AS Unit 1: Education

The Specification

Key Concepts

Social class Cultural Deprivation

Language Codes FSM

Subcultural values

Cognitive challenge

Compensatory Education

Immediate Gratification

Material Deprivation EMA

Explaining Social Class Differences in Achievement

Internal Factors (In School)

Labelling

Self-fulfilling Prophecy

Pupil Subcultures

Pupils’ class identities and the school

External Factors (Outside School)

Cultural Deprivation

Material Deprivation

Cultural Capital

It can take a number of forms...

Cultural Deprivation

Language (cognitive challenge)

Different subcultural

values

ParentalAttitudes

Culture Clash

Speech Codes

Bourdieu (1984) Cultural Capital

Material and cultural factors are interrelated.

Cultural Capital Educational and

Economic Capital

Read the article in your handout!

Bourdieu: Cultural Capital

Knowledge, attitudes, values, language, tastes and abilities of the middle classes are a type of capital.

Advantages MC children who know how to express ideas and what is needed to be successful in education.

School devalues WC culture – their lack of cultural capital leads to exam failure – education is not for them.

Bourdieu: Educational and Economic Capital

MC children with cultural capital are better equipped to meet the demands of school.

Wealthier parents can convert their wealth into educational capital = private schools or extra tuition.

Wealthier families can move into areas with better schools (Selection by Mortgage).

Middle class children are more likely to achieve not because they’re more intelligent but because they have more cultural capital. This is where they have the knowledge and skills that are valued in education. Middle class children are more likely to be raised by professional parents, often with higher qualifications, who will have passed some of this knowledge onto their kids.

Leisure time is more likely to be spent on educational pursuits like visiting museums as they have both the money and the attitude / appreciation.

Sullivan (2001) Cultural Capital?

Questionnaires of 465 pupils in 4 schools to assess their cultural capital – what they read, trips, vocab and knowledge.

Successful pupils tended to have more cultural capital and were MC (read complex fiction, documentaries).

Gewirtz (1995) Marketisation and Parental Choice

1998 Education Reform Act - Parents’ have a right to choose which school their child goes to.

Study of parental choice at 14 London secondary schools.

Parents economic and cultural capital influenced whether they exercised this choice.

Gewirtz (1995) Marketisation and Parental Choice

• Professional MC parents who used their position to gain advantage for their children. They understood how the system worked – knew deadlines and appeal processes. They could also use their economic capital to move into catchment area.

Privileged Skilled Choosers

• WC parents whose choices were restricted by their lack of economic and cultural capital. Did not understand the system, not confident in how to gain advantage. Distance and cost of travel were more important than quality of school.

Disconnected Local Choosers

• WC parents but aspirational. Did not understand the system – felt frustrated that they could not get children into their schools of choice.

Semi-skilled Choosers

Boudon Positional Theory

• Educational inequality is inevitable due to our class structure.

• W/C start school in a different position to M/C.• W/C students carry out a different cost/benefit

analysis of the value of going to University. With rising fees – w/c may conclude the costs outweigh the benefits.

Who said what?

Using your Webb et al book. Summarise what each writer said then classify their contribution into one of the following:

Cultural Deprivation

Material Deprivation

Cultural Capital

Who said what?

JWB Douglas (1964)

Bernstein et al (1975)

Leon Feinstein (2008)

Herbert Hyman (1967)

Barry Sugarman

(1970)

Marilyn Howard (2001)

David Bull (1980)

Emily Tanner (2003)

Leech and Campos (2003)

Alice Sullivan (2001)

Sharon Gewirtz (1995)

Jan Flaherty (2004)

Exam Questions – External Factors

(a) Define the term ‘immediate gratification’ (2 marks)(b) Use one example, briefly explain how the restricted

code may lead to underachievement. (2 marks)(c) Outline three ways in which housing may affect

achievement. (6 marks)(d) Evaluate the view that middle class pupils’ higher

achievement is due to external factors. (20 marks)

To start: Which factors do you think is most imperative to a child’s academic success?

External class factors affective

achievement

Cultural deprivation: Intellectual development; linguistic deprivation; parental attitudes and values

Material deprivation: Standard or housing; diet; financial support; costs of education

Cultural capital: Parental tastes and interests; contacts; knowlege of school system; types of school chooser (Gewirtz)

You have been given a sticker…Put it on

For the rest of the lesson I will treat you in accordance with the label.Live up to the characteristic depicted on your sticker.

Internal factors linked to class and achievement

• In pairs, brainstorm a list of internal factors (in school), linked to class, that might affect academic achievement

• 2 minutes

The key internal factors linked to class and achievement

In-school factors

Teacher Labelling

Self-fulfilling

prophecy

Pupil subcultures

Marketisation and school selection policies

The looking-glass self is a social psychological concept, created by Charles Horton Cooley in 1902 (McIntyre 2006), stating that a person's self grows out of society's interpersonal interactions and the perceptions of others. The term refers to people shaping themselves based on other people's perception

1.We imagine how we must appear to others.2.We imagine the judgment of that appearance.3.We develop our self through the judgments of others.

Activity: The Ideal Student?

Attitude to workAppearanceConductRelationship with teacher

Labelling

• Interactionist approach – (sociological perspective)

“To attach a meaning or definition to someone” Teachers may label pupils bright, lazy or troublemakers.

