National Audit Office 2002 found that w/c students spent 2 times as much time in
paid work to reduce debts as m/c students

Cultural or material factors?

 The fact that some children from poor families do succeed
suggests that material deprivation is only part of the
explanation
 Cultural, religious and political values may play a part in
creating and sustaining the child’s motivation
 MORTIMORE AND WHITTY: material inequalities have a
greater affect on achievement than school factors
 ROBINSON: tackling child poverty would be the best/most
effective way to boost achievement

Cultural capital:
 the knowledge, attitudes, values, language, tastes and
abilities of the middle class
 BOURDIEU: cultural and material factors contribute to
educational achievement and are interrelated – uses
concept of ‘capital’ to explain why the m/c are more
successful…
→Cultural capital:
 Sees m/c culture as a type of capital because like
wealth, it gives an advantage to those who possess it

 Argues that through their socialisation, m/c children

acquire the ability to grasp, analyse and express
abstract ideas and are more likely to develop
intellectual interests and an understanding of what is
needed for success
 Gives m/c children advantages in school – these
abilities are valued and rewarded with qualifications
(education system favours and transmits m/c values –
w/c children find school devalues their culture as
inferior so their lack of cultural capital leads to failure.
Many w/c pupils ‘get the message’ that education is
not for them, and so respond by truanting, early
leaving or not trying)
→Educational and economic capital:
 BOURDIEU: educational, economic and cultural capital
can be converted into one another (e.g. – m/c children
with cultural capital are better equipped to meet
demands of curriculum and gain qualifications.
Wealthier parents can convert economic capital into
educational capital, sending kids to private schools and
extra tuition)
 LEECH AND CAMPOS: m/c parents are more likely to be
able to afford a house in the catchment area of a school
that is highly placed in the exam league tables –
‘selection mortgage’: drives up demand for houses near
to successful schools and excludes w/c families
→A test of Bourdieu’s ideas:
 SULLIVAN: used questionnaires to conduct a survey of
465 pupils in 4 schools, to assess their cultural capital:
asked them about a range of activities and tested their
vocabulary and knowledge of cultural figures – found
that those who read complex fiction and watched
serious TV documentaries developed a wider vocab and
greater cultural knowledge – indicating greater cultural
capital. (the pupils with the greatest cultural capital
were children of graduates and were more likely to be
successful at GCSE)
 HOWEVER… SULLIVAN found that cultural capital only
accounted for part of the class difference in
achievement: greater resources and aspirations of m/c
families explain remainder of class gap in achievement
 GERWITZ: researched whether great parental choice of
school has benefitted one social class more than the
other and the impact of marketisation and parental
choice on the difference in educational achievement:
 ✓ Study of 14 London schools based on interviews
with teachers and parents, and on secondary data
such as school documents
✓ Uses Bourdieu’s ideas to explain findings: found
that differences in economic and cultural capital
lead to class differences in how far parents can
exercise choice in secondary school
✓ m/c families with cultural and economic capital are
better placed to take advantage of the available
opportunities for a good education
✓ Identifies three main types of parents: privileged-
skilled choosers, disconnected-local choosers and
semi-skilled choosers.

 PRIVILEGED-SKILLED CHOOSERS:
→ Mainly professional m/c parents who used their economic and cultural capital to gain educational
capital for their children
→ Able to take full advantage of the choices open to them due to their own well-educated and
confident background
→ Possessed cultural capital: knew how school admissions systems work, ‘how to approach schools,
present and mount a case, maintain pressure, make an impact and be remembered’.
→ Understood the importance of putting particular school as first choice, meeting deadlines and using
appeals procedures and waiting lists to get what they wanted
→ Saw choosing school as part of the process of planning their child’s future, and had the time to visit
schools and the skills to research the options available
→ Economic capital also meant that they could afford to move their children around the education
system to get the best deal out of it (e.g.- travel costs)
 DISCONNECTED-LOCAL CHOOSERS:
→ w/c parents whose choices were restricted by their lack of economic and cultural capital
→ Found it difficult to understand school admissions procedures
→ Many attached more importance to the safety and quality of school facilities rather than league
tables or long-term ambitions
 Class differences in achievement – INTERNAL
FACTORS:

Labelling:
 To label someone meant to attach a meaning or
definition to them, often based on stereotyped
assumptions about them
 BECKER: carried out an interactionist study of labelling
based on interviews in 60 Chicago high school teachers -
found that they judged pupils according to how closely
they fitted the image of an ‘ideal pupil’. (Pupils work,
conduct and appearance were key factors influencing
teachers’ judgements)
 CICOUREL AND KITSUSE: - carried out a study of
educational counsellors in an American high school -
Found inconsistencies in the way the counsellors
assessed students’ suitability for courses.
→ They claimed they judged students on their
ability but largely judged them on the basis of their
social class or race. (m/c students were more likely
to be labelled as students with the potential to get
onto the higher level courses and go to college)

 RIST: found that labelling occurs from the very start of a

child's education – studied American Kindergartens.
→ The teacher used information about the child's
social background and appearance to place them in
separate groups, seated at different tables.
→ Fast learners were labelled as ‘tigers’, often
middle-class and of neat appearance – seated at
the table nearest to her and encouraged them
more
→ The other two groups were labelled as
‘cardinals’ and ‘the clowns’. Seated further away
and were more likely to be w/c – these children
were also given lower-level books to read and few
opportunities to demonstrate their abilities (had to
read in groups, and not as individuals)
 KEDDIE: found that both pupils and knowledge can be
labelled as high or low status
 → Comprehensive school classes were streamed
by ability – teachers found to be adapting their
teaching to the A stream, giving them a more
complex and theoretical, high status knowledge
→ The ‘less able’ C stream pupils were given a
more descriptive common sense, low status
knowledge – these streams often had more w/c
pupils, and this holding back of high status
knowledge therefore meant that an increase in
class differences in achievement was more likely
 GILLBORN AND YOUDELL: found that working-class and
black pupils are less likely to be believed to have ability
and so are more likely to be entered into lower-tier
GCSEs, and placed in lower sets - shows how teachers
use own perception of ‘ability’ to decide which pupils
have the potential to achieve 5 A*-C grades at GCSE
(This denial of knowledge and opportunity further
widens the class gap in achievement)
The self-fulfilling prophecy:
 A self-fulfilling prophecy is a prediction that comes true
simply by virtue of it having been made
 Interactionists argue that labelling can affect pupils’
achievement by creating a self-fulfilling prophecy
 ROSENTHAL AND JACOBSON: studied Californian
primary school – told the school that they had designed
a test designed to identify those who would ‘spurt’
ahead.
→was actually a standard IQ test
 →Fabricated results – picked 20% of pupils at
random, telling the school that the test had
identified these students as spurters.
→Returned to the school a year later and found that
47% of those identified as spurters had made
significant progress
✓They suggest that the teachers’ beliefs about the
pupils have been influence by the supposed results
and had consequently resulted in teachers conveying
these beliefs through the way they interacted with the
children
✓This demonstrates self-fulfilling prophecy because the
school accepted the prediction that some would spurt
ahead and so the teachers brought it about
✓If teachers believe a pupil to be of a certain type, the
can actually make the pupil into that type
 The self-fulfilling prophecy can also produce under-
achievement – if teachers have low expectations of their
students and convey these expectations, then a child
may feel like a failure, and give up trying
 Streaming can also create a self-fulfilling prophecy –
students may live up to the expectations of the teacher
of whose stream they are in
 However, m/c children tend to benefit for streaming,
likely to be placed in higher streams, reflecting their
teachers view of them as ideal pupils

