Essay :Analyse the importance of poverty as an explanation of social class differences in educational achievement

Click here for a summary of recent research from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation which illustrates that many of the social class disadvantages mentioned by researchers as early as the 1950s are still prevalent nowadays.

Last edited: 09/01/2010.

• Introduction

 Sociologists have argued that social class differences in educational achievement can be explained in terms of 4 not necessarily mutually exclusive kinds of theory: IQ theory; theories emphasising social class differences in material circumstances; theories emphasising social class differences in subcultural attitudes and values; and theories emphasising the importance of within school labelling processes. Sociologists tend to be critical of IQ theory for several reasons and point out that there is good evidence to show that social class is a major determinant of educational success even independently of measured differences in IQ. I shall therefore  concentrate upon the three more sociological  approaches and in each case it may be argued that the factors which may disadvantage working class students in general are especially likely to disadvantage those working class students who experience poverty.

However before analysing the possible effects of poverty on educational achievement some preliminary investigation of the nature and extent of poverty in the UK is first necessary and for these purposes we must first distinguish between absolute and relative poverty. Absolute poverty is said to occur when individuals lack the money necessary to ensure their basis physical survival whereas relative poverty exists where individuals have insufficient money to participate fully in the life of their society. Absolute poverty is associated mainly with "Third World " countries although it is possible that pockets of absolute poverty still exist in the UK. Social theorists working with a relative definition of poverty nowadays usually define poverty to exist where individuals are receiving an income below 60% of the UK median income. On this definition approximately 13.5M  individuals [=23% of all individuals] including 2.9M children [=30% of all children] were living in relative poverty in the UK in 2007/8.[ Official government statistics quoted on the Child Poverty Action Group [CPAG] website.]

It is also necessary to assess the extent to which working class people are in general likely to experience poverty. This is no simple matter not least because of disputes around the nature and measurement of the various social classes. However using the widely used A, B, C1, C2, D and E Social Grade scheme  it was estimated in 2008 that 27%, 29% and 45% of chief income earners within the UK population were members of Social Grades AB, C1 and C2DE respectively and that within the C2DE category [which approximates to the working class] 21%, 15% and 8% of chief income earners were in categories C2, D and E respectively. Thus approximately half of working class chief income earners are skilled manual  C2 workers who would not usually experience relative poverty as officially defined above and  insofar as their children experience social class disadvantages in education these would usually derive not from relative poverty but from the nevertheless significant relative class disadvantages which they experience relative to middle and upper class children. [Social Grade data from National Readership Survey 2008 reproduced in IPSOS MORI publication by Dawn Collis.]

• Poverty, Material Circumstances and Educational Achievement

Relative poverty [and, in a limited number of cases, occasional absolute poverty] may have a significant impact on the educational achievement of the many working class students who experience it. Thus sociologists have pointed out that on average working class students experience a range of material disadvantages in comparison with middle and upper class students and that these material disadvantages are most likely to be experienced by poor working class students. The indirect effects of relative poverty on educational achievement can be shown  in data on relationships between free school meal eligibility [an approximate measure of relative poverty] and educational achievement as indicated in the following table.

% of Male and Female Pupils achieving 5 or more A*-C GCSE Grades 2003-2008 by Free School Meal [FSM] Eligibility and Non-Eligibility for Free School Meals [NFSM]

For full data on free school meal eligibility and educational achievement click here and then on Excel [excel tables] for DCFS trend data 2002-2008 .

[It has been agued that in the measurement of educational achievement too much emphasis has been given to the percentages of students attaining 5 or more A*-C GCSE passes because it is the students who gain very limited educational qualifications who are especially likely to face employment difficulties and the risk of poverty in later life. Accordingly Poverty.Org  focus especially on students who fail to achieve 5 A*-G GCSE passes and you may click here for poverty.org.uk statistics on educational achievement and scroll down to graph 3 for  free school meal eligibility and educational achievement measured in terms of achievement of 5 A*-G GCSE Grades.]

