Education- full topic revision

Sociological perspectives on
education
 Durkheim- Solidarity and skills Parsons- Meritocracy
Solidarity- • Argues that school bridges the gap between the family and wider society- children have to
• Is necessary in society to be part of a community that learn society’s principles.
has shared norms and values, and that education Particularistic standards: rules/judgements that only apply within the family.
provides it.
Universalistic standards: rules/judgements that apply to everyone, in school and wider
• Says education does this by transmitting shared beliefs
and values from one generation to the next society.
EG: teaching a country’s history gives pupils a feel of • Believes school/wider society gives us achieved status gained through
shared heritage and commitment to wider social groups. efforts/achievement, not through fixed characteristic like gender or class- ascribed status
• School is ‘society in miniature’- prepares us for later • Meritocracy at school helps us move from family to wider society, meritocracy is where
life. everyone is given equal opportunities, and are rewarded through their own efforts/ability.
EG: teacher/pupils are like colleagues/customers at work.
Or school rules like dress codes are similar to workplaces.
Specialist skills- Functionalism
• Argues that education gives pupils knowledge and
skills needed for work.
• Economies have complex divisions of labour, so school
helps pupils to get the skills needed to fulfil their
Evaluation of the functionalist perspective:
‘place’ in the workforce. • Wolf (2011)- found that high quality apprenticeships are rare, and often don’t result
in high-paid jobs- means education doesn’t teach specialist skills adequately.
• Equal opportunities don’t exist in education- achievement is based in factors like race,
Davis & Moore- Role allocation gender and class- not ability.
• Argue that education allocated pupils to suitable future job roles.
• Tumin (1953)- David and Moore’s argument is circular, -we know a job is important
• They focus on the relationship between education and
because it’s highly rewarded, and a job is highly rewarded because it's important.
inequality- That important roles in society need to be for the
• Marxists say education in a capitalist society only transmits ideas of the ruling class- not
skilled and talented, as some are naturally more talented than
the shared beliefs and values of society as a whole.
others.
• Education is where students prove their ability, and are then • Interactionalist Wrong (1961)- the functionalist view is ‘over socialised’ and sees
sifted and sorted by ability. The highest qualifications get the people as society’s puppets- assumes pupils passively accept teachings and don’t
highest positions. reject values.
These are known as functionally important roles. • New Right and Neoliberals- argue that the state education system fails to prepare
students for work.

Similarities to the functionalist
view:
• That some people are naturally more
talented than others.
• Favours the meritocratic system-
principles of competition and preparing
students to join the workforce.
• Education should socialise us into
shared values like competition and
national identity.
Chubb & Moe- consumer
choice
• They propose a ‘voucher system’
where parents ‘shop’ for a school
to give their voucher to.
• This forces schools to listen to
what consumers want, and
therefore raise education
standards.
• Schools would have to compete
to attract ‘customers’ with these
changes because the vouchers
would be their main source of
income.
• Parentocracy: ran/influenced by
parents.
However…
• New right believes the education system fails to do
these things because it’s run by the state.
• Argues that education has a ‘one size’ fits all
approach- this imposes uniformity and ignores local
needs.
• Consumers (parents, pupils, employers) have no say-
making state education inefficient/unresponsive.
• Overall, these factors mean lower achievement
standards- which means a less qualified workforce.
New Right
Evaluation of the New Right perspective:
• Ball (1994)- argues that competition between schools
only benefits the MC- because they can access better
schools using their cultural and economic capital.
• Critics- the real cause of lower education standards is
lack of funding, not state control.
• New Right’s contradiction: they support parental choice, league table of school’s exam results.
but also want schools to have a compulsory national
curriculum.
• Marxists argue that there’s no shared culture in
education- there is a ruling class culture that devalues
working class and ethnic minorities’ culture.
Solution- The marketisation of
education
• This would create an ‘education
market’.
• Having competition between
schools and empowering consumers
will give us more: diversity, choice
and efficiency in schools.
• School’s ability to meet the needs of
all consumers will also be increased
if education is marketized.
Two roles for the state:
The New Right want market forces in
education, but they still see 2 roles the
state can fulfil:
• The state imposing a framework
that schools compete in. This gives
parents more info so they can make
an informed choice about schools.
example: Ofsted inspection records,
• The state ensures schools transmit a
shared culture. Having 1 National
Curriculum makes sure schools
social pupils into 1 cultural heritage.
 Marx: Bowles & Gintis:
• Argued that education revolves around class division and capitalist exploitation- • Correspondence Principle- they argues school mirrors the workplace.
it isn’t based on consensus. EG: schools/workplaces both have hierarchies- headteachers/bosses up top, workers/pupils obeying at the
• Class conflict: workers realise they’re being exploited so they demand higher bottom.
wages, better conditions, or no more capitalism. • Study: of 237 NY high school students, where they found that schools reward traits (like punctuality)
• Marx thinks the proletariat will unite to overthrow capitalism and make a that make up a submissive/compliant worker, and that students showing independence/creativity
classless, equal society. often had lower grades. They concluded that education helps produce obedient workers that
• He says the education system is controlled by the state, reproduces class capitalism needs.
inequality and prevents a WC revolution. • They argue that the correspondence principle operates through the hidden curriculum.
Althusser (1971): • Hidden curriculum: lessons learnt in school that aren’t directly taught on the National Curriculum,
like being on time, wearing uniform, and working/obeying to get rewards.
• Says these keep the bourgeoisie in power.
This means school prepares WC pupils for the role of exploited worker, which reproduces capitalism and
Repressive State Apparatuses: police, courts, army, etc. Maintain perpetrates class inequality from generation to generation.
bourgeoisie’s power by force or threats of force.
The myth of meritocracy- the legitimisation of class inequality
Ideological State Apparatuses: religion, education, media, etc.
• Bowles & Gintis- education is ‘a giant myth making machine’, and
Maintain rule by controlling people’s ideas/beliefs/values.
Argues education is an important ISA that preforms 2 functions: that meritocracy is a myth because no matter how hard someone
works, rewards aren’t based on efforts.
• Reproduces class inequality: transmitting it from They see meritocracy as a way to justify privileges the higher classes
generation to generation, by failing each successive gen of WC Marxism
have, and that others can ‘work hard’ and get them too.
pupils in turn.
• Legitimising class inequality: making sets of values/beliefs Evaluation of the Marxist approach:
that hide their actual cause. The ideology persuades workers to • Postmodernists- education produces diversity, not
accept that inequality is inevitable and that they deserve inequality, the correspondence principle is wrong
subordinate positions in society. This means WC pupils are less because we need schools to make a labour force in
likely to challenge/threaten capitalism. today’s Post-Fordist economy.
Willis (1997): • Principle is too deterministic- it assumes students are
• Study shows that WC pupils can resist being indoctrinated, which Bowles & Gintis ignores. passive and accept indoctrination- fails to explain why
• He used qualitative research methods- unstructured interviews, participant observation to study the pupils can reject school’s beliefs and values.
lad’s counter-culture of 12 WC boys. • Morrow & Torres (1998)- argue that society is more
• Found their counter-culture opposes the school, the are scornful to the conformist boys (ear’oles) as diverse, and Marxism takes on a class-first approach that
they listen to teachers. ignore inequalities of race, gender, and more.
• The lads find school boring/meaningless, so they go against values & rules by smoking/drinking, • MacDonald (1980)- Marxism ignores that education
truanting and disrupting class. Here they reject the idea that the WC can get MC jobs by working hard. reproduces patriarchy.
Additional sociological views on education:
• Neoliberals argue that education needs to be run like a business, where parents/pupils become empowered consumers who
can raise school standards. (Marketisation & Privatisation)
• Postmodernists argue that the economy has become post-Fordist, and that education is becoming more diverse and flexible.
• Heaton & Lawson (1996) argue that the patriarchy is reinforced by the hidden curriculum.
• Liberal feminists argue that there is still patriarchy in the education system, but that there has been a positive move to
equality. For example, girls now do better than boys most of the time.
• Radical feminists argue that the education system is still patriarchal, and oppresses women. This is done through the hidden
curriculum as well as women being marginalised accepted as normal. They are also concerned with sexual harassment not
being taken as seriously as other forms of bullying.
Internal class differences in
achievement
Studies show that teacher attach Becker (1971): Hempel-Jorgensen (2009):
meanings (labels) to pupils • Studied labelling by interviewing 60 Chicago high Argues the ‘ideal pupil’ depends
regardless of their actual ability or school teachers, and found they attach labels to on the overall class of the
attitude, stereotypical assumptions pupils depending on how close the match the ideal school.
means the MC are labelled pupil. • WC primary school- ideal
positively and the WC negatively. • These judgements were made using pupils’ work, pupil is quiet, obedient and
conduct and appearance. Teachers saw MC pupils as passive, defining them by
closest to the idea pupil, and saw WC pupils as badly behaviour instead of ability.
behaved. • MC primary school- ideal
pupil is defined by
personality and academic
Labelling:
ability, instead of just a ‘non-
misbehaving pupil’ at the WC
Labelling in secondary schools: school.
Dunne & Gazeley (2008)- schools reproduce WC underachievement Labelling in primary schools:
because of teacher’s labels and assumptions. Rist (1970)- study found teachers use info about pupils’
• Interviews from 9 schools found teachers normalised WC pupils’ home background/appearance to sort them into groups.
underachievement and didn’t think they could do anything about • Tigers- were MC ‘fast learners’ who have a clean
it, all while thinking they could overcome MC underachievement. appearance. They received the most help and
• Reason for this- teachers have different beliefs about pupils’ home attention.
backgrounds, labelling WC parents as uninterested and MC • Cardinals & Clowns- WC groups were given lower
parents as supportive. level books and ability work. They received less
This causes class differences in class where the teacher will address help/attention and were seated further away from
and help MC underachievement and do nothing for WC pupils. the teacher.

