Wealthier people have their children attend “better” schools. These schools are “better” because there are more funding for the school to use on educational purposes. They can have better equipments in the classroom and hire better qualify teachers. In Mike Rose’s essay “I Just Wanna Be Average”, the author described the educational experiences of a student at a middle class school in Los Angeles. Base on Rose’s essay and my personal experience, I believe Anyon’s claim about school’s socio-economic class determines the type of instruction students receive is wrong.
Agree with the question Paragraph 2 On one hand sociologists would agree that a pupil’s home situation is more important than the type of school they attend. Parents who get involved in the students education by showing an interest and helping with homework are more likely to encourage a child to do well at school. Parental influence can affect someone’s educational achievement as if a student’s parent hated school as a child and didn’t get the grades they needed, it can cause the student to act the same. On the other hand it could cause them to progress better in school as they will want to achieve more than their parents Marxists believe students who come from a working class background tend to do worse than students who come from a high class background; this could be because of material deprivation. This is a big influence on student’s educational achievement as they do not have enough money to buy the necessary equipment for school such as revision guides.
The educational maintenance allowance gave payments to students from low-income backgrounds to encourage them to stay in education after 16 to gain better qualifications. This was because after completing their GCSEs working class pupils went straight to work as they were unable to afford their parents rent, bills etc. Bonuses were given to those who achieved good results however, this was means tested and so, the amount of money children had received was hugely dependant on
There is also the need for training and the interviewer needs to have a background into education increasing the cost. As a result a small sample will be studied in comparison to other methods like questionnaires. This means that it will not be representative so cannot be generalised to different pupil subcultures. Willis’ qualitative methods enable him to find out about working class pupils resisting attempts to indoctrinate them in school. Theses ‘lads’ formed a counter school subculture that was opposed to school and showed this by flouting school rules for example truanting.
The editor says in a critical tone that “we buy our children an education based on what we can afford, and what we aspire for them to be.” By using the inclusive language “we”, it invites the parents to share the same opinion of the editor. It also creates a sense of guilt among her readers and makes the readers take pity on those who are not able to afford good education due it being “class-based”. By using the appeals of negative connotation, the word “buy” for education make the readers think that the current situation is ludicrous. Education should be provided for everyone no matter who rich or poor the family
Many people would think that those who do better in their GCSE’s are simply the ones who are more intelligent. But why are some students more intelligent than others? One of the major factors that influence a person’s attainment and progress throughout their education may be the wealth of their family. Take an upper class or middle class family, for example. How does money affect a person’s intelligence?
As well as the professors, the parents are a huge success in the children’s success in an institution. According to Rachel Williams, writer of “Middle-class Children Do Better at School Because Of Parents,” claims middle-class pupils do better because parents and schools put more effort into their education; thus children from poorer backgrounds were not predisposed to work less hard, but parents’ attitudes were most important, making more of a difference than schools
Sociologists like Cultural deprivation theorists would agree with this statement.They believe that parental interests and attitudes to education influence working class childrens' attainment levels, this can be positive or negative influence.They would argue that children look upon their parents as role models, .When they see their parents act in a negative way regarding rules, school and work, they often follow in their footsteps. This could result in the children developing an Anti-School subculture. Studies do show that the working class do considerably worse than the middle class, in many aspects of education. Children in the middle class are more likely to struggle in school, more likely to underachieve at GCSE level and more likely to be expelled and excluded than middle class students. Cultural deprivation theorists would blame this on the lack of parental guidence and encouragment to succeed in education.
In the US we have taken progressive steps and set goals to eliminate gender, race, and economic gaps as much as possible, but I find No Child Left Behind contradictory to the goal. Statistically (Krieg, 2011) schools that have a majority of low-income and minority students tend to score much lower on standardized tests. The government receives these scores and makes them public and unintentionally punishes these low-performing schools by shining an unforgiving spotlight on
Bourdieu shows how both factors link together to produce class inequalities in achievement using the cultural capital theory. The argument is that middle class pupils are more successful than working class pupils because their parents possess more ‘capital’. This capital comes in two forms i.e. wealth and values. The middle class use their greater economic capital to provide their children with an advantage, thus reproducing the advantages of the middle class from generation to generation and so there will always be a significant difference in educational achievement, with middle class children exceeding working class children with regard to educational achievement.