Sociologists for Education

Language: Hubbs-Tait el al (2002)- cognitive perfomance amongst children improves when parents use language to challenge their childs thinking. Leon Feinstein (2008)- educated parents are more likely to use language in this way.

Speech Codes: Basil Bernstein (1975)- distinguishes between two speech codes: restricted and elaborated. Restricted: typically used by the working class, limited vocab. Elaborated: typically used by the middle class, wider vocab.

Parents' Education: Douglas (1964)- study found that working-class parents placed less value on education. Had less ambition for their children who perfomed less well and had little motivation. Leon Feinstein (2008)- argues that parents' own education is the most important factor affecting childrens achievement and, since middle-class parents tend to be better educated, they are able to give thier chuldren an advantage by how they socialise them.

Use of income: Bernstein & Young (1976)- found that middle-class mothers are more likely to buy educational toys, books etc that encourage stimulation. Working-class homes are more ikely to lack these resources.

Working-class subculture: Barry Sugarman (1970) argues that the working-class subculture has four key features that act as a barrier to educational achievement: fatalism ('whatever will be, will be'), collectivism (value being part of a group more than succeeding), immediate gratification (seeking pleasure now rather than making sacrifices in order to get rewards in the future) and present-time orientation (seeing the present as more important than the future).

Myth of cultrual deprivation: Neil Keddie (1973)- describes cultural deprivation as a  muth and sees it as a victim-blaming explanation. She dismisses the idea that failure at school can be blamed on a culturally deprived home background. Points out that a child cannot be deprived of its own culture and argues that working-class children are simply different, not culturally deprived. They fail because they are put at a disadvantage by an education system that is dominated by middle-class values. Barry Troyna & Jenny Williams (1986) argue that the problem is not the childs language but the schoools attitude towards it. Teachers have a 'speech heirarchy': they label middle-class sppech highest, followed by working-class speech and finally black speech.

Diet & Health: Marilyn Howard (2001)- notes that young people from poorer homes have lower intakes of energy, vitamins and minearls. Richard Wilkinson (1996)- among ten year olds, the lower the social class, the higher the rate of hyperactivity, anxiety and conduct disorders, all of which are likely to have a negative effect on the childs education.

Financial Support and the Cost of Education: Emily Tanner et al (2003) study in the Oxford area found that the cost of times such as transport, uniforms, books, computers, calculators and sports, music and art equipment, place a heavy burden on poor families. Teresa Smith abd Michael Noble (1995)- poverty acts as a barrier to learning in other ways, such as inability to afford private schooling or tuition and poorer quality local schools.

Fear of Debt: Claire Callender and Jackson (2005) found that working-class students are more debt averse- that is, they view debt negatively, as something to be avoided and saw more costs that benefits to going to universtiy. Diane Reay (2005)- found that working-class students were more likely to apply to local universities so they could live at home and save on travel costs, but that this gave them less opporunity to go to the highest status universities. 

Howard Becker (1971) carried out an important interactionist study of labelling. Based on interviews with 60 Chicago teacchers, found that they judged pupils according to how closely they fitted an image of the 'ideal pupil'. Teachers saw children from middle-class backgrounds as the closest to the ideal, and working-class children as furthest away from it ecause they regarded them as behaving badly. 

Amelia Hempel-Jorgenson (2009) found that in a working-class school: discipline was a major problem, ideal pupil defined as quiet, passive and obedient (defined in terms of behaviour, not ability). In the middle-class school, there were very few discipline problems and were instead defined in terms of ability. 

Mairead Dunne and Louise Gazeley (2008) argue that 'schools persistently produce working-class underachievement' because of the labels and assumptions of teachers.

Ray Rist (1970) study of an American kindergaten shows that the teacher used informatin about children's home backgrond and appearence to place them in separate groups. seating each group at a different table.