•  Important Updates:   Click here for Guardian presentation of DCFS data on GCSE Grades by free school meal eligibility, gender and ethnicity in 2009.
• Click here for BBC coverage of these data.

Adverse economic circumstances may affect the educational prospects of working class students children  and especially the educational prospects of poor working class students in the following ways.

1.      Working class babies are more likely to be born with a low birth weight and to develop more slowly in the pre-school early years of their lives.

2.      There may be fewer pre school play groups or nurseries in working class areas.

3.      The educational development of some working class children may suffer may suffer as a result of under- nourishment, sickness, tiredness and absence. In some cases they may be forced into school absence in order to look after sick siblings because mothers are in paid employment but are unable to afford to take time off work.

4.      Some working class children may live in dilapidated housing and may not have their own rooms for quiet study.

5.      Their parents may be unable to afford useful books, educational trips and personal computers.

6.      The findings of D. Finn (1984) showed that children from poor families were likely to have less time available for their studies because they were involved in child labour of various kinds. such as baby sitting, shop work, paper rounds, warehousing etc and also that working class children, especially working class girls were especially likely to be involved in housework, a factor which at the time apparently encouraged them to leave school early in the hope of raising their status within the family so as to avoid housework.

7.      However it may be necessary now to rethink these conclusions, at least to some extent. For example perhaps many 5^th and 6th formers  of all social classes  nowadays  undertake some paid work but  such work may be  more likely to interfere with the studies of working class students than of middle class students who may be able to discontinue work well before important examinations. Also, given the relative educational progress of girls in the last 20 or so years, Finn's conclusion in relation to some working class girls may require some revision.

8.      In "Origins and Destinations"[1980],  Heath, Halsey and Ridge pointed to the cost of supporting students between the ages of 16-18 when no maintenance grants were available as one of the major obstacles to equality of opportunity in Britain. At the time of writing this was considered to a problem especially for girls because it seemed probable that families who were in financial difficulties might give sons rather than daughters priority when it came to the financing of post- compulsory education. Despite the advance of educational opportunities for females, this point may still be relevant in some traditionally minded working class households. although limited education maintenance grants for 16-18 year olds have subsequently been provided and may well have encouraged more working class pupils to remain in education beyond the age of 16.

9.      Some working class parents may be able to afford a little private tuition for their children but few can afford to opt for full time private education. It has also become increasingly clear that an increasing number of richer middle and upper class parents are likely to use their economic capital to purchase houses in the catchment areas of relatively successful and popular middle and secondary schools in the State education sector thus enhancing their children's educational prospects relative to those of working class children who are more likely as a result to be taught in less successful schools. Moving to more affluent areas with more effective State schools or the choice of successful but expensive Private schools  will not be possible for them while the possible financial sacrifices associated with higher education may be especially alarming and this  may prevent talented  children from poor families from enrolling on  Higher Education courses.

In summary poorer students are more likely to have a poor a poor diet causing lack of energy, concentration difficulties and illness leading to absence from school; they may not have a quiet comfortable study room; their parents may be unable to afford books, computers, expensive school trips and private tuition; they may be forced to miss school to look after sick siblings if their parents cannot afford to take time off work ; they may be forced to take part-time jobs which reduces the time available for study. Private education will not be an option and the possible financial sacrifices associated with higher education may be especially alarming which may prevent talented children from poor families from entering Higher Education.

• Poverty, Cultural Circumstances and Educational Achievement [This section is taken almost [but not quite] verbatim from my posted essay on "Working Class Subculture and Educational Achievement".]

It has been suggested also that in the UK and other industrial countries working class students may be at a cultural disadvantage relative to middle and upper class students and   writers such as Hyman , Sugarman, Douglas, Bernstein and Willis  have  pointed to the cultural disadvantages of working class children in general which may apply in particular to poor working class children.

