It is revision time for some. AS Sociology Student, Joe Williams from Richard Taunton VIth form college produced this revision map for the sociology of education. Each tube line represents a theme, with each station representing a study, theorist or key point. Click on the map for a larger image. Enjoy!
If you scoured the articles from some of Britain’s popular newspapers for their views on welfare , you could be forgiven for believing that welfare reform was justified, for no other reason than to curb the excesses of dependency, and to end an unfair benefits culture.
Without digressing into how such a discourse is employed as a hegemonic device, it is worth considering that the reality of the benefits culture is more complex.
Late last month, the Department for Education published a Research Report: Pupils not claiming free school meals. The key findings from the research reveal that while 21% of children aged between 4-15 are entitled to free school meals (FSM), 18% of this age group are claiming this entitlement. In other words, 14% of children who are entitled to FSM are not claiming FSM. This is approximately 200,000 pupils.
Entitlement to FSM is based on receipt of specific benefits, however, families in receipt of these benefits have to register their entitlement through their child’s school or Local Authority. The procedure for this registration varies between authorities and between schools.
Around a quarter of children entitled but not receiving FSM live in the South East. In the North East there is a much lower non claimant rate, with Darlington, Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, Redcar and Cleveland, and Stockton in the Tees Valley appearing to have 100% of claimants registering. This may be due to authority wide efforts to ensure maximum registration. For example, my post from last year looked at Middlesbrough Council’s efforts to urge parents to claim their entitlement. However, the reasons for not claiming FSM are complex, with analysis in this DFE report suggesting that children living in a less deprived area or attending a school with a low rate of FSM are less likely to claim their entitlement to FSM. In neighbouring, relatively affluent North Yorkshire for example, there is a high level of under claiming for FSM. More research is needed to further understand the reasons behind these patterns.
This issue of under-claiming is not just significant for the individual children, but impacts on the funding a school can receive in the form of the pupil premium. The pupil premium is additional funding given to schools as a way of addressing educational inequalities between children from families who are socio-economically deprived and those from more affluent families. Social scientists continue to discuss the usefulness of FSM as a proxy for deprivation given that receipt is not automatic. McMahon and Marsh (1999) writing for CPAG discussed lack of take-up, more recently Hobbs and Vignoles (2010), Thrupp and Lupton (2011) have all explored the issue of under-claiming. Gorard (2012) does suggest that the distinction between “eligibility and take-up may have been eroded” (p. 1015).
The report, published by the DFE indicates that in many places eligibility of FSM still does not mean claiming of FSM. As a result, some schools won’t get the extra funding they are entitled too, the socio-economic barriers that some children face will be obscured by the relative affluence of those around them. And, the tabloid press won’t launch a moral panic about the level of benefit under-claiming in this country.
Pupils not claiming free school meals is written Samaira Iniesta-Martinez and Helen Evans and published as a Department for Education Research Report.
This short advert comes via Sociological Images on the The Society Pages where it is highlighted for its problematic reduction of high school dropouts to individual laziness. Declaring that “every 26 seconds, a kid drops out of high school” it implores an African-American teenager to “wake up” and continue in school in order to avoid an uncertain future.
The advert is problematic for reducing the factors that contribute to the high dropout rate in some US high schools to individual motivation. It may be tempting to conclude that individual young people are responsible for their own educational fate. They should simply wake up and get themselves to school. It is presented as a personal choice. Consequently, educational failure can be seen as an individual responsibility.
However, if we have a sociological imagination to draw on, we can explore other explanations and come to an understanding that the lived experiences of individuals are inextricably linked to wider, social factors. So, in this case, we know that individual responsibility for high school dropout rates in parts of the USA is not supported by the evidence.
A recent study by Leventhal-Weiner and Wallace (2011) highlighted the differences in dropout rates between different ethnic groups in the USA. Overall, Hispanic students drop out at a rate twice that of Blacks, who, in turn drop out at a rate approaching twice that of Whites. As they point out in their research, the schools with the highest rate of dropouts are to be found in the poorest communities in US urban areas, with poor employment prospects, poverty, residential instability and low level of education in the community, all to varying extents contributing to high dropout rates.
