Social Classes and Education Issues - Essay Example

Running Head: Summarise the Evidence that Social remains an important determinant of Education attainment and outcome. What explanations have been offered to account for this Summarise the Evidence that Social Class remains an important determinant of Education attainment and outcome. What explanations have been offered to account for this Author's Name Institution's Name Social Class: A Definition The conception of social class was created by Marx and Engels (1848), who proposed that there were three types of classes: 1. The capitalist class consists of the holders and controller of the methods of creation, supply and trade; 2. The middle class consisting of manager, small firms, experts and the middle ranks of the country; and (3) the working class that consists of ordinary people of the populace who acts as a labour power, their capability to work in lieu of a pay or income, and who labour under the command of the owners of the means of manufacture and their representatives. Education & Social classes: An Introduction Education is a significant determinant of the class place that a person come to hold, and the studies investigates the correlation between classes and educational achievement, as well as educational accomplishment and class objective (Breen, 2005; see also Ferjan and Jereb, 2005). Various methods of education have their impact on children's inspiration and aptitude to study, and moreover their flexibility to the needs of the school. Middle-class parents have been seen to be expecting more of their wards, who internalize those prospects - expecting more of them, they thus are concerned more about accomplishment at school. In addition, in the middle-class approach of education, the children's inspiration, usually has been better equipped to utilize school, since their relationship with their parents' enthusiasm have trained them for relationships with their educators, and the activities their parents support will look like those of the school (Phelps Brown, 1979). The children from smaller families get higher test scores, and they do better at school. In a case study of grammar school students from blue-collar workers' families, Jackson and Marsden (1962) saw that these families have an average two children i.e. around half the typical manual workers' families as a whole. In a detailed U.S. statistics, Duncan (1967) established that large families influenced a constantly dismal impact on educational achievement as compared with the achievement of children from small families. However they must also have the incentive to do it. Blau and Duncan (1967) established that with parents at a certain socio-economic echelon, boys from small families where the eldest brother did not go further than elementary school have no educational gain over boys from large families. The assumption that these were small families in which the parents were not worried about improving their children's education is confirmed by the fact that the educational benefit of coming from a small family rose with the level of education of the eldest brother. It appears that the size of the family and the educational achievement of the children are the mutual products of the parents' worry for education. Class differences also come into view in the relationship between the parents and the school chosen. Middle-class parents are more equipped engage in their children's troubles with their teachers and apply pressure to stand for the changes they desire to see for their children. Class differences in parental fear may well be a reason of differences in the educational success of children of the same capacity (Phelps Brown, 1979). It looks that differences in success is conditional more on variation between homes than between schools. Bowles and Gintis (2001) established that parental economic position is passed on to children to some extent as a result of disproportionate educational prospects, however that the economic benefits of the children of upper social status families go significantly beyond the higher education they are given. These authors think that the social class of the family of origin caused the major variations in educational levels. They maintain that social class determines the period of schooling. Those children who start in on in higher classes are usually more learned, and they get higher qualification and better-paid working positions irrespective of their skills (Bowles and Gintis, 1976). Bouchard and McGue (1981) assert that the relationship of IQ between parents and children are critical, ranging 0.42-0.72, the higher number denote average parental against average children IQ. Rogers (2006) states at present there are three main types of socially altered education. These are explained as: 1. The deficit paradigm 2. The disadvantaged paradigm and 3. The diversity paradigm. The deficit paradigm hypothesize that the basis of disparities is that some groups are short of the resources which others enjoy. The disadvantaged paradigm assumes that the rationale why some groups are underprivileged and stay outside the main groups is not their need of education, however in fact that they are being "barred" by the privileged, by the repression of the system. The diversity paradigm studies the circumstances in terms of "disparity". Many providers and various types of if, new curricula and customers, the appearance of new types of education - all these show growing diversity in education. Most authors clarify differences in educational accomplishment with differences in values of social classes. For example, Hyman (1953) assumes that: 1. People in the blue-collar don't value education. Schooling after elementary school does not have much value for them. 2. They don't appreciate higher professional position. They value employment stability and the assurance of early employment for their kids. They shun taking the danger of reaching a higher professional position. 