Working-Class Children Underperform In the Education System - Coursework Example

Task Why Working Children Underperform In the Education System Introduction Education is an essential element in growing children’s’ lives. An education system does not work in a vacuum, but its success depends on factors such as employment variations, economic verifications, and the social determinants of children’s educational gain. The 1870 Educational Act was the initiating piece of legislation to address the provision of education in Britain. It focused on the provision of education countrywide. It approved voluntary schools to operate and established a school board to construct new schools in areas where they did not exist (Haralambos and Langley 2002, 18). The boards were locally based, and got their funds from local taxes. This was intended to provide education to all. During the post war period, Britain aimed to remove inequalities that remained in the education system. The creation of the ministry of education was established then as the elementary school was changed to primary school. Poorer children were offered free places in schools, but their parents turned them down due to extra costs involved (Haralambos and Langley 2002, 18). The 1998 education act sough to advice on standards of teaching, conduct of teachers and role of the profession among other functions. It provides for quality education and equal standards. Under this act, students from working class are expected to perform competitively with those from prestigious schools, as the standards are level. It also provided for support for poor students mostly from the working class. However, students from working class fail in their education due to lack of morale as they compete with schools superior to theirs. The conservative government of 1979-1997 reinforced education in the private sector. It provided donations for gifted students from humble backgrounds to gain admission in private schools. They provided choices for children and parents rather than automatically allocating them to a local school. It also exposed disparities in educational achievements as social class inequalities were evident. There were policies that supported private education system and selective grammar schools thus leading to those from working class underperform, as they could not access them. According to Zweig (2012, 2) class are power, power at work, and in the whole society. He describes a class in relation to the occupational descriptions from the bureau of labour statistics. Class is divided into upper, middle and working class according to the ranking of their parents’ earnings. Labelling influences existence of classes. It leads to working class kids labelled negatively. They are labelled as nobody’s, and this has detrimental effects. They tend to have low-self esteem, and image and they dislike themselves. The students from the upper class are labelled as good while the working class are reputed with poor grades. Streaming is an epitome of labelling where the teachers response to a child can affect the child’s educational vocation (Haralambos and Langley 2002, 143). The teacher can determine a child’s performance, and they do this through the influence they have over their students. A child from the upper class is treated better than one from the working class due to their parents’ influence on the teachers. Many sociologists such as Hyman and Sugarman have argued that the working class students are disadvantageous because of their own culture. Douglas and Willis also think that culture has disadvantaged working class students because of their cultural differences. Bernstein, on the other hand, emphasises the significance of class differences in language that have put working class students at a disadvantage due to their use of restricted, rather than an elaborated code (Haggar 2011 8). According to Smelser and Badie (1994, 79) when comparisons are made between the two classes, working class people seem to lack aspiration because they regard upward mobility as distracting them from their working class ties. There is a distinct difference between structural and individual that is a critical one. In individual mobility as one-personality moves up, another inexorably moves down. However, structural mobility arises because of broader social alterations, chiefly in models of employment. These emphasises that a good standard of education and appropriate training are essential to one’s chances of success although education alone does not give the whole picture. They tend to be fatalistic. Hyman says that they usually have a strong, present time direction and are unwilling to adjourn fulfilment. A nuclear family, which according to Brown (1998, 255) is cereal family, is the image promoted as the ideal family. The husband is considered the breadwinner while the wife stays home doing housework as well as childcare. This arrangement is misrepresented in its existence, in the modern world. Homosexuality according to Brownie (1998, 262) is becoming a common thing although it is relatively odd. He adds that most same-sex couples with kids practice lesbianism. However, he adds that more cases of gay male couples are emerging, and they adopt children or have them through surrogate mothers. In addition, he argues that these families are like any other, but give alternative to more conventional views of the nuclear family (Haralambos and Langley 2002, 234). A child finds it hard when growing in such a family thus psychologically affecting