This page is taken from the AQA A Level Specification:

Students are expected to be familiar with sociological explanations of the following content:

●       the role and functions of the education system, including its relationship to the economy and to the social class structure

●       differential educational achievement of social groups by social class, gender and ethnicity in contemporary society

●       relationships and processes within schools, with particular reference to teacher /pupil relationships, pupil identities and subcultures, the hidden curriculum, and the organisation of teaching and learning

●       the significance of educational policies, including policies of selection, marketisation and privatisation, and policies to achieve greater equality of opportunity or outcome, for an understanding of the structure, role, impact and experience of and access to education; the impact of globalisation on educational policy.

The functions of education

social solidarity

formal curriculum

ethnocentric curriculum

secondary socialisation

hidden curriculum

norms and values

sanctions

symbolic violence

division of labour

specialist skills

organic solidarity

universalistic standards

meritocracy

ability grouping

role allocation

achieved status

value consensus

reproduction of inequality

schools mirror the workplace

student voice

ISA

false class consciousness

myth of meritocracy

similarity between Marxist view and Functionalist view of education

social mobility

comparable outcomes

no single metanarrative

agency

Functionalists argue that the education system is one of the institutions which serves the needs of society and the economy.

Durkheim argued that school is ‘a society in miniature’ and the education system has various functions which enable a modern society to run smoothly:

●       to create and reinforce social solidarity

●       to carry out secondary socialisation

●       to teach the specialist skills required by society

Education and social solidarity

One function of education is to create and reinforce a sense of social solidarity.  Through the formal curriculum in subjects like History and English Literature, schools pass on to students a shared cultural heritage. Through the study of e.g. the World Wars, and the works of Shakespeare, schools transmit to pupils a commitment to society, and a sense of belonging to something greater than themselves.  In 2011, Secretary of State for Education Michael Gove said it was important that children learn ‘our island story’ in the context of world events.  Gove went on to reform the content of GCSEs, making them more ‘rigorous’.  For example, he insisted that all pupils would now study works by British (mainly dead White English….) authors, rather than American authors, in GCSE English Literature.  However, Tikly noted that students from some ethnic groups (such as Black Caribbean) feel ‘invisible’ as a result of the ethnocentric curriculum which often fails to teach migration history in a positive way. (Windrush Generation)   Moreover, ironically, pupils in independent schools who currently have access to the IGCSE English Literature curriculum can study a much wider range of literature written in English.

Education and secondary socialisation

Another function of education is to carry out secondary socialisation. Schools are expected to continue the work (primary socialisation) that the family have already started, and transmit society’s norms and values. This creates social cohesion and helps prepare students for the future in wider society.  Through the hidden curriculum, students are taught norms and values such as respect for others, and respect for authority. (For example, in November, schools often hold Assemblies of Remembrance in which all staff and students remain silent for two minutes as a mark of respect for those who lost their lives in the World Wars.)  In most schools, pupils are expected to wear their uniform correctly, and follow rules regarding behaviour, punctuality and effort.  These behaviour norms are reinforced using positive sanctions (rewards) and negative sanctions (punishments).   Children thus learn self-discipline, and how to play their role in the economy and wider society after they leave school.  However, pupils are not a homogenous group, and different groups of pupils are treated differently within the school system. For example, as a result of what Bourdieu called symbolic violence, working-class pupils are ‘policed’ more harshly within schools due to the imposition of the norms and values of the dominant group.

Education and the Division of Labour

Durkheim argued that modern industrial societies have a division of labour, and one role of the education system is to teach the specialist skills required by the workforce, as it was no longer appropriate to assume that parents could pass down traditional occupational skills to their children. (e.g. blacksmith).  Teaching specialist skills in schools, after compulsory primary school education was introduced in 1870, enabled societies to achieve ‘organic solidarity’ – this is the social integration that arises out of the need of individuals for the work and services of others.  However, Durkheim could not have foreseen the pace of technological change that took place in the late 20^th century, with young people being told that the workplace skills they would need in the future did not necessarily exist yet!   (Exam boards such as AQA are looking to assess pupils in different ways using online options, and taking into account developments in Artificial Intelligence.)

Education and universalistic values

Parsons argued that school acts as ‘a bridge’ between family and society, preparing pupils for their adult roles in society. Within the family, the child is judged by particularistic standards, but they are judged by universalistic standards within school, and later in wider society.

Another function of the education system is to operate on meritocratic principles which enables the most academically gifted and hard-working pupils to be judged against universalistic standards, and succeed in standardised tests such as GCSEs and A-Levels.  In theory, successful pupils may come from any social backgrounds, and may potentially achieve upward social mobility.  However, recent research on ‘ability grouping’ by Becky Francis has shown that middle-class pupils are more likely to be given ‘the benefit of the doubt’, and be perceived to ‘have potential’.  They are therefore more likely to be allocated to places in top sets, Triple Science, etc., despite achieving the same (or lower) marks in standardised tests than their working-class peers. Top sets are often taught by Heads of Department, and experienced specialist teachers.

Functionalists Davis & Moore argue that for society to be truly meritocratic, there needs to be a system of unequal rewards. In theory, any pupil who is talented and works hard can achieve highly. The school sorts and sifts high-achieving pupils into ‘top sets’ amid intense competition. This role allocation enable those pupils to attain the most highly rewarded high-status roles in society in the future. So their status is ‘achieved’ (earned) not ‘ascribed’ (inherited).  However, pupils from the most élite private independent schools still tend to dominate places in prestigious Russell Group universities, even though they may have similar A Level grades to state school pupils.

Parsons argued that this system would create value consensus as schools would instil in all pupils the value of achievement, and the value of equality of opportunity.

Possible evaluations of Functionalist views

Some of these ideas are included above – others appear later in these notes.  You will need to link your evaluations explicitly to the question asked, to get the AO2 & AO3 marks

●       myth of meritocracy

●       ethnocentric curriculum

●       symbolic violence

●       outdated 19^th century perspective

●       Ideological State Apparatus reproduces inequalities

●       pupils are not a homogenous group in a diverse society

●       Teachers’ expectations and (un)conscious bias

●       Misallocation to sets due to class / ethnicity / gender

●       Marketisation & league tables create competition

●       Different school systems – e.g. private / state / faith

Conflict view:  Marxism

Marxists argue that schools reproduce inequality by ensuring that middle-class children succeed at the expense of working-class children. This serves the needs of capitalist society which requires high numbers of compliant workers with low qualifications.  (However, ‘working-class’ as a concept is hard to operationalise and measure these days, and FSM is a poor proxy for social class.)

