Evaluate the view that working-class under-achievement is mainly the

result of in-school factors.

-azaa

class students have worse academic performance in school than their

middle-class counterparts. This underperformance has been documented in
countries all over the world, and it has been linked to inside and outside school
factors. Marxists claim that education aims to legitimize and reproduce class
inequalities by forming a subservient class and workforce. Marxists argue that
education prepares children of the capitalist ruling class for positions of power
while suppressing the working class children through the “Hidden curriculum”
in school, implementing the ideological state apparatus and regressive state
apparatus, thus causing the underachievement of the working class.
Interactionists on the other hand, argue that micro processes such as
interactions between pupils and teachers, explain class underachievement
rather than structural factors or background socialization and material
differences. These interactions can be influenced by a variety of factors, such
as the student's social class, race, and gender, which due to factors like
streaming and labeling causes the working class to underachieve in education.
Thus, Sociologists have had a longing debate if inside or outside school
factors play a greater role in explaining underachievement, and this essay aims
to provide arguments from both sides.

Firstly, Interactionists argue that teachers often attach labels to pupil which
has little to do with their actual ability or amplitude. Becker claims that
inside-school factors such as teacher-pupil interactions and the teacher's
attitudes towards a certain group of pupils can be influenced by negative
labeling. Teachers may attach a meaning or definition to a pupil, and label
them as bright or thick, troublemaker or hardworking. Studies show teachers
attach labels based on stereotyped assumptions about their class background
and not on their academic ability as seen in the case of working-class
students. Becker's study concluded that, the way the teacher will interact with
the pupils differently, depending on how they label them and the student will in
turn react to that labeling and one way they can react is to internalize it,
accept it and live up to it. This can also be supported by a study done in 1970
by Rist found that the teacher used information about children’s home
background and appearance to place them in separate groups, seating each
group at a different table in an American kindergarten. The pupils the teacher
decided were fast learners whom she labeled the ‘tigers’ tended to be
middle-class and of neat and clean appearance. She seated these at the table
nearest to her and showed them the greatest encouragement. Furthermore,
Dunne and Gazeley found that secondary school teachers would normalize
underachievement in working class students and view it as something they
could do little about, while they would treat underachievement in middle-class
students as a barrier to be overcome. This enforced a system where the class
of the child determined how they were labeled which shaped their interactions
leading to educational underachievement. Therefore, impactful inside-school
factors such as labeling have a drastic impact on the performance of students
and thus the underachievement which makes the outside school factors
negligible.

However, Marxists criticize the labeling theory for ignoring the wider structures
of power within which labeling takes place. Labeling theory tends to blame
teachers for labeling pupils but fails to explain why they do so. Marxists in turn
claim schools to be a representation of the capitalistic society, in which class
inequality prevails and the working class are taught to be submissive workers.
Karl Marx, the father of sociology argued that labels are not merely the result
of teachers’ individual prejudices, but stem from the fact that teachers work in
a system that reproduces class divisions. Marxist unlike the interpretivists
provide a reasoning as to why labeling exist, and claim that capitalist workers
are produced through education with Ideological State Apparatus (ISA). ISAs as
claimed by Althusser are institutions and systems that are used to transmit the
dominant ideology of a society.It is argued that the education system
interpellates students as pupils, who are expected to learn and obey the rules.
A study by Bowles and Gintis can be used to support this theory, as they found
that students from working-class backgrounds are more likely to be placed in
low-track classes and to receive less attention from teachers. This can lead to
these students being less likely to go to college and to have lower-paying jobs
as adults. Therefore, labelling is not just a matter of individual prejudice
caused by inside school class differences, but rather a result of the wider social
and economic structures within which the education system operates. This
explains how labeling is not a inside school factor that determines class
underachievement but a societal issue stemmed from capitalism.

