Unstructured interviews allow the interviewer to build rapport with the pupils, unlike questionnaires where there is no chance to build rapport because the researcher has limited contact with the pupils. This will help the interviewer to gain more valid results when interviewing children from different subcultures. This is because the pupils will be more likely to give truthful answers when they trust the interviewer. This is especially important when interviewing pupils from anti-school subcultures, as they usually come from working class backgrounds and may be less willing to speak to the interviewer. This was shown in William Labov’s study of the language of black American pupils.
Research shows that teachers are more likely to label middle class children as 'bright and well behaved' but working class children as 'naughty and disruptive'. Following the label being attached on the child is self fulfilling prophecy, this is when the child will respond and act according to the label being placed on them, so a middle class student will act well behaved and complete the work that is set whereas the working class student will disrupt and not complete the work set and therefore not do well in exams. This shows that labeling working and middle class students affects the educational achievements because of their social class.However George H. Mead can be criticised by material/cultural deprivation. Material deprivation is when the child doesn't have the right equipment for school e.g. books, and cultural deprivation is when the children
2) Bridging the Gap between home and society’s values Parsons said at home we have an ascribed status and therefore children are treated individually and differently from adults. However at school everyone has an achieved status under the same universalistic values. Children aren’t treated differently but as a collective group, as they would be in would be in the workplace. This helps Durkheim’s “society in miniature” as school replicates and prepares children for the workplace and society. Criticism: Many of the most powerful people had an advantage getting the best jobs due to their higher social class.
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.
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.
The idea of role allocation also links with Davis and Moore’s idea of meritocracy. The idea suggests that someone who puts in lots of effort into education such as revising and getting homework done will be rewarded by gaining a good job. It also suggests that those who put minimal amounts of effort into their education will only receive the lowest jobs in society. There have been many criticisms made about the Functionalist view on education. People, such as Bowles and Gintis have made criticisms such as the theory assumes that all pupils start at the same level whereas, in reality,
At first the different social classes don’t mesh, but through the breakdown of these barriers the students discover that they have much more similarities then differences. The group soon transfers from an introverted assembly of trouble makers to an extroverted group of friends. After such a transformation the functionalist view becomes clearer, showing that the teacher is there to control the group, and the school is in place not only to teach, but maintain order and safety. The Breakfast club shows us that everyone is viewed as different but also that everyone shares many similarities, and that social classes are not barriers , but simply status's in terms of financial wealth and social variation. Although the substance of marijuana is illegal and a damaging substance it is a tool used by the students to unconsciously bring themselves together and form a friendship bond that will more than likely keep them
The teachers unknowing pass the ideas that they learned as a child onto their students, who also do not realize that it is being done to them. <br> Peggy Orenstein very effectively tackles the question "are boys and girls treated differently in school?" (Italicized paragraphs 7). She concluded from her field studies in junior high schools that the teacher sometimes treats boys and girls differently in the classroom. She also admits that boys and girls do have many differences, which cause them to behave differently.
Mansios and Anyon both agree that the higher ones social class is, the better education they receive. Mansios also provides evidence that the lower class will endure unfortunate consequences in the future because of this inequality in education. Anyon believes the students are being taught “hidden curriculum” that applies to their social class and, by assumption, their future relationships and social standings (Anyon 395). The classrooms of the executive elite may start by having control over the teachers and classroom activities in elementary school, but later on they develop control over their workplace when they are high-standing individuals (Anyon 408-410). In the classrooms of the working class, students are not welcome to share their opinions or ideas and they often resist the teacher’s continuous orders.
On the other hand, there are mixed schools that accept both sexes considering the separation between them an obstacle in the way of social development. Absolutely girls and boys should attend the non-separate schools not only for their positive effects on the students of both sexes, but also for their huge benefits on society. Students, boys and girls, should attend mixed schools in order to be privileged by their various benefits. One benefit is that the relation between the two sexes will be improved and strengthened. For instance, girls and boys will be more familiar about their differences and will