Notes on: Vincent, C, Ball, S., Rolllock, N. &
Gillborn, D. (2012b). Being Strategic, Being
Watchful, Being Determined: Black Middle – Class
Parents and Schooling. British Journal of
Sociology of Education. 33 (3): 337 –
54.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2012.668833
There is a general 'paradigm of active
involvement'but also differences in parental
strategies according to how important academic
achievement is which reflects 'differential family
habitus and differential possession and activation
of capitals'. (337)
They want to counter deficit understandings of
Black Caribbean homes and look at middle-class
families and the intersection of race and class
and their complexities. They've already discussed
interactions in schools based on intersectionality
[which I think must be Vincent
et al. 2012 a] and there they discussed
approaches focusing on either class or race and
said that an intersectional approach is more
productive, because at different points in time
and in different places 'race, class and/or gender
can come to the fore '(338), as in Horvat. BMC
parents are different to WMC parents, but they
also differ within themselves.
62 qualitative semistructured interviews,
including families where one or both parents self
defined as Black Caribbean. They recruited through
family and education websites, Black networks and
social groups and snowballed. They are after
parents in professional managerial occupations
using the SOC manuals. Most the response were
mothers but 13 are with fathers, mostly in London
and follow-ups with 15 of them following themes
that had emerged, like how and whether respondents
talked with children about racism, or to revisit
the complexities of race and class. They met where
possible preferences for Black or White
interviews, and noted particularly that Rollock
was popular and is able to code switch.
All prioritised education and achievement and
monitored academic progress and discussed
experiences at school. They were all ready to
intervene if necessary. Nearly 1/3 had been
involved with the governing body or PTA. However
there were some differences in practice. One
couple had moved from private to state school in
the interests of ethnic diversity and value for
money. They focus strongly on academic achievement
and doing well in GCSEs. They also provided extra
tutoring. They strongly encourage their own child
to go to a good university and to shadow CEOs at a
global company. They are aware of racism and
discrimination. Another couple is also proactive
but allows her son more space for choices. In Bourdieu's
terms, there is a 'difference in dispositions, in
terms of what was "right" and "natural" in terms
of their parenting' (340). There are also
different in terms of their 'possession and
activation of capitals', both economic resources
and cultural goods. There are differences in
social networks and educational qualifications.
The last couple seem to be 'less firmly
established in the middle-class' and was more
ambivalent about identifying herself as such.
They draw on Bourdieu 'alongside critical race
theory' (341). They follow the tenets of CRT —
race is socially constructed. They'd taken from
Horvat and others Bourdieu's formula: '[(habitus)
(capital)] + field = practice'. Forms of capital
have to be recognised, valuable within the field
of education and the likelihood of effectiveness
depends on the match between the structuring of an
habitus and that of the field, expressed in terms
like a '"feel for the game'", an awareness of
conventions and regularities, how individuals play
their cards. The field is a competitive social
space, but not a level playing field. There are
additional dimensions when race is introduced
because 'White power holders may refuse to accept
as a legitimate the capitals held by Black
families' (342).
The habitus in Bourdieu is a system of
dispositions, '"durable but not eternal"'.
Individuals make choices but there are structural
constraints that make them more or less right or
natural, material conditions of existence,
'probable and improbable outcomes that in turn
shape our unconscious sense of the possible,
probable and… desirable for us"' [citing Manton].
The habitus is formed initially in the family but
that can be restructured through education and
later experiences. It can be embodied in 'ways of
dressing, eating, speaking and walking', beginning
in the family. There is usually a strong work
ethic as well, sometimes seen as inherited. For
Horvat, we can look at race and class
simultaneously in an habitus.
There has been much discussion of the concept of
capital and its types — economic, social and
cultural -- and again the forms it can take,
embodied, objectified [books and pictures] or
institutionalised [qualifications]. Families can
invest cultural capital in education. Capital has
to be activated however, and this 'requires
recognition' so there can be differences in the
degree of effectiveness (343).
They mapped these differences in terms of 'social
positioning in dispositions towards education, and
also the differing degrees to which they possess
and activate their capitals'. After coding, they
identified four main groupings or clusters. At one
end were 'those "determined to get the best"… And
in the middle those who are "being watchful and
circumspect" and those with "a fighting chance".
At the other end… "Hoping for the best"'. These
were of course snapshots and did not necessarily
remain static and could change as events and
circumstances changed. These variations appeared
within what seem to be 'a broadly homogeneous
group' in terms of income, occupation and
educational attainment.
Those determined to get the best were clear about
long-term planning, and did tutoring or even
moving house to get into particular schools or
into areas with good schools. Some used private
schools. All focused on academic achievement.
Trust in the state system was often 'very limited
(often because of their own experiences)' (344)
and many were worried that schools were too ready
to accept mediocrity. One couple homeschooled
their children rather than have them in a school
which had low expectations and poor standards,
including a perception of low expectations of
Black children. Good stocks of capital made
tutoring and activities possible — the home also
exposed students to 'high status cultural
activities' like music, travel, horse riding and
in one case being sponsored to go on a mission
abroad. This was seen as just necessary legitimate
competence, something natural. There is also high
levels of surveillance of the school and a
readiness to argue to defend their own children's
interest, for example getting them to move up a
year group, tutoring to pass the 11+. This group
did have tend to have 'high levels of educational
qualifications, income towards the mid-– high end
of the scale (upwards of £60,000 per annum) and to
self identify (sometimes reluctantly…) as
middle-class'(345) [so are they different or not?]
