How are aspects of culture and identity constructed in family contexts and what are

the implications of this for children’s learning?

In this essay I will be exploring how different family structures can influence a child’s

learning. Family structures differ from one society to another. Britain today is

supposedly a ‘multicultural’ society. According to Diane Ravitch there are two

approaches to multiculturalism, the particularist view and the pluralist view. The

particularist view emphasises the special history, literature, and art of particular ethnic

groups. Ethnic studies for minority groups developed to raise self-esteem. The

pluralist view sees multiculturalism as a melting pot. All cultures contribute to the

main culture that is thought to be subscribed to by the majority.

However the particularist approach is protectionist and the pluralist view supports

cultural imperialism. Britain has welcomed newcomers for many years until recently

due to the large number of immigration. It is a large melting pot of diverse ethnic

minorities, bringing distinct cultures and religions together. However it can be argued

that Britain is not a multicultural due to different cultures sticking together and rarely

mixing with its foreign outsiders. Resulting in schools in certain areas having to

accommodate large groups of children who either do not speak English, or find it hard

to relate to the English schooling system. Of course this is not always the case.

The definition of family is a complex and diverse depending on culture and society.

There is no correct definition on the family, Sociologists do not agree on a definition,

broadly there are two types of definition; Exclusive definitions – these focus on the

specific relationships within the family unit i.e. marriage, and inclusive definitions –

these focus on the functions of the unit e.g. support. There are assumptions about the

relationship between families and social cohesion, with the ‘breakdown’ of traditional

family forms regarded as bringing social fragmentation, which consequently has

1
effects on Education. Culture and identity are indefinitely going to affect a child’s

education.

A major proposal from the welfare reform legislation of 1996, which replaced Aid to

Families with Dependent Children with Temporary Assistance for Needy

Families, states that two-parent families are good for children. This in my eyes is seen

to be a little dated. However statistics show that children who succeed in school

belong to families with a nuclear structure, otherwise known as the cereal packed

family. This could be due to a number of contributing factors. Parental inputs of

various types generally have positive effects on attainment but tend to reinforce,

rather than reduce, class advantage/disadvantage; those in a position to consider

longer term effects can spend time now, those with fewer resources need to draw on

their child’s time, rather than spend their own time.

The nuclear family is made up of two parents and one child or more. The nuclear

family can be known as the cereal packet family, due to its ‘happy family’ image

which gives the impression that most people live in a typical family and these images

reinforce the dominant ideology of the traditional ‘nuclear family’. However, the

cereal packet family isn’t an accurate picture of the typical ‘modern’ family, as it

portrays an image of the mother being the ‘housewife’ and the father being the

‘breadwinner’ who has been out to work all day earning the income of the household.

Parsons, a functionalist sociologist believes that the nuclear family provides one very

important function in the early stages of a child’s life; Talcot Parson calls this

function ‘primary socialisation of children’ Parson argues that every individual must

internalise the norms and values of society. He states it is the family that moulds the

child’s personality to fit the needs of society, producing children who are committed

2
to shared norms and values and who have a strong sense of belonging to society. With

that thought in hind sight, from Parsons point of view, a nuclear family would provide

children with the best socialisation to succeed within education. As having two

parents at home, resulting in the child having more attention as there would be more

time available compared to a single parent family. The child in a nuclear family

would typically have more help doing homework or reading with an adult, whereas in

a single parent family the adult may not have time to sit down and help their child.

The idea of a nuclear family is quite middle class in some respects although recent

studies show that the working class are starting to adopt the idea of a nuclear family.

A typical white, middle class family would have a nuclear structure, which could also

be a contributing factor as to why nuclear families have children who are more likely

to succeed, as statistics show, middle class children, have done better academically

due to support from home, help from home and possibly extra tuition.

The choice of school that a middle class family makes has a great effect on the child’s

education. Even before the 1988 Education Act gave the appearance of choice of

secondary schools in the UK State system, those who could mobilise both social

networks and financial resources were able to challenge the administrative systems of

local allocation (Fitz, 2001). Research on parental choice in the UK reveals the

influence of class on the process of making choices and the distribution of places,

though the degree of social differentiation is disputed (Gorard, 2000; Taylor 2002).

