Economic and social development has been one of the major concerns for modernization and progress. Human development includes three factors: life expectancy, GDP and knowledge (education). Education is an important condition for human development. In the 1960s, human capital theorists reported that small developing nations in the Caribbean spent as much as 60 percent of GDP on education in an attempt to produce a highly trained and skilled labor force. The main objective of this paper is to deconstruct four main perspectives on education: functionalist, Marxist, interactionist and feminist for the purpose of gaining clearer insight into the nature of pupil achievement. Early sociological works were deconstructed by coding key concepts and statements within these four perspectives. Their language was deconstructed/analyzed/decoded by identifying descriptors of achievement such as meritocratic, class inequality, ethnic advantage, gender bias, innate ability, hidden curriculum and equality of opportunity/treatment. Descriptors were compared to form significant categories which were then categorized into three statements: the nature of pupil achievement (pupil achievement as product and pupil achievement as process), factors associated with pupil achievement, and the consequences of pupil achievement. The overall findings are 1) pupil achievement is both process and product of education; 2) the effects of home, school and social environmental factors is complex; and 3) pupil achievement is significant to a country’s economic and social development. Because these statements are complex and interrelated, a multi-agency approach to education is advocated. It can be stated as “the square of pupil/academic achievement”. It comprises “personal/individual” (intelligence), “home”, “school” and “social environmental” factors.
It must be borne in mind that the significant variables associated with pupil achievement have been categorized into four groups due to sheer practicality. It may well be that all these factors form an integrated whole making it difficult for them to be argued individually. Pupils may contribute toward their levels of achievement, i.e., the “personal” impact or the effect of intelligence. Other effects derive from the “home”, “school” and “social environmental” factors. These can be dichotomized into in-school (teacher-pupil interaction and personal/intelli- gence) and out-of-school (home and social environment) factors.
In addition to an evaluation of the validity of previous research studies, we shall appraise critically four sociological perspectives of education: functionalist, Marxist, feminist and symbolic interactionist, while the first three make original contributions to the sociology of education, the last confirms many of the Marxists claim that schools are far from meritocratic. Interactionists eschew structural analysis of behavior but often incorporate structuralism in their epistemology. I say this with respect to theories such as labelling and teacher-pupil interaction. In addressing these assumptions they depend on pupils’ social background (i.e. structures of class, gender or race) for confirmation. For instance, when they claim that students of lower class background are labeled as dull and middle class as intelligent, they have employed structure of social class to make this distinction.
An examination of the nature of pupil achievement is imperative since in order for us to make sense of schooling, we must acquire a clear first-hand picture of different social and biological factors associated with achievement. The nature-nurture debate that characterized the study of intelligence is a good platform for launching an investigation into the nature of achievement. We will take into consideration the inadequate and simplistic portrayals of complex social phenomena which dualistic theories (such as Latin American dependency) can produce sometimes. Put another way, we shall steer clear of the assumption that achievement is the result of the dynamics of one or two factors: chiefly the home and/or the school. Our understanding should bring us to the realization that achievement is multi-causal and that multivariate analysis is necessary in this enterprise.
The majority of this paper should expound on the causes of differences in pupil achievement. We will take extracts from seminal works such as those of J.W.B. Douglas [
Patterns of social life vary markedly between and within societies. This variation will be taken into account through contrasts and comparisons of the findings of research into pupil achievement in developed societies such as the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States (U.S.), and developing nation states such as Trinidad & Tobago.
Time will be devoted to the inclusion of factors associated with patterns of achievement that may be unique to the experiences of pupils/students in a Caribbean society such as Trinidad &Tobago. It may well be that experiences of schooling are universal; common to students in all schools based on the effects of gender, social class and ethnicity.
The curious mind should question the inclusion of the consequences of pupil achievement. In small-island states such as Trinidad & Tobago, this is an economic necessity. Concerns about the efficiency of the different types of school are palpable since they may have implications for the reform of economic development or modernization policies.
