Publications>
Research Bulletin

Phi Delta Kappa Center for Evaluation, Development, and Research
March 1995, No. 14

Social Class in School: Students' Perspectives
By Ellen Brantlinger

Students do not arrive at school every morning in neutral frames of mind: they come with knowledge of the social world, and, to some extent, the meanings they attach to events in school are molded to fit views at home. Even though families commonly are perceived as primary socializers, schools -- and peers within school -- play pivotal socializing roles. While students' conceptualizations of themselves and society are shaped through overt curricula, school rituals also transmit knowledge. The formal ritual of tracking and the informal clustering of cliques, for example, inform students of the stratified nature of society and their own comparative worth. In his book on adolescent identity formation, Philip Wexler remarked that he was "not prepared to discover how deeply the differences of class run in the lives of high school students."(1) He chided educators for assuming family importance in socialization while ignoring the school's impact.

In spite of evidence that students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds have inferior school experiences, whether in socially or racially segregated settings, students' reactions to disparities have received little attention.(2) The research reported in this bulletin was initiated out of a desire to discover impoverished and affluent students' thinking about social class and schooling. Three interrelated ideas undergird this study: (1) an understanding of the cognitive and affective underpinnings of behaviors is important; (2) pupils' social-class status influences their thinking about schooling; and (3) views of social class and of members of different classes affect the dynamics of schools and classrooms.(3)

The adolescents who participated in this study were 13- to 18-year-olds residing in a midwestern town of approximately 60,000. Thirty-four students were recruited from middle-class suburbs, and they were identified as high-income participants for the purposes of this study (five were African American and the remaining 29 were European American). Forty students were recruited from government-subsidized housing projects and identified as low-income (six adolescents were African American and the other 34 were European American). The mean age of adolescents identified as high-income was 15.2 years, and the mean grade level was 9.8; the mean age of adolescents identified as low-income was 15.3 years, and the mean grade level was 9.1 (four had dropped out of school). Participants were interviewed using open-ended questions designed to generate narratives about social class and schooling. Their narratives were examined for direct statements of opinion and attitude, terminology usage, signs of identification and affiliation, indications of cognitive associations or underlying assumptions, and intensity, emotionality, and tone of replies.

SOCIAL ISOLATION

High- and low-income students were segregated in virtually all aspects of daily life. They lived in separate neighborhoods and had attended neighborhood elementary schools. Elementary schools in low-income neighborhoods were more likely to be housed in old buildings with small, poorly equipped playgrounds. Additionally, the most professional principals and competent teachers were assigned to high-income schools, while low-income schools were more likely to have part-time principals, part-time ancillary staff (e.g., music, art, and physical education teachers), and higher student-teacher ratios.

While secondary school enrollment was heterogeneous, the class status of elementary feeder schools played a role in how entering students were labeled socially (adolescent and adult residents surveyed in the community revealed similar perceptions regarding the class status of various schools). Also, tracking and special education systems resulted in substantial resegregation. The result of little contact was that students held stereotyped and unrealistic views of each other -- views that prevented subsequent interaction. An affluent student gave her impression of low-income people ("grits") and high-income people ("preppies"):

Grits don't have much money. They are all on welfare. I don't think they have cliques -- they are all lower class. I think that usually they're not real smart -- most drop out of school. They wear ragged clothes -- I guess because they have to. Most grits are from country areas. They chew tobacco. Some are rednecks. They don't get along socially. Preps are smart and popular -- they belong to everything in school. Some are snobs -- socially exclusive. I try not to be though.

Consistent with findings from other studies, low-income students' descriptions of members of their class were often as negative as those of their affluent schoolmates. A low-income student elaborated:

A grit doesn't do good in school, is a sloppy dresser, and doesn't care what they do or act like. A prep has a lot more money, dresses good, is good in school, and has a lot of friends. Grits are scummy persons. My group is not grits, not preps. I try to get along with everybody -- be neutral. I would like to be part of the prep group and be high class, but I want my friends to be there too. I think that others think that I should be a prep because I dress nice, but the preps don't think I'm a prep.

Such narratives reveal adolescents' active sorting of complex messages about social class in thinking about their own affiliations. Their abstract talk mentioned a range of social-class and achievement levels, but actual references separated two levels (e.g., "haves and have nots," "rich and poor," "grits and preps," "smart and dumb," "good and bad kids").