Those hoping for the best saw academic achievement
as important but also allowed more space for the
child's own voice. They were less focused on
school and schooling and saw happiness as more
important. They did not place pressure on their
children, accepted that they might not be academic
or do homework, accepted if children were doing
well enough. The local schools are important.
Sometimes state schools were a priority. Sometimes
teenagers in particular prevented too much contact
with or monitoring of school. This could produce
'considerable frustration' (346) if the school was
seen as having low expectations, and led to a
focus on out-of-school time and ranges of
activities.
These differences 'are fairly subtle'. There are
similarities, for example in using tutors or doing
extra curricular activities, and parents are often
'education "insiders"', educated to degree level,
and with incomes towards the mid or low end of the
scale (£40,000 and under). They often 'expressed
reluctance about or refusal to see themselves as
middle-class'.
Specific circumstances can force moves along this
continuum, for example one parent found that her
teenage son was experiencing overt racism at his
private school, so she took him out of it, even if
that sacrificed academic achievement in favour of
'emotional well-being'. [There some quite detailed
examples of the names he was called and why he
couldn't cope like the other Black boys by
pretending he was White, 347]. Despite
'considerable amounts of economic social and
cultural capital' the school refused to 'give
legitimacy to their interventions' and took no
action, an indication of 'Whiteness at play' (347)
[apparently further defined in Gillborn 2008]
refusing to accept racism and placing the problem
in the child, even though he was tested and found
to have no particular learning difficulties. [He
is discussed in one of the other pieces too]. The
head was particularly aggressive when she withdrew
the child and said the student was '"some sort of
latent gangster… how he embraced the bling
culture"'. In this case class resources were
useless and the school made her cultural capital
redundant, so she is able to use it in other
practices, providing supportive networks, paying
for private tutoring [maybe private testing?]. She
has also tempered her ambitions for her son.
In the middle of the continuum are those who are
watchful and fighters. Watchfulness is the 'main
identifying attribute'. Achievement is important
but does not have the same intense focus and
attract the same long-term planning. Parents do
monitor ask questions and act on observations but
they rarely take radical action such as moving
schools. They do take the initiative but remain
within the boundaries set by the school of what is
appropriate parental involvement — they email
questions, ask for meetings, draw the teachers'
attention to their concerns and adopt largely
positive relationships. They are concerned to make
sure the teacher knows the needs of their child
and do not sink beneath the radar. They are good
at dialogues, concerned not to look too pushy,
prepared to look a bit humble while showing that
you know what you're talking about, being prepared
to work with teachers and being '"circumspect in
how you challenge people in authority"' (349). One
perceived unfair reprimands directed at her son
but was reluctant to name race as a factor,
strategically because she saw the risks inherent
in doing so. Instead she spoke to the senior
manager 'calmly, assertively, and diplomatically'
[not at all like me then] and managed to get a
point over without mentioning race or racism.
These tactics common among WMC but BMC also have
to deal with stereotypes of both themselves and
their children and they 'use their dress, speech
and demeanour to position themselves as
knowledgeable, interested, enthusiastic and
proactive in their dealings with schools'.
Fighters are outside the boundaries of what
schools accept as appropriate teacher pupil
relations. They have challenge the school directly
sometimes specifically, sometimes on wider issues
to do with equality. They have named race and
racism explicitly, including cultural racism, low
expectations and assumptions. These parents have
been able to translate individual experiences into
collective concerns, and have sometimes taken
collective action, like supplying OFSTED with
documentation, or complaining directly to schools.
Sometimes they acted on behalf of other Black
parents, 'a shift away from the individualism
normally understood to characterised WMC families'
(350).
Overall, all 62 saw education as important. Most
of their own parents had. They were more proactive
than their own parents because the resources were
more expansive and their cultural and social
resources had more value. They did have a problem
because they 'can have their cultural and social
capital devalued, rejected and treated as
illegitimate' [so can proletarian sociology
lecturers after a masonic fix]. Their activation
of capital may not be effective. This can be seen
as parental failure, although it also reflects the
power of White institutions who refuse to
recognise these resources, as a form of denial.
Awareness of this resistance further affects
strategies for interacting with schools. Combining
Bourdieu with CRT helps reveal these interactions,
and shows that overall 'racism continues to be a
considerable threat and concern for this group'
(351).
Practices also show differences in the possession
and activation of capital, and family habitus, and
this case 'the conscious and unconscious messages
they give their children about… Priorities, and
what role education plays in that process' (351)
these dispositions are themselves circumscribed by
a framework that makes some possibilities
inconceivable, as revealed by the different
stances of the clusters — actions and approaches
of the clusters at either end of the continuum
'would appear "improbable" or even "inconceivable"
to the other'.
For White parents, those less secure in the middle
classes demonstrate most anxiety activity and
strategy, apparently. In this case the most
determined cluster of parents are the most
strategic and most active but also see themselves
as the most established. However the Black middle
classes are located within the middle classes as a
whole in a rather 'fragile and emergent' manner,
and even those identifying themselves as
professionals 'exhibited unease or ambiguity
around identifying themselves as middle-class,
seeing themselves as "in" but not "of" the middle
classes'. Their position is not secured compared
to past generations, which makes education even
more important. However the parents are aware of
low expectations and so education becomes a
'high-risk site' that becomes crucial for them to
try to manage and monitor.
Note 1 says that gender is extremely important as
well and they're going to write about it.
|
|