their grades. Single parenting is also a crucial factor in working class students. Lone parenthood affects a working student in that, due to lack of childcare facilities, and household facilities the student is exposed to a difficult life that affects his studies. Education influences one’s social class position as an adult. In rare circumstances, education can be a way of ascending common mobility into the mid class for pupils from a poor class family (Brown 1998, 200). Marketisation of schools system disadvantages working class pupils as it becomes difficult for them to afford to pay for them. It has more or less eliminated competition from schools as those that get a chance to attend the market schools are from the upper class while the working class cannot afford. In such regard, the performance a student from the working class fails in education while the one from upper class passes. According to Bernstein, the restricted code displays the speech patterns used by the working class. It permits group members to bond and unite using language. It leads to distinctions such as men and women or aged and young in a group. On the other hand, the elaborate code is a speech pattern for those from the upper classes. It does not necessarily emphasis on group bonds, but they use them for gaining access to education and the profession. Children with the restricted bond find it hard to understand their teachers as the communication skills from other classes are different. This affects such children’s performance thus leading to educational failure (Haralambos and Langley 2002, 234). Working class students perform dismally in education systems because they find it difficult to balance work and school. The schools fail to recognize that such students must work while attending school. The students find themselves with bulk course load as they attempt to minimize costs. This affects their performance as they have little time to read many materials over a short period thus their failure to perform successfully in education. Parents from middle class, by sending their children to the best public schools in the highest sectors of society they assist prevent educational failure of their children, and protect their interests. This gives their children the opportunity to rise to most powerful positions by acquiring the necessary social skills and background, those from the working class lack such experience and exposure. Those from the working class, have a disadvantage to those from middle class whose parents provide them with the support they require, in terms of books, and other facilities allowing them to be successful. Working class choose the schools to take their children, they usually choose those that are cheap and unaffordable. Conversely, those from middle class afford expensive and prestigious schools. These affects pupils from working class as they are exposed to an environment with fewer facilities thus their underperformance. Paul Willis in his studies insists that the working class culture was the main factor in elucidating lack of educational success. Using 12 working class lads in his studies, he found out that they hoped to get bodily challenging blue-collar service. This was because of their patriarchal viewpoints that this was the job, which unlike skilled non-manual work conformed to their manliness. With such perception, school only offers them little, and they respond by taking minimal interest in school an attitude that has their parents’ backing classes (Hatchibi and Wooffitt 2008, 18). Pierre Bourdieu uses the concept of cultural capital to argue that the superior class has the authority to impose its culture as the prevailing culture in the community. This guarantees that educational ability is assessed through the possession or lack of the dominant culture. This will discourage the working class students thus leading to their failure in education. Bourdieu describes the dominant culture as the possession of enriching capital. This is as it is likely to assure access to well paying occupations for upper and maybe middle class students. The working class students are deprived in both school, and employment due to the lack of cultural capital. In his theory of cultural capital, he concludes that working class students are not culturally deprived, but culturally different, and at a lacking due to educational success depending upon possession of cultural capital that they lack. Welfare dependency is a poverty outcome. Most working class students depend on AFDC benefits to boost their studies. By depending on the government who must serve a wide number of citizens, the performance of a working class pupil is affected as they do not get they requireon time. Ethnic, as well as racial composition in a school, affects a child performance in school. A child will most probably perform dismally because he is from a less dominant ethnic group, and a working class family. Such a pupil will feel out of place hence affecting their academic performance, as they tend to keep to themselves in fear and do not even ask questions in school (Haralambos and Langley 2002, 212). Food effects are notable in class differences. Students from the working class lack the assets to acquire the kinds of diets, partake in activities and have the living environment and amenities to help them lead a comfortable life. The working class students rarely manage a balanced diet in their meals. The lack of such amenities affects both their personal and educational life that it leads to their