EDUCATION – External Factors of Class Differences in Achievement:

When examining social class differences in achievement, the main comparison sociologists make is
between working class (W/C) and middle class (M/C) pupils.

W/C – includes skilled workers such as plumbers, semi-skilled workers such as lorry drivers and
unskilled workers such as cleaners;

M/C – includes professionals such as doctors, teachers, together with managers and owners of
businesses.

Social class background has a powerful influence on a child’s chance of success in the education
system.

Children from M/C families on average perform better than W/C children, especially at GCSE. They
tend to stay longer in full-time education and take the great majority of university places.

External factors are outside the education system, such as the influence of home, family background
and wider society.

Cultural Deprivation

A nationwide study by the Centre for Longitudinal Studies (2007) found that by the age of three,
children from disadvantaged backgrounds are already up to one year behind those from more
privileged homes and the gap widens with age.

According to cultural deprivation theorists, many working-class families fail to socialise their
children adequately. These children therefore end up being ‘culturally deprived’ i.e. they lack the
cultural equipment ‘right’ culture needed for educational success. They lack the basic ‘cultural
equipment’ including things such as language, self-discipline and reasoning skills.

LANGUAGE:

This is an essential part of the process of education and the way in which parents communicate with
their children affects their intellectual development and their ability to benefit from the process of
schooling.

Hubbs-Tait et al (2002) found that where parents use language that challenges their children to
evaluate their own understanding or abilities (e.g. ‘what do you think?’ ‘are you ready for the next
step?’), cognitive performance improves.

Leon Feinstein (2008) found that educated parents are more likely to use language in this way. By
contrast, less educated parents use language in ways that only requires children to make descriptive
statements (e.g. ‘what’s that animal called?’) and this results in lower performance. Speech codes:

Bernstein (1975) identifies differences between W/C and M/C language that influence achievement.
He distinguishes between 2 types of speech code:
1: The Restricted Code

This is typically used by W/C. It has limited vocab and is based on the use of short, often unfinished, grammatically
simple sentences.

Speech is predictable and may involve only a single word, or a gesture. It is descriptive, not analytic.

This code is context-bound: the speaker assumes that the listener shares the same set of experiences.

2: The Elaborated Code

This is typically used by M/C. It has a wider vocab and is based on longer, grammatically more complex sentences.
Speech is more varied and communicates abstract ideas.

This code is context-free: the speaker does not assume that the listener shares the same experiences. Hence they use
language to spell out their meanings explicitly for the listener.

The differences in code gives M/C children an advantage at school because the elaborated code is
the language used by teachers, textbooks and exams.

Early socialisation into the elab code means that M/C children are already fluent users so they will
feel ‘at home’ in school and more likely to succeed. By contrast, W/C children, lacking the code, are
likely to feel excluded and to be less successful.

PARENTS EDUCATION:

Theorists argue that parents’ attitudes to education are key factor affecting children’s achievement.
E.g. a study by Douglas (1964) found that W/C parents place less value on education. As a result they
were less ambitious for their children, gave them less encouragement and took less interest in their
education. As a result, their children had lower levels of motivation and achievement.

1: Parenting style

Educated parents’ parenting style emphasises consistent discipline and high expectations of their
children, and this supports achievement by encouraging active learning and exploration.

Less educated parents’ parenting style is marked by harsh or inconsistent discipline that emphasises
‘doing as you’re told’. This prevents the child from learning self-control, leading to poorer motivation
at school and problems interacting with teachers.

2: Use of income

Better educated parents not only tend to have higher incomes but they also their income in ways
that promote their children’s educational success. E.g. Bernstein and Young found that M/C mothers
are more likely to buy educational toys, books and activities that stimulate intellectual development.

M/C parents are also able to afford tutors for their children to boost their attainment.

They also have a better understanding of nutrition and its importance in child development and are
able to buy more nutritious food.
Parents’ Education

Douglas (1964) found that working-class parents placed less value on education. They were
therefore less ambitious for their children, gave them less encouragement and took less interest in
their education.

Feinstien states that parental interest and support is most important

visited schools less often and were less likely to discuss their child’s progress. Their children
therefore had lower levels of motivation and achievement.

Educated parents also are more aware of what is needed for successful education i.e. reading to
their children, teaching them letters and songs, helping with homework etc. and will seek more help
with childrearing.

They also tend to encourage trips to museums and libraries. Bernstein and Young (1967) found that
middle-class mothers are more likely to buy educational toys, books and activities that stimulate
intellectual development (because of their own education and better income than working-class
families).

Parenting style

Educated parents’ parenting style emphasises consistent discipline and high expectations of their
children.

Less educated parents show harsh or inconsistent discipline that emphasises ‘doing as you’re told’
and ‘behaving yourself’. Therefore the child fails to learn independence and self-control, resulting in
problems with motivation and interaction with teachers at school.

