Philosophical aspect

The re-emergence laissez-faire as the foundation of a global free market was a phenomenon of the late 20^th century. A significant cultural shift took place mainly at the beginning of the 21th century, which means that the social democratic project of the welfare state overwhelmed by the culture of the firm, articulates through the construction of a global free market (Bates, 2002, p. 144).During that time, a developing technology and intellectual sides of people have been overestimated, while their spiritual, emotional sides and their relationships were neglected (Mulford, 2003, p. 129).

The competitive processes of information and transport technologies of globalisation, have driven down the cost of materials and labour migration of production to those countries with lowest environmental standards and labour costs, thus they have undermined standards of environmental and work force protection (Baters,2002, p.143). For this reason, the easily adapted students, especially those from higher middle and upper classes feel secure toward changes in culture, as the influx of new ideas influenced by their owns, steeps the whole society, but their effects stick on and influence more students from working and lower middle classes whose future proved more unstable.

Students from higher middle and upper classes do not need the collective responsibilities of social democratic project, as through their educational and economic facilities ensure their effective participation in social and political activities. They do not need the protection of the state against their unemployment, exclusion and destitution for their social participation and development, as through school and its cultural support they can obtain all the necessary qualifications for the maintenance of their classes and the protection of their professional sovereignty.

Thus, they try to reinforce laissez-faire as a foundation of a global free market which opposes the cultural background of students from lower middle and working classes. It is this background which includes the values which maintains the bonds between the people and keeps their behaviour more civilized. Civilization leads and develops individuals’ behaviour in human frames, ensuring in this way the tolerance between them. It hinders the prosperity of the laws of jungle as it is based principles making life more human.

According to laissez-faire individual’s protection, democracy, inclusion and amelioration of poverty are no longer considered matters of shared social responsibility. The abandonment of the state as a vehicle for the social cohesion, as well as the privatization and individualization of risk prevail (Bates, 20002, p. 144).

This cultural shift means the abdication of the state from its collective responsibilities for its citizens, and the establishment of a culture of competitive individualism which states that dominated development has failed (Bates, 2002, p. 145). It seems that the dominated from the market economic development has prevailed against the security role of the state, especially for the people from the lower middle and working classes.

Even though, the World Bank Development Report (1997, p, ii, quoted in Bates, 2002, p. 148) declared that without an effective state sustainable development, both economic and social, is impossible.

The circumstances of competition which expresses this cultural shift, existed also in the past in all societies, but it was not so overestimated and overvalued. It was like hidden curriculum in school which includes values, thoughts, ways of functions and language. Although, collective responsibilities of the state gave people the opportunity to have a more human behaviour under the protection and control of it.

Besides competition, there is much to be lost if most remaining human activity in nowadays society migrates to the commercial realm. In such case, access to school culture will be narrowly defined as merely inclusion in the commercial sphere, excluding the sphere of social life, although markets are secondary rather than primary institutions. They are derivative in nature and exist only as long as the culture assures the terms of trade (Mulford, 2002, p.130).

Commercial gain leads to the fragmentation of people’s values and the destruction of their beliefs and this is more likely when the commercial sphere replaces the cultural one creating a great damager. ‘Public good’ disappear as ‘private want’ and private consumption come to dominate the economic, political, social and educational world. In doing so, the marketplace reduces and commercialises public culture. Under these circumstances, there is a danger of destruction of historical continuity between generations, the acknowledgement by the present generation of its inheritance and its responsibility for safeguarding the future of the next one (Bottery, 2002, p. 165).

This lack of continuity characterizes postmodern individuals who find increasingly difficult to hold on to long-term ethical values. Where the commercial concerns accentuate a concentration on the short term in order to satisfy the immediate wants, there is a real danger that insufficient attention is paid to future concerns, the concerns and needs of next generation (Bottery, 2002, p. 165). Then the values like trust, loyalty and commitment can be maintained and transmitted with difficulty in a world where loyalty itself is perceived as weakness (Bottery, 2002, p. 166).

In a word which needs the log term perspective on societal and global problems, the individuals are provided with a diet of immediate consumption and gratification. In a world that needs the sustenance and the realisation of the long terms values through the development of people’ character, individuals find their characters corroded.

