education theorists

  • Created by: ericab
  • Created on: 07-04-18 13:11

FUNCTIONALIST POV - ROLE OF EDUCATION IN SOCIETY

  • DURKHEIM, PARSONS - Education meets functional prerequisite, hidden curriculum = social solidarity/value consensus. Durkheim - 'society in minature'. Parsons - secondary socialisation, ascribed/universalistic values to achieved status - into meritocracy
  • SCHULTZ - school = human capital = successful economy + division of labour
  • DAVIS & MOORE - exams etc allocate into meritocratic society - equality of educational opportunity = legitimised inequality (fair chance, successful deserve status)
1 of 26

NEW RIGHT POV - ROLE OF EDUCATION IN SOCIETY

CHUBB & MOE - state schools do not succeed in preparing talented for status and untalented for low jobs/socialise into collective values - marketisation 

2 of 26

MARXIST POV - ROLE OF EDUCATION IN SOCIETY

  • ALTHUSSER - within capitalism - produces obedient/efficient labour force - technical skills - socialisation of r/c ideology (false consciousness) - ideological state apparatus - selects pupils for different classes
  • BOURDIEU - imposes r/c habitus, - upper/middle c advantage bcos cultural capital - inequalities reproduced
  • ILLICH - repressive institutions, promote conformity - accept regime = rewarded - abolish schooling 
  • FRIERE - conditioned to accept dominance/subordination - obeying superiors
  • BOWLES & GINTIS - hidden curriculum - 'long shadow of work' (work influences education) - legitimisation of inequality - success not meritocratic (class) 
3 of 26

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION

  • FUNCTIONALIST/NEW RIGHT - builds economy 
  • MARXIST - produces conformist workers for capitalist profit whilst m/c academic education = higher jobs
  • BIRDWELL ET AL (2011) - schools = focus on academic, vocational quals worthless, extracurricular = undervalued
4 of 26

TEACHER STEREOTYPING/PUPIL IDS/'HALO EFFECT'

  • BECKER (1971) - teachers evaluate pupils comp to 'ideal pupil' stereotype, = RIST - 'ideal pupil' = m/c ideals
  • GILLBORN (2011) - teachers - don't see black (esp. Carib) as academic successes - lower bands - denied subjects/higher bands - regardless of class/gender/ability
  • HARTLEY & SUTTON (2011) - white/Indian Asian girls more likely to be seen as 'ideal pupil'
5 of 26

BANDING, STREAMING, & SETTING

SMYTH ET AL (2006) - lower scream = negative school attitude, teaching pace found slow, less time on homework, less engaged - damages self-esteem, neg impacts aspirations/attainment 

SUTTON TRUST/IPSOS MORI  (2010) - streaming = could stretch bright pupils from poor backgrounds but higher class pupils put in higher sets - contributes to class inequality 

6 of 26

EDUCATIONAL TRIAGE

GILLBORN & YOUDELL  - pupils sorted into 'safe' (likely to achieve A*-C GCSE, little help), 'under-achievers' (C/D border - with help will pass), 'without hope' (unlikely passes even with help) - schools focus attention on first 2 groups - league table positions 

7 of 26

STUDENT RESPONSES (SUBCULTURES)

  • MAC AN GHAILL (1994) - 2 groups among prodchool males - aiming for m/c jobs - 'Academic Achivers', 'New Enterprisers' - skilled w/c white/Asian 
  • SEWELL (1998) - proschool culture - some black pupils - aiming to achieve & avoid racist teacher stereotyping/labelling
  • WOODS (1979) - pro/anti too simple - from pro to anti: ingratiation, compliance, opportunism, ritualism, retreatism, colonisation, intransigence, rebellion - may change faced with subject choices/post school options 
8 of 26

EVALUATION OF EXPLAINING PUPIL PROGRESS VIA SCHOOL

  • FULLER (1980) - black girls,  faced with negative labells/low streams - aim to prove wrong (neg labellimg does not always lead to failure)
9 of 26

SOCIAL CLASS DIFFERENCES

PERRY & FRANCIS - 'social class is the strongest predictor of educational achievement in the UK'

10 of 26

SOCIAL CLASS: EXTERNAL FACTORS

MATERIAL EXPLANATIONS

  • WALDFOGEL & WASHBROOK (2010) - poorer children more likely to live in poor housing conditions - impacts home study - poor diets = increased ssickness = tiredness + absense