Secondly, interactionalists argue that labelling is so prevalent in the

educational institutions that the performance of the students are based upon
it through “self fulfilling prophecy”. A self-fulfilling prophecy is a prediction that,
because it is made, increases the likelihood of its own fulfillment. A classic
example of a self-fulfilling prophecy is the Pygmalion effect, in which teachers'
expectations of their students' academic performance can affect the students'
actual performance. Robert K Merton has identified 3 steps in which the
teacher first labels the student based on predictions, treats the student
accordingly and then step 3 in which the pupil internalizes the teachers’
expectation, which becomes part of his self-concept or self-image so that he
now becomes the kind of pupil the teacher believed him to be in the first place.
The theorists of the Pygmalion effect, Rosenthal and Jacobson had conducted
an experiment where a school teacher was told the names of the top 20% of the
class who would “spurt” ahead, which was untrue as the pupils were selected at
random. However, after a year almost half of the “spurters” had made
significant progress. Here it can be seen how the teacher’s beliefs had been
influenced by the ‘test’, and these beliefs had then been conveyed onto the
children, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy in the pupils as a result. Therefore,
the inside school factors such as self-fulfilling prophecy have the ability to
influence the students performance and underachievement making it a
deterministic factor for class inequality.

However, the household material deprivation of the working-class population

has a significant impact on a student life affecting the physical and mental
wellbeing. Smith and Noble argue that improper food, clothing, shelter, etc. as
well as the lack of provision of educational resources to working-class pupil
makes gaining knowledge relatively tough, thus contributing to
underachievement. Resources are needed for proper socialization such as
stationary, tuition, toys which are missing in the lower class which hampers
their ability for effective learning. This can also be linked to Gerwitz argument
on the effects improper hygiene and diet, stating that lower income families
often have poor living conditions and food with inadequate nutrition which
caused working-class students to miss school much more frequently than the
rest of the class. Warwick university’s research too claims that the external
factor of housing explains why working class children under perform. Working
class children have shared rooms which leads to bad concentration plus there
is worse hygiene in a small poor house which leads to sickness and being
absent which results in working class students not being able to catch up and
thus no focus in class. Therefore, the outside school factor affects the personal
lifestyle of the student which seems to have a far greater impact on
underachievemnt rather than factors lying within school.

Thirdly, Streaming is the process of dividing children into different aptitude

groups or classrooms known as "streams." Then, each ability group is taught
differently than the other. Working-class children are more likely to be placed in
lower ability classes, whereas middle-class children are more likely to be placed
in higher ability courses. As a result, people in low-ability classes (usually the
working-class) underachieve, while those in higher ability classes (often the
middle-class) excel. Christopher Gillborn and Deborah Youdell (2001)
demonstrated that teachers utilize stereotyped views of 'ability' to stream
students, and they discovered that teachers were less likely to see
working-class and black children as capable. As a result, these pupils were
more likely to be assigned to lower-level streams and to take lower-tier GCSEs.
This streaming was related to exam standings. It ultimately comes down to the
percentage of students that receive A*-C grades. Schools require a high
ranking in league tables to attract students and funds. This publishing of
league tables has led to the ‘A-to-C economy’ whereby schools focus their time,
effort and resources on those pupils that have the potential to get 5 grade Cs
or more to boost the school’s league table position. Gillborn and Youdell call
this educational triage where students are ‘sorted’ into 3 groups: 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 those who are doomed to fail. This educational
triage becomes the basis for streaming. Teacher’s beliefs about the lack of
ability of the working-class pupils are used to segregate them into lower
streams or sets, where they receive less attention, support and resources. This
results in lower levels of achievement for the working class, thus showing how
inside school factors are more deterministic in explaining class
underacheivement.