Robert Rosenthal & Lenora Jacobson (1968) study of Oak community school in California, told the school that they had a new test specially designed to identify those pupils who 'spurt' ahead. This was untrue, because the test was in fact simply a standard IQ test. Importantly, however, the teachers believed what they had been told. The researchers tested all the pupils but then picked 20% of them purely at random and told the school, again falsely, that the test had identified these children as 'spurters'. On returning a year later, they found that almost half of those idenitifed as spurters had indeed made significant progress. 

Douglas found that children placed in a higher stream at age 8 had improved their IQ score by age 11. 

David Gillborn & Deborah Youdell (2001) found that teachers are less likely to see working-class and black pupils as having ability. As a result, these pupils are more likely to be placed in lower streams and entered for lower-tier GCSES. This denies them the knowledge and opportunity needed to gain good grades and widens the class gap in achievement. They link streaming to the policy of publishing exam league tables. Schools focus their time, effort and resources on those pupils they see as having the potential to get five grade C's and boost their league table position. They call this the educational triage- those who will pass anyway and can be left to get on with it, those with potential, who will be helped to get a grade C or better and hopeless cases, who are doomed to fail. 

Colin Lacey (1970) - concepts of differentiation and polarisation to explain how pupil subcultures develop. 'A boy who does badly academically is predisposed to criticise, reject or even sabotage the system where he can, since it places him in an inferior position'. 

David Hargreaves (1967) - found a similar response to labelling and streaming in secondary modern school. From the point of view of the education system, boys in the lower streams were triple failures: they had been placed in low streams; and they had been labelled as 'worthless louts'.

Stephen Ball (1981) found that when a school abolished banding, the basis for pupils to polarise into subcultures was largely removed and the influence of the anti-school subculture declined. However, differentiatin continued and teachers continued to categorise pupils differently and were more likely to label middle-class pupils as cooperative and able.

Peter Woods (1979) argues that other responses are also possible, these include: ingratiation (being the teachers pet), ritualism (going through the motions and staying out of trouble), retreatism (daydreaming and mucking about) and rebellion (outright rejection the school stands for).

Bourdieu calls the withholding of symbolic captial 'symbolic violence'. By defining the working class and their tastes and lifestyles as inferior, symbolic violence reproduces the class structure and keeps the lower classes 'in their place'.

Archer found that working-class pupils felt that to be educationally successful. they would have to change how they talked and presented themselves. They felt unable to access 'posh' middle-class spaces such as univeristy and professional careers. He also argues that the school's middle-class habitus stigmatises working-class identities. Seen in this light, the pupils' performances of style are a struggle for recognition: while the middle class see their Nike identities as tasteless. 

Nicola Ingram (2009) study of two groups of working-class Catholic boys from the same highly deprived neighbourhood in Belfast. One group had passed their 11+ exam and gone to a grammar school, the other group failed and went to a local school. The grammar school had a strongly middle-class habitus of high expectations and acdemic achievement, while the secondary school had a habitus of low expecations

Meg Maguire (1997) went to a grammar school and noted that 'the working-class cultural capital of my childhood counted for nothing in this new setting'. 

Sarah Evans (2000) studied a group of 21 working-class girls from a south London comprehensive studying for their A-levels. She found that they were reluctant to apply to elite universities such as Oxbridge and that the few who did apply felt a sense of hidden barriers and of not fitting in.

Bordieu (1984) argued that many working-class people think of places like Oxbridge as being 'not for the likes of us'.

Reay et al (2005) point out that self-exlusion from elite or distant unicersities anrrows the options of many working-class pupils and limits their success. 

Bereiter & Engelmann consider the language spoken by low-income back American families as inadequate for educational success. They see it as ungrammatical, disjointed and incapable of expressing abstract ideas. 

David Gillborn and Heidi Safia Mirza (2000) note that Indian pupils do very well despite often not having English as their home language.

Daniel Moynihan (1965) argues that because many black families are headed by a lone mother, their children are deprived of adequate care because she has to struggle financially in the absense of a male breadwinner.

Charles Murray (1984) argues that a high rate of lone paretnhood and a lack of positive male roles leads to underachievemnt of some minorities.

Roger Scruton (1986) sees the low achievement levels of some ethnic minorities as resulting from a failure to embrace mainstream British culture.