The Correspondence Theory (1970s USA)

Marxist sociologists Bowles & Gintis argued that schools in the USA were meeting the needs of the capitalist system because school mirrors the workplace (e.g. a factory). Pupils and factory workers are expected to respect authority within a hierarchy; be passive and obedient; be punctual and appropriately dressed, respond appropriately to rewards and sanctions; and be motivated by extrinsic rewards (qualifications, promotions, etc.)  School will also prepare students to cope with the fragmentation of tasks, after studying a fragmented curriculum at school.  As an agent of social control, the school enforces behaviour through the hidden curriculum, e.g. through their behaviour policy.

Evaluations of The Correspondence Theory

Bowles & Gintis’ research was conducted in the USA in the 1970s, and workplaces have changed a lot since then. Since the deindustrialisation of the 1980s, there have been fewer factories with assembly lines. However, Marxists would argue that workers are still likely to be exploited and feel alienation, but in other ways, e.g. through insecure zero-hour contracts.

Schools have changed a lot with a new focus on pupil rights, and ‘Student Voice’. e.g. Schools often set up student panels when interviewing for new staff. Pupils are often asked to give their feedback and opinions on aspects of school life e.g. through online questionnaires. However, Marxists would argue that Student Councils give an illusion of democracy without actually giving pupils any real power or influence.

Neo-Marxists like Paul Willis would argue that the Correspondence Theory is too deterministic. The ‘lads’ in his study (1977) had some agency, and they were making choices about their futures – they were not simply passive victims at the mercy of structural forces.  (see Subcultures)

Ideological State Apparatus

Marxist sociologist Althusser argued that the bourgeoisie (ruling class) maintain power through the coercive power of the repressive state apparatus, but also through the ideological state apparatus (ISA) of schools, the media, religion, etc. Althusser argued that the education system prepares the proletariat (working-class pupils) to accept a life of alienation and exploitation within the capitalist system. By spreading bourgeois ideology, schools ensure that their working-class pupils are kept in a state of false class consciousness, and do not challenge the system by starting a revolution. A few working-class pupils will always succeed within the system (e.g. Secretary of State for Education Gillian Keegan MP), but Marxist sociologists insist that meritocracy is actually a myth. They argue that schools mostly reproduce inequality, and bourgeois middle-class students succeed within the system at the expense of working-class students.

Marxists share a similar view to functionalists in some ways as they are both structural views, and can be seen as metanarratives which attempt to explain how society works.  Both Marxists and Functionalists focus on the function of the education system in preparing pupils for their roles in wider society. However, Marxism is a conflict view as Marxists argue that the education system benefits some pupils at the expense of others.  (Functionalism is a consensus view which argues that all pupils have the opportunity to succeed at an appropriate level within the system.)

Evaluation of Marxist views of education

Many teachers and people working within education are ‘on the left’ and would not be likely to spread capitalist ideology or buy into ‘dominant group ideology’.

An increasing number of teachers are working-class now that more w/c people go to university. So they would be better able to support w/c pupils within the middle-class habitus (Bourdieu) of the classroom. However, they might also be intolerant of talented w/c pupils who refused to aspire to success, even though those teachers know that the system contains structural inequalities…

Some individuals are able to become socially mobile due to the meritocratic opportunities provided by the education system. However, ‘comparable outcomes’ still condemns about 30% of GCSE pupils to ‘fail’ the core subjects of Maths and English every year.

Postmodernists argue that there is no single metanarrative which is able to fully capture the truth of the education system, as there are so many factors and individual choices being made within a highly diverse system.

Interpretivists argue that structural metanarratives like Marxism fail to take into account the meanings held by individual actors who have agency and are able to make personal choices affecting their futures (as Willis’ study revealed.)  Sadly, middle-class sociologists have sometimes failed to understand and validate the future choices that some young people make, particularly working-class girls.

Emile Durkheim

(1858 – 1917)

Tikly

Bourdieu

Talcott Parsons

(1902 – 1979)

Francis

Davis and Moore

Bowles & Gintis

Willis

Althusser

girls are not a homogenous group

binary research…

gendered stereotypes

class, family and community

image-based sexual harassment and abuse

feminisation of education

motherhood penalty

New Right

raising standards

choice

marketisation

Conflict view:  Feminism

Feminist sociologists have a range of different views relating to education. Many feminists celebrate the fact that ‘girls’ now outperform ‘boys’ in school every year, and they campaign for government policies to encourage girls to aim for high status jobs in politics, business, media, and STEM, etc.

It is difficult to discuss feminism and patriarchy within schools when the data shows that girls clearly outperform boys in almost every subject. However, ‘girls’ are not a homogenous group, and disruption usually impacts more on the education of working-class girls in lower sets, while middle-class girls are ‘protected’ in the top sets.

Moreover, the ‘feminist’ and ‘gender’ research available to Sociology A-Level students is focused on an essentialist ‘binary’ distinction between ‘girls’ and ‘boys’. The research presented in this section of the A Level specification therefore contains some gaps… and you can certainly make this point if you find yourself answering a question on ‘gender’ or ‘patriarchy’.

Liberal feminism

Achievements of liberal feminism are noted in the ‘gender and achievement’ section – e.g. Equal Opportunities campaigns to encourage girls into STEM subjects.  However, ‘girls’ have not necessarily benefited equally from these initiatives.

Recent research by Becky Francis has drawn attention to gendered stereotypes and socialisation, and this is a topic of ongoing interest to many sociologists, as some intersectional issues remain to be addressed.  Having said that, the authors of educational research reports which are published online (e.g. Louise Archer’s ASPIRES Report and the Runnymede Trust Report on occupational aspirations) work hard to select images which represent the wide diversity of girls within schools, including those with disabilities and differences (e.g. neurodivergence) who are shamefully under-represented in the Sociology A Level specification.

Marxist feminists argue that working-class girls continue to be left behind. Biggart argued 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. Working-class girls are often channelled into ‘low-status’ vocational courses such as BTEC in Child Development, and are more likely to be taught by non-specialist teachers. In her book ‘Miseducation’, Diane Reay argued that working-class girls ‘get less of everything in schools – including respect.’