VIEWS ON THE CAUSES OF WEALTH AND POVERTY

Over one-half (57.5%) of low-income adolescents and 70% of high-income adolescents attributed the cause of poverty to characteristics within a person's control, for example, laziness and dropping out of school. Thirty percent of both low- and high-income adolescent groups viewed the cause of poverty as some condition that is beyond an individual's control, for example, a dearth of good jobs and high unemployment rates. About 60% of adolescents in both low- and high-income groups attributed wealth to characteristics within an individual's control, for example, motivation, education, and taking advantage of others. Nearly 40% of adolescents in each group attributed wealth to conditions beyond a person's control, for example, inheritance and chance.

Regardless of their social status, adolescents had similar views about the causes of wealth and poverty. Indeed, students identified as low-income gave more negative descriptions of individual characteristics as causes of poverty than their high-income cohorts.

SOCIAL CLASS AND SCHOOL STATUS

Fourteen low-income students were being educated full-time in special education classrooms, four had resource services, and four had been placed previously. Most other low-income students were in low tracks: only three high school students were in advanced tracks. All high-income youths, even two classified as "learning disabled," were in college preparatory programs.

Students perceived the correlation between social class and tracking. For example, one student observed, "Preps take different kinds of science and different kinds of math, we just take regular science and math." Another remarked, "High-class kids take all those hard classes." Low-income students were aware of the status of low tracks. One divulged, "I usually got put in the dumb groups. It was awful. I hated it. It did not seem like we were really that bad." Another asserted, "I really don't like that. They put you on different levels and then teachers say, 'Well, this level is not as smart as this level.' I wasn't always in the lowest groups, but others would still say they were smarter than you."

Special education was described as a humiliating experience. Peer rejection and lack of popularity were often attributed to special-education status. One student "hated it. That's why I quit school. I couldn't take another year there." Another complained, "It's awful. When you first go they say it will only be for awhile, but you never get out once you're there." One explained, "To me, you see, being in special education makes a difference. To me, intelligence makes a difference. I try to be smart. I study hard. I try to prove myself to the teacher. I would really like to be smart. Maybe other kids don't care, but being in special education tells other people that you're dumb." When asked about his life goals, one youth replied, "To get out of special education!"

High-income adolescents typically favored ability grouping and tracking. If they had not been selected for gifted and talented or honors sections, many argued that they had been incorrectly placed, that others were placed in higher tracks than they deserved, or that student placements reflected teacher bias. Such views were unlike those of low-income schoolmates, who appeared to accept the validity of judgments made in placing students. As one high-income student observed, "It's pretty predictable who's going to be in which group. They might as well just ask what your parents do and make the placements."

Special education was outside the experience of most high-income adolescents -- they did not know students who received services and felt no personal threat of being referred. With little firsthand information, high-income adolescents spoke abstractly and seemed to be quoting adults or the media rather than forming their own opinions. For example, one remarked, "Special education gives them a chance to do better at their level." Affluent youths occasionally vocalized concern about equity but went on to state a preference for separation and the advantages of elite school status. On one level, insight into the power of class style and connections surfaced in some affluent students' narratives, yet memory of advantage vanished as they attributed successes to personal efforts and superiorities.

RELATIONS WITH TEACHERS

In order to understand them, it is necessary to delve below the surface of students' rhetoric. Although low-income students are presumed not to care about school and teachers, this study revealed that they had strong feelings and, perhaps, cared too much. They spoke in animated ways about teachers they liked and disliked. Pretenses of not caring often seemed to be defensive reactions to anticipated rejections. As a dropout confided, "No, I never did like school or teachers. Me and teachers didn't get along. Some was all right. Most was snobby." Then he related:

Some was helpful. If you didn't understand, they didn't treat you like you was a piece of trash. Mr. E. was a real cool teacher. He helped you if you had a problem. Miss H., she don't like me. The only thing she cared about was being on time. We argued a lot. I wouldn't understand. She'd get mad and say, "I showed you how to do it." She'd make you feel dumb. She said, "You'll flunk if you don't do your work." She was hard on me. Most teachers were hard on me. Mr. E. cared about me. Most didn't.