Activity:List the characteristics which make up an ideal pupil. Draw

them!

THUG

USELESS

TRASHCOMMONSTUPID

NICE

CLEVER

SKET

ANNOYING

WEIRDO

SUCK-UP

THICK

STUCK-UP

Howard S Becker (1971) Ideal Pupil

Interviews with 60 Chicago High School teachers. They judged pupils according to how closely they matched an ideal pupil.

Teachers saw MC children as closest to the ideal and WC children furthest away.

Hempel-Jorgenson (2009) Study of two primary schools

AspenW/CDiscipline a major problem

Ideal pupil = quiet, passive, obedient.

RowanM/CFew discipline problems.

Ideal pupil = personality and academic ability.

Dunne & Gazeley (2008) Interviews in 9 state secondary schools

• Teachers normalised the underachievement of w/c students.

• Teachers believe parent’s attitudes are negative towards school.

• M/C underachievement seen as fixable.

• M/C students given extension activities.

• Assumed parents would be supportive.

Ray Rist (1970) American Kindergarten

• Teachers used information gained from child’s home background to place them in separate groups.

• Fast learners ‘Tigers’ = M/C, clean and neat in appearance. Seated closest to her. Lots of praise.

• ‘Cardinals’ & ‘Clowns’ seated furthest away. Given lower-level books. Little praise.

Observation Study

Labelling in the classroom

Sharp and Green (1975) Primary school study – Philosophy: children allowed to learn at own pace.

In reality, M/C children who started reading earlier where helped more whilst W/C children ignored.

High and Low status knowledge

Keddie (1971) Observation of Secondary School classes which were streamed but followed same humanities syllabus.

‘A’ stream pupils given abstract, theoretical high status knowledge. ‘Less able’ C stream pupils given descriptive, commonsense low status knowledge.

Teachers had lower expectations of ‘lower ability’ classes which tend to contain more W/C children.

Labelling of Potential?

Gillborn and Youdell (2001) Schools use teachers notions of ability to decide whether students have potential to achieve A-C grades.

W/C and black pupils less likely to be perceived as having ability and more likely to be put into lower sets and entered for lower tiers which denies them the knowledge to get good grades.

Schools focus on moving D grade students to become C grades and ignore the rest.

Labelling Studies

1. Do you think schools label pupils? What evidence do you have?

2. What might be the problems with the methods used in some of these studies? How does this influence the findings?

3. Do labels given to students matter?

Thinking Aloud!

YOU’LL NEVER AMOUNT TO ANYTHING!

Fair enough…

The self-fulfilling prophecy

STEP 1:The teacher labels a pupil – and on the basis of this label, makes predictions.

The self-fulfilling prophecySTEP 2:The teacher treats the pupil accordingly, acting as if the prediction is already true

The self-fulfilling prophecySTEP 3:The pupil internalises the teacher’s expectation which becomes part of his/her self-concept or image. The pupil now lives up to the idea of the pupil that the teacher thought he/she was in the first place.

The teacher labels – and makes a prediction about a student:

The teacher treats the pupil accordingly, acting as if the prediction is already true

The pupil internalises the expectation, which becomes part of his self-image. They actually become the pupil the teacher believed them to be in the first place

These steps illustrates the 3 steps towards a developing self-fulfilling prophecy which

develops from labelling.

Imagine you are teacher that has labelled a male student as lazy. Write sound bite that

illustrates each stage

Labelling can often lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy…

This when the labels are internalised by the pupil, and they begin to come true.

i.e. If you are treated as the stupid kid, you internalise this (incorporate it into your personality) and you begin to act that way – the prophecy is fulfilled.

You’ll never

amount to

anything!

You’re such a clever and

helpful boy!

Self-fulfilling Prophecy

Activity: Role play interactions between a teacher and a student for both positive and negative labels.

Know the story?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJr9SSJKkII

Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) Pygmalion in the Classroom

Field experiment in a California Primary School.

Told school they had a test which could identify ‘spurters’. Researchers tested all the pupils – then picked 20% at random and identified them as gifted.

One year later – 47% of those identified as spurters had made significant progress.

Teachers beliefs about the students had been influenced by those test results and the interacted with them differently.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTghEXKNj7g

Critique of Self-Fulfilling Prophecy?

1. Field experiment – How do we know factors other than the labelling may have caused the improvements?

2. Do all students accept their labels? Some students resist or challenge the label. Some students achieve despite being labelled by their teachers.

3. Not all teachers agree on the label and may treat students differently.

Assessment Question

• Exam Question.

• Describe and evaluate the concept of ‘self-fulfilling prophecy’. (4 marks)

PERCY

PERCy Paragraph on SFP

Point •The Self fulfilling prophecy is…

Explain •It can affect a W/C childs attainment because

Research •In their study, Rosenthal …

Critique •However, this idea can be criticised because …

Plenary

Use the success criteria to mark your answer.

Home Learning Questions

1) Explain what is meant by the self-fulfilling prophecy. (2 marks)

2) Explain the difference between labelling and self-fulfilling prophecy. (4 marks)

3) Identify and briefly explain one criticism of the labelling theory of educational under-achievement. (4 marks)

4) Outline and evaluate the concept of self-fulfilling prophecy. (4 marks)