Sarah Evans argued that many high-achieving working-class girls in her study wanted to go to university to increase their future earning power, but their long-term goal was to support their extended families within their local community.  Skeggs notes that ‘caring and providing for family’ is a crucial part of the identity of these girls. However, this is not always respected or validated by schools and even by some researchers. (Further research will be needed, particularly as more local apprenticeship opportunities open up…)

Radical feminists argue that school is not a safe space for girls. High levels of focus on high academic achievement may mask poor mental and emotional health.  Jessica Ringrose’s recent research into girls’ experiences of Image-Based Sexual Harassment and Abuse revealed an enormous problem in schools, with many girls saying they felt unsafe within a fundamentally patriarchal school environment.

Evaluating Feminist Views of Education

Education is increasingly a female-dominated sector, and Sewell has commented on ‘the feminisation of education’ which favours girls, due to high levels of coursework, and a lack of outdoor activities.  Most teachers are women, particularly in primary schools, and they are increasingly being appointed to SLT (Senior Leadership Team) roles. However, some schools are still dominated by white male senior leaders who recruit staff in their own image, and promote or cut areas of the curriculum that reflect their own interests, and the demands of the league tables (e.g. the ‘academically rigorous’ EBacc subjects)

Since the Education Reform Act of 1988 (see Policies below), girls have achieved more highly than boys in most areas of the curriculum, particularly those dependent on language and literacy, and often achieve the highest grades at A Level, although the gap is narrowing. However, girls are not a homogenous group, and they have different experiences within schools as a result of intersecting factors such as ethnicity, social class, etc. Working-class girls, particularly under-resourced FSM pupils from White, Black Caribbean, mixed heritage and GRT backgrounds, disproportionately underachieve in school.

Despite girls’ success in education, there is still a gender pay gap with women affected by the glass ceiling and the motherhood penalty.  The Gender Pay Gap particularly affects women over 40.  Women in their 30s are more likely to take time off after having children, as high-quality childcare is still neither affordable not accessible to many families. If women do re-enter the workforce, they often do so in flexible part-time roles, to support their families.  Sadly, many women have left the workforce over the last years as they simply cannot find adequate childcare.

The New Right and Education

New Right thinkers of the 1980s, influenced by Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative Government, agreed with functionalists in some ways, but argued that the education system was no longer meeting the needs of society. They argued that:

Government policies in the late 1960s and 1970s had focused on equality of opportunity over meritocracy – e.g. leading to the introduction of comprehensive schools in most counties, and the closure of grammar / secondary moderns.

Left-wing Local Education Authorities (such as the Inner London Education Authority) were promoting radical progressive (socialist) values rather than those norms and values shared by ‘wider society’.

New Right thinkers argued that schools should compete with one another in order to become more accountable to parents, and lead to a raising of standards. Chubb & Moe argued that independent (private) schools got better exam results as they were answerable to fee-paying parents.

Parents should have a choice of schools, rather than seeing their child allocated by the LEA to the catchment school.

These New Right views ultimately led to the Education Reform Act of 1988 which introduced marketisation policies and parentocracy into schools. Although some pupils gained from this, it was often at the expense of others. (see Policies section)

Endogenous privatisation of schools since the ERA

Schools have become privatised from within. The impact of marketisation has meant that schools increasingly operate like private companies: marketing their unique selling points, (e.g. astroturf, a theatre, a swimming pool, etc. and treating parents like customers, competing against local (rival) schools.

Exogenous privatisation of schools since the ERA

This has led to an increase in the role of private companies working within and with schools – e.g. MATs; contracted services like catering & cleaning, and vending machines; and offering paid consultancy services and resources like Tutor2u.

Francis

Archer

Runnymede Trust

Biggart

Reay

Evans

Skeggs

Ringrose

Sewell

Chubb & Moe

persistent poverty

Sociologists can use official statistics to monitor patterns of achievement. For example, they can use the GCSE results provided by the Pupil Database to identify patterns of achievement according to gender, ethnicity and FSM.

Gender

Since the passing of the Education Reform Act in 1988, girls have consistently achieved more highly than boys at both GCSE and A Level. (NB: The statistics do not take into account the pupils who self-identify as non-binary or trans.)

Social Class (using FSM as a proxy for class)

Affluent middle-class pupils consistently do better than under-resourced working-class pupils at all stages of the education system. Sociologists often use the Free School Meals (FSM) indicator to determine which pupils are working-class, however, the concept of FSM is a ‘poor proxy’ for working-class.  The FSM indicator does try to identify pupils whose families are experiencing ‘persistent poverty’, as this can have a huge impact on educational attainment. There are many intersecting reasons for differential patterns of achievement, but the gap between those pupils on FSM, and those who are not, remains stubbornly high, and has increased since Covid.

Pupils who attend private schools (about 7%) achieve more highly on average than those who don’t. Most pupils attending private schools come from middle-class families, but a small number of working-class pupils are supported by bursaries which cover all or some of the school fees.

Ethnicity

GCSE statistics show that Chinese heritage pupils are the highest achieving group every year, including those on FSM. This is a relatively small cohort of pupils each year, but their performance at GCSE is consistently very strong.

Pupils from middle-class Indian & Black African heritage backgrounds also achieve very highly at GCSE & A Level. More pupils from these ethnic backgrounds attend private and selective schools than any other group. The lowest performing groups at GCSE are Gypsy / Roma / Traveller pupils, Black Caribbean heritage boys, and White British boys on FSM.  However, some pupils from these groups achieve highly.

Social class

Precariat

capitals

Economic capital

cultural capital and language development

Sure Start

Family Hubs

policing language

speech codes

Cultural capital and economic capital

Privileged skilled choosers

Social capital

material deprivation

Parental interest

Fatalistic attitudes

Formal learning through play

Educational history of parents

Factors affecting educational achievement

Social Class

Social class is a very difficult concept to operationalise. From the 1950s – 1980s, most sociologists considered parental occupation to be the main factor determining social class. This also linked to parental levels of education.

However, in 2015, Mike Savage carried out the Great British Class Survey and introduced a new way of looking at social class in the UK. Two key concepts he added were the élite (the small group of most wealthy and privileged individuals) and the precariat (those working-class individuals living a precarious and insecure existence.)  Savage also subdivided the traditional working-class and middle-class from other groups within their income brackets, but who had different experiences of education and different cultural values, etc.

Bourdieu and Capitals

As there are different ways of talking about social class – I will be drawing on Bourdieu’s description of ‘capitals’ at some points during these notes:

●       cultural capital (high-status knowledge, tastes, style, behaviour, manners, levels of confidence, etc.)