This is not to say that individuals are determined by these structural factors. Individuals have agency, though that agency might be constrained by their social context. Indeed, across the USA there are attempts to mitigate the impact of the social context of pupils considered at risk of dropping out by motivating students and building resilience. However, as Hopson and Lee (2011:2227) argue:
“Policies that place the responsibility for academic success of students living in poverty solely in the hands of schools and teachers prevent meaningful progress.”
In other words, interventions at school or individual level, while they might mitigate some effects of poverty are no panacea. Nothing short of structural reform will solve this problem.
Caught in the Act is a one day conference organised by a network of campaign groups and organisations concerned about the future of education, including the Anti Academies Alliance, Campaign for State Education, Comprehensive Future, the journal FORUM, Information for School and College Governors (ISCG), and the Socialist Educational Association.
The Conference in centred on the imminent Education Act, and has the tagline Tackling Michael Gove’s Education Revolution. Though, at present, the revolution is not so much an Act as a Bill which is shortly to go to the committee stage in the House of Lords.
An impressive list of speakers will lead workshops on the implications of the new legislation. These include:
Clyde Chitty and Melissa Benn on A Divided Education System.
David Wolfe, specialist in education law from Matrix Chambers on Implications of the new Education Act.
Prof. Stephen Ball, an all round expert on the sociology of education on Privatisation.
Martin Johnson, the Deputy General Secretary of the teachers’ union, Association for Teachers and Lecturers (ATL) on Edubusiness.
Sam Ellis, funding specialist from the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL) on Paying the Price.
Christine Blower, the General Secretary of the National Union of Teachers (NUT) on The International Scene.
Dr. Patrick Roach, the Deputy General Secretary of the teachers’ union NASUWT who will discuss What Next?
The conference will be held between 10am and 3.30pm on Saturday 19th November, at the University of London Union, Malet Street, London, WC1E 7HY.
More details, and information on booking can be found on the CASE website.
Children are eligible for Free School Meals if their parents receive certain benefits. Eligibility for Free School Meals has long been used as a proxy indicator of socio-economic status; if a child receives Free School Meals, they are likely to be socio-economically deprived in comparison to children who do not. As sociologists of education will tell you, socio-economic status (some of us even dare use the word ‘class’) shapes educational attainment. A lifetime ago, employed by an LEA, I would benchmark schools Key Stage results according to ‘FSM eligibility’, so that we could claim to be comparing the results of schools with a similar pupil intake.
The FSM statistics are not without controversy. To what extent can this statistic reliably measure socio-economic status?
One of the problems with the ‘FSM eligibility’ statistics is that, despite the title, the figure measures claimants of Free School Meals. There is a big difference between eligibility and the claiming of benefits entitled because of that eligibility. Benefits go left unclaimed.
The significance of all this? The Pupil Premium, which is additional money which the Government has pledged to benefit the education of “deprived children”. It will be allocated to schools’ budgets according to the number of children in receipt of FSM. Middlesbrough, in the North East of England has some of the most deprived wards in the country, and as such you would expect their to be a significant number of children eligible for Free School Meals. Middlesbrough Council is concerned that as many as 3000 children who are eligible are not receiving this benefit. It amounts to additional £1.1 million in Pupil Premium funding for Middlesbrough schools. They have urged eligible parents to complete a form in order to claim their entitlement. That is the way Free School Meals works, a parent has to apply for it, it is not automatic. In Middlesbrough, there are, at present approximately 6000 children already in receipt of Free School Meals. So, in other words, around one-third of parents have not claimed this benefit. Who knows what the real eligibility figure is if this level of non claiming is repeated in other socio-economically deprived areas. The Government has set aside £2.5 billion a year for the Pupil Premium. Will it be enough?