AS & A Level Sociology (9699): Paper 3 – Education and Inequality

Hello future Sociologists!

This chapter dives into one of the most important (and sometimes frustrating!) questions in education: Why do some students excel while others struggle? We are moving beyond the simple idea that success is purely down to individual effort. Instead, we look at how massive social structures—like class, gender, and ethnicity—create barriers and opportunities. Understanding these forces is crucial not just for your exam, but for understanding how society works. Let's get started!

6.1 Intelligence and Educational Attainment

Sociologists are highly skeptical about the idea of a fixed, measurable intelligence. If success was just about being "smart," educational outcomes would be very different!


The Difficulty in Defining Intelligence

Defining intelligence is complex. Is it simply problem-solving ability? Creativity? Emotional awareness?

  • Most educational systems define it narrowly—usually based on skills that help in academic settings (e.g., logical reasoning, verbal fluency).
  • Sociologists argue that intelligence is often a social construct, meaning what counts as "smart" is determined by the values and culture of the powerful groups in society.

IQ Tests and Social Factors

IQ tests (Intelligence Quotient) attempt to measure general cognitive ability. However, sociologists point out major flaws:

  1. Cultural Bias: IQ tests are often designed by middle-class, Western psychologists. They contain questions that require knowledge or cultural references more familiar to middle-class (MC) pupils. (Imagine a test asking about classical music or yachting—knowledge common in one class, irrelevant in another).
  2. Social Factors Influence Results: Factors like stress, testing environment, familiarity with test formats, and access to good nutrition (a material factor) all heavily influence a pupil's score, making the test a poor measure of innate ability.
Quick Review: The Problem with IQ

If an IQ test predicts who does well in school, sociologists argue this is because the test measures cultural familiarity with the education system, not necessarily raw, fixed brainpower.

6.2 Social Class and Educational Attainment

Social class is arguably the most significant factor determining educational success. We can divide the explanations into two main categories: outside-school factors (material and cultural) and inside-school factors (processes).


Material Factors (Outside School)

These are the physical and economic resources that directly impact a child’s ability to learn.

  • Poverty and Housing: Working-class (WC) families are more likely to live in crowded, substandard housing. This means no quiet study space, poor heating, and higher stress levels, all hindering concentration.
  • Diet and Health: Poor diet (due to lower income) can lead to developmental problems, low energy, and poor concentration. Illness means missing school, reducing attainment.
  • Cost of Education: Although state education is free, there are hidden costs (books, trips, private tuition, uniform). WC pupils may miss out on enrichment opportunities or even face bullying for having cheaper clothes/equipment (a process known as 'poverty stigma').
  • Financial Necessity: WC pupils may feel pressure to leave education early for paid employment, reducing opportunities for A-Levels or university.

Cultural Explanations (Outside School)

These relate to the norms, values, and knowledge transmitted by the family (socialisation).

a) Parental Attitudes and Values

Sociologists like Sugarman (1970) suggested WC subcultures held values that discouraged educational success:

  • Immediate Gratification: Seeking rewards now (e.g., starting work immediately), rather than deferring gratification for long-term rewards (e.g., university degree).
  • Fatalism: The belief that one's future is fixed and cannot be changed by individual effort ("What will be, will be").
  • Emphasis on Physical Work: Manual jobs are valued more than academic qualifications.

(Critique: Many argue this blames the victim. WC parents may value education highly but lack the cultural or material resources to help effectively.)

b) Speech Codes (Bernstein)

Basil Bernstein identified two main speech codes:

  • Restricted Code: Used primarily by the working class. Simple vocabulary, short, grammatically simple sentences, context-bound (meaning is clear only to those sharing the context).
  • Elaborate Code: Used primarily by the middle class and, crucially, by teachers and textbooks. Complex vocabulary, grammatically correct sentences, context-free (meaning is universally clear).

The education system operates almost entirely in the elaborate code. WC pupils using the restricted code are therefore disadvantaged when reading, writing essays, or expressing complex arguments, leading to underachievement.

c) Cultural Capital (Bourdieu)

Cultural capital refers to the knowledge, tastes, manners, and language that are valued by the middle and upper classes, and which give an advantage in school.

How it works: MC parents instill cultural capital in their children (e.g., reading books, visiting museums, discussing politics). When these children enter school, their culture meshes perfectly with the school culture, meaning teachers (who are often MC themselves) see them as the "ideal pupil." This leads to better treatment and higher grades.

Analogy: Cultural capital is like having the right currency in the bank (school) to buy success. WC students arrive with the wrong currency.

In-School Factors and Processes

These are interactions and structures within the school environment that perpetuate inequality.

a) Labelling Theory (Becker)

Teachers often unconsciously judge pupils based on social class background, appearance, and behavior, creating a label (e.g., 'bright,' 'troublemaker,' 'ideal pupil').

