Education, Change and Society Assignment 1 M. J.

Perkins

Essay question: Why does equal access to education, ie: equal

opportunity, not lead to equal outcomes across all social groups?
What role do teachers play in reproducing class-based educational
inequality?
Introduction
This discussion, for the sake of clarity, focuses on the two parts of the question separately.
The section Why does equal access not lead to equal outcomes? will look at a range of
possible causes for the clear educational disadvantages faced by students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. It will be argued that while there are many factors at play, most
prominently financial resources, it is the school system which is the most likely cause for
much of the inequality based on background. The second, shorter, section What role do
teachers play in reproducing inequality? will continue on from the previous section by
looking at teachers as part of the schooling system and argue that while they do contribute
to the reproduction of class-based educational inequality they are also in a position where
they can and are actually required to mitigate its influence.

Why does equal access not lead to equal outcomes?

In theory all students at school are to be given equal opportunity. The Human Rights and
Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC 1986, Schedule 3, pp. 106-107) Act specifically
prohibits the discrimination against children on grounds of their social background. If the
equality of, and non-discrimination against, anyone regardless of their social background is
thus enshrined in law, why is it then that students from lower socio-economic status (SES),
or working class (it should be noted that it is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss the
nuances between SES and class as discussed by Germov 1998, pp. 220-221), backgrounds do
not perform as well at school as those from a higher SES background? While this is an
international phenomenon (Argy 2007, Marks 2005 and Muijs 1997), it also was specifically
raised as a cause for concern in Australia by Gonski (2012, p. 34).

Unsurprisingly, there has been much debate regarding the reasons behind this educational
discrepancy. Different causes for the differing academic outcomes of children from higher
and lower SES backgrounds have been put forward. It has been argued that members of
lower SES households simply are less intelligent, or that working class families are less
inclined to help their children to succeed at school, however, these theories have been
contradicted by research (Thomson 2002, p. 3). While it might not be less important to low
SES parents for their children to do well at school, Frohard-Dourlent (2009, p. 42) argues
that low SES parents are indeed less involved not by choice, but because of lack of
financial resources and disenfranchisement by the school system.
It is primarily the differing financial resources on which Frohard-Dourlents (2009, pp. 38-40)
main argument is built. It is argued that, apart from the already mentioned, it is not only the
lack of resources of low SES families which put their children at a disadvantage, but
conversely that higher SES families are financially more able to provide extra-curricular
activities and tutoring for their children, thus putting the children from these families at a
structural advantage. However, Marks (2005, p. 485) observes that there is little empirical
data for this argument and Lam (1997) found that family climate played a more important
role than material circumstances.
A different argument is outlined by Thomson (2002, pp. 4-6, see also Germov 1998, pp. 226227), which mainly based on Bourdieus writings and seeks the reasons for the unequal
outcomes in education in the school system. It is argued that schools value skills and prior
knowledge which favour high SES or middle-class students and form a disadvantage for
those of lower SES or working-class. This valued knowledge is described as cultural capital
and it is aligned to the cultural capital of families with a higher SES background; further
compounded by the fact that it is the people from these backgrounds who get to decide
what is important cultural capital. While this appears to be a vicious circle from which there
is no escape for children from a lower SES background, it is also argued that despite this the
process is open to change and varied outcomes are possible. A similar theory to Thomsons
is brought forward by Frohard-Dourlent (2009, pp. 41-42), but again with a stronger
emphasis on the financial differences. The school system is also seen as a culprit by Germov
(1998, pp. 228-229), who says that the main failing within schools is the assumption that all
students have similar cultural capital, while in fact they have a wide range of knowledge,

culture and experiences. It is argued that the school system sees the notion of equality as
being equal to same treatment, which it is not, and therefore leading to the reproduction of
the initial disadvantages.
A main consensus among researchers appears to be that parents play a major role in the
academic achievement of their children (Campbell and Verner 2007) and that this is
irrespective of the parental SES (Lam 1997). However, Lam further found that family
climate, an indicator for academic success, is linked to SES, with higher SES families being
more likely to actively support and monitor the childs school work. An explanation for this
might be found in Frohard-Dourlents (2009, p. 40) assertion that low SES parents will be
more challenged in finding time for parent-teacher meetings and general parental duties
due to a less flexible work schedule.
While Frohard-Dourland makes a strong case for the role of varying financial resources as a
main cause for the disadvantages faced by low SES students, the one reason which is
repeatedly cited, thus suggesting a consensus, lies in the school system. This is believed to
perpetuate a middle class idea of what is important, thus advantaging students who have
the cultural capital which is most similar to the expected knowledge. Although FrohardDourlands (2009, p. 43) outlook, due to the size of the task, would suggest that there is
unlikely to be much change in the foreseeable future, Thomson (2002, pp. 15-16) seems
more positive. In fact, Thomson sees change already taking place in the guise of various
measures which are more likely to accommodate the education of low SES and thus help
counter the bias somewhat.

What role do teachers play in reproducing inequality?

