CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1 The Concept of Socio -Economic Status

The concept of socio-economic static encompasses a number of variables

including family income, parent’s occupation, and the degree to which parents have

received a formal education.

Statuses and roles facilitate social interaction by giving people some ideas of the

behavior expected of them and others in different circumstances. In every interaction,

individual play social roles and occupy statuses. Student’s school performance is

correlated with socio-economic status. High (SES) student tend to have higher academic

achievements, and low (SES) students tend to be a great risk for dropping out of school

(Steward, J.2001).

2.2 Education and Social Class

Social class is a sociological variable that has long been thought to be an

important factor in educational achievements. The people in the community or a larger

society may be conceptualized as falling into a number of classes, along a continuum is

multifaceted, representing both prestige and power and sometimes other components.

Most commonly, occupation is used as a criterion for determining a person social class,

but income, education, residence and family lineage are some times given weight

(Merton,R.K.1973).

Social class may effect education in several ways. First, attitudes towards

education held by parents and children vary with social class. Second, the social class

membership of the chilled often determines where his family lives and this is turn
determines the public school that attends. Whether a child has adequate means for

financing his later education also depends upon his social class membership (Merton,

R.K.1973).

Finally social class is important because the school system and it representatives

particularly the teacher and the counselor, reflect certain social classes. Studies

determining the relation between social class and academic performance demonstrates

that the higher the person’s social class, the higher his level of academic performance

.The positive relation hold for all educational levels but apparently does not hold for the

upper social class levels particularly with respect to college performance

(Merton,R.K.1973).

The Effect of Social Class on Learning

The social class from which a student comes also plays an influential role in a

student’s behavior. Social class is an indicator of an individual’s or a family relatives

standing in society. It is determine by such factors as annual income, occupation, amount

of education, place of residence, type of organizations. These influences appear to be

largely due to environmental causes (Syed Abbas, 1990).

2.3 How Socioeconomic Status Influences Achievements

Various Aspect of Socio-economic Status:

The following aspects of the home life affect the normal development of the child

and are basic areas for analysis and study (Datcher, L. 1982).
2.3.1 Parental Relationship

Whole some parental relationship, characterize the home in which harmony is the

keynote. When discord is absent and love and sympathetic understanding prevail among

all the members of the family, the home exerts a stable influence, which promotes

happiness and normal adjustment. The broken home causes by divorce or desertion, breed

insecurity and unhappiness. Death of one of the parents, absence of both parents because

they are working and the continuous presence of relative in the home is potential sources

of faulty child training (Datcher, L. 1982).

2.3.2 Parent Child Relationship

Whole some parent child relationships are fundamental to the happiness and

security of the child and to the development of a desirable personality. The love or

affection of the parent may range from overprotection, over solicitude, and over

indulgence to one of rejection, severe punishment and complete domination (Datcher, L.

1982).

2.4.3 Child Training

In a whole some environment in which a constructive program of child training

prevails, he parents are sympathetic, understanding, and consistent in their approach to

child training. They did not show favouritism and they promote a logical, positive

programme of discipline in which the goal is not punishment, but correction leading to

self direction. A daily routine of duties and responsibilities is recognized as an important

part of child training.

2.4.4Child to Child Relationship

An unwholesome child to child relationship is frequently the result of faulty

parental training. When the parents show favouritism and compare one child

unfavourably with another, there comparison are reflected in the child to child

relationship and inferiority, resentment, problem behaviour or unhappiness develops in

the child who is thus criticized the gifted child or the very dull child is often the

beneficiary of this favourable comparison. The only child frequently is spoiled and

becomes unsocial because of parental over protection, to much attention, to much or

through an insufficiency of social experiences with children of his own age.

2.4.5Socioeconomics Background.

The social and economic background of the home is an important factor in the

development and the adjustment of the child extremes in the economics status of the

parents may result in over indulgence or over protection by the wealthy parents, or in

neglect, rejection, and deprivation by the parents in the low economic brackets. Minimum

standard of housing, food and clothing are essential to the child’s normal physical

growth. Substandard conditions of subsistence impair his health, security and general

well being (Datcher, L. 1982).

