1. Gender
1.1. Girls do better at school than boys
1.1.1. Reverse was true in 1970's & earlier
1.1.1.1. Wilkinson (1994)
1.1.1.1.1. "genderquake!
1.1.1.2. boys attainment hasn't dropped
1.1.1.2.1. girls attainment has just got better
1.1.2. 9% gap between girls & boys in 5A*-C grades at GCSE in 2016
1.1.3. boys seem to catch up at A-level
1.1.3.1. only 45% of A-levels sat by boys
1.1.3.1.1. underperforming boys likely to leave formal education?
1.2. Theorists
1.2.1. Functionalists
1.2.1.1. reflects society
1.2.2. Marxists
1.2.2.1. tend to ignore gender
1.2.3. Feminists
1.2.3.1. patriarchy extends into schools
1.2.4. The New Right
1.2.4.1. concerned about boys' performance
1.2.5. Interactionists
1.2.5.1. teachers reinforce gender roles
1.2.6. Post-modernists
1.2.6.1. gender identity in schools is oppression
1.3. Out of school factors
1.3.1. Changing roles of women
1.3.1.1. Sue Sharpe (1994)
1.3.1.1.1. "Just like a girl"
1.3.1.2. gender socialisation
1.3.2. Youth cultures
1.3.2.1. ladettes
1.3.3. Crisis of masculinity
1.3.3.1. Murray
1.3.3.1.1. welfare benefits
1.3.4. Biological factors
1.3.4.1. largely discredited
1.3.5. Single mothers
1.3.5.1. New Right
1.3.5.2. boys lack role models
1.3.6. Evaluation
1.3.6.1. women still oppressed in society
1.3.6.1.1. gender pay gap
1.3.6.1.2. #MeToo
1.3.6.2. New Right theories
1.3.6.2.1. blaming the victim
1.3.6.3. 1960's jobs didn't need qualifications
1.3.6.3.1. boys did better in school
1.4. In-school factors
1.4.1. Biological factors
1.4.1.1. girls mature faster than boys
1.4.1.2. feminists suggest
1.4.1.2.1. reading is expected of younger girls
1.4.1.2.2. might explain better performance by girls
1.4.2. Feminisation of education
1.4.2.1. Sewell (2006)
1.4.2.2. more female teachers
1.4.2.3. Mitsos & Browne (1998)
1.4.2.3.1. coursework suits girls more than boys
1.4.2.3.2. introduced with GCSEs in 1990
1.4.3. Initiatives
1.4.3.1. GIST
1.4.3.2. WISE
1.4.4. National Curriculum
1.4.4.1. removed gender divide in subjects
1.4.4.2. everyone studies all subjects
1.4.5. League Tables
1.4.5.1. made schools focus on girls performance
1.4.6. Labelling
1.4.6.1. ideal pupils
1.4.6.1.1. quiet girls
1.4.6.2. Swann & Graddol
1.4.6.2.1. teacher pupil interactions
1.4.6.3. teachers turn a blind eye to laddish behaviour
1.4.7. Subcultures
1.4.7.1. boys more likely
1.4.7.1.1. Willis (1977)
1.4.7.2. decline of hegemonic masculinity
1.4.7.2.1. Francis (2000)
1.4.8. Gender socialisation
1.4.8.1. "masculine" subjects
1.4.8.1.1. construction
1.4.8.1.2. physics
1.4.8.1.3. computer science
1.4.8.2. "feminine" subjects
1.4.8.2.1. food technology
1.4.8.2.2. health & social care
1.4.8.3. Clarricoates
1.4.8.3.1. social class impact
1.4.9. Evaluation
1.4.9.1. Coursework has decreased in recent years
1.4.9.2. Elwood (1995)
1.4.9.2.1. exam performance (not coursework) always drives final grade
1.4.9.2.2. girls better organised?