failing in the educational system (Haralambos and Langley 2002, 276). According to Brown (1998, 87), boys are likely to be portrayed participating in certain sports that girls are not allowed to partake. Nowadays such stereotypes have been dealt away with and the remaining few have a matter of time to be resolved. Girls were considered as not strong enough to do sciences and boys as not able to participate in social sciences. In addition, stereotype manifests itself in school as traditionally boys and teachers and parents into taking different subjects. This trait is dominant in working class families who tend to have limited aspirations (Finn 2009, 56). However, nowadays girls can do same subjects as boys and outperform them. They do this because of their strict upbringing system (Haralambos and Langley 2002, 276). Cultural deficit theories suggest that the working class’ culture directs to educational failure for its children. They claim that those from the class emphasis less on formal education as a way of personal accomplishment, and see little value of being in school past the school-leaving period. In addition, cultural differences between the classes are a barrier to success for some working class children (Webb, Rob, Westergaard, Hal, Trobe, Keith, Steel & Liz 2008, 134). Changes in teaching systems highly contribute to the failure of working class students. The students are taught a language at home which is at loggerheads to the one used in school. The teachers at school easily relate with those identify with their language and misinterpret the meanings of those students that do not (Haralambos and Langley 2002). The school systems where girls study in girls’ schools has led to them exposed to different cultures and system of teaching. This has lead to them outperforming boys although they come from the same class. Peer groups are crucial in that they form clicks where people conform. People of similar age, and status mix, and interact socially (Scott and Marshall1995, 10). Individuals strive to gain acceptance among their peers by subscribing to their norms. These norms include stereotyped masculine and feminine roles. If one goes against the norm, he, or she is ridiculed or excluded by their peer members (Haralambos and Langley 2002, 56). For instance, if a boy is fooling around with several girls, his status among his peers rises. Meanwhile if, a girl fools around with several boys she is labelled a prostitute, and can be excluded from group. These double standards of peer pressure separate gender identities have led to stereotypes such as masculine man and faithful girlfriend. According to Haralambos and Van Krieken (2000, 67) working class students always seem to struggle to fit into a peer group thus; they normally find themselves desperate to belong to a peer group. The mass media also emphasises on stereotypes. Boone (2005, 45) says it reinforces and forms gender stereotypes in several ways. For instance, comics present different images of women and men. According to professor Feinstein’s research even before children, commence nursery school the intellectual stages of working class children seems to be dawdling than that of their converse middle class peers. This is the case regardless of their measured initial intelligence (Taylor 1996, 78). To some levels, sociologists’ analysis may help to explain as to why working class culture pilots to comparative learning under-achievement of successful class children (Hopkins 1994, 112). Nevertheless, working class students are not only victims of deprived culture as the social scientists suggest, but also understand that cultural differences can as well lead to under-achievement of working class children. Bibliography Bottom of Berger, P. L. (1963), Invitation to sociology; a humanistic perspective, ([1st ed.), Garden City, N.Y., Doubleday. Boone, T. (2005), Youth of darkest England: working-class children at the heart of Victorian Empire, New York [u.a.], Routledge. Browne, K. (1998), An introduction to sociology, Cambridge, U.K., Polity Press Complete Course for the Aqa Specification, Gardners Books. Finn, P. J. (2009), Literacy with an attitude: educating working-class children in their own Self-interest, Albany, State University of New York Press. Giddens, A. (1993), Sociology (2nd ed.), Cambridge England: Polity Press. Haggar R. (2011), Working class subculture and Education Disadvantage:earlham sociology pages,Accessed on March 4 2012 From, Haralambos, M., & Langley, P. (2004), Sociology in focus for AQA A2 level, Ormskirk, Causeway. Haralambos, M., & Van Krieken, R. (2000), Sociology: themes and perspectives, Melbourne, Hopkins, E. (1994), Childhood transformed: working-class children in nineteenth-century England, Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (2008), Conversation analysis, Cambridge, Polity. Longman. Macionis, J. J. (1995), Sociology (5th ed.), Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall. Manchester, Manchester University Press. Scott, J., & Marshall, G. (2005), A dictionary of sociology (3rd ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press. Smelser, N. J., & Badie, B. (1994), Sociology. Cambridge, Mass., USA: Blackwell. Taylor, P. (1996), Sociology in focus, Answer book, Ormskirk, Causeway Press. Webb, Rob, Westergaard, Hal, Trobe, Keith, & Steel, Liz. (2008), As Level Sociology The Completecourse For The Aqa Specification, Gardners Books. Zweig, M. (2012), The working class majority: Americas best kept secret, Ithaca, ILR Press. Read More