Tony Sewell (2009) sees the problem as a lack of fatherly nurturing or 'tough love' (firm, fair, respectful and non-abusive discipline) as the reason that black boys underachieve. Sewell says that 'the biggest barrier facing black boys is actually black peer pressure. We need to talk about how black students discourage their peers'.

Gillborn (2008) argues that it is not peer pressure but institutional racism within the education system itself that systematically produces failure of large numbers of black boys.

Ruth Lupton (2004) argues that adult authority in Asian families is similar to the model that operates in schools. She found that respectful behaviour towards adults was expected from children. This had a knock-on effect in school, since parents were more likely to be supportive of school behaviour policies. 

Gillian Evans (2006) argues that street culture in white working-class areas can be brutual and so young people have to learn how to withstand intimidation and intimidate others. 

Geoffery Driver (1977) criticises cultural deprivation theory for ignoring the positive effects of ethnicity on achievement. He shows that the black Caribbean family, far from being dysfunctional, provides girls with positive role models of storng indepedent women. He argues that this is why black girls tend to be more successful in education than black boys.

Keddie sees cultural deprivation as a victim-blaing explanation. She argues that ethnic minority children are culturally different, not culturally deprived. They under-achieve because schools are ethnocentric: biasd in fabour of white culture and against minorities.

Guy Palmer (2012):

Almost half of all ethnic minority children live in low-income households, as against a quater of white children.

Ethnic minorities are almost twice as likely to be unemployed compared with whites.

Ethnic minority households are around three times as likelt to be homeless.

Almost half of Bangladeshi and Pakistani workers earned under £7 an hour, compared with only a quater of white British workers.

Tariq Modood (2004) found that, while children from low-income families generally did less well, the effects of low-income were much less for other ethnic groups than for white pupils.

David Mason (2000) puts is, 'discrimination is a continuing and persistent feature of the experience of Britain's citizens of minroity ethnic origin'. 

Gillborn and Youdell (2000) studies found that teachers were quicker to discipline black pupils than others for the same behaviour. Gillborn and Youdell argue that this is the result of teachers 'radicalised expectations'. They expected black pupils to present more discipline problems and misinterpreted their behaviour as threatening or as a challenge to authority. 

Cecile Wright's (1992) study of multi-ethnic primary schools shows that Asian pupils can also be the victims of teachers labelling. She found that despite the schools apparent commitment to equal opportunities, teachers held ethnocentric views: that is, they took for granted that British culture and Standard English were superior. 

Archer (2010) found that teachers had a negative positive stereoptye of Chinese students. Often labelled as passive, quiet and repressed. 

Mary Fuller (1984) study of a group of black girls in year 11 found that they were untypical because they were high achievers in a school where black girls were placed in low streams. They challenged the sterotypes, regarded the teachers as racist and were friends with other black girls in low streams. 

Mac an Ghaill's (1992) study of black and Asian A Level students found that students who believed trachers had labelled tgem negatively did not necessarily accept the label. How they responded depended on factors such as their ethnic group and gender and nature of their former schools. E.G. some girls felt that their experience of having attended an all-girls school gave tgem a greater academic commitment that helped them to overcome negative lablels at college.

Heidi Mirza (1992) studied ambitious black girl who faced teacher racism and found that racist teachers discouraged black pupils from being ambitious through the kind of advice they gave them about careers and option choices.

Sewell notices four responses from black boys to teacher racism: the rebels, the conformists, the retreatists and the innovators. 

Gillborn (2008) applies the theory of locked-in equality to education. Sees ethnic inequality as "so deep rooted and so large that it is a practically inevitable feature of the education system".

Moore and Davenport (1990) show how selection procedures lead to ethnic segregation, with minority pupils failing to get into better secondary schools due to discrimination. E.G. Found that primary school reports were ised to screen out pupils with lamguage difficulties, while the application process was difficult for non-English speaking parents to understand.  

Ball (1994) criticises the National Curriculum for ignoring ethnic diversity and for promoting an attitude of 'little Englandism'. For example, the history curriculum tries to recreate a 'mythical age of empire and past glories', while ignoring the history of black and Asian people. 

