Sign up to access the complete lesson and track your progress!
Unlock This CourseOver the last few lessons you have met many reasons why some groups achieve more than others. Now the exam wants you to judge them. For each explanation you should be able to give a strength (what makes it convincing) and a limitation (what it misses or gets wrong). You met both words in the lesson on evaluating family theories.
One idea helps you sort almost every explanation about education into two groups.
Key terms:
Material factors are easy to see and to understand. A pupil with a quiet desk, books and a laptop has real advantages over a pupil sharing a phone with limited data. Internal factors such as Willis's study of the lads and Rosenthal and Jacobson's study of labelling show how school itself can lift or hold back pupils.
Many pupils from poorer homes achieve very well, so class is not a rule. Cultural explanations can be accused of victim blaming, because they judge working-class homes by middle-class standards. Studies such as Willis's followed small groups, so they may not apply to every school.
Institutional racism, an ethnocentric curriculum and teacher expectations explain how unfair treatment can happen even when no one intends it. Linguistic factors are a clear, practical reason why a pupil sitting exams in a second language may struggle. Home and community support, such as homework clubs, show how groups can help themselves.
Some minority ethnic groups achieve very well in the same schools, so racism and the curriculum cannot be the whole story. Many bilingual pupils do very well, so language alone does not explain gaps. Ethnicity also overlaps with class and gender, which makes it hard to separate the causes.
Differential gendered socialisation and teacher expectations explain why girls and boys may behave and choose subjects differently. The laddish sub-culture explains why some boys put little effort into school. Feminist explanations help to explain why girls in some societies still have less access to education.
Not every girl or boy fits the pattern, and differences within a gender, such as by class, can be bigger than differences between girls and boys. Some feminist views stress how education disadvantages girls, yet girls outperform boys in many countries. So they say less about why some boys underachieve.
The reasons are concrete and easy to see: schools too far away, the cost of uniform and books, very large classes, and pupils with no internet. They also show that a pupil's chances depend a lot on where they are born.
Comparing whole countries hides big differences inside each country, such as between a city and a village. The reasons also overlap, so it is hard to say which matters most. Wealth is not the only factor: norms, values and cultural differences count too.
This is the big question behind the whole topic. Weighing the two sides is what earns the top marks.
Children arrive at school already different in resources, language and support. A pupil who is hungry, caring for siblings or without books starts behind, whatever the school does.
School is where grades are given. Labelling, setting and sub-cultures can change a pupil's path even when their home is supportive. Schools can also be changed by policy, which makes them a fair target for reform.
Many sociologists argue that the two interact. A pupil from a poorer home may be labelled by a teacher, join an anti-school sub-culture and then achieve less, so home and school feed each other. A strong conclusion says which you think matters more and why, but admits that the other still plays a part.
Point: Material factors help explain social class differences.
Evidence: A pupil with no quiet space or digital technology at home finds homework harder.
Evaluation: But many poorer pupils succeed, and teacher labelling inside school also matters, so material factors are only part of the answer.
Retelling every explanation instead of judging it. Giving a limitation that is just "other things matter" without saying what. Treating a whole group as the same ("all girls..."). Ending with "both are important" with no reason for your choice.
Use the same plan as for family theories: at least three arguments for, at least three against, and a conclusion. For achievement questions, a neat way to get your three-and-three is to use external factors on one side and internal factors on the other, and to link them in the conclusion.
(a) Explain three reasons why some pupils from poorer homes achieve less in school. [6 marks]
(b) Evaluate the view that home background is the main cause of differences in educational achievement. [14 marks]
(a) Any three explained: Poorer families may lack material resources such as books or a laptop (1), so homework and revision are harder (1). Pupils may need to work or care for relatives (1), which leaves less time for study (1). Teachers may label pupils from poorer homes as less able (1), and a self-fulfilling prophecy may lower their results (1).
(b) (14 marks are awarded by level for the quality of argument and judgement, not by counting points. This answer shows the structure.) For: Material factors matter, because a pupil without a quiet space or digital technology starts behind. Cultural and social factors, such as being read to and visiting museums, prepare children for school. Pupils from poorer homes who work or care for relatives have less time for study. Against: Willis's study shows an anti-school sub-culture inside school can lower effort. Rosenthal and Jacobson's study suggests teacher expectations can change results. Many poorer pupils succeed, so home background is not a rule. Conclusion: Home background is very important because pupils arrive already unequal. But school factors such as labelling decide whether that gap grows or shrinks, so the two work together. I judge home background to be the stronger cause, but only just, because schools can reduce its effect.
In a question about "the main cause", your conclusion must pick a side and give one reason, then admit what the other side adds.