2.4 Effects of Low Socioeconomics Status on School Achievements.

Several factors may contribute to the generally lower school achievements of low SES

students:

• Poor Nutrition

• Emotional Stress

• Peer Rejection
• Lower Aspiration

• Less Parental Education

• Less Parental Involvement at School

• Home less Students

2.5 Positive Effect of Low Socioeconomic Status.

It has been found out that many bright students come from low income families.

There are chances of advancement for those children who belongs to poor families and

their parents have a meager income. Though there are instance that numerous prominent

leaders of the world have also been from the families having low socioeconomic status.

Yet the role of socioeconomic status of the parents have also played great important role

in shaping the personalities. Most of the political leaders of Pakistan are the best example

in this regard.

Untiring efforts and hard work on behalf of children belonging to low income

group bring fruit. Yet if someone is prosperous and works hard is expected to show better

performance and is expected to be more develop, socialized and educated.

As we worked with the students of low income families, we must remember that

many of them will succeed in school despite the exceptional hardships they face. Some

students seem to be resilient. They develop characteristics and coping skills that help

them rise above their adverse circumstances. As a group, resilient students have likeable

personality, positive self concepts, strong motivation to succeed and high yet realistic

goals. They believe that success comes with hard work and their bad experiences serve as

constant reminder of the importance of getting a good education.

2.6 Positive Effects of High Socioeconomics

Harvey, H & Shroder proposed Some important theoretical notions, concerning

the development of child’s ability to use concepts. As a part of sophisticated theory,

Harvey hunt and Schroder have proposed that the use of concepts varies from the

concrete to abstract. In a favourable life situation, children are thought to progress

through four stages.

STAGE-I

Concrete conceptual functioning results from training conditions in which the

parents exercise complete or near complete control over the child. The parent’s sets a

rather rigidly prescribed path for the child to threat without explaining the reason and

value associated with this particular behaviour. A child in this stage may be expected to

the strongly dependent upon authority, to require highly structured situations, and to

approach problems in a narrow stereotyped fashion (Harvey, H & Shroder).

STAGE II

Functioning here is still largely concrete, but the parent is more unpredictable and

capricious in his demands and in his administration of reward and punishment clear

routes to the attainment of reward are not perceived. The child rebels against external

authority and is negativistic self may be some what better differentiated because of the

need to rely on his own resources (Harvey, H & Shroder).

STATE-III

Rules and external authority are less influential in this stage. The behaviour of the

child is determined by a reciprocal relation between himself and his parents. He develops
some sensitivity to the desire of his parents and adapts to them , just as he adapts to his

needs and this contributes to his understanding of self frequently, however, this reciprocal

relation is not balanced, and either the parents or the child’s need are the center of focus.

stress on parental needs results in over dependency and excess emphasis on the child’s

needs in parental over protection. Over dependency is associated with a passive approach

to learning and with a lack of creativity and originality, while over protectiveness

deprives the child of practice in coping with problems (Harvey, H & Shroder).

STAGE-IV

Both parent and child have a task orientation to situation this occurs because the

child has gained rewards through his own exploration rather than by matching his

behaviour to criteria set by the parent. His evaluation of self is positive and is based upon

problem solving and to accepting new ideas (Harvey, H & Shroder).

2.8 Education and Social Class

Havighrust etal. (1952) concluded with a study of six high schools in the eastern

United States that the grade awarded to the pupils are closely related to their social status.

He found that the lower status youth also get more direct form of punishment. The

teachers report on counseling with parents is also summarized. According to the author

statement most of the counseling about discipline was with parents of lower status

children.

Thomas (1985) shows that the children of lower socio economics groups have

parents who place little value on education and want them to help at home or to leave

school and take jobs as soon as they can get work offers. Therefore they contribute

heavily to schools dropouts.

 Many researchers have studied the impact of parent’s economics and social status

on the standard of their children this may be detailed below:

Education within Domestic Settings.

1. Naseem (1980) found that parents social and economics condition based on

area of the house, monthly income, household goods have no correlation with

standard of education.

2. There is no correlation between joint family system and standard of education.

3. Parent’s academic qualification does not affect their children education.

4. In the case of children whose parents are attached to the teaching profession,

there is no significant bearing of parent’s profession on the education of

children.