1.4.9.3. boys attainment has been improving
1.4.9.3.1. just not as fast as girls
2. Ethnicity
2.1. Mixed patterns of attainment
2.1.1. Chinese
2.1.2. Asian
2.1.2.1. Indian
2.1.2.2. Bangladeshi
2.1.3. Black
2.1.3.1. Caribbean
2.1.3.2. African
2.1.4. White
2.1.4.1. Travellers
2.1.4.2. Boys
2.1.4.3. Working class
2.2. Theorists
2.2.1. Functionalists
2.2.1.1. some ethnic minorities predisposed to fail
2.2.2. Marxists
2.2.2.1. ethnicity overlooked in favour of class
2.2.3. Feminists
2.2.3.1. double disadvantages for BAME girls
2.2.4. The New Right
2.2.4.1. concerned about black Caribbean / West Indian boys
2.2.5. Interactionists
2.2.5.1. labelling
2.2.5.2. racism
2.2.5.2.1. teachers
2.2.5.2.2. institutional
2.3. Out of school factors
2.3.1. Genetic theories
2.3.1.1. New Right
2.3.1.1.1. Murray
2.3.1.1.2. Herrnstein
2.3.1.2. little evidence
2.3.2. Poverty / Class
2.3.2.1. Strand (1999)
2.3.2.1.1. disadvantaged children in London
2.3.2.2. Bangladeshi, Pakistani & Black Caribbean children more likely to receive FSM
2.3.3. English as an Additional Language (EAL)
2.3.3.1. UK Government
2.3.3.1.1. link with deprivation
2.3.3.1.2. 10% children in English schools EAL
2.3.3.2. appear to catch up and make greater progress
2.3.3.2.1. Driver & Ballard (1981)
2.3.4. Cultural / family
2.3.4.1. Family emphasis on education
2.3.4.1.1. Archer & Francis (2006)
2.3.4.1.2. Close-knit Indian families
2.3.4.2. Lack of family emphasis
2.3.4.2.1. White traveller families
2.3.4.2.2. single-parents
2.3.5. Evaluation
2.3.5.1. Pakistani & Bangladeshi families close-knit
2.3.5.1.1. yet children under-perform
2.3.5.2. single Black-Caribbean mothers
2.3.5.2.1. excellent role models for girls
2.4. In-school factors
2.4.1. Ethnocentric curriculum
2.4.1.1. White British
2.4.1.1.1. History
2.4.1.1.2. Literature
2.4.1.2. Languages
2.4.1.2.1. European
2.4.1.2.2. not Chinese / Arabic
2.4.1.3. school calendar / holidays
2.4.2. Racism
2.4.2.1. teachers
2.4.2.2. labelling
2.4.2.2.1. Gillborn (1990)
2.4.2.3. institutional racism
2.4.2.3.1. Wright (1992)
2.4.3. sub-cultures
2.4.3.1. Black or Asian "lads"
2.4.3.2. pro-school subcultures
2.4.4. Evaluation
2.4.4.1. subcultures might be anti-school but not anti-education
2.4.4.1.1. Safia Mirza (1992)
2.4.4.1.2. Mac An Ghaill (1988)
2.4.4.2. ethnocentric curriculum
2.4.4.2.1. doesn't explain why Chinese / Indian children outperform White British
2.4.4.3. no clear reason why some ethnic groups form subcultures in school
3. Functions of Education
3.1. Historical purposes
3.1.1. Avoid child labour
3.1.2. Vocationalism
3.1.3. Public health
3.1.4. Economic trade
3.1.5. Military capacity
3.1.6. Cultural Values
3.1.7. Religious reasons
3.2. Contemporary society
3.2.1. Preparing children for work
3.2.2. Transmission of cultural heritage
3.2.3. Training in logical thinking
3.2.4. Instilling social values in children
3.2.5. Opportunities for children
3.2.6. Allocation of children to roles
3.2.7. Secondary socialisation
4. Policy
4.1. 1944 Education Act
4.1.1. tripartite system
4.1.1.1. grammar schools
4.1.1.2. secondary moderns
4.1.1.3. technical schools
4.1.2. 11+ test
4.2. Comprehensive Schools
4.2.1. 1970's
4.2.2. phased out 11+
4.2.3. equality of provision
4.3. New Vocationalism
4.3.1. introduction of BTECs
4.3.2. more recent push as apprenticeships as an alternative to university
4.3.3. T-levels to replace BTECs (in England)
4.4. 1988 Education Reform Act
4.4.1. National Curriculum
4.4.2. SATs
4.4.3. League Tables
4.4.4. Formula funding
4.5. New Labour reforms
4.5.1. academies
4.5.2. university tuition fees
4.5.3. Sure Start
4.5.4. EMA
4.5.5. FSM
4.6. Marketisation
4.6.1. academies and Free schools
4.6.2. Ball & Youdell (2007)
4.6.2.1. endogenous privatisation
4.6.2.2. schools operate like private companies
4.6.2.2.1. advertise
4.6.2.2.2. compete against each other
4.6.3. growth in private companies providing services
4.6.3.1. IT
4.6.3.2. catering
4.6.3.3. exam boards
5. Theories
5.1. Structural theories
5.1.1. Functionalists
5.1.1.1. Durkheim
5.1.1.1.1. socialisation
5.1.1.1.2. critics
5.1.1.1.3. norms and values
5.1.1.2. Talcott Parsons
5.1.1.2.1. bridge between home & society
5.1.1.2.2. children encouraged to work hard
5.1.1.2.3. critics
5.1.1.3. Davis and Moore (1967)
5.1.1.3.1. Meritocratic
5.1.1.3.2. role allocation
5.1.1.3.3. sifting and sorting into roles
5.1.1.3.4. Ladder of opportunity
5.1.1.4. hidden curriculum
5.1.2. The New Right
5.1.2.1. Similar to functionalists
5.1.2.2. explanations of school failure
5.1.2.2.1. selection (e.g. 11+) good for children
5.1.2.2.2. harder for teachers to punish children
5.1.2.2.3. lack of accountability of schools
5.1.2.2.4. new teaching methods (active learning) failed
5.1.2.2.5. teachers indoctrinating children in Marxist views
5.1.2.2.6. schools inefficient with money
5.1.2.3. solutions
5.1.2.3.1. competition between schools
5.1.2.3.2. reduce power of local authorities
5.1.2.3.3. encourage employers into schools
5.1.2.3.4. increased testing
5.1.3. Marxists
5.1.3.1. form of social control
5.1.3.2. correspondence theory
5.1.3.2.1. Bowles & Gintis
5.1.3.3. anti-school subcultures
5.1.3.3.1. evidence of working-class revolution?