Pupil subcultures:
 a pupil subculture is a group of people who share similar
values and behaviour patterns – they often emerge as a
 result of the way people have been labelled and
streaming
 LACEY: uses concept of differentiation and polarisation
to explain how pupil subcultures develop:
→Differentiation – the process of teachers categorising
pupils according to how they perceive their ability,
behaviour and/or attitude. Those who are deemed
‘more able’ by the school are given high status by
being placed in a high stream, whereas those who are
deemed ‘less able’ and placed in a low streams are
given an inferior status
→Polarisation – the process in which pupils respond to
streaming by moving towards one of two opposite
‘poles’ or extremes
 Pupils placed in higher streams tend to remain
committed to the values of the school and gain their
status through academic success – tend to form a pro-
school subculture
 LACEY found that those placed in low streams suffer a
loss of self-esteem, because the school has undermined
their self-worth. Consequently, this label pushes them
to find other ways to gain status; inverting the schools
values of hard work, obedience and punctuality –form
an anti-school subculture
 Joining an anti-school subculture is likely to become a
self-fulfilling prophecy of educational failure
 HARGREAVES: the main reason subcultures form is so
that pupils who achieve little status within the school
can gain status by forming or belonging to a subculture,
in which they are valued (triple failures)
 BALL: studied Beachside comprehensive which was in
the process of abolishing a type of streaming system.
→Found that when the school abolished banding, the
basis for pupils to polarise into subcultures was
largely removed and the influence of the anti-school
subculture declined (however, teachers continued to
categorise pupils differently)
→Positive labelling was reflected in better exam results
– suggesting that a self-fulfilling prophecy had
occurred.
→Class inequalities can continue as a result of teachers’
labelling, even without the effect of subcultures or
streaming
 Since Ball’s study, especially since the Education Reform
Act 1988, there has been a trend towards more
streaming and towards a variety of types of school – this
has created new opportunities for schools and teachers
to differentiate between pupils on the basis of class
ethnicity or gender and treat them unequally
 WOODS: suggests other responses apart from forming
anti/pro-school subcultures include:
→Ingratiation: being the ‘teacher’s pet’
→Ritualism: going through the motions and staying out
of trouble
→Retreatism: daydreaming and mucking about
→Rebellion: outright rejection of everything the school
stands for
 FURLONG: pupils are not committed to any one
response, they may move between different types of
responses acting differently in different lessons
  There are limitations of the labelling theory – it has
been accused of determinism
→ MARXISTS: -tends to blame teachers for
labelling pupils, but fails to explain why they do so -
Labels are not merely the result of teachers’
individual prejudices but stem from the fact that
teachers work in a system that reproduces class
divisions

Marketisation and selection policies:

 A funding formula, exam league tables and completion
means that schools are under pressure to stream and
select pupils (in order to attract pupils and therefore
funding they need to achieve a good league table position)
 GILBORN AND YOUNDELL: Process of Marketisation can
widen the class gap in achievement within a school
→ Exam league tables lead to ‘A-C economy’ –
because of this, teachers focus time, effort and
resources on those pupils they perceive as having
potential to gain A-C – educational triage

Educational triage:
PUPILS

Educational Triage
Those who will pass anywayBorderline C/D pupils –
Hopeless cases
targeted for extra help (potential to do well)
Who gets left behind?
>teachers notions of ‘ability’ to sort pupils and usually its w/c
and Black pupils who are labelled as lacking ability
→As a result, they are labelled as ‘hopeless cases’ and are
often ignored – producing a self –fulfilling prophecy and
failure
>this idea is closely linked with streaming, however they are
looking at the wider picture by linking it with marketisation
Competition and selection:
 While popular schools can afford to screen out less able or
difficult pupils, unpopular schools are obliged to take them
 Results get worse and schools become less popular
 BARTLETT: marketisation has led to popular schools
‘cream skimming’ – selecting higher ability
 ‘Silt shifting’ - off loading pupils with learning difficulties
 The right image:
→An image to attract the ‘right kind of parents’
→m/c parents respond to a traditional image
→WALFORD: researched City Technologies and found that
although they intended to offer vocational education
and recruit all types of children, in practice they became
attractive to m/c parents who see them as the next best
after Grammar schools
 →BALL: schools have to spend more money marketing
themselves to parents, often at the expense of spending
on other more needed areas
(Some argue that this has led to the polarisation of the
education system)

