Study Notes
Overview
Social class and educational achievement is a cornerstone topic in WJEC GCSE Sociology. Candidates are required to analyse the persistent gap in educational outcomes between working-class and middle-class students. This involves understanding external factors (material deprivation, cultural deprivation, and cultural capital) that operate outside the school environment, and internal factors (labelling, streaming, and pupil subcultures) that occur within schools themselves. Examiners expect candidates to demonstrate knowledge of key sociological studies (Bernstein, Ball, Willis, Bourdieu, Douglas, Halsey), apply precise terminology, and evaluate the relative importance of different explanations. High-band responses will critically assess whether the education system is truly meritocratic or whether it reproduces and legitimises class inequality. This topic connects to broader debates about equality of opportunity, social mobility, and the role of education in society.
Key Concepts and Developments
External Factors: Material Deprivation
Definition: Material deprivation refers to the lack of financial resources and the physical necessities required for educational success.
What it involves: Working-class families face economic hardship that directly impacts children's education. This includes inadequate housing (overcrowding, no quiet study space), poor nutrition (affecting concentration and attendance), inability to afford educational resources (textbooks, revision guides, computers, internet access), and inability to pay for enrichment activities (school trips, music lessons, private tutoring). The cost of school uniforms, equipment, and exam fees can also be prohibitive.
Why it matters: Material deprivation creates tangible barriers to achievement. Students without a desk or quiet space struggle to complete homework. Those without internet access cannot research effectively. Poor diet leads to tiredness and illness, resulting in absence and falling behind. Halsey, Heath and Ridge (1980) found that material factors were the main barrier preventing working-class students from staying in education beyond the minimum leaving age.
Specific Knowledge: Candidates must know that material deprivation is about money and physical resources, not values or attitudes. Credit is given for explaining the mechanism by which poverty affects achievement (e.g., lack of study space → incomplete homework → falling behind → lower grades).
External Factors: Cultural Deprivation
Definition: Cultural deprivation theory argues that some working-class families lack the values, attitudes, language, and knowledge that lead to educational success.
What it involves: Three key aspects are identified. First, parental attitudes and interest: Douglas (1964) found that working-class parents showed less interest in their children's education, attending fewer parents' evenings, providing less help with homework, and having lower educational aspirations. Second, language: Bernstein (1975) identified two speech codes. The elaborated code, used by middle-class families, is formal, complex, context-free, and contains a wide vocabulary. The restricted code, used by working-class families, is simpler, more predictable, context-bound, and uses limited vocabulary. Schools use and reward the elaborated code, giving middle-class children an immediate advantage. Third, working-class subculture: cultural deprivation theorists argue that working-class culture emphasises immediate gratification, present-time orientation, and fatalism, whereas middle-class culture values deferred gratification, future planning, and ambition.
Why it matters: If working-class children arrive at school without the 'right' language, values, and parental support, they are disadvantaged from day one. Teachers expect and reward elaborated code; students using restricted code are seen as less articulate and less able.
Specific Knowledge: Candidates must distinguish between material deprivation (lack of money/resources) and cultural deprivation (lack of values/language). Bernstein's language codes are essential. Evaluation: cultural deprivation theory has been criticised for victim-blaming, suggesting working-class culture is inferior rather than simply different. Keddie (1973) argues that working-class children are 'culturally different', not 'culturally deprived'.
External Factors: Cultural Capital
Definition: Bourdieu's (1984) concept of cultural capital refers to the knowledge, tastes, skills, language, and cultural experiences of the middle classes that are valued and rewarded by the education system.
What it involves: Middle-class children grow up immersed in 'high culture': visiting museums and art galleries, attending theatre and concerts, reading quality literature, discussing current affairs, developing wide vocabulary and general knowledge. When they arrive at school, they already possess the cultural knowledge, language, and 'ways of being' that teachers recognise and value. Working-class children may have rich and valid cultural experiences (e.g., community activities, practical skills), but these are not recognised or rewarded by schools. Bourdieu argues that the education system is not neutral; it is designed by and for the middle classes, legitimising their cultural capital as superior.
