INFORME SOBRE LA SECUENCIA DIDÁCTICA DE LECTURA EN VOZ ALTA

(Under) achievement of working-class pupils in Britain

The British education system has long been characterised by a history of working-class underachievement that has proved difficult to eradicate (Dunne & Gazeley, 2008) with

at school (Babb, 2005; Demie & Lewis, 2011; Dunne & Gazeley, 2008). Pupils in the highest social class groups remain almost twice as likely to achieve five or more A*– C grades at GCSE than those whose parents classified as part of the manual working-classes (NS-SEC 6 and 7) (Demie & Lewis, 2011). When the academic achievements of working- class pupils are broken down further, studies also show that the attainment of those pupils entitled to free school meals (FSM) (a widely accepted indicator of levels of student family poverty) emerges as strong inverse predicator of GCSE performance (Fitz, Davies & Evans, 2006), with white, British boys on FSM consistently demonstrating the lowest overall academic attainment of any other distinct social group.

However, it seems far too simplistic to attribute working-class under-achievement to economic influences alone. Whilst there does appear to be a cycle of white, working-class underachievement at school, studies demonstrate that these concerns can also be extended to low academic expectation, erratic levels of school engagement, an increased likelihood of self-exclusion, and a greater reliance on vocational qualifications (Attwood, Croll & Hamilton, 2004; Demie & Lewis, 2011; Harris & Eden, 2000; Munn & Lloyd, 2005; Osler & Vincent, 2003). Therefore, although some claim that the low attainment and high levels of working-class disengagement from education should be ‘attributed to a largely disaffected working-class youth in Britain who are unable or unwilling to participate in the mainstream of education’ (Steer, 2000: 1) and often reject the values and cultures of dominant institutions such as schools (Ferguson, 2004; McKendrick, Scott & Sinclair, 2007), it seems more likely that working-class pupils are influenced by a range of complex and long-term social relationships within their lives. In relation to this, therefore, an examination of the relationships and processes relating to socialisation, capital, and habitus may allow us to gain a greater understanding of working-class trends in relation to school achievement and engagement.

Working-class pupils’ academic attainment and experiences of education

Initially, it appears that an individual’s background has been shown by some to restrict ‘alternative’ attitudes and behaviours, particularly if they are at odds with the norms within one’s community (Archer, Hollingworth & Halsall, 2007; Ingram, 2009; MacDonald & Marsh, 2005; Reay, 2004b). Some authors have also found that the specific attitudes and actions synonymous with a working-class background may be limiting the academic attainment and engagement of many white working-class pupils (Ball et al., 2000; Carter- Wall & Whitfield, 2012; Feinstein, 2003, 2004; Hollway & Jefferson, 2000; Lucey, Melody & Walkerdine, 2003). It has also been suggested by some that the parents, families, and friends of many working-class pupils may hold anti-school attitudes and/or have experienced low academic achievement at school (Lucey & Walkerdine, 2000) which contrasts with their middle-class peers who are often taught to view and approach educational engagement and success in a more positive manner (Archer et al., 2007; Gutman & Eccles, 1999; Jodl, Michael, Malanchuk, Eccles, & Sameroff, 2001; Mortimer & Kumka, 1982).

Overall, therefore, we cannot understand the long term patterns of working-class pupils’ relative disengagement and under-achievement at school, without acknowledging the fact that their social background can lead to a set of ‘values and practices that (stand) against the ethos and expected behaviours of formal education’ (MacDonald & Marsh, 2005: 67). It is to a more detailed examination of these issues that this chapter will now turn.

The influence of parents and significant adults on working-class pupils’ engagement with formal education

Parental involvement has been shown to have a significant impact on a child’s education (Demie & Lewis, 2011; Evans, 2007), general study habits, attendance at school, and homework tasks (Epstein, Kehily, Mac An Ghaill, & 2001; Hanson, McLanahan &

Thompson, 1997; Lareau, 2000; Muller, 1995). In fact, due to working-class parents being less likely to be well-educated themselves, studies have shown that they are subsequently less inclined to create a home environment that optimises success at school (Evans, 2007)

and more likely to accept their children’s underachievement and/or inappropriate behaviour

(Demie & Lewis, 2011). While there appears to be no direct claims that working-class parents do not value education per se, several studies do suggest that working-class parents are much less likely to ‘push’ their children academically (Lucey & Walkerdine, 2000; Reay & Ball, 1998), preferring to prioritise the need to provide for the physical needs of their children (clothing, food, and housing) (Lareau, 2003) over more ‘formal’ skills, such as language development (Bodovski, 2010). Consequently, working-class parents have been shown to rely more heavily on the school (and its teachers) for teaching and developing the skills that are more beneficial for formal learning. This can then mean that many working-class children simply find themselves less prepared for the formal learning environments that are common in the formal school environment (Evans, 2007).