CULTURAL EXPLANATIONS 

  • SODHA & MARGO (2010) - disengaged from education, cultural barrier - low expectations - education 'not for them'
  • DOUGLAS (1964) - parental involvement = most important factor in educational success (GORARD, SEE, & DAVIES (2012) ETC - still true today)
  • SUGARMAN (1970) - m/c jobs - promise of career progress = future orientation, deferred gratification - socialised into values @ school, need for hard work (staying in, staying on) - individual effort key. w/c jobs - present-time orientation, immediate gratification - doesnt encourage academic success - discourage future rewards - leaving school for job > qualifications - collectivism (SODHA & MARGO (2010) - still true)
  • BERNSTEIN (1971) - elaborated code (m/c) & restricted code (m/c & w/c) - elaborated used in teaching/textbooks/interviews, gives m/c advantage
11 of 26

SOCIAL CLASS: CULTURAL EXPLANATION CRITICISM

  • REAY (2009) - 'blame the victim' + portrays w/c deficient/deprived
  • KEDDIE (1973) - no cultural deprivation but difference - school fails to meet needs of w/c students - change needed
  • OF BERNSTEIN - ROSEN - m/c lang superiority = myth, LABOV (1973) (NEW YORK/HARLEM) - w/c speakers effective in making points
12 of 26

GENDER: GIRLS' EDUCATIONAL PERFORMANCE

  • PERRY & FRANCIS - social class factors - w/c & FSM girls achieve less
  • MITSOS & BROWNE (1998) - why girls outperform boys: women's movement, equal opportunities, growing ambition/role models/employment opportunities, more organised/motivated/peer-support, maturing earlier
  • McROBBIE (2008) - women see employment/high level careers as desireable - changes in job market = women expect degrees as requirement for interesting job 
  • FRANCIS (2000) - employment/careers desireable - feminine school ID incl. cooperation with peers/teachers/authority
13 of 26

GENDER: BOY'S EDUCATIONAL PERFORMANCE

  • FORDE ET AL (2006) - peer group pressure - encouraged to be dominant, masculine, resist school - schoolwork 'feminine'
  • EPSTEIN ET AL (1998) - w/c risk bullying/homophobia if they work
  • BARBER (1996) - 'more boys...think they are able/very able & fewer think they are 'below average' - shown in GCSE results - boys believe they can coast and blame teachers/lack of effort for failure, not ability 
  • OAKHILL & PATRIDES (2007) - boys need more interest in content than girls to understand a text 
14 of 26

GENDER: BEHAVIOUR, ID, & SUBJECT CHOICE

  • SKELTON ET AL (2007) - young men more likely study tech/STEM - women arts, humanities, social sciences - 'male' subjects given higher status than female 'soft' subjects
  • PAECHTER (1998) - PE = masc - girls discouraged - female PE students have to express feminity in other ways or risk labelled 'butch', 'lesbian'
  • KELLY (1987) - boy's behaviour in science lessons - grabbing apparatus first, answering questions aimed at girls, ridiculing girls' questions - intimate girls away from subject 
  • FRANCIS (2005) - gender ID important, conform to fit in - key elements of reinforcing ID & patriarchy in schools: gendered verbal behaviour, gendered physical behaviour, gendered pursuits, gendered classroom behaviour & power, role of teachers
  • SPENDER (1982) - most teacher time spent with troublesome boys
  • STANWORTH (1983) - students felt boys got x2 attention 
15 of 26

ETHNICITY: EXTERNAL FACTORS

  • GILLBORN & MIRZA (2000) - social class doesn't override ethnicity - white british m/c doing better than black british m/c
  • DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION - EAL students outperform 1st lang students in EBacc
  • SWANN REPORT/PILKINGTON (1997) - e minority groups = better parental support - e.g. Asian families characterised as close knit - high aspirations 
  • WRIGHT, STANDEN, & PATEL (2010) - high levels support in black communities - opportunities/self esteem via cultural/racial ID
  • MODOOD (2006) - higher % ems in higher education - parental support, aspirations, & encouragement 
  • BARNARD & TURNER (2011) - complexities make generalising a e ms difficult but all experience racism
  • CLINE ET AL - racism common among pupils, incl. towards traveller children (impacts self-esteem/distressing experience) 
16 of 26

ETHNICITY: INTERNAL (TEACHER LABELLING & PUPIL RES

  • SWANN REPORT - small % consistent racist teachers but good deal of unintentional racism - GREEN - teachers give white pupils more attention encouragement 
  • STRAND (2012) - teachers think worse behaved pupils = less capable, & perceive black pupils as worse behaved (WRIGHT (2010) - racial stereotypes in media) = lower sets
  • GILLBORN & YOUDELL (2000) - stereotyping = low self esteem + resentement = low achievement - educational triage impacts black students bcos lower sets/seen as less likely to pass GCSEs
  • LONDON DEVELOPMENT AGENCY EDUCATION COMMISION REPORT (2004) - b/c pupil/white teacher relationships characterised by 'conflict & fear' - 'when it is white boys it is a group, when it is black boys it's a gang'
  • STUART HALL - MARXIST - 'subculture of resistence' - rejection/conflict 
  • SEWELL (1996,98) - 4 groups of B/C male students - 'the rebels', 'the conformists', 'the innovators' (antischool, want benefits), 'retreatists' (leave school & black subc) 
  • MAC AN GHAILL (1992) - labelling not always = self fulfilling prophecy - break rules, still work
17 of 26

