Show Menu
Cheatography
  1. Home >
  2. Education >

a level sociology: EDUCATON Cheat Sheet by

all education subtopics a level aqa sociology

CULTURAL DEPRIV­ATION THEORY

Contro­versial theory that blames workin­g-class families for their undera­chi­evement
CD theorists claim:
- Workin­g-class families fail to socialise their children adequa­tely.
- The working class are ‘cultu­rally deprived’
- they lack the cultural equipment needed to do well at school, and so undera­chieve.
- they lack the attitudes, values, knowledge and skills to succeed
 
There are 3 aspects to cultural depriv­ation: Language, parent education and working class subculture
 
1. LANGUAGE - BERNSTEIN SPEECH CODE THEORY
RESTRICTED CODE:
Usually used by the working class.
Limited vocabulary – short, unfini­shed, gramma­tically simple sentences.
Speech is simple. May only be a single word or a gesture instead.
Descri­ptive not analyt­ical.
Context bound – assumes listener shares the same set of experi­ences
 
ELABORATED CODE:
Typically used by the middle class.
Wider vocabulary and is based on longer, more complex sentences.
Speech is varied and commun­icates abstract ideas.
Context free – the speaker does not assume that the listener shares the same experi­ences
 
2. PARENT ATTITUDE TO EDUCATION - DOUGLAS 1964
According to Douglas, workin­g-class parents:
- were less ambitious for their children.
- gave them less encour­age­ment.
- took less interest in their education.
- visited the school less often (e.g. for parents’ evenings).
- were less likely to discuss children's progress with teachers.
this was because workin­g-class parents placed a low value on education
 
WORKING CLASS SUBCULTURE - SUGARMAN 1970
the working class have different goals to the middle class
working class goals: fatalism, immediate gratif­ica­tion, present time orient­ation, collec­tivism
middle class goals: control, deferred gratif­ica­tion, future time orient­ation, indivi­dualism
- Sugarman claims the working class tend to ‘live for today’ with a ‘carefree attitude’. No career plan.
WC children: of working through secondary school for no financial reward or qualif­ica­tions for the next five years makes it unlikely that they will have the ‘right’ attitude to stick it out.
MC children: Their parents have stayed on in education to work for qualif­ica­tions and have the attitude that they can wait for reward. This instils aspiration into middle­-class children which helps them maintain their focus and commitment at school
 
EVALUA­TION...
The working class are not culturally deprived; they are just culturally different from the middle­-class culture of schools .(Kedd­ie,­1973). Keddie argues that this theory s victim­-bl­aming and that children cannot be deprived of their own culture.
Teachers have a speech hierarchy and negatively label pupils at the bottom of it (Troyna & Williams, 1986).
Workin­g-class parents are interested in their children’s education but are intimi­dated by the school system and offered inadequate commun­ication (Black­stone & Mortimore 1994).
Parental influences over children (Douglas, 1964; Feinstein, 2008)
Parenting style: Extent and consis­tency of discipline

Educat­ional behavi­ours: Amount of help with homework

Use of resources such as books; visits to educat­ional locations

Use of income: Do parents spend money on things which will benefit their children’s academic progress?

Level of education: How far the parents’ own education was pursued – this is often regardless of class or income.

MATERIAL DEPRIV­ATION THEORY

What are material advant­ages?
Hirsch (2007) students from better off backgr­ounds had a variety of advant­ages:
- more likely to have structured out-of­-school activities
...and these activities (which are often costly) helped students from better-off backgr­ounds to learn particular skills.
...also gave them greater confidence in school, helping them to achieve higher grades
- had more space (such as their own bedroom) making it easier for them to do homework succes­sfully
- were more likely to benefit from private education
 
FACTORS of material depriv­ation
1. HOUSING
Overcr­owding can make it difficult to study.
Disturbed sleep due to sharing bedrooms.
Temporary accomm­odation and frequent moves can impact schooling.
Cold and damp enviro­nments can impact the health of children.
Families may experience psycho­logical distress.
 
2. DIET AND HEALTH
Young people from poorer homes have lower intakes of minerals, vitamins and energy (Howard, 2001).
This may account for diffic­ulties with concen­tration and illness
 
3. FINANCIAL COSTS
Bull (1980) refer to the ‘cost of free school­ing’. The costs of books, computer and equipment can place a heavy burden on families.
The stigma of free school meals can deter some families who are eligible from applying.
Children from low-income families may need to work.
 
