Category: education

Sociological perspectives on the role and functions of education in society; the significance of in-school processes such as teacher labelling and subcultures for pupil identities; explanations for differences in educational achievement by social class, gender and ethnicity; the impact of education policies of marketization, selection and privatisation, and the globalization of education

Teaching and learning in schools and the educational experiences of minority ethnic groups

An answer for a 10 mark ‘analyse’ question in A-level sociology (AQA)

This question cam up in the recent 2021 AQA Education and Theory and Methods Exam, as a 10 mark, with item question.

In the 10 mark education question, you get an item which directs you to two specific issues you need to analyse, and it’s good practice to give equal weighting to both issues.

NB there are no marks for evaluating in these questions, it’s all analysis (in-depth logical explanation).

It’s crucial to draw the links between the ’cause’ and the ‘effect’ explicitly!

The question

Read Item A below and answer the question that follows.

Item A
Some sociologists claim that the curriculum taught in schools today prioritises some cultures over others. Research also suggests that teacher expectations can be based on stereotypes.

Teaching and learning in schools may affect the educational experiences of minority ethnic groups

Applying material from Item A, analyse two ways in which teaching and learning in schools may affect the educational experiences of minority ethnic groups. (10 marks)

Possible Answer

The two focuses from the item are:

  • the curriculum prioritising some cultures over others.
  • teacher expectations based on stereotypes

Because this is a question on ethnic minority groups, it makes sense to discuss both of these as they relate to a range of different minority groups, and treat both focuses separately.

The curriculum prioritizing some cultures over others

The school curriculum has been criticised for being ethnocentric, which means it focuses on the experiences the main ethnic group, which in British schools means white British and White Europeans. Examples of this include the school year and holidays being based around a Christian timetable, European languages being the main ones offered, and history having a white-European focus, looking at things from the perspective of the colonising powers rather than the colonised, for exampled.

This can have negative effects on minority ethnic groups: school calendars are not necessarily in sync with Hindu or Muslim festivals for example, so students may take time off to celebrate these, and notoriously Ramadan frequently coincides with the A-level exam period, meaning fasting Muslim students may underperform because of this ‘ethnocentric timetabling’.

Many schools have a huge proportion of ‘minority’ students who speak African, Asian or Middle Eastern languages and yet there is rarely an option to study these as part of language options, these students may not see the point in studying another European language when they are already bilingual and might even feel offended that their own languages are not taught more widely to the majority white students.

The Prevent Agenda, which is part of the formal curriculum has also been criticized for being biased against Muslim students, with Muslim children feeling as if they are being singled out and being watched as potential terrorist threats more so than white children, which can be alienating.

Teacher expectations based on stereotypes

David Gilborn (1990) famously claimed that teachers expect black boys to be more aggressive and so they are more likely to punish them for being disruptive in class compared to white children doing the same. This may explain the higher expulsion rates for black boys compared to white boys. For those who aren’t expelled it might create the experience of the feeling of injustice about why they are being treated unfairly which could lead to less trust in teachers and less willingness to try hard in school.

Gilborn also found that black children are less likely to be put into the top sets by teachers because teachers expect them to be less able to cope due to their having higher poverty and lone parent rates, this means there will more able black students in lower sets getting frustrated because they are not being pushed, and blocked from sitting higher tier exams.

Wright found that teachers expect Asian girls to be passive and so didn’t include them in class room discussions as much, with can lead to them feeling excluded.

Similarly, teachers tend to assume Chinese students will always do well, something which less keen Chinese students don’t enjoy very much!

Relevant posts

There is lots of good material relevant to this question in this post: ethnicity and differential achievement: in school factors.

The above question was taken from the AQA’s November 2021 A-Level Sociology Education with Theory and Methods Paper.

Setting and Streaming

teachers tend to place students into sets based on social class and ethnic stereotypes

Setting and streaming in education is where students are put into groups based on ability. The most academic students are placed in the top sets or streams and the least academic being placed in the bottom.

Grouping and teaching by ability allows for the more academic students to be taught faster and pushed harder, and for the less able students to be taught at a pace suitable for them and given the extra support they need.

However, this methods of organising teaching and learning has attracted criticism from interactionist researchers who have found that students tend to be put into sets and streams based on teacher stereotypes rather than their actual ability, so for example we tend to find more middle class children in the higher sets!

This topic is very closely related to the labelling theory of education. It is teachers labels that determine which ability group a students is put into.

Setting and Streaming: Definitions

  • Streaming is where students are grouped by ability for all or most of their subjects. So a student will be in the top set for ALL subjects, with the top set being the most academic and the bottom being the least.
  • Setting is where students are grouped by ability for particular subjects, so a student may in the top set for maths and the second set for English and so on.

