education theorists

• 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)

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

• 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) 

• 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

• 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'

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 

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 

• 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 

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

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

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

• 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

• 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

• 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 

• 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 

• 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) 

• 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

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

• 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

• 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

• 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 

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 

• 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

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

• 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'

• 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)