4. FEAR OF DEBT
Students may not apply for further education if they cannot afford it as they would have to take out loans and worry about not being able to pay it back and being in debt
 
EFFECTS OF MATERIAL DISADV­ANTAGE
Smith and Noble (1995) barriers to learning resulting from low income:
- unable to adored trips and stationary and uniform: this can lead to students being isolated, bullied and stigma­tised.
... State education itself may be free, but supple­mentary costs can be consid­erable
... 2013 study of the hidden costs of free state schooling £1614 each year
- less likely of pupils having access to a computer with internet access, a desk, educat­ional toys, books, space to do homework and a comfor­table well-h­eated home
- The market­isation of schools means that there will be better resourced oversu­bsc­ribed schools in more affluent areas
- socially disadv­antaged students are concen­trated in a limited number of increa­singly unpopular schools
- WC: more likely to have to work part-time to support their studies, or to have to care for younger siblings.

REPROD­UCTION OF CLASS INEQUALITY

**BORDIEU: CULTURAL CAPITAL
Capital can be defined as any assets that can improve your chances in life
Bourdieu adopts a Marxist approach but extends it to include several different types of capital, not just economic capital
He uses the concept ‘capital’ to explain why the middle class are more succes­sful.
This term usually refers to wealth (economic capital), however he defines two other types of capital: ‘Educa­tional capital’ and ‘cultural capital’
 
4 types of capital: economic; cultural; social; symbolic
All these types of capital can help in education and all reflect class inequa­lities in society
The education system is biased towards the culture of higher social classes
... The education system is biased towards the culture of higher social classes.
... They therefore possess more cultural capital useful for success in the education system
 
HABITUS
Bourdieu argues that each social class possesses its own cultural framework or set of ideas
This cultural framework contains ideas about what counts as good and bad taste, good books, newspa­pers, TV progra­mmes.
This habitus is picked up through social­isation in the family.
The dominant class has the power to impose its own habitus in the education system, so what counts as educat­ional knowledge is not the culture of society as a whole but that of the dominant social class
Advantage cultural capital : better-off middle and upper class backgr­ounds have more access to the culture of the dominant class
while the schooling process appears to be neutral it is not neutral at all because the culture of the educat­ional system is that of the dominant class
 
THE TYPES OF CAPITAL
Economic capital - money to pay for coaching for entrance exams into grammar schools or private schools, fees for private schools, the expense of moving house to the catchment area of a successful school, the costs of transp­ort­ation to more distant schools
Cultural capital - involves the possession of cultural charac­ter­istics that can give you advantages in life
Social capital - the social networks of influence and support that people have through involv­ement and cooper­ation with neighb­ours, community, social and profes­sional groups; knowing the right people to talk to who to get advice from
Symbolic capital - possession of high social status and thereby given respect in society

Internal factor: LABELLING

Howard Becker theory
A label defines how others see a person and how they behave towards them.
It can also influence how a person sees themselves and how they behave in response to the label
SO...
Labelling: occurs when particular charac­ter­istics are ascribed to indivi­duals on the basis of descri­ptions, names or labels.
According to the intera­cti­onist perspe­ctive, teachers may label pupils
These labels are often based on stereo­types
 
Howard Becker Chicago study
WHAT: Interviews with 60 teachers found they judged pupils according to an ideal image, conduct and appearance were key in influe­ncing this. Middle class children were closest to the ideal and working class children were furthest from the ideal
RESULTS:
- Unconc­erned about undera­chi­evement in working class pupils and acted like nothing could be done compared to belief that it could be overcome in middle class students
- Working class areas ideal pupil was seen as quiet passive and obedient, middle class area ideal pupil judged in terms of academic ability and person­ality
- For middle class set extensions for work, for working class entered them into easier exams
- WORKING CLASS were seated further away, encouraged less, given lower-­level books to read and fewer chances to show their ability
 
Prediction that comes true simply by virtue of it having been made
 
Hemel-­Jor­gensen (2009) – teachers’ notions vary according to the social class make-up of the school
 
Symbolic intera­cti­onism
Micro not macro
Face-face intera­ctions
Definition of self, other, and situation
Self-c­oncept is based on how others see us
Intera­cti­onists argue that a person’s self-c­oncept, their view of themse­lves, develops from intera­ction with others
 
Intera­cti­onism: small scale intera­ction between indivi­duals shapes people’s behaviour. While intera­cting with others, people interpret behaviour and attach meanings to the behaviour of those around them. This affects people’s image of themselves (their self-c­oncept) and self-c­oncept shapes behaviour
Self-c­oncept: the sort of person you think you are, whether lazy or hard-w­orking, successful or a failure. To intera­cti­onists, your self-c­oncept is strongly influenced by what others think of you.

Internal factor: STREAMING, SETTING etc

How do schools organise classes?
Streaming: where students will be divided according to ability across all subjects remaining in the same (tutor) group whatever the subject.
Setting: where students are divided according to their ability in a particular subject. E.g. They may be in the top set in Maths, but the third set in English.
Banding: Where the number of ability levels are reduced to broad bands. So although differ­ent­iated by ability to some extent, the level between the best and worst in a group is likely to be greater than in setting.
Mixed ability: students of all ability levels are in one class.
 
