No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Learning Experiences, Effective Schools and Social Context
Abstract
School effectiveness research and current government targets for raising standards assume a generic effectiveness attainable by any school through best practice models. This article explores some contrasts at classroom level, revealed in research based in schools differing both in measured effectiveness and in the socio-economic characteristics of the intake populations. The findings, focusing particularly on lower-achieving pupils in the early secondary years, indicated that tasks especially in English, classroom interactions and pupils’ responses to teaching approaches varied by social context. The social composition of the school population is a powerful determinant of the culture of learning within a school and this is reflected in pupils’ learning experiences.
... The system of secondary education exemplifies and reproduces class differentiation, which is rigidly separated into a flourishing, lavishly-funded private sector, as compared to demoralised, underfinanced public sector, itself divided into schools in wealthy areas and those in inner-urban / inner-city areas. Anyon (2011), Bernstein, (1977, and Duffield et al. (1998) addressed the significant social class differences in pedagogy and the hidden curriculum-the pattern of expectations and acceptable/ desired norms of behaviour for children/ students from different social classes. ...
... Pedagogiesthe teaching and learning methods used by teachers and pupilsvary according to the pupils' social class. Duffield et al. (1998), influenced by Bourdieu, followed two classes in each of four Scottish schools through their first two years of secondary education, observing 204 lessons. They found that children in the two working-class schools spent between 3 and 6 per cent of their time in English class discussion compared with 17 to 25 per cent in the middle-class schools. ...
In the first part of this chapter I critically examine neoliberal and neoconservative policy globally. This differs in different national contexts, but its aims-at maximising private capitalist profit do not vary. These aims are fundamental to capitalism. This maximisation of profit is at the expense of both the social wage (welfare benefits/ public services) and the individual wage and working conditions and rights of workers, such as education workers. In the second section of this chapter I locate these developments more theoretically within Marxist educational analysis, referring to Western Marxist Reproduction and Marxist Resistance theorists such as Althusser, Gramsci, Anyon, Bowles and Gintis, Bourdieu, Apple, Willis, Giroux, McLaren, Rikowski and to my own work. I conclude by briefly suggesting a Socialist Policy for Education.
... The system of secondary education exemplifies and reproduces class differentiation, which is rigidly separated into a flourishing, lavishly-funded private sector, as compared to demoralised, underfinanced public sector, itself divided into schools in wealthy areas and those in inner-urban / inner-city areas. Anyon (2011), Bernstein, (1977, and Duffield et al. (1998) addressed the significant social class differences in pedagogy and the hidden curriculum-the pattern of expectations and acceptable/ desired norms of behaviour for children/ students from different social classes. ...
... Pedagogiesthe teaching and learning methods used by teachers and pupilsvary according to the pupils' social class. Duffield et al. (1998), influenced by Bourdieu, followed two classes in each of four Scottish schools through their first two years of secondary education, observing 204 lessons. They found that children in the two working-class schools spent between 3 and 6 per cent of their time in English class discussion compared with 17 to 25 per cent in the middle-class schools. ...
... • Bourdieu (1990Bourdieu ( , 1997, and the theory of Schooling as Cultural Reproduction, and the concepts of Habitus, Cultural Capital and Symbolic Violence, whereby schools recognise and reward middle-class/upper class knowledge, language, body language, and diminish and demean working class and some minority-ethnic cultures. • Anyon (2011), , and Duffield (1998) addressed the significant social class differences in pedagogy, with middle-class students being given more discussion time and less time-consuming writing and reading tasks than working class children, with there being distinct differences in the 'ethos' and the hidden curriculumthe pattern of expectations and acceptable/desired norms of behaviour for children/students from different social classes. ...
... Pedagogies-the teaching and learning methods used by teachers and pupils-vary according to the pupils' social class. Duffield (1998), influenced by Bourdieu, followed two classes in each of four Scottish schools through their first two years of secondary education, observing 204 lessons. They found that children in the two working-class schools spent between 3 and 6% of their time in English class discussion compared with 17-25% in the middle-class schools. ...
This chapter considers how white working-class boys negotiate neoliberal learner identities through historically-constituted solidarist and communal values. Recent academic scholarship on social marginalisation in UK schooling has critiqued the rhetoric of ‘raising aspiration’ which exalts a definitive conception of neoliberal personhood—the capital-accruing, socially mobile, entrepreneurial self. This pervasive neoliberal logic structures normative schooling practices by codifying both ability and aspiration, and shaping working-class experiences of schooling. Set against a discourse of social mobility and entrepreneurialism which permeates schooling and the wider social imaginary of the UK, this chapter reflects on a study of white working-class boys in South London who construct counternarratives to neoliberal conceptions of personhood by constituting themselves as subjects of value in schools which devalue them and their aspirations.
