Evaluate the view that working-class underachievement is mainly the result of in-school factors.

The disparity in educational attainment between working-class pupils and their middle-class counterparts is a persistent concern within sociology. While some argue that this underachievement stems predominantly from in-school processes, others contend that external factors hold greater weight. This essay will evaluate both sides of this argument, ultimately concluding that while in-school factors undoubtedly contribute to the problem, they cannot be solely responsible for working-class underachievement.

In-school Factors

Proponents of the view that in-school factors are primarily responsible for working-class underachievement point to various sociological studies. Labelling theory, spearheaded by the work of Becker (1963), suggests that teachers often attach labels to students based on preconceived notions of their social class. Working-class students, perceived as “non-ideal pupils,” are more likely to be labelled negatively, leading to lower expectations and subsequent underperformance. This aligns with the concept of the self-fulfilling prophecy, where students internalise these labels and perform accordingly.

Further supporting this view is Douglas’ (1964) research, which found that streaming, a common practice in schools, further disadvantages working-class students. Placed in lower sets, they receive a less stimulating curriculum and lower expectations from teachers, hindering their academic progress. Ball (1981) built upon this, demonstrating how setting can lead to the formation of anti-school subcultures, particularly among working-class boys. These subcultures, characterised by resistance to school norms and values, further solidify underachievement.

Moreover, the concept of symbolic violence, coined by Bourdieu (1984), highlights how the education system, rather than being neutral, often devalues the culture and experiences of working-class students. The dominance of middle-class values and language within the curriculum can alienate working-class students, making them feel like outsiders in their own classrooms.

Out-of-school Factors

However, attributing working-class underachievement solely to in-school factors ignores a plethora of external influences. Material deprivation, as explored by Flaherty (2004), plays a significant role. Working-class families often lack the financial resources to provide their children with essential educational materials, a quiet study space, or opportunities for enriching extracurricular activities. Similarly, cultural deprivation theorists, such as Sugarman (1970), argue that working-class families may not instil the values and attitudes conducive to academic success, such as deferred gratification and ambition.

Critics also argue that labelling theory is deterministic. While labelling undoubtedly occurs, it does not predetermine a student’s trajectory. Policies like comprehensivisation and Education Action Zones aimed to reduce inequalities in opportunities, highlighting the role of wider social structures.

Additionally, research by Mortimore and Whitty (1997) suggests that inequalities in educational provision are more pronounced between schools than within them. This indicates that factors like school funding, resources, and teacher quality, which are often linked to a school's geographical location and socioeconomic intake, significantly impact student outcomes.

Interactionist Perspective

An interactionist perspective acknowledges the interplay between in-school and out-of-school factors. Willis' (1977) study of “the lads” showed how working-class boys’ resistance to school was rooted in their understanding of the limited opportunities available to them in a capitalist society. This resistance, though seemingly self-destructive, can be interpreted as a rational response to their social and economic circumstances.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while in-school factors like labelling, streaming, and the undervaluing of working-class culture undeniably contribute to the achievement gap, attributing it solely to these internal mechanisms offers an incomplete picture. Out-of-school factors, such as material deprivation, cultural capital disparities, and the influence of wider societal structures, also play a crucial role. Ultimately, tackling working-class underachievement necessitates a multifaceted approach that addresses both the internal dynamics of the education system and the broader social inequalities that continue to disadvantage working-class students.