How do students from different socioeconomic classes have internalized cultural values and expectation of the society according to their socioeconomic classes

Students from working and lower middle classes are steeped by the values of higher middle and upper classes, when these classes have already abandoned these values and have adopted other ones, which fit more with the recent social circumstances. In other words, school values which represent the recent values of higher middle and upper classes, influenced by commercial ones, are more easily adopted by the students, representatives of those classes. As working and lower middle classes are going to adopt more slowly and less often social and technological changes, which are expressed through new values and ideas that school are going to embody in its value system and hidden curriculum.

The cost and energy which students from higher and upper classes spend in learning procedure which is connected to their school culture, is much less than this of lower middle and working classes’ ones. For this reason, students from working and lower middle classes have less educational opportunities than those of the upper and higher middle classes’ ones. The difficulty of the education of students comes mainly from social values rather than their personal deficiencies.

This means that the dominant school culture confirms the culture of dominant classes. This fact can be described by observing the kind of knowledge which is rewarded by school establishment, the theoretical one, the knowledge which higher middle and upper classes choose, while practical topics which lower middle and working classes usually choose are disconfirmed by school status quo.

Students from working and lower middle classes face school like an unknown social change, and they feel a lot of frustration and alienation which hinder their intimacy and trust to be expressed though their behaviour to others. In addition, they have to find out the hidden values and language of school that prevent their educational progress and demand a lot of time to be spent by them. Thus, it can be observed that some students attain higher performance during the last classes of high school, as during the first classes they must understand how the educational system works and how to use school language.

How school culture can be modified for the better performance of students in high school

In our days, public good starts to disappear from all spheres of activities and private good comes to dominates our life (Bottery, 2002, p.165) This kind of mentality emanates from higher socioeconomic classes as they are adjusted easier to the new socioeconomic situations, adapting their own values accordingly. The lower socioeconomic classes retain their values a long period of time or adopt slower the new social ideas, meaning that the public good has still a prevailing position in the sphere of their values. If school could preserve the idea of public good at a predominant position within school culture, students from lower middle and working classes would not feel so alienated in a school environment which promotes different values than their own in relation to their school behaviour.

It is true that the culture of commodified and commercial bonds which recently domains society, cannot ensure the coherence of the society in the means of common values and human approach. The desired balance between students’ performance and their educational outcome seems terrifying for students of working and lower middle classes. The students of lower socioeconomic classes combine with difficulty their personal relations with social ones. So, when school upgrades social responsibility of students, they can reassess the meaning of obligations to others, which has been vanquished by the prevalence of laws of the market in school reality, and students from lower classes can be easier adapted to school environment.

As long-term ethical values are maintained with difficulty in our days, school will help students to preserve their commitments to education and the values which serve public good. Private good may give the necessary equipment to people to be recognised for their abilities and properties, but at the same time if it is not accompanied by the collective spirit of public good, it ends in human alienation and sometimes leads individuals to existential anxiety.

Thus, social activity must not be defined as merely a commercial one, since it is the activity which holds humanity together and restrains commercial thinking and acting, which destroy progress and ignore human maintenance and nature. Then, it is important for school to maintain social trust in its culture in order to maintain the culture of the whole society. As social trust is one of the values which lower socioeconomic classes breed together with empathy that creates the bond of intimacy. It must be apriority for school to preserve these values into the school hidden culture and philosophy. This can be also done by creating bonds between school and local associations, in order to ameliorate society’s demand for better living and environmental conditions.

Governmental policies and school administration must improve cultural relations of school with students from lower middle and working classes, by using and embodying the characteristics of their culture in the culture of school. For example, it would be beneficial for the behaviour of teachers and learning behaviour of students when the cultural aspects of students from lower socioeconomic classes can be embodied in teaching activities. These measures of school administration will give an impetus to theses students to improve theirs school performance, as their culture will be represented and confirmed by school administrative and teaching policies.