Hargreaves (1967) and Lacey (1970) both studied streaming. Their basic findings were as follows:
1. STUDENTS IN HIGH STREAMS
- Pro - school orient­ations
- value academic success and pursue it
- conform to teachers demands
- are positively evaluated and favourably perceived by their teachers.
- Get the best / most able teachers. Status in high streams is based on academic success.
- Get the best / most able teachers. Status in high streams is based on academic success.
 
2. STUDENTS IN LOW STREAMS
- Anti - school orient­ation
- value academic failure and pursue it
- apathetic to teacher demands
- are negatively evaluated and unfavo­urably perceived by their teachers
- Get the least able and inexpe­rienced teachers
- Status in lower streams is based on bad behaviour, not doing work, truanting, and being tough.
- The worst offenders are the most popular among their peers. However their sense of worth ( i.e. their self concept ) had been undermined by the process of setting and the allocation
 
MIXED ABILITY CLASSES
the class contains a full range of abilities
ideolo­gical purpose in creating an atmosphere of fairness and social mixing
Newbold (1975), studying mixing ability found it had educat­ional advantages too...
- Less able children were more content, more pro-school and found to develop improved reading standards and verbal reasoning
- low ability children gain in the mixed ability system but there is little to suggest that high ability children may be held back
 
EDUCAT­IONAL TRIAGE - Gillborn and Youdell 2000
The ways pupils are divided into three groups...
1. Those who are likely to succeed in exams (a*-c) whatever happens
2. Those who have a chance at succeeding if they get some extra help (those around the C/D boundary)
3. Those who have little chance of succeeding what ever is done
They found that schools focus on the first two groups as this will improve their place in the league tables and give the impression of a successful school.
The third group are written off as no hopers and left to ‘die an educat­ional death’
 
How students respond to schooling
students can form subcul­tures with other pupils who share values, experi­ences and behaviours
these groups provide support and peer-group status
which subculture a student moves towards can also be affected by ethnicity, class and gender
 
STATUS
Intera­cti­onist emphasise that all human beings seek status in their own eyes and in the eyes of others, partic­ularly signif­icant others
If people cannot achieve status through the conven­tional status avenues they will adopt altern­ative status channels

Internal factor: SELF FULFILLING PROPHECY

Study by Rosenthal & Jacobson
They told teachers they had identified bright students in a group.
tested all pupils but picked 20% at random – but told the school these were ‘spurters’
year later almost half of those identified had made signif­icant progress
There was a greater effect on younger children. This supports the idea of SFP – Rosenthal and Jacobson proposed that the supposed test results influenced the way teachers behaved towards pupils.
 
SFP: a teacher making a prediction on a student, perhaps based on stereo­types and/or limited evidence. The student then fulfils this prophecy
Consider Jane Elliott eye colour study

WORKING CLASS UNDERA­CHI­EVEMENT

What causes working class undera­chi­eve­ment?
- material depriv­ation: poorer housing and diet, illness, low income
- lack of cultural capital
- parents attitudes to education and lower level of parents' education
- 'problem' schools in deprived areas
- restricted language code (Berns­tein's LC theory)
- cultural depriv­ation
- teacher evalua­tion: labelling, streaming, stereo­typing, self fulfilling prophecy
...SO THEREF­ORE...
Working class children are more likely to be: poor readers when they start school, placed in lower sets, be suspended or excluded, undera­chieve at GCSE/A LEVELS and less likely to go to university
 
Why is this the case?
- They are geneti­cally less intell­igent
- The parents don’t raise them properly
- Parents don’t push them hard enough!
- The teachers don’t like them as much as middle­-class children
- They lack resources at home
- So many are from families who don’t have any hopes for their children
External = outside school
Internal = in school
  

Internal factor: GENDER DIFFER­ENCES

1. Equal opport­unities policies
Impact of feminism within the education system
Teachers need to ensure both genders have equal opport­unities
GIST and WISE – to encourage girls to pursue non-tr­adi­tional careers
National Curriculum – all students study same subjects
Boaler (1998) equal opport­unities policies key in changing girls’ achiev­ement
 
2. Positive role models in schools
 
3. GCSE and coursework
Assess­ments favour girls
Oral exams benefit girls, who have better linguistic skills.
Ellwood (2005): girls improv­ement NOT just coursework because still a focus on exams
 
4. Teacher attention
French & French (1993): boys get more attention, but this is negative
Francis (2001): boys more attention, but more harshly discip­lined, low teacher expect­ations
Teachers see girls as cooper­ative and so give more positive attention – leading to self-f­ulf­illing prophecy
 
5. Challe­nging stereo­types in the curriculum
Jackson (1998): league tables make high achieving girls attrac­tive. Leads to self-f­ulf­illing prophecy as girls likely to go to good schools.
Boys may give schools a bad image.

