The aim of the present study was to examine the hypothesis according to which teachers’ attitudes and pedagogical practices differ depending on their students’ socioeconomic status. Sixty-three 9^th grade mathematics teachers answered a questionnaire concerning their attitudes about their students, their profession and their pedagogical practices. Some teachers were working in low socioeconomic environments (n = 36) and others were working in high socioeconomic environments (n = 27). Data were collected with a self-reported questionnaire including several scales: professional satisfaction, opinions on school success, pedagogical and assessment practices. Data were analysed with multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVA) in which the attitudes and pedagogical practices were the dependent variables and the socioeconomic status (SES) of the school environment was the independent factor. Results indicated that, in general, teachers’ attitudes and practices did not vary much according to their school SES. However, some attitudes and practices were distinct between the two groups. Actually, teachers working in low SES environments mentioned that they compare their students on a performance basis more than teachers in high SES environments. Moreover, they use more exam-type evaluations in their pedagogical practices and perceive more socio-economic constraints in their students’ environment than their colleagues from more privileged environments. Thus, teachers’ formation programs should help them to better differentiate their pedagogical strategies according to their school SES.    

The objective of the present study was to examine the hypothesis according to which teachers’ attitudes and pedagogical practices differ depending on their students’ SES.

Studies have shown that some factors of social nature influence students’ learning motivation and success at school. Some of these factors belong to the family and the social environment (Swartz, 1997) while others, such as pedagogical practices, belong to school (Goddard, Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). However, teachers would be the most important social agents at school (Chouinard, Karsenti & Roy, in press). Teachers’ influence would be particularly crucial for students who would not find in their family the cultural capital necessary to benefit from the opportunities offered at school.

Fallu and Janosz (2003) report that the school experience of students living in low SES environments would be negatively different from those in high SES environments. Thus, these students would less benefit than others from pedagogical relations because teachers would be more susceptible to believe that their students are inefficient (Song & Christiansen, 2001). From this belief would follow inefficient pedagogical practices. In fact, teachers’ attitudes toward students directly influence their pedagogical practices (Song & Christiansen, 2001). Moreover, Kuklinski and Weinstein (2001) indicate that unadapted attitudes and pedagogical practices would have a negative impact on the students’ experience at school. However, other authors contest these results (see Maertens & Bowen, 1996) and stipulate that the question of differentiation of attitudes and pedagogical practices according to the SES deserves further scrutiny. 

The current lack of uniformity in the literature suggests that further investigation is needed on the extent to which the SES impacts on teachers’ attitudes and practices. Based on previous research, we expected some differences in the teachers’ practices and attitudes according to their school SES.  

Sixty-three 9^th grade mathematics teachers, from 30 French-speaking schools of the region of Montreal (Canada), completed a self-reported questionnaire. Mathematics has been chosen to control for possible differences in teachers’ practices between academic domains and because mathematics represents a basic school subject, very important for the ulterior school experience. Twenty-seven teachers were working in high SES environments and the others (n = 36) were in low SES environments, as determined with the local socio-economical index.

The subscales come from two questionnaires, one developed and validated by Chouinard et al. (2004) and the other by Janosz, Chouinard and Cartier (2005). All these subscales present satisfying reliability and validity. The scales measured some teachers’ attitudes about their job and students (i.e. Satisfaction towards their students (α = .76), Professional satisfaction (α = .80), Professional self-efficacy (α = .70), Socio-economic constraints (α = .79), and Personal constraints (α = .80)); their pedagogical practices (i.e., Comparing students on their performance (α = .78), Use of cooperative learning (α = .77), Use of individualized work (α = .87), Use of lecture-teaching (α = 74), Social reinforcement (α = .79)) and assessment practices (i.e. Use of personalized evaluations (α = .74), Use of tests (α = .74), Use of permanent products (α = .61) and Use of participative evaluations (α = .63)).

Data were analysed using three multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVA) on three groups of variables with SES index as factor: the first on teachers’ attitudes, the second on pedagogical practices and the third on assessment practices.

The multivariate analysis on teachers’ attitudes revealed a significant main effect of the school SES, F _{(6, 56)} = 1.96, p <.01 (Pillai’s Trace). Univariate tests indicated that teachers in low SES environments reported that socio-economic constraints challenge their students’ chances of academic success more than their higher SES colleagues did (p < .01, Bonferonni’s correction applied). The analysis on teachers’ pedagogical practices revealed a significant main effect of the school SES, F _{(2, 60)} = 5.91, p <.01. Univariate tests indicated that teachers in low SES compared students’ according to their performance more than those in high SES did (p < .01). The multivariate analysis on teachers’ assessment practices revealed a significant main effect of the school SES, F _{(4, 58)} = 2.64, p <.05. The univariate tests indicated that teachers in low SES schools used more exam-type tests than those in high SES ones (p < .05), but this last result did not reach the adjusted level of significance (p < .01).

Our results do not support the hypothesis of a strong difference in teachers’ attitudes, pedagogical and assessment practices according to their school SES environments. In fact, significant differences were the exception and not the rule. Moreover, the estimates of effect sizes were all of small values (partial η² < .10) (Field, 2005).

The only relevant results indicate that teachers in low SES environments do more comparisons between their students and tend to use more tests to assess them than teachers in high SES environments. We could hypothesize that this result could indicate that teachers in low SES environments are more prone to use comparisons and competition to try to motivate their students. Unfortunately, comparing students and promoting competition in the classroom are not reputed as efficient means of improving motivation. Actually, the impact of such use would be negative (Aims, 1992). In conclusion, our results indicate that if teachers in low SES environments do not adopt detrimental attitudes and practices, they do not, either, adapt much their practices to the special needs and conditions of their students. This, in our opinion, should be taken into account in further research and in teachers’ initial and continuous formation programs.