Where Should We Look to Find the Causes of Educational Inequalities?

Where should we look to find the causes of educational inequalities?
Introduction

In this essay, I will be attempting to explain where I believe the causes of educational inequality lie. I will be focusing on 3 of the reasons that I believe there are such deep rooted inequalities in the education system. I believe that gender, ethnicity and class have the biggest impact on inequality in education. These are the issues which I will be discussing. The statistics are daunting, as Asthana, A (2010) states: boys are falling behind girls in 11 out of 13 learning categories by the age of five and Caribbean pupils are three times more likely to be excluded than any other ethnic group. I have chosen to focus on gender, ethnicity and social class in my essay, though these are by no means the only problems within the education system. I will start by discussing gender and educational inequality.

Gender inequalities in education - The impact on child attainment Women have always been allowed formal education, though formal education for all children has only been an ideal since about the mid-19th century.
There were always a large proportion of people of both sexes who could not read or write, and many for whom formal education never went beyond basic reading and writing and simple arithmetic. Practical skills were more important for most people. Girls in ancient Greece and Rome for example, were educated, it was normal for women to be able to read and write, though most would not have had the same degree of education as boys. For girls, learning the practical skills to run a household would have been the most important part of their education. But some women did manage to make their mark as writers; Sappho 's poetry was admired more than any other poet in ancient Greece except for Homer.

Girls were often educated at home, though in medieval times for instance there were schools that educated children of both sexes. And upper-class girls sometimes went as boarders to nunneries. Among the upper classes it was commonplace for girls to be more literate than boys, because reading and writing were usually regarded as effeminate pursuits, a boy 's proper occupation was warfare. Grammar schools were normally only for boys, and in England, universities were open only to male students, though the proportion of boys who went there was tiny compared to the number who go today.

Education for girls was of a fairly low standard during the 17th and 18th centuries, but from the early 19th century in America, and the mid-19th century in the UK, it was increasingly the case that all children were expected to attend school. Although boys and girls went to the same schools, they were not in the same classes and certainly were not taught the same subjects. Girls learnt subjects such as embroidery, needlework, music and writing as it was thought more important for them to study ‘accomplishments’ rather than academic subjects. Although a lot has changed regarding the differences between boys’ and girls’ education, there are still some issues that concerns us; the gender gap for example. The gender gap is the difference in attainment with boys and girls. In recent years, there has been a lot of worrying about the growing gap in attainment between boys and girls. By the age of 5, 53% of boys had reached the expected writing level compared with 72% of girls. They then underachieve at GCSE and not as many go on to university. Even once there, they are less likely to achieve a 2:1 or a first (Asthana, A 2010). Some contribute boys’ lower attainment to the changing notions of masculinity and differing attitudes to schoolwork. As Renold, E (2001) stated, many boys learnt the hard way early in their school careers that studiousness and academic success conflict with conventional forms of hegemonic masculinity. Renold (2001) then goes on to argue that as a result of the contradictory masculinities produced by the school, the boys invented an array of strategies and techniques to avoid what were perceived as ‘non-masculine’/ or ‘feminine’ classroom behaviours and to disguise both their desire for and the achievement of, academic success. As Connell (1996, cited in Renold, E 2001) claims, when he discusses ‘gender strategies for schools’, existing patterns of gender relation can only be altered or changed by paying close attention to the ‘dynamics of masculinity’, especially the means by which alternative masculinities are construed (peer support/ collectivity) and resisted (gender and sexualised bullying).
Another issue is, of course the same sex school debate. I believe that Co-educational schools are better for children as it teaches them things that are not on the curriculum. It teaches kids maturity with members of the opposite sex. We can logically conclude that members from a coeducational school are generally more understanding of their opposing sex than those who are in a single-sex school. This doesn’t apply to students who have no siblings or are in relationships. It applies to the vast majority of students with any form of schooling. A sibling only has one personality, a girlfriend or a boyfriend only possess one personality. One must be able to understand and cope with members with different personality types to be counted as mature. Also, in a co-ed school, pupils form more diverse relationships. More diverse friendship types would supposedly lead to a bigger and better social life, which is important to have for school students as they progress in life. The logic behind this reasoning is that once you are in the working force, you must be able to deal with anyone that you work with, work for and assign work to. In the real world, we are not separated from the opposite sex so why are we separated in schools?