W/C SUBCULTURE:

A subculture is a group whose attitudes and values differ from those of the mainstream culture.

Theorists argue that the lack of parental interest in their children’s education reflects the subcultural
values of the W/C. Large sections of the W/C have different goals, beliefs etc from the rest of society
and this is why their children fail at school.

Sugarman (1970) says W/C subcultures have 4 key features that act as a barrier to educational
achievement:

- Fatalism: a belief in fate ‘whatever will be, will be’. This contrasts with M/C values which
emphasise that you can change your position through your own efforts.
- Collectivism: valuing being part of a group instead of succeeding as an individual. M/C view
that an individual should not be held back by group loyalties.
- Immediate gratification: seeking pleasure now rather than making sacrifices in order to get
rewards in the future. M/C values emphasise deferred gratification, making sacrifices for
greater rewards later.
 - Present-time orientation: seeing the present as more important than the future and so, not
having long-term goals. M/C culture has a future-time orientation that sees planning for the
future as important.

W/C children internalise the beliefs and values of their subculture through the socialisation process
and this results in them underachieving at school.

Cultural deprivation theorists argue that parents pass on the values of their class to their children
through primary socialisation. M/C values equip children for success whereas W/C values fail to do
so.

COMPENSATORY EDUCATION:

CE programmes aim to tackle the problem of cultural deprivation by providing extra resources to
schools and communities in deprived areas.

They intervene early in the socialisation process to compensate children for the deprivation they
experience at home.

E.g. Sure Start in the UK aimed at pre-school children and their parents to promote the physical,
intellectual and social development. This was a major element in the New Labour gov policies to
tackle poverty and social exclusion.

AO3

Nell Keddie (1973) describes cultural deprivation as a ‘myth’ and sees it as a victim-blaming
explanation. She dismisses the idea that failure at school can be blamed on a culturally deprived
home background. She points out that a child cannot be deprived of its own culture and argues that
working-class children are simply culturally different, not culturally deprived. They fail because they
are put at a disadvantage by an education system that is dominated by middle-class values. Keddie
argues that rather than seeing working-class culture as deficient, schools should recognise and build
on its strengths and should challenge teachers’ anti-working-class prejudices.

Barry Troyna and Jenny Williams (1986) argue that the problem is not the child’s language but the
school’s attitude towards it. Teachers have a ‘speech hierarchy’: they label middle-class speech
highest, followed by working-class speech and finally black speech.

Tessa Blackstone and Jo Mortimore (1994) reject the view that working-class parents are not
interested in their children’s education. They say they attend fewer parents’ evenings because they
work longer hours or less regular hours, or even that they are put off by a school’s middle-class
atmosphere, and not because they aren’t interested. They may actually want to help their child’s
progress but they lack the knowledge and education to do so.

Material Deprivation

This refers to poverty and a lack of material necessities such as adequate housing and income.

There is a close link between poverty and social class. W/C families are much more likely to have low
incomes or inadequate housing. These factors can affect their children’s education in many ways.
. According to the DfE (2012) barely 1/3 of pupils eligible for free school meals (FSM) achieve 5 or
more GCSE’s at A*-C including English and Maths, against nearly 2/3 of other pupils

 Nearly 90% of ‘failing’ schools are located in deprived areas

HOUSING:

- Difficulty Studying Due to Overcrowding: A briefing by the National Housing Federation

revealed that in almost half (48%) of overcrowded homes, children struggle to do their
homework because of the lack of space.
- Overcrowding means less room for educational activities, nowhere to do homework,
disturbed sleep from sharing beds or bedrooms etc; - Claire Power et al. (2007)
- Families living in temporary accommodations may find themselves having to move
frequently, resulting in constant changes of school and disrupted education;
- Children in crowded homes run a greater risk of accidents;
- Cold or damp housing can cause ill health; - Marilyn Howard (2001) – Highlights how poverty
affects children's health,
- Such health problems mean more absences from school.

DIET AND HEALTH:

- Pupils from poorer homes have lower intakes of energy, vitamins and minerals;
- Poor nutrition affects health by weakening the immune system and lowering children’s
energy levels - Marilyn Howard (2001)

- Children from poorer homes are also more likely to have emotional or behavioural problems
 can cause anxiety and conduct disorders which affects their education.- Jo Blanden &
Stephen Machin (2007) – can disrupt learning

- Richard Wilkinson (1996) found that among 10 year olds, the lower the social class, the
higher the rate of hyperactivity, anxiety and conduct disorders which all have a negative
impact on the child’s education.

FINANCIAL SUPPORT AND THE COSTS OF EDUCATION:

David bull (1980) describes ‘the costs of free schooling’ and refers to children from poorer families
having to do without equipment and miss out on experiences and trips that would enhance their
educational achievement.

Also as a result, poor children may have to do with hand-me-downs and cheaper but unfashionable
equipment which may result in isolation or them being stigmatised and bullied by peers.