AIMS OF EDUCATIONAL POLICY

  • DOLPHIN (2014) - strong vocational education + employer involvement = smooth school/work transition + lower unemployment 
18 of 26

EQUALITY OF EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY/OUTCOME

  • GILLBORN & YOUDELL (2000) - 4 dimensions of educal educational opportunity: equality of access, equality of circumstances, equality of participation, equality of outcome 
  • HALSEY, HEATH, & RIDGE (2008) - can judge equality of opportunity by equality of outcome 
  • KERR & WEST (2010) - education/impact of policy = limited by external factors
19 of 26

SELECTION POLICIES

  • SMYTH ET AL - mixed ability classes help 'high flyers', improves ability of all, no difference to exam performance 
  • BOLIVER & SWIFT (2011) - NATIONAL CHILD DEVELOPMENT STUDY data - non selective (by ability) schools as good for social mobility as selective schools
20 of 26

ADMISSIONS POLICIES

  • TOUGH & BROOKS (2007) - secondary/sometimes primary - illegal means of cherrypicking higher class/ability students 
  • GREEN, ALLEN, & JENKINS (2014) - free schools also - those established for/in deprived areas not admitting needy students
  • ACADEMIES COMMISSION (2013) - holding social events for perspective parents 
21 of 26

FRAMEWORK OF EDUCATIONAL POLICY (POST 80S)

NEOLIBERALISM

PRIVATISATION & MARKETISATION 

INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS 

ALEXANDER (2012) - PISA surveys lead to educational, economic, & political moral panic. you cannot compare UK & Hong Kong & Singapore - different cultures, less/more schools - policy changes based on 'ill-founded assertions about educational cause & effect'

OATES (2013) - international comparisons show what is humanly possible for children to achieve @ ages

KELLY (2009) - globalisation made people believe education is primarily economical - factors such as well-being, cultural appreciation, social cohesion, & socialpersonal development ignored - if they weren't, league tables would be differerent 

22 of 26

PRIVATISATION OF EDUCATION

  • BALL (2007), BALL & YOUDELL (2007) - 2 main types of privatisation of education 

- ENDOGENOUS PRIVATISATION (IN EDUCATION)

Private sector features within schools, e.g. competition, performance related pay, consumer choice, target-setting, Performance tables, inspections, per capita funding - 1979-97 Tories, 1997-2010 Labour - 2010-15 coalition academies 

- EXOGENOUS PRIVATISATION (OF EDUCATION) 

Private sector taking over aspects of state education - BALL & YOUDELL - school services, management, inspections, designing/building/financing/operating buildings, branding, consultation, & running exams

23 of 26

MARKETISATION OF EDUCATION

  • BROWN (1990) - parentocracy - when a child's education is dependent on the wealth and wishes of the parents, rather than pupil ability 
24 of 26

CRITICISMS OF MARKETISATION

  • BALL ET AL (1996) - parent choice follows pattern of social class - reproduces inequalities
  • TOUGH & BROOKS (2007) - m/c choose via league tables, w.c choose via proximity & peer group
  • MACHIN & VERNOIT (2010) - Tory/Lib Dem academies = more advantaged than normal secondaries, lower proportions of FSM pupils, signic inequalities 
  • HOUSE OF COMMONS EDUCATIONAL COMMITTEES OF MPS (2011) - teachers devote more time to pupils more capable of EBacc - 'serious risk that schools will simply ignore their less academically successful pupils'
25 of 26

PRIVATE EDUCATION & INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS

  • WALFORD (2003) - wide diversity of independent schools inlc religious schools - not all associated with elite - admitance into public schools seen as passport to academic success, high status unis, influential careers 
  • SUTTON TRUST (2011) - independent school pupils 7x more likely to get into Oxbridge, 55x more likely than FSM pupils - 2x more likely to get into top 30, 22x more than FSM
  • PALFREY (2008) - charitable status of schools up to 5-10% fee tax subsidies - must now show wider social benefit, e.g. admitting pupils who can'f afford fee - to have charity status (2006)
26 of 26

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Sociology resources:

See all Sociology resources »See all Education resources »