From the sociology perspective, cultural deprivation is believed to be the cause of underachievement in working-class children.
Cultural deprivation refers to the absence of essential values, attitudes, skills, and knowledge required for educational achievement. One instance of cultural deprivation is when parents have limited expectations for their children. The fundamental “cultural equipment” encompasses language proficiency, self-discipline, and critical thinking abilities. Numerous working-class households neglect to effectively socialize their children, leading to their upbringing in a state of cultural deprivation. Consequently, these children lack the necessary skills to excel academically, resulting in underachievement.
The concept of cultural deprivation encompasses three main aspects: intellectual development, language, and attitudes/values. Children who experience cultural deprivation face challenges in their intellectual growth, including critical thinking and problem-solving skills. This is often due to limited access to books, educational toys, and stimulating activities that promote brain development, particularly among working-class kids. As a result, they struggle to reach their full potential in these areas and tend to fall behind their peers academically. Supporting evidence for cultural deprivation comes from JWB Douglas’s research which showed that students from working-class families scored lower on ability tests compared to those from middle-class families. Douglas attributes this discrepancy to the reduced likelihood of working-class parents engaging in activities like reading or providing educational support at home. Bernstein’s research also found similar results by suggesting that a mother’s thought process and choice of toys significantly influence a child’s intellectual development.
The significance of language in education is highly important, particularly when distinguishing between restricted and elaborated code. Bereiter and Engelmann (1966) emphasize this importance by pointing out that lower class households often use language that lacks quality, relying on gestures, single words, or fragmented phrases for communication. As a result, children in these households struggle to develop the necessary language skills, leading to limited abstract thinking ability and an inability to express detailed explanations, descriptions, or comparisons. Consequently, they have fewer educational opportunities compared to their middle-class counterparts. Bernstein categorized the language used by both social classes into two types. The working class commonly uses restricted code which consists of a limited vocabulary with short sentences that are often unfinished and simple.
The speech of working class individuals is often unpredictable and may rely on gestures rather than verbal communication. In contrast, the middle class typically uses the elaborated code, which encompasses a broader vocabulary and is characterized by longer, more grammatically complex sentences. The middle class speech is diverse and independent of specific contexts. These dissimilarities in speech patterns contribute to an advantage for middle class children over working class children in academic settings. This advantage stems from the fact that teachers, textbooks, and exams utilize the elaborated code as the standard language. As a result, working class children are perceived to struggle in school because their speech does not align with the elaborated code. The elaborated code is not only considered the “correct” manner of speaking and writing, but according to Bernstein, it is also a more effective tool in acquiring essential skills for education. Critics argue that Bernstein’s perspective aligns with cultural deprivation theory as he portrays working class speech as deficient. However, unlike other theorists, Bernstein acknowledges that schools play a significant role in influencing children’s academic achievement, rather than solely focusing on the influence of the home environment. He posits that the failure of working class students in education is attributed to schools’ inability to teach them the elaborated code.
Attitudes and values contribute to cultural deprivation, impacting educational achievement. According to a study conducted by Douglas, parents from working-class backgrounds have less appreciation for education, lower ambition, provide less encouragement, and show less interest in their children’s education compared to middle-class parents. Consequently, their children may lack motivation to excel academically. This discrepancy can be attributed to factors such as working-class parents feeling intimidated during parent-teacher meetings where educators utilize a more sophisticated language style (elaborated code) that they may not be familiar with, resulting in reduced engagement regarding their child’s progress. Similarly, Feinstein’s 1998 research suggests that the primary reason for underachievement among working-class children is the lack of parental interest. Feinstein’s findings indicate that middle-class children achieve greater success due to the motivation, discipline, and support provided by their parents.
Theorists argue that there exists a divergence in goals, beliefs, attitudes, and values between the working class and the rest of society. This discrepancy often leads to the lack of success for working-class children in school. However, Hyman (1967) challenges this perspective by asserting that it is actually the values and beliefs within the working class culture itself that create a barrier to success. The working class believes that their opportunities are limited and their chances of obtaining high-status jobs are slim. Consequently, they perceive education as futile and instead prefer to leave school and engage in manual labor. Barry Sugarman (1970) supports Hyman’s argument by stating that certain characteristics inherent within the working class hinder educational achievement.
According to Sugarman, the varying values between social classes can be attributed to the secure and higher-ranking nature of middle-class jobs, which promote long-term planning and dedication. In contrast, working-class jobs lack security, structure, and advancement opportunities. Sugarman concludes that these value differences, learned through primary socialization, are the primary factors contributing to variations in social class achievement. These variations can be characterized by four key features: fatalism (belief in fate), collectivism (valuing group membership over individual success), immediate gratification (prioritizing instant pleasure over future sacrifice), and present time orientation (viewing the present as more important than the future and lacking long-term goals).
Despite this, Compensatory education can result in children underachieving due to cultural deprivation. Compensatory education is a policy aimed at addressing cultural deprivation by providing additional resources to schools in disadvantaged areas. These programs aim to intervene early to compensate children for the deprivation they face and experience at home. In the 1960s, the US implemented the multibillion dollar program ‘Operation Head Start’ as part of this effort.
Compensatory education in Britain aims to enhance the learning skills of children from disadvantaged backgrounds. It involves various strategies, including improving parenting skills, establishing nursery classes, conducting home visits by health visitors and educational psychologists, and implementing specialized learning programs for deprived children. The country has implemented multiple compensatory education initiatives over the years, such as creating ‘Educational Priority Areas’ in the 1960s, introducing ‘Education Action Zones’ in the late 1990s, and launching ‘Sure Start’ in 2000. These programs also aim to promote children’s health and well-being beyond their educational development. However, critics argue that compensatory education schemes may merely serve as a cover-up for underlying issues like social inequality and poverty that contribute to under-achievement.
Despite the increasing inflation and cost of living, some cultural deprivation theorists have questionable methods. According to Sullivan, Mortimore, and Whitty, the possession of material factors, money, and resources is essential for a child’s academic achievement. In contrast, sociologist Nell Keddie perceives it as victim-blaming and asserts that working-class children are culturally distinct rather than deprived. Nonetheless, Douglas contends that working-class parents seldom attend their child’s parent evenings in comparison to middle-class parents. However, working-class parents may face difficulties attending these events due to reasons such as irregular work hours or caregiving responsibilities for other children; this is not indicative of a lack of interest.
Labov and other critics contested Bernstein’s theory as it presumed that the language used by working-class individuals was inferior. Through his research, Labov demonstrated that the language differed but was deemed as lesser in quality by educational institutions. This suggests a need to focus more on what transpires within schools and how children learn, particularly regarding teacher-student relationships. Moreover, one could argue that compensatory education, which aims to address cultural deprivation, may merely serve as a facade for the actual causes of educational underachievement: inequality and poverty. To conclude, although cultural deprivation does impact a child’s education, their academic progress is influenced by various factors encompassing material, cultural, internal, and external elements. The significance of each of these factors can vary depending on specific cases.