Simultaneously, Feinstein argues that the cultural capital passed on to a

student at home plays a major role on how education is viewed and carried on
which is crucial in determinant of underachievement. Through Feinstein’s
research, it was shown that the working class families implied the importance
of education and actively were engaged in educating the child, while working
class parents did not have a very positive view on education. Students
belonging to the working class were socialized to opt for immediate
gratification rather than deferred which automatically causes the students to
prioritize any sort of income over a complete education/degree. This maybe
the reason as to why only 1 out of 5 working class student chooses higher
education above involving in an occupation. Sugarman states that the
subculture of working-class people leads to their children doing worse in
education because of four main values: Fatalism, collectivism, immediate
gratification, and present-time orientation.These values lead to working-class
underachievement since the education system puts a strong emphasis on
individual achievement, long-term planning, and short-term sacrifice for
long-term reward (e.g., having to give up free time in order to study and get
good grades) which leads to a clash between the values of the working-class
student and the values of the school, leading them to underperform. Therefore,
the perspective of the student towards education highly matters in terms of
underachievement, and considering the class shapes the culture that is
passed on it can be claimed that class underachievement is mainly the result
of outside school factors.

Fourthly, Marxists argue that schools themselves are not neutral institutions,
but rather reflect the values and interests of the dominant class which
contributes to class underachievement through the hidden curriculum. Collins
states that schools often reproduce social inequality by disproportionately
disciplining the working-class students while giving the ruling-class students
an unfair advantage though being in the same academic environment. Schools
in marxist perspective are argued to have a hidden curriculum in which the
working class children are socialised to become oppressed workers of the
capitalistic society. Collins gives the evidence of schools requirement for the
students to maintain discipline in school with consequences set for the
“inappropriate” actions or wordings used by the pupils, and even having the
control over the way pupils dress through strict uniforms implementations. A
study by the University of California, Berkeley, found that students from
working-class backgrounds are more likely to be suspended or expelled from
school, which can disrupt their education and make it more difficult for them
to graduate. Therefore, the institutional bias existing inside the school targets
the working class students which is often discouraging and demotivating to
the specific group of working class pupils, thus adding onto the class
underachievement.

At the same time, interactionists argue against, claiming that attitudes that
lead to pro or anti-school subcultures come from home background, making
outside school factors deterministic in explaining the underachievement. Paul
Willis in 1977 found that the white working class lads formed an anti-school
culture, gaining status by ‘having a laff’ because they couldn’t see the point in
school. These sharing of anti-school values can be related to the concept of
“cultural capital”, in which a set of values and attitudes of a shield depended
upon what was taught in the household. Willis’s research had shown the
anti-school subculture develop among high schoolers, however this wasn’t so
much to do with in-school factors, the lads actively wanted working class
factory jobs and so didn’t see the point of education. Although pupil
subculture is an in-school process, a lot of the attitudes that lead to
subcultures emerging come from home backgrounds.
‘Lad subcultures’’ have been blamed for the underachievement of boys.
stereotypically, ‘real men’ succeed without trying, and so there is pressure to
not work in school. Verbal abuse is one way these peer groups reinforce such
dominant masculine identities. Boys who try hard at school may be accused of
being ‘gay’ The study concluded that the students who formed anti-school
subcultures brought their ‘hyper-masculine street culture’ from home.
Therefore household socialization which are outside school factors cause
negative pupil subcultures to arise at school thus representing the higher
effects of outside-school factors to explain underachievement.

In conclusion, The question whether inside-school factors result in class

underachievement is complex with multiple angles. However, after a thorough
evaluation because of the strength of outside school factors such as material
deprivation and cultural deprivation explaining class underachievement, as
well as the Marxist criticisms and labeling theory being too deterministic
displaying the limitations of inside school factor explaining class inequality,
inside school factors seem to be more deterministic in terms of explaining
class inequality. The above arguments have compared both sides of the
argument and it can be seen how heavily a students socialization can be
reflected upon their actions on school. From the behaviour and attitude shown
inside the school premises to the area or type of the school the student is
affiliated with is determined by the household factors/external factors. The
extent to which the outside school affects is much greater as the pupil has
their primary socialization from the household, therefore it is needless to state
that inside school factors are not the most significant factor in explaining class
inequality.