2.5 DEFICIT THEORY AND TRANSACTIONAL DISTANCE THEORY
2.5.1 D EFICIT THEORY
2.5.1.4 Critiques on the deficit theory of education
Over the past decades, the ‘deficit school of thought’ has been one of the influential theoretical lens to study student academic failure and dropout and it still remains well entrenched in the literature of the range of study fields and disciplines, (such as educational, social, cultural and health studies). Nevertheless, it is by no means a perfect theoretical model to explicate academic failure and dropout and been by no means without its detractors. It has accumulated critics as the debate around students’
deficiencies in higher education studies advances to a greater level in academic world.
Despite a widely noted importance and pervasive influence of the deficit school of thought, current emerging thoughts (for example, Irizarry, 2009) condemn its dogmas.
It blames students for failure or dropping out, and never recognise that they their prior knowledge or competencies. Students enrol into a programme with a particular unique set of capabilities and experiences (Moisey and Hughes, 2008, p. 421). It fails to consider the learning environments and structures that may, additionally, serve as factors that spur student failure (dropout), especially economically disadvantaged black students. Despite the fact that there are studies (for instance, Lovitts, 2001) that have found complementary results to the philosophical dogmas of the deficit theory that students are there ones to be blamed for their attrition, other studies have generated rival findings and contrary assertions. For example, Manik’s (2014) inquiry, which was aimed at uncovering factors that lead to student’s departure at the University of KwaZulu-Natal, attributed dropout to factors, which emanate from the institutional context, divulging reasons, such as lack of financial support, high academic amount of work, career derailment and non-availability of counselling.
Another epitome of studies that attributed dropout to the institutional environment is the study done by Terentyev, Gruzdez and Gorbunova (2015) which examined student dropout accounts and its root causes and found that university administrative officers and professors are the major reasons for student dropout. In line with the corresponding views, Tas, Selvitopu, Bora and Demirkaya (2013, p. 1563) also examined attributes that result in student dropout and found that some lecturers’, peers’ and administrative officers behaviours and attitudes are prime dropout determinants. Moreover, and in contrary again, a study that investigated factors that lead to an examination-based dropout (absence) at an undergraduate course level to ascertain whether or not academic support lead to student absenteeism (dropout) from examination has divulged findings that are partly contrary to the philosophical views held by the conventional deficit theory. Findings revealed, among other reasons, that 50 % of students enrolled in ACN203S failed to write an examination because they felt less confident because oflecturer’s lack of abilities to explain terms (62.5%), lecturer’s failure to grant sufficient time for students to provide feedback, tutor’s lack of full understanding of the source and learning materials delivered late (Tladi, 2013, p. 74, 76 and 80). These rival findings mark the weakness of the deficit theory that ignores the reasons for student dropout that emanate from the institutional environment.
The study that researched the perceptions of the faculty staff and doctoral students on dropout revealed that recent arguments assert that the deficit model’s shortcomings rest upon its broad philosophical position that students fail or dropout because they possess some levels of disability that result in them experiencing deficiencies in their studies (Mastropieri et al, 2007). Lashing it out for its ignorance to take other attributing variables for students’ failure and dropout cognisant, Mastropieri et al (2007) debate that, in addition to students’ deficiencies to learn the skill being imparted, being absent from classes, poor classroom climate, peer pressure and instructors’ inability to teach effectively can feasibly be some principal reasons that consequently result in poor academic performance, failure and dropout. It is marked in the literature (Marx, 1875;
Valencia, 1997; Valencia, 2012; Mastropieri et al, 2007) that through the lens of deficit school of thought, students’ deficiencies are linked to cultural and historical backgrounds, with students of colour, particularly blacks viewed unfit to study. This is because investigators’ attention in their scales to measure student deficiencies has largely been centred on students’ home environments as compared to their school environments (Mastropieri et al, 2007; Irizarry, 2009). An accentuation on the students’
contexts leads to untrustworthy findings, unless the structures of academic institutions also receive an increased attention. Even the schools must be blamed (Valencia, 2002, p. 144). In a similar vein that supports blaming the school too, and contrary to the dogmas held within deficit school of thought that students’ cultural deprivation and their unfamiliarity with cultural models associated with school achievement, Irizarry (2009) asserts that the reason for students’ deficiencies is the result of oppression subjected to them by the institutions in which they study rather than their inability to learn; their poor family backgrounds; communities and their cultural belief system and assumptions. The use of racial labelling ‘student of colour’ to refer to black students and stereotyping them that they fail or dropout because of their personal prepositions that were shaped by, inter alia, their race, ethnicity and cultures have been disproved in the body of research. In line with this interpretation, Wood et al (2016, p. 1) studied causes of dropout and reported that race/ethnicity was not found to be a significant attrition attribution.