Process of the self-fulfilling prophecy:
Rosenthal & Jacobson (1968)-
(teacher’s expectations)
The self-fulfilling prophecy:
1. Teacher labels pupil (EG: trouble-maker) and makes a prediction based on this
(EG: pupil will underachieve).
2. Teacher treats pupil like the label and acts like the prediction already came true
(EG: ignoring/not helping the pupil)
3. Pupil internalises the teacher’s expectation of them, and it becomes part of their
self-image. (EG: pupil gets no help, so resigns themselves to being a trouble-
maker)
The prophecy is now fulfilled.
Study of primary school shows the prophecy at work.
• Their experiment made pupils do a simple IQ test, but told teachers the ‘special’
test had identified spurter pupils who would do really well.
• A year later- the randomly picked pupils had actually improved academically.
This is because the teachers labelled the pupils as achievers and gave them more
encouragement and support than other pupils. This led to a self-fulfilling prophecy
where the pupils succeeded academically.
Streaming- sorting children into Becker- shows that WC pupils aren’t seen as the ideal pupil. This makes it harder for
groups (‘streams’) based on their them to move up streams, as teacher expectations put them in the lower ones.
ability, so they can be taught This causes a self-fulfilling prophecy where the pupil lives up to the expectation of
separately. underachieving.
The self-fulfilling prophecy is very At the same time, MC pupils benefit from streaming, as teacher expectations place
likely to happen when pupils are them in high ability groups, boosting their self-concept and helping them succeed.
streamed.
Educational Triage:
Streaming & the A-to-C economy: • Gillborn & Youdell call this
Gillborn & Youdell (2001)- study of 2 high process educational triage
schools shows how teachers use stereotypes because pupils are sorted
of ‘ability’ to stream pupils. Streaming: into those who will pass
• WC/black pupils- seen as low ability, so anyway, borderline pupils
are placed in low streams and entered for (can get a C, so receive the
foundation papers. This denies them the Evaluation: most resources/help), and
knowledge and opportunities needed to • Gillborn & Youdell show how teacher hopeless cases who will fail
get better grades. labelling/stereotypes combined with streaming regardless.
• They link streaming to exam league causes a MC/WC achievement gap. • Teacher stereotypes- mean
tables- Schools need a good position to • They also put it into wider context very well, WC and black pupils are
attract pupils and funding, which is based showing how marketisation policies have mostly labelled as hopeless
on how many A-C grade pupils get. This become a part of streaming/labelling. cases, and are therefore put
means schools will focus on pupils with • However, they don’t explain that pupils are not in low streams. This makes a
the potential to get 5 Cs so the table passive puppets, and that the prophecy isn’t self-fulfilling prophecy where
position is boosted. always fulfilled. these pupils end up failing.
Pupil subcultures- groups of pupils who share
similar values/behaviour patterns.
These subcultures usually emerge in
response to labelling and as a reaction to
streaming.
The pro-school subculture:
• Were mostly MC pupils placed in high
streams, and were committed to and
shared the school’s values.
• Gaining status- in the approved manner
(academic success).
The anti-school subculture:
• Were mostly WC pupils placed in low
streams, and had low-self esteem due to
the school giving them an inferior status.
• Gaining status- label of failure pushed
them to get status by inverting school
values like obedience and being on time.
• Status was also gained through peers, by
cheeking teachers, not doing homework,
etc.
However, the outcome was the same-
joining the anti-school subculture also led
to a fulfilled prophecy of failure, just like
streaming does.
Lacey (1970):
Explains how pupil subcultures develop-
• Differentiation- the process of teacher categorising and labelling pupils based on how they
see their behaviour/ability/attitude. Streaming is a form of differentiation that gives high
status to ‘able’ pupils and an inferior status to less able pupils in lower streams.
• Polarisation- process of pupils responding to streaming by moving to one ‘pole’/extreme. EG:
Lacey found anti/pro school subcultures when studying a grammar school.
Abolishing streaming:
• Ball (1981)- studied a comprehensive that was switching from
streaming to teaching mixed-ability groups.
• With streaming abolished, he found anti-school subcultures declined,
and the basis for polarisation is removed.
• However- differentiation still occurred, teachers still categorised pupils
Pupil and labelled the MC more favourably.
subcultures: Ball therefore suggests that class differences continue due to teacher
labelling, as streaming removes the issue of subcultures.
Evaluating the labelling theory:
Woods (1979)- variety of pupil responses:• Does well at showing school’s class inequalities,
He argues there are many responses to challenging the idea that they’re fair institutions.
labelling/streaming than just 2 subcultures- • Too deterministic- assumes pupils will passively accept
• Ingratiation- teacher’s pet. label, Fuller’s (1984) study of black girls shows this
• Ritualism- go through the motions, stay out of isn’t true.
trouble. • Marxists- labelling theory ignores the wider structure
• Retreatism- daydreaming & messing about. that labelling takes place in, blaming teachers for
• Rebellion- outright rejecting everything school labelling pupils but not explaining why they do it.
stands for. • Marxists- argue it’s not teacher’s individual prejudices,
Furlong (1984)- pupils aren’t fixed in one response, it it’s that their own job stems from a system that
can change between certain lessons and teachers. reproduces class inequality.
Sociologists look at how pupils’ class identities that are formed Habitus (Bourdieu, 1984): Symbolic capital & symbolic
outside of school interact with the school and it’s values- and
• This is the learned and taken-for-granted ways of thinking, violence:
whether this produces educational success or failure.
Archer et al (2010)- focuses on the interaction between WC being or acting in a social class. • Schools have a MC habitus, so MC
pupil’s identities and school- and how this makes • This includes tastes, preferences, outlook on life, consumption pupils who are already socialised into it
underachievement. (fashion, leisure) and the expectations for ‘people like us’. at home have symbolic capital-
Nike identities:
• Symbolic violence led WC pupils to finding other ways to
• The MC has the power to define their habitus as superior, status/recognition from the school that
obtain worth and status. making it imposed on the education system, where schools they’re superior.
• They did this by constructing class identities revolving see WC habitus as inferior • For the WC, school devalues their
around fashion and brands such as Nike. habitus, seeing their tastes, such as
• These style performances were policed by peers, so not clothing, as tasteless and worthless.
conforming was ‘social suicide’. The right appearance
gained pupils symbolic capital from their peers, as Pupil’s class This withholding of symbolic capital is
education already denied them of it. identities & the called symbolic violence, where WC
• However- the school’s MC habitus clashed with WC pupils’ experience of education is
identities as it went against rules and dress codes, and school: unnatural and alienated.
risked pupils being labelled as rebels. • Archer- WC pupils felt they had to ‘lose
• Nike styles can be WC pupils rejecting higher education- themselves’ in the MC’s habitus in
they see it as unrealistic for ‘people like us’, and Class identity & self-exclusion:
undesirable as living of student loans costs them their style •
Even though WC pupils go to uni order to succeed educationally.
identity. more now, the class between their Relationship between internal/external
Working-class identity & educational success: factors:
WC identity & HE habitus is a barrier
Ingram (2009)- studied 2 groups of WC boys in the same deprived
to their success. • WC identities and habitus formed outside
neighbourhood:
• Evans (2009)- studied 21 WC girls of school conflicts with the school’s MC
• One group passed the 11+ and went to grammar school, the other failed
who were doing A-levels, she found habitus, leading to symbolic violence and
and went to a local high school.
they didn’t applied to elite unis, and then underachievement from feeling like
• WC grammar boys- had MC habitus of high expectation and academic
the ones who did were worried school isn’t for them.
achievement.
about hidden barriers and not fitting • WC pupils using restricted code (external
• WC local boys- had the school’s habitus of low expectations and
in. factor) can lead to teacher labelling and
educational failure.
This means WC students will self- the self-fulfilling prophecy (internal
Ingram therefore found the WC identity is inseparable from the WC habitus-
exclude themselves from elite spaces factor).
the neighbourhood’s network of family/friends were a key part that gave
like Oxbridge as they believe they won’t • Poverty (external) can lead to bullying and
boys a sense of belonging. Despite this, this habitus put emphasis on
fit in with the habitus. stigmatising of pupils (internal).
conformity and this can cause other WC boys to experience symbolic
violence.
External class differences in
achievement
 1. Cultural deprivation:
• Where a pupil lacks the basic ‘cultural equipment’ gained through primary socialisation- language, self-discipline and skills.
• CD theorists argue that WC families fail to socialise their children properly, so they end up culturally deprived.
• This means many WC pupils lack the cultural equipment to do well at school, so they underachieve.
• Cultural deprivation- language, parent’s education and working-class subculture.

Criticisms of cultural deprivation theory:

• Keddie (1973)- cultural deprivation is a myth- it’s just a victim-blaming explanation that ignores WC failure being down to an
education dominated by MC values.
• Troyna & Williams (1986)- Teacher’s speech hierarchy of MC speech, WC speech and black speech is the problem, not the
pupil’s language.
• Blackstone & Mortimore (1994)- reject the idea that WC parent’s don’t take an interest in education, and say that work hours
prevent them from engaging in events like parent’s evening.
 Language:
• Speech differences put WC pupils at a disadvantage because elaborated code is used in school (teachers, textbooks, exams.)
• MC code is also seen as the ‘correct’ way to write/speak- it gives all the essential skills for education such as analysis, reasoning,
clearly expressing thoughts.
• This means MC pupils raised with elaborated code feel at home in education and succeed, while WC pupils feel less included and
fail.

Hubbs-Tait et al (2002): Found children’s cognitive ability improved when parents used challenging language such as ‘what do you think?’- This helps children
evaluate their own understanding/ability.

Feinstein (2008): Found educated parents are more likely to use language like this, and WC language was more simple/descriptive.

Bereiter and • Say language used in lower class homes is ‘deficient’.

Engelmann (1966): • Describe communication in these homes as using: gestures, single words or disjointed phrases.
This means WC children don’t develop the necessary language skills. They can’t think abstractly, and can’t use language to ex plain,
describe, enquire, or compare. Due to this they’re unable to take advantage of opportunities school offers.