Two related concepts are banding, which is effectively the same as streaming, and the phrase ‘tier teaching‘ is sometimes used which could refer to either setting or streaming.

The opposite of setting and streaming is mixed-ability teaching where students of different abilities are all taught together in the same class.

The consequences of setting and streaming

Setting and streaming has a long history in the British education system. Especially since Comprehensive education was introduced it has been extremely popular, and continues to this day.

Those in favour of teaching by differential ability groups claim that it allows for students to be taught at a level and pace appropriate to their abilities, so teachers can focus more on pushing the more academic students all in the top sets, while given appropriate support to those in the lower sets.

However, there is also research evidence that shows streaming

  • It denies equality of opportunity to those in the lower sets. They may not be entered for higher level exams as a result.
  • Placement into sets is often based on teacher stereotypes rather than ability. It tends to be the working classes, boys and ethnic minorities (especially Black boys) who get put into lower sets.
  • Being placed in the lower sets can produced anti-school attitudes in those students placed in them.
  • Streaming and setting thus reproduce social class, gender and ethnic inequalities in educatinal achievement.
  • It reduces school cohesion and togetherness.

Two pieces of research highlight the problems above:

Social class and streaming

Stephen Ball (1981) conducted a classic study of banding in Beachside Comprehensive school. Banding is essentially the same as streaming.

Students at the school were placed into one of three ability bands when they first came to the school based on information provided by their primary schools.

While the bands were supposedly based on ability, Ball found that other criteria such as social class background determined what bands pupils were placed in. Pupils of similar abilities were more likely to be placed in the top band if they were from non-manual, middle class backgrounds.

When pupils first entered the school they were all eager to learn and co-operative with teachers, but over time differences in attitudes to learning and behaviour emerged dependent on which bands the students had been put into by teachers.

Teachers expected those in band one, the most academic group, to do well in school, and these maintained their enthusiastic pro-school attitude.

Those in band three were viewed by teachers as the last able and expected to have learning disabilities and not progress much, most of these were not a problem either.

Band two was viewed as the band where pupils might display behavioural problems, and this was indeed the case. Pupils in this band were the most likely to develop anti-school attitudes which manifested as putting less effort into homework, messing around in class, and higher rates of absenteeism.

Teachers also had different approaches to teaching the different bands

  • Pupils in band one were ‘warmed up’: they were pushed harder, and directed towards doing the more academic subjects and more difficult O-level exams.
  • Pupils in band two were ‘cooled down’: they were directed to doing the easier CSE exams and more practical subjects such as woodwork.

The conclusion of this study is that teachers label students based on their class background, and lower class students are more likely to placed in lower sets and achieve lower grades in school, and vice-versa for middle class students. Hence teacher labelling helps to reproduce social class inequalities in educational achievement.

Setting and streaming in primary schools

Hallam et al (2004) explored pupil perceptions of ability grouping in primary schools.

They conducted interviews with six pupils of high, moderate or low ability in every key stage two class in six primary schools some of which taught in mixed ability groups and some organised teaching through streaming and setting.

  • Social-adjustment, social attitudes and attitudes towards peers of different ability were ‘healthier’ among children in non-streamed schools.
  • The more streams there were, the more negative the attitudes of those in the lower streams were.
  • Pupils of below average ability who were taught by teachers who believed in streaming could become friendless or neglected by others.
  • In reading most students wanted to be in the top set because it gave them a sense of superiority. Most pupils, except those in the top groups, preferred either whole class activities or individual work because they didn’t want to feel left out.

The authors concluded that streaming can play a major role in polarising anti-school attitudes among students placed in the lower streams, and mixed ability teaching overall was the preferred choice among students, except for those in the top sets or streams!

Setting and GCSEs

Some schools organise the teaching of GCSEs in different tiers. Students in the top tiers will be entered for regular GCSE exams and so they have a chance of getting the top grades, but students in the bottom, or foundation tiers will be entered for a lower level of GCSE where the maximum grade they can achieve is a C grade.

Gilborn and Youdell (2001) conducted research in two secondary schools in London and found that teachers were less likely to place working class and Black students into the top GCSE tiers even when they had been achieving similar grades in previous years to middle class and non Black students.

Thus teachers were stereotyping these students and denying them the opportunity to achieve the highest GCSE grades.

Advantages of mixed-ability teaching

Given all of the above you might want to consider whether mixed-ability teaching is best, it does seem to have several advantages over teaching based on ability groups…..

