Why some working class children succeed at school

Abstract

One of the main contributions of sociological research in the field of education has been the clarification of the link between school structures and processes on the one hand, and the role these play in the production and reproduction of economic, social and cultural inequalities on the other. Authors such as Bernstein (1971), Bowles and Gintis (1976, 1988), Bourdieu and Passeron (1977), Willis (1977), and Apple (1983), among others, have argued that rather than facilitating social mobility, school systems actually reproduce social distinctions. While parents the world over tend to accept the hegemonic view that educational institutions are meritocratic systems, where intelligence and effort is crowned by success and credentials that can then be exchanged for lucrative careers on the labour market irrespective of the social origins of students, 'reproduction theories' offer an alternative and radically different view. The general tenor of the arguments in the latter camp is that while schools appear to be neutral, they in fact: (1) stratify children according to their socioeconomic background, channelling students from the same social classes into specific streams and schools; (2) treat children differently, with students from elite backgrounds being exposed to overt and covert curricula that socialise them for managerial and professional careers, and those from blue collar backgrounds being prepared for working class futures; (3) privilege the cultural and learning patterns of the dominant classes in society, so that children from working class backgrounds find schooling an alienating experience which they cannot relate to, thereby losing motivation and the will to learn. Critical perspectives that consider schools as systems of 'symbolic violence' have been very influential in the development of educational sociology in Malta, with authors such as Darmanin (1989, 1991) and Sultana (1991, 1992) in particular arguing that the selection and channeling processes within and between schools in the state and the non-state sectors work against the interests of education values generally, and students from working class backgrounds in particular. Sultana, for instance, presents a detailed overview of the statistical evidence that shows the extent to which working class children's experience of Maltese schooling is marked by failure (1991), and he explains this by showing how schools in fact work against the interests of such students in terms of the curricula they are offered, the pedagogical relations that are developed, the culture of learning that is promoted, the material and human resources that are made available, and so on (1992). Similarly, in a series of projects directed by Sultana, all with the aim of documenting the experience working class students have of schooling, reproduction theories are appealed to in order to explain the data reported. Chircop (1994 and this volume) and Azzopardi and Bondin (1991), for instance, use these frameworks to account for the ethnographic records of working class students who resist the schooling experiences they are offered, and therefore end up as 'failures' - at least in the academic sense of the term. While I have found such accounts and theoretical frameworks powerful, I must admit to feeling ill at ease with the often deterministic and pessimistic conclusions they reach. In such accounts, working class students must, it seems, necessarily fail, since structures and processes are so effectively and so conclusively arrayed against them. And yet, as a teacher in Junior Lyceums where academic achievement if not excellence is expected, I had first-hand experience of successful students whose fathers and mothers were blue collar workers with a history of low educational attainment. Reproduction theories did not account for these 'exceptions', except to suggest that it was precisely these' anomalies' that ensured that people were duped to continue believing in the myth of a meritocratic society. Since some made it, after all, then anybody can make it! And what's more, it also followed that those who did not make it had only themselves to blame! While one can easily see how the success of a handful of working class students can contribute to the stabilisation of hegemonic views in a society, one is still left in the dark as to how and why such success is achieved. In this regard, I found myself drawn to authors like Nash (1990), for instance, who while generally sympathetic to - and indeed contributing to the development of - critical educational sociology, nevertheless argue that educational outcomes and processes cannot be generalisable without attempting to account for the academic success registered by some working class students. Also, one cannot but query the extent to which education remains a key principle of social stratification and social reproduction, given the massification of secondary - and increasingly post-secondary - schooling, and the new emphasis being placed world-wide on fighting school failure (see Brown and Lauder, 1991; Baudelot and Establet, 1989). The question for me then became: Why do some students from working class homes succeed at school, in spite of economic disadvantages, and social and cultural profiles and capital that is often not recognised or valued by formal educational institutions? What is special, different and/or distinctive about these students, when compared to others who share their social origins, and who seem 'destined' to end up in different destinations? What processes, factors, or elements in the individual's life and personality, in the family context, at school, lead to a situation where, to invert Willis' famous observation 'working class kids' do not 'get working class jobs'? As a teacher, I must admit that I optimistically hoped that in identifying the reasons for the academic success of some working class students, one would then be in a stronger position to generalise these findings and to facilitate a more rewarding relationship between the working class family and the school.