Both Gewirtz et al. (1995) and Woods et al. (1998) identify class differences in the

use of networks in Britain post 1988, with working class families continuing to opt for

more familiar local schools, and relying more on formal information from schools,

3
perhaps for reasons such as time constraints and not having the enough resources to

explore more possibilities.

Gerwitz et al. (1995) also found that at the bottom and the top of the scale, it is the

potential social networks of children that are important in choice of school, with both

groups seeking to enhance appropriate ‘bonding’ (Allatt, 1993, 1996). The middle

group were more concerned with accessing ‘bridging’ assets for their children. With

increasing parental awareness of the importance of qualifications, working class

parents may now be following suit (Woods et al., 1998).

Overall, the resources relating school choice to social networks suggests that the

switch from administrative allocation to a `parental choice’ system extends the role of

social networks, without necessarily helping to build social capital further. The

reproduction of class and community differences is enhanced by the ability of parents

to use their power in the education market to shape their children’s future milieu.

One form of community social capital sustaining inequality is well recognized in the

UK private education is known to be a class privilege, in the face of a developed,

more open meritocratic education system leading to jobs of high influence. Bourdieu,

a French sociologist suggested that those buying ‘distinction’ do so largely through

family resources affording cultural capital and access to top public schools as access

to exclusive social networks of overwhelming power. Family financial investment in

school fees is then realised through access to social networks, and not only through

enhanced qualifications. Private education has been a strong part of Britain’s history

dating back as far as c.600. Although I believe that private education promotes

inequality within society as it inhibits social mobility, I also believe that it is our

human right to be able to pay for our children’s education if able to do so.

4
With the up rise of competition between schools and increasing globalization of elite

labour markets, the significance of school and college reputation for an individual’s

occupational attainment are likely to increase (Wolf, 2002), this has become more

apparent since the new government have taken council, as universities fees are likely

to increase, and smaller universities are likely to face major cuts in funding. The

‘name’ of the school and university counts as a marker of attitude, skills and

commitment. Though this may look like a retreat from social networks as a ladder to

opportunities, reputation is a classic public good and social capital is likely to be

deployed to protect it and to limit ‘free-riders’ for example the Russell Howard group

of Universities. This can occur at all levels of the educational system and suggests

that parental engagement may operate to police boundaries to protect reputation and

hence enhance the market value of the qualifications their children acquire. Resulting

in only a certain class of families being able to achieve high-level qualifications.

Ethnicity within the context of family can also have major influences on a child’s

learning. With religion closely related. Patterns of family life have become

increasingly diverse over the past thirty years among white people in Britain and other

North European countries. Family relationships are said to be moving away from “old

fashioned values” towards “modern individualism”. Different minorities are strongly

represented at both ends of the spectrum.

Caribbean and white women are broadly similar in their fertility rates. But, while one

in ten white women with children (and under 35) is a single mother, no less than half

of Caribbean mothers are single (never-married) parents. The trends are similar in

both groups: a sharply rising proportion of single mothers, especially among women

with relatively low levels of educational qualifications however analysing of the 1998

5
GCSE results (ONS 2000) reveals that in all ethnic groups girls do as well as or

outperform boys. The practice of living independently of the children’s father can be

traced to West Indian social and economic traditions. But actually it is the British-

born generation, rather than the migrants themselves, who have increasingly adopted

the tradition said to have come from the West Indies. A household with no father

figure or another adult can be detrimental to children’s learning, especially young

males. Not having a father figure in a household especially in an inner city home

could leave the son feeling as though he must step up and become the father figure to

look after his mother. A lot has been written about the ‘macho lads’. Indeed this ‘new

laddish’, ‘anti-school’, ‘behaving badly’ attitude has been identified as the

consequence of economic decline and one of the main reasons for male under-

achievement this could also result in the child leaving school early, or truanting in

able to either work manually or commit crimes to gain money. It has also been a

known fact for many years that girls perform better academically then boys for

different reasons regarding what type of school the child is in, where that child lives

and who that child lives with.

