In Search of Resistance and Rebellion among High School Dropouts

In Search of Resistance and Rebellion among High School DropoutsAuthor(s): Scott DaviesSource: The Canadian Journal of Sociology / Cahiers canadiens de sociologie, Vol. 19, No. 3(Summer, 1994), pp. 331-350Published by: Canadian Journal of SociologyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3340721 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 18:46

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Canadian Journal of Sociology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to TheCanadian Journal of Sociology / Cahiers canadiens de sociologie.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.21 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 18:46:27 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cjs

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3340721?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


In search of resistance and rebellion

among high school dropouts*

Scott Davies

Abstract. Notions of "cultural resistance" are currently popular in studies of social class and school

rejection. This paper examines processes of early leaving from high school by operationalizing themes from the Resistance literature in a 1987 Ontario data set. The questions are: whether socioeconomic patterns of dropping out are mediated by measures of resistance; whether gender differentiated processes emerge; and what specific types of resistance are associated with dropping out. The reported findings generally support the link between socioeconomic dimensions, gender and

early exits from high school, but the patterns of relations between class, gender and specific manifestations of rebellion suggest that researchers ought to re-consider the nature of "resistance" observed among students.

Resume. Les notions de "resistance culturelle" sont employees frequemment dans les etudes sur les classes sociales et le rejet de l'ecole par les jeunes. Cet article examine les processus d'abandon scolaire au secondaire en operationnalisant certains themes de la litt6rature sur la r6sistance a partir de donnees de 1987 pour l'Ontario. Les questions etudi6es sont: est-ce que les modalit6s socio-

6conomiques de 1'abandon sont explicables par des variables mesurant la resistance face a l'ecole, est-ce que des processus diff6rents apparaissent selon le sexe, et quels types de r6sistances sont associ6s a l'abandon. D'une fa9on g6enrale, les resultats present6s appuient la these d'un lien entre la classe sociale, le sexe et l'abandon scolaire. Cependant, les modalit6s des relations entre la classe, le sexe et certaines expressions de la r6volte suggerent que les chercheurs doivent r6-examiner la nature de la "resistance" observ6e chez les etudiants.

* Funding for this research was provided by a SSHRC doctoral fellowship. I would like to thank Julian Tanner, Bonnie Erickson, Bill O'Grady, Neil Guppy, and the reviewers and editor of this

journal for their helpful comments. The abstract was translated by Luc Theriault. Please address all correspondence and offprint requests to Scott Davies, Department of Sociology, McMaster

University, Hamilton, Ont. L8S 4M4.

Canadian Journal of Sociology/Cahiers canadiens de sociologie 19(3) 1994 331



High school dropouts occupy an unenviable position in Canada's public spot- light. Though rates of early-leaving are not increasing, many perceive a dropout problem. New labour market realities are eroding traditional opportunities for these youth, potentially condemning a sizable portion of the current generation to permanent marginality in the modem economy. Policy makers regard dropouts as a potential social menace, threatening tax-payers with lost revenues and heightened welfare, unemployment, and crime prevention costs. The Federal government considers the issue as grave enough to have recently launched the

"Stay in School Initiative" in an effort to improve completion rates. As a result, the 1980's and 1990's have produced a stockpile of research into

the social correlates of dropping out. Conducted in many different North American settings using a variety of methodologies, these studies have yielded consistent results (e.g. Rumberger, 1987; Tanner, 1990; Anisef and Bellamy, 1993; Gilbert and Orok, 1993): virtually all establish that youth from disadvan- taged backgrounds, whether measured by parental income, education, or occu- pation, are more prone to drop out. Students who are not from traditional two- parent families are less likely to graduate from high school. Within schools, placement in non-academic streams and the attainment of lower marks encour- age youth to leave school. Dropouts are more likely than graduates to engage in disruptive behaviour, perceive school as irrelevant and alienating, and yearn for adult jobs. Young males cite the lure of jobs as their primary reason for leaving, while many females regard employment and family-related considerations as

important. Despite these consistent empirical findings, this research has failed to

generate an overarching theoretical framework that elucidates causal links

among key variables. For instance, though socioeconomic background, stream-

ing, gender, various student behaviours and attitudes, and dropout status are

typically correlated, it remains unclear how socioeconomic patterns of dropping out emerge, and what cultural processes accompany them. However, one

promising perspective centres on the notion of "cultural resistance". Influenced by Paul Willis' landmark British study Learning to Labour (1977), a generation of classroom ethnographies have explored class-based processes of school leaving as a form of resistance. Boasting a now-voluminous literature, Resist- ance theory has informed numerous North American empirical studies and theoretical commentaries on the link between class, culture and school rejection (e.g. Giroux 1983; Apple 1985; McLaren 1986; Nelson 1987; Eckert 1989; and Tanner 1990).

School rejection as resistance Resistance theorists take their point of departure from the Marxian "Reproduc- tion" explanation of class inequalities through education. Bowles and Gintis (1976), for instance, faulted schools for inducing and encouraging self-blame

332



among failing working class students. Schools were said to collectively reinforce

poor educational performance and humble aspirations among these youth while

grooming them for manual employment, thereby deflecting criticism from the systemic middle-class biases of schools. Though exceedingly popular in North America and Britain, this theory was subsequently criticized for its excessive emphasis on the socio-structural imperatives of schools. For Paul Willis and others, Reproduction theorists largely ignored student agency, thereby restrain-

ing their account of the process of persistent class disparities within a "black- box."