Ethnic differences in achievement – EXTERNAL

FACTORS:
 All ethnic groups are improving in terms of educational
attainment
 Indian students have the highest improvement figures
 There are persistent differences within ethnic groups
 Chinese girls do much better
Explaining it:
 Some sociologists look towards factors within a school
whilst others look outside of the school
But be aware...
→Explaining the ethnic differences in attainment is
difficult
→This is because of changes over time
→Changes at different levels of the education system –
e.g. – many African boys attainment dips during
secondary education but improves after compulsory
school (higher and further education)
Cultural deprivation:
 BOWKER: lack of SE is a major barrier to progress in
education and integration into wider society. Children who
do not speak English at home may be held back
educationally HOWEVER the SWANN REPORT 1985 found
that language was not a major factor in under-
achievement
 A lack of socialisation into values such as ambition and
competiveness to achieve long-term goals can leave some
pupils (especially black children) unequipped with the right
attitude needed to succeed
 Family structure can play a heavy role in a child’s
educational success
→FLEW: ethnic differences in achievement stem from
cultural differences outside of the education system
→SCRUTON: sees low achievement levels of some ethnic
minorities as resulting from a failure to embrace
mainstream British culture
 Asian families
→DRIVER AND BALLARD: Asian family structures bring
educational benefits because Asian parents have more
positive attitudes towards education and higher
aspirations for their child’s future – as a result, are more
supportive
→LUPTON: adult authority in Asian families is similar to
the model that operates in schools which has a knock-on
effect in school as Asian parents are more likely to be
supportive of school behaviour policies
→Some sociologists see the Asian family as an obstacle to
success – KHAN describes Asian families as ‘stress
ridden’, bound by tradition and with a controlling
attitude towards children
 White working class
→A survey of state schools for the Sutton Trust (MORI
2004) found that 80% of 11-16 year old ethnic minority
pupils aspired to go to university, as against only 68% of
white pupils
→Lower levels of aspiration and achievement may be the
result of lack of parental support
→LUPTON: teachers reported lower levels of behaviour
and discipline in white w/c schools – teachers blamed
this on lower levels of parental support and the negative
attitude that white w/c parents have towards education
→EVANS: street culture in white w/c areas can be brutal
and so young people have to learn how to withstand
intimidation and intimidate others – school can become
a place where the power games that young people
engage in on the street can be played out again bringing
disruption and making it hard for pupils to succeed.

 Criticisms
→DRIVER: cultural deprivation theory ignores the positive
aspects of ethnicity on achievement. Shows that black
Caribbean family is far from dysfunctional and provides
girls with positive role models of strong independent
women – this is why black girls tend to be more
successful than boys
→LAWRENCE: challenges PYRCE’S view that black pupils
fail because their culture is weak and they lack self-
esteem/ Instead, he argues that black pupils under
achieve because of racism
 →KEDDIE: cultural deprivation is a victim-blaming
explanation – children under achieve because of an
ethnocentric curriculum, biased in favour of white
culture and against minorities
→Critics oppose compensatory education because they
see it as an attempt to impose the dominant white
culture on children who already have a coherent culture
of their own
Material deprivation and class:
 Material deprivation explanations see educational failure
as resulting from factors such as substandard housing and
low income
 Ethnic minorities are more likely to face these problems
→FLAHERTY: unemployment is 3 times higher for African
and Bangladeshi/Pakistani people than for whites
(reflect the proportion of ethnic groups who are eligible
for free school meals)
 Inequalities are parallel to those seen in educational
achievement. Class differences can explain why
Bangladeshi and Pakistani pupils tend to do worse than
Indian and white pupils
 However, GILLBORN AND MIRZA argue that social class
factors do not override the influence of ethnicity –
comparing pupils of the same social class but of different
ethnic origin, we still find differences in achievement
Racism in wider society:
 Some sociologists argue that poverty is the product of
racism, as well as material deprivation
 REX: shows how racial discrimination leads to social
exclusions and then worsens poverty faced by ethnic
 minorities. (e.g. – in housing, discrimination means that
minorities are more likely to be forced into substandard
accommodation than white people of the same class)
 NOON: found evidence of direct and deliberate
discrimination in employment too – sent letters to top 100
UK companies about employment opportunities, signed by
two fictitious applicants called ‘Evans’ and ‘Patel’ – the
companies were more encouraging to the ‘white’
candidate in terms of the number of replies and the
helpfulness of the replies
(Helps to explain why members of ethnic minorities are
more likely to face unemployment and low pay –
consequently having a negative effect on their children’s
educational prospects)
Ethnic differences in achievement – INTERNAL
FACTORS:

Labelling and teacher racism:

 Negative labels may lead teachers to treat ethnic minority
pupils differently, thus putting them at a disadvantage
 GILLBORN AND YOUDELL: teachers were quicker to
discipline black pupils than others for the same behaviour
– this is the result of teachers ‘racialised expectations’
(expecting black pupils to present more discipline
problems). When students responded negatively, further
conflict arose. Much of the conflict between white
teachers and black pupils stems from the racial
stereotypes teachers hold
 FOSTER: teachers’ stereotypes of black pupils as badly
behaved could result in them being placed in lower sets
 than other pupils of similar ability – likely to lead to lower
levels of achievement
 WRIGHT: found Asian pupils being the victim of teachers’
labelling – teachers held ethnocentric views, seeing British
culture and SE as superior – this affected how they related
to the Asian pupils, assuming they had a poor grasp on
English meant they often left them out of class discussions
or used simplistic language when talking to them – making
them feel marginalised
 COARD:

Pupil responses and subcultures:

 FULLER: describes how high achieving ‘untypical’ black girls
did not accept the negatives stereotypes of them, and
instead channelled anger into the pursuit of educational
success – regarded their teachers as racist and as far as
conforming, they only conformed as far as schoolwork was
concerned – worked conscientiously, but gave off the
appearance of not doing so.
→Sees this behaviour as a way of dealing with
contradictory demands of succeeding at school while
remaining friends with black girls in lower streams and
avoiding ridicule of anti-school black boys
→Pupils may succeed even if they do not conform
→Negative labelling does not always lead to failure
 MAC an GHAILL: study of black and Asian A level students
→ Students who believed had labelled them negatively did
not necessarily accept the label – how they responded
depended on factors such as their ethnic group and
gender and the nature of their former schools
 → Labelling does not inevitably produce a self-fulfilling
prophecy
 MIRZA: racist teachers discouraged black pupils from being
ambitious through the kind of advice they gave them
about careers and option choices
→Much of girls’ time at school was spent trying to avoid
effects of teachers’ negative attitudes – included being
selective about which staff to ask for help, getting on
with their own work in lessons without taking part and
not choosing certain options so as to avoid teachers
with racist attitudes
→a large majority of teachers held racist attitudes, MIRZA
identifies three main types:
✓ The colour-blind – teachers who believe all pupils are
equal but in practice allow racism to go unchallenged
✓ The liberal chauvinists – teachers who believe black
pupils are culturally deprived and who have low
expectations of them
✓ The overt racists – teachers who believe blacks are
inferior and actively discriminate against them
→Although pupils may devise strategies to try and avoid
teachers’ racism, these too can limit their opportunity
 SEWELL: in his study of a boys’ secondary school, he found
that many teachers had a stereotype of ‘black machismo’
which sees all black boys as rebellious, anti-authority and
anti-school – one effect is that black boys are more likely
to be excluded
→Identifies 4 ways in which the boys responded to racist
stereotyping:
1. The rebels:
▪ Most visible and influential group
 ▪ Small minority of black pupils
▪ Often excluded from school
▪ Rejected the goals and rules of the school –
expressed this through peer group membership –
conforming to the stereotype of the ‘black macho
lad’

