I have a Sociology test in about an hour's time and I feel extremely guilty for not having revised much. And for being on Listography when I should be doing some last minute revision. So let me see what I remember.

• References to support the claim that intelligence is largely hereditary:
  • Herrnstein + Murray
  • Jensen + Eysenck

Do remember that it's not a debate of whether or not intelligence is a 100% hereditary or cultural, but rather about which factor is more significant in determining the level of intelligence.

• Interactionist writers:
  • Becker -- labelling theory and self-fulfilling prophecy
  • Gillborn + Youdell -- teachers acted and taught differently in different streams/sets + WC over-represented in lower sets
  • Ball -- streaming/banding affected students' progress, self-fulfilling prophecy

Interactionists suggest that the most important factor in determining and explaining differential attainment rates is the teachers' perception of the ability of students.

CQ: Fuller -- girls rejected -ve labels.

• Marxist writers:
  • Bernstein -- language codes, WC's Restricted Code seen as useless, WC children disadvantaged
  • Keddie (link btwn Interactionist and Marxist explanations) -- teachers control what information is made accessible to students, teachers see WC children as less intelligent therefore don't give them much info
  • Gould -- exams test cultural knowledge rather than intelligence, so WC underperform because WC culture seen as inferior

Marxists suggest that the reason why certain groups seem to be performing better is due to cultural capital. The upper and middle classes have the cultural knowledge to 'play the system' (__Ball__). The key argument is that the WC culture is seen as inferior and irrelevant because the school is a MC institution.

Moreover, in addition to lacking cultural knowledge, the WC is also materially-deprived. Smith + Noble suggested that poor living conditions may cause a child to be less motivated.

Douglas and Feinstein highlighted the importance of parental involvement in shaping academic success. WC parents seem to be less involved. (CQ: Blackstone + Mortimer -- WC parents are equally concerned but face job constraints; less flexible working hours, etc.)

CQ: Once again, we cannot generalise. The Marxist theory of educational attainment is too over-deterministic. Within the WC itself, there are differences. Most Marxists suggest that the WC comprises ethnic minorities. Pryce and Sewell suggested that it is too simplistic to say that the WC in general underperform because they are victims of discrimination in schools. For example, Indian and Afro-Carribean boys are both discriminated against, but then again Indians perform better. This is because they choose to ignore the discrimination and kept a positive attitude towards school. Afro-Carribeans, on the other hand, were hostile and formed anti-school subcultures.

So maybe it's not class, maybe it's ethnicity. Then again, there are differences within ethnic groups themselves. Black girls, for example, seem to be doing better. This may be because they reject negative labels, as Fuller suggested. Sharpe added that girls are now more career-minded, motivated and have more positive role models.

So if it's about role models, is it the lack of one that causes boys to underperform? This argument would be supported by the New Right which sees the increased rate of deviant and delinquent behaviour as a result of inadequate socialisation which arises when a child is brought up in a matrifocal lone-parent family.

Conclusion: Some sociologists suggest that too much emphasis has been put on comparing the performance of girls and boys. Boys, they say, have had a constant achievement rate since education began. Girls use to underperform, and have now caught up. The real question is of why boys are being left behind.