  • There will probably be a broader socio-cultural mix of students (especially if teachers label based on racist and class stereotypes) which may help foster consensus in society.
  • It gives lower ability students more exposure to higher ability students which could help them progress faster.
  • It recognises that ability isn’t fixed and students can ‘spurt’ at any time in the year, rather than them being stuck in the wrong set for their ability for a year or more.
  • Teachers can still differentiate by ability within a mixed-ability class by setting ‘stretch and challenge’ activities.
Signposting

This material is mainly relevant to the education topic, a compulsory aspect of the AQA’s first year A-level sociology.

To return to the homepage – revisesociology.com

Sources

Gilborn and Youdell (2000) Rationing Education: Policy, Practice, Reform and Equity

Ball, S. (1981) Beachside Comprehensive: A Study of Secondary Schooling. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Why do Males and Females Choose Different Subjects?

parental and teacher stereotypes combine to reinforce gendered subject images!

Despite gender becoming more fluid in recent decades, students continue to choose subjects aligned to stereotypical, traditional male and female gender identities.

While it is true that subject choice is becoming gradually less gendered, gender stereotypical subject choices are still apparent when we look at the statistics in the 2020s.

For example, 95% of candidates studying Health and Social Care BTEC are female while Computer Science and Engineering are dominated by males.

For a more in-depth dive into gendered subject choices at different levels of education in 2022 please see my post on gender and subject choice.

Explaining gendered differences in subject choice

There are three broad explanations for why boys and girls continue to choose gender stereotypical subjects:

  • factors external to the school such as socialisation in the family home and peer group pressure.
  • In school factors such as the gender of the teachers teaching certain subjects and gender stereotypes held by teachers.
  • Ingrained gendered subject images which is a result of home and school factors.

Socialisation and gendered subject choice

Some research suggests that the gender stereotypes of parents still influence what toys boys and girls and play with, with some parents believing that certain types of toys are only really suitable for boys and girls.

Girls being steered into playing with dolls from an early age may influence their choice to study health and social care later on as teenagers, with its focus on child care.

Similarly, boys being steered towards toy tools and trucks may result in a higher proportion of them choosing to study engineering at university.

More generally, socialisation differences may result in different levels of self-confidence for boys and girls.

The results of laboratory experiments also suggest that men are more likely to enter competitive arenas than women because of higher levels of confidence (Gneezy et al., 2003; Niederle and Vesterlund, 2007).

Colley (1998) found that peer groups often subscribe to gender stereotypes and may encourage girls to choose more traditionally feminine subjects at GCSE and vice-versa for boys.

Teacher Labelling and gendered subject choice

Traditional beliefs about masculinity and femininity may still be held by teachers, lecturers and careers advisors, especially in mixed schools.

Some contemporary sociological research suggests that teachers’ gender stereotypes result in girls being less likely to choose STEM-related choices within high school and beyond ((Lavy and Sand, 2018; Lavy and Meglokonomou, 2019; Terrier, 2020).

There is a gender divide based on the subjects taught by men. Male teachers are more likely to specialise in STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) and PE, whereas women are more likely to teach humanities and languages. A lack of educational role models in STEM and PE can put some girls off taking these subjects. The effect is particularly visible among teenage girls who feel that male PE teachers cannot understand their needs properly (Gender Trust).

The fact that subjects in secondary schools such as English are more likely to be taught by women, and girls may feel more drawn to such subjects because they prefer the discursive style of female teachers. Similarly, subjects which boys are more likely to choose at GCSE and A-level, such as computing and physics, are more likely to be taught my males lower down in secondary schools, and boys might be more drawn to these subjects because of the more matter of fact way they are taught by male teachers.

Colley (1998) notes that girls in single-sex schools are twice as likely to study maths at university. This could be because the cultural pressures to not study maths are less likely to exist in single sex schools

Gendered Subject Images

The combination of external and internal factors above results in subjects becoming gendered: they develop an identity as essentially male or female.

This makes it harder for boys to choose ‘female’ subjects and girls to choose ‘male’ subjects.

Colley believes that the gender-identity of subjects may well shift with curriculum changes. For example the introduction of more technology into music is correlated with more boys choosing to study it.

Conclusions: Why do gendered differences in subject choice persist…?

Boys are more likely to choose traditionally male subjects and vice versa for girls as a combination of home and school factors such as gender stereotyping held by parents and teachers, which affects boys and girls self-concepts which are in turn reinforced by peers.

In a review of the literature Skelton et al (2007) noted that ‘gender stereotyping’ and ‘differential constructions of gender among pupils and teachers’ are probably the most significant factors in explaining gendered differences in subject choice.

It is very difficult to pinpoint one main causal variable for gendered differences in subject choice, the reasons are due to a multitude of factors.

Signposting

This material has been written primarily for students studying the education option as part of their A-level in sociology.