Education and working-class males

Given the nature of Ayrefield as a strong working-class community, the concept of masculinity – defined as the ‘process of becoming and being male’ (Gard, 2006: 784) - is particularly important for the lads at ACS, both directly and indirectly. It has been suggested that the understanding of what masculinity should be has changed in many working-class communities - as fathers’ roles and attitudes change and evolve and women earn more equal rights in the workplace (Connell, 2008). However, ‘being a man’ and demonstrating masculine characteristics and behaviors is still an important aspect of working-class life for young males despite the impacts of mass-deindustrialization. This enduring prominence of ‘traditional’ masculinity in working-class communities evidently then comes to impact on how male pupils view and engage in education. It is worth stating here that a range of studies have consistently demonstrated that schools are host to diverse constructions and

displays of masculinity (Brown, 1998; Connell, 2008; Mac an Ghaill, 1994) and that multiple masculinities operate within any given social context such as that of the school environment (Connell, 1995; Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005; Gard, 2006; Mac an Ghaill, 1994; Parker, 1996). However, the concept of hegemonic masculinity is often used to define the ‘culturally exalted’, ‘idealised’ (Connell, 1990: 83), and dominant form of masculinity that exists within a school (Connell, 1995, 2008; Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005) that often comes to be viewed and accepted as the norm (Swain, 2010). As an extension, various authors have also stated that those male pupils that demonstrate the characteristics and behaviors linked to this hegemonic masculinity are much more likely to benefit from greater degrees of influence, power, and status and are consequently willing and able to maintain and defend its dominance (Connell, 2008; Swain, 2010).

In relation to working-class schools more specifically, it is important to acknowledge that the hegemonic masculinity emerges through a collective social practice (Tischler & McCaughtry, 2011) that is closely linked to the over-riding view of masculinity that is evident in the wider community (Smith, 2007). Therefore, it is often the case that the hegemonic masculinity in working-class schools is underwritten by physical and dominant actions and abilities that are often associated with the threat of aggression and even violence (Swain, 2010). It is often the case in many working-class schools in particular, therefore, that as certain masculinities emerge as ‘normal’, all other masculinities become regarded as abnormal or deviant. The dominant/hegemonic masculinity that prevails in a school then subsequently becomes the measure against which boys compare themselves (Tischler & McCaughtry, 2011). Given these issues, therefore, it is perhaps not surprising that the social pressures linked to masculinity in working-class communities can lead to conflict with the ‘feminizing’ world of formal education for many male pupils (Ball, 1981; Brown, 1998; Hargreaves, 1967; Lacey, 1970; Mac an Ghaill, 1994; Willis, 1977). This can often be attributed to the fact that many working-class males are more likely to develop largely

‘masculine’ identities that often conflict starkly with the expectations and demands of formal school life (Evans, 2007; O’Donnell & Sharpe, 2000) as a specific pattern of masculinity often holds the dominant position (hegemonic) in most schools (Connell, 1995, 2008; Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005) situated in ‘strong’ working-class areas. By extension, those male pupils that demonstrate the characteristics and behaviours linked to this hegemonic masculinity are much more likely to benefit from greater degrees of authority, power and ‘privilege’ (Connell, 2008:133).

As a result of the valuing of such masculine traits and actions among male working- class males, such pupils have traditionally come into conflict with teachers, school, and education. This has been shown to be closely linked to the concept of ‘masculine honor’ which often takes precedence over academic ability and achievements (Connell, 2008, Poynting, Noble, & Tabar, 2003). Ultimately, therefore, the working-class identity that is developed and promoted within traditional, ‘masculine’ working-class localities, can lead to young people from these backgrounds developing largely negative attitudes of formal schooling due to the conflict between educational engagement and ‘masculine’ expectations (Archer et al., 2007; Connolly & Neill, 2001; Connolly & Healy, 2004; Healy, 2006; Reay & Lucey, 2000). This outcome is often accentuated during the latter years of mainstream schooling (KS4) as the notion of individual identity and status emerges as a highly important social aspect of adolescence for most young males (Bromnick & Swallow, 1999; Gneri, Smer, & Yildirim, 1999). An additional factor in this identity formation relates to the importance of school as an opportunity for making and seeing friends, passing the time, having fun (O’Donnell & Sharpe, 2000; Ridge, 2002) as well as gaining peer group acceptance and developing social worth (Brown, 1987). Overall, it is very much evident why the informal social relations that exist between all school pupils can come to exert a strong influence on the attitudes, behaviours, and experiences at school for working-class (male) pupils (MacDonald & Marsh, 2005), and why such influences often lead to a