Why it matters: Cultural capital gives middle-class children an 'invisible advantage'. Teachers perceive them as naturally bright, articulate, and motivated. They are more likely to be placed in higher sets, entered for higher-tier exams, and encouraged to aspire to university. Working-class children, lacking this cultural capital, are seen as less able, even if they have equal intelligence.
Specific Knowledge: Bourdieu is the key name. Cultural capital is about middle-class knowledge and culture being valued in schools. Sullivan (2001) found that students who read complex fiction and watched documentaries (forms of cultural capital) achieved higher grades, even when controlling for ability. Evaluation: cultural capital theory explains how class inequality is reproduced subtly and legitimately, without overt discrimination.
Internal Factors: Labelling
Definition: Labelling occurs when teachers make judgments about students based on stereotyped assumptions, often related to social class, rather than actual ability.
What it involves: Teachers may label a middle-class student as 'bright', 'motivated', and 'well-behaved' based on factors such as their accent, appearance, manners, and parental involvement. Conversely, they may label a working-class student as 'less able', 'troublesome', or 'lacking potential' based on similar stereotyped cues. Becker (1971) found that teachers judged pupils according to an 'ideal pupil' stereotype, which closely matched middle-class characteristics. These labels are often unconscious and unintentional, but they have real consequences.
Why it matters: Labels shape teacher expectations and treatment. A student labelled 'bright' receives encouragement, attention, challenging work, and high expectations. A student labelled 'less able' receives lower expectations, easier work, less attention, and less encouragement. Over time, these differential treatments affect student outcomes.
Specific Knowledge: Becker's study of labelling is essential. Candidates must explain that labelling is based on class-based stereotypes, not objective assessment of ability. Evaluation: interactionist sociologists argue that labels are not fixed; students can resist or reject labels. However, in practice, labels are powerful and difficult to escape.
Internal Factors: Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
Definition: A self-fulfilling prophecy occurs when a label or prediction becomes true simply because it has been applied.
What it involves: The process works in stages. Stage 1: Teacher labels a student (e.g., as 'less able') based on class stereotypes. Stage 2: Teacher treats the student differently, with lower expectations, less attention, and easier work. Stage 3: Student internalises the label and begins to believe they are less capable. Stage 4: Student performs according to the lowered expectations, putting in less effort and achieving poorer results. Stage 5: The label is confirmed, and the prophecy is fulfilled. Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) demonstrated this experimentally in their famous 'Pygmalion in the Classroom' study, where teachers were told (falsely) that certain students were 'spurters' who would make rapid progress. These students did indeed make greater progress, purely because teachers expected them to.
Why it matters: The self-fulfilling prophecy shows how teacher expectations, shaped by class-based labels, can directly cause differences in achievement. It is a mechanism by which internal school processes reproduce class inequality.
Specific Knowledge: Rosenthal and Jacobson's study is essential. Candidates must explain the process step-by-step, showing how a label becomes reality. Evaluation: not all students accept labels; some may resist or reject them, working harder to prove teachers wrong.
Internal Factors: Streaming and Setting
Definition: Streaming (placing students into ability groups for all subjects) and setting (placing students into ability groups for individual subjects) are forms of internal differentiation used by schools.
What it involves: Ball (1981) studied 'Beachside Comprehensive' and found that streaming disproportionately placed working-class students in lower streams, even when they had similar ability to middle-class students in higher streams. Once placed in a lower stream, students received a watered-down curriculum, lower teacher expectations, and fewer opportunities for academic success. It became very difficult to move up. Teachers taught top streams in ways that encouraged independent thinking and high achievement, while teaching bottom streams in ways that emphasised rote learning and control.
Why it matters: Streaming reinforces class divisions within schools. Middle-class students are concentrated in top streams and benefit from high expectations and challenging teaching. Working-class students are concentrated in bottom streams and suffer from low expectations and limited curriculum. Streaming thus reproduces class inequality.