Free School Meals for All London Pupils

All primary pupils in London schools are going to get Free School Meals from September 2023 according to an announcement from the Mayor of London on Monday.

This new policy will cost £130 million, save the average family £440 a year and benefit around 270 000 children.

In an interview on Radio 4’s Today programme (20/02/2023) Henry Dimbleby, former head of the government’s national food strategy, explained the benefits of universal free school meals and the ideological barriers which have prevented this policy being enacted at a national level.

Trials had been done under the Labour government way back in 2013 in some local authorities including Newham, Durham and Islington which revealed that providing universal free school meals to all pupils significantly improved the academic performance of children who had previously been on free school meals, but the the performance of ALL children improved.

Those who had previously been on free school meals saw the most academic improvement, one theory for this change being that when ALL pupils can access free school meals it changes the culture of the school, removing the stigma of poverty at mealtimes and thus makes poorer students feel more included.

What about the rich kids who don’t need free school meals?

All children already benefit from free education which includes access a whole range of other material resources such as text books, so adding on free school meals isn’t that big a deal!

There is also evidence that all children benefit from this policy and it closes the inequality gap: A more recent study from Sweden showed that the introduction of universal free school meals improved the lifetime income of poorer students by 6% and the richest people’s only rose by 2%

The biggest drag on our economy is long term sickness, and the biggest cause of this is poor diet.

Why don’t we have free school meals in England?

According to Henry Dimbleby the current Tory government are ideologically opposed to universal benefits and this is the main reason we do not have free school meals for every child in England and Wales.

Both Nick Clegg and Michael Gove were in favour of universal free school meals when we had a coalition government, but since then neoliberal ideology means the government isn’t prepared to find the money to care for the poorest children in society.

Signposting

This material is relevant to the compulsory education aspect of the AQA’s first year of A-level sociology.

It is especially relevant to the topic of social class differences and education, as universal free school meals seem to be one of the most effective policies which can reducing the effects of material deprivation on educational achievement.

It is also a reminder of the continued harms of neoliberal education policy.

Sources/ Find out More

The Guardian (20/02/2023) London to offer free school meals to all primary pupils for a year.

Faith Schools in England and Wales

28.2% of schools are faith schools, most of them Christian.

Faith Schools are schools which have either have formal links to particular faith based organisations or just have a ‘religious character’.

There are three main types of state funded Faith School in England and Wales: Voluntary Aided (VA), Voluntary Controlled (VC) and Faith Academies. Some Faith schools are also independent, or fee-paying schools.

Faith schools have to teach the National Curriculum (although not Faith Academies because all academies are exempt from this requirement) but they can teach what they like for Religious Education, limiting the content to their own faith if they wish.

Faith schools are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of faith in relation to applications if they only have a limited number of applications. For example if a Faith school has 1000 places and they only have 1000 applications, they MUST allow all of those students into the school no matter what the faith of the applicant.

However Faith schools discriminate on the basis of Faith of applicants if the school is oversubscribed, using Faith as a preference for admitting students of the school’s faith before students who do not share the faith of the school. (3)

How Many Faith Schools?

In 2019 there were 1342 Faith schools in England and Wales, meaning that 28.2% of all schools were Faith schools and the remainder, over 70% were non-faith schools (3)

What faith are Faith schools?

  • 68% are Church of England
  • 29% are Catholic
  • 1% are other Christian faiths
  • 2% are non-Christian.

The statistics vary a lot depending on whether the schools are primary or secondary.

PrimarySecondary
Church of England72%34%
Catholic 26%52%
other Christian7%1%
non-Christian 1%6%

Looking at the figures in terms of raw numbers you really get an impression for how dominant Christian schools are, and especially Church of England schools…

  • 4370 Church of England
  • 1649 Roman Catholic
  • 25 Methodist
  • 72 Other Christian
  • 36 Jewish
  • 14 Muslim
  • 6 Sikh
  • 5 Hindu
  • 2 Multifaith.

There are very few non-Christian faith schools in England and Wales today.

Arguments against Faith Schools

Faith schools are selective: they take a disproportionate amount of students from wealthier, middle class backgrounds which explains their better results compared to non-faith schools.

However the fact that faith schools are selecting more middle class students results in a polarising effect with non-faith based schools having to take on a higher proportion of children from lower income backgrounds.

Parents really just want decent community focussed schools that encourage social cohesion, whereas Faith schools may have the opposite effect: by teaching pupils a particular faith they may well be isolating them from the wider community leading to increased social fragmentation.

For further arguments against Faith schools see The Humanist Society.

Signposting and relevance to A-level sociology

This material is mainly relevant to the sociology of education.