Identity, class and girls’ achiev­ement

Hyper-­het­ero­sexual feminine identities
Girls aim to be ‘desir­able’ and ‘glamo­rous’.
Similar to the idea of ‘Nike’ identi­ties.
Status from peers
Creates symbolic violence – their culture seen as worthless.
Conflict with school ie too much jewellery
 
Boyfriends and being loud
Having a boyfriend earns symbolic capital
lower aspira­tions
lower interest in university
desire to ‘settle down’
Being loud meant not conforming to stereo­types
conflict with teachers
further from ‘ideal pupil’
 
‘Succe­ssful’ workin­g-class girls
Some workin­g-class girls do achieve and go to univer­sity.
Skeggs (1997): Workin­g-class girls’ identity focus on ‘caring’, live at home – because of cost

Two views of girls’ achiev­ement

Changes in social attitudes and percep­tions

External factor: GENDER DIFFER­ENCES

The impact of feminism
improved the rights of women as well as raising women’s expect­ations, self-e­steem & motiva­tion.
Although feminists would argue that true equality with males has not been fully achieved, many would agree that the position of women has greatly improved
 
Changes in the family
increase in divorce rate
increase in cohabi­tation
increase in lone-p­arent families (usually female headed)
decline in marriage rate
decreasing family size
decline in birth rate
 
Changes in women’s employment
The 1970 Equal Pay Act: Makes it illegal to pay one sex more than another for work of equal value – pay gap halved.
The 1975 Sex Discri­min­ation Act: Prohibits sex discri­min­ation in the workplace
 
Girls’ changing ambitions
Girls’ ambitions are becoming more career­-or­iented.
Sharpe (1994): study shows changes to girls’ aspira­tions from 1970s to 1990s.
O’Connor (2006): marriage and children not major life plans.
 
BUT...
Workin­g-class girls still tend to have more gendered aspira­tions
Reay (1998): ambitions linked to opport­unities available
Biggart (2002): workin­g-class girls more likely to have motherhood as an option

GENDER DIFFER­ENCES

3 KEY ASPECTS
Why do girls achieve better results than boys?
Why do girls and boys opt for different subjects?
How does schooling help reinforce gender identi­ties?
 
PATTERNS
Girls do better in all baseline tests
Girls better at concen­trating
More boys with SEN (two and a half times)
Girls do much better in Maths, Science, and English
Gender gap about 10 percentage points
Girls more likely to pass and get A-B grades (46.8% vs 42.2%) at A LEVEL
Gap is narrower than at GCSE

ETHNIC DIFFER­ENCES

Ethnicity : “The fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradit­ion.” The Oxford Dictionary
“People who share common history, customs & identity, as well as, in most cases, language & religion, and who see themselves as a distinct unit.” (Lawson & Garrod, 2000)
 
Highest achieving groups: Chinese and Indian – GCSE, A level, stay in education longer, more likely to enter university
Lowest achieving groups: poorest white British, black Caribbean, Pakistani, Bangla­deshi, gypsy/­Roma, Irish travellers - below average reading skills lower levels of attainment
Black Caribbean students are overre­pre­sented in special schools and more likely to be catego­rised as having emotional behavi­oural or social diffic­ulties than white students
When streamed by ability ethnic minorities are overre­pre­sented in the lower streams even when they get better results than white students. More likely to leave school without any qualif­ica­tions, less likely to stay on in education
 
CULTURAL DIFFER­ENCES
Value placed on education may result from subcul­tur­eAsian family life has been charac­terised as consisting of close knit extended families which have high aspira­tions for their children and very supportive attitudes to education
Archer and Francis (2007) found that parents of Chinese pupils placed an except­ionally high value on education. ….educ­ation was a ‘family project’ a family's standing in the community was partly related to educat­ional perfor­mance of their children.
 
Lupton (2004) suggests that lower working class white British families in the most disadv­antaged areas have a fairly indiff­erent or negative attitude towards learning and towards school and low aspira­tions for their children. These family cultures may contribute to differ­ences in attainment between ethnic groups
 
Reasons for cultural differ­ences
Strand (2008) “more recent groups­…often see education as a way out of the poverty they have come from. By contrast, if you’ve been in a white working class family for three genera­tions, with high unempl­oyment, you don’t necess­arily believe that education is going to change that”
Many members of minority ethnic groups may have more cultural capital than would be expected from their present class position.
This may be because their jobs after migrating to the UK were lower in pay and prestige than their previous jobs
 
Sewell relates the ‘inade­quate’ social­isation of black children to the high rates of single mothers
- The lack of father figure means that boys instead find male role models in gangsters
- Black mascul­inity is reflected and reinforced by the media with gangster rap and hip hop fashions and news reports emphas­ising black street crime and gun culture
 
Minority ethnic groups are far more likely to live in low-income households and to be in the poorest fifth of the popula­tion.
This means some ethnic groups face problems like poor quality housing, overcr­owding, higher levels of unempl­oyment
this material disadv­antage can affect achiev­ement in school.
 
