Situational Constraints

Although having a superficial similarity to the idea of class sub-cultures, the theory of situational constraints involves the idea that we can explain such things as differential educational achievement not by arguing that different classes have different values, but rather, that different social groups / social classes are differently-placed in the class structure (their situation) in terms of their ability to translate values into social behaviour and educational qualifications (the constraints).

For example, Oscar Lewis, talking about the poor and the nature of poverty, argued that:

"It is probably more fruitful to think of lower class families reacting in various ways to the facts of their position and to relative isolation rather than the imperatives of a lower class culture.".

Lewis argued that the poor are not "different" from mainstream society in terms of the values that they hold. On the contrary, they may well share the general values present in society. What makes them "different" in relation to their middle and upper class counterparts is their inability to translate those values into reality. In basic terms, the poor are relatively powerless to take advantage of the opportunities offered in society.

In educational terms, Westergaard and Resler ("Class in Capitalist Society", 1976) have noted that:

"The signs are that working-class parents have a high, and increasing, interest in their children's education - because they are aware of, and may indeed overestimate, the dependence of individual prospects in life on schooling. Typically, however, they lack the means - cultural as well as material, indirect as well as direct - to translate that interest into effective influence on their children's behalf".

A major difference between the concepts of class sub-cultures and situational constraints is that while the former accepts the way the education system is organised in our society as "given" - as being almost fixed and inevitable - the latter argues that the way schools are organised provides a "situational constraint" on the ability of working class parents and their children to achieve the level of educational success of which they are capable.

• Using the concept of class sub-cultures, the important variable in educational success is the ability of parents to socialise and motivate their children into the "values and norms" of a middle class social institution. In this instance, parental attitudes are crucial.

• Using the concept of situational constraints, the important variable is the organisation of the educational system. In this instance, changes in parental attitudes are seen as largely irrelevant, since the problem is not one of attitude but rather one of fundamental, structured, social inequality.

The idea of class sub-cultures tends to be associated with Functionalist theorists (although not exclusively) whereas situational constraints theory is more frequently associated with Marxist Conflict theorists. The strength of situational constraints theory - its location of the causes the working class failure in the structure of an unequal society - is its major political / policy weakness since its basic argument is that in Capitalist societies equality of opportunity / achievement can never be reached. In short, the solution to "working class failure" is the radical restructuring of society.

Finally, we can note that both theories of class sub-cultures and situational constraints focus on the idea that differential educational achievement can be explained in terms of the "barriers" to achievement that exist in our society.

• In the first instance (class sub-cultures), the attitudes of parents, for example, is seen to be a major barrier to working class achievement and helps to explain why girls underachieve in the education system.

• In the second instance (situational constraints), the way society in general and the education system in particular, is organised is seen to represent a barrier to achievement. Such barriers are part-and-parcel of an education system designed to socialise people into a highly-differentiated institution of work, the implication is that:

In class terms, middle and upper class children are better-equipped to cross such barriers.

In gender terms, boys are better-equipped (at least in terms of the variety of opportunity they have).

In ethnic terms, white children are better-equipped than non-whites.

However, the crucial variable in educational achievement appears to be social class, given that middle class girls achieve more than working class boys, for example, and upper class blacks achieve more than working class whites.

In this respect, what differentiates the successful child from the unsuccessful child is the level of resources (measured in terms of such things as their social competencies and experiences) that each brings to the educational sphere.

Thus, middle class children generally possess resources such as "language competence", norms of appropriate behaviour and so forth, which fit more or less neatly into the cultural expectations of teachers, whilst their working class peers possess resources that do not fit neatly into these cultural expectations.