I guess the existence of faith schools is an argument against the view that education is postmodern as religions are the ultimate metanarrative.

They are also evidence that schools do not promote social solidarity, at least if you believe religion is source of conflict in the world today!

Sources

(1) Education Data Lab (2022) Faith Schools and Academisation.

(2) Wikipedia (accessed January 2023) Faith school.

(3) House of Commons Briefing Library (2019) Faith Schools in England: FAQs

Gender and Subject Choice

The most female dominated subjects are performing arts, health and social care and sociology, the most male dominated subjects are computer science and I.T., construction and engineering.

Subject choice in post-16 education remains heavily influenced by gender in 2022.

If we look at the total numbers of students taking A-level and BTEC subjects we find that girls and young women are still more likely to choose subjects which conform to the norms and roles associated with females, such as performing arts and health and social care.Boys and young men on the other hand are more likely to choose subjects which align with traditionally male gender norms and roles such as physics and computing.

However these trends are just generalisations and there are of course exceptions, and the ‘traditional gender-divide’ in subject choice has been reducing over time.

This post explores some of the differences in subject choice by gender in 2021-2022, focusing on A-levels, BTECs, higher education and apprenticeships. (I don’t look at GCSE level or below because students do not have freedom of subject choice until they pass their GCSEs and pursue post-16 education.

  1. Computer Science: 80% of pupils are male
  2. Physics: 75% male
  3. Further Mathematics: 65% male
  4. Design and Technology: 64% male
  5. Economics: 63% male.

The most female dominated subjects at A-level are:

  1. Performing arts: 90% of students are female
  2. English Literature: 78% female
  3. Sociology: 77% female
  4. Art and Design subjections: 75% female
  5. Psychology: 74% female
  6. Spanish and French: 74% female.

Most other subjects have a much more equal gender balance, so are best characterised as gender neutral.

Gender and Subject Choice at BTEC

Subject choices at BTEC also remain heavily gendered in some subjects. For example:

    • 90% of students choosing health and social care are female.
    • 85% of students choosing Information Technology are male.
    • 75% of students choosing Sport BTEC are male.

Business BTEC is more gender neutral with nearer a 60-40 split in favour of males and Applied Science is the most gender neutral subject with almost equal numbers of male and female students in 2022.

The gender divide continues into Higher Education, once again with subjects broadly divided along stereotypical gender lines:

The top five degree subjects for females are:

  • Subjects allied to medicine
  • Social Sciences and psychology
  • Veterinary sciences
  • Education and Teaching
  • Design and Creative and Performing Arts.

    Five subjects where there are more males studying them than females are:

  • Engineering and Technology
  • Computing
  • Architecture
  • Physical Sciences
  • Mathematical Sciences.

Gender and Apprenticeships

The traditional gender divide is somewhat apparent when it comes to the types of apprenticeship men and women choose, but it less dramatic than with subject choices at A-Level, BTEC and University.

    Females dominate in health and social care and education apprenticeships. Males dominate in construction, manufacturing and transportation. But many apprenticeships are gender neutral such as retail and public administration.

Signposting

This material is relevant to the gender and subject choice topic within the Education topic of A-level Sociology

You might also like to read this post on why males and females choose different subjects in education.

Sources

Name Gender, Achievement and Subject Choice in English EducationHESA Student Enrolments by Gender Gov.uk Apprenticeship Data by enterprise and learner characteristics

PREVENT: Discriminating Against Muslims?

PREVENT discriminates against Muslims

PREVENT requires schools to monitor pupils for their potential to become radicalised into extremist views and become terrorist.

While PREVENT doesn’t specify that schools should focus mainly on preventing Muslims from becoming extremist, an increasing body of research suggests this is what happens and as a result PREVENT as a policy is discriminatory.

What is Prevent?

PREVENT was introduced in 2015 and today forms part of the United Kingdom’s counter-terrorism strategy. Schools are among those institutions which are required to prevent young people from being drawn into terrorism.

The government notes that terrorism is often driven by extremist beliefs and for the sake of prevent defines extremism as:

“vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs.” (1)

PREVENT requires Local Education Authorities to use terrorist risk profiles to assess the risk of certain students being drawn into terrorism, and where necessary take appropriate action, which might mean sharing information with other agencies such as the police themselves.

However for the most part PREVENT requires that schools teach British Values and the importance of community cohesion.

Problems with PREVENT

In 2015 the Muslim Council of Great Britain raised a number of concerns (2) that the way PREVENT was being deployed in schools was both discriminatory against Muslims and having a harmful effect on mainly Muslim children.