By the late 1970s, Reproduction theory evolved into a theory of Resistance. The question of how consistently significant numbers of working class youth fail school was answered with dynamic accounts of student opposition, agency, and class struggle. Echoing the ideas of classical American Subcultural theory (but seldom acknowledging this influence; see Tanner 1988), Resistance theorists viewed these students as actively rejecting school by deploying a working class cultural weaponry. Subcultural peer groups such as "the lads" (Willis, 1977), "hallway hangers" (Macleod, 1987), "the wenches" (L. Davies, 1984), "cool guys" (McLaren, 1986), and "burouts" (Eckert, 1989) were said to contest the imposition of school's alien capitalist and middle class content in a solidaristic affirmation of their class culture. The notion of "reproduction through resistance" drew attention to how these youth actively reproduce themselves as members of the working class by contesting their subordination in the school context and embracing manual labouring futures.

According to this account, the specific manifestations of "resistance" generally are of four types. (1) Behaviours such as truancy, delinquency, disinterest in school content, and academic lethargy are seen to express antagonism and rejection of the student role. (2) Working class orientations to school are allegedly shaped by an eager anticipation of the adult realm of employment and a vocationalized frame of reference which devalues school for its irrelevance in the "real world." (3) Gender differences are regarded as central for the articulat- ing student discontent. Among males, Resistance theorists stress how chauvin- istic masculine identities propel school rejection. Among females, however, opposition to school is regarded as less disruptive (McRobbie, 1981; Davies, 1984; Apple, 1985; Griffen, 1985; Gaskell, 1985; Lees, 1986). Lacking the bravado and self-assurance of Willis' 'lads', girls' antagonisms are said to be expressed through an embrace of marriage and child-rearing duties as unavoid- able facts of life. This domestic traditionalism provides disaffected females, especially those from the working class, with an alternative identity from which to voice their aversion to school, though it encourages the cultural reproduction of the traditional role of motherhood.

The fourth claim is perhaps the most unique: that working class youth's rejection of school underscores a "partial insight" into class subordination.

333



Rebels, by contesting the meanings and definitions of school, are seen to struggle against the dominant middle class culture and delegitimize the essential arbitrari- ness of school's selection criteria. For instance, Nelson (1987:126) in his discussion of dropouts and other disaffected youth in Thunder Bay, Ont., observes:

It is these youth (the vandals, the school skippers, and the early leavers) who, in questioning the

authority of the school to command their time and attention, are acting both responsibly and

rationally. For it is they who are squarely facing both the reality of school boredom and the clear evidence that there is not much compelling opportunity beyond school. By skipping and leaving school at an early age they are 'voting with their feet' to give up the frivolous fantasy of school life.

Further, it is argued that these insights are anchored in a wider working class culture. Youthful encounters with school alledgedly activate certain themes from the parent culture that spark a sense of injustice and fuel a nascent class consciousness. Accordingly, school rejection is seen to ultimately possess, albeit submerged and concealed, an alternative vision with potential for radical social movements (Giroux, 1983; Apple, 1985).

The claims and interpretations offered by researchers who developed the "resistance" perspective have been quite influential within the sociology of education. However, some apparent gaps in this literature need filling. One is a noteworthy ambiguity surrounding the extent to which such "insights" are deemed to be consciously held and explicitly articulated. Resistance theorists are neither consensual nor consistent here, at times wavering between two versions. Willis (1977), for instance, holds that students' criticisms and dissatisfactions with schooling signal an explicit form of societal critique. He claims that "the lads" complaints against teachers and schools rules are generalized beyond the school to the law and police, thus ultimately reflecting a broader ideological animosity to bourgeois institutions. But Willis also indicates that these criticisms are in reality quite limited because they are not consciously held or coherently expressed, and he goes on to argue that they at best symbolize a more substantial critical stance. That is, he interprets teenage rule-breaking as expressing underlying political motives since it challenges institutional authority, but concedes that this is only implied in their actions: for all the penetrating insights, much is experienced as just fun and excitement (Willis, 1983).

Moreover, questions of a more empirical nature emerge when Resistance theory is confronted by quantitative research on schools and delinquency. The connection between class and student resistance may have been overstated. Though Willis, Giroux, Apple, McLaren and others presume that a kind of primordial working class culture is the catalyst for opposition to the authority of school, there is evidence indicating that the relation between opposition to school and class background is much weaker than Resistance theorists generally acknowledge. In a study of Ontario high school students, for example, I found class effects on resistance to pale in comparison to the independent effects of

334



stream and difficulty with school, and concluded that Resistance theorists over- generalized the experiences of a small number of disaffected youth to the bulk of working class students (Davies, 1994). Baron (1989) described west coast punk rock subcultures as relatively "classless". And more generally, Lambert, Curtis, Brown and Kay's (1986) survey research casts doubt on the saliency of class in the subjective perceptions of most Canadians.

An emerging alternative theoretical model, in contrast, places greater priority on the immediate school situation for understanding the nature of student resistance. Control theorists' such as West (1979) stress how youth in disadvan- taged positions, such as being in non-academic streams or having disappointing grades, experience an inglorious status in schools and face few chances for further advancement in education, regardless of their class background. The combination of what amounts to status deprivation and blocked opportunities weakens their stakes in social conformity. Thus, low exertions of effort, judgments of school as irrelevant, disruptive behaviour, and yearning for adult status may represent youthful adaptations and escape mechanisms to conditions that are not exclusive to those from working class origins. Working class students are not necessarily predisposed to be more disruptive; rather, the greater propensity of these youth to be placed in non-academic streams and to experience difficulties with school could account for any observed class differences in rebellion.