INSTIT­UTIONAL RACISM
market­isation and segreg­ation
Gillborn: school selection gives schools more scope to select pupils - negative stereo­types can affect admission decisions.
Moore and Davenp­ort’s U.S. research supports this, e.g. primary school reports influence secondary school selection.
Concluded ethnically stratified education system
The CRE (1993) similar in Britain - minority pupils more likely to go to poorer schools due to:
 
ethnoc­entric curriculum
Ethnoc­ent­ricity is an attitude or policy that priori­tises one group (e.g. White British culture) and is an example of instit­utional racism.
ethnoc­entric curriculum is one that reflects one culture while neglecting others.
EXAMPLE: Lack of access to Asian languages in preference to European languages ignores some culture, literature and music
 
access to oppurt­unity
White students twice as likely as black pupils to be identified as gifted and talented.
Black students more likely than White students to be entered for lower tiers.
 
EVALUATION OF GILLBORN INSTIT­UTIONAL RACISM VIEW
Sewell: Racism in schools is not enough of an explan­ation; we also need to consider external factors.
‘Model minori­ties’: If instit­utional racism is truly a problem, why do high-a­chi­eving “model” groups such as Indian and Chinese pupils do better than White pupils ?
Model minori­ties’ perfor­mance creates the false impression that the system is fair.
Ignores the racism which is still experi­enced by groups such as Chinese pupils.
 
Intera­ctions effect = class & gender interact differ­ently with different ethnic groups.
Examples…
Black boys more likely to be seen as hyper-­mas­culine & disruptive (irres­pective of class).
Greater difference shown in treatment between m/c & w/c White pupils than other ethnic groups.
 

Boys and achiev­ement

Boys and literacy
DCSF (2007):the ‘gender gap’ is the result of poor literacy among males.
Reading is ‘femin­ised’.
Boys are socialised to be ‘active’, girls have ‘bedroom culture’.
 
Global­isation and the decline of tradit­ional men’s jobs
Mitsos & Browne (1998) suggest that this has created a ‘crisis of mascul­inity’.
Manual workin­g-class jobs have declined.
 
Femini­sation of education (Sewell)
education has become ‘femin­ised’
education does not nurture ‘mascu­line’ traits of compet­iti­veness and leadership
coursework is a cause of boys' undera­chi­evement
need a greater focus on outdoor activity and more exams
 
Shortage of male primary school teachers
Lack of positive make role models, 1.5 million female­-headed lone parent families.
DfES (2012): 14% of primary school teachers are male.
Some suggest boys need male teachers from an early age to impose strict discip­line.
 
Are more male teachers really needed?
Francis (2006): two thirds of 708 year-olds did not think gender of a teacher matters.
Haase (2008): schools ‘mascu­lin­ised’ structure that is dominated by females
Jones (2006): leadership – one in four males, one in 13 females
 
Epstein (1998): constr­uction of ‘laddish’ subcul­tures in school. Workin­g-class boys labelled sissie­s/gay if appear to be ‘swots’. ‘Real boys don’t work.’
 
Ringrose (2013): moral panic about ‘failing boys’. Unempl­oyable underclass – threat to social stability. Now policy moves to raise boys’ achiev­ement
 
McVeigh (2001): gender difference not as great as class or ethnic differ­ences.
Gender gaps are larger in some ethnic groups than in others – e.g. large gap between Black Caribbean boys and girls (Fuller’s study).

Gender and subject choice

Intro of National Curriculum 1988
Reduced pupils’ freedom to choose or drop subjects, with most being compulsory until 16.
 
Where choice is possible, such as GCSE options, there are clear gender differ­ences.
 
A levels
Gendered choices become more obvious in post-16 education.
 
Boys more likely to opt for maths and physics
 
Girls are more likely to opt for Sociology and English
 
Vocational courses
Only 2 in 100 constr­uction appren­tices are girls.
 
Why do these differ­ences occur?
Ann Oakley (1973): gender is the learned cultural differ­ences between males and females.
 
Primary social­isation shapes gender identity.
 
Fiona Norman (1988): Girls and boys are dressed differ­ently, given different toys, encouraged to take part in different activi­ties.
 
Boys are rewarded for being active.
 
Girls are rewarded for being passive.
 
Schools are also important in gender social­isa­tion.
 
Eileen Byrne (1979):
Teachers encourage boys to be tough and to show initia­tive.
 
Girls are expected to be quiet and helpful and not rough or noisy
Murphy and Elwood (1998): these tastes inform subject choices
Boys prefer hobby books and inform­ation texts = Science
 
Girls prefer books about people = English based subjects
 
Children’s beliefs about ‘gender domains’ are shaped by their early experi­ences and expect­ations of adults (Browne and Ross, 1991).
They see some tasks as part of male or female ‘terri­tory’ and therefore as relevant or irrelevant to themse­lves.
Children are more confident in tasks they see as part of their own domain.
Boys focus more on how things work.
Girls focus more on people.
 