2. The conformists:
▪ Largest group
▪ Keen to succeed
▪ Accepted the school’s goals and had friends from
different ethnic groups
▪ Anxious to be stereotyped by teachers and peers
3. The retreatists:
▪ tiny minority of isolated individuals
▪ disconnected from school and black subcultures
▪ despised by the rebels
4. The innovators:
▪ Second largest group
▪ Pro-education, but anti-school
▪ Conformed as far as school work is involved

 The labelling theory shows how teachers’ stereotypes can

be a cause of failure however there is a danger of seeing
this as the product of individual teacher prejudices rather
than racism in wider society and there is also a danger that
assuming once a pupil is labelled, they will automatically
fall victim to the self-fulfilling prophecy and fail
The ethnocentric curriculum:
 TROYNA AND WILLIAMS: the curriculum in British schools
is ethnocentric because it gives priority to white culture
and the English language
 DAVID: describes the national curriculum as a ‘specifically
British’ curriculum – largely ignores non-European
languages, literature and music
 BALL: criticises the national curriculum for ignoring cultural
and ethnic diversity and promoting an attitude of ‘little
Englandism’
 COARD: the ethnocentric curriculum may produce under-
achievement – the image of black people as inferior
undermines black children’s self esteem and leads to their
failure
→However it is not clear what impact the ethnocentric
curriculum has – STONE argues that black children do
not suffer from low self esteem
Institutional racism:
 TROYNA AND WILLIAMS: look how schools and colleges
routinely discriminate against ethnic minorities
→Institutional racism – discrimination that is built into the
way institutions operate
→Individual racism that results from the prejudiced views
of individuals
 Ethnocentric curriculum is a prime example on institutional
racism
 HATCHER: study of school governing bodies shows how
they gave low priority to race issues and failed to deal with
pupils’ racist behaviour. Also a lack of communication
between school and ethnic minority parents, meaning
concerns such as language support was lacking
 Institutional racism may create an environment where
ethnic minority pupils are consistently disadvantaged by a
system that disregards their needs

Selection and segregation:

 GILLBORN: marketisation has given schools greater scope
to select pupils, putting some ethnic minority pupils at a
disadvantage
 Selection gives more scope for negative stereotypes to
influence decisions about school admissions
 MOORE AND DAVENPORT: study on how selection
procedures lead to ethnic segregation, with minority pupils
failing to get into better schools. Conclude that selection
leads to an ethnically stratified education system
→ These schools discriminated against ‘problem
students’ – used primary school reports to screen out
pupils with language or learning difficulties and the
application process was difficult for less
educated/non-English speaking parents to
understand
 THE COMMISION FOR RACIAL EQUALITY (1993) identified
similar biases in British education – racism in school
admissions procedures often means ethnic minority
children end up in unpopular schools
→ Racist bias in interviews for school places
→ Reports from primary schools that stereotype
minority pupils
 However, another cause of segregation can be the result
of an active choice by parents
→GERWITZ: study of ‘Gorse’ and ‘Flightpath’ schools
shows – ‘Gorse’ attracted mainly Asian intake (and so
 many white parents refused to consider it), whilst
Asian parents saw it as ‘safe’ and having firm
discipline. ‘Flightpath’ was viewed by Asian parents as
‘a bit rough’ with a reputation for racism

Ethnicity, class and gender:

 EVANS: when examining black children’s achievement,
sociologists tend to look at their culture and ethnicity, but
rarely class. However, when examining white children’s
achievement, they look at their class rather than their
culture and ethnicity – need to look at all of those things
for every child
 CONNOLLY: shows how pupils and teacher’s construct
masculinity differently depending on ethnicity
→found that teachers saw black boys as disruptive
under-achievers and controlled them by punishing
them more and by channelling their energies into
sport – boys responded by seeking status in non-
academic ways (e.g. football)
→teachers saw Asian pupils as passive and conformist,
seen as silly/immature when they misbehaved as
opposed to threatening – both teachers and pupils
saw Asian boys as more ‘feminine’, vulnerable and in
need of protection from bullying
 Both studies show that we cannot consider ethnicity in
isolation from gender and class when explaining
differences in achievement

Gender differences in achievement – EXTERNAL

FACTORS:
 baseline tests show that 62% of girls can concentrate
without supervision for 10 minutes, but only 49% of boys
can do the same
 DfES – 70% of children with SEN are boys
 Girls do better than boys at KS1-3
 At GCSE this trend continues
 At A Level, the gap is smaller but girls still outperform boys
Differences in
Better
classroom behaviour
motivation Why do girls do better at school?
Girls
mature Different
quicker attitudes to
learning
Increasing career
ambitions

The impact of feminism:

 Has challenges traditional stereotypes of women’s role in
society
 Has had success in improving women’s right and
opportunities through changes in law
 MCROBBIE: points to change in magazines (media)
→1970s = ‘traditional’ women; emphasis on the
importance of marriage
→1990s = assertive, independent women
 Has helped raise expectations and self-esteem of women

Changes in the family:

 Changes since the 1970s such as an increase in divorce
rates, increased cohabitation, smaller families and
increased number of lone parent families
 These changes have impacted girls’ attitudes towards
education and has given girls role models

Changes in women’s employment:

 1970 Equal Pay Act – pay gap has since fallen from 30% to
17%
 1975 Sex Discrimination Act
 Proportion of women in employment has risen: 1979=47%
, 2007= over 70%
 Some women breaking through the ‘glass ceiling’ – the
invisible barrier to higher level jobs
 Changes have encouraged girls to see their future in terms
of paid work
 Greater opportunity, better pay and role models provide
an incentive for girls to gain qualifications

Changes in ambitions of girls:

 View that changes in the family and employment are
producing changes in girls’ ambitions
→SHARPE: conducted interviews with girls in the 1970s
and 1990s and compared results: show shift in how girls
see themselves in the future - 1970s = low aspirations
and believe that having ambition and intelligence could
be perceived as unattractive, 1990s = wanted to be
independent, priorities included being able to support
themselves and getting a good career
 FRANCIS: interviewed girls in 2001 and found that most
had high aspirations, most of which required educational
qualifications

Gender differences in achievement – INTERNAL

FACTORS:

Equal opportunity policies:

 The belief that boys and girls are equally capable and
entitled to the same opportunities is now part of the
mainstream thinking in education and influences
educational policies
→E.g. – GIST (girls into science and technology) encourage
girls to pursue careers in these non-traditional areas
→Introduction of the national curriculum in 1988 has
helped remove one source of gender inequality by
making girls and boys study mostly the same subjects
 BOALER: the impact of equal opportunities is a key reason
for the changes in girls achievement through the removal
of many of the barriers, also making school more
meritocratic
Positive role models in schools:
 Increase in the proportion of female teachers and head
teachers in recent years – in 1992, there was 50% of
women head teachers in nursery and primary schools, by
2005, there was 66% (DfES 2007)
 More female teachers has helped girls have a role model
for educational achievement
 It can be argued that primary schools have been
‘feminised’ – may have an impact on how far each gender
sees schooling as part of their ‘gender domain’
GCSE and coursework:
 Some argue that changes in ways pupils are assessed has
favoured girls and disadvantaged boys
→GORAD: found gender gap in achievement was
constant from 1975-1989 – changed when GCSE’s and
coursework were introduced – gap in achievement is
the “product of the changed system of assessment”
 GCSE system benefits girls due to early socialisation of
gender roles, meaning that they can meet demands of
GCSEs and coursework, and therefore able to achieve
greater success than boys
 However, ELWOOD argues that although coursework has
some influence, it is unlikely to be the only cause of the
gender gap – exams have more influence on final grades
Teacher attention:
 SPENDER: found teachers interact more with boys than
girls
 However, FRENCH AND FRENCH found that the amount of
attention teachers pay to boys and girls was similar
 FRANCIS: boys do get more attention, however were
disciplined more harshly and felt picked on by teachers
 SWANN: found gender differences in communication
styles. Boys dominated class discussions, whereas girls
prefer group work and are better at listening – may explain
why teacher respond more positively to girls than boys
Challenging stereotypes:
 There has been a removal of girls’ barriers to achievement
as a result of the removal of gender stereotypes from
textbooks and reading schemes
 Research in the 70s and 80s found that reading schemes
portrayed women mainly as housewives and mothers
 WEINER: since the 80s, teachers have challenged such
stereotypes of women, and the removal of sexist images
may have helped to raise girls’ achievement by presenting
them with more positive images of what women can do
 LOBBAN: studied 179 stories and 6 reading schemes,
finding that women were nearly always presented in
traditional domestic roles
Selection and league tables:
 Girls are more favourable as they do better in exams than
boys
 JACKSON: the introduction of exam league tables, which
place a high value on academic achievement, has
improved opportunities for girls – high achieving girls are
attractive to schools, whereas low-achieving boys are not.
 This tends to create a self-fulfilling prophecy because girls
are more likely to be recruited by good schools, whilst
boys who are seen as a risk go to low achieving schools
 SLEE: boys are less attractive to schools because they are
more likely to suffer from behavioural difficulties and are4
times more likely to be excluded
 As a result, boys are seen as ‘liability students’
 Boys and achievement:

Boys and literacy:

 DCSF (2007) claim that the gender gap is mainly the result
of boys’ poorer literacy and language skills
 Parents spent less time reading with boys
 Boys have less of a ‘bedroom culture’ and instead engage
in activities such as football
 These prevent boys from improving their language and
literacy skills and so cannot meet the demands of the
education system, require for educational success

Globalisation and the decline of traditional men’s jobs:

 the decline in many ‘male’ jobs has led to an ‘identity crisis
for men’ who now believe they have little prospects and so
give up trying (MITSOS AND BROWNE)
Feminisation of education:
 SEWELL: boys have fallen behind because education does
not nurture ‘masculine’ traits such as leadership – instead
they celebrate qualities that are more associated with girls,
putting boys at a disadvantage
Lack of male role models:
 DfES (2007) – men only make up 16% of primary school
teachers
→YOUGOV: 42% OF 8-11 Y/O boys said a male teacher
made them work harder

‘Laddish’ subcultures:
 EPSTEIN: boys were ridiculed for being ‘swots’ if they were
focussed on school
 FRANCIS: linked the idea of boys fearing being labelled as
swots because it was a threat to their masculinity
(importance of masculinity in w/c culture = being tough
and doing manual work)

Subject choice:
 There is a difference in the subjects that boys and girls
choose
 STABLES: national curriculum gives people freedom to
choose but this is where subjects become more gendered
– this even more so at A level
Explanations of gender differences in subject choice...
1. Early socialisation:
 Boys and girls are socialised differently – this shapes
their gender identity, and continues in school
 BYRNE: teachers encourage boys to be tough and
masculine, and girls to be quiet and helpful
 MURPHY: this leads them to have different choices in
subjects
 BROWNE AND ROSS: children’s beliefs about ‘gender
domains’ are shaped by their early experiences and
expectations of adults
 Children are more confident when engaging in tasks that
they see as part of their gender domain
 Study by MURPHY shows that boys and girls pay
attention to different details when tackling the same
 task which helps to explain why there is a difference in
subject choice

2. Gendered subject image:

 The image a subject gives off will affect who wants to
choose it
 KELLY: science is a boys subject for lots of reasons – one
being that most science teachers are make and
resources, such as textbooks are male dominated
 DfES: found that in single-sex schools, there are less
stereotyped subject images

3. Peer pressure:
 Choosing the same subjects as their friends as a result of
pressure applied to an individual if their choice is
disapproved
→E.g. boys not taking dance because it falls outside of
their gender domain and so are likely to receive a
negative response from peers
 DEWAR: did American study and found that girls were
called lesbians or ‘butch’ if they were more interested in
sport than in boys

4. Gendered career opportunities:

 Linked to subject choice because employment is highly
gendered
 Women stay in female friendly jobs such as cleaning
  Sex-typing gives people the idea that only certain jobs
are acceptable for their sex, and consequently affects
what subjects and courses they will choose

Gender identity:
 Pupils’ experiences in school reinforce their gender and
sexual identities.
 These experiences may all contribute to reinforcing
what CONNELL calls ‘hegemonic masculinity’ – the
dominance of heterosexual masculine identity and the
subordination of female and gay identities

1. Verbal abuse:
→CONNELL: “a rich vocabulary of abuse” is one of the
ways in which dominant gender and sexual identities are
reinforced
→LEES: boys called girls ‘slags’ if they appeared to be
sexually available – and ‘drags’ if they didn’t
→PAETCHER: sees name-calling as helping to shape
gender identity and maintain male power – calling pupils
labels such as ‘gay’ is a way in which pupils ‘police’ each
other’s sexual identities
→PARKER: found that boys were labelled as ‘gay’ for being
friendly with girls or female teachers
→However, PAETCHER and PARKER not that these labels
often bear no relation to pupils’ actual sexual behaviour,
but instead function to reinforce gender norms