Further, Resistance theorists may underestimate the extent to which gender affects the emergence of and participation in school resistance, net of class, stream and dropout status. Delinquency research shows that most disruptive behaviour, both in and out of school, is perpetrated by males, regardless of their school performance, while female dropouts are not necessarily rebellious (West 1979). To explain this, Hagan (1988) looks to patriarchical family control structures. Since parents subject their sons to less restriction and surveillance than their daughters, males adopt greater 'tastes for risk.' For Hagan, risk-taking not only expresses adolescent yearnings for excitement, but also anticipates a range of activities that are symbolic of the male-dominated realm of employment. Families thereby communicate to youth the sexual stratification of the adult world. They convey to sons a sense of liberation that heightens the latter's risk for engaging in delinquency, independent of their class background. In contrast, Hagan notes, parents control their daughters more rigidly and inhibit them from more overt acts of rebellion. Young women's inclination to deviate is more likely manifested in psychosocial distress. Thus Control theorists suggest that expressions of rebellion arise through an interplay of loosened

1. The term "control theory" is used to refer to theories that place analytic priority on school situation and parental controls for understanding teenage deviance (e.g. Hagan 1989; West 1979). This is not to be confused with Hagan's power control theory per se, though I draw on his ideas.

335



stakes in school conformity and the freedom to deviate, a freedom more readily available to males.

Aims of this paper Resistance theory presents a provocative account of class inequalities in schooling. Using survey data, this paper operationalizes themes from this literature in a statistical model of dropping out of high school. Though many correlates of dropping out have been investigated in sociological research, few studies have modelled mediating variables between class background and dropout status, and none have systematically operationalized rebellion and resistance to link quantitative and qualitative approaches.2 This model explores whether measures of resistance mediate the relation between class background and dropping out. This is not a definitive test of Resistance theory, for it is only one possible avenue for testing the wide-ranging empirical claims of this literature. Nonetheless, this model does provide an important investigation. High school dropouts are analogous to Willis' "lads" -the early leavers who originally inspired the Resistance literature. Further, dropping out is a strong act of school rejection. Since dropouts are the school system's most alienated customers and face restricted job opportunities, this model provides a suitable approximation of the theme of "reproduction through resistance."

In particular, this paper addresses the following questions. First, are there significant class patterns of dropping out of school in Ontario, and if so, to what extent are these patterns mediated by various measures of resistance? Though few researchers would entertain any doubt that oppositional subcultures arise in schools, a key question is the extent to which they contribute to class rates of early leaving. Second, what particular aspects of resistance lead to dropping out? Is it associated with critical evaluations of school as well as behaviourial manifestations? Third, do male dropouts exhibit more disruptive behaviour, and are girls' outcomes mediated more by domestic priorities?

Method The data set (Karp 1988) is part of the Ontario Study of the Relevance of Education and the Issue of Dropouts, funded by the Ontario Ministry of Education. It includes 843 high school drop-outs (who dropped out after 1979) and 103 high school graduates aged 15-24 in a 1987 random sample telephone

2. The use of survey techniques is controversial for some researchers working in the Resistance tradition. Many presume survey research to be inherently incapable of uncovering deep-rooted meanings of student actions, and consider "resistance" to be best sought through interpretative methods in concrete contexts (e.g. Giroux 1983; Weis et al. 1989). However, these field studies have the disadvantage of notoriously small samples and questionable generalizability. My use of survey data is based on the assumption that it reasonably taps conscious judgements pertaining to education. As such, I limit indicators of resistance to student's explicit judgements and actions pertaining to school, and leave questions of"symbolic resistance" aside, since they are more difficult to measure.

336



survey. I employ a regression model consisting of background, mediating and outcome variables.3 The major background variables are parent's class, family structure and gender. Mediating variables consist of operationalizations of "resistance" and measures of stream and difficulty with school. The latter two variables allow for comparisons of the relative influence of background variables versus internal school processes in generating school opposition. Stream represents the major structuring of future academic opportunity, and is purportedly a key cultural division in schools. Perceptions of difficulty with school approximates measures of self-concept of ability used in educational research, and may be an important element of student status that may promote resistance. The dependent variable is drop-out status.

The statistical analysis consists of numerous multiple regressions that pro- ceed in stages, thereby providing a path analytic decomposition of direct and indirect effects (Alwin and Hauser 1975). The first model consists of only exogenous (background) variables. Next, successive intervening variables are added as independent variables, until the intervening variables are exhausted. In this study, four sub-models explore effects, beginning with class background, successively adding family structure and gender, resistance variables, and stream and difficulty with school. Because dropout status is a dichotomous variable, logistic regression is used. Logistic coefficients represent change in the natural log of the odds of being in a particular category of the dependent variable (in this case, dropout status) associated with a category change in an independent variable (for instance, parent's level of education). The tables provided present both unstandardized logistic regression coefficients (b) and standardized coefficients (r). The model chi square tests the null hypothesis that the coefficients for all terms in the model except the constant, are zero. This is comparable to the overall F test in regression analysis.

Background variables All variables are listed in Figure one. Socioeconomic background is indicated by parent's education, measured on a six-point scale: "elementary", "grade eight",

3. The measures used in this study generally capture the intended concepts, though secondary analysis always has the inherent hazard of forcing one to make do with less than ideal data. For instance, the design of the model assumes that cultural measures are temporally prior to

dropping out, though actual measurement occurred after dropping out. As in any retrospective survey design, this assumes that remembrances of past feelings are not coloured by after-the- fact rationalizations or selective memories. Also, some measures reflect the intended concept somewhat tangentially, while some hypothesized traits were not available in these data sets, such as subcultural style and truancy. Finally, race and ethnicity cannot be central foci in this study because the survey measured racial background poorly. Findings should thus be read in an exploratory rather than confirmatory spirit. Nonetheless, these limitations are counterbal- anced by the advantages of these data. The relatively large sample, the variety of attitudinal items, and the original operationalizations allow some new territory to be explored with multivariate techniques.