It could be argued that teachers, as part of the school system, are an integral part of the
perpetuation of SES based inequality and there are various studies which provide evidence
to support this view. In this regard the study carried out by Dunne and Gazeley (2008) in
England found that teachers had different expectations of children from working- and
middle-class backgrounds and that underachievement was addressed differently depending
on the social background. Importantly it was the search for solutions at home if the child
came from a working-class background, with an underlying assumption that it was the

families fault. At the same time teachers sought solutions for middle-class students
problems in the classroom, thus following the stereotype of good middle-class parenting.
Another such example, though less clear cut, comes from one of Boks (2010, p. 175) study
participants. The teacher who was being interviewed for the study stated that she would
have honest discussions with her pupils regarding future aspirations. When a student had
high aspirations, such as wanting to work in a field which requires a higher education
degree, but lacked the marks to meet these aspirations the teacher would suggest other
options which did not require a degree. The teacher in this case has good intentions, but still
might be contributing to the perpetuation of SES prejudice by lowering the expectations of
the students.
Santorros (2009) study regarding student teachers knowledge of other cultures gives
different area in which teachers might be reproducing the status quo. The pre-service
teachers in this study had very limited knowledge of other cultures and thus did not know
how to interact with them. In one case this was exacerbated by advice based on prejudices
by a mentor teacher. While this example refers to non-Anglo-Saxon immigrant cultures with
unknown SES, which are no less important to this argument, it also has possible implications
regarding low SES backgrounds in general. If the majority of teachers come from a middleclass cultural background (Jones 2013), then their knowledge and understanding of working
class cultural backgrounds might be uninformed in a similar way to that of immigrant
cultures. Importantly, prejudices towards working-class backgrounds, as shown to exist by
Dunne and Gazeley (2008, p. 458), would further perpetuate the inherent bias in schools.
However, while teachers certainly can, and do, play their part in maintaining class-based
inequality, they also have the capacity to counteract and mitigate these inequalities. The
wording of the Australian Curriculum (AC) allows teachers much scope and space for
differentiation in the way they teach subjects, thus permitting students to tailor lessons to
the individual needs of their students including taking into account SES. Teachers, however,
not only have the freedom to practice differentiated teaching, instead, the Australian
Institute of Teaching and School Leaderships standards (AITSL, 1.5) specifically make
differentiated teaching a requirement for all graduate teachers, thus obliging them to do so.

Conclusion
The discussion in this paper has shown that inequality based on SES is not only present, but
significant. At the same time the exact combination of factors which cause this inequality
are still not fully understood, with multiple theories being put forward and no consensus on
many of the points. Frohard-Dourlent presents a strong argument for the impact of differing
access to financial resources depending on the familys SES. However, it is the middle-class
oriented school system with its inherent discrimination against students from low SES
backgrounds based on differing cultural capital which seems to be the most common factor
many different authors seem to bring up regardless of their other standpoints. Within this
system some, or many, teachers seem to play a role which perpetuates this inequality. Yet,
they are in fact in a position to mitigate and change this inherent bias. Indeed, considering
that both the AC and the AITSL standards provide teachers with the tools it is teachers who
should and can be driving the change of the system from within.

Reference list
Argy, F., 2007, http://www.ias.uwa.edu.au/new-critic/five/educationinequalities (accessed
21.08.2015).
Australian Curriculum, http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/Curriculum/Overview (accessed
23.08.2015).
Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership, http://www.aitsl.edu.au/australianprofessional-standards-for-teachers/standards/list (accessed 23.08.2015).
Bok, J., 2010, The capacity to aspire to higher education: Its like making them do a play without a
script, Critical Studies in Education, vol. 51, 2, pp. 163-178.
Campbell, J. R. and M. A. Verna, 2007, Effective Parental Influence: Academic home climate linked
to childrens achievement, Educational Research and Evaluation: An International Journal on Theory
and Practice, vol. 13, 6, pp. 501-519.
Dunne, M. and L. Gazeley, 2008, Teachers, social class and underachievement, British Journal of
Sociology of Education, vol. 29, 5, pp. 451-463.
Frohard-Dourlent, H., 2009, Why the school system fails to equalize: the influence of socioeconomic
background on childrens achievement in school Sojourners: Undergraduate Journal of Sociology,
vol. 1, pp 37-45.
Germov, J., 1998, A Class Above the Rest? Education and the Reproduction of Class Inequality. in J.
Allen (ed.), Sociology of education: possibilities and practices, Social Science Press, Katoomba, pp.
217-231.

Gonski, D., 2012, Review of Funding for Schooling Final Report. Department of Education,
Employment and Workplace Relations, Canberra.
Hall, D. and L. Jones, 2013, Social class (in)visibility and the professional experiences of middle-class
novice teachers, Journal of Education for Teaching, vol. 39, 4, pp. 416-428.
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, 1986, Human Rights and Equal Opportunity
Commission Act 1986, http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/ActCompilation1.nsf/
0/679EBEFB34CAEAF6CA257140001ACE5C/%24file/HumRightEqOppComm1986_WD02_Version1.p
df (accessed 22.08.2015).
Lam, S. F., 1997, How the family influences childrens academic achievement, Garland Publishing,
New York referenced in Frohard-Dourlent 2009.
Marks, G. N., 2005, Cross-national differences and accounting for social class inequalities in
education, International Sociology, vol. 20, 4, pp. 483-505.
Muijs, R. D., 1997, Predictors of academic achievement and academic self-concept: a longitudinal
perspective, British Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 67, 3, pp. 263277.
Santoro, N., 2009, Teaching in culturally diverse contexts: what knowledge about self and others
do teachers need?, Journal of Education for Training, vol. 35, 1, pp. 33-45.
Thomson, P., 2002, Schooling the rustbelt kids: making the difference in changing times, Allen &
Unwin, Crows Nest.