2. Male peer groups:

  Male peer groups use verbal abuse to reinforce their
definitions of masculinity
 EPSTEIN AND WILLIS: boys in anti-school subcultures
often accuse boys who want to do well of being gay or
effeminate
 MAC AN GHAILL: studied Parnell School and found how
peer groups reproduce a range of different class-based
masculine identities
 REDMAN AND MAC AN GHAILL: the dominant definition
of masculine identity changes from that of the macho
lads in the lower school to that of the real Englishmen
by sixth-form – represents a shift away from a w/c
based definition based on toughness to a m/c one based
on intellectual ability

3. Teachers and discipline:

 HAYWOOD AND MAC AN GHAILL: found that male
teachers told boys off for ‘behaving like girls’ and teased
them when they gained low marks in tests than girls -
teacher play an important role in reinforcing dominant
definitions of gender identity
 ASKEW AND ROSS: male teachers’ behaviour can subtly
reinforce messages about gender identity
→Make teachers often have a protective attitude
towards female colleagues, coming into their
classes to ‘rescue’ them by threatening pupils who
are being disruptive (also reinforces idea that
women cannot cope alone)

4. The male gaze:

  MAC AN GHAILL: refer to the visual aspect to the way
pupils control each others’ identity as the ‘male gaze’:
the way male pupils and teacher look girls up and down,
seeing them as sexual objects and making judgements
about their appearance
→See the male gaze as a form of surveillance through
which dominant heterosexual masculinity is
reinforced and femininity devalued – it is a way
boys can prove their masculinity

5. Double standards:
 A double standard exists when we apply one set of
moral standards to one group but a different to another
group
 LEES: Identifies a double standard of sexual morality in
which boys boast about their own sexual exploits, but
call a girl a ‘slag’ if she doesn’t have a steady boyfriend
or if she dresses and speaks in a certain way
→Sexual conquest is approved of and given status by
male peers and ignored by male teachers, whereas
‘promiscuity’ among girls attracts negative labels

The role of education: functionalism and

new right:
[Functionalism]
Functionalists are interested in the functions of education:
→Social integration
→Socialisation
→Social placement
 →Social and cultural innovation
DURKHEIM:
 wrote ‘moral education’ (1961)
 takes a structuralist, macro approach to the role of
education in society
 key concept = social solidarity
 major function of education is the transmission of
society’s norms and values
 without similar attitudes in people, social life would be
impossible
 education, particularly the teaching of history, provides
links between the individual and society. Children will
come to see that they are part of something larger than
themselves, they will develop a sense of commitment to
the social group
 school makes children cooperate with other members of
society besides family and friends – it is society in
miniature
 education also teaches children skills for their future
role
 armchair theorist
Weaknesses:
→DURKHEIM assumes the norms and values
transmitted by the education system are those of
society as a whole. (MARXISTS would argue the
values transmitted are those of the ruling class/ruling
elite)
PARSONS:
 Structuralist, macro approach
  Key concepts = focal socialising agency, particularistic
and universalistic standards, ascribed/achieved status,
meritocracy and role allocation
 School acts as a bridge between the family and society,
preparing children for their adult roles
 School prepares children for the transition between
their particularistic standards and ascribed status of the
family, to the universalistic standards and achieve status
of society
 Status is achieved on the basis of merit (meritocracy) –
debateable
 Advanced, industrial society requires a highly motivated,
achievement orientated workforce.
 By using the principle of differential reward for
differential achievement, this value is instilled in society
 Schools match children to occupations based on
aptitude and achievement
 Armchair theorist
Weaknesses:
→Evidence that equal opportunity in education does
not exist; achievement is greatly influence by class
background rather than ability
→Fails to recognize that the value of consensus may be
that of the ruling elite
→WRONG: argues that functionalists have an ‘over-
socialised’ view of people as puppets of society –
wrongly imply that pupils passively accept all they are
taught and never reject the schools’ values
(deterministic)
DAVIS AND MOORE:
 see education as a device for selection and role
allocation
 focus on the relationship between education and social
inequality
 inequality is necessary to ensure that the most
important roles are filled by the most talented people
 not everyone is equally talented, so society offers higher
rewards for these jobs to encourage everyone to
compete for them
 education acts as a proving ground for ability, it ‘sifts
and sorts’ us according to our ability – the most able
gain the highest qualifications, giving them entry to the
highest rewarding positions
Criticisms:
→TUMIN: DAVIS&MOORE put forward a circular
argument
→NEW RIGHT: the state education system fails to
prepare young people adequately for work because
state control of education discourages efficiency,
competition and choice

[New Right]
 Believe that the state cannot meet people’s needs, and so
people must meet their own needs through the free
market
 Favour the marketisation of education
 Oppose multi-cultural education that reflects the cultures
of the different minority groups in Britain
 Believe that some are more naturally talented than others
 Favour an education system run on meritocratic principles
of open competition and one that serves the needs of the
economy by preparing young people for work
 Believe that education should socialise pupils into shared
values, such as completion and instil a sense of national
identity
 Believe that the current education system is not achieving
these goals because it is run by the state
 Believe the state takes a ‘one size fits all’ approach –
imposing uniformity and disregarding local needs
 State education systems = unresponsive and breed
inefficiency
 Schools that waste money or get poor results lead to lower
standards of achievement for pupils, a less qualified
workforce and less prosperous economy
→SOLUTION = marketisation of education
✓ Competition between schools and the laws of
supply and demand will empower consumers,
resulting in greater choice, diversity and
efficiency to schools and increasing their ability
to meet the needs of pupils, parents and
employers
CHUBB AND MOE:
  Argue that the American state education has failed
 Make a case of opening it up to market forces of supply
and demand
 Claim that:
→Disadvantaged groups have been badly served by
state education – has failed to create opportunity
→State education is inefficient as it fails to produce
pupils with skills needed by the economy
→Private schools deliver higher quality education
because, unlike state schools, they are answerable to
paying consumers (parents)
 Base their arguments of a comparison of the achievements
of 60,000 low income families in 1,015 state and private
high schools
 Evidence shows that pupils from low-income families
consistently do about 5% better in private schools
 Call for the introduction of a market system in state
education that would put control in the hands of
consumers (parents and local communities
→Argue it would allow consumers to shape schools to
meet their own needs and would improve quality and
efficiency
 Propose an end to system where schools automatically
receive guaranteed funding, and instead propose a system
in which each family would be given a voucher to spend on
buying education from a school of their choice
 This would force schools to be more responsive to parents’
demands as they would have to compete for ‘business’
Two roles for the state:
 See the state as having two important roles:
→Imposes a framework on schools, within which they
have to compete (e.g. – through Ofsted reports and
league tables, parents can make informed choices
between schools)
→Ensures that the schools transmit a shared culture.
The national curriculum seeks to guarantee that
schools socialise pupils into a single cultural heritage
Evaluation:
 GERWITZ AND BALL: competition between schools
benefits the m/c, who can use their cultural and economic
capital to gain access to more desirable schools
 MARXISTS: education imposes the culture of dominant
minority ruling class, not a shared national culture
The role of education: Marxism