They noted that 60% of referrals under PREVENT had been against Muslim children, even though they only made up 5% of the population, while only 10% of referrals were for white extremists, despite the growth in far right views in Britain.

They cite a number of case studies such as:

  • A two year old with learning difficulties being referred to social services after singing an Islamic song and then saying “Allahu Akbar” spontaneously afterwards.
  • Two students were referred to Senior Leadership Team at one school for making way for a female student and lowering their gaze as she went past.
  • In one school a physics teacher referred a Muslim student to the PREVENT team because he asked how to make a bomb, he hadn’t made a similar referral for a white student who had asked the same previously.

Human Rights Watch (3) argues that the implementation of PREVENT has violated students’ right to education and freedom of expression, making many Muslim students feel as if they cannot freely discuss religious and political issues for fear of being referred to the police.

The report cites the case of one eight year old who was subjected to an interrogation by authorities because a teacher mis-identified a name in Arabic on his T-shirt.

The main problem has been relying on teachers who are not well trained enough to identify the signs of radicalisation in children. Because of lack of training and mis-interpretation, some teachers end up alienating mainly Muslim students.

PREVENT and Islamophobia

Even though the 2021 update of PREVENT guidance doesn’t specify that school policy should be specifically focused on preventing Islamic extremism (NB the 2015 original version of PREVENT did), in practice PREVENT is usually interpreted through an Islamophobic lens.

In other words, schools mainly target Muslim students with PREVENT policies.

Jerome et al (4) cite survey research which found that over half of Black and Ethnic Minority students feel stigmatised by the PREVENT policy and feel as if the policy has made the creation of an ethnically inclusive school environment more difficult.

Signposting and Related Posts

This material is mainly relevant to the education topic within the sociology of education.

Sources

(1) Gov.UK (2021) Revised Prevent Duty Guidance for England and Wales.

(2) Muslim Council of Great Britain (2015) Concerns on Prevent.

(3) Human Rights Watch (2016) Preventing Education.

(4) Jerome et Al (2019) The Impact of the Prevent Duty on Schools: A Review of the Evidence.

Transgender Education Policies in England and Wales

There is little specific formal guidance for schools and more than half trans pupils feel like they can’t be themselves in school.

85% of schools report (1) they have seen an increase in the number of pupils identifying as either trans or non-binary, that is pupils identifying as a different gender to that which they were assigned at birth.

Schools have a long, historical tradition of being organised along a simple male-female divide which does not recognise trans identities, the most obvious examples of which include:

  • gendered school uniforms
  • gendered sports teams
  • male-female toilets.
  • Some schools are even boys and girls only schools!

Such simplistic traditional gender-divisions are potentially discriminatory against the increasing number of pupils with transgender identities, and this post explores the extent to which policies in schools are adapting to this increasing diversity of gender identities.

Government Policy Guidance on Transgender Children in Schools

The House of Commons Library last published guidance on how schools should support transgender children (2).

The briefing follows the Equality Act of 2010 stating that schools must not discriminate against pupils who are undergoing gender transformation, which doesn’t have to involve physical surgery, so any student transitioning to another gender is protected by law.

However besides this there is little central laying down of rules about what schools should do to support transgender pupils.

For example schools don’t have to provide gender neutral toilets or changing rooms, and they are free to continue with a traditional male-gender divide in P.E lessons.

The uniform restrictions are the most stringent as schools need to provide flexibility to accomodate cultural diversity, so transgender pupils are already covered against discrimination here in most cases.

The Home Secretary Seems to be Transphobic

Yet another generational disconnect that doesn’t help trans pupils is the fact that the current Home Secretary, Suela Braveman (*) comes across as Transphobic.

As far as she is concerned people under 18 cannot obtain a gender recognition certificate and so schools are under no obligation to recognise or support trans children in any way at all (4)

She has explicitly stated that schools don’t have to recognise students by any name other than that assigned at birth, and that they MUST provided single sex toilets, she has also suggested that schools are obliged to out transitioning pupils to their parents if they are not aware of this going on.

(*) I deliberately misspelled her name as she clearly thinks names don’t matter.

Support for Trans Pupils in schools is lacking

The latest survey data on how supported trans pupils feel in school to feel comfortable with their own (rather than birth-assigned) gender identity is from Stonewall in 2017 (3) which found that between one third and two thirds of trans pupils don’t feel supported.

  • While 75% of trans pupils reported that they were allowed to wear a uniform which fitted in with their identity, this is almost irrelevant as an indicator of discrimination as most schools today have gender-neutral uniform options – that is girls can choose to wear trousers if they want to .
  • Most shockingly of all one third of transgender pupils reported not being to use their own name in school, which is just about the most basic aspect of one’s individual identity I can think of, which is pretty hard evidence that one third of trans pupils feel like they are being directly discriminated against.
  • Finally, the majority of trans pupils report not being able to use toilets or changing rooms or feeling comfortable with sports suited to their gender.

