Finding explanations for the educational disadvantages that ability grouping can create

Introduction

Education is considered as a major institution in society that can play a key role in social change. Ballantine and Spade (2012) highlight it can lead to society addressing inequalities. While this appears to be the case, through considering government documentation, such as ‘Every Child Matters’, Ballantine and Spade (2012) indicate that schools can also support and legitimise different class positions, maintaining social inequalities. This is due to the expectation that education will reproduce society in terms of knowledge, resources and morals. Although this can happen in many ways, the focus of this paper will be on the effects of ability grouping. Bourdieu’s (1977) theory, field of practice, will be discussed and then used to explain how ability grouping can lead to educational disadvantage, particularly focusing on lower class children in England.

Sparks (2013) highlights a 15% increase of primary school teachers using ability grouping since 2011, with 67% of teachers implementing it. Although this source may not reflect classrooms of 2020 in England, a government speech (DfE and May, 2017) highlighted their aim is to make England a ‘Great Meritocracy’, especially in education. This can support the practice of ability grouping because it can act as a ‘meritocratic practice’, with those who have merit earning the top places with better opportunities, and those without at the bottom (Sparks, 2011). Ability grouping, therefore, uses differential reward dependent on talent, illustrating retributive justice (Gale and Densmore, 2000). However, research (Sparks, 2013) shows that commonly, lower ability groups consist of children from lower classes. This may indicate that the social justice used to rationalise differential reward could be causing the continuation of social inequalities. Due to education in England aiming to provide children with ‘equal opportunities’ (DfE and May, 2017), social change and continuity can become an important theme to understand how society maintains and controls structures. This can offer a larger context to help explain why lower class children appear to be disadvantaged by ability grouping.

Bourdieu’s field of practice

Bourdieu’s (1977) theory, ‘field of practice’, shown in the equation below, can explain how social inequalities and social structures are maintained to create social continuity. The theory describes how society ‘is’. Within Bourdieu’s (1977) theory there are four main ‘thinking tools’ that are relational concepts: habitus, capital, field and misrecognition.

[(habitus)(capital)]+field=practice

Bourdieu (1977)

Grenfell (2014) claims Bourdieu’s concepts are complex, therefore hard to define. Despite this, it was identified that Bourdieu believes the ‘habitus’ consists of dispositions that can influence the ways an individual acts, dresses and speaks, which link to the agent’s social class. Whilst this shows individual agency, Bourdieu (1977) claims it overcomes the divide between the social and the individual, due to individuals fitting into certain groups. For example, people from the same class, gender or occupation could create similar dispositions. Consequently, this can reinforce power structures and maintain social continuity, through each class creating dispositions that fit their social status. Due to this, King (2000), whilst not agreeing, acknowledges the habitus can also bring together other transcending dichotomies, such as objectivity and subjectivity. Bourdieu (1977) points out that the habitus, while being subjective, is an internalised structure: “the objective structure made the subjective habitus” (Grenfell, 2014, p. 72). This can also work the other way, as dispositions of the habitus inform actions that, in turn, contribute to social structures, illustrated in Figure 2. However, King (2000) argues that the habitus only leads to a ‘sophisticated objective state’. He believes, if the structures that inform the habitus are objective, this means the habitus will remain objective. Whilst King (2000) claims this to be true, it ignores Bourdieu’s belief about agents being individuals: Bourdieu (1977) claims individuals will internalise the structures in different ways, which can make the habitus subjective, weakening King’s (2000) argument.

Unlike King (2000), Grenfell (2014) supports Bourdieu’s theory, claiming it is dissimilar to others, due to the habitus enabling understanding of how past experiences can inform the present and future. For example, a child that has experienced learning in a classroom (the past), will feel more comfortable in the current classroom environment (present), compared to someone who is experiencing it for the first time. Thus the habitus is present in the field and informing the way the individual acts. This implies the unequal distribution of capitals can work to the advantage of the upper class to maintain their class position, as they can provide agents with experiences that help them to be more successful in fields. This shows the habitus can be complex.

‘Field’ is the concept that society is built up of different spaces, such as institutions like schools, which have their own rules, knowledges and forms of capitals (Bourdieu, 1986). Whilst Bourdieu recognises fields are separate, they are also interrelated. Grenfell (2014) demonstrates this, showing the education field can determine the positioning in the economic field. Like social class, fields are hierarchical, where people occupy ranked positions dependent upon the ‘doxa’ (the rules within the field), habitus and capitals. However, the ‘doxa’ is controlled by the people with power, which they can use to their advantage to maintain their status, supporting social continuity (Bourdieu and Passeron, 1977). Importantly, Bourdieu recognises that not everyone will agree to the rules. He suggests that agents, who have enough capital, will try to change the rules to benefit themselves, making fields competitive. This acknowledges the possibility of social change. However, Grenfell (2014) notices Bourdieu contradicts his own theory. For instance, Bourdieu came from a lower class family and used the education system that he criticised, to work up the social ladder. This shows that Bourdieu’s theory may not apply to each individual and does not explain why some agents, without the correct capitals and habitus for the field, manage to rise on the social ladder.