 See society based on class conflict

 See education as legitimising inequality through ideology
→Education prepares children for the world of work by
giving them skills and values they’ll need
→Education justifies inequality
→Education passes on ruling class ideology that
supports capitalism
ALTHUSSER:
 Education is an ideological state apparatus (ISA)
 Education’s main function is to maintain, legitimate and
reproduce generation by generation, class inequalities in
 wealth and power by transmitting ruling-class values
disguised as common values
 Hidden curriculum
 Two functions:
→Reproduces class inequality
→Justifies class inequalities
 State consists of two ‘apparatuses’ which both serve to
keep the bourgeoisie in power
→The repressive state apparatuses (RSAs) – maintain
the rule of the bourgeoisie by force or the threat of it
→The ideological state apparatuses (ISA) – maintain the
rule of the bourgeoisie by controlling peoples idea,
values and beliefs
Criticisms:
→(MORROW AND TORRES) critical modernists argues that
sociologists must explain how education reproduces and
legitimises all forms of inequality, not just class and how
the different forms of inequality are inter-related
→in schools today, there are a range of policies aimed at
different children to try and provide equal opportunity

BOWLES AND GINTIS:

 Education serves to reproduce capitalist relations of
production
 Education ensures that workers will unquestionably adapt
to the needs of the system
 ‘correspondence theory’
→What goes on in school corresponds directly to the
world of work
 Hidden curriculum
 Success is not entirely related to intellectual ability
→Pupils who conform and fit in, rise above those who
display behaviour which challenges the system
 Studied 237 New York high school students – found
schools reward those with the personality traits of a
compliant worker
 Education stunts and distorts students’ development
Criticisms:
→REYNOLDS: curriculum does not seem designed to
teach the skills needed by employers or uncritical
passive behaviour that makes workers easy to exploit
✓ Survival of liberal humanities-based subjects and
limited emphasis on science and applied
knowledge suggests a lack of correspondence
→CROWN: modern businesses need shared teamwork and
creativity but exam system encourages completion and
judgement
→Fail to recognise a lack of correspondence between
schools and the needs of the economy

WILLIS:
 Schools reproduce the relations of production by
demonstrating that the boys in the anti-school
 subculture shared a similar outlook to the workers in the
factories they were likely to end up in
 w/c pupils can resist such attempts to indoctrinate them
 acts of defiance are ways of resisting school
 notes similarities between anti-school counter-culture
and shop floor culture of male manual workers
Strengths:
→triangulated his methods Allowed him to obtain more
✓ observation/participated in-depth data
✓ interviews
Criticisms:
→his study was so small-scale that we cannot generalise
his findings
→interviewed boys as a group – may have had influence
over each other: in groups people tend to conform to
what others say

Educational policy and inequality:

Selection: the tripartite system:

 1944-1965
 Aims:
→ To educate all to make the best use of their talents
→ Britain needed a better educated workforce
 Details:
→ A 3 stage education system
→ Introduction of a meritocratic system – based on
ability
→ An exam at aged 11 determined entrance – based
on IQ (passed by mainly m/c)
→ Grammar schools offered an academic curriculum
and access to non-manual jobs and HE
→ Secondary modern schools offered a non-academic
‘practical’ curriculum and access to manual work for
pupils who failed the 11+ (mainly w/c)
 Pros:
→The more able don’t get held back
→Served many m/c families well
→Did provide almost guaranteed social mobility for those
w/c pupils who made it to grammar schools
→Gave w/c pupils more chances than they have today
 Cons:
→Labelling – people who didn’t make it into grammar
schools
→Only 2 types of school available
→Divided children from different backgrounds
→Some children received a ‘second class’ education
The comprehensive system:
 1965-1979
 Aims:
 → Introduced by the labour government.
→ Ensure all students no matter what their ability had a
similar education
 Details:
→No entry examinations. Schools serve their catchment
areas.
→All students of all ability attend the same school.
→Both boys/girls attend the same school.
→Reflected catchment - locality
 Pros:
→One education for all – fairness!
→Brings together children from different social classes.
→No entrance exam – all treated fairly.
→Larger schools = cheaper to run.
→Serves its local catchment area
 Cons:
→Labelling – people who didn’t make it into grammar
schools
→Only 2 types of school available
→Divided children from different backgrounds
→Some children received a ‘second class’ education

Marketisation and parentocracy:

 The 1988 Education Reform Act introduced by the
Conservative Government under Thatcher established the
principle of marketisation in education

1. Marketisation:
→Competition between schools encouraged
 →Successful schools with thrive, and those that are failing
will either have to improve or face funding cuts or
closure
→ERA created an ‘education market’ by:
✓ Reducing direct state control over education
✓ Increasing both competition between schools and
parental choice of school
(argue that state control leads to low standards, inefficiency
and lack of choice for parents)
→DAVID: describes this phase as a ‘parentocracy’ –
supporters of marketisation argue that in an education
market, power shifts away from the producers to the
consumers – this encourages diversity among schools
and gives parents more choice, meets the needs of
different pupils and raises standard
→Policies include: exam league tables, Ofsted inspections,
business sponsorship of schools and formula funding

2. The reproduction of inequality:

 Critics argue that marketisation has increased
inequalities between pupils
 BALL AND WHITTY: examine how marketisation
reproduces and legitimises inequality – via exam league
tables and the funding formula...
→Exam league tables:
 Schools with good results attract parents, and so
are in more demand
 Allows schools to be more selective, choosing
only the high-achieving
  Schools with poor league table position –
opposite applies. Cannot afford to be more
selective and have to take the less able – results
are poorer and remain unattractive
 Overall effect = produces unequal schools that
reproduce social class inequalities
→The funding formula:
 Schools allocated funds by formula based on
how many pupils they attract
 Popular schools get more funds – can afford
better quality teachers and facilities and to be
more selective = attract more able/ambitious
m/c applicants
 Unpopular schools lose income and find it
difficult to match the teacher and facilities of
their more successful rivals - unpopular schools
fail to attract pupils and their funding is further
reduced