I can understand that schools might find it difficult to find sports options that trans pupils feel comfortable with, given that most traditional school sports are spilt along traditional gender lines, and there might be resource restrictions on offering a wider variety of gender neutral options, providing discrete changing rooms and gender neutral toilets are relatively minor changes which could be made quite easily, and clearly by 2017 most schools hadn’t made these changes.

In terms of pupils feeling they can’t use their own name, that strikes me as just an unwillingness on the part of schools to make a very easy adaptation.

However, many schools are very supportive

It’s five years on since Stonewall’s last research on this issue, and even though we have a disconnected ageist and transphobic home secretary many schools do have policies in place which do support trans pupils.

A google search for ‘trans policies in schools’ yields several policy documents from schools which show a clear willingness to put in place mechanisms to make sure trans students feel comfortable, so thankfully many schools are more inclusive than central government!

Signposting and relevance to A-level Sociology

This material is designed to update the ‘gender identity’ topic within the sociology of education.

Clearly when it comes to trans identities schools were lacking in their support for trans pupils in 2017, and central government is not at all supportive, but it will be interesting to see what future research shows on this issue in the coming years – I’m sure there will be more support in place, but we’ll have to wait for more data to know for certain!

To return to the homepage – revisesociology.com

Sources

(1) Sex Matters (April 2022): Most Schools Now Have Trans-Identified Pupils

(2) Home Office Briefing (2020) Provision to Support Transgender Children in Schools

(3) Stonewall – The School Report 2017.

(4) The Week: Where Schools Stand Legally on Children’s Trans Rights.

Homeschooling in England and Wales

how many children are home educated, what are their characteristics and what are the challenges of increasing home education?

The number of children being homeschooled has more than doubled since 2015, with most of these children being between key stages 2 and 4. While the trend towards homeschooling is part of a broader process of postmodernisation in education, we still have only 1% of children being home educated in England and Wales, meaning this isn’t a significant trend.

How many children are home educated?

There has been a rapid increase in the number of parents choosing to homeschool their children in recent years in the United Kingdom.

Between 2013 to 2018 there was a 130% increase to bring the number of homeschooled children to just over 57 000 by 2018. (1)

In 2019 another survey found that there were 60,544 registered home educated children in England. This is an increase of around 15% compared to 2018 (2)

However, with a total of 9 million children in school this is less than 1% of children who are being home-educated.

The Association of Directors of Children’s Services (ADCS) produced a more
recent estimate of around 81,200 registered home educated children in
England as of October 2021. This was based on survey responses from 124 out of 152 LAs and so may not be representative.

The ADCS further estimated that around 115,500 pupils in England were known to be home educated at some point during the academic year 2020/21.

Taken together the above data suggest that the number of homeschooled children in England and Wales is increasing, but we need to be cautious with recent numbers as the pandemic may have skewed recent data upwards. Also, Homeschooling maybe a temporary status for some of these children, rather than them being homeschooled for their entire school career.

(1) Oxford Homeschooling: The Growth of Homeschooling

(2) House of Commons Library: Homeschooling in England

(3) Education Otherwise

What kinds of children are home educated

The Department for Education does not routinely collect data on all the characteristics of home educated children but we do know that 0.9% of home educated children have EHC plans, meaning they have a formal statement of special educational needs.

We also have data by age in 2020 which shows us that most home educated children are between key stages 2-4.

  • 1.3% of home educated pupils are early years
  • 10% are key stage 1
  • 28% are key stage 2
  • 30% are key stage 3
  • 27% are key stage 4
  • Only 3% are key stage 5.

So this suggests there is a pattern of parents pulling children out of education at key stage two and then home educated kids going back in to formal education by key stage 5.

There are no available data on gender, ethnicity or sexuality, or social class, but for later I think it’s reasonably safe to guess that we are talking about mainly middle class parents doing the home education given that they are the ones who are going to have the material and cultural capital to home educate.

Why do parents choose to home-educate?

According to a 2021 House of Commons Research briefing (2) in which parents were asked to state the top three reasons for home schooling, the main reasons parents in England and Wales opt for home schooling are:

  1. Covid related concerns
  2. Philosophical or lifestyle choice
  3. Physical and mental health
  4. No reason provided
  5. Disatisfaction with the school
  6. Did not get school preference
  7. Other reasons such as bullying, avoiding exclusion, but both of these are less than 1% of choices.

So if we discount the recent Pandemic, the two stand-out reasons are philosophical or lifestyle choices and the mental and physical health of the the child.