●       social capital (network of useful social contacts)

●       economic capital (money, wealth, property)

Bourdieu was heavily influenced by a range of theories including Marxism, and the concept of the reproduction of inequality. However, he did not see himself as a Marxist, and some Marxists were critical of his move away from economic factors onto factors connected with ‘style’ and ‘tastes’.

Many sociologists have been heavily influenced by Bourdieu such as Diane Reay, and Gewirtz, Bowe & Ball.

Bourdieu’s capitals and social class

Economic capital:  Middle-class parents are more likely to have higher qualifications and be in more highly paid professional jobs, giving them higher levels of economic capital. They are also more likely to own their own homes and inherit generational wealth. They are therefore more likely to be able to afford private schools, private tutors, educational and technological resources, fast broadband, cultural holidays and trips, private music, dance, art lessons, etc. Economic capital can thus be converted into cultural capital in a variety of different ways and can impact on success in schools.

Cultural capital and language: middle-class parents /carers are much more likely to speak ‘standardised English’ at home, and they are more likely to prioritise language and communication skills during primary socialisation. Parents are more likely to encourage the development of their young children’s literacy skills through singing rhyming songs, sharing picture books, and enabling the child to express their opinions and predictions. This helps build the child’s confidence, and extends their linguistic repertoire. Blair’s New Labour Sure Start Centres had focused on this issue, and the austerity cuts that closed many of the centres are now seen to have been highly detrimental to children’s development.  The new Conservative party’s Family Hubs initiative is attempting to tackle the issue of high-quality Early Years interventions to help prepare young children for school, but also to sustain family support through the school years.

Interestingly, recent research by Ian Cushing has focused on the ways in which schools ‘police’ the language used by both working-class students and teachers. This punitive ‘policing’ (e.g. banning certain words, or putting words in a ‘word jail’)  can negatively affect the self-esteem of w/c pupils.

Cultural capital and speech codes:

Bernstein argued in the 1970s that middle-class children found it easier to switch from the context-bound restricted code that they used with family & friends to the context-free elaborated code which they needed for success in the middle-class habitus of the school. This ‘elaborated speech code’ enables middle-class pupils to interpret their teachers’ explanations, decipher textbooks and exam papers, and express themselves more confidently in both speech and writing. (NB Some w/c pupils can confidently switch codes.)

However, Bernstein regretted, later in his career, that his research had fed into cultural deprivation approaches that considered w/c pupils’ language to be inferior and deficient.

Cultural capital and Economic capital

Since the Education Reform Act of 1988, parents have been able to express their choice about which school their children attend (parentocracy). There is therefore strong competition between schools to try and attract the most ‘aspirational’, talented pupils. High-performing schools are in demand, and heavily over-subscribed. At that point, the school is able to choose pupils according to their Admissions Code. Middle-class parents often have the cultural capital to know how ‘the system’ works, and some sociologists have argued that parents ‘play the system’ to get their child into the school of their choice. Gewirtz, Bowe and Ball argued that some middle-class parents / carers – whom they called ‘privileged skilled choosers’ have the cultural capital needed to fully research the local schools using league tables and OFSTED reports, and local reputation. They are more likely to have the economic capital to buy a house in the catchment area of a high-performing school, and take their child to school by car, if necessary.   Working-class ‘disconnected local choosers’ are more likely to opt for the nearest school that their child can walk to.

Social capital:

Middle-class parents are more likely to have social capital (a network of useful contacts). For example, they often know someone who can provide an interesting work experience placement or unpaid internship for their child; they might have contacts at the university they themselves attended; they are more likely to have contacts on the school staff or governing body if their child is in trouble or needs extra support with their learning. For example, recent research has shown that middle-class parents in independent (private) schools are more likely to request extra time and support for their child in exams than working-class parents.

Middle-class pupils are more likely to be steered by parents and teachers towards ‘academic’ EBacc subjects which will be well-resourced or prioritised within the school. They are also more likely to be encouraged to apply for leadership roles such as Head Student or prefects.

NB: The middle class is not a homogenous group. Many families who would identify as middle-class (e.g. who own their own business) are now struggling financially as a result of the pandemic / Brexit / cost-of-living crisis.

Factors outside school linked to social class

Official statistics suggest that pupils from under-resourced working-class families are less likely overall to achieve highly at school than middle-class pupils. However, these statistics are not deterministic, and some pupils from ‘lower working-class backgrounds’ (e.g. Professor Diane Reay and Gillian Keegan MP) have achieved very highly indeed.

Material deprivation:

Persistent poverty has been identified as a key factor affecting educational achievement. Smith & Noble identified a range of factors linked to a lack of economic capital, including no family car available for trips; no access to private tuition or educational resources; and cramped or temporary housing. Poverty can be the result of low-waged work; insecure zero-hour contracts; loss of employment; and problems accessing Universal Credit and disability benefits.

In ‘food deserts’ where cheap nutritious food is less accessible, children may become obese or unwell due to a poor diet and lack of vitamins, and have to miss school.

In areas where it is hard to access an NHS dentist, families who cannot afford to ‘go private’ cannot always attend to their children’s dental issues – e.g. tooth decay is now one of the main reasons children are taken to A & E.

Moreover, rented housing containing damp and mould has reached crisis levels, with ‘Shelter’s recent research showing that hundreds of thousands of private renters are being made ill with respiratory conditions linked to damp and mould, again leading to children having to take time off school. The tragic death of Awaab Ishak in 2020 drew attention to this.

The recent pandemic revealed the extent of digital poverty in UK schools, with some pupils being unable to access online learning, in contrast with their more affluent peers who were able to work in a warm quiet room on their own laptops.

Although some children manage to overcome the effects of persistent poverty, the achievement gap between disadvantaged pupils and their more affluent peers remains very high. Sadly, the gains produced by the compensatory education of Tony Blair’s New Labour government in the late 90s and 00s have not only been wiped out but reversed.

Cultural factors:  parental interest:

Several classic studies from the 1960s and 1970s suggest that level of parental interest is the factor that most influences children’s achievement in school. Sugarman argued that working-class parents had fatalistic attitudes: they did not challenge the school if their child was under-achieving, and they were not proactive about their children’s education. They were also focused on immediate gratification and wanted their children to start earning as quickly as possible.  However, Sugarman did not take into account the fact that many working-class families needed the older children to contribute to the family’s income.  Sugarman also failed to consider the impact of the parents’ own educational legacy, as many had left secondary modern schools with no qualifications.

