Essay: To what extent do challenging contexts impact pupil engagement and achievement

This assignment aims to critically evaluate to what extent “challenging contexts” have an impact on pupil engagement and achievement. The two challenging contexts which have been chosen for this assignment are poverty and social class and the affects these have on attainment. In 1999, the Government pledged to halve child poverty by 2010 and eradicate it by 2020 (Cpag.org.uk, 2018). However, there are still currently 4 million children in the UK living in poverty, which equates to 30% of children (JRF, 2007). Therefore, it is evident that the gap between children from low-income families and their peers from more affluent families persists, and indeed increases throughout schooling (Harris, 2009). Whilst evaluating these contexts, the assignment will also look at current government policies used to tackle these issues and the help in which they provide, towards raising attainment levels within these changing contexts. There will also be an emphasis the strategies schools are using too, for example; links to free school meals and the pupil premium. Approaches to solutions will be highlighted throughout to access the effectiveness of these, whilst focusing mainly on school/parent partnerships and the impact this has on pupils.
Schools often face the task of educating young people that are “disadvantaged, disconnected and dislocated” from society through no fault of their own (Barr and Parrett, 2007). Research has previously indicated that it remains the case that certain groups of pupils fail to reach their potential, whilst others succeed (Harris, 2009). There are a wide range of ‘challenging contexts’ with some including; challenging behaviour, poverty, social class, language barriers and learning difficulties. However, the government is constantly attempting to improve schools that are a cause for concern, whilst aiming to improve the achievements of those affected. Gray (2001) argues that it would appear that the odds are stacked against schools in poorer areas and the social class differential still remains a powerful indicator of educational achievement. Therefore, it is essential to ensure that schools in difficult, urban contexts are effectively serving these students. Factors which cause differing attainment levels of children can be internal or external, with the internal factors being within schools; and are things such as interactions between pupils and their teachers and inequalities between schools. External factors come from outside education and are things such as the influence of home and the family background/lifestyle.
‘Individuals, families and groups in the population can be said to be in poverty when they lack the resources to obtain the types of diet, participate in the activities, and have the living conditions and amenities which are customary, or are at least widely encouraged and approved, in the societies in which they belong’ (Townsend, 1979, p.31). The DCSF (2009) goes on to state that ‘Child poverty means growing up in a household with low income’. Therefore, poverty is not just about going without it is about being deprived of equality in areas such as health, housing and in the case of children, education. The Barnardo’s trust (2012) suggests that over 3.6 million children in the UK live in poverty, with 1.6 million of those living in severe poverty. Therefore, research by Gorard (2010) shows that these children may face a greater risk of being exposed to crime, poor health, and failing to reach their full potential. It may also mean that they miss out on school trips and are not able to enjoy certain activities with their peers. As a result, their education suffers, making it difficult to get the qualifications they need to move on to sustainable, well-paid jobs.
In the last 10 years schools have benefited from Government investments, and statistics illustrate that the attainment gap is closing however; evidence shows that there is still a link between family income and achievement (Rowlingson, 2011). Approximately 15% of all pupils are entitled to FSM’s yet these pupils are less likely to get 5 good ACEM compared to those pupils not in receipt of FSM, therefore poverty and deprivation remain an ongoing area of concern (DCSF: Breaking the Link, 2009). Howard (2001) argues that young people from poorer homes have a more unhealthy diet; which leads to lack of vitamins and minerals which may affect the child’s performance at school. Abraham Maslow is known for establishing the theory of a hierarchy of needs, which places, in a pyramid, the order basic requirements needed for motivation, those being; food, water and sleep. Maslow’s theory illustrates and reinforces the importance of FSM’s for pupils eligible as without this basic need met, pupils may not function to the best of their ability. Assuming then that, a child is fed, research has shown that there is a significant and immediate effect of diet on behaviour, concentration and cognitive ability. In addition, nutrition is also believed to impact upon behaviour, which has the potential also to affect school performance and interaction with peers, and compromise self-esteem (Sorhaindo et.al, 2006). Therefore, such strategies like FSM and the pupil premium, attempt to tackle the issue. However, intergenerational cycles of poverty are not unbreakable or inevitable, but changes need to be implemented or there will be a risk that, in future years, the gap in attainment will impact on society. The issue therefore is to further encourage the disadvantaged groups and, in particular those eligible for FSM, to participate and make use of the offer (DSCF: Breaking the Link, 2009).
One obvious feature of the education system in Britain today is the difference in achievement between pupils of different social classes, despite major improvements in the education system (Maden, 2001). According to statistics taking from the Youth Cohort Study (2007), middle class children on average perform better than working class children, with this gap in attainment getting wider as children get older. Therefore, research has shown that middle class children achieve high GCSE grades and take the majority of university places (Publications.parliament.UK, 2014). Use of language also plays an important role in educational achievement and theorists such as Bernstein (1975) identified the difference in working class and middle class use of language. He categorizes between two types of speech code; restricted and elaborated. The restricted code is used by the working class and the elaborated code is used by the middle class. The differences in the speech codes enable the middle class children an advantage as the elaborated code is spoken by teachers and used in textbooks and exams. A study by Douglas (1964) also argues that many working class homes lack things which stimulates a child’s intellect i.e. books, computers and activities. Without these resources pupils are disadvantaged compared to their peers who have access to them.
