Social Class and Educational Achievement

Social Class and Educational Achievement

Social class is the single strongest predictor of educational achievement in the UK. Working-class pupils consistently underperform compared to middle-class pupils at every stage of education. This topic asks why.

The Class Gap — Key Statistics

• By age 5, children from the poorest 20% of families are already 11 months behind in vocabulary compared to the richest 20%
• At GCSE, pupils eligible for Free School Meals (FSM) are roughly half as likely to achieve grade 5+ in English and Maths as non-FSM pupils
• Only around 26% of FSM pupils enter university, compared to around 45% of non-FSM pupils
• The gap has narrowed slightly in recent years but remains substantial

External (Out-of-School) Factors

These are factors in pupils' home and community backgrounds that affect achievement.

Material Deprivation

Material deprivation means lacking the physical necessities and resources needed for effective learning.

Factor	Impact on achievement
Low income/poverty	Cannot afford books, computers, internet, private tutoring, school trips or uniform
Poor housing	Overcrowded homes mean no quiet space to study; damp/cold housing causes illness and absence
Diet and health	Poor nutrition affects concentration and cognitive development; working-class children have higher absence rates due to illness
Part-time work	Some working-class students take jobs to support the family, reducing study time
Geographical location	Poorer areas have fewer well-resourced schools; "postcode lottery"

Key study: Flaherty (2004) — money problems in the family are a significant predictor of truancy and exclusion.

Smith and Noble (1995) — identified the "costs of free schooling": even in state schools, families face costs (uniform, trips, equipment) that disadvantage poorer families.

Cultural Deprivation

Cultural deprivation theory argues that working-class families fail to socialise children with the attitudes, values, language and knowledge needed for educational success.

Key arguments:

• Language: Bernstein (1971) distinguished between the restricted code (simple, context-bound language used by the working class) and the elaborated code (complex, context-free language used by the middle class and expected in schools). Working-class children are disadvantaged because the school, textbooks and exams use the elaborated code.

• Attitudes and values: Sugarman (1970) argued working-class subculture emphasises fatalism (accepting your situation), collectivism (loyalty to the group), immediate gratification (enjoying pleasures now) and present-time orientation (not planning for the future). Middle-class culture emphasises individualism, deferred gratification (sacrificing now for future rewards) and future-time orientation — values that match school expectations.

• Parental interest: Douglas (1964) found that middle-class parents showed more interest in their children's education (attending parents' evenings, reading to children, choosing schools carefully).

• Hyman (1967) — the working class form a self-imposed barrier by believing that education is not for "people like us".

Evaluation of Cultural Deprivation:

• Keddie (1973) — argued that working-class culture is simply different, not deficient; cultural deprivation theory is a victim-blaming ideology
• Ignores material factors — poverty, not culture, is the main barrier
• Assumes middle-class culture is superior
• Compensatory education programmes (e.g. Sure Start, Head Start in the US) were based on this theory and had mixed success

Cultural Capital — Bourdieu (1984)

Pierre Bourdieu argued that the middle class possess cultural capital — the knowledge, attitudes, values, language, tastes and education that give them an advantage in the education system:

• Middle-class parents know how the system works — they can help with homework, choose the best schools, appeal decisions and access resources
• The education system rewards middle-class cultural capital and devalues working-class culture
• This creates a cycle: middle-class children succeed, gain qualifications, get well-paid jobs, and pass cultural capital to their own children

Evaluation: convincingly explains persistent class inequality; however, some working-class pupils do succeed despite lacking cultural capital.

Internal (In-School) Factors

These are processes within schools that affect achievement.

Labelling

Labelling occurs when teachers classify pupils based on perceived characteristics rather than actual ability.

• Becker (1971) — studied 60 Chicago teachers and found they judged pupils against an image of the "ideal pupil": one who was middle-class, well-presented, cooperative and motivated. Working-class pupils were seen as furthest from this ideal.
• Rist (1970) — observed a kindergarten teacher who, on the eighth day of class, divided children into three groups ("Tigers", "Cardinals", "Clowns") based on their appearance, language and background, not their ability. The "Tigers" (middle-class looking) received the most teacher time and attention.

Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

A self-fulfilling prophecy occurs when a label leads to the predicted outcome:

1. A teacher labels a pupil as "bright" or "unlikely to succeed"

2. The teacher treats the pupil accordingly (more/less attention, higher/lower expectations)

3. The pupil internalises the label and acts accordingly

4. The prediction comes true

Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) — the "Pygmalion in the Classroom" experiment: they told teachers that certain randomly selected pupils were "spurters" who would improve rapidly. A year later, those pupils had indeed made significant IQ gains — because teachers' raised expectations created a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Setting and Streaming

• Setting — grouping pupils by ability in individual subjects
• Streaming — placing pupils in an overall ability band for all subjects

Impact:

• Those in top sets/streams receive better teaching, more challenging work and higher expectations — reinforcing advantage
• Those in bottom sets are often disproportionately working-class and receive a "dumbed down" curriculum
• Gillborn and Youdell (2001) — identified educational triage: schools focus resources on "borderline" pupils (C/D grade) who can boost league table results, while neglecting those seen as "hopeless cases" (often working-class)

Marketisation and Parental Choice

Marketisation — treating schools as businesses competing for pupils — can widen inequality:

• Middle-class parents have the cultural capital to "work the system" — choosing the best schools, appealing rejections, moving into catchment areas
• Ball, Bowe and Gewirtz (1994) — identified privileged skilled choosers (middle-class parents who research schools, attend open days and use social networks) vs disconnected local choosers (working-class parents who send children to the nearest school)
• League tables encourage cream-skimming (selecting high-ability pupils) and silt-shifting (discouraging lower-ability or disadvantaged pupils)

Exam Technique

For a 12-mark question on class and achievement, organise your answer into external factors (material deprivation, cultural deprivation, cultural capital) and internal factors (labelling, self-fulfilling prophecy, setting, marketisation). Name at least four sociologists. Evaluate by noting that internal and external factors often work together — e.g. material deprivation leads to a tired, poorly-resourced pupil who is then negatively labelled by teachers.