Low-income students were particularly sensitive to teachers' attitudes toward students. As one said:

I don't think they like me. They like high-class brains. They don't really give the kids who don't know much of a chance. They don't care about us. They do care about teaching the best kids so that they can get their money. Once in a while they listen to me, but not much. They do listen to the high-class kids.

High intelligence was equated with high-class status and was reified to a generalized notion of worth, i.e., "best kids." Many low-income students specifically said that teachers liked preppies and disliked them. Social class figured prominently in their thinking.

Because high-income youths were generally successful in school, they took positive relations with teachers for granted and were relatively indifferent to teachers' attitudes toward themselves, although some were smug about teachers' partiality. Some conveyed they were personally superior to teachers, with nine making negative remarks about teachers' intelligence. As one said, "I get annoyed at ignorant teachers. I really do, I've had some teachers grade me down because they can't understand what I'm talking about." The discourse of these adolescents revealed a strand of cynicism and indifference towards school. They conformed to the rituals to prevail in the system without truly identifying with the elevated purposes of schooling. Unlike their low-income schoolmates, affluent students frequently criticized teachers' appearance, mannerisms, and speech patterns (e.g., "thought she was perfect," "took things too seriously," "dresses like a dork," "fake on top of being mean," "talked weird -- it bugged me," "speaks in a monotone -- puts me to sleep," "dresses like she's going to a cocktail party," "wears more makeup in one day than I wear in a year").

All these adolescents expected teachers to present academic subjects in interesting, understandable ways and to be consistent and fair in responding to students. Those in the low-income group were more attuned to teachers' attitudes toward students, and they regarded teachers as members of the affluent class. A number of teacher behaviors were seen as snobbish and rejecting. They expressed appreciation for teachers who had been kind, and they expressed frustration with those who had humiliated them or appeared to be uncaring.

SCHOOL AS A SOURCE OF STRESS FOR LOW-INCOME STUDENTS

The negative nature of their student roles and experiences -- low track and special education placements, failing grades, grade-level retentions, lack of extracurricular participation, and peer and teacher rejection -- clashed with low-income students' dreams and desires. Thus, school was a source of stress for these adolescents. Beneath the facade of "going along with" and "getting along with" were angry sentiments about low status. Tales of humiliating experiences climaxed with declarations of retaliations ("told off," "kept away from her," "just fought them") against those responsible for their pain.

Low-income students expressed considerable anger about their status in school as well as their relations with teachers and high-income students. In turn, affluent adolescents described their low-income counterparts as "short fused," "ready to fight," "perpetually angry," "real tough," and they referred to them with epithets that implied violence ("bully," "redneck," "thug"). As one high-income student said, "Grits are usually hostile to people who aren't in their groups. They pick fights, smoke." Low-income adolescents also alluded to their peers as "always in fights," "mean," and "mad at the world." Yet neither group provided much evidence of actual violence on the part of low-income adolescents. Indeed, both groups' accounts of intergroup violence put high-income adolescents in the role of aggressor. As another high-income student explained, "Like one of your friends will push you into somebody and try to get you in a fight. These kids (grits -- poor kids) are always ready to jump on you." Similarly, a low-income student said, "Preps fought with us. They would start something and then walk away before the teacher got there or they'd lie and the teachers always believed them." The low status in school of impoverished youth appeared to start a cycle of low esteem and angry reactions to others. This cycle is illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1
Vulnerability/Anger Cycle

Alert to rejection and feeling vulnerable to more powerful schoolmates and teachers, many low-income students appeared to incorporate an aggressive image intentionally into their public persona. They wore heavy boots, jackets with studs and chains, muscle shirts, and T-shirts with violent scenes from movies, heavy metal rock groups, motorcycle insignia, and other symbols of violence and death. Denying the fit of the "grit" label for themselves, many claimed to be "headbangers." According to one:

The higher class kids hang together and the lower class kids do too. The preps think they're upper class, rich people. They laugh at people with less money. A headbanger is someone who goes by the rules. He don't like people who think they're better than other people. They are a fighting group -- against preps, mostly. Preps start by calling other people names.

Low-income youth often said they had fought preps or teachers, but when they were questioned further, it seemed that they had felt like fighting or telling someone off but actually had not done so. Their details of fights were with other low-income students.

