Docsity
Docsity

Prepare for your exams
Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity


Earn points to download
Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan


Guidelines and tips
Guidelines and tips

Education studyguide 7 External factors: cultural deprivation ..., Exams of Sociology

Cultural deprivation theory focuses on class differences in achievement within state schools. It essentially blames workingclass parents and culture for ...

Typology: Exams

2021/2022

Uploaded on 09/12/2022

zylda
zylda 🇬🇧

4.5

(13)

213 documents

1 / 4

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
Education study-guide 7
External factors: cultural deprivation theory
Cultural deprivation theory focuses on class differences in achievement within state
schools. It essentially blames working-class parents and culture for depriving
working-class children of the essential cultural skills required for success in
schools. Consequently, it suggests that working-class children do less well than their
middle-class peers because they are allegedly culturally deficient or disadvantaged
by their parents’ failure to either show an interest in their education and/or their
failure to equip their children with certain skills.
Cultural deprivation theory argues that working-class children are ‘failed’ by their
parents in three crucial cultural ways
(1) They do not teach their children to speak or think in a way that suits the
classroom.
(2) They subscribe to values that impede educational success
(3) They lack interest in their children’s education.
LANGUAGE
Bernstein (1975) argued that middle-class parents socialise their children into an
‘elaborated speech code’ which means that their children can confidently use
language that is both abstract and complex. Consequently the language use and
level of middle-class children is similar to that used by teachers and found in
textbooks and exams. In contrast, working-class parents socialise their children
into ‘restricted speech codes’ which involve less use of adverbs and adjectives and
which fail to fully convey complex meaning. As a result, working-class children
fail to fully understand teacher exposition or instruction, and are less likely to
understand information conveyed in textbooks or exams as quickly as their
middle-class peers. Bernstein suggests that this linguistic deprivation is responsible
for working-class underachievement.
WORKING-CLASS CULTURE
Some cultural deprivationists blame working-class culture for the educational
underachievement of working-class children,. Sugarman, for example, argues that
working-class culture generally sees the world as an insecure place. As a result,
working-class children are encouraged by their parents to think in terms of short-
term goals and immediate gratification or reward. They supposedly rarely think
long-term, for example, in terms of the possibility of going to university. They are
rarely encouraged to make sacrifices, for example, to work hard now in order to
achieve the long-term goal of university. Instead, they are encouraged to leave
pf3
pf4

Partial preview of the text

Download Education studyguide 7 External factors: cultural deprivation ... and more Exams Sociology in PDF only on Docsity!

Education studyguide 7

External factors: cultural deprivation theory

Cultural deprivation theory focuses on class differences in achievement within state schools. It essentially blames workingclass parents and culture for depriving workingclass children of the essential cultural skills required for success in schools. Consequently, it suggests that workingclass children do less well than their middleclass peers because they are allegedly culturally deficient or disadvantaged by their parents’ failure to either show an interest in their education and/or their failure to equip their children with certain skills. Cultural deprivation theory argues that workingclass children are ‘failed’ by their parents in three crucial cultural ways (1) They do not teach their children to speak or think in a way that suits the classroom. (2) They subscribe to values that impede educational success (3) They lack interest in their children’s education. LANGUAGE Bernstein (1975) argued that middleclass parents socialise their children into an ‘elaborated speech code’ which means that their children can confidently use language that is both abstract and complex. Consequently the language use and level of middleclass children is similar to that used by teachers and found in textbooks and exams. In contrast, workingclass parents socialise their children into ‘restricted speech codes’ which involve less use of adverbs and adjectives and which fail to fully convey complex meaning. As a result, workingclass children fail to fully understand teacher exposition or instruction, and are less likely to understand information conveyed in textbooks or exams as quickly as their middleclass peers. Bernstein suggests that this linguistic deprivation is responsible for workingclass underachievement. WORKINGCLASS CULTURE Some cultural deprivationists blame workingclass culture for the educational underachievement of workingclass children,. Sugarman, for example, argues that workingclass culture generally sees the world as an insecure place. As a result, workingclass children are encouraged by their parents to think in terms of short term goals and immediate gratification or reward. They supposedly rarely think longterm, for example, in terms of the possibility of going to university. They are rarely encouraged to make sacrifices, for example, to work hard now in order to achieve the longterm goal of university. Instead, they are encouraged to leave

school, to get a job and to start earning. Sugarman argues that consequently middle class values stress the future, and highlight aspiration, ambition, longterm planning and the need to sacrifice immediate pleasure in return for rewards years down the line. In contrast, he argues that workingclass values are all about short term rewards and that consequently workingclass children are reluctant to make such sacrifices and less willing to forego gratification now for future rewards. PARENTAL ATTITUDES Douglas (1964) claimed that workingclass parents are less interested in their children’s education and consequently less willing to invest time or money. Consequently Douglas argues that workingclass children are poorly motivated and less ambitious than their middleclass peers whose parents take a more active interest in their children’s education and who are often heavily involved in ParentTeacher associations. Douglas measured parental interest by counting the number of times parents turned up for school parents’ evenings. Feinstein, forty years later in 2008 argued that middleclass parents are more child centred than workingclass parents. This was reflected in greater personal investment in their children. For example, middleclass parents often  Sought guidance with child rearing  Spent more time in onetoone interaction with their children  Regularly helped their children with their homework.  Set high standards of discipline.  Have high expectations of their children.  Praise their children for achievement.  Take their children to museums and art galleries.  Encourage their children to join libraries and clubs.  Invest in educational toys, books, computers, private tuition and study aids.

Evaluating cultural deprivation theory

Some sociologists argue that the academic underachievement of workingclass children is the product of material deprivation or poverty rather than cultural deficiency. Material deprivationist theory is critical of cultural deprivation theory because

  1. It stereotypes all workingclass parents as inadequate.
  2. It is ethnocentric – it heavily implies that middleclass parental culture is superior to workingclass culture. It may be that workingclass culture is merely different to rather than inferior to middleclass culture.

 Nearly fourfifths of middleclass university students receive financial support from their parents compared with only twofifths of workingclass university students.  Callender and Jackson (2005) found that many bright workingclass teenagers do not apply to university because of fear of debt.  Forsyth and Furlong (2000) used both quantitative and qualitative research methods to investigate class differences in application to university. About 500 students from a state secondary school completed a questionnaire and a followup postal questionnaire nine months later. 41 unstructured interviews were carried out with students identified as coming from poor backgrounds. Postal questionnaires were also sent to parents. Forsyth and Furlong concluded that workingclass students experienced a number of barriers to higher education. These included a lack of familiarity with HE (which meant that they often enrolled on inappropriate courses), a lack of funds (which limited their choice of university and their length of time in HE), a fear of debt (which deterred some of them from applying) and a fear of cultural isolation (which lowered their morale and commitment to higher education). Forsyth and Furlong found that workingclass students were wary of ‘elite’ universities because they feared they would not fit in.