Single-sex schooling
Less stereo­typing
 
Girls more likely to take maths and science A-levels
 
Boys take English and languages
 
Gender identity and peer pressure
Pressure if outside gender domain
 
Paechter – girls in sport not seen as feminine.
 
Dewar – sporty girls seen as ‘lesbian’.
 
Peer pressure relieved in single-sex setting.

Pupils’ sexual and gender identities

Factors impacting on pupils’ sexual & gender identities
Double standards of moral expect­ations of girls & boys
 
Verbal abuse of girls
 
The applic­ation of the male gaze to girls
 
Influence of male peer groups on expression of mascul­inity
 
Impact of female peer groups on policing of identity
 
Impact of teacher discipline on boys & girls
 
Hegemonic mascul­inity
Connell (1995):
 
Hetero­sexual masculine identity
 
Subord­ination of female/gay identities

functi­onalist perspe­ctive on education

Functi­ona­lists believe that….
society is a system of interd­epe­ndent parts held together by a shared culture or value consensus
 
an agreement among society’s members about what values are important.
 
each part of society, such as the family, economy or education system, performs functions that help to maintain society as a whole.
 
DURKHEIM IDEA
social solidarity
Individual members must feel themselves to be part of a single ‘body’ or community.
 
Education system creates this by transm­itting society’s culture
 
– shared beliefs & values from one generation to the next
 
School acts as a ‘society in miniature’ preparing us for life in wider society
specialist skills
Education teaches indivi­duals the specialist knowledge & skills that they need to play their part in the social division of labour
 
New Vocati­ona­lism: involves work-r­elated study, learners acquire job-sp­ecific knowledge & skills on or in work-like situations
 
PARSONS
“In a merito­cracy, everyone is given an equal opport­unity, and indivi­duals achieve rewards through their own effort and ability”.
 
Education merito­cratic – encouraged to work to best of ability
 
Education socialises – values of individual achiev­ement and achieved status
 
Bridges gap between family & work
 
Univer­sal­istic standards
 
ROLE ALLOCATION
Davis & Moore:
 
Focus on the relati­onship between education & social inequality
 
Inequality is necessary to ensure that the most important roles in society are filled by the most talented people
 
This will encourage everyone to compete
 
Education plays a key part in this process, since it acts as a proving ground for ability

Neolib­eralism and the New Right

NEOLIB­ERALISM
Based on an economic principle – free-m­arket economy, limited regulation (if any) by the state.
 
Encourage privat­isation and compet­ition – drive up standards.
 
State should not control indivi­duals.
 
State should not control indivi­duals.
 
THE NEW RIGHT
A conser­vative political view.
 
Incorp­orates neoliberal ideas (previous slides).
 
Some people are naturally more talented than others.
 
Agree with functi­ona­lists that education should be run on merito­cratic principles of open compet­ition.
 
They believe that education should socialise pupils into shared values & provide a sense of national identity.
 
THE MARKET VERSUS THE STATE
The New Right view
 
State control has resulted in ineffi­ciency, national economic decline and a lack of personal initia­tive.
 
Education inevitably ends up as one size fits all that does not meet individual needs or the needs of employers for skilled & motivated workers.
 
the state cannot meet people’s needs.
 
Schools that get poor results do not change because they are not accoun­table to their consumers
 
The result is lower standards and a less qualified workforce.
 
CHUBB AND MOE
CONSUMER CHOICE
 
Data shows that pupils from low-income families do about 5% better in private schools.
 
This suggests that state education is NOT merito­cratic.
 
State education has failed to create equal opport­unity because it does not have to respond to pupil’s needs.
 
Parents & commun­ities cannot do anything about failing schools while the schools are controlled by the state.
 
Private schools deliver higher quality education because they are answerable to paying consumers – the parents.
CHUBB & MOE: THE SOLUTION
Market system in state education.
 
Give control to consumers.
 
This should be done via a voucher system in which each family would be given a voucher to spend on buying education from a school of their choice.
 
TWO ROLES FOR THE STATE
1.Imposing a framework
 
2.Tran­smi­ssion of shared culture

The Marxist perspe­ctive on education

Marxists are critical of the capitalist system and the inequality it produces.
Contrast to functi­ona­lists – a conflict view.
Society and education based on class division and exploi­tation
Marxists believe that society is an unfair system is built upon the exploi­tation of those who lack power, by those who possess it
The capitalist class - the bourge­oisie - are the minority class but they own & control
The working class - the prolet­ariat - are the majority who provide their labour to the bourge­oisie.
Division creates class conflict – working class realise they are exploited – this would lead to revolution
but education is used to teach the ideas that will prevent a revolu­tion.
 
ALTHUSSER
THE IDEOLO­GICAL STATE APPARATUS
 
Repressive State Appara­tuses (RSAs): Physical control through instit­utions such as the police, justice system & the military.
 
