- Created by: mar0280
- Created on: 07-06-17 14:21
Differential Achievement: Ethnicity
Bereiter & Engelmann (1966):language in lower-class homes is deficient. eg gestures, single words and disjointed phrases. children fail to develop the necessary language skills
Wright (1992): black children were unintentionally discriminated against because teachers held beliefs about 'racial' attributes. eg Asian girls = quiet and submissive which made them 'invisible' in class. Afro-Caribbeans = behavioural problems and of low academic potential; resulting in conflict with teachers.
Fuller (1984): females students able to cope with the system even though they found it racist
Mirza (1992): Female members of minority groups do better educationally than male members. Females feel and resent negative labelling, but do not develop anti-school cultures, but a more pliable 'resistance'.
Gillborn & Youdell (2000): marketisation of education has led to the development of the 'A-C economy' need achieve as many A-C passes as possible. This means schools ignore the individual needs and desires of students.
Sewell (1997):students were positive about education but many rejected the schooling process.
Differential Achievement: Gender
Francis (2000): Boys= more likely to have unrealistic aspirations which require little academic success, eg professional footballer. Girls' aspirations usually require success in education, eg nurse.
McRobbie (1994): Observed the shift in media portrayal of women from mostly housewives to independent women.
Kelly (1987): Science subjects= masculine - teachers more likely to be male, textbooks more likely to depict boys and boys in the classes tend to take control apparatus used in experiments.
Jackson (2006): Working hard was seen to be uncool for both boys and girls, although even more so for boys. Instead, boys gained status through success in sport and by having a girlfriend.
Sharpe (1994): In the 1970's girls' aspirations were prioritised around love, marriage and family life. By the 1990's, this had changed to work and careers.
Differential Achievement: Gender (Subject Choice)
Ringrose (2013) argues that this moral panic about boys achievement lacking has caused a major shift in education policy, which is now preoccupied with raising boys’ achievement.
1a. Gender role socialisation: Bryne (1979) argued teachers encourage boys to be tough and show initiative and not be weak or behaviour like ‘sissies’. Girls on the other hand are expected to be quiet, helpful, clean and tidy
1b. ‘Gender domains’: coined by Browne and Ross, which refers to the tasks and activities that boys and girls see as male or female ‘territory, and therefore as relevant to themselves.
2. Gendered subjects images: Anne Colley (1998) notes that computer studies is seen as a masculine subject for two reasons.It involves working with machines, a ‘male domain’. The way it is taught means few opportunities for group work which girls favour.
3. Gender identity and peer pressure: Dewar (1990) found that male students would call girls ‘lesbian’ or ‘butch’ if they appeared to be interested in sport. This is because it goes against the gender domain. Peer pressure is a powerful influence on gender identity and can result in students policing their peers’ decisions.
4. Gendered career opportunities: Working-class girls more likely to assume traditional sense of gender identity as it was a realistic expectation of ‘people like us’.
Differential Achievement: Gender (Identity)
1. Double standards:Lees (1993) – boys boast about their own sexual exploits but girls will be called a ‘***’ if she did the same
2. Male peer groups: Boys in anti-school cultures abuse other boys who work hard of being ‘gay’ or effeminate. Mac an Ghaill’s (1994) study found working-class ‘macho lads’ were dismissive of hard working working class boys, referring to them as ‘d'ckhead achievers’.
3. Verbal abuse: Dominant gender and sexual identities are reinforced through name calling. Paechter argues name calling reinforces male power, using names such as ‘b'utch’ to police pupils’ sexual identities
4. Female peer groups: Girls construct glamorous appearances through brands and styles. Torn between competing too much (a s'lut) and not competing for attention of boys (a frigid).
5. The ‘male gaze’: coined by Mac an Ghaill to refer to the way pupils and teachers look girls up and down, seeing them as sexual objects. Surveillance allows dominant heterosexual masculinity to be reinforced.
6. Teachers and discipline: Haywood and Mac an Ghaill found male teachers told boys off for ‘behaving like girls’. Male teachers’ behaviour can subtly reinforce messages about gender.
Relationships & Processes within Schools
Rosenthal & Jacobson (1968): Teacher expectations influence student performance. Positive expectations influence performance positively, and negative expectations influence performance negatively. Pygmalion Effect.
Ball (1981): Beachside School. Teachers had higher expectations of those children in the top bands and children in the lower bands were taught with lower expectations. Students in the top sets achieve better grades and go onto university while those in the lower sets got fewer/‘lesser’ qualifications as there was a greater focus on vocational qualifications.
Hargreaves (1967): Labelling in secondary modern - Pupils labelled as ‘trouble-makers’ were placed in lower streams; those whose behaviour was more acceptable in higher streams.
Keddie (1971): teachers taught pupils in higher-streamed classes with more expectations than those in lower streams; lower streamed pupils weren't given knowledge needed to achieve at a higher level even if they wanted to.
Mac an Ghail (1994): Subcultures based on the sets pupils were in. Macho lads =lower sets, New enterprisers = vocational courses and the academic achievers = top sets and expected by teachers to succeed.
Gillborn & Youdell (2000): Marketisation of education led to the 'A-C economy', schools want to achieve as many A-C passes as possible. This means they ignore the individual needs and desires of students.
1944 Education Act - Tripartite system.
1965 – Comprehensive Education
The case against selection: Opportunities remain open, “Late Bloomers”, More students get a better education, Less “social division”, Less Chance of Self-Fulfilling Prophecy, Help for the less able students.
The case for Selection: Grammar schools taking all the brightest students, Negative effect on “High Flyers”, Issues with large school sizes.
1988 – Education Reform Act: schools compete against each other, raising standards and quality of education provided. Led to PARENTOCRACY (coined Miriam David). Creation of OfSTED, generalised testing and formula funding
1997- New Labour Government
Social democratic Approach (left wing): Academies, Sure Start, Education Action Zones (EAZ), Private Schools, Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA), Higher Education, Vocational Education
Market Liberal Approach (right wing): Specialist schools, Increased choice, Vocational education, Privatisation of schools
Tomlinson (2005) argues that the middle classes gained most from New Labour policies
2010 – Coalition Government
Social democratic Approach: Compensating for disadvantage in schools (Pupil Premium), Compensating for disadvantage in higher education
Market Liberal Approach: Academies and Free Schools, Reforms to the curriculum (linear GCSES/A-Levels), Reforms to vocational education, Tuition fees in Higher Education, Michael Gove: a controversial minister