3. Testing:
 Allows parents to judge the quality of schools –pupils
would sit national tests at the ages of 7,11 and 14 as
well as GCSEs and A levels
4. The national curriculum:
 Introduced to help provide a meaningful comparison of
standards
 Prescribed a range of subject that every school would
have to teach
 Influence of local authorities on education was reduced
Criticisms:
→ Testing can be damaging and stressful on children
→ Testing may disrupt what was taught, schools
would ‘teach to test’
→ Very few extra places were available in popular
schools – parents had little or no choice of schools
→ League tables were felt to be counterproductive –
schools might not admit low achievers or difficult pupils
or enter them for exams
→ Competition may force schools to spend large
amount of money on marketing rather than on the
education of pupils
The myth of parentocracy:
 BALL: believes that marketisation gives the appearance
of creating a ‘parentocracy’, however it is a myth, not
reality
→Claims parents have the same freedom to choose
which school to send their children to
However: GERWITZ shows m/c parents have more
economic and cultural capital and so are better
able to take advantage of the choices available

For example, LEECH AND CAMPOS show what middle class

parents can afford to move into the catchment areas of more
desirable schools
By disguising the fact schooling continues to reproduce class
inequality in this way, the ‘myth of parentocracy’ makes
inequality in education appear to be fair and inevitable
New Labour polices since 1997:
1. Reducing inequality:
 Introduced several policies aimed specifically at
reducing inequality in achievement by targeting support
on disadvantaged groups
→E.g. – designating some deprived areas as
Education Action Zones and providing them with
additional resources
→E.g. – the Aim Higher programmes to raise the
aspirations of groups who are under-represented
 Also introduced policies to raise achievement and
standards more generally, such as the National Literacy
Strategy – claimed these policies are of greater benefit
to disadvantaged groups and so help reduce inequality

2. Promoting diversity and choice:

 Aimed to promote greater diversity and choice
 E.g. – 2002 Blair said education needs to move into the
‘post-comprehensive’ era, replacing the ‘one size fits all,
mass production’ education system with a new one built
around the aptitudes and needs f the individual child
and where power is in the hands of parents
 Labour introduced a number of policies
→E.g. – secondary schools encouraged to apply for
specialist school status in particular curriculum
areas (by 2007, about 85% of secondary schools
had become specialist schools) – argued this offers
parents a greater choice and raises standards of
achievement
 →E.g. – promoted academies as a policy for raising
achievement and plans to have 200 academies by
2010 in hope to raise the former comprehensives
with poor results
3. Postmodernism and New Labour policies:
 THOMPSON: argues education becomes ‘customised’ to
meet the differing needs of diverse communities – in
postmodern society, schools can break free from the
‘oppressive uniformity’ of the old centralised ‘one size
fits all’ mass education system where all schools are
expected to be the same
 USHER: contrasts modern and postmodern education:
Education in modern society Education in postmodern
society
 ‘one size fits all’ mass  Diverse and customised to
education individual learners’ needs
 Controlled centrally by the  Controlled locally by
state communities
 Fixed in time and place  Flexible (e.g. – distance
learning via the internet)
 Only takes place during a  Lifelong learning –
fixed period of the individuals constantly
individual’s life update their skills in
response to the changing
needs of the economy
 Teacher led – the learner  The learner is active and
passively absorbs learns through their own
knowledge from the experience
teacher
 (Postmodernists relate these changes in education to
changes in the economy and wider society – especially the
trend towards ‘post-Fordism’)
Strengths:
→TROWLER: policies such as increased funding of state
education, raising standards and a focus on a ‘learning
society’ is evidence of Labour’s commitment to reducing
educational inequality
Criticisms of New Labour policies:
→WHITTY: sees a contradiction between Labour’s policies
to tackle inequality and its commitment to
marketisation (e.g. – while EMAs may encourage w/c
students to stay on until they are 18, tuition fees for
higher education may deter them from going to
university) Labours anti-inequality policies are merely
‘cosmetic’ – present a positive image without actually
reducing class inequalities
Policies relating to gender and ethnicity:
 Gender:
→Since the 1970s policies such as GIST have been
introduced to reduce gender differences in subject
choice
→More recently, under the tripartite system, girls often
had to achieve a higher mark than boys in the 11+ in
order to obtain a grammar school place (unlike in the
19th century when girls were largely excluded from HE)
 Ethnicity:
→There have been policies aimed at raising the
achievement of children from minority background, and
these policies have gone through several phases:
1. ASSIMULATION – policies in the 60s and 70s focussed
on the need for pupils from minority ethnic groups to
assimilate into mainstream British culture as a way of
raising their achievement, especially by helping those
for whose English was not their first language (closely
related to compensatory education)
However critics argue that some minority groups who
are at risk of under-achieving such as African
Caribbean pupils, already speak English and that the
real cause of their under-achievement lies in poverty
or racism

2. MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION (MCE) - policies

through the 80s and into the 90s aimed to promote
the achievements of children from minority ethnic
groups by valuing all cultures in the school curriculum,
thereby raising minority pupils’ self-esteem and
achievements
However MCE has been criticised on several
grounds....
 STONE: argues that black pupils do not fail for
lack of self-esteem, so MCE is misguided
 The New Right criticise MCE for perpetuating
cultural divisions – they take an assimilationst
view that education should teach a shared
national culture and identity into which
minorities should be assimilated
3. SOCIAL INCLUSION – of pupils from minority ethnic
groups, and policies to raise their achievement; have
been the focus since the late 1990s. Policies include:
 ✓ Detailed monitoring of exam results by ethnicity
✓ Amending the Race Relations Act to place a legal
duty on schools to promote racial equality
✓ Help for voluntary ‘Saturday schools’ in the black
community
✓ Continued funding of English as an Additional
Language programmes
However MIRZA sees little genuine change in policy –
she argues that instead of tackling the structural causes
of ethnic inequality such as poverty and racism,
educational policy still takes a ‘soft’ approach that
focuses on culture, behaviour and the home
→Argues that although schemes for motivational and
personal development and projects on parenting
skills etc might make a small difference, they are
short-term policies unlikely to have any lasting
impact.