Social Class in Education (AQA A-Level Sociology): Revision Notes
Social Class in Education
Social class remains the most powerful predictor of educational achievement in the UK. The social class gap in educational attainment is one of the most pronounced in the developed world, with working-class students consistently underperforming compared to their middle-class peers. Despite educational reforms aimed at equality of opportunity, class-based inequalities persist throughout the education system.
Educational achievement statistics
Free School Meals (FSM) eligibility is commonly used as an indicator of social class. The statistics reveal the stark reality of educational inequality in the UK educational system.
The Scale of Educational Inequality:
Key statistics reveal the extent of educational inequality:
- At Key Stage 2, only 53.5% of students eligible for free school meals reach expected levels
- FSM-eligible children are more likely to attend lowest-performing schools in deprived areas
- Students eligible for FSM are disproportionately likely to have been in care or have special educational needs
This pattern continues into further education (16–18 years) and higher education. Despite government initiatives like Aimhigher, students with good GCSE results who are FSM-eligible are less likely to pursue higher education than affluent students with similar results.
NEETs (Not in Education, Employment or Training) are disproportionately working-class. These individuals are more likely to have truanted, been excluded from school, have few qualifications, misuse substances, be teenage parents, and experience mental health issues.
External factors affecting educational achievement
Sociologists identify two main external factors that explain class differences in educational outcomes: material deprivation and cultural deprivation. These factors operate outside the school environment but significantly impact students' ability to succeed academically.
Material deprivation
Material deprivation refers to the lack of financial resources and material necessities that support educational success. This economic disadvantage creates multiple barriers to educational achievement.
How Material Deprivation Affects Education:
Material deprivation can manifest as:
- Poor-quality housing leading to overcrowding, noise, and inadequate study space
- Poor diet resulting in illness, tiredness, and difficulty concentrating
- Inadequate school uniforms potentially causing bullying and absence from school
- Limited access to resources such as computers, internet, books, and school trips
Material deprivation may also lead to higher rates of absence and exclusion. Students from low-income families are more likely to experience stress and anxiety, which can negatively affect concentration and attainment.
Research by Leon Feinstein (2003) shows class differences emerge before children even start school — by age three, poor children are already one year behind richer children in communication skills.
Further research by Feinstein (2008) found that parental education level has a significant influence on children’s educational achievement. Children whose parents have higher levels of education are more likely to succeed academically, even when income is controlled for. This suggests that material deprivation interacts closely with cultural factors such as parental knowledge and engagement.
Cultural deprivation
Cultural deprivation theory argues that working-class families lack the appropriate attitudes, norms, values, and skills necessary for educational success. This theory suggests working-class parents may be less able or willing to support their children's education in ways valued by schools.
Students may experience a culture clash between family values and school expectations, where they must choose between respecting family traditions and conforming to school culture.
Research Study: Douglas (1964–1970)
- Participants: 5,362 British children born in March 1964
- Aim: To examine the impact of parental interest on educational achievement
- Procedure: Longitudinal study tracking children through primary and secondary education up to age 16
- Findings: Middle-class parents showed greater interest in their children's education, visiting schools more frequently and encouraging children to stay beyond the minimum leaving age. Parental interest became increasingly important as children grew older
- Evaluation – Strengths: Large sample size, longitudinal design showing long-term patterns
- Evaluation – Weaknesses: May conflate interest with ability to engage with schools, does not account for different forms of parental support
Similarly, Feinstein (2008) argues that parents with higher educational qualifications are better equipped to support learning at home, understand the education system, and intervene effectively in their children’s schooling.
Sugarman's working-class culture characteristics (1970)
Barry Sugarman identified four characteristics of working-class culture that may hinder educational success:
Sugarman's Four Cultural Characteristics:
- Collectivism: The social group is prioritised over individual achievement, with peer groups taking priority over schoolwork
- Present-time orientation: Focus on immediate situations rather than long-term planning, leading to neglect of school work
- Fatalism: Belief that hard work in education is pointless as success is unlikely anyway
- Immediate gratification: Preference for immediate enjoyment rather than delayed rewards from education
These cultural traits may conflict with the long-term planning and individual competition encouraged by the education system.