contagion of misbehaviour (Kelly, 2009; MacFarland, 2001). As conforming to behavioural ‘norms’ expected from their friends and peers within the school environment can often be seen as more important than success in formal examinations by many pupils (MacDonald & Marsh, 2005) - particularly when academic success or engagement stands to lead to effective ‘exclusion’ from friendship groups (Lawler, 2000; MacDonald & Marsh, 2005) and a subsequent decrease in their ‘popularity’ amongst peers (Kelly, 2009) – it is perhaps not surprising that going ‘against the flow’ is rarely seen as an option for many male, working- class pupils (MacDonald & Marsh, 2005).

‘Walking the line’

Despite these issues and influences some studies do suggest that many working-class pupils/males can, and often do, flit between school engagement and the social acceptance of their friends and peers. However, evidence has shown that such pupils often encounter very strong ‘social pressures’, that not only lead to them needing to make some potentially ‘brave’ decisions at school, but also to some working-class pupils/males consciously feeling a need to ‘walk the line’ between social acceptance and academic engagement. Unfortunately, some authors suggest that this balance can be seen as virtually impossible for some as it often requires an ability or willingness to relinquish some aspects of their working-class identities (Archer et al., 2007; Ingram, 2011; MacDonald & Marsh, 2005). This is especially the case where male pupils feel the need to create and perpetuate a ‘bright but naughty’ tag as a defence strategy against being viewed ‘unfavourably’ by their peers (Lucey & Walkerdine, 2000; Mac an Ghaill, 1994).

‘Alternative’ forms of success and status for working-class pupils

As many working-class pupils are often socialised towards adopting negative attitudes towards school, and have also been shown to under-achieve academically in relation to their middle-class peers, research has shown that a significant proportion of these pupils

will often look elsewhere for a positive self-image and social status. As academic engagement and/or success can be neither valued nor achievable, research suggests

(Archer et al., 2007; Nolan, 2011) that many working-class pupils can create a strong identity for themselves in school. In some cases this takes the form of purposefully disrupting the highly-controlled environment of school by displaying oppositional, disruptive and dismissive behaviour on a regular basis (Archer et al., 2007; Nolan, 2011).

Whilst Kelly (2009) suggests that such attitudes or actions to school may appear totally irrational to many (often school teachers), the pupils’ strong desire to gain much valued status amongst peers and friends can often emerge as being extremely important, even though ‘such attitudes and actions can emerge as extremely hurtful to the(ir) subsequent chances in school’ (Kelly, 2009: 452). In other cases, some pupils who are less inclined to demonstrate such problematic behaviour on a regular basis, may still ‘rebel’ in more subtle ways by indulging in behaviours that not only conflict with formal school rules, but also provide a means of developing and maintaining some form of self-identity and status, such as the wearing of jewellery, sports wear, and make up (Skeggs, 2004). In this case, there is similar evidence to suggest whilst many working-class pupils are aware that wearing branded goods or make-up at school may well get them in to trouble, the ability for them to develop feelings of value and status by doing so can often outweigh the risk of being caught and reprimanded by teachers (Archer et al., 2007; Kelly, 2009).

School and teacher influences on working-class pupils

In addition to the negative social influence of peers and friends on working-class pupils’ engagement with school life, some studies also suggest that teachers’ actions and attitudes can come to impact on working-class pupils in a variety of ways. Ingram (2009), for example, suggests that given the educational background and subsequent employment of working-class pupils’ parents and family, many teachers can often been seen as ‘aliens’

by pupils and parents, whose lives outside of school bear little resemblance to their own (Ingram, 2009). Similar studies have also suggested that this perception of teachers can lead to difficult pupil-teacher and parent-teacher relationships that have been shown to become based on a ‘them versus us’ attitude, especially when teachers are seen to be over-authoritative (MacDonald & Marsh, 2005; Riseborough, 1993). Subsequently, claims have been made that classroom teachers can often play a significant role in the relative educational ‘failure’ of working-class children (Ball, 1981; Dunne & Gazeley, 2008; Hargreaves, 1967; Lacey, 1970) with others suggesting that that prior attainment data (e.g. primary school SATs) can often be accepted uncritically by staff when such evidence highlights the actual or potential ‘failure’ of working-class pupils at school (DfES, 2006; Smith, 2003 cited in Dunne & Gazeley, 2008). The work of Dunne and Gazeley (2008) found evidence that the social background of pupils can often be referred to implicitly by teachers when speaking about their academic achievement, as well as the fact that teachers, in many cases, predicted future lives for their working-class pupils synonymous with unskilled work, unemployment, crime, and early pregnancy.