Bernstein (1975): Identifies differences in WC and MC pupil’s language, and says the WC don’t fail because they’re culturally deprived, but because school
Speech codes fails to teach them the elaborated code.
Restricted code (WC):
• Limited vocabulary- short, descriptive, unfinished and grammatically simple sentences.
• Predictable speech- involves single words or gestures.
• Context-bound- speaker assumes listener shares same experiences.
Elaborated code (MC):
• Wider vocabulary- long and grammatically complex sentences.
• More varied speech- expresses abstract ideas.
• Context-free- speaker doesn’t assume listener has same experiences, so they use language to clearly spell out meanings.
 Parent’s Education:
Parent’s attitudes to education can affect a child’s achievement in school.
• Douglas (1964)-that WC parents placed less value on education, making them less ambitious for their children, taking less interest in their education and giving less encouragement. They
visited school less and didn’t discuss progress.
This resulted in children with low levels of motivation and achievement.
• Feinstein (2008)- argues that parent’s own education is the most important factor that affects student’s achievement.
Since MC parents have better education, they can advantage their children to an advantage. This is in ways like:
Parenting Educated parents:
style- • Emphasise consistent discipline and high expectations of children
This supports achievement by encouraging active learning and exploration.
Less educated parents:
• Harsh/inconsistent discipline, emphasis on ‘behaving yourself’ and ‘doing as you’re told’.
This prevents children from learning independence and self control, which leads to poor motivation and problems interacting w ith teachers.

Parents’ • Educated parents are more aware of what their child needs to help their educational progress, so they’ll engage in behaviourslike- reading to children, teaching
educational letters/numbers, paint/draw, help with homework and be actively involved in schooling.
• They’re also able to get expert advice on childrearing, and are more successful in starting good teacher/student relationships
behaviours-
• They recognise the educational value of museum trips, libraries, etc.
• WC families may not know what will help their child to succeed in education, so they won’t engage in activities like this, which can cause them to be less successful at
school.

Use of income- Better educated parents have higher incomes, that they spend on their child’s educational success, as well as having the fund s/knowledge about nutrition to support the
child’s development.
• Bernstein and Young (1967)- MC mothers are more likely to buy educational toys, books and more.
This encourages reasoning skills and stimulates intellectual development.
• WC homes are more likely to lack these resources- so they start school with educational skills that need progress.

Class, income • Feinstein: parental education influences children’s achievement- regardless of class or income.
& parental • Even within a given social class, more educated parents tend to have more successful children.
This helps explain why not all WC students do equally bad, and why not all MC students are successful.
education-
 Working-class subculture:
• CD theorists argue that lack of parental interest in education is a reflection of the subcultural values of the WC.
Subculture: Group in society whose attitudes and values differ from mainstream culture.
• Large sections of the WC have different goals, values, attitudes and beliefs from the rest of society. This is why their children underachieve/fail at school.
• Working-class children internalise the values of their culture through primary socialisation- this results in underachievement at school because education hold
MC values/beliefs/attitudes.
Sugarman (1970):
• Different values exist because MC jobs are secure and offer prospects for continuous individual advancement.
This encourages ambition, long-term planning and a willingness to make sacrifices.
• WC jobs are less secure, with no career structure where you can advance, as well as few promotional opportunities and earnings peaking at an early age.
Parents pass the views of their class to their children, MC values equip for success, and WC values equip for underachievement/failure.
Fatalism: • A belief in fate, ‘what will be, will be’- nothing can be done to change your status.
MC contrast: meritocracy- you change your position through your own efforts.

Collectivism: • Valuing being part of a group over succeeding as an individual.

MC contrast: an individual shouldn’t be held back by group loyalties.

Immediate gratification: • Seek pleasure now, no making sacrifices for future rewards.
MC contrast: emphasis on deferred gratification, sacrifices now for rewards later

Present-time orientation: • Seeing now as more important than the future, therefore having no long-term goals/plans.
MC contrast: Have a future-time orientation- seeing planning for the future as more important.

Compensatory education:
• These programmes aim to tackle CD by giving extra resources to schools in deprived areas.
• They intervene early in the child’s socialisation to minimise CD as much as possible.
• EG- Sure Start & Educational Priority Areas.
 2. Material deprivation:
• This refers to poverty and a lack of resources, and is seen as a factor in pupil’s underachievement
Poverty and educational underachievement are closely linked:

Department for Education

(2012)- barely 1/3 od pupils Exclusion & truancy are more
eligible for FSM got 5 or more likely for children from poor
GCSEs at A*-C, compared to families. 1/3 of persistent
2/3 of pupils who did and truants leave with no
aren’t FSM. qualifications, and many of
those excluded don’t return to
Flaherty (2004)- mainstream. Almost 90% of
family’s money failing schools are in
problems are a huge deprived areas.
factor in young pupils’
poor attendance.

Factors are- housing, diet & health, financial support & costs of education and fear of debt
 Housing: • Poor housing affects pupil’s education- like overcrowding stopping them from having a place to focus and
study, or having disrupted sleep from shared rooms. (which affects performance in class).
• Young children’s development is impaired through lack of space for safe exploration, and constantly
moving from temporary accommodation affects schooling too.
• Poor housing can also cause pupils to become ill frequently, which affects attendance and therefore
learning quality.
Diet & health: • Howard (2001)- young people from poor homes have lower intakes of vitamins/minerals/energy.
• This affects education weakening their immune system, causing low attendance
• Wilkinson (1996)- children from poor homes are more likely to have emotional/behaviour problems,
which negatively impacts their educational achievement.
Financial Lack of financial support in poorer families means children go without equipment and miss educational
support & the opportunities that raise achievement.
cost of • Bull (1980)- this is the cost of free schooling.
education: • Tanner et al (2003)- found costs of books, transport, uniform, etc put a heavy burden on poor families.
• Hand-me downs/cheaper items can result in children being bullied/isolated/stigmatised by peers- Flaherty
says this is why 20% of those eligible for FSM don’t take them.
• Smith & Noble (1990)- poverty acts a barrier to learning, like not being able to afford tuition or private
school.
Fear of debt: • Callendar & Jackson (2005)- WC pupils are averse to going to university because of the debt that comes
with it- they saw debt as something negative and to be avoided.
• They found MC pupils are without this attitude to debt, making them 5x more likely to apply to uni than
WC pupils.
• UCAS (2012)- when tuition fees rose in 2012, the number of UK applicants fell by 8.6%.
 3. Cultural capital:

Cultural capital: Educational & economic capital:

• This is the knowledge, skills, values, Bourdieu says cultural, educational and economic
abilities and tastes of the MC. capital can all be converted into one another.
• MC culture is a type of capital because • EG: MC pupils with cultural capital are more
their abilities and interests are an equipped to meet the demands of the school
advantage in school as they’re valued. curriculum and get qualifications, giving them
• WC culture is seen a rough/inferior by educational capital.
Bourdieu
schools, which devalues pupils from • EG: wealthy parents can convert economic
(1984):
this background. capital into educational capital by sending their
Having cultural capital often equals children to the best private schools on the
success in education as it’s a MC habitus, league table.
and WC pupils are left to underachieve.
A test of Bourdieu’s ideas:
• Sullivan (2011)- used questionnaires to survey 465 pupils in 4 schools.
• She asked them about their range of reading, visiting and Tv habits to
assess their cultural capital.
• She found those who read complex fiction and watched serious
documentaries had more cultural capital due to having a wider
vocabulary and cultural knowledge.
• Despite this, MC pupils still performed better, which could be because
they have economic and educational capital alongside cultural capital.
Ethnic differences in
achievement:
external and internal
 Intellectual & linguistic skills: Attitudes & values: Family structure & parental support:
• CD theorists say this is a reason for ethnic minority pupil’s underachievement. • CD theorists say lack of • CD theorists say failing to properly socialise children comes from
• Children from poor black families lack intellectual stimulation and enriching having a dysfunctional family structure.
motivation causes black
experiences, making them ill-prepared for school and likely to fail. • Moynihan (1965)- black lone mothers struggle with finances
• Bereiter & Engelmann- language spoken but black families is pupils to fail, they aren’t without a breadwinner and male role model, so children are deprived
ungrammatical/disjointed and doesn’t express abstract ideas- so it’s inadequate socialised into the of care and model of male achievement- making home fail in school
for educational success. mainstream culture- and become inadequate parents themselves.
• Concerns about EAL students falling behind are dismissed, as Gillborn & Mirza ambition, competitiveness, • Murray (1984)- argues high rates of lone parents and lack of male
(2000) say Indian pupils excel despite English being their second language. sacrifices for future goals. role models leads to minorities’ underachievement.
• Black pupils- socialised into • Scruton (1996)- low achievement in minorities is because they
Sewell (2009)- fathers, gangs & culture: a fatalistic ‘live for today’ don’t embrace mainstream British culture.
• Argues black boys’ underachieve because of a lack of fatherly attitude that doesn’t value • Pryce (1979)- compared Black & Asian family structures. Asians-
nurturing/tough love (firm, fair respectful discipline). culture makes them more resistant to racism, gives them self-worth.
• Instead, the fatherless boys turn to street gangs, where they get
education.
Black Caribbeans- less resistant, causing low self-esteem and
perverse loyalty & love. Here, their male role model is one of anti- This is why they underachieve. underachievement.
school black masculinity.
• Arnot (2004)- this is the ‘ultra-tough ghetto superstar’ that’s Criticism of the cultural deprivation theory:
reinforced by MTV and rap lyrics. 1. Cultural deprivation: • Driver (1997)- it ignores the positive effects of
Sewell therefore says black boys’ underachievement comes from their external ethnicity on achievement, like Black Caribbean families
cultural differences in socialisation and poor attitude to education.
Academic black boys are labelled ‘sell-outs’ and subject to peer
giving black girls strong independent female role
pressure by the gangs. White working-class families: models.
• However- Gillborn (2008) says the issue isn’t peer pressure, it’s • McCulloch (2014)- white WC pupils also • Lawrence (1982)- criticises Pryce, black pupils don’t
institutional racism in the education system that is reproducing black underachieve, the survey of 16k pupils found fail due to weak culture/self-esteem, it’s due to racism
boys’ failure. ethnic minorities aspire to uni more than the in education.
Asian families: white WC.
• Keddie- cultural deprivation is victim blaming, ethnic
• Sewell says Indian & Chinese pupils benefit from • Lupton- studied 4 WC schools, found teachers
blame lack of parental support for white WC minority pupils are culturally different, not deprived.
supportive families that place high value in education. –
pupils’ failure, as they had no poverty markers Schools are simply biased in favour of white culture.
Asian work ethic.
like FSM. • Critics are opposed to compensatory education, and
• Lupton (2004)- the adult authority in Asian families is • Evans (2006)- argues white WC street culture instead propose multicultural education (policy that
like the ones in school- where children’s respect to adults is brutal, so pupils learn to withstand recognises/value minority cultures & includes them in
is expected. intimidation & intimidate others. They take this the curriculum) and anti-racist education (policy that
• This has a knock-on effect to school, as Asian parents are culture into school, making it a power game
challenges prejudice/discrimination that’s in school &
more likely to support the behaviour policies. that causes disruption and therefore
educational failure. wider society).
 Intellectual & linguistic skills: Attitudes & values: Family structure & parental support:
• CD theorists say this is a reason for ethnic minority pupil’s underachievement. • CD theorists say lack of • CD theorists say failing to properly socialise children comes from
• Children from poor black families lack intellectual stimulation and enriching having a dysfunctional family structure.
motivation causes black
experiences, making them ill-prepared for school and likely to fail. • Moynihan (1965)- black lone mothers struggle with finances
• Bereiter & Engelmann- language spoken but black families is pupils to fail, they aren’t without a breadwinner and male role model, so children are deprived
ungrammatical/disjointed and doesn’t express abstract ideas- so it’s inadequate socialised into the of care and model of male achievement- making home fail in school
for educational success. mainstream culture- and become inadequate parents themselves.
• Concerns about EAL students falling behind are dismissed, as Gillborn & Mirza ambition, competitiveness, • Murray (1984)- argues high rates of lone parents and lack of male
(2000) say Indian pupils excel despite English being their second language. sacrifices for future goals. role models leads to minorities’ underachievement.
• Black pupils- socialised into • Scruton (1996)- low achievement in minorities is because they
Sewell (2009)- fathers, gangs & culture: a fatalistic ‘live for today’ don’t embrace mainstream British culture.
• Argues black boys’ underachieve because of a lack of fatherly attitude that doesn’t value • Pryce (1979)- compared Black & Asian family structures. Asians-
nurturing/tough love (firm, fair respectful discipline). culture makes them more resistant to racism, gives them self-worth.
• Instead, the fatherless boys turn to street gangs, where they get
education.
Black Caribbeans- less resistant, causing low self-esteem and
perverse loyalty & love. Here, their male role model is one of anti- This is why they underachieve. underachievement.
school black masculinity.
• Arnot (2004)- this is the ‘ultra-tough ghetto superstar’ that’s Criticism of the cultural deprivation theory:
reinforced by MTV and rap lyrics. 1. Cultural deprivation: • Driver (1997)- it ignores the positive effects of
Sewell therefore says black boys’ underachievement comes from their external ethnicity on achievement, like Black Caribbean families
cultural differences in socialisation and poor attitude to education.
Academic black boys are labelled ‘sell-outs’ and subject to peer
giving black girls strong independent female role
pressure by the gangs. White working-class families: models.
• However- Gillborn (2008) says the issue isn’t peer pressure, it’s • McCulloch (2014)- white WC pupils also • Lawrence (1982)- criticises Pryce, black pupils don’t
institutional racism in the education system that is reproducing black underachieve, the survey of 16k pupils found fail due to weak culture/self-esteem, it’s due to racism
boys’ failure. ethnic minorities aspire to uni more than the in education.
Asian families: white WC.
• Keddie- cultural deprivation is victim blaming, ethnic
• Sewell says Indian & Chinese pupils benefit from • Lupton- studied 4 WC schools, found teachers
blame lack of parental support for white WC minority pupils are culturally different, not deprived.
supportive families that place high value in education. –
pupils’ failure, as they had no poverty markers Schools are simply biased in favour of white culture.
Asian work ethic.
like FSM. • Critics are opposed to compensatory education, and
• Lupton (2004)- the adult authority in Asian families is • Evans (2006)- argues white WC street culture instead propose multicultural education (policy that
like the ones in school- where children’s respect to adults is brutal, so pupils learn to withstand recognises/value minority cultures & includes them in
is expected. intimidation & intimidate others. They take this the curriculum) and anti-racist education (policy that
• This has a knock-on effect to school, as Asian parents are culture into school, making it a power game
challenges prejudice/discrimination that’s in school &
more likely to support the behaviour policies. that causes disruption and therefore
educational failure. wider society).
 Black pupils & discipline: Black pupils & streaming: Asian pupils:
• Gillborn & Youdell (2000)- study found teachers are quicker to discipline• Black pupils are more likely to be Wright (1992)- study of multi-ethnic primary school found Asian pupils are also
black pupils for the same behaviour. the ‘hopeless cases’ in the A-to-C victims of teacher labelling.
• They argue this is due to racialised expectations- teachers expect black economy- due to teacher • She found teachers hold ethno-centric views- British culture/English
pupils to misbehave so the misinterpret their behaviour as such. This then stereotypes putting them in language being superior.
means the pupil responds negatively, causing further conflict. lower streams. • This means teachers would assume Asian pupils had poor English, and left
They conclude the conflict between white teachers and black pupils comes
from teacher’s racial stereotypes, not the pupil’s actual behaviour.
• Foster (1990)- teacher them out of class discussions, or used childish language to talk to them.
• Bourne (1994)- this explains black boy’s high exclusion rates- the schools stereotypes of black pupils’ • Asian pupils were marginalised- feeling isolated when names/culture were
sees them as a threat and labels them negatively. This leads to their behaviour can also place them in disapproved of, and were ignored by teachers due to not being a ‘threat’ like
exclusion, which prevents access to the mainstream curriculum and stunts lower streams than other pupils black pupils.
achievement. of the same ability- causing a self- 3. Pupil responses & subcultures:
• Osler (2001)- black pupils more likely to be ‘internally excluded’ from the fulfilling prophecy of
class, affecting their learning. underachievement.
Rejecting negative labels:
2. Pupil identities: Mirza (1992)- failed Fuller (1984)- studied a group of
1. Labelling & teacher racism: strategies for avoiding Y11 black girls, found they were
Archer (2008): high achievers in a school that put
Teacher’s dominant discourse (view) Chinese pupils: racism: black girls in low streams.
was that ethnic minority pupils don’t • Archer argues even • Mirza studied ambitious black
fit the stereotypical ‘ideal pupil’ successful pupils can be
Internal factors (1): girls faced with teacher racism,
• They used their anger about
the low ability stereotypes as
identity. pathologised. and found racist teacher motivation to succeed
• Ideal pupil identity- white, MC • Chinese pupils are praised discouraged them from educationally.
with a masculine identity and and viewed negatively by Sewell- variety of boys’ responses:
professional careers and • However- they only
normal sexuality. teachers at the same time- • Rebels- most visible/influential group despite being a conformed as far as
minority of black pupils. They reject the school’s rules and ambition.
Achievements- natural they were successful but schoolwork, they relied on
• 3 types of teacher racism-
ability/initiative. achieved it the ‘wrong’ way goals in favour of conforming to the anti-school/authority their own effort and
• Pathologised pupil identity- (hard work and ‘black macho lad’. colour-blind (believed pupils are
impartial exams, instead of
Asian, ‘deserving poor’ with a conforming, instead of • Conformists- the largest group who accept the school’s equal, but doesn’t challenge
teachers.
feminised identity and an natural ability/talent). goals- not being in a subculture and trying to avoid racism), liberal chauvinists This shows that pupils can still
asexual/oppressed sexuality. Archer and Francis call this the stereotypes from teachers/peers. (believes black pupils are CD, succeed if they refuse to
Achievements- culture bound negative positive stereotype. • Retreatists- tiny minority despised by the rebels. They are has low expectations of them) conform, and that negative
overachieving who succeeds by • Teachers stereotype and Overt racists (believes black labels don’t always lead to
hard work instead of natural
isolated and disconnected from school and subcultures.
Chinese families as are inferior, openly educational failure/self-fulfilling
talent. ‘tight’/close’ to explain
• Innovators- are pro-education but anti-school. They were
approved by rebels because they ignored the conformists, discriminates). prophecy.
• Demonised pupil identity- passive pupils, and would
but still succeed and are positive about academic Unlike Fuller, the girls’ strategies Mac an Ghaill (2002)- studied
black or white, WC with a wrongly assume they were
achievement. (like picking certain staff to speak Asian A-level students, reached
hyper-sexualised identity. Pupil MC, or that South Asian the same conclusion- pupils don’t