Ideolo­gical State Appara­tuses (ISAs): Control over people’s ideas, beliefs and values (no physical force is used).
 
ISA pass on the ruling class’s dominant ideology.
 
The more successful the ISAs are at passing on ruling class dominant ideology, the less work the RSAs have to do.
 
Althusser believes that education has replaced religion as the most important ISA.
 
The education system passes on ruling­-class ideology & teaches basic skills needed to perform in capitalist society.
 
The W/C are essent­ially forced to fail & end up taking up low status, low paid, alienating work roles.
 
The R/C ‘go to the top of the pile’ & go on to university where they are trained to fill their R/C roles.
 
All of this means that social class inequa­lities are reprod­uced.
 
Merito­cracy is a myth that has to be constantly reinforced so that inequa­lities are legiti­mised.
 
HIDDEN CIRRICULUM
Ideas not part of official curriculum taught through schools such as compet­ition and hierarchy. Essent­ially, unofficial lessons that are part of the reprod­uction of education inequa­lities
 
Cohen: youth training schemes teach young people values rather than skills. They accept low-paid work.
 
This consists of things that pupils learn informally for their experience of going to school on a daily basis.
 
Bowles & Gintis agree with Althusser that merito­cracy is a myth.
The system must prevent rebellion.
Education is a ‘myth making machine’ designed to justify inequality by promoting the idea that failure is due to lack of hard work
-rather than injustices & inequa­lities of capitalist society.
 
Not every student passively accepts the rules, regula­tions and ideology that the education system passes on. This can be seen in the work of Willis (1970).
 
PAUL WILLIS: ‘LEARNING TO LABOUR’
Gintis, Willis does not believe that there is a simple relati­onship between education & work
 
study of 12 W/C ‘lads’ in their final year of school using unstru­ctured interviews & observ­ations
 
He found that the lads had a counter school culture which directly opposed the values of the education system (& capita­lism).
 
They rejected values of subser­vience, motivation & acceptance of hierarchy.
 
The lads actively chose to fail so that they could land their ‘dream jobs’ of manual labour.
 
not accepting the system (through their counte­r-c­ulture) meant the ‘lads’ ended up doing the unskilled labour that capitalism needed.
 
CRITICISMS OF WILLIS
Small sample (unrep­res­ent­ative / cannot generalise findings)
 
The lads could have exagge­rated / lied. - HAWTHORNE EFFECT
 
Willis ignores ‘confo­rmist culture’ within education & only focuses on one small subculture
 
Feminists argue that Willis ignores females in his study & suggest that his work tells us more about mascul­inities rather than social class
 
EVALUATION OF MARXIST APPROACHES
Postmo­der­nists say we now live in a different type of society – education reproduces diversity, not inequa­lity.
 
Marxists disagree with one another on whether pupils are indoct­rinated or have free will.
 
Ignores other forms of inequality – gender, ethnicity and sexuality.
Dispatches - Secret Teacher (2005)

Educat­ional policy and global­isation

Selection: the tripartite system
Introduced 1944
 
Achieved status through own effort (not ascribed)
 
Supposedly based on merito­cracy
 
Discri­minated against girls
 
Reproduced class inequality
 
Compre­hen­siv­isation
Introduced 1965
 
To overcome inequality of tripartite
 
Labour government
 
School catchment areas introduced rather than selection
 
Streaming within school – still M/C advantage
 
Labelling often a feature
 
Some LEAs retained grammar schools – Conser­vative areas
 
Coalition government
Joint government of Conser­vatives and Liberal Democrats, 2010-15
 
Influenced by neolib­eralism and the New Right –
 
Reduce the role of the state – free schools from ‘dead hand of the state’
 
Fragmented centra­lis­ation
Ball: Free schools and academies
 
Fragme­nta­tion: diversity of provision
 
Centra­lis­ation: more central government control
 
Coalition policies and inequality
Some policies to attempt to decrease inequality
 
Free school meals for all reception, year one and year two
 
Pupil premium: extra money for pupils from disadv­antaged background
Spending cuts: Buildings Cuts to Sure Start EMA abolished University fees tripled
 
The privat­isation of education
Privat­isation – transfer of public assets (schools) to private companies.
 
This means education is used to make a profit.
 
Ball: Education services industry
 
Companies make more profits on these projects than other contracts.
 
Public­-pr­ivate partne­rships (PPP)
 
Private companies involved in: Building schools, supply teachers, work-based learning, careers
 
Privat­isation and global­isation
Many globalised companies involved in education, e.g. Edexcel owed by Pearson.
 
Educat­ional software companies owned by media multin­ati­onals.
 
Also UK policies and initia­tives exported.
 
Cola-i­sation of schools
Indirect privat­isa­tion:
 
Vending machines
 
Branded displays
 
links to purchases, e.g. Tesco computers for schools (£110,000 purchases needed for one PC!)
 