5.1.3.3.2. Willis
5.1.3.4. agency of repression
5.1.3.4.1. Althusser
5.1.3.5. hidden curriculum
5.1.3.5.1. oppressive
5.1.3.5.2. Illich
5.1.3.6. cultural capital
5.1.3.6.1. Bourdieu
5.1.4. Feminists
5.1.4.1. Reinforcing gender patterns
5.1.4.2. lack of education leaves women open to exploitation
5.1.4.3. ability grouping
5.1.4.3.1. selection in grammar schools
5.1.4.3.2. leads to labelling
5.1.4.4. Liberal feminists
5.1.4.4.1. girls and boys still steered towards traditional subjects
5.1.4.5. Marxist feminists
5.1.4.5.1. Oakley
5.1.4.5.2. Kelly (1987)
5.1.4.5.3. gender stereotypes in reading schemes
5.1.4.5.4. invisibility of women in curriculum
5.1.4.5.5. girls uncomfortable in "male" subjects
5.1.4.6. radical feminists
5.1.4.6.1. men dominate social spaces and teacher time
5.1.4.6.2. sexual violence against female university students
5.2. Social action theories
5.2.1. Interactionists
5.2.1.1. relationships between teacher & pupils
5.2.1.2. labelling & self-fulfilling prophecy
5.2.1.2.1. Rosenthal & Jackson (1968)
5.2.1.3. gender
5.2.1.3.1. Jones & Dindia (2004)
5.2.1.3.2. Stanworth (1983)
5.2.1.3.3. Francis
5.2.1.4. racism
5.2.1.4.1. Safia Mirza
5.2.1.4.2. Coard (1971)
5.2.1.4.3. Sewell (1997)
5.2.2. Post-modernists
5.2.2.1. teachers / school "constructors of knowledge"
5.2.2.2. culture
5.2.2.2.1. BAME children have a right to assert theirs
5.2.2.3. Societal values
5.2.2.3.1. not just teacher values
5.2.2.3.2. variety
5.2.2.4. identity and understanding
5.2.2.4.1. education should help individuals
5.2.2.5. Marxists criticise postmodernists
5.2.2.5.1. ignores structural problems in society
6. Social Class
6.1. Children from deprived backgrounds have lower attainment
6.2. Out of school factors
6.2.1. Material deprivation
6.2.1.1. Smith & Noble (1995)
6.2.1.1.1. lack of resources
6.2.1.2. Feinstein (2003)
6.2.1.2.1. poor nutrition
6.2.1.3. lack of resources
6.2.2. Cultural deprivation
6.2.2.1. working-class culture "different"
6.2.2.2. Bernstein
6.2.2.2.1. language codes
6.2.2.3. Douglas (1964)
6.2.2.3.1. working-class parents don't value education
6.2.2.4. Delayed vs. immediate gratification
6.2.2.4.1. Sugarman (1970)
6.2.3. Cultural capital
6.2.3.1. Bourdieu (1970's)
6.2.3.1.1. habitus
6.2.3.2. middle-class parents have advantages
6.2.4. Evaluations
6.2.4.1. policies
6.2.4.1.1. EMA
6.2.4.1.2. Sure Start / Flying Start
6.2.4.1.3. Free School Meals
6.2.4.2. can't prevent middle-classes "buying" advantages
6.2.4.3. cycle of deprivation
6.2.4.3.1. immediate neccessity
6.3. In-school factors
6.3.1. Cultural reproduction theory
6.3.1.1. Bowles & Gintis (1976)
6.3.1.2. schools as middle-class institutions
6.3.2. School organisation
6.3.2.1. UK Government (2014)
6.3.2.2. Working-class children do better in better schools
6.3.3. Labelling & self-fulfilling prophecies
6.3.3.1. Becker (1952)
6.3.3.2. Ball (1981)
6.3.3.2.1. streaming on behaviour not ability
