What do you think?
Rate this book
Tinker, Tailor: The Myth Of Cultural Deprivation
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
April 4, 2024
There is a traditional way English children have, of picking out somebody to be “It”. They use a counting game, dating way back to 1695, which goes:
“Tinker, Tailor,
Soldier, Sailor,
Rich Man, Poor Man,
Beggar Man, Thief!”
Nell Keddie begins with this well-known nursery rhyme, not needing to state more than the first two words, before continuing with “the myth of cultural deprivation”, and hence she states the whole crux of her theory with the title of this book:
Tinker Tailor: the Myth of Cultural Deprivation
Although generally people do not assume that human development, achievement, and status are quite as random and arbitrary as the traditional verse suggests, assumptions are certainly made. There is a perceived inevitability based on class and culture, within schools and other social institutions.
Nell Keddie argues that so-called “cultural deprivation” is a myth, and a convenient explanation used to blame the victims. She disagrees with the idea that people fail in education because of culturally deprived backgrounds, arguing that ethnic minority children are culturally different, not culturally deprived. It would be nonsensical to talk about a child being deprived of its own culture. The truth, she feels, is that it is in actuality school culture itself, which is deficient in failing to recognise its own prejudice. Schools themselves are ethnocentric: biased in favour of white culture, and against minorities, and this is what leads to underachievement.
When this book was first published, the conclusions the author drew were daring, and controversial. Attitudes were blinkered, and to some extent still are. Look at this cartoon:
It is quite clear how biased this test is, or it would not seem so funny.
In Tinker Tailor: the Myth of Cultural Deprivation Nell Keddie analyses the organisation of classroom knowledge in different ways. As a sociologist, she is keen to analyse streaming and banding in schools, and in particular, to examine the criteria employed by schools which regularly use banding and streaming.
She focused her study here on one school where a Humanities course was introduced, and taught to all pupils in a particular age group. Although the school usually operated a streaming system, this particular course was designed to be taught to pupils of all abilities, in mixed-ability classes. No streaming was to take place on this course.
As well as looking at the classification and evaluation of students, Nell Keddie also studied the ways in which knowledge itself was evaluated and classified, and from this she hoped to work out the criteria used by teachers to categorise and evaluate classroom knowledge.
Nell Keddie observed that each teacher had their own particular personal, social and work-related experience to bring to the classroom, and that this informed their individual perceptions of a child’s ability. If a pupil had already been labelled as “A” stream or “C” stream, then this would additionally affect the teacher’s expectations of that pupil. A third factor was the way different pupils behaved in the classroom, which further confirmed teacher expectation and behaviour.
She discovered that knowledge defined by teachers as appropriate to the particular course, was considered worthwhile; but that any knowledge from the pupil’s own experience, which did not fit this definition, was considered of little consequence. In addition, knowledge presented in an abstract and general form was considered superior to specific pieces of concrete information. Regularly, the knowledge made available to an individual pupil would depend on the teacher’s assessment of their ability to handle it. Therefore the pupils who had been defined as “A” stream, or bright, were given greater access to the highly valued knowledge.
Perceived ability was used as both a sorting and organising mechanism in the classroom. But such perceived “ability” derived from the students’ social, moral and intellectual behaviour. Teachers had a notion of what a “good student” was, and these desirable attitudes were biased towards the middle class as opposed to the working class child.
From this ethnographic research Nell Keddie concluded that the classification and evaluation of both pupils and knowledge are socially constructed in interaction situations. Her research here explored the relationship between teachers and pupils, and showed how labelling theory worked in the classroom, affecting both the self-perception and the performance of the children.
Nell Keddie studied at the universities of Cambridge and London. She lectures in Sociology at Goldsmiths College, part of London University. She has also written “The Myth of Cultural Dependency” (1974) and co-written “Towards a Sociology of Education” (1978) with Cambridge academics John Beck and Chris Jenks. Although cultural mores have changed a little since this time, the salient points still pertain. Pupils experience school in many different ways. Inevitably they are treated differently by their teachers, given different labels, and often placed in different bands or streams.
Every pupil will attach a different meaning to their education; there are a variety of ways of relating to their experience. The schools themselves will lay down a set of standards, indicating to their pupils how they are expected to behave. Yet not all students will be able - or want - to conform to their teacher’s image of the ideal student. When this happens, pupils may very well form their own subcultures, rejecting some of the values of the school.