While the economic and political ideologies are obvious, the social effects of pupil achievement are more significant. This significance is evident because in recent times environmentalists have advocated for sustainable and people-centered development proposed by Cernea [
It seems that functionalists have induced Marxists into a battle of semantics that plays language games with us. Because of this we do not recognize that they are saying the same thing using different language. In fact, they assume the same thing i.e. that achievement is the result of social inequality. On the one hand functionalists Durkheim [
Some early Marxist-like writers (Sugarman [
We have already exposed the interactionist philosophy such as that espoused by Becker [
In a recent debate I have argued:
Pupil achievement entails the ability of pupils, in different types of school (primary, secondary, tertiary), to demonstrate mastery of knowledge and or skills prescribed by the official curriculum of the school…it maintains the status quo by guiding pupils of different social class backgrounds to their future positions in the occupational structure (Berkeley [
This position is one-dimensional. While it expounds on the outcome of pupil achievement, it says nothing about the processes by which achievement is promoted or inhibited in the classroom. Examples of these are teacher-pupil interaction described by Stanworth [
To suggest that pupil achievement is the process of schooling impels us in one direction along two parallel paths. The first is to agree with functionalists that it is the unequal distribution of innate ability that produces dissimilar levels of pupil achievement. Davis and Moore [
Marxists and feminists have recognized the “active” (political) role teachers play in shaping patterns of achievement. Bowles and Gintis [
In this way, there is a “correspondence principle” at work in schools. Schools are, as Althusser [
The second path to the perception of achievement as the process of schooling is seen when we examine inequality in classrooms. Therefore, labelling, streaming, banding and typing may predispose pupils into different kinds of occupation that maintain the class/occupational status quo. What Davis and Moore [
Critics of this approach may argue that many individuals of lower class origin have become upwardly mobile. Such persons are, as Marx stated, “falsely conscious”. A more plausible interpretation of the rise of lower classes, especially in advanced societies is attained by taking Parkin’s [
An inference can be drawn about the nature of achievement. Schooling contributes to achievement in one main way. It is a “miniature” society representative of the inequalities of different forms of social stratification (class, gender and race). Pupil achievement levels closely approximate their social background. Schooling appears to do little to reduce relative mobility rates. Pupils and teachers are major contributors to this proposition since in any classroom; teachers and pupils interact to recreate social relations.
To envision pupil achievement as the product of social inequality is to assume that the home and social environment agencies contribute significantly to the different levels of attainment pupils from dissimilar social backgrounds will attain throughout their schooling. Critics of this approach will retort that this is a deterministic teleology. Writers like J.W.B. Douglas [
Research by Dyer [
The best position to adopt is a dualistic one. We cannot substantiate any claims that achievement is quintessentially process or product. This must be the case especially in modern states (UK in particular) where education reform has led to a reduction in the levels of inequality in classrooms. Rosenberg [
The newly emerging picture is that innate ability and “home” factors are more strongly correlated to achieve- ment. In order to avoid peninsular and rhetorical arguments we will conclude this assessment of the nature of pupil achievement by suggesting that it is both the process and product of achievement. The principle of multiple etiology must apply. Now that all the major structuralist perspectives have been shown to be deficient in explaining the education system and pupil achievement, it is an opportune time for us to state that the only comprehensive theory of pupil achievement is that of “multiple agency”.
There are four main factors associated with pupil achievement. Through the principle of “multiple etiology” a deduction is that three agencies: the home, school and environment (community, corporate and civil); possess different kinds of association with classroom climate. The home is significant since it influences the pupil’s intelligence and acts as a guide to behavior for teachers in the classroom. It is a well-known Marxist and interactionist argument that teachers typify, classify and label pupils on the basis of their home background. Research studies conducted in the U.S., UK and France by Becker [
The role of the school shall be examined in two polarized paths. First, we assume that schools are “gatekeepers” of capitalism geared toward maintaining the privileges of the ruling and middle classes. Maintenance of other forms of social inequality (gender and race) is core features of schools’ and teachers’ roles in an unequal social system. In the second instance, schools will be portrayed as institutions inclined to treat pupils in more equal ways. This must not be taken to mean that the functionalist principle of meritocracy is congruent with the goals of equality of opportunity. Rather, it is indicative of the social changes feminists and anti-racists have lobbied for with respect to equal opportunities for girls and ethnic minorities in British schools.
Social environmental factors act as corollaries to the home and the school. In Trinidad & Tobago these foster the advancement of achievement values, among pupils, through academic and co-competitions. In addition, corporate organizations have assisted in school maintenance and upgrade in the form of financial and technical assistance when necessary. In fact, there is the evolution of school adoption initiatives. Commercial banks have taken the lead in ventures of this kind. An examination of the association of these agencies (home, school and environmental) to pupil achievement will ensue.
The Personal Characteristics of the Pupil and Level of AchievementIn order to determine the contribution innate ability/intelligence makes to pupil achievement, a number of issues will be discussed. These include the meaning and nature of intelligence, biases in intelligence testing and the distribution of intelligence among pupils of different social strata. The proposition that schooling enhances intelligence also demands attention.