337



"some high school", "graduated high school", "some post secondary", and "completed post secondary". This poses some limitations. The use of only a single measure likely biases the effects of socioeconomic background down- wards since part of the actual effect remains unmeasured. Also, some Marxists consider the crucial basis of class cultural experience to be subordinate positions in production, rather than experiences of poverty or low status per se (e.g. Wright 1985). For them, the ideal Marxian operationalization of class background is one's relation to production. Thus, my measures are only approximate indicators of socioeconomic status, and any class effects that are much weaker than those found in similar studies may reflect this limitation of measurement.

The other background variables are gender, family size and family structure. Gender is coded as a dummy variable (males=1, females=0). Family size is measured as the number of siblings reported by each respondent. Family structure is measured as a dichotomy of two parent families versus all other family types. These latter two variables are included because youth from larger and non-traditional families are over-represented among dropouts (Rumberger 1987).

Mediating variables Indicators of resistance were constructed with the aim of having a theoretical primacy. I began by identifying four key themes in the literature: behaviourial, employment-related, domestic-sphere related, and critique-related manifestations of resistance. For each theme I selected all relevant survey items for factor analyses. The bulk of these items consisted of Likert scaled satisfaction questions, or statements ranging from "agree very much" to "disagree very much". Using varimax rotation, I then examined extracted factors with eigenvalues of at least 1.0, and Cronach's alphas of at least .6 (tables available upon request from the author).4

The following groups of variables emerged. Behaviourial variables represent youthful manifestations of alienation from schooling, but fall short of overtly articulated criticisms of school. I constructed indicators of feelings of isolation and estrangement from schooling, having friends that are dropouts, engaging in disruptive behaviour, and expending low amounts of effort in school work. Employment-related variables centre on the link between orientations to school and jobs. Resistance theorists expect that dropouts, compared with graduates, should perceive schooling as relatively irrelevant and inferior to employment. These orientations are measured with ratings of schooling in comparison to work, and ratings of the relative unimportance of school. The third cluster of measures focuses on the role of orientations to the domestic sphere. I created measures of the priorities respondents attached to domestic life, and endorse-

4. Researchers consider reliabilities of .6 acceptable, though strive for scores of .7 or higher (Bohmstedt and Knoke 1982:361).

338



ments of traditional gender roles. The final group of variables investigates whether student rebellion includes overtly negative evaluations of schooling. Critique variables consist of explicit judgements concerning satisfaction with streaming, teachers, the vocational content and organization of schooling. In addition I used the single item "in high school you're treated like a child" as an indicator called "childish treatment." Further, I pursued an indicator of whether dropping out was related to more general anti-authority sentiments. Since this notion figures prominently in the writings of Willis (1977) and Corrigan (1979), I explored whether school opposition and outcomes are associated with attitudes to law and authority. Finally, I added a single measure of whether students perceived teacher bias against themselves.

Other mediating variables include measures of streaming and student perceptions of difficulty with school. The data set contained indicators of initial stream, whether the respondent ever switched, and if so, to which stream. I used the respondent's final stream, since this measure accounted for the movement between streams (which had been substantial), and distinguished the direction of this movement. I dichotomized academic versus non-academic stream, since this represents the basic structuring of future academic opportunity, and is purportedly a key cultural division in schools. Perceptions of difficulty with school was constructed with the same procedures used for resistance variables.

Outcome variable The dependent variable is a dichotomy of dropout versus high school graduate status. This measure, as in most dropout studies, fails to distinguish different types of dropouts, such as "push outs" (students forced out by school authorities), "stop outs" (those who eventually return to school), or educational mortalities (those who fail). Further research is needed to explore whether these different

types of dropouts engage in different forms of resistance.

Findings This investigation commences with the question of whether there are significant effects of parental education on dropping out, and if so, whether resistance mediates this relation. Logistic regressions of dropout status in table one, columns one and two, reveal that father's education and number of siblings have statistically significant effects. Youth with fathers who attained lesser amounts of education and who come from larger families are more likely to drop out of school. Since this finding was expected, the more prominent query is whether class outcomes occur through resistance. To investigate this, we compare the parental education coefficients in columns one and two to those in columns three and four. Moving between columns two and three shows that the father's education coefficient is reduced by 38%. By column four, more than half of the father's education effect is accounted for by cultural variables, stream and

339



Figure 1 . List of variables.

Background variables. FATHER'S EDUCATION = Father's education

MOTHER'S EDUCATION = Mother's education

MALE = males = 1, females = 0

SIBLINGS = number of siblings in respondent's family FAMILY = traditional family structure

Behavioural variables: BEHAVIOUR = self rating of disruptive behaviour

DROPOUT FRIENDS = whether most of one's friends dropped out

ISOLATION = feelings of isolation in school ESTRANGEMENT = feelings of estrangement from school

EFFORT = self-ratings of the amount of effort put into school work

Employment-related variables: RATING WORK/ED = rating school in comparison to work

UNIMPORTANCE = rating school as unimportant

Domestic sphere variables: DOMESTIC PRIORITIES = domestic priorities GENDER ROLES = attitudes to traditional gender roles

Critique variables: BIAS = perceptions of bias

AUTHORITY = importance of authority CHILDISH TREATMENT = feeling that schools treat students childishly TEACHER SATISFACTION = satisfaction with teachers VOCATIONAL SAT.= satisfaction with vocational aspects of school

