Low SES

Assignment 1

This paper looks at the impact low (socioeconomic status) SES as a social issue
that may impact the learning outcomes of students. In order to better understand how
the inequalities manifest in the educational context, I have utilised the theories of post
structuralism and cultural capital to highlight the impact of low SES on students,
teachers, and the wider community. I will explore the literature pertaining to this issue,
followed by discussing its impact on teaching practice, as well as how such inequalities
can be remedied in the classroom.

The Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) in 2012 showed that
students from lower socio-economic backgrounds achieve at lower levels, often facing
the double discrimination of a disadvantaged background and attending a
disadvantaged school (Thompson, 2013). There is a diversity of factors that may affect
the quality of performance for students from low SES, which have been the subject of
extensive inquiry and research (Taylor & Graham, 2007; Auwarter & Aruguete, 2008;
Desimone & Long, 2010; Lam, 2014). Within this comprehensive body of research,
various methods of ameliorating unequal outcomes, varied learning abilities, as well as
racial factors that go hand in hand with low SES status have been explored. This essay
will discuss the nature of the inequalities, such as lower achievement rates, unequal
power relationships defined by the students’ class identity, and the overall negative
impact of power structures and how they affect learning (Croizet et. al. 2001). A place
based approach encourages us to look at the wider social and structural elements that
affect the students’ quality of life and therefore learning experience at school. These can
include limited access to resources, services, adequate housing, and social structures
of support. By integrating a place based approach, we can target the factors that affect
the student beyond the classroom, a very important factor when looking at the learning
experiences of low SES. Pierre Bourdieu’s cultural capital theory will be used to
determine how inequalities affect low SES students. As well as this, Foucault’s (1983)
elaboration on the nature of power within the state and its institutions, a post
structuralist approach, will also be considered in light of SES students and their
experiences.

1
Low SES

The inequalities that low SES students face may affect their cultural capital, a
theory elaborated by Pierre Bourdieu (1986). Bourdieu defines cultural capital as the
indicators of symbolic wealth, often passed down from parents to children, that define
their class status (Wells, 2008.). It is clear that in such a framework of value, low SES
students can face the disadvantage of having a class status transmitted to them, one
that leaves them in a position of inferiority in relation to their higher-economic status
counterparts. This cultural capital is not limited to economic status, however, and can
also be related to other factors such as gender and ethnicity, which may further
exacerbate the disadvantages faced by students. Auwarter and Aruguete (2008)
highlights the fact that low SES can even affect teacher perceptions, in that if a teacher
strongly believes that a low SES background will influence how students perform, they
may come to believe that their efforts will have little to no effect on the children’s
learning abilities. This lack of effort and negative perception from the teacher, can make
a low SES student feel inferior or left out in classroom situations. Benner and Mistry
(2007) further insist that low adult expectations can lower the quality of academic
achievement amongst low SES students. Cultural capital is an important factor in
determining the students’ sense of confidence in their abilities, as well as their
interactions with peers and teachers, factors that are imperative for academic
achievement. Feelings of inferiority may manifest in low cultural capital children
especially when they are singled out, as evidenced in the study by Croizet & Claire
(1998), which showed that students performed poorly when separated from peers
according to their SES status. Bourdieu (1983) contends that dominant discourses
within a given cultural milieu do not just shape individuals, but relegate those who do
not fit into it as the ‘other,’ resulting in a loss of self-esteem and subsequent low
achievement (Wells, 2008).

In addition to this, state institutions such as the school can also perpetuate this
dominant discourse and exclude and disadvantage those who are ‘other’ to it. Low SES
students are one such group, in that they do not have equal access to the same
resources as other children due to economic disadvantage, often accompanied by racial

2
Low SES

marginalisation. Foucault (1983) highlights the role of the state and its institutions in
exercising power by referring explicitly to institutions, in that the activities that take place
there, the varied roles that are assigned to people within them, and their didactic
transmission of knowledge can subconsciously embed a sense of inferiority in the
students. Post structuralism, in this sense, contends that all interactions are shaped by
power and the wider context of the individual’s experience in a given setting, again
highlighting the importance of the place based approach in addressing the unequal
educational outcomes for SES students.