In describing specific conflicts or instances of belligerent behaviors, low-income adolescents maintained that their actions were provoked and that they had been on the defensive. As one student said, "I got into a few fights but I never started a fight in my life!" Even confrontations with teachers were seen as counter aggression ("backsassing," "she was mean, but I wouldn't take nothing off her"). On one level, then, fights were seen as justified attempts to defend honor or redress wrongs. Nevertheless, low-income adolescents had conventional stands regarding student conduct -- views identical to those of affluent students. In evaluating their own general (mis)behaviors, they vacillated between espousing the legitimacy of their acts and condemning themselves. Internalizing blame, one was dismayed that:

I got in trouble for fighting and being late to classes. I could have rode the bus, but there were stuck-up people on the bus that I didn't get along with, so I rode my bike through snow and rain. I couldn't stand that group of people -- stuck-up preps! I couldn't get along with them.

A common pattern was to accuse others of misdeeds when recounting specific incidents, but in summarizing behaviors they judged members of their own social class, including themselves, to be at fault. They apologized for their guilt, excused teachers for penalizing them (and not liking them), and even implied that their own unworthiness was cause for others to shun or mistreat them. In the end, most low-income youths adhered to a code that endorsed passive compliance and delegitmated their own anger and violence. Moreover, they saw their second-class status as resulting from personal inadequacies.

CONCLUSION

The narratives of adolescents in this study confirm several propositions about the influence of social class on schooling. Class distinctions and conflict are ever present in the ongoing life of school, and there is a dominant/subordinate delineation in adolescents' thinking about social classes. In addition, school is not a socially neutral setting. Low grades, tracking, special education placements, and humiliating interactions with teachers made school a source of stress for low-income participants. Conversely, for high-income adolescents, school was a privileging experience.

The adolescents in this study brought their social-class-determined subjectivities to school. Their interpretations of others' behaviors were guided by prior experience and thinking about social class. Metaphors related to social class guided the mental sorting of events in school.

Social perceptions are shaped through school discourse. School practices, such as tracking, special education, extra-curricular participation, and evaluations and rewards, add credibility to attitudes that high-income students are talented and worthy and low-income students are inferior. Low-income adolescents in this study echoed upper-income students in their negative evaluations of their own performance. Thus, the sorting function of school is viewed as legitimate, even when it results in stratifying students according to social class.

Narratives revealed dichotomies in adolescents' thinking about social class. Students wavered between social class allegiance and rejection. Although low-income participants were angry and humiliated by their school experiences, they portrayed themselves as passive and conforming. Adolescents rarely found fault with school as an institution or with the stratifying practices of school. Rather, individual teachers or teachers as a group were held responsible for such practices. Success in school was attributed to individual merit and failure to personal inadequacies by both groups, even though such thinking was not advantageous to low-income adolescents.

There is widespread acknowledgment that students from various social, ethnic, and racial backgrounds differ in the extent to which their performance meets school standards, but accepted school practices meant to address such differences result in segregation, differentiation, and humiliation for many children. In order to address disparities, schools and the public need to scrutinize assumptions and policies that undergird such practices. Teachers need to be aware of their own feelings toward members of different social groups and be sensitive to the ways that social class affiliations and the unique experiences of members of different classes influence students' subjectivities.

Reforms that focus on material and social rewards for some at the expense of equity for a broader population, for example, setting arbitrary standards, defining narrow fields of competence, and allocating resources inequitably, do not foster social justice inside the schoolroom door. Strategies that improve the school climate for alienated students include promoting integration, increasing student participation in school governance, and encouraging a sense of belonging by creating schools within schools.

ENDNOTES

1. Philip Wexler, Becoming Somebody: Toward a Social Psychology of School (Washington, D.C.: Falmer Press, 1992), p. 8.

2. Jonathan Kozol, Savage Inequalities: Children in America's Schools (New York: Crown Publishers, Inc., 1991); Patricia Schmuck and Richard Schmuck, "Democratic Participation in Small-Town Schools," Educational Researcher (19) no. 8: 14-19; Jeannie Oakes, Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985).

3. For a complete reporting of this research, see Ellen Brantlinger, The Politics of Social Class in Secondary School: Views of Affluent and Impoverished Youth (New York: Teachers College Press, 1993).