ORGANIZATION SAT. = satisfaction with organizational aspects of school

STREAM SAT. = satisfaction with streaming in school

Other mediating variables: STREAM = placement in academic stream

DIFFICULTY = difficulty with school

difficulty with school. Consequently, the model receives some confirmation. A

substantial portion of the class effect on dropping out is mediated by the cultural

variables, suggesting class patterns occur somewhat through resistance. What particular resistance variables predict dropout status? I investigate

behaviourial, employment-related, domestic sphere, and critique variables in turn. Table one, column three shows that in descending order, the statistically significant variables are: disruptive behaviour, having dropout friends, feelings of isolation, low effort, and valuing work over education. This suggests that behaviourial variables are the prime predictors of dropping out. Four of the five behavioral variables were statistically significant even controlling for stream

340



and difficulty with school (column four). Thus, compared to graduates, dropouts are characterized by disruptive behaviour, having dropout friends, feeling isolated, and expending less effort in school. Perhaps surprisingly, feelings of estrangement in school was not a predictor of dropping out.

Next, do work-related variables predict dropping out? In table one the "rating work favourable over school" coefficient is significant. Dropouts are more likely than graduates to rate work favourably over education. However, this effect is reduced to non-significance by column four when stream and difficulty with school are included in the equation. This pattern of relationships suggests that

Table 1. Logistic regression of dropout status (all students) standardized and unstandardized coefficients.

B R B R B R B R

FATHER'S EDUCATION -.218 -.081* -.201 -.066* -.136

MOTHER'S EDUCATION -.112 .000 -.105 .000 -.008

MALE

SIBLINGS

FAMILY

BEHAVIOUR

DROPOUT FRIENDS

ISOLATION

ESTRANGEMENT

EFFORT

RATINGS WORK/ED.

UNIMPORTANCE

.120 .000 .133

.195 .090** .221 -.525 -.043 -.541

.544 -.531 .363 .032 .431

.000 -.095 .000

.000 .029 .000

.000 -.154 .000

.084* .213 .078* -.011 -.524 .000

.142*** .531 .136*** -.124** -.510 -.118** .084* .355 .080* .000 .026 .000 .076* .406 .070*

-.169 -.071* -.143 -.047 -.153 -.043 -.142 -.029

DOMESTIC PRIORITIES

GENDER ROLES

-.123 .000 -.122 .000 -.029 .000 -.020 .000

BIAS

AUTHORITY

CHILDISH TREATMENT

TEACHER SATISFACTION

VOCATIONAL SAT.

ORGANIZATION SAT.

STREAM SAT.

STREAM

DIFFICULTY

MODEL CHI-SQUARE 14.1 SIGNIFICANCE .0009

.173

.120

.077 -.050 -.008 -.005 -.011

25.0 .0001

138.3 .0000

.000 .124 .000

.044 .106 .023

.000 .070 .000

.000 -.039 .000

.000 .012 .000

.000 -.003 .000

.000 -.003 .000

.722 .087* -.137 .030

144.2 .0000

341



youth in non-academic stream and who experience difficulty with school embrace a work-centred attitude that eventually culminates in dropping out. This corroborates Canadian ethnographic findings of dropouts' yearnings for the adult status and employment, and consequent devaluing of education (Gaskell and Lazerson 1981; Tanner 1990).

Are these processes different for males versus females, and are domestic

sphere variables significant predictors of female early leaving? As expected, some key gender differences surface. A comparison of tables two and three reveals that only one cultural variable is significant for both males and females:

expending low effort in school. Otherwise, none of the same variables are

significant in both tables, suggesting that male and female dropouts have somewhat different experiences. Among males, the strongest predictors of

dropout status are, respectively, negatively rating education compared to work, placement in non-academic streams, lower effort, and disruptive behaviour.

Among females, the strongest predictors are viewing schooling as unimportant, having dropout friends, feeling isolated in school, attaching high priority to domestic concerns, expending little effort in school (which is sharply reduced

upon the inclusion of stream and difficulty in column four) and reporting difficulty with school. Thus, attaching greater priority to domestic issues

distinguishes early leavers from graduates among young women, but not among young men. This confirms expectations that male dropouts are more likely to

engage in disruptive behaviour, and that their female counterparts embrace domestic traditionalism.

However, exploration of zero-order correlations suggests that the relation between gender and resistance is more robust than anticipated. Males report more disruptive behaviour (r=.26), less effort (r=.19), are more likely to

prescribe traditional gender roles (r=. 19), perceive more bias against themselves (r=. 15), and rate school to be unimportant (r=.20). Interestingly, many of these correlations are greater in magnitude than the corresponding correlations with

dropout status. For instance, compare the correlations between gender and various resistance variables, and dropout status and the same resistance variables: r=-.20 and -.19 for judging education to be unimportant for work; .26 and .20 for disruptive behaviour, and .19 and. 15 for effort. This is striking, for many of these phenomena are deemed to be the province of working class school

rejectors. Gender is also more strongly correlated with resistance measures than class, though this may partially reflect that the sample is comprised overwhelm-

ingly of dropouts (85%), and is not fully representative of the general student

body. Nevertheless, class background is an exceedingly weak predictor of

oppositional acts. No correlations are greater than .10. In multiple regressions not reported here, parental education did not predict more than 1.2% of the variance of any of the cultural variables (tables available upon request from the author). Thus, these relationships suggest that many anti-school phenomena are

342



Table 2. Logistic regression of dropout status for females: standardized and unstandardized coefiicients

B R B R B R B R

FATHER'S EDUCATION -.121 .000 -.135 .000 -.003 MOTHER'S EDUCATION -.214 -.031 -.223 -.035 -.231

.090 .000 .022 -.867 -.072 -.739

.523 -.834 .832 .037 .533

.000 -.197 .000 -.019 .033 .000

.000 .067 .000 -.026 -.538 .000

.068 .470 .062

.172** -.820 -.148**

.203*** .631 .126*

.000 .087 .000

.093* .298 .000

.049 .000 .160 .000 -.352 -.139** -.438 -.152**

DOMESTIC PRIORITIES

GENDER ROLES

-.350 -.098* -.321 -.096* -.394 .000 -.307 .000

BIAS

AUTHORITY

CHILDISH TREATMENT


VOCATIONAL SAT.