... Low SES schools offer fewer rigorous academic courses than higher SES schools (Anyon, 1981;Lamb, et al., 2001;Rumberger & Palardy, 2005;Rumberger & Thomas, 2000;Tate, 1997). Compared to their peers in lower SES schools, teachers in high SES schools are more likely to cultivate higher-order thinking skills and critical thinking than are teachers (Hallinger & Murphy, 1986;Pederson & Cogan, 2000); they also give more opportunities to students to discuss and interact with their peers (Duffield, 1998). Willms' (2010) cross-national analysis of the 2006 cycle of PISA shows that school SES is correlated with six curriculum and instruction variables, in particular curriculum breadth and time spent on instruction. ...
It is well known that socio-economic status (SES) at both the student and school level is associated with educational outcomes. Students from higher social backgrounds, on average, have greater educational outcomes than their less privileged peers. Also, a student that attends a school that enrols students from primarily high social backgrounds will, on average, have greater educational outcomes than if she attended a school that enrolled students from low social backgrounds. School SES is related to student outcomes through a complex array of factors, including the quality of curriculum and instruction, resources and the learning environment. This chapter reviews the research literature about the relationship between school socio-economic composition and student outcomes, the mechanisms by which the relationship is enacted in schools, as well as the structural features of education systems that influence how students from varying social backgrounds are distributed across schools. I conclude with suggestions for future research.
This chapter uses a Marxist perspective to deal with the relationship between social class, society and education. It initially focuses on the measurement of social class, drawing on Weberian ‘gradational’ and Marxist ‘relational’ classifications and definitions of class. The chapter then presents some of the main concepts of Marxist social class analysis and relates these concepts to Marxist theory of education. It concludes by differentiating between two types of Marxist analysis—Structuralist neo-Marxism and Culturalist neo-Marxism, and by arguing for a revolutionary Marxist programme to replace, overcome, overthrow and go beyond capitalism, to abolish the Labour–Capital relation, to progress into a democratic Socialist society.
This thesis explores how a disadvantaged context impacts on secondary school organisation and processes, and how this affects quality, as measured by OFSTED inspection. OFSTED data indicates a school quality problem in disadvantaged areas. This is often interpreted as arising from factors internal to the school. Policy interventions have concentrated on generic school improvement measures. However, it may be argued that if poor quality arises from context as well as from internal factors, policy responses should also be contextualised. Earlier work (Gewirtz 1998; Thrupp 1999) has begun to reveal process effects of disadvantaged contexts. This thesis builds on that work by exploring differences between disadvantaged areas, making an explicit link to quality measures, and using wider literatures from the fields of neighbourhood studies and organisation theory to develop an understanding of schools as contextualised organisations. The thesis begins with a quantitative analysis of context/quality relationships, but is principally based on four qualitative case studies. These consider context objectively, analysing socio-economic, market and institutional factors, and also explore staff’s subjective interpretations. Process implications for schools are examined, as are the schools’ responses, in terms of the design and delivery of schooling. These findings are discussed in relation to OFSTED quality measures. The research reveals that the quality problem in poor areas is partly an artefact of the inspection system but also reflects contextual effects. It also finds that there are significant differences between the contexts of schools in disadvantaged areas, and that these are not captured by typical context measures. The study concludes that changes are needed in school funding and inspection to recognise contextual effects, and that specific practices need to be developed to enable school improvement in poor areas. Relying on schools to apply generic ‘good practice’ within existing constraints will not be sufficient to eliminate the quality problem.
Jill Duffield, a Research Fellow in the Institute of Education, University of Stirling, reports on a study in a Scottish local authority of four schools focusing upon measures of school effectiveness and socio-economic status (SES). Factors influencing the progress of lower achieving pupils in the early secondary years are also considered, including the pupil support systems in place: learning support, behavioural support and guidance.
In this article on gender and learning Harry Daniels and colleagues suggest that boys experience a contradiction between the cultural messages and practices associated with masculinity (competition and individuality) and the teaching practices typical of successful primary schooling (collaboration and codependency). They consider the impact of this contradiction on the question of boys' underachievement, and their account of the views of children as to whether boys and girls learn the same or differently makes salutary reading. ‘Which pedagogy,’ they ask, ‘suits who best?’