1) The Meaning and Nature of Intelligence
It has been stated previously that descriptive and prescriptive writing styles are not attractive scholarly discourses. Therefore, we shall avoid a three-line definition of intelligence. Instead we opt for discussion of the nature of innate ability (intelligence). Jensen [
However, the nature of intelligence has been a much widely debated issue. Critics have argued that genes carrying innate ability have not been identified. They have suggested that much of the methodological framework employed in the study of intelligence by psychologists (in particular) is non-scientific. The debate has waged on about the role of the home and genetics/heredity in intelligence. Psychologists Eysenck [
The validity of claims such as this is questioned when the results of studies of identical twins reared in different homes are examined. While humanitarians may regard these as amoral, such studies disprove the belief that genetics is the chief cause of intelligence. In one case the Intelligence Quotient (IQ) of twins reared in distinct socio-economic backgrounds differed. The higher IQ scores were developed via middle class socialization. Bernstein’s [
Jensen’s [
2) Problems with IQ Tests
Antiracist theorists have argued against claims that differences in intelligence are racially or ethnically based. Darlington-Hammond [
Evidence from Driver and Ballard [
What therefore are the problems with IQ tests? Many Marxists believe that they are reflective of middle class standards of linguistic and knowledge competencies. When framed in formal middle class language, experience and context, they are thought to be culturally invalid. Parallel studies reported by Labov [
3) Variation in Intelligence
Once we assess pupil achievement broadly and accept that innate ability may be irrelevant to achievement, we cannot claim any affirmative knowledge about variation in intelligence across different social classes, racial groups and gender categories. Notions of variation in class and race have been adequately discussed in the preceding section. However, for the sake of emphasis, we shall repeat them. It cannot be claimed that any variation in pupil achievement among classes and racial groups is attributed to differences in intelligence. Two examples will be provided to support this. The first is that middle class pupils are not necessarily more intelligent than working class pupils. The second is that white pupils (in the UK for example) are not necessarily more intelligent than pupils of minority origin. One must look elsewhere for the reasons why their achievement levels differ.
The debate about gender-differences in innate ability is even more perplexing. Many writers have avoided the temptation of drawing a direct correlation between intelligence and gender. Barash [
Sociologists of education have showed scant regard for such oversimplified generalizations. Instead they associate gender attainment levels with differential socialization patterns in the home and school respectfully. Oakley [
Research by Burt [
3) Schooling and the Development of Intelligence
The weight of the evidence is that in most instances teachers select (deliberately and conscientiously) some pupils for success and others for failure or under-achievement. There are two direct methods through which teachers may encourage pupils’ intellectual growth. The first was shown in Rosenthal and Jacobson’s [
The second direct route to the influence of IQ is seen in studies by Boudon [
Some of these have been alluded to in earlier explanations of pupil achievement. Seminal works, such as Douglas’ [
Interactionists are inclined to employ processes of labelling, streaming and banding. It is here that they re-attire Marxist theories of inequality in education. Becker [
The conundrum deepens when the findings of research into the positive aspirations of black girls in a London Comprehensive and the achievement motivation of Asians are considered. In the first case, the self-fulfilling prophecy may produce unintended (latent) effects. Some black female pupils were self-motivated to succeed even when teachers expected them to fail. In the case of Asians, Driver and Ballard [
Departure from British realities in education is manifest by the existence of the I.E.E. in Trinidad’s education discourse. It states:
The I.E.E. in this study accounted for a substantially greater amount of variance in school achievement than did the more traditional socio-economic status (Dyer [
Another departure from the presumed effects of the home and family is found in Jules and Kutnick’s [
In a study of education in post-independence Trinidad Mustapha [
The variation in social conditions may have accounted accounts for this differentiation in patterns of achievement in Trinidad and Britain respectively. Since we did not find any evidence to substantiate claims of a direct correlation between “home” factors and pupil achievement in Trinidad, we can infer that Trinidad might be a more meritocratic and “open” society than Britain. Secondly, it is argued that education is one of the vehicles for promoting equality between higher and lower class strata in that island.