I’m not sure if ‘religious or cultural belief’s comes under the philosophical statement above, but that’s also a commonly stated reason on most home-education web sites.

What’s interesting about this is that these are pro-active choices, rather than re-active choices – in general parents are home educating because of their deeply held values or for the health benefit of their children rather than reacting to what they perceive as sub-standard schools.

What are the challenges of home education?

While it is every parents right to educate their children as they see fit, there is a risk that children who are home educated are going to receive a lower standard of education than their school educated peers and achieve lower exam results, but of course that all depends on the quality of schools available in the local areas.

An increase in home education could mean a more fragmented society as there will be more diversity of education, but as long as parents are encouraging their children to be reasonable and responsible human beings this shouldn’t be a problem.

Home educated children may also miss out on broader socialisation into friendship groups, but if the kind of children being home educated aren’t interested in this then I guess this is a net gain.

To my mind one of the biggest problems is inequality of opportunity – home education is really only available with the middle classes who have the resources to do this – if you’re a lower income family where both partners have to work full time home-ed just wouldn’t be an option!

This recent blog post by Schools Week suggests there has been a move towards parents pulling children out of school to avoid fines for poor attendance, and a move away from religious or cultural/ ideological motivations.

This could mean more low quality home education with schools left to fill in the gaps of anything the children miss out on.

Home Education – Relevance to A-Level Sociology

This material is mainly relevant to the education aspect of the A-level sociology course.

Home-ed is part of the postmodernisation of education, but TBH it is such a minor trend it is socially insignificant at time of writing, but interesting to observe nonetheless!

All pupils to study maths until 18…?

What are the advantages and disadvantages of making all students study maths until they are 18?

Rishi Sunak wants every student in the U.K. to study maths up until the age of 18 (1)

In his first speech of 2023 Sunak stated that he wants people to better equipped with numeracy skills so that they are better equipped to deal with an increasingly data-driven society and to manage their personal finances.

A further argument for making some kind of maths or numeracy lessons compulsory until 18 is that doing so should make British students more competitive internationally: many other countries which are higher up the PISA league tables do so, such as Finland and Canada.

Approximately half of 16-18 year olds currently do maths or science subjects at A-level, but most of these are those who achieved lower than a C grade at GCSE and are forced to resit their GCSE.

Only a minority of students who get C and above in maths go on to do a maths related subject at A-level, there are currently at least 400 000 16-18 year olds in Further Education institutions who are qualified to maths or science subjects but aren’t doing them, having opted for humanities subjects instead (20)

The speech was thin on details but the government has ruled out making A-level maths compulsory at 16-18 and has suggested that developing some innovate approaches to teaching numeracy post-16 will probably be required.

Increasing Maths Teaching: Supply and Demand Challenges…

On the supply side, the government is currently 5000 maths teachers short of its recruitment target.

A brief look at the statistics illustrates this: there were only 35 771 Maths teachers in state secondary schools in 2021, compared to 39 000 English teachers, with one in eight maths lessons being taught routinely by a non-specialist.

It seems unlikely that the government is going to be able to recruit more maths teachers given the 24% real terms pay cut teachers have been subjected to since 2010 and the current below inflation 5% pay increase being offered by the government for 2023.

And jobs in teaching are going to be especially unattractive for maths and science graduates, given that maths and science degrees tend to be gateways to higher paying careers.

A related supply problem is that sixth form colleges have seen drastic real terms funding cuts compared to other sixth form providers in recent years, being 20% underfunded in comparison, so these probably don’t have the funds to boost 16-18 math provision effectively.

On the demand side there is the problem that most students simply do not want to do maths related subjects beyond the age 16, and forcing all students to spend an hour or two a week studying a subject they don’t want to is a waste of resources, and so increasing maths provision could come at the expense of teaching students a broader range of subjects that they think will actually be of use to them.

There are a whole load of other subjects students could be usefully taught besides maths, such as critical thinking, political issues and debating contemporary news items civilly, for example.

And besides this A-level maths is actually the most popular subject already, with entries having increased from 83 000 in 2018-19 to almost 89 000 in 2020/ 2021. (3)

Finally, forcing 16-18 year olds to do maths won’t help the 8 million adults in the UK who only have primary levels of numeracy.

Signposting

This post is most relevant to the sociology of education, especially education policies.

Sources

(1) BBC News (January 2023) Rishi Sunak Wants All Pupils to Study Maths Until Age 18.

(2) The Guardian (January 2023) Multiplication of Teachers and Funds Needed for Sunak’s Post-16 Maths Policy.

(3) Gov Data on STEM A-level subject entries, accessed January 2023.