3. In contrast to middle class contemporaries, they consider their prospects for promotion are much poorer. However these values are not distinctive of the whole blue-collar population. There are yet individuals who do not share the outlook of the mainstream (Hyman, 1953). The disparities in human societies denote power, position and wealth. Education is also a vital determinant of the class status of a person and vice versa. Socio-economic status (SES) vis--vis Education: A Case Study In the United Kingdom, a group of analysts had for years claimed that SES is a principal determinant of educational outcomes, and put enormous impact on the life course of people. Some vital support for this came from John Bynner and Tom Schuller's work at the Centre for Longitudinal Studies. This employed information from the group studies of 1958 and 1970, where big groups of people were surveyed, from birth, throughout their educational and life experiences. Bynner built up the idea of 'personal capital' to explain those aspects of individual psychological tendency which seemed to be greatly associated to life. Low scores on dimensions for example 'externalising behaviour' - feeling incapable facing challenges - were clearly linked with bad educational and life outcomes. The NCDS study strongly recommended that the early development of personal capital was vital for making good advancement in learning, and that family background was critical in its development. This initiated the team support objectives of SureStart and the recommendation of the Effective Provision of Pre-school Education (EPPE) project regarding premium pre-school learning. Especially, Bynner believed that the integrated health, social and educational support accessible in the family learning centres was expected to be a successful public policy response to the disparities in the formation of personal capital. At the same time as Bynner's research provided considerably to the perception of the specific quality of the personal skills and tendencies which explain the different outcomes being attained in education and life, other analysts examining qualifications statistics continued to be aware of the very strong relationship between socio-economic position and qualifications effects. In fact, this is the main reason for high and low success (Raffe et al, 2006). In the late 90's, there was a disagreement over whether past achievement explained more of the disparity in accomplishment than socio-economic position. Those behind the use of prior attainment as a judge of later educational success recommended that by adding data regarding socio-economic conditions the power of the forecast was only raised by a very small amount (Fitz-Gibbon, 1995). Nevertheless, both the NCDS and EPPE studies suggest basic creation of private capital is important. In view of the fact that most of the processes measuring prior attainment depend on data secured at the end of the first stage of primary school, this prior attainment statistics is already greatly determined by socio-economic position. In other words, when calculating the various attainments employing prior attainment as a rationalization for that disparity, one is at the same time measuring the impacts of social backdrop. This influence of socio-economic position in attainment data persists to be extremely worrying. This problem is not specific to UK. Analysts at Cambridge Assessment seek to investigate more intensely into qualifications data to seek to recognize patterns of different attainment which might be explained by individual capital. In a data of thousand of students who took science GCSE, the researchers studied a sequence of aspects like those studied by Bynner et al namely recklessness, hopefulness, emotion regulation, etc. What later appeared was remarkable. The study confirmed that some of the calculated aspects of personal capital predict achievement in GCSE science besides the contribution by prior attainment. Particularly compatible with the Bynner study self-motivation and low impulsivity were major helpful predictor of achievement in all the science subjects studied. The impact did fluctuate across science subjects and had immense impact on Applied Science Double Award and less on Physics. Personal capital originates from past determining practices in the family and life, and collectively influencing educational development play a major role in achievement of critical stages of educational life. Kathy Sylva's and Brenda Taggart's useful outlooks on this issue originate from their study on pre-school provision: educationalists who deal with psychological progress of children supporting strong