Cultural capital
Cultural capital, as theorised by Pierre Bourdieu (1977), refers to the knowledge, skills, tastes, language, and qualifications that provide advantages in the education system. Middle-class students possess cultural capital that closely matches school expectations, while working-class students are less likely to do so.
Bourdieu argued that working-class students experience symbolic violence — unconscious cultural domination where their own culture is devalued in favour of middle-class norms, leading students to see educational failure as their own fault.
Language deprivation
Basil Bernstein (1972) identified two distinct speech codes that reflect class-based differences in language use:
Elaborated speech code (associated with middle class):
- Complex sentence structures with correct grammar
- Context-free meaning that does not rely on shared understanding
- Provides advantages in educational settings where this code is used by teachers and exam boards
Restricted language code (associated with working class):
- Simpler sentence structures and limited vocabulary
- Context-bound meaning relying on shared experiences
- May disadvantage students in formal educational contexts such as exams
Criticism of Speech Code Theory:
Critics argue that Bernstein presents working-class language as deficient rather than different, and that schools should adapt to linguistic diversity rather than expecting students to change.
Internal school factors
Schools themselves contribute to class-based educational inequalities through various processes and practices. These internal factors can reinforce and amplify the external disadvantages that working-class students already face.
Labelling and self-fulfilling prophecy
Teachers often label students based on their social class background, creating different expectations that can significantly influence achievement.
The Impact of Teacher Labelling:
Research shows:
- Working-class students are more likely to be labelled negatively
- Middle-class students are more likely to be seen as 'ideal pupils'
- These labels can become self-fulfilling prophecies, shaping student behaviour and outcomes
Howard Becker’s research (1971) with 60 Chicago high-school teachers found that teachers judged students based on appearance and conduct, with middle-class students more likely to be viewed positively.
Streaming and setting
Streaming and setting often reinforce class differences, with working-class students overrepresented in lower sets. Stephen Ball (1981) found that students were grouped according to perceived rather than actual ability, which often reflected social class background.
School subcultures
Colin Lacey (1970) identified how streaming leads to the formation of class-based subcultures:
Types of School Subcultures:
Pro-school subcultures:
- Conform to school rules and expectations
- Positive attitudes towards teachers and learning
- Associated with higher educational achievement
Anti-school subcultures:
- Reject school rules and values
- Negative attitudes towards education
- Associated with lower educational achievement
Working-class students are more likely to be placed in lower streams, experience negative labelling, and form anti-school subcultures.
Curriculum bias
Some sociologists argue the curriculum reflects middle-class values and knowledge. John White (2005) suggests the curriculum prioritises middle-class cultural knowledge, which may feel irrelevant or alienating to working-class students.
Marketisation effects
The 1988 Education Reform Act introduced market forces into education, requiring schools to compete for students and publish performance data. This marketisation has arguably widened class gaps.
How Marketisation Increases Class Gaps:
Marketisation has widened class gaps by:
- Enabling middle-class parents to better navigate league tables and school choice
- Allowing affluent families to move into desirable catchment areas
- Increasing advantages for those who can afford private tutoring or private education
Middle-class parents are more likely to "play the system", using cultural and economic capital to secure educational advantages.
Contemporary perspectives
Recent research continues to highlight the persistence of class-based educational inequality. Diane Reay (2010) argues that the real "poverty of aspiration" lies not with working-class families but with political leaders who fail to tackle structural inequality. She suggests that marketisation and education policy have worsened social mobility.
Key Points to Remember:
- Social class is the strongest predictor of educational achievement in the UK
- Material deprivation and cultural deprivation interact to shape outcomes
- Parental education level (Feinstein, 2008) plays a key role in achievement
- Internal processes such as labelling, streaming, and subcultures reinforce inequality
- Marketisation has largely benefited middle-class families
- Class-based educational inequality remains persistent and structural