Studies conducted on learners’ deficiencies from linguistic and cultural perspectives in early 1970s repudiated deficit theory, arguing that learners who are culturally deprived have high level of competency in language if they are allowed to use their
own vernacular in settings where they can exercise some level of control (Labov, 1985). It has been noted and invalidated in much of the proliferated accounts in the literature that the philosophical notion of blaming economically disadvantaged students for failing is misleading. The influence of parents and relatives on students’
academic successes has also been discussed in the literature. Reflections indicate that parents can play an essential role in their children’s studies, motivating them to do better (Valencia, 2002). Valencia (2002, p. 144) also articulated that the disparities in the families’ educational history and the availability of time and educational resources determine the level of parental academic participation in students’
education, irrespective of their racial difference. Whereas parents with poor educational backgrounds are less probable to actively participate in their children’s studies, those who are of high academic graduates tend to be more active in their children’ studies (Valencia, 2002, p. 144). Regarding the availability of time and pertinent educational resources (for example, books and calculators) for academic involvement, Valancia (2002), matched low-income and high income families and concluded that the economically disadvantaged parents lack time and resources as compared to those with strong economic stability.
An emerging body of literature is cognisant that the topic of students’ deficiencies has, until recently, received little attention and is less advanced since in inception in the 1918s. Valencia (1997) argued that although the deficit theory of education has a remarkable long-standing history, the inexorable analysis of it in the popularised literature has been sparse, requiring a general and integrated analysis of the widespread deficit framework and its variations. Equally important to note is that there has been little devotion drawn to expound the aspect of student support, employing the deficit model of education. It is the lacuna which this study wanted to fill by developing a comprehensive student support model for lower-postgraduates studying through distance education institutions. Decrying the conventional deficit model of education, Valencia (1997) provides a critique that the model is grounded on pseudoscience, methodologically imperfect studies, chauvinism, classism, racism and ignorance. Since the deficit thinking model is pseudoscientific, theorising that students of colour have characteristics that prohibit them from achieving high academic results, Valencia (2015, p. xiii) advocates for rebuttal and suggests that plausible analysis of imbalances in education must be undertaken. Valencia (Valencia, 1997, p. 2) also
noted that social and behavioural scientists consider the deficit theory to lack a practical authentication, and that it is unjustifiably simplistic. More freshly, Valencia (2012, p. 6) observed certain flaws in the deficit theory:
that studies on deficit theory of education are usually grounded on specious premises,
that contending hypotheses for the results determined are overlooked,
that data collection tools employed are unreliable, and
that data collection tools are psychometrically weak.
Other critiques of the deficit theory examined the role of parents in their students’
learning experiences. In spite of the positive impact of parental involvement on students’ studies (Delgado-Gaitan, 2001; Antrop-Gonzalez, Vlez and Garrett, 2005), the deficit theory remains questionable for its failure to take into cognisance that many parents from poor socio-economic backgrounds and families of colour are unable to partake in their students’ learning processes because oftheir locked-off traditional avenues (Irizarry, 2009).
Moreover, another critique in the growing body of literature (such as, Irizarry, 2009) focuses on the aspect of students’ success that has received little attention in the deficit-centred discourse as opposed to students’ failure. Such success-focused perspective asserts that the traditional deficit model ignores the success of students of colour who have similar assumed deficiencies and come from culturally deprived families and communities, but were able to complete their studies. This avowal becomes reflective that students to do come to schooling empty-minded even if they have similar backgrounds of cultural and linguistic deprivation as well as poor socio- economic status. Ingrained from this position, Yosso (2005) recommends that institutions of learning must recognise the cultural and social capital of disadvantaged communities and communities of colour. In addition to the dozens of critiques, Valencia (1997) detracts the deficit theory, arguing that its proponents tend to violate the scientific method that is grounded on objective accounts and empirical verification (Valencia, 2010, p. 12).