Hyman argued essentially that by comparison with the middle class, working class people tend to lack ambition because they feel that upward social mobility will take them away from their working class roots; they tend to be fatalistic; they are said to have a strong present time orientation and to be unwilling to defer gratification: they are seen as unwilling  make present sacrifices in order to make future gains. Sugarman supported these ideas adding that working class attitudes derived from their experience of working class manual labour with few promotion prospects and hence no reason to plan for the long term. Douglas added to this line of argument his “evidence” that middle class parents tended to take more interest in their children’s education as measured by their willingness to attend parents’ evenings. Essentially the implication of these theories was that relative working class educational underachievement could be explained by the cultural deprivation of the working class. Bernstein in turn argued that relative working class disadvantage  could be explained in terms of class differences in linguistic codes: middle class and working class people were said to operate with a  so-called elaborated code and a so-called restricted code respectively and Bernstein argued that middle class usage of  the elaborated code would confer educational advantage although Bernstein did also emphasise that these class differences in language usage did not in any way imply that one code was superior to another.

Perhaps the most controversial theory seeking to link educational underachievement with the cultural characteristics of the poor is Charles Murray's version of the underclass theory, publicised in the 1980s and 1990s . According to Murray, a mainly Black and Hispanic  underclass containing mainly ethnic minority members and consisting of about  5% of the population existed by the 1980s  in the USA and similar trends were  well advanced in the U.K. although writing in 1989 in the Sunday Times, Murray stated that an underclass was not yet firmly established in the UK and neither was this emerging underclass mainly composed of ethnic minority members.

Murray stated that not all poor individuals  are members of the underclass for some poor people are well organised and positive. However Murray claimed that in the USA the availability of overgenerous welfare benefits for single mothers encouraged the growth of illegitimate births  and welfare dependency which in turn resulted in fatalism, unwillingness to work, social disorganisation and increased involvement in often drug related criminal activity all of which resulted in the inter-generational transmission of underclass membership. If Murray's theory is accurate it would certainly help to explain in cultural terms why students from the underclass [although not those from among the more positive sections of the poor] are especially unlikely to succeed within the education system.  However as we shall see Murray's theory has also been severely criticised.

The studies of Hyman, Sugarman and Douglas soon attracted criticism but by the late 1970s Willis was still emphasising that working class culture was a key factor in explaining lack of educational success. “The Lads” in his study (12 working class, non-examination pupils in a Midlands Secondary Modern school) actively hoped to find physically demanding manual employment because of their patriarchal beliefs that this was the kind of work which, rather than skilled professional non-manual work , would confirm their manliness.  In this respect Willis was arguing that these working class boys were culturally different rather than culturally deprived. With this view of life, school could offer them little and they responded accordingly by taking an absolutely minimal interest in school, an attitude more or less supported by their parents. However, Willis also recognised that many school students were much more conventional and in some respects if he was seeking to analyse overall working class attitudes to education, it might have been better to concentrate upon the conventional majority rather than upon the rebellious few.         

From the  1970s onwards Pierre Bourdieu also rejected the concept of cultural deprivation and focussed instead upon working class cultural difference  as an explanation of relative working class educational underachievement. Using the concept of Cultural Capital he argued that although the cultures of the upper, middle and working classes may well be different, they are nevertheless equally valuable but that the upper class has the power to establish its culture as the dominant culture in society and to ensure that educational ability is assessed mainly in terms of the possession or non- possession of this dominant culture. The possession of the dominant culture is described in Bourdieu's theory as the possession of cultural capital because it is likely to guarantee access to high paid occupations for upper and possibly middle class students whereas working class pupils are disadvantaged in school and in employment because of their lack of cultural capital . The conclusion of this theory is that working class students are not culturally deprived but that they are culturally different and at a disadvantage because educational success depends upon possession of cultural capital which they do not have. [Bourdieu emphasises also that the upper and middle classes possess economic capital {i.e. wealth} and social capital {i.e. useful social connections } which similarly improve their economic prospects and contribute to the reproduction of capitalist class structures.]