cognitive growth in mathematical knowledge, in reading, in writing are in fact selling children short. Indeed, a child with extraordinarily troublesome inclination and poor learning behaviours will not develop ably, and these things need to be taken in hand. However educational provision which are unsuccessful to place satisfactory cognitive challenge and is unsuccessful to assist children get critical bodies of information and deep focus in subjects, does not support satisfactory learning achievement in their students. In contrast, provision which put emphasis on educational and cognitive development and in the same way guarantees personal capital best serves the widest series of learning requirements. Social Class and Educational Achievement: An Analysis Ballantine (1993) emphasizes that Social Class and Educational Achievement (SES) of families is an influential and an important determinant predictor of school performance. The association between social class and education has always been investigated by analysts in sociological viewpoints. For example, the study performed by Lynd & Lynd (1929) might be one of the primary studies showing relationship between social class and educational achievement. They established that parents of diverse social environment appreciate the significance of education for their children. Nevertheless, lower-class children do not have many of the spoken and behavioral abilities and characteristics that are must to succeed in school. The studies of Warner, Havighurst & Loeb (1944) show lower-class children do not have the prospects for increasing mobility. Despite the fact that life position can be developed by way of good education and diligence and it is understood that people have equal education occasions to come across increased mobility, the study performed by Rossides (1990) shows that children from lower class have much lesser chance of going on to university than those of higher class, though they might have higher aptitude. Ornstein & Levine (1985) show that children of lower-class have much less chances to be successful in schooling than the students of middle-class and are also less likely to get middle-class jobs than the students from middle-class homes. Therefore, when people are born and mingle in their early ages with their own social class, they build up a strong relation of loyalties, which strongly impacts the school achievements and shape their educational objectives and inspiration. Parental Unemployment / Employment The correlation between parental joblessness and education is hard to unravel as adults are only qualified for income support if they are out of work and available to work. Substantial evidence proposes that it is the loss of earnings which is significant. Gregg and Machin (1997) say that without financial troubles, the relationship between low educational achievement and paternal joblessness is important, however small, for boys and non-significant for girls. Research data on the influence of jobless families on educational attainment is also varied. Joshi and Verroupoulou (1999) concluded that jobless households had bad effects on mathematics achievement and one measure of behavioural adjustment. Yet in terms of reading achievement and the second measure of behavioural adjustment employed in the analysis the authors were of the view that the outcomes were more in agreement with no significance. Qualitative study proposes that some kind of family employment may be significant to the attainment of individual softer expertise. The results implies that various students who grow up in jobless families are do not experience working role models, and thus unsuccessful to learn in the home about the behavioural characteristics of work (Kleinman et al., 1998). Housing Tenure and Conditions The relationship between housing occupancy, conditions and educational achievement are deep-rooted. People living in council housing are less expected to accomplish qualifications and expected to report playing truant than those living in other types of lodging (Bosworth, 1994). Yet it is significant to see that this does not essentially indicate causality. Nevertheless the present study is unsure if social housing influences an independent impact on educational achievement. Poor housing, particularly congestion, access to essential amenities and short-term housing are also linked with poor educational achievement. Such conditions badly impact upon a child's health, progress and access to friends and social systems, which are expected to influence school attendance and performance. Homelessness more explicitly is studied by Whitty et al (1999). They studied the processes which explain homelessness against poor educational outcomes. They maintain "the nature and organisation of current services and professional responseswere often as much part of the problem as the solution". Whitty et al underscore a need of proper policy to guarantee the priority of the education of homeless children. The data drawn from a survey on the organizational development regarding the education of homeless children, showed high levels of uncertainty, discrepancy and a lack of clear policies of communication and accountability. For example, homeless parents who choose to carry on their child's education at their existing school may