Gillborn argues that teachers and policymakers made false assumptions about the nature of pupils' ability or potential. See it as a fixed quality that can easily be measured (new IQism).

Angela McRobbies (1994) study of girls' magazines found that in the 1970's they emphasised the importance of getting married and not being 'left on the shelf', whereas nowadays, they contain images of assertive, independent women. 

Sue Sharpe's (1994) interviews with girls in the 70s and 90s show the sift in the way girls see their future. In 1974, girls had low aspirations and believed educationa success was unfeminine. They gave their priorities as 'love, marriage, husbands, children, jobs and careers, more or less in that order'. By the 90s, girls aspirations had changed and they had a different order of priorities- careers and being able to support themselves. 

Biggart (2002) found that working-class girls are more likely to face a precarious position in the labour market and to see motherhood as the only viable option for their futures/. Hence why they see less point in achieveing in education. 

Mitsos and Browne (2008) conclude that girls are more successful in courseowrk because they are more conscientious and better organised than boys. Girls spend more time on their work, take more care with the way it is presented, are better at meeting deadlines and bring the right equipment and materials to lessons. 

Becky Francis (2001) found that while boys got more attention, they were also disciplined more harshly and felt picked on by the teachers, who tended to have low expecations of them. 

Gaby Weiner (1995) argues that since the 80's, teachers have challenged such stereotypes. 

Emile Durkheim (1903)- identified two functions of education: social solidarity and teaching specialist skills. Social solidarity- education transmitts society's culture- shared beliefs and values- from one generation to the next e.g. teaching of a countries history. Prepares us for life in wider society. Specialist skills- teaches the necessary skills needed to play their part in the social division of labour.

Talcott Parsons (1961) sees the school as the 'focal socalising agency', acting as a bridge between the family and wider society. Sees the school as preparing us to move away from the family to wider scoeity because both school and society are based on meritocratic principles. 

Davis and Moore (1945) see education as a device for selection and role allocation. Argue that inequality is necessary to ensure that the most important roles in soceity are filled by the most talented people. 'Sifts and sorts' us according to our ability.

Chubb and Moe (1990) argue that state-run education in the US has failed because it has failed the needs to disadvantaged groups, fails to produce pupils with the skills needed by the economy and private schools deliver higher quality eudcation. They call for the introduction of a market system in state education that would put control in the hands of the consumers (parents and local communities). They argue that this would allow consumers to shape schools to meet thier own needs and would improve quality and efficiency. 

Althusser (1971) - argues that the eudcation system performs two functions: reproduces class inequality by transmitting it from generation to generation, by failing each sucessive generation of working-class pupils in turn and leigtimates class inequality by producing ideologies that disguise its function.

Bowles and Gintis (1976)- argue that the education system reproduces an obedient workforce that will accept inequality as inevitable. They argue that there are close parallels between schools and the workforce (correspondence principle) e.g. heiarchies. 

Willis (1977) study shows the similarity between the lads' anti-school subculture and the shopfloor culture of male manual workers. Explains wy the lad' culture of resistance helps them to slot into jobs which are inferior (dont expect satisfaction from work and acts of rebellion guarantee that they will end up in unskilled jobs). 

Will Bartlett (1993) argues that league tables encourage cream-skimming (good schools being more selective) and silt-shifting (good schools can avoid taking less able pupils).

Gerwitz (1995) found that differences in parents' economic and cultural capital lead to class differences in how far they can exercise choice of secondary school. Identifies three main types of parents: privileged-skilled choosers who were mainly middle class, able to take full advantage of the choices ope to them, disconnected-local choosers who were working-class and restricted by their lack of economic and cultural capital and semi-skilled choosers who were mainly working class but amvitious for their children. Frustrated at their inability to get their children into the schools they wanted. 

Ball (2011) argues that promoting academies and free schools has led to increased fragmentation (comprehensive system being replaced by a patchwork of diverse privision, much of it involving private providers) and increased centralisation of control over education provision in England.