ORGANIZATIONAL SAT.

STREAM SATISFACTION

STREAM

DIFFICULTY

MODEL CHI-SQUARE

.212

.136 -.228 .100

-.023 -.035 -.102

6.2 11.3 87.9

.000 .208 .000

.000 .072 .000

.000 -.317 .000

.000 .134 .000

.000 -.044 .000

.000 -.002 .000

.000 .017 .000

-.303 .000 -.188 -.089*

91.3

as or more strongly linked to gender than to class, stream, and dropout status - a finding unanticipated by Resistance theory. The implications of the far- reaching effects of gender are discussed in the next section.

Finally, do 'critique' variables predict dropping out? In tables one, two, and three, none of the critical evaluations of school - anti-authoritarianism, satisfaction measures, perceptions of bias, and accusing schools of childish treatment - are statistically significant. All have quite humble partial coefficients. Moreover, zero-order correlations show weak links between critique variables and dropout status, unlike the other groups of resistance variables. All zero-order

343

SIBLINGS

FAMILY

BEHAVIOUR

DROPOUT FRIENDS

ISOLATION

ESTRANGEMENT

EFFORT

RATING WORK/ED.

UNIMPORTANCE



correlations between dropout status and these variables are less than .11. In fact, indicators of critique are difficult to 'ground' in any structural location, since

they are not strongly intercorrelated with dropout status, stream, gender or class

background. This issue can be further explored with data on attribution of blame for

dropping out. Recall that Resistance theory originated in part as a reaction to the

Reproductionist tenet that dropouts internalized blame for their scholastic failure. Resistance theorists countered that dropouts, rather than passively engaging in self blame, contested such pejorative labels, and held schools

responsible for their plight. An intriguing inspection of this issue is provided by a measure of dropout's attributions for their lack of scholastic success on a scale

Table 3. Logistic regression of dropout status for males: standardized and unstandardized coefficients.

B R B R B R B R

FATHER'S EDUCATION -.351 -.124** -.317 -.098* -.285 MOTHER'S EDUCATION .026 .000 .045 .000 .138

SIBLINGS

FAMILY

BEHAVIOUR

DROPOUT FRIENDS

ISOLATION

ESTRANGEMENT

EFFORT

RATING WORK/ED.

UNIMPORTANCE

DOMESTIC PRIORITIES

GENDER ROLES

.327 .134* .317 -.270 .000 -.088

.661 -.424 .282 .092 .989

-.062 -.066 .000 .000 .075 .000

.115* .407 .114*

.000 .006 .000

.160** .721 .156** -.049 -.371 .000 .000 .275 .000 .000 .081 .000 .192** .975 .153**

-.417 -.181** -.434 -.172** -.069 .000 .056 .000

-.065 .000 -.055 .000 .023 .000 -.009 .000

BIAS

AUTHORITY

CHILDISH TREATMENT


VOCATIONAL SAT.

ORGANIZATIONAL SAT.

STREAM SATISFACTION

STREAM

DIFFICULTY

MODEL CHI-SQUARE 9.6

SIGNIFICANCE .0081

344

.074

.064

.196 -.206 .037

-.074 .285

18.4 .0011

91.3 .0000

.000 -.078 .000

.000 .061 .000

.000 .151 .000 -.077 -.215 -.064 .000 .003 .000 .000 -.053 .000 .000 .384 .000

-1.557 -.161** -.147 .000

95.0 .0000



from 1-10 (table available from the author). Only a minority (15%) place most of the blame solely on school (ratings in the 1-4 range). Another third (34%) offer ratings in the middle range (5-6), attributing guilt equally between themselves and the school. More than half (52%) place most blame upon themselves (ratings 7-10). Thus, evidence that dropping out is accompanied by strong and conscious criticisms levelled at schools is wanting. While this runs somewhat counter to Resistance theory, it corroborates Canadian and American interview findings that most dropouts tend to either blame themselves solely, or alternate attributions between themselves and educational institutions (e.g. Gaskell and Lazerson, 1981; Stevenson and Ellsworth, 1991; Tanner, 1990,1993). Despite negative school experiences, most of these disaffected youth seem to offer only blunted criticisms of schools.

Discussion In summary, these results suggest that some of the class reproduction in education occurs through resistance. Indeed, these data echo the imagery of classic subcultural depictions of school rejectors. Dropouts expend less effort than graduates, engage in more disruptive behaviour, experience greater difficulties with school, and have friends who are also dropouts. Encouraged by their placement in non-academic streams and /or difficulties with school work, dropouts disengage themselves from the culture of schooling, and learn to prefer the 'real world' of employment over 'irrelevant' schooling. As expected, key experiences differ by gender. Yet, despite this supporting evidence for the Resistance model, some empirical patterns are notably anomalous within the purview of the theory. Troublesome school relations do not appear to be translated into overtly critical evaluations of schools. Concrete evidence for the claim that dropouts engage in a critique of schooling remains elusive. Also, correlations between background and resistance variables do not take the expected form. Class background is a weak correlate of resistance, much weaker than stream and difficulty with school, and gender patterns are more ubiquitous than is acknowledged in this literature.