Douglas agreed that the level of parental interest was key, arguing that working-class parents were less interested in formal education; less likely to visit the school, and less likely to encourage their children to stay on at school beyond the official school leaving age.  However, at the time the research was conducted, manual work e.g. in factories, was readily available, particularly to working-class boys in lower sets.

More recently, Feinstein agreed that parental support was the key issue. However, he based his findings on teachers’ subjective assessments of how much interest parents showed in their children’s education.

None of these ‘cultural deprivation theorists’ took into account parents’ educational history; parents’ work schedules; family commitments; ability to communicate in English, etc. Gillian Evans’ participant observation research on a working-class housing estate revealed that the working-class parents were highly aspirational for their children, seeing educational qualifications as the best way for their children to succeed, as they had low levels of economic, social and cultural capital.  However, the mothers did not prioritise the type of educational play activities which encouraged the ‘formal learning’ of skills which was favoured by middle-class mothers.  (This was an issue that the Sure Start Centres had tried to address.)

Educational history:

Diane Reay notes that working-class parents / carers are more likely to have had a negative experience of education and left school early, particularly if they were attending a secondary modern school; they are therefore less likely to have achieved higher level qualifications or attended university. They are less likely to have experience of the UCAS system, and less likely to be able to afford visits to different unis. They are less likely to have contacts / family members who have attended Higher Education institutions. They are much more likely to encourage their child to remain in the local area after school.

Savage

Bourdieu

Bourdieu

Cushing

Bernstein

Gewirtz, Bowe and Ball

Smith and Noble

Shelter (charity)

Sugarman

Douglas

Feinstein

Evans

Reay

Ethnicity

high value placed on education

social mobility

Ethnicity:

Chinese heritage pupils have been the highest performing group every year since 1988, when the Education Reform Act introduced GCSEs. Chinese heritage pupils from all socio-economic backgrounds do well, including those on FSM. A very high value is placed on education within Chinese communities, and the parents and children interviewed by Archer and Francis all expressed an aspiration that the children would go to university, even if this involved being upwardly socially mobile. Chinese heritage children are expected to show high levels of respect for teachers, and complete all classwork and homework to the highest possible standard. Chinese heritage families are usually prepared to make financial sacrifices to pay for private tutors, and they ensure their children complete homework.  (Interestingly, Archer and Francis argue that Chinese heritage families share similar aspirations for their children as white middle-class families.)

Archer and Francis

Private schools

educational capital

unemployment

Low teacher expectations

Racialised expectations

invisibility within the curriculum

Mixed-heritage pupils

The culture trap

migration histories

Cutting of the Ethnic Minority Achievement Grant (EMAG)

Ethnocentric curriculum

Hidden curriculum

Ramadan

Deconolonising the curriculum

DEI work

Ethnic Minority Achievement Grant

Language data

British Asians and educational capital

Themina Basit (2013) studied a group of 36 south Asian students from the same town, but from different heritage backgrounds (Hindus, Sikhs & Muslims).  Most of the grandparents who had emigrated to the UK took up working-class occupations on arrival in the UK.  They all saw educational capital as key to future success for their families, and had high aspirations of upward social mobility: a well-paid job and a high standard of living.

Black Caribbean pupils

Black Caribbean pupils, particularly boys, often achieve lower GCSE results, and sociologists have put forward a wide range of different possible reasons for this:

Black Caribbean families are more likely to experience material deprivation and persistent poverty, and parents may be unemployed, or working shifts in low-waged jobs or on insecure zero-hour contracts. Black Caribbean families are the most likely to be headed by a lone mother, and are one of the most economically marginalised groups.

The absence of a father in the home might be an issue for some families, according to New Right thinkers such as Tony Sewell, but this is certainly not always the case. Many Black Caribbean fathers are involved in their children’s education even if they don’t live in the same house according to Tracey Reynolds’ research.

Black Caribbean boys are often on the receiving end of low teacher expectations, and are labelled as ‘lazy’ or ‘trouble-makers’.  Recent research on ability grouping from Becky Francis shows that they are more likely to be misallocated (wrongly placed) into low-ability sets or streams in Year 7, despite doing well in their KS2 SATs. This negative labelling can lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy of low achievement, and Black Caribbean boys are much more likely than any other group to be permanently excluded or off-rolled from school.

Black Caribbean boys are more likely to be on the receiving end of ‘racialised expectations’ in secondary school, even if they are ‘conformists’ and had no record of poor behaviour in primary school. A recent study of professional Black families carried out by Gillborn, Rollock et al., using semi-structured interviews, revealed that supportive parents of potentially high-achieving students were concerned about the low expectations of their children’s teachers, with parents feeling the need to pay for private tuition outside school to help their children reach the highest grades. (Also, see Heidi Safia Mirza in the Labelling section)

Tikly argued that many Black Caribbean pupils felt ‘invisible’ within a curriculum which failed to represent their migration history in a positive light.  To this day, many pupils in England & Wales do not realise that the Windrush Generation were actively recruited from countries like Jamaica to rebuild Britain after WWII.  For example, Black Caribbean migrants have been making a massive contribution in the NHS and Transport for London from the late 1940s onwards.  The recent ‘hostile environment’ scandal involving deportations of the Windrush Generation migrants has inflamed the frustrations of Black Caribbean families. Some New Right thinkers have argued that pupils from other ethnic groups (e.g. Chinese heritage) have achieved in school despite their absence from the curriculum. However, the often insensitive focus on ‘slavery’ in learning resources has contributed to the sense of invisibility and frustration that many students feel.

Tikly has also pointed out that one group which has been particularly under-represented in the curriculum is pupils of mixed Black Caribbean / White heritage, and there are currently high levels of exclusion for both boys and girls from this group.

Interestingly, a recent book by Derron Wallace ‘The Culture Trap’, points out that Black Caribbean students are considered to be a high-achieving ethnic minority group within the USA.  His research suggests that the migration history of this group (e.g. the colonial relationship between the West Indies and Great Britain) is a key factor in determining how the migrants – and their culture - are treated.

Diane Reay referred to migration histories as a key issue in understanding the relative achievement of different groups.

GRT pupils

(GRT pupils are not a homogenous group, but they are grouped together in official statistics…)

Pupils from a Gypsy / Roma / Traveller background are the lowest performing group at GCSE. One explanation is that families move around a lot, and the children’s education is disrupted.  Another is that GRT families choose to withdraw their older children from school when they do not support certain aspects of the curriculum – e.g. the PSHE curriculum.  Kalwant Bhopal notes that the EMAG grant which was designed to support those students was cut, leaving them struggling when they move schools. Another is high levels of exclusions, leading parents to pull their children out of school early. Some Local Education Authorities (e.g. Norfolk) have created a Liaison Service to work with GRT communities. They link with community groups who are already supporting education for GRT children e.g. Future4Fairgrounds.  (Even though pupils from GRT backgrounds are the lowest performing demographic every year, there are Sociology A-Level textbooks which fail to even touch on this issue.)