Recent curriculum initiatives in the UK assume the validity of a broadly common curriculum for all pupils. This paper summarises our review ( Lewis & Norwich, 2000 ) which set out to subject that assumption to critical scrutiny. The review addressed the question: can differences between learners (by particular learning difficulty group) be identified and systematically linked with learners’ needs for differential teaching? We framed the review around notions of the general and unique needs of individual learners.
We found little evidence to support the notion of one, or several, SEN‐specific pedagogies. It may be that systematic differences in pedagogic needs do exist between various special educational needs subgroups (for example, in the UK: moderate learning difficulties; specific learning difficulties; profound and multiple learning difficulties) but the research to date has not been designed in ways that reveal these differences. It may also be the case that systematic differences do exist between groups of learners for particular pedagogic inputs, but that the basis for grouping is not consistent with the administrative groupings now operating. Both these positions reflect general pedagogic differences between learners.
There is increasing support from within and beyond the special educational needs ‘community’ for the recognition of common pedagogic needs, and the conclusions of our review support that position. However it is tempered by recognition of the unique differences position. That is, that while recognising common pedagogic needs across all learners (for feedback, for example), how this is translated at the level of the individual learner will reflect the capabilities (cognitive, social and emotional) of that individual. We conclude that the notion of continua of teaching approaches is useful as it enables us to distinguish between the ‘normal’ adaptations in class teaching for most pupils and the greater degree of adaptations required for those with more severe difficulties in learning, those designated as having ‘SEN’. These are adaptations to common teaching approaches; what some writers have called specialised adaptations, or ‘high density’ teaching.
Both educational attainment and school quality are typically lower in disadvantaged areas than others and much recent policy attention has been focused on each. This paper looks at the quality problem, exploring the relationships between disadvantaged contexts, what schools do, and the quality of schooling that they provide. The findings suggest that disadvantaged contexts impact on the organisation and processes of schools and that these effects differ significantly from one area to another, in ways that are not reflected by the usual indicators of disadvantage. School managers respond by adapting organisational design and processes. They are, however, constrained in these responses by the limited and short-life funding available, by the lack of evidence of good practice in specific contexts, and by lack of flexibility over major issues of organisation design and curriculum. Challenging contexts and the constraints on school responses together exert a downward pressure on quality. The paper argues that because school processes and quality are affected by context, school improvement in disadvantaged areas will not be achieved by generic measures, but only by policies tailored to disadvantaged areas and sensitive to differences between these areas. It suggests ways in which school improvement policies could be contextualised in order to raise quality in the poorest areas.
Analyzes the comments of 12 Scottish secondary school teachers and their students on the positive aspects of the teaching that occurred in a series of lessons. Finds that students could specifically identify successful teaching strategies. (SV)
Making Sense of Teaching. Buckingham: Open University Press School effectiveness research: The policy makers' tool for school improvement
- S Brown
- D Mcintyre
- S Brown
- J Duffield
BROWN, S. and McINTYRE, D. (1993) Making Sense of Teaching. Buckingham: Open University Press. BROWN, S., DUFFIELD, J. and RIDDELL, S. (1995) School effectiveness research: The policy makers' tool for school improvement? European Educational Research Association Bulletin, 1, 2–11.
Possibilities and problems of using small-scale research to complement large-scale school effectiveness studies Merging Traditions: School effectiveness and school improvement The school effectiveness movement: Origins, shortcomings and future possibilities
- S Brown
- S Riddell
- J Duffield
- Cassell
- C Chitty
BROWN, S., RIDDELL, S. and DUFFIELD, J. (1996) Possibilities and problems of using small-scale research to complement large-scale school effectiveness studies. In J. Gray, D. Reynolds, C. Fitz-Gibbon and D. Jesson (eds) Merging Traditions: School effectiveness and school improvement. London: Cassell. CHITTY, C. (1997) The school effectiveness movement: Origins, shortcomings and future possibilities. The Curriculum Journal, 8, 45–62.
School Matters: The junior years. Wells: Open Books Turning round ineffective schools Merging Traditions: School effectiveness and school improvement
- P Mortimore
- P Sammons
- R Ecob
- L Stoll
MORTIMORE, P., SAMMONS, P., ECOB, R. and STOLL, L. (1988) School Matters: The junior years. Wells: Open Books. REYNOLDS, D. (1996) Turning round ineffective schools. In J. Gray, D. Reynolds, C. Fitz-Gibbon and D. Jesson (eds) Merging Traditions: School effectiveness and school improvement. London: Cassell. RICHARDS, S. (1997) Interview: David Blunkett. New Statesman, 11