Social Class and Educational Achievement

Social Class and Educational Achievement

Social class remains the strongest predictor of educational achievement in the UK. Working-class pupils consistently underperform compared to middle-class pupils at every stage of education.

The Scale of Class Inequality

• Pupils eligible for Free School Meals (FSM) — a proxy for poverty — achieve significantly lower GCSE grades than non-FSM pupils
• The attainment gap between FSM and non-FSM pupils is approximately 27 percentage points at Grade 5+ in English and Maths
• Working-class pupils are less likely to attend Russell Group universities
• The gap begins before school entry and widens throughout education

External Factors (Outside School)

Cultural Deprivation Theory

Cultural deprivation theorists argue working-class underachievement is caused by inadequate socialisation in the home.

Bernstein (1975) — Speech Codes:

• Identified two speech codes: the restricted code (limited vocabulary, context-bound, used by working-class families) and the elaborated code (wider vocabulary, context-free, used by middle-class families and schools)
• Schools, textbooks, and exams use the elaborated code, giving middle-class children an immediate advantage
• Working-class children are not linguistically deficient, but their speech code does not match the school's

Sugarman (1970) — Working-Class Subculture:

• Identified four features of working-class subculture that disadvantage pupils:
• Fatalism — accepting your position rather than trying to change it
• Collectivism — valuing group loyalty over individual achievement
• Immediate gratification — seeking pleasure now rather than making sacrifices for future rewards
• Present-time orientation — focusing on the present, not planning for the future
• Middle-class culture emphasises deferred gratification and individual achievement, which align with school values

Evaluation of Cultural Deprivation:

• Weakness: Victim-blaming — Keddie (1973) argues working-class culture is simply different, not deficient
• Weakness: Ignores material factors and in-school processes
• Strength: Bernstein's speech codes have been empirically supported

Cultural Capital Theory

Bourdieu (1984) — Cultural, Economic, and Social Capital:

• Cultural capital refers to the knowledge, attitudes, values, and tastes of the middle class — the "right" cultural assets valued by the education system
• Middle-class pupils possess cultural capital that is rewarded by schools (e.g., knowledge of "high culture", confidence in speaking, familiarity with academic language)
• Economic capital (wealth) can be converted into educational advantage: private tutoring, books, technology, housing near good schools
• Social capital refers to valuable social networks and connections — middle-class parents know how to navigate the system, contact teachers, and access resources
• These three forms of capital are interconvertible: wealth buys cultural experiences, which build connections

Sullivan (2001):

• Tested Bourdieu's cultural capital theory using a survey of 465 pupils
• Found that cultural capital (measured by reading, TV viewing, cultural activities) did affect GCSE performance
• However, cultural capital only accounted for part of the class gap — material factors were also crucial

Material Deprivation

Material deprivation refers to poverty and a lack of physical resources.

Key Factors:

• Housing: overcrowding means nowhere quiet to study; damp and cold cause illness and absence
• Diet and health: poor nutrition affects concentration and energy; more illness means more school absence
• Financial costs: inability to afford trips, equipment, uniform, private tutoring, or internet access
• Part-time work: some working-class pupils take jobs to contribute to family income, leaving less time for study

Smith and Noble (1995): identified the "barrier to learning" created by material deprivation — costs of education (uniform, transport, books) disadvantage poorer families even in "free" state schools.

Flaherty (2004): children excluded from school are disproportionately from low-income families.

Type of Deprivation	Key Thinker	Core Argument
Cultural deprivation	Bernstein, Sugarman	Working-class values and language disadvantage pupils
Cultural capital	Bourdieu, Sullivan	Middle-class cultural assets are rewarded by schools
Material deprivation	Smith & Noble	Poverty creates practical barriers to achievement

Internal Factors (Inside School)

Labelling Theory

Becker (1971):

• Interviewed 60 Chicago high school teachers
• Found teachers judged pupils against an "ideal pupil" standard based on appearance, conduct, and enthusiasm
• Working-class pupils were seen as furthest from the "ideal pupil" and were labelled negatively

Rist (1970):

• Observed a US kindergarten where the teacher placed children on different tables based on perceived ability within the first 8 days
• Placement correlated closely with social class, ethnicity, and appearance — not demonstrated ability
• These labels were difficult to escape and became self-fulfilling prophecies

Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) — Pygmalion in the Classroom:

• Told teachers at a California elementary school that randomly selected pupils were "spurters" who would make rapid intellectual gains
• When retested a year later, the "spurters" had indeed made significantly greater progress
• Demonstrated that teacher expectations directly influence pupil achievement — a positive label creates a self-fulfilling prophecy

Streaming and Setting

Lacey (1970): studied Hightown Grammar and found that streaming created two processes:

• Differentiation: teachers categorise pupils by perceived ability and behaviour
• Polarisation: pupils respond to streaming by forming pro-school or anti-school subcultures
• Pupils in lower streams developed an anti-school subculture that rejected academic values, leading to a self-fulfilling prophecy of failure

Gillborn and Youdell (2001): found that schools engaged in educational triage, focusing resources on C/D borderline pupils (those most likely to boost the school's league table position), while writing off those seen as "hopeless cases" — disproportionately working-class and Black pupils.

Marketisation and Selection

Ball, Bowe and Gewirtz (1994): studied parental choice and found that middle-class parents were "skilled choosers" who could:

• Navigate open evenings and prospectuses effectively
• Use social and cultural capital to access the best schools
• Move house to be near high-performing schools ("selection by mortgage")
• Working-class parents were "disconnected choosers" — constrained by lack of transport, information, and confidence

Evaluation of Internal Factors:

• Strength: Shows how school processes actively create inequality, not just reflect it
• Weakness: Labelling theory is deterministic — not all labelled pupils fulfil the prophecy
• Weakness: Marxists argue labelling is a product of wider capitalist inequality, not just individual teacher attitudes

Evaluation: Bringing It All Together

The best answers recognise that internal and external factors interact:

• Bourdieu's cultural capital operates BOTH outside school (home culture) and inside school (teachers rewarding middle-class knowledge)
• Material deprivation creates the conditions that lead to negative labelling
• Marketisation policies amplify existing inequalities by benefiting those with cultural and economic capital

Exam Tip

For a 30-mark question on social class and achievement, you need both external and internal factors, linked together. Use Bourdieu as a bridge between home and school factors. Always include evaluation — e.g., Keddie's critique of cultural deprivation theory is essential AO3.