More importantly, these empirical findings have implications for interpreting 'resistance.' As noted above, these data and previous work suggests that Resistance theory's emphasis on the class nature of school opposition is somewhat misplaced. Class background is, of course, a solid predictor of streaming and dropping out. But the weak links between class background and resistance offer paltry support for a contention that it is essentially a working class cultural form. This casts doubt on whether resistance can be considered a prior cause for class outcomes in school. Rather, because it is more directly traced to difficulties with school and streaming, it more likely represents reactions to blocked educational opportunities, and is more appropriately conceptualized as an intervening variable between school difficulties and

345



dropping out. More analytic priority should be placed on the selection processes of contemporary schooling over some primordial proletarian culture for compre- hending youthful reactions to school.

Resistance theorists also lack a rationale for why gender provides such a far-

reaching basis for anti-school attitudes. Control theory, however, provides a

plausible account of key empirical patterns found in this study. If one speculates that differences in parental control occur as stated, this can shed light on why males are more rebellious than females, regardless of dropout status or class. Further, it provides a rationale for why female dropping out was accompanied by espousing domestic priorities and feelings of isolation. As Hagan might suggest, these young women expressed school rejection through that form of distress, rather than overtly disruptive behaviour.

Taken together, this lessened focus on class culture and heightened emphasis on the gendered and local character of school opposition have important implications for interpreting the nature of resistance. By underplaying salient conditions of adolescent life that are common across classes -gender- differentiated parental controls and pressures of school failure -perhaps Resistance theorists also underplay what is most obviously reproduced through resistance among dropouts: not a class culture per se, but rather conventional forms of masculinity and femininity. These findings, along with previous work, suggests that gender traditionalism is a primary element for coping with academic problems in the context of an intense peer culture. Lynn Davies (1984) and Holland and Eisenhart (1990), for instance, argue that gender roles among less successful students polarize over time as these youth actively draw on

existing male and female repertoires to shape alternative identities to that of a

failing student. Many of the behaviours and attitudes originally considered to represent

working class reactions to school thus now appear as assertions of an exaggerated maleness aimed to assuage an undermined teenage masculinity. Interest-

ingly, the feelings of elation, bravado and liberation that Willis and others attribute exclusively to working class youth can be seen as the particular character of young males in a patriarchical society. For females, the adoption of domestic traditionalism and/or an exaggerated femininity is an age-specific adaptation to a lack of school success and reduced chances for being independent breadwinners. To be sure, the more extreme caricatures of teenage masculinity and femininity are likely ephemeral, to be toned down in later years. But there does appear to be a potent link between school failure and peer-generated traditionalism, such that the established imagery of the rebellious dropout may be a gender phenomenon as much as a class phenomenon.

Of course, these results are open to other plausible interpretations, including those that retain class at the centre of the analysis. For instance, the lack of empirical confirmation for the contention that dropouts are distinguished by their

346



overtly critical attitudes to school does not necessarily damage Resistance theory on its own terms. Willis, for instance, could interpret these findings as statistical illustration of the "contradictory" nature of class resistance. That is, the split between dropouts' expressions of disaffection with school and their actual muted criticisms can be accommodated with his concept of "partial penetrations," which describes how overt actions can simultaneously symbolize critiques of

schooling and be circumscribed by the effects of dominant ideology. But while this interpretation adds a complexity to theories of school rejection, it also forces them to unsteady ground, for it implicitly presumes that actors' motivations are somehow beneath their consciousness. This is especially problematic when no

systematic method is offered to guide correct decodings of symbolic gestures (Cohen 1980). While this recourse may make for a more nuanced sociological account, the underlying reasoning can turn increasingly opaque.

Angela McRobbie's (1981; see also Apple, 1985) acclaimed feminized version of Willis' thesis exemplifies this predicament. She views female school rejectors' embrace of motherhood, exaggerated femininity, and the cult of romance as partially progressive, arguing that they symbolically taunt the middle class image of the female student. Yet, to regard gender traditionalism as "resistance", one must assume that any dislike of schooling necessarily ex-

presses a class antagonism, and is thus undoubtedly progressive. Moreover, it assumes that cooperative behaviour in school is tantamount to accepting a capitalist or patriarchical ideology. How compelling are these assumptions? Certainly it ignores the obvious reality that the least traditional young women are usually good students found in universities. McRobbie's interpretation thus seems somewhat removed from empirical reality because she too hastily equates rebellious acts with a feminist impulse - an a priori presumption that seems disengaged from its empirical base.

In summary, Resistance theory has proven somewhat useful for elucidating processes of dropping out at a general level, but deeper inspection of key empirical patterns, causal logic and theoretical assumptions necessitates some modifications. Future research should employ longitudinal data that include measures of parental control and tastes for risk to test their links to resistance and dropping out. To uncover original cultural causes of class disparities in schools, I suggest that models should include measures of cultural capital and other class- related resources - research that in Canada remains surprisingly underdevel- oped. Perhaps most importantly, a strengthened focus on gender that avoids certain a priori assumptions is required to better square Resistance theory's interpretative framework with the daily realities facing our schools.

References Alwin, Duane and Robert Hauser

1975 "The decomposition of effects inpath analysis." American Sociological Review 40: 37- 47.