Ethnicity and Inequality in education

Ethnicity and inequality of education has always been, in my opinion, a delicate subject. There’s always the possibility of appearing racist or as though discriminating in some way.
Rob Meyers (1994) when talking of educational inequality states; “with the passing of slavery, equality of education was one of the rights formerly held back that was now for Black people to take advantage of. With this equal starting ground, social integration would be a realizable dream. Yet after over 120 years, equality of education had been denied to Black children, thus preventing them from the amount of financial success white children have in life after school. Through "benign neglect" and the goal of some to find a genetic link to race and intelligence, Black students have been railroaded into low end jobs and inescapable poverty.
As Bowles and Gintis have stated, the purpose of education is to preserve the existing class structure. Since the abolition of slavery, racist whites have used the educational system to keep their thrones and to keep blacks poor. Ideas of minority inferiority are spread, and the misinformed fall into the trap of believing that race determines intelligence, using skewed test data to help support their ideas.”
Although I’m sure Meyers work has some implications of truth, I don’t believe that this is all about racism and it certainly isn’t all about black children. There are ethnic minorities from all over the globe who experience educational inequality and discrimination. For example, while some ethnicities like Caribbean boys receive negative discrimination I.e. teachers thinking that they won’t perform to as high a standard as the other children, thus creating a self-fulfilling prophecy, other ethnicities such as Chinese girls receive positive discrimination; teachers thinking that they will be able to perform naturally higher than other students for example, thus putting added stress and pressure on the students. Though one could argue that the fact Asian girls excel is not due to positive discrimination but because their families, friends and societies value hard work, discipline and educational achievement. It is however, very important to maintain high expectations for all students, no matter the race, social background or ability.
In the UK, there is evidence that points toward black Caribbean pupils being excessively moved into for lower tier maths and science exams at age 14. Strand (in press, cited in Twining 2012) has shown that black Caribbean students are the only ethnic group to be regularly under represented, relative to white students in entry to higher maths and science test tiers. Furthermore, this under-representation is not a by-product of their lower prior attainment; nor of variances in gender, social class, and a wide range of contextual variables. Strand concludes it is possible that teachers’ conclusions of black Caribbean students’ academic possibility may be distorted by observations of their behaviour as more challenging than it actually is. This may, in turn, lead to a inclination to miscalculate their academic capability (Twining 2012).
While black Caribbean children (especially the males) have been consistently labelled as being the underachievers in secondary level education, research has shown that white working class males actually make up around half of the number of low achieving school leavers (Kingdom and Cassen, 2007; Cassen and Kingdom 2007, cited in Twining, 2012).
As Asthana (2010) convincingly states, “Once it was a story of black and white, in which racial discrimination was a major driving force. But in tomorrow 's report, the story of ethnicity is a complicated one – in which poor black boys underachieve, as do those from Irish Traveller families, but poor Chinese girls overachieve; Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities see different outcomes to Indian ones; and there is a growing group of mixed race children who in themselves have complex outcomes.”
Other issues students from other cultures face is the need to conform to British culture. I believe that the classroom would be a more efficient place to learn if students were allowed to incorporate knowledge from their cultures into it. Or perhaps teachers should be trained to understand other cultures and to try to teach students by referring to things they may have learnt in their communities.
Social class and its impact on Education As a Schools Inquiry Report (Taunton Commissioner, 1886, cited from Tomlinson, S, 2005) put it, ‘The different classes of society, the different occupations, require different teaching’. As Tomlinson (2005) argued, This went on to become “‘public’ schools for the aristocracy and upper classes, minor public school and a hierarchy of grammars for the middle classes school and an elementary education for the masses”. According to the 1886 report, there were ‘a great body of professional men who have nothing but education to keep their sons on a high social level’ (Taunton Commission 1886). Tomlinson argued further that despite the shift in post-war Britain towards egalitarian ideals and opportunities for previously marginalised groups (i.e. women, manual workers, ethnic minorities and disabled people), the ‘ hereditary curse of English education’ (Tawney, 1931, as cited in Tomlinson 2005) continued to affect educational policies and outcomes. The governments continued to encourage more and more people to participate in the competitive attempt to improve their human capital potential by procuring more qualifications but still large numbers were excluded from entering the competition on equal terms, and the class structure was proving astonishing rigid (Tomlinson, 2005). Since Thatcher’s first government in the 80s, educational policies have favoured the middle classes, both deliberately and by default. During her speech on the 26th of July 2005 at the institute for Public Policy Research entitled ‘Education and social classes, Ruth Kelly, the Secretary of State for Education, whilst rarely mentioning social class, and never the working classes, her speech was replete with connotations of class. She argued for a society where ‘ability flows to the top irrespective of an individual’s background’ and expressed her concerns about ‘the attainment gap between pupils from affluent and deprived backgrounds’. (Reay, D, 2006) As Bennett (2005, cited from Reay, 2006) (a Times reporter) conveyed on the day, “The education gap between rich and poor children has grown. Billions of pounds of investment in primary schools [have] failed to close the achievement gap between children from rich and poor families. … While the gap between the best and the worst primary school has narrowed, the gap between children from deprived backgrounds and those from more affluent families has actually widened in the past six years.” Altering the structures of Social Class During the 1990s, both the conservative Prime minister Major and the new labour leader Blair claimed that their goal was a classless society. Nevertheless, disparities of wealth and income, and educational imbalances persevere. Ideologies of equality of opportunity however, along with the changing of the occupational structures and the reality of state funded education, helped to facilitate social mobility in the 20th century, especially in the 1960s. This came to be