is peer-led, culturally deprived This shows only a small amount of black pupils fit the rebel to and getting on with work
girls were oppressed by
and an underachiever. their family. assumptions teacher have. themselves) were unsuccessful. always accept the negative labels
teachers give them.
 Troyna & Williams (1996): 1. Marketisation & segregation: 2. The ethno-centric curriculum:
We need to look beyond individual teacher racism to explain • Gillborn (1997)- marketisation gives school This is an attitude or policy that priorities the views and culture of 1 ethnic
ethnic achievement differences: more scope to select pupils, which allows group- white British in education’s case.
• Individual racism- comes from the prejudiced view of an negative stereotypes into school admissions. • Language, literature & music- Troyna & Williams note that
individual teacher. Moore & Davenport (1990)- study support this- European languages are the priority, and David (1993) says the
• Institutional racism- discrimination that’s built into how selection procedures discriminate against ethnic national curriculum is specifically British because it ignores literature
institutions such as schools operate. minorities. and music that’s non-European.
Critical race theory: • Primary school reports were used to screen out
• This theory sees racism as an ingrained feature of • History- Ball (1994)- says the NC ignore ethnic diversity and has a
pupils with language difficulties, and the ‘little Englandism’ attitude that ignores Black and Asian pupil’s
society- involving the intentional actions of individuals application process was hard for EAL parents.
as well as institutional racism. history.
We can therefore conclude that selection causes
Roithmayr (2003): Coard (1971)- the lack of representation in the ethno-centric curriculum
ethnic differences in achievement by affecting the
• Institutional racism is a ‘locked-in inequality’- the causes pupils to fail.
type/quality of school pupils are ‘allowed’ into.
history of discrimination is so broad that there’s no However- this ignores that despite this, Indian & Chinses pupils still
longer a need for conscious discrimination, inequality succeed. 3. Assessment:
becomes self-perpetuating. Gillborn (2008)- argues the assessment game is rigged to valid
• Gillborn (2008)- applies this to education, arguing white pupils’ superiority.
that ethnic inequality is so large it’s almost an inevitable Internal factors (2)- • Evidence- primary schools changed from baseline assessments
feature of education. to foundation stage profiling (FSP) in 2003- all of a sudden black
institutional racism: pupils were doing worse than white pupils- despite being the
Evans (2006)- linking class, highest achievers before.
ethnicity & gender: • FSP is based on teacher’s judgements (which are stereotypical
• Argues we need to link these 3 things Criticisms of Gillborn: and racists), and baselines were impartial written assessments.
to understand ethnic achievement Explaining ethnic achievement differences by focusing on institutional racism has 2 It’s clear to see that racism in the new assessments causes ethnic
differences. issues- black boys’ underachievement and Indian/Chinese pupils’ overachievement. underachievement.
Connolly (1998)- study of primary Black boys’ underachievement:
school found teachers construct • Sewell argues that although there is racism in schools, it’s not powerful enough 4. Access to opportunities:
masculinity by ethnicity. • Gifted & Talented programmes- help disadvantaged pupils,
to prevent pupils from succeeding.
• Black boys are disruptive under- but Gillborn say whites are 5x more likely to be selected than
achievers. The boys respond by
• Instead we should focus on external factors- the father’s role, anti-school
attitudes and peer groups. Black Africans
getting status from non-academic
Model minorities- Indian & Chinese achievement: • Exam tiers- Tikly et al (2006) found despite school’s ‘Aiming
things like sports.
• Asian boys are seen as passive, • How can school be institutionally racists when there are these ethnic minority High’ initiative for Black Caribbean pupils, they were still
conformist and academic, and were groups that perform even better than white pupils? entered for foundation exams at GCSEs.
labelled immature for misbehaviour. • However- Gillborn says model minorities is an ideological function, it hides the New IQism- Gillborn argues teachers and policy makers see
This is due to teachers seeing them fact that school is institutionally racist by making it look fair/meritocratic, potential as a fixed d quality they can measure with racialised
as feminine, unlink black boys, who blames other minorities for their failure and ignores that model minorities still assumptions- which puts ethnic minorities as low ability.
are seen as threatening. face racism at school.
Gender differences in
education
internal and external
Starting school:
• 2013 teacher assessments showed girls
ahead of boys in all 7 areas of learning
(literacy, language, maths, and personal,
social and emotional development)- by 7-17
percentage points.
• 2013 Dfe study found boys in state primary
were 2.5 times more likely than girls to have
statements of SEN.
AS/A-Level:
• Girls more likely to sit/pass/get
higher grades than boys, even
though the gap is smaller than it
was at GCSE.
example: 46.8% of girls got A-C at A-
Level, and 42.2% of boys.
• Girls do better in maths/physics
even though they are ‘boy
subjects’. Girls were more likely to
get A-C.
KS1-KS3:
• Girls do consistently better
than boys, especially in English,
where the gender gap widens
with age.
• Girls do better in maths and
science, even though the gap is
smaller.
The gender gap in
achievement: Official Stats
Vocational courses:
• More girls get distinction in
every subject, even in
minority-female subjects
like engineering and
construction.
GCSE:
• The gender gap is at approximately
10 percentage points
Gender, class & ethnicity:
(boys and achievement)
• Boys aren’t a lost cause, they’re
doing better in education than
they were before despite still
lagging behind girls.
• McVeigh (2001)- there are more
similarities in girl’s/boy’s
achievement than there are
differences- class and ethnicity
are bigger gaps.
• EG: Class gap at GCSE is 3x bigger
than the gender gap.
Both sexes have improved
levels over the years, but girl’s
improvement has been more
rapid- making a gap in
achievement (especially in
GCSE).
 1) The impact of feminism: 2) Changes in the family:
• Feminist movement increased women’s rights and challenges their • Family changes since the 1970- higher divorce and cohabitation rates, increased in
‘traditional’ role in education. lone-parents & smaller families.
• McRobbie (1994)- media supports this, study of magazines found These changes affect girl’s attitudes to education.
women are now encouraged to be assertive and independent. • EG: female lone-parent families creates and independent and financially stable role
• Changes encouraged by feminism positively help girl’s life/career model for girls. Girls need well-paid jobs & good qualifications to achieve this.
ambitions and self-esteem- which leads to improved achievement • EG: increases in divorce suggests to girls that relying on their husband is unwise, so
at school. they should look to getting good qualifications and working hard to get them.
3) Changes in women’s employment: 4) Girls’ changing ambitions:
• 1970 Equal Pay Act- men and women have to be paid equal
values.
• Sharpe (1994)- Girl’s ambitions have changed over time,
in 1970 love, marriage, husbands and children were the
• 1975 Sex Discrimination Act- outlaws discrimination at work.
priority, and in 1990 girls prioritised careers and financial
• Pay gap has been cut in half since 1975 (now 15%).
• Women in employment has increased: 1971- 53%, 2013-67%. independence instead.
This change is reflected in girls achieving higher in school to get
Growth of part-time jobs and jobs in service sectors means more External factors &
the future they want.
opportunities for women. Gender differences in
• Women are breaking through the ‘glass ceiling’- invisible barrier • O’Connor (2006)- Study found 14-17 year old girls found
achievement: marriage and children not to be a major part of their life
stopping them from reaching high-level professional or
plans.
managerial roles.
These changes mean girls now see their future in paid work, instead • Beck & Beck-Gernsheim (2001)- Link this to
individualisation in modern society, where independent is
of as housewives. Better pay, career opportunities and role models
much more valued than it was in the past, and a career
of successful women are all incentives for girls to work hard at
school and get qualifications. becomes important to a woman’s life as it means
Class, gender & ambition: recognition and financial independence. Girls now
• There are class differences in how much girl’s ambitions have changed. recognise that to get these things, they need a good
• WC girls still have stereotypically female aspirations like marriage and children, and expect to do traditional low paid
education.
women’s work.
• Fuller (2011)- girls make education a central part of their
• Reay (1998)- this shows the reality of WC girl’s positions. Their aspirations reflect the limited job opportunities
they see as available to them. A ‘traditional’ gender identity like being part of a couple is attainable, and is a source identity, they see themselves as in charge of their own future.
of status. They also believed in meritocracy and aimed for professional
• Biggart (2002)- found WC girls are more likely to have a precarious position in the labour market, and careers that can support them. These aspirations need
motherhood is seen as the only viable option for the future. This means they see less point in education, like the educational qualification, whereas 1970s ambitions didn’t
WC girls in Fuller’s study that weren’t interested in staying on at school- as they desired low-level jobs. need them, so girls would not aim to achieve high.
 1) Equal opportunities policies: 2) Positive role models in 3) GCSEs & Coursework:
• Due to feminist ideas, policymakers are aware of gender issues, and teachers Sociologists argue the way students are assessed favours girls and
schools:
are more aware of avoiding stereotyping. The belief that boys and girls are disadvantages boys.
• There’s been an increase in
equal is part of mainstream thinking- it influences educational policies. • Gorard (2005)- found the gender gap widened in 1989- when GCSEs
female teachers/headteachers,
• Educational policies- GIST (Girls Into Science & Technology) and WISE and its coursework were introduced. He concludes the achievement
who act as role models and
(Women Into Science & Engineering) both encourage girls to pursue careers gap isn’t the general failing of boys, it’s the changed system of
show that girls can aim for
that are non-traditional. Female scientists visit and act as role models, assessment.
important/non-traditional
science teachers are made aware of gender issues, non-sexist career advice • Mitsos & Browne (1998)- girls succeed in coursework as they spend
positions.
in schools & making science resources that reflect girls’ interests. more time on it, meet deadlines better, and are better organised
• Female teachers are more likely
• Introduction of National Curriculum in 1988 removed a source of gender than boys. They argue these factors mean girls have benefitted from
to be important role models for
inequality by making boys and girls study the same subjects. coursework, as well as the introduction of AS, A-Level, and GCSE-
girls’ educational achievement,
Boaler (1998)- says a key reason for changes in girls’ achievement is the impact of they therefore achieve better than boys.
as they had a long and
these educational policies. Barriers being removed means school is more • GCSEs have also caused more oral exams, and because girls have
successful education to get the
meritocratic (equal opportunities)- girls work harder than boys, and meritocracy better developed language skills, they benefit from them more than
role.
means they achieve more. boys.
4) Teacher’s attention: • Girls have these characteristics/skills from early gender role
Internal factors & gender socialisation, where family may encourage them to be tidy and
• Teachers in the classroom interact differently with
boys and girls. differences in achievement: patient. These qualities are an advantage in today’s education
• French (1993)- classroom study found boys got more system, which helps girls achieve better than boys.
attention because they attracted more reprimands. • Elwood (2005)- argues that coursework is unlikely to be the cause of
5) Challenging stereotypes in the the gender achievement gap, as exams have more influence on final
• Francis (2001)- found despite boys getting more
curriculum: grades than coursework does.
attention, they were disciplined more harshly and felt
• Sociologists ague that removing gender
teachers picked on them- who tend to have lower 6) Selection and league tables:
stereotypes from textbooks, reading schemes
expectations of boys.
and other learning materials over the years has • Marketisation policies have made education a more competitive
• Swan (1998)- found gender differences in environment- where schools see girls as desirable recruits because they get
removed a barrier to girls’ achievement.
communication styles, saying boys dominate class better exam results.
‘70s/’80s research found reading schemes
discussions, and girls prefer pair/group work- they are
portrayed women as housewives and mothers, • Jackson (1998)- argues that league tables have improved opportunities for
better at listening and cooperating. Girl’s speech in girls- high-achieving girls are attractive to schools, and low-achieving boys are
with physics books showing females frightened
group work has taking turns- not the boy’s hostile not.
by science, and maths books showing boys to
interruptions. This can create a self-fulfilling prophecy as girls are more likely to be recruited
be more inventive.
This helps explain why teacher respond more positively by good schools, meaning they’re more likely to do well.
• Weiner (1995)- argues that teachers have
to girls- because they see them as cooperative, and that • Slee (1998)- argues that’s boys are less attractive to schools as they’re more
challenged these stereotypes, and that sexist
they see boys as potentially disruptive. likely to have behaviour problems, and are 4 times more likely to be excluded.
images have been taken out of learning