sustain additional financial expenses for transport. Parent's Educational Attainment Parental education attainment has been considered as a significant judge of a child's educational achievement. The mother's level of educational ability is mainly vital in this regard. Dearden (1998) for example was considered that the chance of a woman having a degree raises 1.1 percentage point for each extra year of education undertook by her mother. This relationship is particularly significant regarding literacy achievement. An analysis at City University proved that 60% of students in the lowest reading skill group at age 10 had parents with low literacy level, whilst only 2% had parents with high literacy scores. In contrast parental education is only badly related to the prospects of truants (Bosworth, 1994). The methods by which better experienced parents give improvement to their children, remains uncertain. Studies have underlined the significance of parents' human and social capital. Obviously if parents are illiterate, they are incapable to support their child's learning in this regard. Interventions that have increased parents' human capital along side that of the child, such as family literacy projects have been favourably evaluated (Brooks et al., 1998). Whitty et al. (1999) suggests that educated parents have higher levels of social capital and that this has a positive impact on their children's attainment. Growing up in a lone parent family The study suggests that is non-drastically or only inadequately related with educational achievement (Gregg and Machin, 1997). Nevertheless some studies have advocated the outcome results upon the sex of the parent, and living with lone father has a minor harmful result on achievement (Bosworth, 1994). When faced with together with other hazard aspects, particularly low earnings, lone parenthood do raise the chances of low educational attainment (Mortimore et al., 1983). The conditions of family disturbance are also applicable. The children of widows, for instance, appear to face less harmful outcomes than of divorcees. In the same way the inclusion of a step parent into a family unit also seems to have harmful outcomes (Kiernan, 1992). Parental state of affairs is firmly linked with absenteeism and nonattendance. A study points out that family structure is considerably linked to the chances of absenteeism. Results confirm that children in dual-parent families were the least expected to absentee, than those who reside with the mother, next those who reside with the father, and than those living away from parents (Bosworth, 1994; Casey and Smith, 1995). Other analyses have also concluded that behaviour namely school unpunctuality and bad teacher assessment seems to be a sign of family structure/disturbance effects and not just economic aspects (Featherstone et al., 1992). Thus as Joshi and Verropoulou state: "Family structure effects are generally more important for behavioural outcomes than cognitive attainment, at least when the family's economic resources are taken into account." Growing up in an institutional care placement or multiple foster places Studies confirm that more than 75% of those who have been in local authority care achieve no qualifications on leaving school in contrast to 11% in the general school populace in the same physical regions. In addition more than 80% of care leavers remain jobless two and half years after leaving school as compared to 9-16% in the general populace (Biehal et al., 1992). Youths who face several care placements are at a particularly high danger of low achievement (Biehal et al., 1992). The low levels of educational achievement with in-care children are mainly, although not wholly, explained by their disturbing conditions (Osbourn and St Claire, 1987). Nevertheless analyses confirm that the know-how of care developments to add to the educational problems faced by children in care. Causative issues in this regard have been shown to be viz. poor relationship between carers and schools, the preference of welfare over educational matters, disturbance created by placement progress, lack of transportation to school, low priority given to education, low expectations and bad management by teachers and intimidation by colleagues (Carleen et al., 1992; Fletcher-Campbell and Hall, 1990). Growing up in a large family People with big numbers of siblings have a somewhat higher likelihood of failure to get qualifications at the age of 16 than others. In addition if they succeed in gaining qualifications they are likely to attain lower test scores (Bosworth, 1994). The relationship between large family size and low achievement is strongest regarding reading and verbal aptitude, modest in terms of mathematics skill and far weaker regarding other types of non-verbal aptitude, implying that need of verbal communication with adults may be the significant reason (Wedge and Prosser, 1973). Several studies propose that the influence of family size is related to some extent upon income. Wedge and Prosser (1973) for instance, concluded that in the middle classes, only those children from a family with four or more siblings were negatively impacted, at the same time as in working-class families children are increasingly needy by each added sibling. Birth sequence, the sex and ages of other siblings