students internalise the label they've been given as a part of their identity and act up to the label
gillbourne and youdell
black pupils were more likely to be disciplined than their white classmates for the same behaviour, and felt that teachers had low expectations of them
willis - subcultures
studied group of boys (lads) who were part of an anti school subculture
deliberately disrupted lessons to gain others respect
they were working class, likely to get manual jobs
saw school as useless to their future
lacey
anti school subculture as a result of streaming
all students were selected 'bright' at age 11
bottom stream students formed anti school subculture
they were labelled as failures
fuller
group of year 11 black girls in comprehensive school
high ability but felt that teachers were racist
formed subculture where they worked hard for their benefit rather than for teachers approval
mixed ability
students are sorted into classes not based on ability, top and bottom students taught together
can avoid worsening gaps in achievement
teachers still have low expectations for lower ability pupils
lower level of teaching doesn't challenge higher ability pupils
streaming
students are sorted into classes according to ability and stay in these groups for all subjects
students can work at their own level and pace
likely to be better at some subjects than others
aren't challenged enough in some subjects
can lead to low self esteem
setting
students are sorted into classes according to ability, but subject by subject
students can work at their own level and pace
can lead to low self esteem
ball - streaming
the pupils in top streams tended to be from higher social classes
douglas - material deprivation
children in unsatisfactory living conditions didn't do well in ability tests compared to others
douglas - cultural deprivation
the level of parental interest in the most important factor in affecting achievement
middle class parents attend parents evening more
however, working class parents may have inconvenient shifts
bernstein
working class pupils use restricted code
middle calss pupils use elaborated code
bourdieu
middle class pupils have right kind of cultural capital
more cultural capital means more success
middle class families pass on cultural capital
sugarman
pupils from manual and non manual backgrounds have different outlooks towards educational achievement
manual value immediate gratification
non-manual are ambitious
feinstein
social class still has impact on achievement
redistributive policies (e.g. sure start) should carry on throughout the pupils entire education
mitsos and browne
teaching has been feminised
women are more likely to be teachers
gives girls positive role models
internal factors - gender
teaching resources are less stereotypical
initiatives (e.g. GIST and WISE) encourages girls to take on traditionally male dominant careers
external factors - gender
policies such as equal pay act and sex discrimination act created more opportunities
feminist movement caused change and more awareness
sue sharpe - gender
girls priorities have change
financial independence and career
boys underachievement
identity crisis due to rise of female independence
decline of breadwinner role
rise in male unemployment
negative labelling leads to self fulfilling prophecy
boys have less role models
subject choice
girls choose essay-based subjects
boys choose technical subjects
gender socialisation - stereotypes
cultural deprivation
children from immigrant families have a language barrier
dialects and accents may influence teachers expectations
wright - institutional racism
policies and attitudes unintentionally discriminate against ethnic minorities
asian girls got less attention from teachers and felt that their cultural traditions were disapproved of
african-caribbean boys more likely to be punished
gillborn - labelling theory
teachers sometimes negatively label black pupils
african-caribbean pupils seen as a challenge to school authority
'myth of the black challenge'
high expectations of asian pupils
can lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy of success/failure
school curriculum
the curriculum is ethnocentric
taught languages are mainly european
assemblies, holidays and history lessons dont fit some cultures
parsons
education is the bridge between the family and adult roles of society
universal value of achievement is passed on
selects children into appropriate roles (meritocracy)
durkheim
education passes on norms and values to integrate individuals into society
social order
value consensus
social solidarity
meritocracy
education is meritocratic
social rewards are allocated by talent and effort rather than the position someone is born into
davis and moore
every society sorts its members into different positions
principles of stratification
system of unequal rewards
motivates people to train for the top positions
criticisms of functionalists
evidence of differential achievement in terms of identity means that education is not meritocratic
'who you know' is still more important than 'what you know'
don't explain conflict
doesn't prepare people adequately for work
willis - role of education
doesn't turn out an obedient workforce
some pupils form anti school subculture (lads)
myth of meritocracy
education legitimises inequality through meritocracy
working class pupils are blamed for poor results, its a result of their social class
althusser
education produces a docile and obedient workforce who will not challenge authority
ideological state apparatus
legitimises inequality
bowels and gintis
pupils are prepared for the world of work by the school system
taught to accept hierarchy
motivated by grades
school day is broken into small units
following rules is rewarded
bourdieu
middle class children go on to fill top jobs
cultural capital
criticisms of marxists
assumes people are passive victims
exaggerate how much working class pupils are socialised into obedience