Using material from Item A and elsewhere, assess the

view that working-class underachievement in

education is the result of home circumstances and
family background
AS Sociology Essay

Douglas is one sociologist in particular who would tend to agree with the generalisation that working-
class underachievement in education is the result of home circumstances and family background. Douglas
feels that this educational underachievement is maintained due to what he classifies as 'poor' parental
attitudes and encouragement towards the education system and its functions. He use's evidence of poor
parental interest with regards to lack of attendance at parent teacher meetings and other functions held by
the school which would be in the best interests of the children if their parents attended. He highlights the
fact that parents of working-class students have poor rates of attendance at these meetings and thus it
comes across as if they are less interested in their child's educational experiences and opportunities
compared to a middle-class child's parents who do attend. However some would say that Douglas' view is
rather controversial in that he fails to recognise that many of these parents could be at work when these
meetings are scheduled or perhaps they are looking after children and are unable to find or afford
someone to look after them. So can we really say that working class underachievement is a result of home
circumstances and family background as sociologists such as Douglas suggest?

Newson and Newson would also agree with the statement that working-class underachievement in
education is the result of home circumstances and family background. Through their study of child-
rearing practices, they found that parental skills found within working-class families were poor in
comparison with those that were evident within middle-class families were child-centeredness is apparent.
They found that middle-class parents got more involved in learning through play, monitoring educational
progress and encouragement through visits to the library, museums and galleries etc. They believe that
this places middle-class kids at an advantage when it comes around the time for them to start school.
Again it is possible to say that it may well perhaps be down to the fact that money may be restricting them
from attending museums etc not the fact that they simply don't care as much as middle-class parents as
some sociologists appear to highlight.

Murray and Marsland would also agree with this broad statement. They also like Douglas, Newson and
Newson pinpoint parents and the quality of home life to blame for working-class underachievement
within the education system. Murray and Marsland argue that the so called 'underclass' is made up of
parents who are afraid of work, are more of ten than not welfare dependant and according to them they
are 'inadequate' in terms of transmitting positive values and norms to their children during the process of
primary socialisation regarding education and the opportunities it may offer them in the future. Murray
and Marsland can be criticised for making very general assumptions regarding working-class families and
how they operate with regards to the education system. They fail to acknowledge that many parents from
working-class families do work and moreover have high levels of double jobs in order to be able to
support their family. Many of them are also not welfare dependant and either work or take care of the
children at home. So is it fair to say for Murray and Marsland to say that they are inadequately preparing
children for education? Many of them actually encourage their children to work at school as they are
aware of the opportunities it will open for them and inform them on what they have previously missed out
on. So is it really fair to make comparisons to middle-class families who find it easier to provide these
educational resources and then blame working-class families because they find it difficult to live up to
middle-class standards?

The feminist sociologist Melanie Philips would also agree with this statement. She states that modern
family life in Britain is characterised by a rapidly increasing number of broken families in which effective
socialisation has been disrupted and disordered. She is in the opinion that inadequate parenting among
one parent, reconstituted families and cohabiting couples. She points out that working-class families have
high levels of these broken families and thus their underachievement is caused by the family disruption
and disorder. While Philips makes a valid point she fails to take into consideration the fact that many
children strive and work hard at school despite being part of these family structures. So is it correct to say
that working-class underachievement is caused by home circumstances and family background?

Bernstein focuses on the concept of cultural deprivation and how this has been an influential factor on
educational achievement. Bernstein points out that working-class children are linguistically deprived due
to the fact that they use a restricted code in contrast to middle-class children who use a more elaborated
one. He feels that this places them at an advantage as they are able to meet the demands of what teachers
and examinations ask of them as they understand what is being requested. Working-class students on the
other hand find this difficult as they have been brought up with linguistic deprivation. As a result they
find school and the tasks demanded a tricky concept to grasp. While Bernstein would generally agree that
factors such as home-life and background contribute to underachievement among the working-class he
has been criticised for his theory. Labov suggests that middle-class language codes are over rated and
Bernstein offers little concrete evidence to back up his claims. Furthermore many working-class kids still
succeed in the education system and this would suggest that it is not home circumstances and family
background which dictates educational achievement.

Bourdieu and Passeron suggest that working-class students do not come equipped to school with what
they highlight as the 'right' cultural capital in contrast to middle-class students and the more powerful and
dominant classes in society today and thus are not fully prepared for educational success. They suggest
middle-class students are an example of the closest to the correct cultural capital and working class kids
are furthest away from having the correct cultural capital. They see middle-class students as having the
correct cultural capital as teachers are of the same social class as them and so share the same level of
cultural capital and thus are more able to relate to middle-class pupils. It is possible that this stereotype is
a part to play in working-class pupil's underachievement as teachers are not giving them the correct
attention required in order to achieve academically.

Sullivan backs up Bourdieu and Passeron in their idea that middle-class students have the correct cultural
capital. She handed out 465 questionnaires in four different schools and asked questions such as what do
you read, what music do you listen to etc and found that it was students who had parents with degrees
were more successful in G.C.S.E's and thus pinpoints working-class families lack of cultural capital as of
factor of their educational underachievement.

Some sociologists highlight that working-class families have a high level of material deprivation and thus
are unable to afford learning materials and resources for their children and they ultimately do poorly in
formal examinations and all aspects of school. Wedge and Prosser state that working-class children feel
excluded from the education system because of economic deprivation. Lack of quiet place to study,
healthy diet etc contribute to absenteeism and results in them underachieving. Halsey also points out that
money becomes a barrier for working-class students from continuing in education despite having similar
intelligence to middle-class children. If this is the case then we are nearly inclined to feel that home
circumstances and family background is a reason for working-class underachievement.

In consideration of the points outlined I feel that while cultural capital, cultural deprivation and material
deprivation have contributed to educational underachievement they are not the only reasons why
working-class students are doing poorly in school. Internal factors which interactionists point out such as
streaming, labelling, self-fulfilling prophecy and deciding what constitutes as the 'ideal pupil' have all
greatly hindered how working-class students perceive school and how they act as a result. While indeed
students may witness domestic violence or be a victim of child abuse within a working-class home or
have lack of money or material this may not necessarily be the case for all working-class children. They
may find the negative stereotypical nature of school and the view the teacher places upon them as greatly
affecting their academic performance and thus they do poorly in school and are classified as
underachieving. I personally feel that such factors which occur internally in schools are as much to blame
for working-class underachievement as home circumstances and family life. These internal factors can
have a profound affect on students and their educational achievement rather their home situations.