Paper 1 Education

• F = Durkheim (role of education)


  To pass on society's culture and build social solidarity
• F = Parsons (role of education)


  To provide a bridge between particularistic and universalistic values (society in miniature) through hidden curriculum and norms and values.
• F = Schultz (role of education) (1971)


  Form human capital through investment and sorting workforce
• F = Davis and Moore (role of education) (1967)


  Role allocation (evaluate and sort people) and legitimizing inequality through meritocracy (specialised labourforce)
• CF = Marxists


  Over qualified workforce so lower wages, more youth unemployment and skills shortage.

  Hidden curriculum prepares students for exploitation.
• M = Bowles and Gintis


  Correspondence principle (relationship between treatment of children and adults)

  Myth of meritocracy
• M = Althusser (1970)


  W/C controlled through:

  Ideological state apparatus (Control thoughts and pass on dominant ideology)

  Repressive state apparatus (Control through institutions (prison))
• CM = Paul Willis

  Counter school culture

  'Lads' go against ideological state apparatus and agree with correspondence principle.
• CM = Morrow and Torres (1998)


  Other inequalities such as : ethnicities, gender
• NL+NR = Chubb and Moe


  State education has not created equal opportunity, failed disadvantaged. Private schools better quality.
• NL+NR = Gewirtz (1995) and Ball (1994)


  Competition is good for the middle class - cultural and economic capital to access the best schools
• CD = Bereiter and Engelmann (1966)


  Language in W/C is deficient

  Incapable of abstract thinking, unable to explain.
• CD = Bernstein


  Restricted code = Limited vocab, non analytical description, context bound

  Elaborate code = Wider vocab, long, descriptive sentences, context free
• CD = Hyman (1967)

  Beliefs and values of W/C are a self imposed barrier.
• CD = Douglas


  Working parents are less ambitious for children, less encouraging, less interest in child's education, less school visits.
• CD = Douglas and Feinstein

  Parental influence:

  - Parenting style - Educational behaviours

  - Use of income - Level of education
• CD = Sugarman (1970)


  W/C have different goals to M/C

  W/C goals = Fatalism, immediate gratification, present time orientation, collectivism.
• MD = Smith and Noble (1995)


  Reasons why low income hinders learning:

  - No computer

  - More competition

  - Part time jobs

  - W/C less likely to take part in extra curriculars
• MD = Wilkinson (1996)

  Lower social class have higher levels of anxiety, ADHD and conduct disorder
• MD = Howard (2001)

  Lower energy due to bad diet and health impact on attendance
• MD = Bull (1980)


  Cost of 'free schooling', experiences and equipment...
• MD = Tanner (1993)


  Transport cost, books, uniform, art, music are a heavy burden.
• MD = Flaherty


  Stigmatisation - 20% eligible from FSM reject
• CC = Pierre Bourdieu


  Pass on educational capital due to knowledge
• CC = Sullivan (2001)


  Confirmed Bourdieu, those who read complex fiction and serious documentaries developed high cultural knowledge
• CC = Leach and Campos

  Their study reflects Bourdieu's theory, shows M/C parents can afford house in catchment of school areas which are highly placed on exam league.
• L+SFP = Howard Becker (1971)


  Interviewed teachers in high school and found pupils were judged according to how closely they fitted the ideal pupil image. M/C closest
• L+SFP = Amelia Hempel-Jorgensen (2009)

  Went to 2 primary schools and judges ideality found W/C school had discipline problems, behaviour not ability is focused on. Whilst M/C had few discipline problems and academic ability is focused on.
• L+SFP = Dunne and Gazeley (2008)

  W/c underachievement was normalised by teachers and saw that there was little they could do to change it.

  However m/c underachievement was something to be overcome so teachers would push them to achieve.
• L+SFP = Ray Rist (1970)


  Teachers used children's home background and appearance to place them in separate groups; 'Tigers' - middle class (neat appearance) sat on a table nearest to the teacher and had the greatest encouragement; other groups ('clowns' and ' cardinals') working class, seated further away, given low level books and fewer opportunities; labels applied within 8 days, stuck for 2+ years of the study
• L+SFP = Rosenthal and Jacobson


  Picked 20% of pupils at random and told school they were 'spurters'. 47% made significant progress
• CD (ethnicity) = Bereiter (1966) and Engelman (1968)


  Many children from low income black families lack intellectual and linguistic skills.
• CD (ethnicity) = Arnot (2004)

  Media created negative anti school role model for black pupils, for example by rap.
• CD (ethnicity) = Moynihan (1965)


  Black families headed by lone mother-finance issue
• CD (ethnicity) = Murray (1984)


  Agree with Moynihan idea of lack of male role model
• CD (ethnicity) = Flew (1986)


  Underachievement from cultural diff not ED system
• CD (ethnicity) = Scruton (1986)

  Low achievement results from failure to embrace British culture.
• CD (ethnicity) = Pryce (1979)


  Compared Black Caribbean and Asian pupils : Asian students high achievers due to culture and resistance to racism.
• CD (ethnicity) = Sewell


  Fathers, gangs and culture:

  Absent fathers are not the problem, boys turn to street gangs for role models, peer pressure to be anti school, wanting to do well in ED is 'selling out'.
• CD (ethnicity) = Driver and Ballard (1981)

  Asian families pro-school attitude

  Rarely lone-parent = support network