5. Parent’s inquiries by the teachers about the academic performance of their

children have no significant effects.

The second study under the same title bye Fatima (1980) discovered the

following effects:

1. There is no correlation between parent’s economics conditions and the

standard of education of their children.

2. There is no correlation between parent’s academic qualification and standard

of education of their children.

3. There is no significant correlation between father’s teaching profession and

academic achievements of their children.

4. The guidance given by alder brothers and sisters to their younger siblings has

been observed to be more effective than the guidance received by the parents.
2.9 International Studies of Socio-Economic Status and Achievement

The international assessment programs conducted by the Organization for

Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the International Association for

the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) both provide interesting insights into

the relationship between socio-economic status and educational outcomes in Australia

and overseas, and illustrate different ways in which socio-educational status can be

conceptualized and operationalised. Both programs have released reports since 2000,

although the data in some cases was collected prior to that year. The first of these studies,

the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) sponsored by the IEA,

tests the achievement of students in the equivalent of Australian Year 4 and Year 8 in

mathematics and science.

TIMSS was first conducted in 1995 in over 40 countries, and has been followed

up by a partial repeat at Year 8 in 1998-99 (called TIMSS-R) and a third full

implementation in 2002-03. These tests routinely involve more than 500,000 students,

their teachers, and the principals of their schools. Students also answer questions about

their background and experiences in learning mathematics and science at school. Over

10,000 Australian students in Year 4 and Year 8 participated in the Trends in

International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS 2002/03). TIMSS measures socio-

economic status in two ways: parents’ education level, and family wealth, as defined by a

scale derived from survey questions about possessions in the home (e.g. number of

books, computer, video camera, etc). Students from wealthier families were expected to

have more of these items in their home.

 The TIMMS program is important for two reasons: firstly it demonstrates a

significant positive relationship between learning in mathematics and science and both

socio-economic factors; second, it provides insights into relatively simple and

unobtrusive measures of socio-economic status In the most recent iteration of TIMSS

(2002-03), for Year 8 students achievement in both mathematics and science was found

to be higher for those whose parents had completed a university degree Students who

used a computer both at home and at school achieved a significantly higher science score

than those who only used a computer at school (Thompson and Fleming, 2003).

The use of data about family possessions may be thought to be connected to

socio-economic status in two ways: first, as a proxy for family wealth, and second, as a

measure of direct family support for learning, through provision of the means to access

information, complete homework or study in an appropriate environment and so on. The

inclusion of survey items about possessions might be thought to be a more reliable way

of gathering data by proxy about family wealth, given that many children, particularly

those in the lower age brackets may not know about their parents’ incomes; it may also

capture aspects of wealth not captured by cash income alone, and it is less intrusive than

more direct questions about family income Another influential study into student

achievement was reported in 2001 by ACER (Lokan,Greenwood and Cresswell, 2001).

The OECD Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) was conducted

in 2000 and measured the performance of 15 year old students in Reading, Mathematical

and Scientific Literacy Skills. Students from 32 countries were involved in this

assessment program. Altogether, more than a quarter of a million students were involved

in PISA 2000. PISA investigated information about the relationship between student
achievement and socio-economic status in a variety of ways. The first is similar to the

earlier TIMSS studied and examines the relationship between achievement and family

possessions.

There was a positive relationship between the extent of home educational

resources and reading achievement, with a correlation coefficient of 0.23. Several

composite scales were derived from the Student Questionnaire data. One scale, family

wealth, was composed of nine items (dishwashing machine, room of your own,

educational software, link to the Internet, and numbers of mobile phones, televisions,

computers, motor cars and bathrooms). Figure 2.2 shows a positive though weak

correlation (r = 0.14) between reading achievement and the distribution of students into

quarters on this scale. Students with more of these items in their home performed better

than students with fewer of them. The number of books in the students’ homes has been a

useful predictor of achievement in many studies. The PISA 2000 study also found a

positive, but weak (r=0.29) association between reading achievement and the number of

books in the home, a result which is consistent with findings from earlier studies such as

TIMSS (Lokan et al., 2001, p.151).