The simplicity with which functionalists, Davis and Moore [
Marxist writers Bowles and Gintis [
It is noticeable that both perspectives (functionalist and Marxist) have so polarized that they miss the point about the meaning of meritocracy. They are falsely induced into conceptualizing meritocracy so much that they fail to uncover its ontological characteristics. Such myopic oversights result in linguistic dissonance. What they have accounted for in essence is inequality of opportunity. This paper therefore proposes that the principle of meritocracy can be effectively understood only when the social circumstances of children, in the same classroom with similar educational aptitudes, is examined. Once pupils of different abilities are subject to the same educational experiences and standards, we have obscured that which we sought to illuminate (i.e. meritocracy).
Speech patterns (use of Creole vs. the Standard language) and early socialization are intricately linked to the activities of schooling. Joseph [
By use of a priori deduction it is clear that the most independent variables associated with pupil achievement levels are school related. These are independent of any “home” or personal/individual factors. The most potent of the school factors are school administration/leadership, climate and history.
In a systematic study of achievement, Jules and Kutnick [
In other instances, the history of the traditional seven-year denominational (“prestige”) schools encourages high academic aspirations. It is suggested that:
At the “prestige” schools, themselves, a culture of high achievement develops through peer and sometimes teacher influence. Through their systems of reward and punishment, there is pressure to achieve, to compete and to conform ( Mustapha [
The term “prestige schools” refers to the traditional seven-year all boys’ and all girls’ secondary schools managed by denominational boards. St. Mary’s College for boys (Roman Catholic) and St. Augustine Girls’ High School (Presbyterian) are examples of “prestige schools”. The formal curriculum is predominantly academic.
The contention about which has the stronger independent effect has been resolved by research conducted in different types of school. The findings of one research study are expressed as follows:
…from previous studies that both the home and the school significantly affect attainment, the effect of the school was more significant (Osuji [
We could not acquiesce to this claim more since it is a well-known fact that teachers enjoy relative autonomy compared to closely supervised occupations. For instance, professionals in private enterprises are likely to have their work closely scrutinized since profitability takes precedence over service to the community.
Research in different societies has showed that independent “home” and “school” factors are linked to the social background of the pupil or school type. Marxists, feminists, interactionists and anti-racists find significant correlations between variations in “home” factors (e.g. parental resources), “school” factors (e.g. labelling) and pupils’ class, gender or race. When all three factors are juxtaposed, a hierarchy is established in which white middle class males occupy the privileged/elite positions and black lower class girls the lowest. This situation was typical of the British education system up to the late 1980s. After this period, education reform led to improved performances for girls and minorities in particular.
Cross factorial research into the interrelationships between “home” and “school” factors are undertaken less frequently. Thus we are unable to identify their relative strengths. Bernstein [
In Trinidad, the effects of social class and the association between gender and pupil attainment have been popularized by Baksh [
There can be no confirmation of any claim that one factor is more strongly associated with pupil achievement than another. However, the relative importance of parental interest and involvement over all other factors is noted when the performance of minorities in Britain is taken into consideration. Swann [
Involvement in community projects; such as field trips, environmental restoration and home construction; contributes indirectly to pupil achievement. Such activities, may, as Durkheim [
Scholarly research into the influences of corporate sector participation in education has not been found. It is indeed appalling that the plethora of competitions organized by organizations like the National Gas Company of Trinidad a Tobago and Commercial Banks (Royal Bank―Young Leaders; Republic Bank―Youth-Link) has not induced researchers into discovering their impact on academic standards in all types of school.
In addition, it is a well-established fact that the more successful schools have been able to forge economic linkages with many corporate organizations. Scotia Bank in particular has facilitated a school-adoption program. It supplies financial aid, technical assistance, equipment grants (e.g. computers) and other services to primary and secondary schools. Many credit unions engage in the award of scholarships. They encourage the boosting of educational aspirations by rewarding high-achievers with financial assistance for their continued success in higher education.
The most notable consequences are those which accrue to the national community; a more highly trained and efficient workforce. This perception is synonymous with Parsons’ theses of productivity. By adopting the human capital premise it is clear that high or low levels of pupil achievement can promote or impede national development.
Jencks [
For developing societies such as Trinidad and Tobago an increase in levels of pupil achievement is progressive. Liberal and radical writers, such as Illich [
Social atrophy has often resulted from the phenomenon of brain-drain. The path to modernization is neither linear as Rostow [
Credit must be given to Frank [
In this conclusion I proffer nine points. Even though all are significant, the fourth supports the idea that academic achievement is important to adolescents in particular. Coleman [
Bennie Berkeley, (2015) Deconstructing Four Sociological Perspectives on Education: A Reinterpretation of Pupil Achievement. Open Access Library Journal,02,1-13. doi: 10.4236/oalib.1101746