6.3.3.3. Goodacre (1986)
6.3.3.3.1. working-class undermarked by teachers
6.3.3.4. Safia-Mirza
6.3.3.4.1. rejects labelling
6.3.4. Subcultures & peer groups
6.3.4.1. Jackson (2002)
6.3.4.1.1. laddish behaviour
6.3.4.1.2. self-worth protection strategy
6.3.4.2. Willis (1977)
6.3.4.2.1. "Learning to Labour"
6.3.4.2.2. working-class lads
6.3.5. Evaluations
6.3.5.1. factors linked with out of school factors
6.3.5.1.1. language codes
6.3.5.2. reasons why children join subcultures are complex
6.4. Theorists
6.4.1. Functionlists
6.4.1.1. working-class children just not as good
6.4.2. Marxists
6.4.2.1. system biased against working class
6.4.3. Interactionists
6.4.3.1. Schools are middle-class
6.4.3.2. teachers label pupils
7. In-school Processes
7.1. Labelling
7.1.1. Becker (1952)
7.1.2. self-fulfilling prophecy
7.1.3. pupil could reject label
7.1.3.1. self-refuting prophecy
7.1.4. Rosenthal & Jacobson (1965)
7.1.4.1. "Pygmalion in the Classroom"
7.1.4.2. "spurters" and "control" group
7.1.4.3. supports self-fulfilling prophecy
7.1.5. halo effect
7.1.5.1. ideal pupil
7.1.5.1.1. white, middle-class, female
7.1.5.2. teachers interpret behaviour differently
7.1.6. Gilborn & Youdell
7.1.6.1. triage
7.1.6.1.1. will achieve anyway
7.1.6.1.2. borderline C grade
7.1.6.1.3. hopeless cases
7.1.6.2. linked to league tables
7.1.7. Evaluation
7.1.7.1. hard to prove
7.1.7.2. Interactionists don't look at structural reasons for labelling
7.1.7.3. Safia Mirza
7.1.7.3.1. disputes labelling
7.2. Pupil Sub-Cultures
7.2.1. Willis (1977)
7.2.1.1. "Learning to Labour"
7.2.2. anti-school
7.2.3. pro-school
7.2.4. anti-school but pro-education
7.2.4.1. Safia Mirza
7.2.4.2. Mac An Ghaill
7.2.5. Evaluation
7.2.5.1. Post-modernists
7.2.5.1.1. cultural identity not academic attainment
7.2.5.1.2. music or fashion
7.2.5.1.3. Bauman and Maffesoli
7.2.5.2. Sub-cultures intersect with society outside school
7.2.5.2.1. Willis
7.2.5.2.2. interactionists don't see this link
7.3. Pupil identities
7.3.1. family
7.3.1.1. ethnicity
7.3.1.2. gender
7.3.1.3. social class
7.3.2. friends
7.3.3. teacher labelling
7.3.4. choice
7.3.4.1. Post-modernists
7.3.4.2. Maffesoli (1997)
7.3.4.2.1. "time of tribes"
7.4. Hidden Curriculum
7.4.1. subtle and covert
7.4.1.1. manners
7.4.1.2. behaviour
7.4.1.3. authority
7.4.1.4. heirarchy
7.4.2. Functionalists
7.4.2.1. norms and values of society
7.4.3. Marxists
7.4.3.1. principles of capitalism
7.4.4. Feminists
7.4.4.1. values of the patriarchy
7.5. Class Organisation
7.5.1. Setting
7.5.1.1. Ability based
7.5.1.2. For specific subjects
7.5.1.3. e.g. 11X1 Maths and 11X3 English
7.5.2. Streaming / Banding
7.5.2.1. Ability based
7.5.2.2. broad band for all subjects
7.5.2.3. e.g. 7A2 or 7Y1 for all subjects
7.5.3. Based on prior attainment
7.5.4. Also labelling
7.5.5. Some school try to disguise banding
7.5.5.1. e.g. A, B, C replaced with S, P, Y