have also been related with educational achievement. Dearden (1998) for instance found that boys with fewer older siblings had better levels of achievement than boys further down the birth order. Moreover, women with only brothers were found to have considerably higher levels of achievement. As regards absenteeism males are more expected to absentee when there are older siblings in the household, however the existence of younger siblings has no impact. For females the existence of older siblings has no impact while there is a feeble although major impact where young siblings exist (Dustmann, et al 1997). References Ballantine, J. H. (1993). The sociology of education A systematic analysis New Jersey Prentice-Hall. Biehal, N., Claydon, J., Stein, M. and Wade, J. (1992). Prepared for Living A survey of young people leaving the care of local authorities. London: National Children's Bureau. Blau, P. & Duncan, O. D. (1967). The American Occupational Structure, New York: The Free Press. Bosworth, D. (1994). "Truancy and pupil performance", Education Economics, 2(3): 243-263. Bouchard, T. & McGue, M. (1981). Familial Studies of Intelligence, Science, May 29, 212: 1055-1059. Bowles, S. & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in Capitalist America, London: Routledge & Kegan. Bowles, S. & Gintis, H. (2001). Schooling in Capitalist America Revisited, Massachusetts: University of Massachusetts. Breen, R. (2005). The Comparative Study of Social Mobility. In: R. Breen (Ed.), Social Mobility in Europe (pp 1-16), Oxford, Oxford University Press. Carleen, P., Gleeson, D. and Wardhaugh, J. (1992). Truancy: the politics of compulsory schooling. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Casey, B. and Smith, D. (1995). Truancy and youth transitions, DfEE, London: Policy Studies Institute. Dearden, L. (1998). "Ability, family, education and earnings", mimeo: Institute of Fiscal Studies. Duncan, B. (1967). Education and social background. American Journal of Sociology, 72 (4): 363-372. Dustmann, C., Rajah, N. and Smith, S. (1997). Teenage truancy, part time working and wages, London: Institute for Fiscal Studies. Featherstone, D.R., Cundick, B.P. and Rodgers, W. (1992). "Differences in school behaviour and achievement between children from intact, reconstituted and single parent families", Adolescence, 27: 1-12. Ferjan, M. & Jereb, E. (2005). Education of employees in Slovenian companies. In: Florjani, J. & Paape, B. W. (Eds.), Personnel and Management: Selected Topics (145-159), Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Fitz-Gibbon, C. (1995). The Value-added National Project General Report: Issues to be considered in the design of a national value added system Centre for Evaluation and Monitoring Durham University. Fletcher Campbell, F. and Hall, C. (1990). Changing schools Changing people The education of children in care. Slough: NFER. Gregg, P. and Machin, S. (1997). "Blighted lives", Centre Piece, London School of Economics: Centre of Economic Performance, 15-17. Hyman H. H. (1953). The value systems of different classes. Bendix, R. (Eds.), Class, Status and Power (426-442), Glencoe IL, Free Press. Joshi, H. and Verropoulou, G. (1999). "Maternal employment and child outcomes", Paper presented at the Equality Action Seminar, 11 Downing Street, London: Centre for Longitudinal Studies. Kiernan, K. (1992). "The impact of family disruption in childhood on transitions made in young adult life", Population Studies, 46: 213-234. Kleinman, M., West, A. and Sparkes, J. (1998). Investing in employability the role of business and government in the transition to work. London: BT/LSE. Lynd, R. S & Lynd, H.M. (1929). Middletown A study in American culture New York Harcourt, Brace & World Munn, P (1993) Parents as school board members School managers and friends*> In P Munn (Ed ), Parents and school London Routledge Murphy, J (1989) Does inequality matter - Educationally7 In F Macleod, Parents and schools The contemporary challenge London Falmer Press. Marx, K. & Engels, F. (1848). The Communist Manifesto. London. Mortimore, P. and Mortimore, J. (1983). "Education and social class", in Rogers, R. (1986), Education and social class. East Sussex: Falmer Press. Ornstein, A.C & Levine, D.U. (1985). An introduction to the foundation of education Boston Hougton Mifflin. Osbourne, A. and St Claire, L. (1987). "The ability of children who have been in care or separated from their parents", Early Child Development, 28(3): 187-354. Phelps Brown, H. (1979). The Inequality of Pay, United Kingdom. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Raffe, D., Croxford, L., Iannelli, C., Shapira, M and Howieson, C. (2006). Social-Class Inequalities in Education in England and Scotland Special CES Briefing No. 40 May Centre for Educational Sociology, University of Edinburgh. Rossides, D.W. (1990). Social stratification The American class system in comparative perspective New Jersey Prentice Hall. Warner, W.L., Havighurst, R.J., & Loeb, M.R. (1944). Who shall be educated New York: Harper & Row. Wedge, P. and Prosser, N. (1973). Born to fail, London: Arrow Books. Whitty, G., Power, S., Gamarnikow, E., Aggleton, Tyrer, P. and Youdell, D. (1999). "Health, housing and education", in Hayton, A. (ed), Tackling Disaffection and social exclusion. London: Koogan Page. Read More