Ethnocentric curriculum

Pupils who are not from a white British background are more likely to feel excluded by the ethnocentric curriculum that does not value their history, literature and culture. Ball argued that the formal curriculum promoted ‘Little Englandism’ and this became even more of a concern with Michael Gove’s 2015 reforms which promoted the UK’s ‘island story’ at the expense of a more representative curriculum.

Tikly (see above) argued that Black Caribbean pupils often felt ‘invisible’ and marginalised by the curriculum.  Any references to Black Caribbean culture were negative, or focused on slavery. (see above)

The hidden curriculum can also be considered to be ethnocentric. Black pupils have been excluded from schools for having ‘extreme’ hairstyles which are not considered ‘appropriate’ whereas White pupils in the same school have more choices. Since the Black Lives Matter protests sparked by George Floyd’s murder in 2020, many schools have tried to address these issues by changing the curriculum and the school rules. Students at Pimlico Academy in London staged a successful protest in 2021 to change the ‘hair’ rules at their school.

Some schools have also been heavily criticised for failing to take into account the cultural needs of their students – e.g. holding important school assessments on afternoons when pupils are fasting for Ramadan.

Developments since 2020

Since the murder of George Floyd in 2020, there has been a move to decolonise the curriculum with a view to valuing the history and cultures of the diverse groups that make up society in the UK today. For example, some schools now teach about the Windrush Generation, and how the UK actively recruited people from Jamaica to help staff the NHS and Transport for London.

Exam boards are also starting to undertake work in DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion). For example, the AQA board has recently offered a wider range of diverse texts for study at English Literature GCSE in an attempt to ‘decolonise’ the curriculum.

NB: Some children of both Black Caribbean and Black African heritage achieve very highly indeed within both school and higher education.  Students of Black African heritage are now the group most likely to study at post-graduate level in the UK.

Ethnicity and Language:  EAL

The term EAL means English as an Additional Language and it is often used to describe pupils who use language other than English at home. About 20% of pupils in England & Wales use another language at home, but this varies widely by location. When a child is registered at a school, the parent / carer is asked for information about the child’s home language, but the parent can choose not to submit this.

Some Sociology textbooks claim that children with EAL are at ‘a disadvantage’. This can certainly be the case if a child enters the school system during their teenage years, and is given little support with the language demands of the curriculum. Schools could previously receive funding from the Ethnic Minority Achievement Grant (EMAG) to support pupils with EAL, but there is no longer funding ring-fenced for that purpose. Many secondary schools now contain no teachers who have been trained to support pupils with EAL.

However, Steve Strand’s research clearly show that EAL children who enter school in England during the primary years, and have time to become fluent in English, are likely to outperform at GCSE their monolingual peers who only speak English. (The first languages of many high-performing students in the UK are Marathi, Telugu, Sinhala, Malayalam, Mandarin and Vietnamese.)

Being bilingual can be an advantage, not a disadvantage. The London Borough of Tower Hamlets made a significant difference to the education of the Bangladeshi children within the borough by recruiting both teachers and support staff who spoke the local languages. This has had a positive impact on the achievement of Bangladeshi heritage students over the last few years, although many still choose not to go to uni.

Having said that, some languages have a higher status than others, with European languages such as French and Spanish being more highly regarded than ‘community languages’ such as Punjabi and Chichewa.

Runnymede Trust

Basit

Sewell

Reynolds

Francis

Gillborn, Rollock et al

Tikly

Wallace

Reay

Bhopal

Ball

Tikly

Strand

It has always been considered relatively ‘easy’ to collect data on gender and educational achievement, and the research mentioned on the Sociology A Level specification reflects this. However, as the binary categories of ‘boy’ and ‘girl’ are increasingly challenged, it will become harder to collect data in the same way. (Perhaps this is time to switch the focus of educational research, and start asking different questions…)

Current data clearly shows that girls have been outperforming boys at GCSE since 1990 (post ERA). In some subjects, notably English and literacy-based subjects, the gap has been as high as 9%. However, boys are slightly more likely to get A*s at A Level, particularly in STEM subjects. More girls now go on to Higher Education than boys. This is a dramatic change since the 1980s; before this, boys were much more likely to stay on at school post-16 than girls. This has led to a ‘moral panic’ about boys’ achievement in schools, with many teachers being sent on courses to learn ‘How to teach boys’.

In-school factors affecting the achievement of girls

The feminisation of education

Due to the ‘feminisation of education’, there are more senior female teachers and positive role models for girls, according to Tony Sewell. Girls, particularly middle-class girls, are more likely to feel comfortable in the habitus of the school where (allegedly) more feminine pursuits such as reading fiction and writing creatively are emphasised and rewarded. Sewell favours more outdoor education to engage the interest of boys.  (Even Bourdieu commented that presentation of work and neat handwriting could influence the grades a teacher gave…)

Since the introduction of the National Curriculum in the 1988 ERA, girls and boys have been given access to all subjects up to the end of KS3. Girls can now take subjects like Triple Science and Resistant Materials whereas that was uncommon before 1988. However, this has benefited middle-class girls more, as working-class girls are often steered towards ‘low-status’ vocational courses such as Child Development. Meanwhile, boys are often still steered away from subjects that are associated with a nurturing role.

Confidence issues

Licht and Dweck argue that girls lack confidence in their ability to carry out intellectual tasks successfully.  Despite the superior performance of girls compared to boys in primary schools, it was the girls who generally expected to encounter most difficulty when learning new things.  Licht and Dweck argue that many boys are able to shrug off academic failure by attributing it to a lack of effort on their part, or unfair assessment by the teachers.  Girls tend to underestimate their abilities and lose confidence when they fail.  As a result, they are likely to spend more time on their work, to compensate for their lack of confidence.

GCSE Coursework

Mitsos and Browne (1998) argued that GCSE coursework favoured girls as they tended to work harder and edit their work more carefully. Their research suggested that girls are often more mature, conscientious, set very high standards for themselves and are more eager to please their teachers. However, the Reformed GCSEs of 2015 removed most GCSE coursework, but girls are still performing more highly than boys, so coursework cannot be the only explanation. The fact that girls are often socialised into being neat and well-organised is still likely to be a factor. (Another question to ask would be: at what cost to their mental health do girls achieve these high exam results?  Are boys actually more pragmatic about doing the minimum in order to move onto the next stage??)