Features of Global­isation
Techno­logical Develo­pment
 
Economic Changes
 
Political Changes
 
Cultural Develo­pments
 
Migration
 
Impact Of Global­isation on Education
Increased compet­ition for Jobs meaning that schools have to change the curriculum to meet new needs.
 
Global ICT companies such as Apple and Google creating online resources and curric­ulums.
 
Increased multic­ult­uralism in schools and decline of the ethnoc­entric curriculum
 
Increased compet­ition between schools and univer­sities for students.
 
Global rankings used to compare and contrast systems and raise standards.
 
Increased risk and safegu­arding issues for schools.
 
Views on Global­isation and Education
Hyper-­Glo­balist View - Ohmae
Global­isation has been good for education.
Marxist View - Spring
Global­isation only provides more educat­ional opport­unities to the wealthy.
New Fordist View
Global­isation has increased compet­ition in the job market which means govern­ments should increase education spending.
Neo-Li­beral View
Global­isation means that govern­ments can play a reduced role in the education system and reduce funding.
 
Policies on gender
Equal opport­unities policies: GIST, WISE – women into science & engine­ering
 
National Curriculum - Introd­uction of coursework + Equality in subjects
 
Impact of feminism
 
Higher education more open
 
Policies on ethnicity
Assimi­lation – knowledge of British culture
 
Multic­ultural education – valuing all cultures e.g. Black History month
 
Social inclusion – monitoring results, legisl­ation, EAL.
 
Criticisms of multic­ultural education
Undera­chi­evement may not be due to lack of self-e­steem.
Critical race theorists argue that MCE stereo­types minority cultures and does not tackle instit­utional racism.
New Right argue MCE perpet­uates cultural divisions. Education should promote a single national culture and assimilate minorities into it.
 
Policies to encourage Social Inclusion
Detailed monitoring of results by ethnicity
 
Legal duty through Race Relations Act amendment
 
Help for voluntary ‘Saturday schools’ for minority ethnic groups
 
Continued funding of EAL
BUT...
Mirza: fail to tackle structural causes
 
Gillborn: instit­utional racism must be tackled

MAERKE­TIS­ATION

Introd­ucing the market to education:
Choice
 
Compet­ition
 
Reduction of state control
Choice for schools on who to take and for parents on where to send children.
 
MARKET­ISATION
Introduced 1988 – Education Reform Act (ERA)
 
Conser­vative government – Thatcher (New Right)
Power to parents rather than teachers and schools - parent­ocracy
Power to parents rather than teachers and schools - parent­ocracy
2010 further steps such as academies and free schools
Favoured by New Right as makes schools raise standards to attract ‘custo­mers’ in compet­ition
 
FEATURES OF MARKET­ISATION
Public­ation of exam results & Ofsted reports
 
Business sponso­rship of schools
 
Open enrolment – no catchment
 
Funding per pupil – same for all
 
Specialist schools – to widen parental choice
 
Can opt out of LEA – become academies
 
Tuition fees for HE
 
Parents can set up free schools
 
REPROD­UCTION OF INEQUALITY
Market­isation criticised by many – Ball and Whitty
 
Increased inequality due to benefit mainly to M/C.
league table
High achieving schools can be more selective
 
Cream-­ski­mming and silt-s­hifting
Funding formula
Better schools: more funding and better teachers and facilities
 
Unpopular schools: lose income; difficult to match skills
 
MYTH OF PARENT­OCRACY
Market­isation reproduces and legiti­mates inequa­lity.
Ball: only appears to be choice – cultural capital determines the amount.
Leech and Campos: middle class can afford to move closer to better schools
Parent­ocracy appears to make the system fair but is a myth.
 
NEW LABOUR AND INEQUALITY
Widening diversity and choice
Raising standards and addressing undera­chi­evement
Reforming the post-c­omp­ulsory sector
Policies included:
Education Action Zones – increased funding
Aim Higher
National Literacy Strategy
EMA to support low-income students
Creation of academies where schools failing
Increased funding
 
CRITICISMS OF NEW LABOUR
Cost of education: EMA to help with FE - but still fees for Higher Education
 
Grammar & fee paying schools: New Labour didn’t abolish them
 
Market­isa­tion: Maintains inequality - supported by New Labour
 

Metadata

  • Languages:
  • Published: 18th May, 2025

Comments

No comments yet. Add yours below!

Add a Comment

Your Comment

Please enter your name.

    Please enter your email address

      Please enter your Comment.

          Related Cheat Sheets

          SOC 344 Midterm Cheat Sheet

          More Cheat Sheets by suzie22dixon

          ASSASINS CREED - A level Media Studies Cheat Sheet
          RADIO - A LEVEL MEDIA STUDIES Cheat Sheet
          ADVERTISING a level media Cheat Sheet