Theresa smith and Michael Noble (1995) add that poverty acts as a barrier to learning in other ways,
such as inability to afford private schooling or tuition, and poorer quality local schools. Lack of funds
also means children from poorer families may have to work part-time (e.g. paper rounds or
babysitting) which can have an effect on their education.
FEAR OF DEBT

Claire Callender and Jon Jackson (2005) conducted a study using a questionnaire survey of nearly
2,000 prospective students and found that working-class students are more debt averse – that is,
they saw debt negatively and as something to be avoided. They also saw more costs than benefits in
going to university.

Crucially, they found that attitudes to debt was important in deciding whether to apply to university
and the most debt-averse students (generally working-class) were over five times less likely to apply
than the most debt tolerant students (generally middle-class).

Increases in tuition fees from 2012 (max £9,000) may mean that the increased debt burden will
deter even more working-class students from applying to university. E.g. according to UCAS (2012)
the number of UK applicants fell by 8.6% in 2012 compared with the previous year.

Working-class students who do go to university are less likely to get financial help from their
families.

An Online survey by the National Union of Students (2010) found that 81% of those from the
highest social class received help from home, compared to only 43% from the lowest class. Diane

Reay (2005) found that more working-class students would tend to choose a university near home to
them, so they could save money by living at home and save on travel costs, even if it meant less
chance of going to a higher status university. They were also more likely to get a job and work part-
time to help fund their studies, meaning they would be less likely to gain a higher-level degree.

Sutton Trust (2017): Found that 30% of students worried about tuition fee debt before applying to
university.

AO3

The fact that some children from poor families do succeed suggests that material deprivation is only
part of the explanation. E.g. the cultural, religious or political values of the family may play a part in
creating and sustaining the child’s motivation, even despite poverty.

Similarly, Feinstein shows that educated parents make a positive contribution to a child’s
achievement, regardless of their income level.

Nevertheless, Peter Mortimore and Geoff Whitty (1997) argue that material inequalities have the
greatest effect on achievement. For this reason, Peter Robinson (1997) argues that tackling child
poverty would be the most effective way to boost achievement.

Cultural Capital

Marxist Bourdieu (1984) argues that both cultural and material factors contribute to the educational
achievement and are interrelated. He uses the concept of ‘capital’ to explain why M/C are more
successful.
Capital refers to economic capital (wealth) but also ‘educational capital’ and ‘cultural capital’. He
argues that the M/C generally posses more of all 3 types of capital.

1: Cultural capital

This refers to the knowledge, attitudes, values, language, tastes and abilities of the M/C. – The
habitus

 Eg Reading non-fiction and classical literature rather than pop literature and Watching
documentaries rather than soap operas and he sees M/C culture as a type of capital
because, like wealth, it gives an advantage to those who possess it.

Like Bernstein, he argues that through their socialisation, M/C children acquire the ability to grasp,
analyse and express abstract ideas.

This gives M/C children an advantage in school, where such abilities and interests are highly valued
and rewarded with qualifications.

W/C children find that school devalues their culture as inferior. This leads to exam failure as they
‘get the message’ and respond by truanting or just not trying.

Alice Sullivan (2001) conducted a quantitative study on 465 pupils to examine how cultural capital
affects educational attainment. She measured students’ reading habits, cultural activities, and
vocabulary and compared these with their GCSE results.

Middle-class students had greater cultural capital, giving them an advantage in school.

Reading complex books was the strongest predictor of academic success.

Parental education influenced children's cultural capital, reinforcing class inequalities.

Cultural capital contributed to educational achievement, but economic factors still played a role.

2: Economic capital

Ownership of wealth, e.g. owning valuable houses, shares, having an income in which they can pay
for private education and tuition.

Educational Impact: Wealthier families can afford private schooling, tutoring, and extracurricular
activities, giving their children an advantage over working-class students.

Social Reproduction: Bourdieu argued that economic capital helps reproduce class inequalities, as
wealth is passed down generations, securing educational success for middle- and upper-class
children.

3: Educational capital

M/C parents tend to have educational capital by sending their children to private schools and paying
for extra tuition.
They have the knowledge in which they use to get their children the best education.

More able to help children with homework throughout their school careers, but the are also more
likely to socialise their children into thinking that going to university is a normal part of life – and
thus good GCSEs and A levels are a necessity rather than being a choice.

AO3

Sullivan (2001) found students who read complex fiction and watched serious TV documentaries
developed a wider vocabulary and greater cultural knowledge, indicating greater cultural capital.

However although successful pupils with greater cultural capital were more likely to be middle-class,
Sullivan found cultural capital only accounted for part of the class difference in achievement.

Where pupils of different classes had the same level of cultural capital, middle-class pupils still did
better. She concludes that the greater resources and aspirations of middle-class families explain the
remainder of the class gap in achievement.