Proposals for school administration

As school language which represents higher middle ands upper classes is different from this of lower middle and working classes, extra lessons of language must be taught in school which will facilitate students’ adjustment in school culture. Also, the lessons of Psychology and Sociology should be taught to students in order to understand their behaviour and the behaviour of others, which help them to develop their skills and improve their attitudes toward education. Although, the pre-eminence of market laws in education do not leave enough space for the critical and creative thought of these theoretical branches of science, since these laws rather develop the technocratic aspects of Psychology and Sociology. For the greater the commitment of students from all socioeconomic classes to education, school culture must be enriched with the characteristics of students from all socioeconomic classes. So, school policy will introduce students to the main educational and cultural school’s principles with greater facility.

In addition, school should teach students a moral behaviour which should refer to all aspects of social reality, and should ameliorate human relations by showing respect for the rules and ethics of various socioeconomic classes. Since, school education must be seen as a factor for students’ development, it should not be submitted to the market laws which cannot face human nature.

If school succeeds in this aspect, then human relations in school will be more qualified and long lasting. In our times mainly economic transactions can be long lasting, as opposed to the quick every day life which diminishes the quality of human relations and the way of living. Moreover, the realisation of social and economic reality by students will make easier their participation in social activities, and this will ensure their better understanding of others and themselves. As the more school knowledge is connected to social reality, the more and easier students learn and remember it.

The knowledge of social reality gives the opportunity to the students from lower middle and working classes to obtain the cultural elements of school, which are necessary for their better school performance. Nevertheless, the main thing for school is to educate students from all socioeconomic classes, especially students from lower middle and working classes for being able to criticize the obtained school knowledge. In this way, students will be able to take advantage of the benefits of education and their participation in school reality, which help them to realize that their social acting do not oppose their personal fulfilment. In other words, they can see that their individuality and autonomy des not contradict their social responsibility toward the well being of their school staff and the whole society.

Social responsibility of students is close related to their individual development and freedom, according to which they can analyze, criticize and propose alternative forms of school functioning. School functioning and knowledge cannot be seen as a fabric which cannot be change. Its progressive form dictates its continuous improvement for the benefit of all students, not only for the benefit of a small minority of them. This behaviour of students can be encouraged by some administrative measures like small number of students in classes, or the additional training of teachers related to their school behaviour.

The main aspect of school administration is that of determining the way of decision making process. The fact that in the regime of ambiguity – a type of school administration- teachers can give priority to the needs of students, offer them the opportunity to promote the policies and activities which decrease students’ cultural differences. Under the same regime teachers can apply new goals related to the different culture of students from various socioeconomic classes. So, the teaching policies of teachers cannot be forced by heads and principals whose goals are influenced mostly by the culture of higher middle and upper classes. In fact, ambiguity system of school administration seems to have the greater success, as teachers’ goals are more closed to the students’ needs, giving them the opportunities to succeed in school and further education.

In addition, when the same system can be combined with the system of collectivism which supports the decision making of students and teachers, there is a great chance for students to be well adjusted to the school administrative system.

Thus, the training of teachers and directors of schools for the cultural and linguistic differences of students from different socioeconomic classes would be beneficial for students’ adjustment to school culture. Moreover, teachers should be trained for the understanding of their self, others and the public good. The training of teachers in psychological issues would help them to face difficulties of their communication with students, and to share power with them in decision making related to students’ performance. For this reason, teachers can help students to develop their responsibility and creativity, when having greater expectation for their school achievement.

Students have to be informed about the rules of school functioning and administration, especially students from lower socioeconomic classes who do not know how school organization performs and which are their role and duties. When they can relate their personal culture to the school’s one, they can function in a better way. So, students can find common elements between personal and school’s culture being able to share school’s targets.

Thus, teachers have to share their planning for students’ learning activities with them, as well as they have to choose methods of teaching which best suit to students who have different socioeconomic background. As John Holt supports, teachers have to relate their teaching with social reality in order to be more understood. Generally, collaboration of teachers and students will enhance students’ achievement and teachers’ efficiency.