Specific Knowledge: Ball's study of Beachside Comprehensive is essential. Candidates must explain that streaming is not based purely on ability; class background influences placement. Evaluation: setting (by subject) may be less divisive than streaming (all subjects), as it allows students to be in different sets for different subjects. However, research shows working-class students are still over-represented in lower sets.
Internal Factors: Pupil Subcultures
Definition: Pupil subcultures are groups of students who share similar values, attitudes, and behaviours, often formed in response to streaming and labelling.
What it involves: Lacey (1970) identified two types of pupil adaptation. Differentiation is the process by which teachers categorise students as more or less able. Polarisation is the process by which students respond by moving towards one of two opposite poles: a pro-school subculture (accepting school values, working hard, seeking status through academic success) or an anti-school subculture (rejecting school values, messing about, seeking status through breaking rules). Willis (1977) conducted an ethnographic study of working-class 'lads' who formed an anti-school counter-culture. They rejected academic work as 'effeminate' and irrelevant, celebrated manual labour as 'real work', and prepared themselves for the same manual jobs their fathers did. Ironically, their resistance to school ensured they ended up in working-class jobs, reproducing class inequality across generations.
Why it matters: Anti-school subcultures explain why some working-class students underachieve. They are not passively failing; they are actively rejecting a system they see as irrelevant or rigged against them. However, this resistance ultimately ensures their continued disadvantage.
Specific Knowledge: Willis's 'Learning to Labour' (1977) is essential. Candidates must explain that anti-school subcultures are a response to labelling and streaming, not simply 'bad behaviour'. Evaluation: not all working-class students form anti-school subcultures; many work hard and succeed. Mac an Ghaill (1994) found that some working-class students formed 'academic achievers' subcultures, valuing education as a route to social mobility.
Theoretical Perspectives
Functionalism: Education as Meritocracy
Functionalists argue that the education system is meritocratic, meaning that achievement is based on talent and effort, not social background. Davis and Moore (1945) claim that education 'sifts and sorts' individuals according to ability, ensuring the most talented reach the top positions in society. From this perspective, class differences in achievement reflect genuine differences in ability and effort, not inequality or unfairness.
Evaluation: Critics argue that the evidence contradicts the meritocracy claim. If education were truly meritocratic, social class would not predict achievement so strongly. The existence of material deprivation, cultural capital, labelling, and streaming suggests that the system is not meritocratic, but rather reproduces class inequality.
Marxism: Education Reproduces Class Inequality
Marxists argue that education serves the interests of the ruling class (bourgeoisie) by reproducing class inequality and legitimising it as fair. Bowles and Gintis (1976) argue that schools prepare working-class students for working-class jobs through the 'hidden curriculum' (obedience, punctuality, acceptance of hierarchy). Bourdieu argues that cultural capital ensures middle-class children succeed while working-class children fail, but this is presented as meritocracy, making inequality appear legitimate and natural.
Evaluation: Marxism explains how education reproduces class inequality, but critics argue it is too deterministic, ignoring the fact that some working-class students do succeed and achieve social mobility.
Synoptic Links
This topic connects to several other areas of the WJEC GCSE Sociology specification:
- Gender and Educational Achievement: Many of the same concepts (labelling, self-fulfilling prophecy, subcultures) apply to gender differences. Candidates should consider how class and gender interact.
- Ethnicity and Educational Achievement: Material deprivation, cultural capital, and labelling also affect ethnic minority students. Intersectionality (the interaction of class, gender, and ethnicity) is important.
- Social Stratification: This topic directly relates to theories of stratification, social mobility, and inequality. Functionalist and Marxist perspectives on education mirror their perspectives on stratification.
- Research Methods: Key studies (Bernstein, Ball, Willis, Bourdieu) use different methods (interviews, observation, experiments). Candidates should be able to evaluate these methods.
Listen to the Podcast
Listen to this 10-minute podcast for a comprehensive overview of the topic, key studies, and exam tips from an experienced educator.
Source Skills (Not Applicable)
WJEC GCSE Sociology does not include source-based questions in the same way as History. However, candidates may be asked to interpret data (tables, graphs, statistics) related to class and achievement. When doing so, identify trends, make comparisons, and link data to sociological concepts and studies.