Ground-breaking research, still relevant today.
“Tinker, Tailor,
Soldier, Sailor,
Rich Man, Poor Man,
Beggar Man, Thief!”
Nell Keddie begins with this well-known nursery rhyme, not needing to state more than the first two words, before continuing with “the myth of cultural deprivation”, and hence she states the whole crux of her theory with the title of this book:
Tinker Tailor: the Myth of Cultural Deprivation
Although generally people do not assume that human development, achievement, and status are quite as random and arbitrary as the traditional verse suggests, assumptions are certainly made. There is a perceived inevitability based on class and culture, within schools and other social institutions.
Nell Keddie argues that so-called “cultural deprivation” is a myth, and a convenient explanation used to blame the victims. She disagrees with the idea that people fail in education because of culturally deprived backgrounds, arguing that ethnic minority children are culturally different, not culturally deprived. It would be nonsensical to talk about a child being deprived of its own culture. The truth, she feels, is that it is in actuality school culture itself, which is deficient in failing to recognise its own prejudice. Schools themselves are ethnocentric: biased in favour of white culture, and against minorities, and this is what leads to underachievement.
When this book was first published, the conclusions the author drew were daring, and controversial. Attitudes were blinkered, and to some extent still are. Look at this cartoon:
It is quite clear how biased this test is, or it would not seem so funny.
In Tinker Tailor: the Myth of Cultural Deprivation Nell Keddie analyses the organisation of classroom knowledge in different ways. As a sociologist, she is keen to analyse streaming and banding in schools, and in particular, to examine the criteria employed by schools which regularly use banding and streaming.
She focused her study here on one school where a Humanities course was introduced, and taught to all pupils in a particular age group. Although the school usually operated a streaming system, this particular course was designed to be taught to pupils of all abilities, in mixed-ability classes. No streaming was to take place on this course.
As well as looking at the classification and evaluation of students, Nell Keddie also studied the ways in which knowledge itself was evaluated and classified, and from this she hoped to work out the criteria used by teachers to categorise and evaluate classroom knowledge.
Nell Keddie observed that each teacher had their own particular personal, social and work-related experience to bring to the classroom, and that this informed their individual perceptions of a child’s ability. If a pupil had already been labelled as “A” stream or “C” stream, then this would additionally affect the teacher’s expectations of that pupil. A third factor was the way different pupils behaved in the classroom, which further confirmed teacher expectation and behaviour.
She discovered that knowledge defined by teachers as appropriate to the particular course, was considered worthwhile; but that any knowledge from the pupil’s own experience, which did not fit this definition, was considered of little consequence. In addition, knowledge presented in an abstract and general form was considered superior to specific pieces of concrete information. Regularly, the knowledge made available to an individual pupil would depend on the teacher’s assessment of their ability to handle it. Therefore the pupils who had been defined as “A” stream, or bright, were given greater access to the highly valued knowledge.
Perceived ability was used as both a sorting and organising mechanism in the classroom. But such perceived “ability” derived from the students’ social, moral and intellectual behaviour. Teachers had a notion of what a “good student” was, and these desirable attitudes were biased towards the middle class as opposed to the working class child.
From this ethnographic research Nell Keddie concluded that the classification and evaluation of both pupils and knowledge are socially constructed in interaction situations. Her research here explored the relationship between teachers and pupils, and showed how labelling theory worked in the classroom, affecting both the self-perception and the performance of the children.
Nell Keddie studied at the universities of Cambridge and London. She lectures in Sociology at Goldsmiths College, part of London University. She has also written “The Myth of Cultural Dependency” (1974) and co-written “Towards a Sociology of Education” (1978) with Cambridge academics John Beck and Chris Jenks. Although cultural mores have changed a little since this time, the salient points still pertain. Pupils experience school in many different ways. Inevitably they are treated differently by their teachers, given different labels, and often placed in different bands or streams.
Every pupil will attach a different meaning to their education; there are a variety of ways of relating to their experience. The schools themselves will lay down a set of standards, indicating to their pupils how they are expected to behave. Yet not all students will be able - or want - to conform to their teacher’s image of the ideal student. When this happens, pupils may very well form their own subcultures, rejecting some of the values of the school.
Ground-breaking research, still relevant today.
Displaying 1 of 1 review