It has sometimes been suggested that the meaning of cultural capital is not entirely clear although it might involve some or all of the following elements: middle and upper class parents may provide more educational play activities and hobbies* which prepare their children more effectively for school entry; they may socialise their children in ways that enable them to interact more effectively with teachers [many of whom also come from middle class backgrounds]; they may help their children to develop what are considered to be higher level linguistic skills and appropriate cultural tastes in art, music and literature; and because of their own higher educational levels they may be more able than working class parents to help with homework.

[* This could be one important factor which helps to explain the results of Professor Feinstein's research which I quoted in my essay on Working Class Subculture.]

Furthermore Bourdieu argues that upper and middle class parents also have access to economic and social capital as well as cultural capital which can be used to advance their children's educational prospects: they can afford to buy houses in the catchment areas of the most effective state schools: they can afford private education if they are dissatisfied with the state system and they can use their social contacts for example to arrange appropriate work experience placements for their children which will advance their future career prospects. Very few working class parents and even fewer poor working class parents possess these kinds of cultural, economic and social capital as is illustrated in  the recent work  Ball, Bowe and Gerwitz in which the authors make good use of   Bourdieu's concepts of cultural, economic and social capital .

Although there are obviously very significant differences among the above theories they all suggest that in various ways working class students in general may be at a cultural disadvantage relative to middle and upper class students and it does not seem unreasonable to suppose that such cultural disadvantages could apply especially within the poorer sections of the working class. However several criticims have been made of studies of Hyman, Sugarman and Douglas mentioned above and also of Murray's theory of the underclass mentioned above and their conclusions  should clearly not be accepted entirely at face value. 

Firstly, there are methodological criticisms of these studies on which these studies are based.   Hyman and Sugarman relied upon questionnaire data which may have been invalid; differences between working class and middle class attitudes may have been exaggerated and similarities underestimated; Douglas’ measure of parental interest  (attendance at parents’ evenings) is unacceptable for several reasons; Willis ‘research relied on a small number of not necessarily  representative working class students; Bourdieu's concept of cultural capital is complex and possibly vague. Also it may possibly be applicable more to success in Arts subjects than in Science subjects and Mathematics .

Secondly the theories of Hyman, Sugarman and Douglas implied that because working class pupils and their families were fatalistic, unwilling to defer gratification and had a strong present time orientation they were culturally deprived. However critics argued that when working class students and their families appear to lack ambition, they may be being realistic rather than fatalistic about their educational prospects. Their experience tells them that they are unlikely to be successful; they may fear the prospect of failure more than middle class students and their parents. Also, working class ambitions may be reduced as a result of poor school reports which demoralise them whereas  middle class parents are more likely to respond by trying to remedy the situation, for example by purchasing books and /or private tuition. Furthermore working class parents may themselves lack the education to help their children as much as they would like. : they may not be able to turn their ambitions for their children into effective help:.

Thirdly several sociologists have been critical of Murray on the grounds that he has neglected more structural explanations of poverty, that he has neglected research indicating that the culture of the poor is not significantly different from the culture of society in general. that he has neglected the fact that many people move in and out of poverty such that no permanent underclass exists and that the scaling down of welfare benefits as proposed by Murray would surely worsen the situation for the poor in the short term and in the long term despite Murray's belief in "trickle down economics.". Thus these sociologists deny that Murray has provided an accurate explanation of poverty and deny also that the relative educational underachievement of poor students can be explained mainly by their own negative fatalism.