Meanwhile, IGCSE coursework is still alive and well in independent schools…

Interactions with teachers

Research suggests that girls often have more positive interactions with teachers, and work better in pairs and small groups to get their work done. Becky Francis argued that boys are more likely to dominate the classroom and playground space in a negative way. If boys get told off for shouting out answers, even if those answers are correct, they are more likely to lose interest and give up. Therefore, girls will often be more proactive in seeking out teachers in small groups at lunchtime, after school, or via email, to get the help they need. However, this is more likely to be the case with more confident middle-class girls who feel more confident about asking their teachers for additional support.

Equal Opportunities initiatives

Equal Opportunities initiatives such as GIST (Girls in Science and Technology) and WISE (Women in Science and Engineering) have encouraged high-achieving girls away from Arts and Humanities subjects, and into Science subjects. Louise Archer’s ‘ASPIRES’ work at UCL on Science Capital has shown that girls aspire to careers in these areas as much as boys do in the early years, but they were then being channelled towards other subjects in secondary school.

Gendered images in learning resources

Lobban (1970s) argued that there was evidence of gender bias in educational reading schemes, with girls and women being represented in traditional domestic roles, with boys taking the lead in most activities.  However, feminists have increasingly challenged gendered stereotypes in reading schemes and text books, and this has become easier through the use of social media platforms.  Weiner (1995) argues that sexist images are increasingly being removed from learning materials which may create more positive images for girls.

Crisis of Masculinity

There has been a crisis of masculinity with fewer traditional ‘masculine’ jobs available for boys. Some boys find it hard to motivate themselves at school, and experience mental health issues associated with a crisis of identity.  Some sociologists have argued that due to a lack of traditional working-class occupations, boys lack realistic aspirations and a clear sense of their own future. Interestingly, in his recent book ‘Boys Don’t Try?’ Mark Roberts argued that well-meaning teachers try to support boys, but sometimes use the wrong strategies to try and motivate boys – e.g. by holding competitive Kahoot quizzes and linking everything to football or sword-fighting.

Out of school (external) factors affecting gender and achievement

Fiona Norman et al. (1988) argued that, even before children start school, gender socialisation has already begun. From the types of play that children are encouraged to engage in, and the types of toys they are given (canalisation), boys and girls are encouraged to develop different sorts of aptitudes and attitudes.

Through primary socialisation, Angela McRobbie argued that girls are encouraged to focus more on communication skills, which develop further through ‘bedroom culture’. (Girls are more likely to be labelled as ‘ideal pupils’ in school as social control from their own peer group influences their behaviour within the classroom.)

Due to the legislation of second-wave feminism in the 1970s (e.g. Equal Pay Act), changes in the economy (more service sector roles), there are now more employment opportunities for females which has given girls more to aspire to in terms of future careers. Women (especially m/c women) are having their first child later (aged 30) and want to get their career going first. Sue Sharpe’s research with working-class teenage girls in the 1970s and 1990s clearly revealed a change in aspirations and expectations. In the 1970s, the girls’ priorities were marriage and children. By the 1990s, girls were putting their careers first, and delaying the arrival of their first child. Sadly, the difficulty in finding affordable childcare is now driving many women out of the labour market until their children are older; their careers may not recover from the long break – known as The Motherhood Penalty, and this will further increase the gender pay gap.

Sewell

Licht and Dweck

Mitsos and Browne

Francis

Archer

Lobban

Weiner

Roberts

Norman

McRobbie

Sharpe

Labelling

Self-fulfilling prophecy

Labelling Theory and Identity

Labelling theory was developed by Howard Becker in the 1960s and is associated with the Sociology of Crime & Deviance. However, it applies directly to education too.

Pupils can be labelled either positively or negatively. If a pupil internalises a label, it can become their master status, and lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy. A label can also form part of an individual’s identity. Pupils are born into identities, acquire them from families and communities, acquire them through interactions with others, but they can also choose their identities – to some extent.

Impact of labelling:

The interactionist sociologist David Hargreaves carried out observations in a secondary modern school in the 1960s. He argued that teachers often labelled pupils based on their appearance, behaviour, accent and work rate in the classroom. The boys in the lower streams felt like ‘triple failures’ as they had failed the 11+, been placed in bottom streams, and then labelled ‘worthless louts’.  The boys formed delinquent subcultures and got status and a sense of identity from their mates by behaving badly in school.

Self-fulfilling prophecy:

Interactionist sociologists argue that the process of attaching a label to a pupil could lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy. When teachers respond positively to pupils through their tone of voice, giving merits or stickers, the pupil picks up on this and may internalise a positive self-image. This increased confidence can help the pupil succeed. However, if the teacher responds negatively to a student by showing anger, irritation or indifference (lack of interest), the pupil may internalise the negative label and start behaving badly, or just give up. The teacher’s label of that pupil (e.g. lazy) is confirmed through the self-fulfilling prophecy.  However, research by both Mirza (see below) and Fuller noted that some pupils do manage to ignore / reject negative labels, and still do extremely well in school.

Becker

Hargreaves

self-fulfilling prophecy

ideal pupil identity

halo effect

misallocation to an inappropriate set

positive language

myth of cultural deprivation

anti-school subculture

symbolic violence

Rosenthal and Jacobson conducted an experiment in the USA in the 1960s in which teachers were told that some of the primary school pupils were going to be ‘spurters’ (late developers / high achievers). Teachers were told that this was based on the results of an IQ test, but the pupils were actually selected randomly. Those pupils developed much than the control group, which suggests that the teachers’ labels and expectations led to a self-fulfilling prophecy. For example, the teachers had provided much higher levels of attention and feedback to the ‘spurters’ and were generally more warm, encouraging and optimistic around them. This experiment could not be conducted today due to the ethical issues – all those taking part were deceived. However, it remains one of the most famous sociological experiments ever conducted.