Bourdieu (1977) claims the unequal distribution of capitals can support the hierarchical positioning in fields, advantaging people with more capital. According to Bourdieu (1986) there are four types of capitals that give people power in the fields. These consist of economic (in terms of money), cultural (related to education and qualification and connected to habitus) and social capital (relationships and connections) (Bourdieu, 1986). These capitals can lead to the fourth, symbolic, which is shown through symbols. For example, when an individual buys an expensive car because they have economic capital. While there are different capitals, Bourdieu (1986) highlights that they can be ‘converted’ into other forms. Grenfell (2014) believes this strengthens Bourdieu’s theory, as it enables different types of capitals to be considered, whereas other theories have only focused on economic.

Jaeger (2016) acknowledges misrecognition is an important concept of Bourdieu’s theory. Bourdieu claims ‘symbolic violence’ results when agents ‘misrecognise’, unconsciously, structures to be natural systems of classification, which are actually culturally formed. For example, if an individual fails at school, they are personally blamed. However Bourdieu claims that schools are set to teach, communicate and track in a certain way that normally benefits the cultural capital of the higher classes. This suggests social origins and cultural capital are misrecognised as individual’s academic achievement, presenting symbolic violence, and in turn legitimises social class and inequalities. This shows there can be a relationship between social class and academic achievement. According to Jaeger (2016), symbolic violence implies there will not be social change, due to agents ‘misrecognising’ the social structure. However, Jaeger (2016) argues there has been social change, such as government reforms and increased equal rights. Whilst only considering symbolic violence could lead to this assumption, Bourdieu dismisses criticisms like Jaeger’s (2016), by explaining that when the relational concepts are seen together, the competition in the field and individuals accumulating capital can lead to social change.

Unlike Jaeger (2016) and King (2000), Grenfell (2014) acknowledges the importance of using Bourdieu’s concepts together, to show social continuity and agents’ practice correctly. Through social class impacting on the individual’s habitus and capitals, it can lead to social continuity. For example, a person born in the lower class is likely to have little economic, social and cultural capital, which could lead to him working a minimum wage job. The habitus may make him feel comfortable in this field, due to his dispositions matching the skills required to work in this environment. However, this may also disadvantage the individual, as the person may not want to aim for a promotion that does not suit his habitus, meaning he is likely to stay lower class. This may be considered as symbolic violence, as higher positions normally match dispositions of the upper class.

Summary: Theories and Literature

Bourdieu’s (1977) ideas can lead to the belief that there is social continuity, agreeing that class is still central even after aristocracy. Bourdieu (1977) describes his theory through concepts of field, capital, habitus and misrecognition, which are able to break down factors impacting on agents within a society. This recognises how the social structures are internalised and impact on individuals. Bourdieu’s views could be limited, as it does not explain how people accumulate social positioning in fields without the correct capital and habitus, like himself (Grenfell, 2014). Other literature (Jaeger, 2014) points out that there are disagreements about the habitus bringing together transcending dichotomies, such as subjective and objective.

Educational Disadvantages that Ability Grouping Produces

The final section aims to demonstrate Bourdieu ‘explanatory power’ of the educational disadvantages that ability grouping produces for lower class students. Through literature, it has been noted that ability grouping can be defined in many ways. To ensure clarity, ability grouping is defined as: when children are sorted into hierarchical groups based on standardised test scores (Marks, 2016).

Bourdieu’s (1958) theory may explain that ability grouping can put lower class children at a disadvantage. Bourdieu believes that lower class children are put at a disadvantage, due to unequal distribution of resources, which he describes as capitals. Bourdieu and Passeron (1977) explain that by rewarding intelligence, ability grouping is rewarding children who have dispositions in their habitus that match the school’s culture. Thus, due to less opportunities that lower class children may encounter, could result in them being seen as less able, placed in lower ability groups. Through viewing the impact of social, economic and cultural factors it enables a holistic view, enabling us to see the impact on the individual rather than factors belonging to the social class.

Bourdieu’s (1977) theory explains ability grouping may lead to more than slower progression in the lower ability groups. According to Bourdieu (1977) the habitus can be impacted by the field, by internalising the structure. For example, Marks (2016) highlights that children who are placed in lower ability groups tend to generate negative attitudes towards the topic, whereas those in the higher ability groups tend to be more positive about their learning. These can develop due to teachers’ perceptions of the children’s ability and how the children view themselves for being lower than their peers (Sparks, 2013). Thus, the objective structures that offer differential opportunities, in turn, become subjective by affecting children’s dispositions in their habitus. This can lead to symbolic violence by the structure, ability grouping, being recognised as natural, and therefore accepted. Bourdieu theory demonstrates that ability grouping can affect and shape the relationship the child may have with learning for their life course. Through this it can be seen that children placed in a lower group may remain in the lower group, due to their habitus developing dispositions that go against learning.

