They are able to manipulate the education system to their advantage which means their children have a better chance at doing well in school. Disconnected-local choosers and semi-skilled choosers are working-class parents who have a lack of cultural capital and therefore their child’s academic progress suffers as they are usually sent to ‘local’ schools which they aren’t necessarily best suited for. Children who have cultural capital also have an elaborated code (wider vocabulary) which gives them an advantage at school as it is the code used by teachers and in textbooks. The elaborated code is typically used by middle class and helps with their academic achievement. Children with a lack of cultural capital are more likely to use the restricted code (limited vocabulary) which disadvantages them at school as they feel excluded and are therefore less successful.
Pygmalion effect is positive. Especially for the immigrant students, their good or bad performances mostly rely on the teacher’s behaviors because they lack of confidents. Tracking can be both positive and negative to students. If the students are divided in the honor group, they will try their best to maintain that good performances, same as Pygmalion effect. Conversely, if the students are divided in the weak group, they may consider themselves as the poor students according to the Looking-Glass Self theory.
Aaron Cicourel and John Kitsuse’s study of educational counsellors in an American High school shows how labelling can disadvantage working-class students and it states in item A that ‘they were negatively labelled as non-academic and often as ‘difficult’’. This is because counsellors play an important role in deciding which students will get onto courses that prepare them for higher education. They found from their study that although they claimed to judge them on their ability, in practice they mainly judged them on the basis of their social class and/or race. Even where students had similar grades, counsellors were more likely to label middle-class
Middle-class mothers are more likely to have more of an interest in their child’s intellectual development. Bernstein identified two forms of speech pattern, the restricted code and elaborated code. According to Bernstein, most middle-class children have been socialised into both the restricted code and the elaborated code, working-class pupils are placed at a distinct disadvantage. They are less likely to understand what teachers say and are more likely to be misunderstood and criticised for what they themselves say. Bernstein’s early work comes close with being a ‘cultural deficit’ model.
People are socialised to pursue success, its idealised by the media, emphasised in schools and encouraged by the government. The value of success is passed on from generation to generation, therefore, the pressure to obtain these objectives by honest means have lost its value. Its this imbalance between goals and means that bring about anomie. Crimes as a lower-class phenomenon. Given his view on the goals and means, he went on to explain why there is a higher concentration of crime in the lower class:.
Using material from Item A and elsewhere, asses the view that factors and processes within the school are the main cause of differences in the educational achievement of different social groups. Class differences can play a significant role in educational achievement be it under or over-achievement. Underachievement is associated with working-class children, as when they are young they are identified as W/C and then labelled. This view was put forward by Becker (1971) who identified in his study that teachers did not view W/C children as ideal pupils. Their work, appearance and conduct were all factors the teachers based their label around.
The cultural capital that is acquired from birth can be used in the structuralised education system and it is seen in these institutes that the more cultural capital that is accumulated will create better achievements and outcomes for them later in life (Bowles and Jensen 2001). Children from the dominate(upper) class are seen to be at more of an advantaged in schools than the children coming from low socio-economical backgrounds, as they are exposed to an elite culture at home(Tzanakis 2011). With this brings in to question whether education does promote social change and give opportunities to the less privileged or does the education institutes tend to keep in place existing social separation and maintain the disadvantages relating to certain people? The education system can promote social change by initiating a change in outlook and attitude (sociology guide 2011) for example if a child was growing up in a household that believed that an education is not important, as there is government benefits that are in place to support the unemployed, may begin to change their outlook on education and their attitude towards the government
The hidden curriculum plays a major role here. Those educated in private schools for example, are immersed in multiple cultural signals which display a higher social position. In these schools, things like trips, school crests or the sports played (like Rugby and Polo) have an impact on social class. Just being in this environment will influence social class identity. The formal curriculum plays a major role in this too, with those who are taught Latin or Classics will have a different understanding of the world and society than those who are taught subjects lower in cultural capital, like vocational courses such as Health and Social Care.
These kinds of school help to shape their views so that they quickly pick up upper class like interests. Then the same is done for their children. This creates a pattern of people who have a upper class social identity simply due to the fact that they were born into that class. Alternatively, people parts of the underclass are likely to do poorly in their education it is quite probable that they will drop out of school straight after their GCSE’s. This is due to reality that this class usually consist of the long-term unemployed, single parents, drug addicts and immoral people.
It argues that it is this one social class which influences the teaching, learnings and assessments within the educational system. This leads to middle class students who already have this cultural capital having an advantage over working class students who do not have it (Tait, 2013). Within the educational system, students are inherently treated equally (that is, same rules, same expectations, same assessment). However within the cultural capital theory this can lead to the success of those students within the upper middle call of society and the failure of those who are not. It is understood that cultural inheritance is based on class position and it is transferred into educational differences (Tramote and Willms, 2010).