A parent’s attitudes and values are a key factor affecting educational attainment. When a parent has negative or no views on education this reflects in the child’s abilities as they receive no encouragement from home (Hornby and Lafaele, 2011). Douglas (1998) argues that working class families placed less value on education and are generally less ambitious for their children. Working class parents visit schools less often, therefore are less likely to discuss their child’s performance with teachers; consequently, the child is left with little motivation for higher achievement. Bourdieu (1984) argues that it is a mixture of both cultural and material factors which link to educational achievement. To explain why middle class are more successful, Bourdieu uses the concept of ‘capital’. Cultural capital refers to the knowledge, attitudes and values of the middle class, he sees middle class culture as capital as it gives an advantage to those who have it. He argues that through middle class children’s socialisation, they pick up the language, self-discipline and reasoning skills, which the education system requires, to be successful in their academic life.
Social mobility – or ‘intergenerational mobility’ as economists prefer to call it measures the degree to which people’s social status changes between generations (Blanden J et al, 2005). “Children’s social class is still the most significant factor in determining their exam success in state schools, the Government’s head of teacher training acknowledges today (Garner, 2008). The government and schools simply want and are aiming to do more in order to encourage social mobility and help pupils to enter into higher paid employment. The recent government has introduced many initiatives, such as; free child care for two and three year olds. According to Ainscow and West (2006) “schools can and should ‘make a difference’, regardless of social context”. The government introduced the pupil premium to help raise attainment levels in those disadvantaged pupils. The pupil premium works alongside the FSM initiative, as those who are eligible for FSMs receive extra funding through the school for extra support (GOV.UK, 2014). These initiatives set out by the government, are there to support pupils within challenging contexts, in order to allow them the same opportunities as their peers.
There are a number of solutions and strategies that are used to raise attainment levels (Muijs et al, 2003). Schools and current government policies are working together in order to help raise attainment levels especially within these challenging contexts. Certain solutions used to tackle such issues may consist of community outreach, parent/school partnerships and more enrichment activities. These are obviously only a few, however the one in which this assignment will focus on will be school/parent partnerships. This approach provides an effective solution as it is widely recognised that the more involved parents are in their child’s education, the better the pupil performs at school (Georgiou and Tourva, 2007). The Government first set out its strategy for securing parental engagement in a White Paper published in 1997 entitled ‘Excellence in Schools’. Which suggests that there were three key points to improving the school-home partnership: providing parents with information; giving parents a voice; and encouraging parental partnerships with schools. Since then, there have been a number of strategies, policies and programmes designed to bridge the gap between schools and pupils’ families, creating an inclusive community where information is communicated and exchanged regularly, and personally. According to (Every Child Matters, 2003, p.18), “Research suggests that parenting appears to be the most important factor associated with educational achievement at age 10, which in turn is strongly associated with achievement in later life. Parental involvement in education seems to be a more important influence than poverty, school environment and the influence of peers”. Those from lower class families may not feel that they can contribute to their child’s educational attainment; however such strategies like this provide those parents with support and guidance in order to assist their child with certain activities like their homework. Parent/school partnerships work towards raising attainment levels in challenging contexts by inviting parents to formal meetings, involving parents in school work and inviting them into classrooms and holding parents evenings. However, Harris and Goodall (2007) argue that parental engagement needs to be rooted in the home, as this has been shown to be most positively related to children’s achievement. Although one of the greatest barriers to parent engagement can be their own experiences as identified by Shah (2001) who identifies that parents can feel labelled and not want to be involved. The benefits are greatly outweighed when parents are involved and include raised achievement, self-esteem and motivations (Harris and Goodall, 2009). Parent/school partnerships are evidently effective and when used appropriately and parents do take part, the outcome in their child’s attainment is evident.
To conclude, the school improvement approach is successful in solving the issues, when used effectively. Schools can therefore do well in challenging contexts by using the pupil premium for each pupil to best suit them and their needs; they could also do more to ensure that those who are not using the FSMs available to them are taking advantage of them. Facilitating more enrichment activities and interventions would extremely benefit those pupils in poverty or from low income families who are unlikely to be able to partake in such activities unless they are done in and through school settings, thus giving each pupil the same opportunities. Although there are solutions available it does not mean that such solutions will work for all school and individuals. Many pupils that are affected by such challenging contexts may need a variety of approaches in order to boost their attainment levels. Schools may at times be able to compensate for some social issues that affect children and families, and should be putting children and their families at the heart of decision making and giving all children and young people the best possible start in life. The evidence suggests that schools in challenging contexts can make a difference, with research showing that since government strategies, such as FSMs and the pupil premium, were set up the attainment gap has narrowed (Parliament.UK, 2018).