This can lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy where teachers This means schools may see boys as ‘liability students’ that prevent them from
material. This helps raise girls’ achievements
promote girl’s self-esteems and help them raise improving its’ league table score. They give schools a ‘rough, tough’ image that
by showing them more positive images of
achievement levels. high-achieving girls don’t want to apply to.
what women can do.
 Celebrate the progress made
so far in improving
achievement.
Believe more equal
opportunities policies
being developed will
make further progress.
Liberal feminists: Two views of girls’
achievement:
Progress can also be
made with more This is similar to
encouraging role models functionalism- where
and overcoming sexist education is a
attitudes/stereotypes. meritocracy that all
individual can achieve in
regardless of
gender/class/ethnicity.
They are critical, saying that despite
girls achieving more, the education
system is still patriarchal/male-
dominated.
Sexual harassment of girls
still continues in schools.
Radical feminists: Girls subject
choices/career options
are still limited by
education.
Women are under-represented
in areas of the curriculum.
Weiner (1993) says the school
history curriculum is a ‘woman-
free zone’ as their contributions Despite more female
are ignored. headteachers, male teachers are
more likely to become heads of
secondary schools.
Even though girls achieve Symbolic capital: Hyper-heterosexual feminine identities-
• Archer (2010)- a reason for these differences is conflict between WC girls’ • The girls put a lot of time/effort into
better than before, it doesn’t constructing ‘desirable’ & ‘glamorous’ identities
female identities and the values/ethos of school. Symbolic capital (status,
mean all girls are successful, like this. EG: one girl spent £40 a week on her
recognition and sense of worth we get from others) was used in her study to appearance.
there’s a social class difference understand the conflict. • Their performance of this identity got them
in girls’ achievement. • Study found that the girls gained symbolic capital from their peers by status from their peers, and avoided being
performing their WC feminine identities. ridiculed for wearing the wrong brand.
EG: in 2013, only 40.6% of girls •
• However- this caused conflict with the school, stopping them from getting However- it caused conflict with the school, like
eligible for FSM achieved 5 A*- educational capital (qualifications) & economic capital (MC careers).
being in trouble for too much makeup,
jewellery, etc and teachers saw these as a
C GCSEs, compared to 67.5% of • Archer found strategies girls followed to create a valued sense of self- distraction from education.
girls who did and weren’t on adopting hyper-heterosexual female identity, being ‘loud’ & having a • This caused the school to ‘other’ the girls and
boyfriend. define them as ‘not one of us’- incapable of
FSM. educational success and therefore deserving
less respect. Archer says school’s ideal girl
pupil is de-sexualised and MC.
Identity, class & girls’ Boyfriends-
• Though this got girls symbolic capital, it got in
achievement: the way of education and lowered their
aspirations such as higher education and
‘Successful’ working-class girls: Working-class girls’ dilemma: ‘masculine subjects like science.
• Some WC still do succeed and go onto higher education, but Evan’s (2009) • Either gain symbolic capital- from • Instead- these girls aspired to settle down,
have children and work local jobs like
study shows they’re still disadvantaged by their gender and class identity. peers by conforming to a hyper- childcare.
• She found they girls wanted to go to Uni to increasing earning power, but heterosexual female identity. Being ‘loud’-
to give back to their families instead of for themselves. • Or gain educational capital- by • Some WC girls adopted ‘loud’
• This motive reflects their WC feminine identity as caring is a huge part of rejecting their WC identity and identities- being outspoken,
it, and many girls in the study wanted to stay with their family and do just conforming to the school’s MC ideal independent and outspoken. EG: like
that. female pupil. questioning a teacher’s authority.
• Economic necessity was another reason for staying at home, as cost/fear Therefore Archer argues that WC female• This fails to conform to the school’s
of debt were worries of WC pupils when applying to uni. However- study identities and educational success ideal girl pupil who is passive and
from home limited their choice of unis and market value of their degree. conflict with each other- and WC girls’ submissive- causing conflict with
• Archer shows that it wasn’t just an economic choice, but one that reflects investment in their female identity is the teachers and seeing their behaviour as
their WC feminine identity and WC habitus by remaining local. cause of their underachievement. aggressive instead of assertive.
 Boys & literacy:
• DCSF (2007)- achievement gap is caused by boys’
poorer literacy/language skills.
• This could be down to parents not reading to sons
as less, or because mothers read to their children
more, it became a ‘feminine’ activity.
• Boy’s leisure activities like sports, do little to help
their language development, whereas girls have a
‘bedroom’ culture of staying in and talking with
friends.
This leads to boys underachieving in school, so
policies like The Reading Champions give boys male
role models in reading.
External reasons for underachievement:
The moral panic about boys:
• Those who criticise feminism say we don’t need
policies like GIST because girls are succeeding at
the expense of boys.
• Ringrose (2013)- says these views contribute to a
moral panic about boys’ underachievement. The
moral panic reflects the fear that WC boys will
become an unemployable underclass that threaten
social stability.
Ringrose says this panic has influenced educational
policy- it narrows down equal opportunities policies
to just ‘failing boys’, which ignores the problems WC
and minority ethnic pupils have as well as ignoring
female pupils’ problems such as sexual harassment.
• Osler (2006)- focusing on underachieving boys
neglects girls, like excluded girls being less likely to
go to a Pupil Referral Unit.
Globalisation & the decline of traditional men’s jobs: The feminisation of education:
• Due to the globalisation of the economy, much of the • Sewell- boys are falling behind because education is
manufacturing industry has moved overseas, leaving the UK feminised. Schools don’t nurture masculine traits like
with a decline in manual labour jobs. competitiveness and leadership.
• Mitsos & Browne- this decline in male employment • Instead- they celebrate traits more aligned with girls, like
opportunities causes boys to believe they have no job methodical working and attentiveness in class.
prospects, which undermines their motivation/self-esteem • Sewell sees coursework as a reason for the gender gap, and
and causes educational underachievement. that it should be replaced with final exams and an emphasis
• However- the decline has been in WC labour jobs that didn’t on outdoor adventure in the curriculum.
need qualifications, so it’s unlikely that this has affected boys’
motivation & achievement.
Internal reasons for underachievement:
Boys & achievement: Laddish subcultures:
Shortage of male primary • These subcultures have
contributed to boys’
school teachers:
underachievement.
Do we really need more male teachers? • Underachievement is because of
• Epstein (1998)- looked at
• Research suggests less men in teaching isn’t a factor of lack of male role models boys
how masculinity is
underachievement. EG: Francis (2006)- 2/3 of 7-8 year have in school and at home. EG:
constructed in schools,
olds believed the gender of teachers doesn’t matter. many boys are being brought up
and found WC boys are
Read (2008)- is critical of the claims primary schools are in the UK’s 1.5 million
more likely to be labelled
feminised, so she studied the type of language teachers use matriarchal lone-parent families.
as gay/sissies if they
when disciplining pupils, and found 2 types of discourse: • Yougov (2007)- 39% of boys 8-11
appear to be ‘swots’.
• Disciplinarian discourse- teacher makes authority have no lessons whatsoever with
This supports Francis’ (2001)
explicit & visible, via shouting, sarcasm or an a male teacher, even though
findings that boys are more
exasperated tone. 42% of the boys surveyed said a
concerned about being
• Liberal discourse- teacher’s authority is implicit and male teacher makes them work
labelled than girls are as it’s a
invisible, teacher speaks to child like an adult and harder.
threat to their masculinity.
expects them to be kind, sensible and respectful of the• this could be due to the culture
• WC boys therefore
teacher. of primary schools becoming
become more ‘laddish’,
Disciplinarian is seen as masculine, liberal as feminine- Read feminised by being staffed by
reject schoolwork as it’s
found teachers mostly used the masculine discourse to women, who can’t control boy’s
‘feminine’ and goes
control pupil’s behaviour, and that female teachers doing behaviour- suggesting that
against WC culture of
so proves that it’s not just men who can control boys’ primary schools needs more
being tough & doing
behaviour, and disproves that primary schools are male teachers.
manual work.
feminised.
There’s still a trend of gendered subjected in National curriculum options: AS/A-levels:
education, like boys choosing maths/physics, and • Though this makes most subjects• Gendered subjects are more noticeable at this point because pupils have
girls choosing languages. compulsory, gendered subjects more choice.
Vocational courses: can still come through. • Boys opt for maths/physics, girls opt for sociology/English/languages.
• These subjects also have clear gender • EG: in design tech, girls will • Institute of Physics (2012)- for over 20 years girls in A-level physics has
segregation. choose the food tech option, and been at 20%, which questions the effectiveness of policies like WISE.
• EG: children’s care being 99% female and boys will choose the graphics 3. Gender identity & peer pressure:
engineering being 97% male. option. • Subject choice can be influenced by peer pressure,
1. Gender role socialisation: and pupils will make it clear if they disapprove of a
This is the process of learning what behaviour is
subject choice. EG: boys drop out of music as it’s
expected of males/females in society. Gender & subject choice: out of their gender domain and attracts negative
• Norman (1988)- from early ages, boys/girls peer responses.
are encouraged to dress differently, play
•Dewar (1990)- female students called
with different toys and do different Explanations of gender differences in lesbian/butch for having an interest in sports, as
activities. subject choices: it’s a masculine subject.
• Byrne (1979)- teachers encourage boys to
•This may explain why single-sex school pupils pick
be tough and show initiative, and girls are 2. Gendered subjects:
non-traditional subjects as there’s less peer
expected to be clean, quiet and helpful. The gender image of a subject affects who will
pressure.
Murphy & Elwood (1998) argue that this choose it, EG:
means boys/girls develop different reading • Science- is a boys’ subject because most 4. Gendered career opportunities:
tastes, (boys info texts, girls fiction), which teachers are men, textbook examples and • Differences in subject choices come from employment being
explains why boys later pick science and girls resources draw on boys’ interests, and boys sex-typed as male/female.
pick English. monopolise on lab equipment as if it’s ‘theirs’. • Women's jobs fall into 4 narrow categories- clerical,
• Colley (1998)- computer studies is masculine secretarial, personal services and occupations like cleaning.
Browne & Ross (1991)- Gender domains: because it works with machines (part of the • Sex-typing like this effects subject choices- boys won’t pick a
• These are the tasks/activities girls and boys male gender domain) and tasks are course in childcare if they see that childcare jobs are for
feel most comfortable and in their territory abstract/teaching is formal (girls prefer group women.
with. work so don’t choose it.) • This explains why vocational courses subjects are almost single-
• Boys focus on how things work and girls Single-sex schooling: students at these schools sex.
focus on feelings, which explains why boys make less traditional subject choices, Leonard • Class can also effect choice, Fuller (2011)- found WC would pick
pick science/maths and girls choose (2006)- girls in girls’ school are more likely to take ‘girl’ course like beauty as it was apart of their WC habitus and
humanities. maths/science. what they could expect of ‘people like us’.
This examines the different ways pupils’ experiences in school help
them construct and reinforce their gender/sexual identities.
Connell (1995)- these experiences contribute to hegemonic
masculinity- the dominance of heterosexual masculine identity and the
subordination of female & gay ones.
3. The male gaze:
This is the visual aspect in the way pupils control each
other’s identities.
• Mac an Ghaill- this is the male gaze- how male
teachers/pupils look at girls, see them as sexual objects
and make judgements about their appearance.
• Male gaze is a form of surveillance that dominant
heterosexual masculinity is reinforced and femininity is
devalued.
• This is one way boys reinforce their masculinity,
bragging about sexual conquests and telling stories- if
Pupil’s
they don’t, they risk being labelled as gay.
1. Double standards:
• Lees (1993)- for gender identity, she
found a double standard of sexual
morality. Boys boast about sexual
exploits but call girls slags for not having
a steady boyfriend/dressing a certain
way.
• Feminists see this double standard of
boys gaining status from the same
acts/boasts that girls are shamed for as • Paechter- name calling helps shape
patriarchal ideology. It justifies male
power and devalues women.
sexual & gender identities:
2. Verbal abuse:
• Connell says this is one the ways
dominant gender and sexual identities
are reinforced, like boys using cat-calling
to put girls down for dressing a certain
way.
• Lees (1986)- found boys call girls slags if
they appeared to be sexually available,
and drags if they weren’t.
gender identity and reinforces male
power (such as gay, queer, lezzie).
Paechter notes the labels don’t reflect pupil’s
actual sexual behaviour, and simply serve
the function of reinforcing gender
norms/identities.