Using Bourdieu’s theory it can be acknowledged that ‘talent’ can be seen as subjective, due to the government controlling this. Bourdieu’s (1977) concepts of fields and the rules within the field (doxa), show that people with power set the rules. This means, teaching, pacing and assessment, are more likely to suit the habitus of the upper class, due to this class being in control of the rules in the field of education (DfE and May, 2017). Marks (2016) considers this can happen, as children from higher classes are more familiar with the language used in the classroom. Therefore, meaning children’s class position will give them a better chance, which can make ability grouping subjective.

Through Bourdieu’s theory it can be acknowledged that there is educational disadvantage, due to the differential reward of intelligence, which uses retributive justice. Gale and Densmore (2000) define retributive justice as providing people with differential reward dependent on their contributions. Bourdieu (1977) theory can argue that ‘differential reward’ ignores the fact that not everyone starts on a ‘level playing field’. Notably, Sensoy and DiAngelo (2017) define social justice and equity as ‘a principle of fairness for all people’. This shows that retributive justice may not be viewed as socially just, when considering ability grouping, as those from an upper class background may gain more reward, as they have more capital. Marks (2016) believes other practices can be used, which cause less inequalities. For example, mixed ability groups could be more ‘just’ for lower class children, to prevent them being treated differently and having less opportunities. Mixed ability groups can enable access for all children to the same learning (Sparks, 2013), taking a distributive justice approach. However, it is important to note that this may not be the same when looking at higher ability children and considering what is just for that group of pupils. This is because mixed ability groups could slow down progression in high ability students (Marks, 2016). Therefore, highlighting the possibility that pedagogy cannot be neutral to all groups.

Limitations

Whilst this study has considered a well-known and valid theory within the theme of social change and continuity, there are many other ways to theorise educational disadvantage that ability grouping may create. It is important to acknowledge that Bourdieu (1977) does not explain why some children do well in lower ability groups, showing his theory does have limitations. Moreover, ability grouping can be defined in many different ways, which may lead to different conclusions (Marks, 2016). It has also been assumed that ability grouping will use differential reward, which Marks (2016) suggests is not always the case.

Conclusion

Bourdieu’s (1977) theory has highlighted that ability grouping can cause educational disadvantage, due to: the uneven starting point; talent being valued subjectively; differential reward and misrecognition of ability grouping being a natural selection, when it is culturally formed. This shows sociology theories can be important in understanding issues in education (Ballantine and Spade, 2012). Considering DfE and May (2017) want to create ‘equal opportunities’ for all children in education, it is believed ability grouping should not be used in the school system and children to be placed in mixed ability groups, enabling all children the opportunity to have the same resources (Marks, 2016). This can limit the ‘misrecognition’ placed on children in lower ability groups and help children to develop more positive dispositions towards learning (Bourduie, 1977). However, it is concerning that the DfE and May (2017) want to achieve ‘equal opportunities’ through a ‘Great Meritocracy’, as this essay presents the inequalities of meritocratic practices, such as ability grouping, can create, especially for lower class children.

Bibliography

Ballantine, J. H. and Spade, J. Z. (2012) Schools and society: a sociological approach to education. 4th edn. London. Pine Forge Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice. Trans. by Richard Nice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1986) The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.) Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (New York, Greenwood), pp. 241-258.

Bourdieu, P. and Passeron, J. C. (1977) Reproduction in education, culture and society. London: Sage Publications.

DfE and May, T. (2017) Britain, the great meritocracy: Prime Minister’s Speech. Available at: www.gov.uk (Accessed: 20th March 2018).

Gale, T. and Densmore, K. (2000). Just schooling: Explorations in the cultural politics of teaching. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Grenfell, M. J. (2014) Pierre Bourdieu: key concepts. London: Routledge.

Jaeger, M. M. and Breen, R. (2016) ‘A dynamic model of cultural reproduction’, American Journal of Sociology, 121(4), pp.1079-1115.

King, A. (2000) ‘Thinking with Bourdieu against Bourdieu: A ‘practical’ critique of the habitus’, Sociological theory, 18(3), pp.417-433.

Marks, R. (2016) Ability-Grouping in Primary Schools: Case Studies and Critical Debates, Northwich: Critical Publishing.

Sensoy, Ö. and DiAngelo, R. (2017) ‘We Are All for Diversity, but: How Faculty Hiring Committees Reproduce Whiteness and Practical Suggestions for How They Can Change’, Harvard Educational Review, 87(4), pp. 557-595.

Sparks, D. S. (2013) ‘More Teacher Group Students by Ability’, Education Week, 32(26), pp. 8