The double-disadvantage addressed by Thompson (2013) above, points to how

the school system itself, through poor distribution of resources and being a dominant
system within which the students must adjust, can impact low SES students adversely.
This power structure, in which the students often feel inferior, is again complemented by
the wider context of the quality of the household environment, and access to learning
material outside of school. Considine and Zappala (2002) conclude that patterns such
as low retention rates and negative attitudes towards school are just a few amongst the
plethora of problems that can affect SES students in Australia. Whilst studies from the
U.S. and Britain show little correlation between the school type and student attainment,
data from Australia clearly highlights that Catholic School students are more likely to
stay on attending school than those in state schools (Considine & Zappala, 2002,
p.130).

Macleod (2015) reports on the income disparity between the various regions of
the Greater Sydney region. There is a $40,000 difference in median personal income
between the North Shore and areas of Western Sydney on average (ABS, 2013).
Indeed, the chances of being a low SES student in Western Sydney is higher, and this
is crucial in looking at the impact of low SES through a place based approach, as
income becomes a crucial factor in determining the quality of the school and resources
that a student can access. These factors do not just impact the quality of learning for
these students, but also how their parents or guardians perceive these state institutions
that can indeed become intimidating for those that are lower on the socioeconomic
scale.

3
Low SES

Furthermore, McConney and Perry show a correlation between mean school

SES and the academic performance of students, one that is independent from individual
student SES (2010, 431). These further highlights how elements of state power, namely
the funding provided to schools, can also adversely affect low SES students. As
Foucault (1982) contends, these state institutions exercise power over the individual in
shaping their individual educational outcomes through the influence of the particular
school they attend. A low-income household, based in a low-income area, therefore,
decreases the chances of student success due to the low SES of the school itself
affecting the student’s ability to achieve. School funding is indeed crucial to student
success, as highlighted by the Gonski report, which communicates the centrality of
educational segregation in Australia. This segregation, ensured by lower funding rates
for schools based in lower SES areas, has shown students from these areas to
consistently achieve at lower rates than their higher SES counterparts (Kenway 2013,
p.288).

In addition to this, students from ethnic backgrounds can also suffer the double
disadvantage of being both a minority and low SES. Peterson et.al (2016) highlight this
in the Maori context in New Zealand, whereby the gap between White and Asian
background students and Maori students starts in primary school and continues
throughout their school years. In areas such as Western Sydney, which has been
highlighted above as being low SES, there is also a higher concentration of ethnic
minorities. This can result in lower levels of student achievement not just because of
their low SES, but their abilities to understand teachers (as they may also often be ESL
students), as well as the parents’ ability to approach the school regarding the students’
achievement levels. Again, for low SES and minority students, managing a relationship
with an institution of the state such as the school, can be a challenge that can lead to
them being disadvantaged in their achievement.

It is clear that being from a lower SES background in Australia leads to lower
educational achievement as a result of both school funding, exclusions based on being
from a minority background, and the difficulties of managing a relationship with an
institute of state power. Therefore, as teachers we must ensure that these factors are

4
Low SES

not further exaggerated by the students’ classroom experience. A teacher has

responsibility and a real impact to shape student achievement. Peterson et.al (2016)
highlight that teacher expectations have little correlation for student performance
overall, whereas for students from low SES and ethnic minorities, these expectations
play a significant role. If a teacher engages in stereotyping of students based on their
class status, or their SES, this has particularly been found to impact students
dramatically (Peterson et.al,2016, p.125). Therefore, for a teaching pedagogy that is
inclusive of students who may often come from both a low SES and minority
background, it is important to ensure that such stereotyping and teacher expectations
are avoided. I can understand the importance of this as an individual from an ethnically
diverse background, in that my own school experience highlights how this can adversely
affect students. As a student growing up in Sydney’s West, I often felt intimidated by
interactions with power, namely with teachers and the school environment. However, an
inclusive, multicultural school, with an ESL Centre that supported students from all
backgrounds, helped me overcome this fear and achieve to the best of my ability. I
would therefore like to engage a similar attitude in my own teaching practice, both
because I can understand the experiences of these students, but also because I have
come to realise that a good pedagogical approach can indeed improve the experiences
of low SES and ethnically diverse students.

