Social mobility or social reproduction? A case study of the attainment patterns of students according to their social background and ethnicity

Abstract

This paper explores levels of achievement amongst boys who attended a selective school in Birmingham, UK through consideration of their attainment, social background and ethnicity. It seeks to answer three main questions. Firstly, to what extent does academic attainment vary between students from different socio-economic groups and ethnic backgrounds? Secondly, what are the possible reasons for these variations? Thirdly, what can selective schools do to close the gaps in attainment between these groups? The research study sought to determine whether different groups of boys in the case study school experienced social mobility, or social reproduction, as a consequence of the education they received. Using quantitative data of student attainment (n = 625), combined with information on their residential location, areas of comparatively low achievement across the city of Birmingham were mapped. Spatial data for levels of deprivation and ethnicity were also considered. The resulting map identifies areas of high vulnerability (HV) to poor performance, specifically by identifying the postcodes of neighbourhoods containing students who are most likely to underachieve. Qualitative data was gathered amongst students (n = 121) who were embarking on their General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) studies. All were asked to identify factors that might affect their academic performance. These findings were then cross-referenced with the postcode study to help analyse possible reasons for underachievement. The main finding of this research was that the study school experiences a distance-decay effect in relation to examination success. Boys from Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) groups generally performed worse than White British (WB) boys, while students from deprived areas of the city were also less likely to succeed. Students from poorer communities tend to live in environments of relatively low aspiration, although one inner city area was identified as anomalous with regard to the achievements of its students. We conclude that social reproduction, rather than social mobility, is occurring within the case study school and suggest a range of initiatives to raise the levels of achievement of those who are most socially disadvantaged.

Keywords:

• social mobility
• social reproduction
• achievement
• attainment
• social background
• ethnicity

Notes

1. In this article deprivation is defined according to official UK normalised data (as displayed in Figure 1), with particular reference to indices which identify areas of multiple deprivation. Data for income, employment, education and health (the “domains”) are identified and measured separately. These are then aggregated to provide an overall measure of multiple deprivation, with each area allocated a deprivation rank and score. The indices are used to help target policies and funding, with the aim of improving the quality of life in disadvantaged communities (Office for National Statistics 2013).

2. Use of the term “class” is not unproblematic. Beck (2013), discussing Curran’s (2013) theorization of class in the “risk society”, explores why he believes it represents too “soft” a category to capture the essence of social inequality. In part, this relates to criticisms of sociological theories and research into the reproduction of the social order and the maintenance of class systems, rather than their transformation (see Beck 2007; Atkinson 2007). Whilst acknowledging the enduring connection between class, income and educational differences, Beck criticises class theorists and researchers (such as Atkinson, Bourdieu, Goldthorpe and Scott) for missing the cosmopolitisation of the classes (Beck 2013, 66). In this article class is considered to be predominantly associated with levels of income, occupation, education, culture, and residence, resulting in hierarchical class divisions (such as, lower/working, middle and upper class, or the five class divisions used by the Office for National Statistics).

3. Blanden, Gregg, and Machin (2005a) illustrate this as follows: “Young people from the poorest income groups have increased their graduation rate by just 3 percentage points between 1981 and the late 1990s, compared with a rise in graduation rates of 26 percentage points for those with the richest 20% of parents”. Interestingly, Danny Dorling (2012) notes that New Labour’s final period in office corresponded with the number of working-class students attending university increasing at a rate higher than those of middle class students, proof (according to Hanley 2011) that “investment in people works” and that policies such as the Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA), Sure Start and Excellence in Cities were a success. Nonetheless Crawford et al. (2011) caution that the effectiveness of such policies still need to be assessed through “solid evaluation strategies”.

4. We do not discount the influence of internal factors on performance, such as whether students feel supported by their school community. However, this is not the prime focus of this research.

5. A postcode marked “red” (High Vulnerability) could have some 50% of its students in the bottom 30%, or up to 100% (which is actually the case in one postcode). It might therefore be argued that a means of distinguishing variation between these two extremes should be offered. However, the main purpose of the map was to show broad trends in geographic distribution. By including too much detail such a map would fail in its purpose of clearly demonstrating differences in attainment levels.