Stoll (1996, p.109) supports that teachers must respect the individuality of their students and they have to trust them, being at the same time caring, encouraging and supportive (cited in Education Management, 2002, No 3, p.281). In such a way, students can participate easier in school’ targets through their personal fulfilment. Also, teachers should not forget students’ personality, especially of stud ents from lower socioeconomic classes, which need feedback for functioning in a different environment.

In our times, students have to understand the necessity of contributing to the public good. For this reason, they have to be familiarized with their personal functioning for the collective good, by relating their personal culture to the school’s one. Moreover, students have to be recognized and rewarded for their social activities which aiming at public interest. Thus, the connection of school with local associations is necessary, since they motivate students to understand collective work and respect the values of the local society in which school is located.

When school connects the values of local associations with school’ ones can help students to be adjusted easier to the school evaluation system, when participating in both social and school’s cultural environment. Moreover, educational goals must be met more effectively when meeting societal expectations and achieving the special mission of the school (Bell, 2000, p.11).

What are the different characteristics of students from different socioeconomic classes in relation of their values, cultural understanding, norms and ambitions which are embodied in their principles and culture

Students of higher middle and upper classes can be easier socialized by their identification with their teacher, since most of the times they have the same mentality and culture with them. In such a way, students are stimulated comfortably without much effort by their teachers and internalize their goals and plans for their school and social success.

As Parsons supports, the function of socialization can be summed up in the development acquiescence and individuals’ abilities, which both are necessary prerequisites for the future role of them. The acquiescence can be segregated in its both ingredients: the consensus for the realization of broader social values and the consensus for the exercise of a specific role. For example, when a person does a manual work may be a good citizen into his acquiescence to honest work and the application of social values.

Nowadays, the style of working class life shows an imitation of the middle classes’ patterns of the past decades. Even social participation has increased through mass media, human relations have been degraded and individualism has increased. The flourish of wrestling is an outcome of the increase of antagonism and individualism in Greek society. Although, social participation has not an active and organized form which can be encouraged by television.

People are going to find more the sustenance of long term values like trust as characteristics of lower socioeconomic classes, rather than antagonism which characterizes higher socioeconomic classes. This means that lower socioeconomic classes less often and more slowly are going to adopt social or technological changes. This fact is translated into more economic or energy cost and frustration from their part.

The values of students from working and lower middle classes contradict the values of students from middle and upper classes. These discrepancies are shaped by the social structure that forms different social relations between people which justify the whole socioeconomic system. Through an analysis of the actions, language and teachers expectations displayed in the classroom, Anyon (1980, cited in Aronowitz, 1993, p.p. 67-92) found that students from the lower socioeconomic classes were taught in their math and social studies’ classes how to follow the rules. For, their work often is evaluated not according to whether it is right or wrong, but according to whether they follow the right steps. On the contrary, the work of students from higher socioeconomic classes is getting the right answer in relation to the questions raised by their teachers, which are designed to simply check the correctness of their answers.

 Since, the way with which students from lower middle and working classes organize their knowledge and social operation is concrete and descriptive, while this of higher and upper classes is analytical and abstracted, the way of their communication which defines cultural understanding in school is different. So, students from lower socioeconomic classes demand a concrete and clear relationship with their teachers, while students from middle and upper socioeconomic classes ask for a more independent relationship with them characterized by abstract rules and regulations (Postic, 1995, p. 72).

The cultural understanding of students from lower middle and working classes is characterized by a sensitivity to the content rather than to the structure of topics or situations, while students from higher middle and upper classes present a rationalism which allow them to operate better in a system of their school administration (Bernstein, 1975, cited in Fragoudaki, 1985, p. 443). In such a way, the greater cultural understanding of the students of higher middle and upper classes for the rationalized school administration is justified.

Meanings as principal forms by which the interaction between people take place, are constrained by the social structure that defines social classes. Bernstein believes that a particular kind of social structure leads to particular kind of linguistic behaviour from each social group, as certain social patterns produce certain linguistic patterns which in turn reproduce social patterns (Wardhaugh, 1986, p. 317)). This means that when a person shifts from one group to another hw/she has to make some semantic readjustments, which are associated with the various contexts of language texts. Through the process of communication individuals learn their social roles.