4. Male peer groups:
• Male groups also use verbal abuse to reinforce their
masculinity, like boys in anti-school subcultures
labelling boys who want to do well as gay.
Mac an Ghaill (1994)- study examines how pupils
produce different classed-based gender identities:
• WC ‘macho lads’- dismissive of the WC boys who
work hard, labelling them ‘dickhead achievers’.
• MC ‘real Englishmen’- project an image of effortless
achievement even if some hard to work hard on the
quiet.
The definition of masculinity for these groups was
different, for the WC it was toughness, and for the MC
it was intellectual ability.
5. Female peer groups- policing identity: 6. Teachers & discipline:
• Archer- shows how WC girls gain symbolic capital from their • Research shows that teachers have
peers with a hyper-heterosexual feminine identity. a role in reinforcing dominant
Ringrose (2013)- study of WC 13/14 year olds found being popular definitions of gender identity.
was crucial to the girls’ identity: • Mac an Ghaill (1996)- found
• An idealised feminine identity- showing loyalty to female peer male teacher would tease and tell
groups, being non-competitive and getting along with everyone. of boys for acting ‘like girls’.
• A sexualised identity- competing for boys in the dating culture. • Teachers would also ignore boys
Currie et al (2007)- though the sexualised identity gets them verbally abusing girls, or would
blame the girls for it.
symbolic capital, it’s risky as girls have to balance the 2 identities,
too-competitive girls were slut-shamed and girls not competing • Askew & Ross (1988)- this
were ‘frigid-shamed’. shows how male teacher’s
Reay (2011)- girls wanting to do well at school had to perform an behaviour subtly reinforces
asexual boffin identity, causing the other girls to exclude them. messages about gender.
Educational policy &
inequality
Introduced by the 1944 • Grammar schools: mostly MC students who passed the • This system didn’t promote
Education Act to select students 11+, gives them academic curriculum for non-labour meritocracy, it reproduced
for different school types based jobs/higher education. class inequality- schools
on their ability and results of 11+ • Secondary modern schools: mostly WC students who failed became for specific classes
exam. 11+, gives them practical curriculum for manual jobs. and offered unequal
• Technical schools: exists in just a few areas, focuses on opportunities.
preparing for specific career paths. • Gender inequality was
reproduced- girls had to
score higher in the 11+ to go
The tripartite system: to grammar schools.