mainly because an increasing number of children in comprehensive schools were being entered for public examinations. It was because of this success (among other things) that higher education was able to expand to become what it is today. There were changes in the economy which resulted in more social mobility as the amount of unskilled jobs was progressively reduced, predominantly in manufacturing. (Tomlinson 2005) According to Gould (1998, as cited in Tomlinson 2005) by the mid-1990s, references to the working class had cleanly been erased from the political dictionary and the vocabulary because the politicians aimed their policies at the more popular middle ground. The traditional manual working class had been redefined, in much the same way the Democratic Party strategies in the USA, as the ‘working middle class’. Accusatorial Marxist notions of class, working class consciousness and class struggle had fundamentally died out by the 1990s even though the hierarchical 3 layered model of the upper class, middle class and the working class remained the way the majority of people conceptualised their societies. (Tomlinson 2005) The mounting success of the of state funded education through educational expansion and rising levels qualifications had guaranteed entry to numerous middle class clusters, distinguished through the growing levels of employment in the ever expanding public sector. Attitudes to education in the upper, middle and working classes changed as more and more people comprehended the significance of educational qualifications to acquire and preserve any job. The structure of the United Kingdom in the early 21st century was full of diverse and expanded middle class and aspirant classes. As stated by Tomlinson (2005), the political reality was that the government depended on these groups for their votes, and so they were catered for by the educational policies put in place ever since the 1980s which created and recreated social segregation on a day to day basis. Although some strategies were developed, governments were very mindful of the fact that any policies which threatened middle class middle class benefits, threatened their electoral advantage. The social theorist Ferrara (1997, cited in Tomlinson, 2005) feared that modern societies would degenerate further into exclusive territories and ‘malignant forms of anomie’. Our society, still divided along class lines, in which education had converted into a competitive battleground, is in consensus with Ferrara’s ‘malignant forms of anomie’ theory. Those identical educational policies which seek to exclude potential competitors, and shield and prolong privileges for some affluent groups, are “always more likely to support division and inequities than any form of common good” (Tomlinson, 2005). Meritocracy Tomlinson (2005) rightfully argued that the educational reform had little to no effectiveness whilst trying to reduce the many advantages to middle class kids but it persists that their educational achievements have remained tirelessly higher than with students from lower social economic groups. Research continued to determine the ways in which educational advantage and disadvantage were created and reproduced. Politicians however, continued to cross examine and deplore the achievements of the lower classes. The DfES and HM Treasury (2003) commissioned a paper on social economic dissimilarities in educational attainment which, yet again fixated on the supposed deficiencies within families - especially poor parenting. It was ambiguous as to whether or not low income led to low achievement (Hobbs, 2003, cited in Tomlinson 2005). Although participation of young people from the working and under class backgrounds in higher education has risen, they are still unrepresented (Social Trends 30, 2000, cited in Tomlinson). In spite of the hard work put in by both the government and the higher education funding council for England (HEFCE) to broaden that participation (Goddard, cited in Tomlinson 2005) class inequality (and the new conservative government) has ensured that this will not happen by changing higher education policies, particularly the payment of higher fees. As if to rub salt in the wound, so to speak, the greater accomplishments from those in advanced social groups were consistently rationalized by the myth of meritocracy – the claim that superior rewards are deserved because they reflect superior achievements (Tomlinson 2005). In the 1990s, the realities of social class and education went unnoticed by governments which clutched at school efficiency research, which on the surface reinforced the political message that ‘poverty is no excuse’ for schools in underprivileged areas obtaining low exam results to create a blame and shame culture, surely hoping this would humiliate them into bettering their school systems. Smith and Tomlinson, after publication of their 5 year longitudinal study of multi-ethnic comprehensive schools in 1989, were apprehensive to find their research eventually quoted in support of the ‘poverty is no excuse’ slogan (Smith and Tomlinson 1989). In March 2000, the secretary of state ‘blamed’ 530 secondary schools with low GCSE pass grades (a majority of these schools used to be secondary modern schools attended by poor pupils) claiming that school effectiveness research showed other schools with pupils in poverty performing better. The governments in the 1980s assumed that schools could be manipulated as technical systems (Lingard et al. 1998, cited in Tomlinson, 2005) to make a difference to performance levels, with each individual being responsible for his or her own attainment and schools being held responsible for their failure to reach targets. Things aren’t always this simple however as school effectiveness played down the huge impact that social and economic disadvantages have on learning or on one’s ability to learn. Evasion of vocational education According to Tomlinson (2005) the academic – vocational divide in Britain continued to be identical with the class divide into the 21st century with “policy makers, politicians and professionals continuing to find reasons to legitimise the separation of some young people into high status education and others into lower status courses. … The ideological belief persisted that only a minority of students were capable of students were capable of abstract thinking, a minority in technical ideas and a majority in practical activities.” Robert Reich, a former US Secretary of Labour, who was disturbed that around one fifth of the US population was able to command wealth through the value that the global economy placed on their skills and qualifications, concluded that the temptation for the fortunate few was not only to exclude others, but also to exclude themselves, withdrawing into their own schools, housing enclaves, health care and transport (Reich 1991, cited in Tomlinson 2005). Middle class parents can effortlessly move around the country to get to the finest schools for their children - and away from the worst ones whereas working class parents would find it problematic and tremendously unmanageable to do something like this. “The poor academic performance of schools in poor neighbourhoods does have a deterrent effect on potential residents. It leads to families with high aspirations moving away.” – Power and Mumford (1999, cited in Tomlinson 2005). Conclusion