Fourthly although many sociologists have considerable sympathy for the work of Willis and Bourdieu, Willis' study is unrepresentative of contemporary working class students because it concentrates on a very small number of non-examination Secondary modern school boys in the 1970s. These pupils' subcultural characteristics are not necessarily typical of the working class as a whole and attitudes to work may have altered because the hard physical work preferred by Willis'" lads" is no longer widely available leading most but not all working class boys to adopt different attitudes to future employment although, of course serious problems remain for working class boys who cannot adopt to the changing labour market circumstances.. Critics of Bourdieu argue that the concept of cultural capital is rather vague and that it is far from obvious that the possession of some kinds of cultural capital [such as higher level linguistic skills and willingness to engage with "high culture" are necessary to success especially at First School, Middle School and early Secondary School levels  although they  may possibly be very helpful especially in the study of the Humanities at Advanced Level and in  Higher Education. However other aspects of cultural capital involving preparation for school, inculcation of pro-school attitudes and help with homework  may well be useful at the lower educational levels.

• Poverty, The Schools and Educational Achievement

Sociologists have argued also that relative working class educational achievement can be explained partly by processes of streaming/banding/ setting  and labelling and self -fulfilling prophecies which operate in the schools themselves which may also disadvantage working class students and, in particular, poor working class students. As examples of such work we may use the studies of Hargreaves, Keddie and Ball.

Hargreaves argued that low stream pupils were denied academic status within the school and that they therefore tried to regain status among their peers by misbehaviour and unwillingness to work which led to the development of anti-school subcultures in lower streams. Additional problems arose because if students were labelled by teachers as "worthless louts" or suchlike, this would encourage more misbehaviour, more teacher criticism and subsequently more misbehaviour. Also, it was possible that "better" teachers were assigned to higher sets and that teacher preparation for lower set students because these students were seen as incapable of real progress. In general terms therefore, lower set students were labelled as failures and the system of setting created the conditions for the self-fulfilling prophecy in that by allocating students to lower streams, the teachers actually created the conditions which ensured failure.

Additional criticisms of setting, banding and streaming were made by Nell Keddie in "Classroom Knowledge" (1970) where she claimed that a supposedly undifferentiated Humanities course was delivered differently according to the sets of the students and that, for example, teachers chose not to teach the more complex, theoretical ideas to mainly working class, lower set students on the assumption that these students would not understand them. Obviously this was likely to restrict these students’ progress. Stephen Ball (Beachside Comprehensive 1980) is also critical: he presents evidence that teachers were continuing to label low band students extremely negatively as for example, "a waste of time" while the reverse was true in relation to higher band students although  he did also raise the strong possibility that even if so-called mixed ability teaching was introduced, there could still be informal setting within individual classes such that this so-called mixed ability teaching would not necessarily overcome the problem of labelling and self-fulfilling prophecies. Nevertheless in  Uncertain Masculinities {[2000] M.O'Donnell and S. Sharpe argue tentatively  and possibly over-optimistically argued that negative labelling is less common nowadays. If this is true the prospects for all working class children including poor working class children might gradually improve.

• Conclusions

It is very well known that working class students, educational achievements are on average lower than those of middle class students and sociologists explain these social class differences in educational achievement in terms of some combination of material disadvantage, cultural disadvantage and processes operative in the schools themselves such as streaming, setting, banding and negative labelling . It does seem likely also that it will be students from the poorer sections of the working class who are most likely to suffer and to achieve poorer examination results as a result of these disadvantages. However relative working class educational achievement cannot be explained solely in terms of poverty because approximately one half of working class chief income earners are skilled manual C2 workers whose children do not usually experience relative poverty as usually defined. Nevertheless the children of skilled manual workers are on average less successful in education than middle and upper class children. and this is to be explained in terms of fundamental economic and social inequalities as between C2 workers and their families and those at higher levels of the class structure. Finally in relation to educational achievement in general it is important to consider interrelationships between class, gender and ethnicity. It is true that students eligible for free school meals are on average  likely to achieve lower educational qualifications than those students who are not eligible for free school meals. However poor girls achieve higher qualifications than poor boys  and while the differences in educational achievement of white students vary greatly depending upon eligibility or ineligibility for free school meals this variation is far smaller among ethnic minority students who therefore seem to be more successful in offsetting the potentially adverse effects of poverty on educational achievement.