Educational policy
before 1988:
The comprehensive school system: The role of comprehensives:
• Introduced in 1965, aimed to overcome the • Functionalists- promotes social integration by bringing
tripartite class divide and make education different classes together in 1 school.
more meritocratic. • They believe comprehensives are more meritocratic as
• All pupils attend comprehensive schools- pupils have longer to develop/show abilities.
the 11+ and other school types were However, Ford (1969) found streaming caused little mixing
abolished. between WC and MC students.
• Because the decision was up to local • Marxists- comprehensives aren’t meritocratic, as labelling
education authorities to go comprehensive, and streaming reproduce class inequality. No 11+ also
there’s still a grammar/secondary divide in causes the myth of meritocracy as it looks like chances are
some areas. more equal, and that failure is the individual’s fault.
 • Marketisation- introducing market forces • 1988 Education Reform Act- made marketisation central to Parentocracy:
of consumer choice and competition education policy. • David (1993)- marketised education encourages parentocracy, which
between suppliers into a state-run area. • 2010 coalition government- took it further with academies gives them more choice and raises educational standards/school
• This creates an education market- reduces and free schools. diversity.
state control of education, increasing • New Right & Neoliberals- favour marketised education as Policies that promote marketisation:
competition between schools and parental schools have to compete to attract parents, and schools will • Publishing league tables and Ofsted reports (helps parents choose the
choice. give in to parents needs to enrol more students. right school).
The reproduction of inequality: • Business sponsorship of schools.
Critics say marketisation has increased inequalities. • Open enrolment- successful schools can recruit more pupils.
• Ball (1994)- market policies like exam league tables/formula funding reproduce • Specialist schools- to widen parental choice.
class inequalities by creating inequalities between schools. • Formula funding- same funding for every pupil.
League tables: • Academies- where schools opt out of local authority control.
Publishing school results ensure those with good results become in demand, and • Schools competing to attract pupils.
parents will be more attracted to them. • Introducing tuition fees for higher education.
• Barret (1993)- this encourages cream-skimming (good schools can be selective • Allowing parents/others to make free schools.
and pick high-achieving MC pupils) and silt-shifting (good schools avoid taking Gewirtz (1995)- parental choice:
less able pupils who would damage their league table position). • Marketisation benefits the MC by increasing parental
• Schools with bad league positions wouldn’t be able to be selective, and Marketisation: choice- they can use their economic and cultural capital
therefore take less able WC pupils, who damage their position and make the to choose good schools.
school unattractive to MC parents. • Gewirtz- study of 14 high schools found class differences
New Labour & inequality: affect how parents choose schools
Formula funding: New Labour from 1997-2010 made policies aiming
• Where school’s funding depends on how many pupils they attract. Popular to reduce educational inequality: • Privileged skilled choosers- MC parents. Use cultural
schools get more funding- better resources, teachers that attracts MC capital to choose the best schools, network with school
• Education Action Zones- provided more
students the school can select to ensure their table position is good. admissions, etc. Use economic capital to move into
resources to deprived areas.
• Unpopular schools get less funding- poorer resources, teachers, etc that • Aim Higher programme- raise aspirations of catchment areas, afford travel to the best schools, etc.
means they have to take all pupils and have their table position suffer. groups who aren’t represented in higher • Disconnected-local choosers- WC parents with
education. restricted choices as they have no economic/cultural
Myth of parentocracy: capital. Less knowledgeable about choices, admissions &
• Marketisation legitimises inequality as well as making it- by concealing • Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA)-
payments to low-income students to encourage playing the system. Closest schools (no matter the
its true causes and justifying its existence. quality) were the best option due to travel cost
qualification after 16.
• Ball- marketisation gives the myth of parentocracy- it looks like all • Increased funding for state education restrictions.
parents have the freedom of choice in selecting schools.
Benn (2012)- This is a New Labour Paradox, • Semi-skilled choosers- WC parents with ambitions for
Gewirtz- shows this isn’t true, and that parent’s choice is affected by choosing marketisation even though it causes their children (unlike local choosers). Lack
class, with the MC benefitting most. inequality, and then making more policies to tackle economic/cultural capital and understanding the market,
(reproduces class inequality in education) inequality. EG- EMA was introduced alongside and were frustrated that they couldn’t send their child to
increased tuition fees. the best school due to this.
• Coalition (2010-15) and Conservative (2015+)
started moving away from a comprehensive •
education system run by local authorities.
• Policies are influenced my neoliberal/New
Right ideas- reducing the state’s role in
education via marketisation and
privatisation.
Free schools:
• Funded by the state, but set up by parents,
teachers, faith organisations, etc- instead
of local authorities.
• Free schools say they improve education
standards by taking control away from the
state and giving it to parents- who can
create a new school if they’re unhappy
with the one in the area.
• However- Allen (2010)- argues research
from Sweden (has 20% free schools) shows
they only benefit highly educated families
• England- free schools take less
disadvantaged pupils (2011- only 6.4% at
Bristol Free School were eligible for FSM,
compared to 22.5% of pupils across the
city.)
Academies:
2010- schools encouraged to leave local authority control by becoming
academies. Here, the central government takes local authority funding and
gives it directly to academies, and gives them control over the curriculum.
• 2017- 68% of all high schools became academies, some ran by private
education businesses and funded by the state.
• However- Labour’s original academies addressed disadvantaged schools, but
the Coalitions let any school become and academy- taking the focus off of
reducing inequality.
Fragmented centralisation:
Ball (2011)- argues promoting
2010 conservative academies/frees has led to increased
government policies: fragmentation and centralisation over
educational provision in England.
• Fragmentation- comprehensive system
Policies to reduce inequality: is replaced by patchwork of diverse
• FSM- for all pupils in reception-Y2.
provision that are usually from private
• Pupil premium- money schools get for
providers- leads to more inequality in
every pupil from a disadvantaged
background.
opportunities.
However- Ofsted (2012)- found pupil • Centralisation of control- only central
premium isn’t spent on those it’s meant government has power to allow/require
to help, and only 1/10 headteachers said schools to be academies/set up free
it made a huge difference. schools. And as they’re funded directly
Cutting- of Sure Start & EMA has reduced from government too, the role of elected
WC pupil’s opportunities.
local authorities in education is reduced.
• Privatisation- transfer of public assets like schools to Blurring the public/private boundary: Privatisation & Globalisation of educational policy:
private companies. Over the years, education in the • Many senior officials in the public sector • Private companies in the education service are often
UK/globally has become more privatised. (like headteachers or local authority foreign- like Edexcel being owned by Pearson in the US.
• Ball- education becomes a source of profit in the Education
directors) leave to work for private • Buckingham & Scanlon (2005)- UK’s 4 leading educational
Services Industry (ESI).
• Private companies in the ESI are involved in activities: sector educational businesses. software companies are owned by global multinationals.
building schools, providing supply teachers, Ofsted, career • The companies then bid for contracts to (Disney, US toy companies: Mattel and Hambro, French
advice and running entire local education authorities. provide schools/local authorities with media: Vivendi. Original companies sell educational
• Ball (2007)- these are all very profitable, contracts for services, like school inspections. contracts on to banks/investment funds.
designing/building/financing educational services can make • Pollack (2004)- this flow of personnel • Some UK edu-businesses work overseas- private
10x as much as other contracts.
means companies can buy ‘insider companies are exporting UK educational policies to other
The cola-isation of schools: knowledge’ to help them win contracts. countries, like Ofsted inspections.
• Cola-isation- Private sector is coming into education indirectly, This means nation-states are less important in policymaking,
like having vending machines in schools and brand loyalty via which is becoming more global and privatised.
logos/sponsorships.
• Molnar (2005)- private companies target school because they’re Policies on gender & ethnicity:
a product endorsement- schools have huge goodwill that •
Gender- since the 1970s, policies like GIST
legitimises anything they associate with. Privatisation of education: (Girls Into Science & Technology) aim to
• However- private sector’s involvement in schools has limited reduce gender difference sin subject choice.
benefits. Beder (2009)- UK families spent £110K in Tesco in return • Ethnicity- multicultural education (MCE)
for 1 school computer. policies in the 1980s-90s aim to promote
Education as a commodity: ethnic minority children’s achievement by
• Ball- concludes there’s a fundamental change happening- where privatisation becomes a key factor that shapes valuing them in the curriculum- raising their
educational policy. self-esteem and achievement.
However Stone (1981)- argues black pupils don’t
• Policy is now more focused on moving educational services out of the public sector into the private one, that private fail due to low self-esteem, so MCE is
companies provide, instead of the nation state. misguided. Critical race theorists say it’s
This means education is being turned into an object for private profit-making- a commodity that’s bought and sold. tokenism- pick stereotypes about culture for
• Ball says the overall effect of the state the role of provider of educational services is- more areas of education are curriculum inclusivity, but does nothing about
subject to business practices, and are bough/sold as assets. Privatisation expands this over time and policies over institutional racism.
time will open up education services to make even more profit. • Social inclusion policies to raise minority
achievement became the focus in the
• Marxist Hall (2011)- sees these conservative polices as the long march of the neoliberal revolution. Academies is an 1990s, like monitoring exam results by
example of giving public services to private capitalists. ethnicity, changing the Race Relations Act
Marxists believe privatisation/competition to raise standards is a myth used to legitimise turning education into a private to legally ensure schools promote racial
profit source. equality, and EAL programmes.
Education and globalisation
Globalisation- increasing interconnectedness between societies around the world.
Economic globalisation: Cultural globalisation:
• Where trade, production and consumption have become • This is the spread of ideas and values
globalised. becoming more and more rapid
• Many things consumed in the UK are produced and around the globe.
manufactured abroad due economic globalisation.
• This increase was cause by the
• These productions are often done through Transnational
Corporations and companies that operate in multiple
growth of ICT- as communications
countries. An example of this is the company Shell. technology has made
• A result of this globalisation: a decline in manufacturing jobs communication with people from
over the years. This decrease is of because them have moving other countries quick and
abroad to places such as China. convenient.
• Most UK jobs are now in the service and leisure sectors. • This type of globalisation includes
Types of globalisation the spread of so many different
ideas, like music and fashion,
consumer products, or the spread of
Increasing migration:
political/religious ideas.
• This is where more and more people are Technological:
moving around the globe, making it part • The establishment of ICT companies like Google and Apple is a part of
of globalisation. economic globalisation.
• People move for many reasons: • These institutions are now involved in writing curriculums and providing
voluntary, for work/education, and online materials/resources to governments around the world.
unvoluntary, refuges from places of • This means that education is now shaped a lot more by Transnational
Companies that it was before.
conflict/disaster/war.
• The corporations make a profit from providing this service to the
• The result of increased immigration is government.
the UK becoming much more multi- • example: Exams and textbooks under the exam board Edexcell would have
cultural society than it was in the 1950s. been written by Pearson's, a global corporation.
Emergence of globalised educational companies:
• Examples: Pearson, Edexcell, Cambridge Qualifications- all work across countries to offer curriculums, exam
boards and marking.
• Some globalised companies create international schools with curriculums from other countries- to sell them as
prestigious to get more students.
example: Dubai British School.
• There are also international ranking companies like PISA- rating schools on how they deliver the core subjects.
These companies are the result of the world being more globalised.
Increased migration- Increased cultural globalisation:
• Increased migration has made education more multi-cultural- all schools • Challenges the relevance of the National
teach about the 6 world religions in RE, and there are more Muslim/Jewish
Curriculum- how can we have a ‘nation
faith schools.
• EAL departments have gotten bigger in schools, because they’ve had to state’ and ‘national curriculum’ if the
respond to the higher intake of Polish students. culture we live in is much more global?
The prevent scheme in • This means the type of history and
education: literature taught are also brought into
• With more cultures being in question.
educational settings, there is a
need for the prevent scheme.
• Prevent scheme- Aims to tackle
issues with mainly Far-right or
Other impacts of globalisation on education:
Islamic extremist students.
Teachers are trained to spot the
signs of these ideas/beliefs in
students, with the scheme also
offering a range of support. This is There is also more need for
because many students involved English to be taught to foreign
in these groups have been students, as well as interventions
groomed/brainwashed. Beck- risk society to help overseas pupils with their
• Argues that globalisation in education creates a ‘risk
society’- where there is no value consensus, making writing and communication.
beliefs and values fragmented- individuals free to pursue
selfish desires.
• Says that the need for schemes such as Prevent are
examples of a risk society.
Neoliberal response:
They believe globalised education is a great step forward for society.
• Argue that the government’s role in providing education should be reduced- this would also reduce their
spending on education and the budget can be spent elsewhere.
• Instead, the government should allow global corporations to provide more education- like academy chains and
funding curriculums. (Privatisation)

Globalisation is positive for education:

• Provides the UK universities with opportunities- partnerships with unis abroad.
• Provides similar opportunities for private schools- setting up branches abroad.

New Labour (Post-Fordist response):

• Argue that government spending on education should be increased- raises education quality/standards, means
better jobs later on.
• They raised the age of leaving school to 18.
• They believe it is important for schools to set students up to be able to provide highly skilled work- making a
highly competent workforce to compete in the global labour market.
• They encouraged more people to go to university: illustrating higher earnings/job prospects, making higher
education more accessible, providing a variety of courses/pathways, scholarships/bursaries, etc.
• Argue that globalised education only gives
opportunities to the wealthy- better quality,
expensive international schools, compared
to lower quality state schools.
• If the government/state reduces their spending on
education, class inequalities will increase.
example: private education will maintain its high standards
while state education can’t afford to give working-class
pupils what they need.

Marxist criticisms of
Neoliberalism:

Spring: educational corporatism-

• Global corporations will set educational agendas in their interests- the priority
will be making money/profit, not the students, parents, teachers, etc.
• That there will be a ‘digital divide’ in education- unequal access to information
and communication technology. This can also be a contributor to class
inequality.