I believe that there are potentially hundreds of issues surrounding inequality of education. I believe that it’s not what we are teaching or even why we are teaching but who we are teaching and what we expect them to take from the lesson they have been taught. From the age of 4 / 5 children are treated as if they are all the same, hence they are taught that way. Nonetheless, they are not all the same. They are girls, boys, men and women; they are middle class / working class; they are from very diverse ethnic backgrounds, and not all are raised the same, nor to behave a certain way. They also have different backgrounds, and differing amounts of money.
However none of these things mean that the children cannot learn, as being able to retain and absorb information is as much a part of us as is eating or sleeping. The issue here is in insisting that all children learn the same way. Not all children can learn whilst being made to sit still for hours, particularly young boys who are generally told off for these kinds of behaviours which are viewed as problematic and a nuisance.
Another problem is the way in which the government decides when a child has learnt enough to be able to move on to the next year. Written tests have been the status quo for centuries now but still not all children can adjust to them, especially the younger ones who have just come from a place where they had ‘nap time’ and drew finger paintings (nursery school / reception) etc.
Learning in this way and testing the knowledge gained in this way is very much at odds with multi-cultural country that England is. This country has got citizens from all over the world, Japan, Africa, Poland (etc.) and it is difficult enough to have to adjust to the language, the society, the way in which the country works but then to have to adjust to the educational system is also somewhat challenging. Having said this, I believe that one of the root causes of educational inequality is examinations; how they are taken and unquestionably how they are marked.
-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------
References

Asthana, A. (2010). Britain 's divided schools: a disturbing portrait of inequality. Available: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/oct/10/britains-divided-school-system-report. Last accessed 15th February 2013. Meyers, R. (1994). Inequality of Education. Available: http://www.csua.berkeley.edu/~meyers/education-term.html. Last accessed 10th January 2013. Reay, D. (2006). The Zombie Stalking English Schools: Social Class and Educational Inequality. British Journal of educational studies. 54 (3), p288-307. Renold, E. (2001) Learning the ‘Hard’ way: Boys, hegemonic masculinity and the negotiation of learner identities in the primary school, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 22:3, 369-385 Tomlinson, S. (2005). Education and the middle classes. In: Education in a Post Welfare Society. Buckingham: Open University Press. p.165-181 Twining, P. (2012). Race, Ethnicity and Education. Available: http://www.bera.ac.uk/sigs/info/race-ethnicity-and-education. Last accessed 18 January 2013. Vachharajani, A. (2012). Are co-ed schools better than all-girls schools? Available: http://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/1637711/comment-are-co-ed-schools-better-than-all-girls-schools. Last accessed 12th January 2013

References: Asthana, A. (2010). Britain 's divided schools: a disturbing portrait of inequality. Available: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/oct/10/britains-divided-school-system-report. Last accessed 15th February 2013.