Interestingly research shows that pupils from nearly all ethnic minorities are more

likely to continue with further or higher education than their white counterparts. In

1998 students from ethnic minorities accounted for 13 per cent of higher education

students (under the age of 20) in the UK. Students from ethnic minorities are said to

be over-represented in higher education as only 9 per cent of the population under the

age of 20 are enrolled in higher education classes. However, students from Indian and

Chinese groups are more likely to enter higher education than those from other ethnic

groups. Young black Caribbean men and young Bangladeshi and Pakistani women are

6
under-represented in higher education (ONS 2000).

Studies in the 1960s and 70s suggested that language deprivation was a problem for

working-class children within the education system. Working-class children were not

thought to be using the type of language that was expected in school. One of the most

famous studies of this type was carried out by Bernstein, (1960). He described the

way in which the middle class and working class use different speech codes.

Bernstein referred to these as elaborated and restricted speech codes. Bernstein argued

that the characteristics of the restricted code spoken by the working class were: short

unfinished sentences, repetitiveness, use of question tags (‘didn’t I?’ and so on),

narrow vocabulary bound to a particular social context (since the language is limited

to explaining particular situations). The common use of restricted code by working

class families at home can be restricting the child’s development at school having a

detrimental effect on their learning. Whereas middle class families use elaborated

speech codes, involving explicit and detailed sentences, meaning explained clearly

and use of universalistic language (not tied to a particular context). This means that

middle class children can relate to their teachers a lot easier and understanding what is

being asked of them is clearer compared to a working class child, who may find

school alienating and frustrating. The education system demands and teaches the

elaborated code, therefore working-class children are at a disadvantage, and that using

a restricted code limited the opportunities for working-class children to acquire some

of the skills they needed within the education system. However it is important to not

judgments on what speech code is used but it is more important to understand the

difference between language styles rather than looking at one as superior to another.

Children’s attainment in school starts to mesh the factors of gender, lower social class

7
and race. I believe that it is not just one factor of culture and identity that creates

implications of children’s learning but when all mixed together they can have a

detrimental effect. Family structure such as a nuclear family is likely to be white and

middle class, with an education orientated mindset also using elaborated speech code,

therefore any child brought up in an environment where education is valued and

respected that child is more likely to succeed. Compared to a single parent family

structure, statistics confirm that White or African Caribbean working class children

are the lowest academic achievers especially for young males.

Gender and role models from the family can lead to implications of children’s

learning. While years ago a young male with minimal educational qualifications could

leave school and find a job, those days have gone. Many young men have experienced

their fathers losing jobs and in turn have reduced expectations of finding work. The

question now revolves around how a male forms a masculine identity in the face of

unemployment. In addition to changes in the job market, schools, in response to the

National Curriculum and publicised league tables, have become more competitive

places. Setting and streaming have become more popular within schools, with the

consequence that the lower sets have proportionately more boys and more pupils from

ethnic minorities. This can lead to children either from working class backgrounds or

ethnic minorities starting to lose respect for education and starting to believe there is

no point in trying.

Overall after writing this essay it has become clear that family contexts do have an

effect on children’s learning.

8
Referencing

Allatt, P. (1993) ‘Becoming privileged: the role of family process’,

in I.R. Bates and G. Buckingham, Youth and Inequality, Buckingham,
Open University Press.

Allatt, P. (1996) ‘Consuming schooling: choice, commodity, gift and

systems of exchange’, in S. Edgell, K. Hetherington, and A. Warde
Consumption Matters: The Production and Experience of
Consumption, Oxford: Blackwell/The Sociological Review.

Fitz, J. (2001) Education Policy and Social Reproduction, London:

Routledge.

Gorard, S. (2000) Education and Social Justice: the Changing

Composition of Schools and its Implications, Cardiff: University of
Wales Press.

Gewirtz, S., Ball, S. and Bowe, R. (1995). Markets, Choice and

Equity in Education, Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Wolf, A. (2002) Does Education Matter? Myths About Education and

Economic Growth, London: Penguin.

Woods, P., Bagley, C., Glatter, R. (1998) School Choice and

Competition: Markets in the Public Interest, London: Routledge.