Besides, students from working and lower middle classes using different language than the official language of school, which expresses different modes of meanings, do not have an easy access to the school administration system. So, these students find themselves in a difficult position when they follow school lessons in which the elaborated code of the school language is used. Students from the working lower middle classes use the restricted code of the language which represents the language of the intimacy of the citizens from the lower socioeconomic classes (Bern stein, 1961, p. 169).For this reason, they cannot obtain knowledge easily, like students from higher socioeconomic classes, since they do not speak the language of the school and they are not aware of the rules which support and lead the function of the school system and their behaviour.

Elaborated code of school language which makes use of accurate grammatical order and syntax to regulate what is said, uses complex sentences that employ a range of devices for conjunction and subordination. It employs prepositions to show relationships of both a temporal and logical nature and shows frequent use of the pronoun I. It also uses with care a wide range of adjectives and adverbs while allowing for remarks to be qualified. It is a language use which points to the possibilities inherent in a complex conceptual hierarchy for the organizing of experience.

In contrast, restricted code employs short, grammatically simple and often unfinished sentences of poor syntactic form. It uses a few conjunctions simply and repetitively and employs little subordination. It tends toward a dislocated presentation of information and it is rigid and limited in the use of adjectives and adverbs. Also, it makes infrequent use of impersonal pronoun subjects and confounds reasons and conclusions (Bernstein, 1961, 169).

Therefore students from working and lower middle classes usually fell alienated from the mentality of other students and school functioning. They stay uninvolved and distant from schools’ activities. The language they heard with unusual adjectives which other students use, intensifies their feeling of alienation. Besides, the language they speak obeying to the rules of restricted code, the code on intimacy between families  increases their alienation. Usually, students from lower socioeconomic classes cannot place their logic in frond of their feelings. They can hardly accept the predominance of logic during their adolescence.

In addition, the students from the lower socioeconomic classes feel that logic brings about a delay in action and contributes to the reduction of tension of a specific behaviour. They do not appreciate that they have to avoid intensive feelings and aggressive emotions. When they strive for their survival, then their intensive emotions facilitate and create their action (Pateras, 1997, p. 242). The predominance of logic over the students’ feelings can be facilitated by their unpleasant past experiences of the students of lower socioeconomic classes, which possibly were the outcome of their aggressive mood. This mood in accordance with their different way of estimating others and themselves hinder their learning process.

The values of the students from lower socioeconomic classes contradict the social values which approve and justify inequality and induce different way of relating to others. For example, one important value which usually lower classes breed is trust, which creates the bond of intimacy and civility (Mulford, 2002, p. 130).

What is threatening them more is the abandonment of their characteristics and principles, which means the alteration of their cultural patterns and values of behaviour which are expressed by language. Thus, they believe their deficiencies are responsible for their positions and not the school which is neutral and meritocratic. School’ policy most of the time helps them to internalize the legitimacy of their exclusion from education and persuade them that their exclusion is being done fairly.

Language transmits more than words. It transmits a hidden baggage of shared assumptions, a collective consciousness that constitutes the social bond as Mary Douglas supports (cited in Halliday, 1979, p. 26). It is the hidden curriculum of school which is comprised in the hidden baggage. This is a kind of guidance for students who have the same culture with school one, for interpreting of the meanings of school language. For this reason, it is easier for students of upper and higher middle classes to have a better performance than students of lower socioeconomic classes who do not internalize the interpretations of the meanings of school culture.

These meanings determine what a specific situation demands, or what kind of a solution must be given to a problem. It is a way of thinking which is formed by sharing the hidden school culture. Hidden culture therefore, includes whatever system of values, thoughts, ways of functions, and language that a students must possess, to get through the tasks of daily speaking, learning and acting in a school system. The different meanings that students of different classes give to social norms, create the problem of educational failure which is not only a linguistic problem.

It is at bottom a semiotic problem, the problem of signs of communication, concerned with the different ways in which people have constructed social reality, and the styles of meanings that they have learned to associate with the various aspects of it. The meanings of some students, the semantic resources deploy in a particular social context, may not be the same as other students’ meanings and this can lead to a bewildering lack of communication between them.