As a corollary to the specific influence of teachers, there have also been suggestions that schools themselves can often reproduce and project educational social class divisions as a result of some pupils being provided with differing opportunities across a ‘mixed’ school population (Davies & Evans, 2001; Fitz et al., 2006). In relation to this, studies suggest that pupils in the ‘academic’ streams are more likely to be made up from pupils from higher up the social scale with these ‘higher’ pupils also shown to face starkly different opportunities, pressures, and expectations at school compared to working-class pupils (Daniels & Creese, 2004; Fitz et al., 2006; Gillborn & Youdell, 2000; Reay, 2006). By extension, some studies suggest that this can not only lead to stark differences in the quality of teaching between such groups (Boaler, et al., 2000; Dunne & Gazeley, 2008; Harris & Ranson, 2005), but in some cases pupils can be actually prevented from achieving

higher grades on examinations (A*, A and B grades) due to the nature of the exam for which they have been entered (Boaler, 1997). It does seem, therefore, that the set to which pupils are allocated can then subsequently have a significant impact on how well they then do at school (William & Bartholomew, 2004).

School banding

Several seminal studies that have taken place over the last 50 years have concluded that the British education system and structure of schools can accentuate the split between groups of pupils in the same school (Ball, 1981; Hargreaves, 1967; Lacey, 1970; Willis, 1979). The process of ‘banding’ pupils in to groups based on ability, stands to perpetuate

any existing differences between pupils and can lead to them being treated and viewed quite differently (Ball, 1981; Hargreaves, 1967; Lacey, 1970). Indeed for Ball (1981: 39- 40), there was evidence to suggest that whilst most pupils appeared conformist and eager when they first entered secondary school, the banding system imposed by the school became the ‘personification of a self-fulfilling prophecy’. This was due to that fact that both teachers and pupils came to view their (pupils) future attainment as being mapped out for them, with working-class pupils much more likely to ‘percolate downwards’ (Ball, 1981: 39- 40).

Therefore, as a consequence of the groupings, and often-low expectations placed on many working-class pupils in secondary school, studies also suggest that many can end up being caught in a cycle of disillusionment and low engagement/attainment. This is due to the fact that many working-class pupils can learn to see themselves as ‘nothings’ within the current British education system (Archer et al., 2007; DfES 2006 cited in Dunne & Gazeley, 2008; Reay & William, 1999). Similar studies have also suggested that such influences can lead to feelings of shame, marginalisation, and self-perceptions of ‘stupidity’ as a result of them continually being placed in ‘bottom sets’ (Archer et al., 2007; Reay,

2006). Whilst these feelings of being marginalised and isolated are often internalised, some authors suggests that the increasing surveillance and regulation of pupils’ learning through testing and assessment (Beckmann & Cooper, 2005) and the ever-increasing measure of objective ‘success’ (Dorling, 2005) has further exposed the under-achievement (Reay, 2006) and disengagement of many working-class pupils.

Issues relating to the modern Western education system

There is a great deal evidence that highlights the increasing commodification of British education (Ball, 2003; Ball et al., 2012; Leat, 2014) resulting in words such as standards, targets, progress, predicted grades, underperforming, monitoring, and intervention becoming commonplace in education discourse. As various types of school ‘results’ (e.g. examinations and pupil attendance) have become increasingly important in league tables, national averages, and comparative benchmarks (Leat, 2014), a performance culture (Ball, 2003; Ball et al., 2012) has come to impact on both staff and pupils as government expectations work ‘downwards’ to generate expectations of ‘delivery’ (Ball et al., 2012). Indeed Barber (2007) has coined the term ‘the delivery chain’ to describe the hierarchies

of ‘expectation’ imposed on ‘front line’ schools/teachers to deliver the expectations imposed on them by government ministers. In addition, Jones (2003: 160) highlights the ‘regulatory system’ that establishes strong links between what happens in the classroom (micro) and the ‘macro-level objectives of standards and achievements’. Subsequently, authors have suggested that pressures related to standards, progress, and achievement have become enmeshed in normal school life (Watson & Hay, 2003) as schools are now perennially involved in an all consuming need to improve the benchmark level of five or more higher-grade passes and adhere to school inspection frameworks (Gillborn & Youdell, 2000; Leat, 2014) via a process of a ‘tyranny of conformity’ (Loveday, 2008: 120). It is perhaps not surprising, therefore, that teachers have been shown to be enfolded in to

the performance of their pupils (and school) (Ball et al., 2012) to the extent that teachers working in England have been highlighted as some of the most scrutinised, accountable, and pressured in the world (Ball et al., 2012; Leat et al., Reid, 2012) - not least because