Ideal Pupil and the Halo Effect

Research suggests that many teachers have an image of the ‘ideal’ pupil: conscientious (hard-working), polite, helpful, articulate, etc. Stereotypical attitudes can lead to this ideal pupil being middle-class, White and often female. Interestingly, Archer’s research suggests that pupils from East Asian backgrounds are not seen as ‘ideal pupils’ as they are too ‘passive’ and ‘openly studious’. Ideal pupils are seen as those who appear to achieve ‘effortlessly’... Research by Carolyn Jackson indicates that m/c boys who want to achieve highly will often go to huge lengths to ‘not be seen as making an effort’ in school, as this will lead to bullying from their peers. However, they have the study space and resources to complete their work at home, which some w/c boys do not.

M/C White girls are disproportionately represented in top sets, particularly for literacy-based subjects. The ‘top set’ label can lead to what Thorndike called the halo effect where the behaviour of ideal pupils is interpreted differently from the same behaviour committed by others. They are less likely to be disciplined harshly, and more likely to be given the benefit of the doubt.  However, recent research suggests that pupils in top sets can suffer from self-orientated perfectionism that causes anxiety and other mental health issues.

However, it is very hard to measure how teachers label their pupils, how much teachers are aware of it, and the extent to which labels impact on pupils. Interactionists tend not to consider structural factors such as social class, etc.

Educational Triage

Gillborn and Youdell (2000) argue that schools perform a process of ‘triage’ in the way that healthcare professionals do, and put pupils into certain categories:

●       Safe bets - those who will work hard and achieve anyway, and don’t require much input from teachers

●       Hopeless cases – those for whom additional input would not be top priority as it would be a waste of effort

●       Borderline cases – those who require input and effort from the school to ensure they get the grades that will count in the league tables. This used to be the pupils on the C / D border for English Language and / or Maths. (It is now either those on the Grade 3 / 4 border, or the 4 / 5 border, depending on the school.)

Students who were considered to be ‘borderline’ were prioritised for intervention groups, and 1 : 1 support.

However, Gillborn & Youdell argued that some students’ education was ‘sacrificed’ to the more important goal of raising attainment in the league tables.’  These ‘no-hopers’ whose education was most likely to be ‘sacrificed’ were the Black Caribbean pupils in bottom sets who were ‘systematically neglected’, and given GCSE Foundation Maths papers which only enabled them to achieve a ‘failing’ Grade D.  These pupils were much less likely to benefit from additional intervention or support, as they could not actually achieve a grade that would contribute positively towards the school’s league table ranking.  These pupils were much more likely to be labelled as disruptive.  Gillborn and Youdell argued that this was ‘institutional racism'.

Self-Refuting Prophecy:  pro-education subcultures

Heidi Safia Mirza conducted research in the 1990s on the ‘myth of underachievement’. She focused closely on three Black girls and concluded that the negative teacher labelling had an interesting effect. Instead of lowering the girls’ self-esteem, it led to a self-refuting prophecy. Although the girls had no time for their teachers, and were actually part of anti-school subcultures, they were actually pro-education. They appeared to have high levels of self-esteem, and they got validation and affirmation from their peers, not their teachers. In public examinations, the Black girls outperformed both the White pupils and the Black boys.

Banding / streaming (means almost the same thing)

Some schools organise their pupils into three bands: top, middle and bottom. The way that the timetable is organised usually makes it difficult for pupils to move between bands. Therefore, a pupil who struggles badly with Maths and Science may end up in the bottom band or stream for every subject, even though they have talents in other subject areas.

Recent research on ability grouping by Becky Francis has shown that working-class pupils, especially those from a Black Caribbean background, are more likely to be misallocated to a lower band, stream or set in Year 7, even after doing well at KS2.

Teacher Expectations

Stephen Ball (1981) conducted research at a comprehensive school where children were placed into different bands (streams). He found that children in the top bands were mostly well-behaved and hard-working, and made good progress. However, he found that children in the bottom band (stream) quickly became negative and demotivated, and some created anti-school subcultures, behaving very badly.

Ball argued that both the pupils’ behaviour from both the top and bottom bands was a direct consequence of their teachers’ expectations. The teachers used positive aspirational language when talking about the pupils in the top band: they ‘warmed up’ those pupils and encouraged them to do even better. However, the teachers used negative fatalistic language when talking about pupils in the bottom band: they ‘cooled down’ those pupils and demotivated them.

The school eventually abolished the banding system, and the influence of the anti-school subcultures within the school declined.  However, Ball noted that many teachers continued to categorise pupils differently, and were much more likely to label middle-class pupils as ‘cooperative’ and ‘able’.

Nell Keddie challenged the concept of placing pupils in ‘categories’ and blaming some pupils’ low achievement on cultural deprivation. She argued this was a myth based on disputed definitions of social groups and disputed concepts of what should be considered ‘valued’ classroom knowledge. (Interpretivist view)

Anti-school subcultures

In his 1977 research study ‘Learning to Labour’, sociologist Paul Willis studied 12 ‘lads’ in the bottom stream of a low-status secondary modern school in the 1970s. The boys hated school and knew that they would leave at Easter of Year 11 with no qualifications. They were looking forward to getting jobs in the real world outside school. In the 1970s, those unskilled jobs were still easy to obtain by school-leavers with no qualifications. The lads therefore formed an anti-school subculture devoted to ‘having a laff’ and skiving off lessons. They ridiculed the boys (ear’oles) who were trying to work hard and pass their exams. Willis was a Marxist, and he believed that the education system was set up to reproduce inequality and ensure that the ‘lads’ would end up in low paid working-class factory jobs. However, Willis used interactionist research methods, and interviewed the ‘lads’ to find out what they really thought and felt. Willis argued that the boys had ‘agency’ and were making conscious choices using their free will to behave in the way that they did.

Formal Curriculum and Hidden curriculum:

The formal curriculum contains the subjects pupils learn in school e.g. Sociology, English Literature, Maths, Art, Spanish, Music, Resistant Materials, Child Development, etc.

The hidden curriculum consists of all the messages that pupils pick up during the school day but which are not taught through the formal curriculum: e.g. show respect by not shouting out; show obedience by wearing black socks and shoes; show punctuality by arriving on time for lessons. Louise Archer has argued that working-class pupils, especially girls, are more likely to be on the receiving end of symbolic violence for their appearance and behaviour. Feminists argue that messages about appropriate gender roles are transmitted through the hidden curriculum. Girls are more likely to be steered towards subjects like Child Development which link to the ‘expressive role’ in society. Boys are steered towards subjects like Resistant Materials. Sadly, boys who would enjoy studying Child Development often pick up the message that the subject is not really for them, and they will be taunted if they choose that option.

Rosenthal and Jacobson

Jackson

Thorndike

Gillborn and Youdell

Mirza

Francis