Focusing initially on home background, we can examine how material and cultural factors impact a child's education.

Lower-class families are more likely to experience material deprivation, which can hinder a child's educational progress due to limited access to resources such as computers or the lack of a quiet study space in smaller homes. In extreme cases, poorer diets and colder homes can lead to illness and missed school days. Gibson and Asthana argue that the effects of material deprivation are cumulative, creating a cycle of disadvantage, which suggests that home background significantly influences educational outcomes. Additionally, a family's income and residential location affect the schools available to their children. Wealthier parents have more school choices, often owning cars or affording public transport to access better schools. Moreover, house prices in the catchment areas of top-performing schools are often up to 20% higher, further limiting access for poorer families. Conversely, children attending schools in deprived areas may face disruptions, such as gang-related violence, highlighting how location, a broader aspect of home background, significantly affects educational outcomes.

Cultural deprivation also negatively impacts children's education. Bernstein highlighted that working-class children are often socialized into a restricted speech code, making it harder for them to understand teachers compared to middle-class peers who use an elaborate speech code. Working-class families also emphasize immediate rather than deferred gratification, making higher education less appealing. These theories suggest that home background shapes children's attitudes and abilities throughout their schooling.

Despite the age of cultural deprivation theory, more recent studies affirm its relevance. Feinstein (2003) found that lower income strongly correlates with communication difficulties, while Conor et al. (2001) noted that working-class students, who socialized into poverty, are more "debt-conscious" and less inclined to pursue a university education. Cultural Capital Theory also emphasizes the role of home background, arguing that middle-class parents are better equipped to research schools, assist with homework, and advocate for their children when they struggle (as Diana's research into mothers' involvement in primary education shows). However, cultural capital primarily provides an advantage because it facilitates access to good schools, suggesting schools themselves are at least as important as home background. The intense competition among parents for school places underscores the significant role schools play in shaping educational outcomes.

One could argue that the most significant advantage parents can provide is access to private education. For example, Sunningdale Preparatory School in Berkshire charges £16,000 annually and offers its students pathways to elite secondary schools like Eton and Harrow. Here, the advantage comes not from home background but from wealth, which enables access to schools with smaller class sizes, superb resources, and a "high ethos of expectation."

Similarly, examples like Mossbourne Academy and Tony Sewell's Generating Genius programme demonstrate that schools can counteract home disadvantages by providing strict discipline and high expectations. While these are case studies with limited generalisability, numerous studies suggest that schools in poorer areas often have lower expectations, as seen in research from Willis's 1977 study on "the lads" to Swain's 2006 findings. In-school factors such as teacher labelling and peer groups can disadvantage working-class students. For instance, Becker's theory of the "ideal pupil" favours middle-class students, and Willis argues that working-class counter-school cultures perpetuate educational disadvantage, though he notes these behaviours stem partly from home-based anti-educational values.

Finally, Social Capital Theory suggests that home background is not the sole influence on educational outcomes. The connections parents have with schools—and later schools with universities or businesses—play a crucial role in securing a good education and translating it into career success.

In conclusion, both home and school factors are essential in explaining social class differences in educational achievement. Home background clearly plays a role, but in-school factors cannot be overlooked. Ultimately, the two interact—middle-class advantages at home often translate into better schooling opportunities, and vice versa for working-class families.