347



Anisef, Paul and Lesley Bellamy 1993 "The School Leavers Survey: what does it tell us about dropping out in Canada?"

unpublished manuscript. Anyon, Jean

1981 "Elementary schooling and distinctions of social class." Interchange 12 (2-3). Apple, Michael 1985 [1982] Education and Power. Boston: Ark. Baron, Stephen W.

1989 "The Canadian west coast punk subculture: a field study." Canadian Journal of Sociology 14(3): 289-316.

Bohrstedt George and David Knoke 1982 Statisticsfor Social Data Analysis. Itasca, Illinois: FE Peacock Publishers.

Bowles, Samuel and Herbert Gintis 1976 Schooling in Capitalist America. New York: Basic Books.

Cohen, Stanley 1980 "Symbols of trouble: Introduction to the new edition." In FolkDevils and Moral Panics.

Oxford: Martin Robinson. Connell, Robert, D. Ashendon, D. Kessler, and G. Dowsett

1982 Making the Difference. Sydney: George Allen and Unwin.

Corrigan, Paul 1979 Schooling the Smash Street Kids. London: MacMillan Press.

Davies, Lynn 1984 Pupil Power: Deviance and Gender in School. London: Falmer Press.

Davies, Scott 1992 "In Search of the culture clash: Evaluating a sociological theory of class inequalities in

education." Doctoral dissertation, Department of Sociology, University of Toronto. 1994 "Class dismissed? Student opposition in Ontario." Canadian Review of Sociology and

Anthropology (forthcoming). Eckert, Penelope

1989 Jocks and Burnouts: Social Categories and Identity in the High School New York: Teachers College Press.

Everhart, Robert 1983 Reading, Writing and Resistance. Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Gaskell, Jane 1985 "Course enrolment in the high school: The perspective of working class females."

Sociology of Education 58: 48-59. Gaskell, Jane and Marvin Lazerson

1980 "Between school and work: Perspectives of working class youth." Interchange 11: 80- 96.

Gilbert, Sid and Bruce Orok 1993 "School leavers" Canadian Social Trends (30, autumn).

Giroux, Henry 1983 Theory and Resistance in Education: a Pedagogy for the Opposition. South Hadley

Mass.: Bergin and Garvey. Goldfarb Consultants

1988 The Dropout Phenomenon in Ontario Secondary Schools [computer file]. By Goldfarb consultants for Ontario Ministry of Education. SPSSX ed. Toronto: Goldfarb Consult- ants [producer and disseminator]. 1 data file (946 logical records) and accompanying documentation by University of Toronto Data Library.

348



Griffen, Christine 1985 Typical Girls? Young Women from School to the Job Market. London: Routledge and

Kegan Paul.

Hagan, John 1988 Structural Criminology. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Holland, Dorothy C. and Margaret A. Eisenhart 1990 Educated in Romance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Karp, Ellen 1988 The Dropout Phenomenon in Ontario Secondary Schools: a Report to the Ontario Study

of the Relevance of Education and the Issue ofDropouts. Ontario: Ministry of Education. Lambert, Ronald D., James E. Curtis, Steven D. Brown, and Barry J. Kay

1986 "Canadians' beliefs about differences between social classes." Canadian Journal of Sociology 11(4): 379-400.

Lees, Sue 1986 Losing out: Sexuality and Adolescent Girls. London: Hutchinson.

Luttrell, Wendy 1989 "Working class women's ways of knowing: Effects of gender, race, and class." Sociology

of Education. Macleod, Jay

1987 Ain't No Makin' it: Levelled Aspirations in a Low-Income Neighbourhood. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

McLaren, Peter 1986 Schooling as a Ritual Performance. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

McRobbie, Angela 1981 "Settling accounts with subcultures: A feminist Critique." In T. Bennett, G. Martin, C.

Mercer, J. Woollacott, eds., Culture, Ideology and Social Process. London: The Open University.

Nelson, Randall 1987 "Books, boredom and behind bars: an explanation of apathy and hostility in our schools."

In T. Wotherspoon , ed., The Political Economy of Canadian Education. Toronto: Methuen.

Rumberger, Russell W. 1987 "High school dropouts: A review of issues and evidence." Review of Educational

Research 57(2): 101-21. Stevenson, Robert B. and Jeanne Ellsworth

1991 "Dropping out in a working class high school: Adolescent voices on the decision to leave." British Journal of Sociology of Education 12(3): 277-91.

Tanner, Julian 1988 "Youthful deviance." In Vince Sacco, ed., Deviance: Conformity and Control in

Canadian Society. Scarborough: Prentice-Hall Canada Ltd. 1990 "Reluctant rebels: A case study of Edmonton high school drop-outs." Canadian Review

of Sociology and Anthropology 27(1): 74-94. 1993 "Resilient survivors: Work and unemployment among high school dropouts" British

Journal of Education and Work 6(1): 22-3. Weis, Lois

1990 Working Class Without Work: High School Students in a De-Industrializing Economy. New York: Routledge.

West, W. Gordon 1979 "Adolescent autonomy, education and pupil deviance." In L. Barton and R. Meighan,

eds., School, Pupils and Deviance. Nafferton: Nafferton books.

349



Willis, Paul 1977 Learning to Labour: How Working Class Kids Get Working Class Jobs. New York:

Columbia University Press. 1983 "Cultural production and theories of production." In L. Barton and S. Walker, eds., Race,

Class and Education. Burrel Row: Crook Helm Ltd.

Wright, Erik Olin 1985 Classes. London: Verso.

350



In Search of Resistance and Rebellion among High School Dropouts

Documents

Transcript of In Search of Resistance and Rebellion among High School Dropouts