An approach that privileges differentiation (APST, 2012) is perhaps the most

important in order to accommodate students of all abilities and backgrounds. For
example; a task can be altered to suit the skill and confidence level of students who
may feel intimidated by a set task. Students can be provided additional educational
resources to cater to their level of understanding and abilities (Clarke & Pittaway, 2014).
Scaffolding is another strategy that can be incorporated through one on one support, as
well as breaking down tasks to meet the needs of diverse learners (Gobby & Walker,
2017). In addition, a student centred pedagogy can help to shift the power dynamic in
the classroom by shifting the focus from the teacher to the student (Gobby & Walker,
2017). As we have determined, all interactions are ultimately shaped by power
(Foucault 1982), as the theory of post-structuralism highlights. So, this shift in power
can indeed help alleviate the disadvantage experienced by students from low SES

5
Low SES

backgrounds. In addition, feelings of inferiority and a lack of cultural capital that low SES
students are more susceptible to experiencing, can also be remedied by an approach
that allows them to feel a sense of pride in their work, and therefore elevate their
cultural capital in the school environment (Bourdieu, 1986).

By taking a critical look at the literature that provides a strong correlation

between low SES and low student performance, we can conclude that this factor must
be addressed at the state, school and classroom level, before it can impact students
who may suffer from these disadvantages. As the theory of cultural capital highlights,
students from low SES can have lower confidence levels in their abilities, a factor that
directly affects educational outcomes. In addition, post structuralism as a theory points
to how power, especially in the form of state institutions, can adversely affect those with
little access to that power. Students from low SES, with a lack of access to resources,
often complemented by a minority background, might perceive the school environment
as one in which they exercise very little power. Indeed, as the Gonski report has shown,
educational segregation in Australia means that students from students from low SES
also end up in school that are disadvantaged in terms of funding. These are all factors
that adversely affect students from both low SES and ethnically diverse backgrounds.
As a pre-service teacher and a person from an ethnically diverse background, I can
relate to the challenges faced by these students, and want to work actively, through
differentiation as well as a student centred approach, to ensure that my classroom
remains inclusive and that no student feels intimidated by my role as a teacher. I would
further contend that an open attitude, which enables students to approach me with ease
in the case of learning difficulties or any challenges in the school environment, can be a
practice that puts us on the path towards equal outcomes for all students.

6
Low SES

References

Auwarter, A. E., & Aruguete, M. S. (2008). Effects of student gender and socioeconomic
status on teacher perceptions. The Journal of Educational Research, 101(4), 242-246.

Caldwell, G. P., & Ginthier, D. W. (1996). Differences in learning styles of low

socioeconomic status for low and high achievers. Education, 117(1), 141-148.

Croizet, J. C., & Claire, T. (1998). Extending the concept of stereotype threat to social
class: The intellectual underperformance of students from low socioeconomic
backgrounds. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,24(6), 588-594.

Croizet, J. C., Désert, M., Dutrévis, M., & Leyens, J. P. (2001). Stereotype threat, social
class, gender, and academic under-achievement: When our reputation catches up to us
and takes over. Social Psychology of Education, 4(3-4), 295-310.

Desimone, L. M., & Long, D. (2010). Teacher effects and the achievement gap: Do
teacher and teaching quality influence the achievement gap between Black and White
and high-and low-SES students in the early grades. Teachers College Record, 112(12),
3024-3073.

Foucault, M. (1983). The Subject and Power. Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism
And Hermeneutics, II. Retrieved from https://foucault.info/doc/documents/foucault-
power-en-html

Kenway, J. (2013). Challenging inequality in Australian schools: Gonski and

beyond. Discourse: Studies in the cultural politics of education, 34(2), 286-308.
Lam, G. (2014). A theoretical framework of the relation between socioeconomic status
and academic achievement of students. Education, 134(3), 326-331.

Mapping Australia: What do people earn in your local area?. (2018). News. Retrieved
31 March 2018, from http://www.sbs.com.au/news/map/regional-variations-in-income
Milne, A., & Plourde, L. A. (2006). Factors of a low-SES household: What aids
academic achievement?. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 33(3), 183-194.

7
Low SES

Taylor, A. Z., & Graham, S. (2007). An examination of the relationship between

achievement values and perceptions of barriers among low-SES African American and
Latino students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(1), 52.