The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy (SFP):

  1. Teacher labels a WC student as a "low achiever."
  2. The teacher treats the student accordingly (e.g., gives them less attention, sets easier work).
  3. The student internalises the label and lives up to the low expectations.
  4. The label becomes reality: the student underachieves.
b) Ability Grouping (Streaming/Setting)

Placing students into different classes or groups based on perceived ability.

  • Streaming tends to put WC students in lower streams (regardless of actual potential), where they are taught less and have lower expectations placed upon them.
  • This creates a cycle of disadvantage: lower streams receive poorer quality teaching, leading to low self-esteem and future underachievement.
c) Pupil Subcultures (Lacey, Willis)

Subcultures are groups that share distinct norms and values, often forming in response to streaming and labelling.

  • Pro-School Subcultures: Usually formed by MC students placed in high streams. They conform, value academic success, and seek status through achievement.
  • Anti-School Subcultures: Usually formed by WC students placed in low streams. They reject school values (e.g., truanting, disrupting class). They gain status among peers by being disruptive or non-conformist (Willis's 'Lads'). This resistance guarantees their future failure.

Compensatory Education Programmes

These are government policies designed to tackle the disadvantages (material and cultural) faced by WC pupils (e.g., US Head Start or UK Sure Start).

  • Aim: To provide extra resources or early intervention to give disadvantaged children a 'head start' before they begin formal schooling.
  • Criticism: Marxists and critics argue these programmes fail because they focus on changing the disadvantaged child or family (the 'cultural deprivation' model) rather than tackling the fundamental problem: social inequality and capitalist structures.
Key Takeaway on Class

Educational inequality is caused by a complex interaction between material poverty, cultural mismatches (like speech codes and cultural capital), and negative in-school processes (labelling and streaming).

6.3 Ethnicity and Educational Attainment

There are significant variations in attainment between different ethnic groups. For example, in many countries, Chinese and Indian ethnic groups often outperform the national average, while some Black and Pakistani groups may underachieve.

Racism in Schools (Institutional and Individual)

Racism creates a hostile environment that affects motivation and opportunity.

  • Institutional Racism: Discrimination that is built into the way the school system operates. The key example is the ethnocentric curriculum—a curriculum that prioritises the culture and history of one ethnic group (usually White British) while ignoring or devaluing others (e.g., treating Black history as optional).
  • Teacher Racism and Labelling: Teachers may hold unconscious stereotypes (e.g., seeing Black boys as aggressive, or Asian girls as passive and quiet). This leads to harsher discipline for some groups and differential treatment, triggering the SFP.
  • Exclusion: Black Caribbean boys are often disproportionately excluded from school. Exclusion massively reduces educational chances.

Cultural Explanations for Attainment Patterns

Differences can also be explained by variations in cultural backgrounds and values.

  • Parental Expectations: Some ethnic minority groups place an extremely high value on education (e.g., Chinese and Indian families), seeing it as the primary route to social mobility, which results in greater parental pressure and support for homework.
  • Language Barriers: Students whose first language is not the language of the school may struggle in the early years, although data suggests this disadvantage usually diminishes over time.
  • Subcultures (Sewell): Some groups, particularly Black Caribbean boys, may experience high levels of frustration due to racism, leading them to form anti-school subcultures that stress hyper-masculinity and academic rejection.

Did you know? The experience of Black Caribbean girls often contradicts the SFP. Fuller's study (1984) showed that a group of Black girls resisted negative labelling by channelling their anger into academic work, achieving success despite the system.

The Relationship between Ethnicity, Social Class and Gender

We must use an intersectionality approach—recognising that these factors do not exist in isolation.

  • A working-class Bangladeshi girl faces different material and cultural hurdles than a middle-class Chinese girl, or a working-class White boy.
  • For example, if we control for social class (i.e., only compare MC pupils), some ethnic differences almost disappear, showing that class (material factors) is still a massive underlying cause of inequality, regardless of ethnicity.
Key Takeaway on Ethnicity

Ethnicity impacts attainment through institutional practices (like the curriculum), racism and labelling, and varying degrees of cultural support. However, we must always consider the overlapping role of social class and gender.

6.4 Gender and Educational Attainment

Historically, boys outperformed girls. Since the late 1980s/early 1990s, girls have steadily surpassed boys at almost all levels of education. Sociologists explain this shift by looking at changes both inside and outside the school.

Gender Socialisation and Attainment

Gender socialisation (learning what it means to be male or female) sets different expectations for achievement.

  • Early Socialisation: Girls are often encouraged towards quieter, more literacy-focused activities (reading, writing), which align better with school demands. Boys are often encouraged towards physical activity and disruption, which clash with classroom discipline.
  • Subject Choice: Despite overall high achievement, gendered socialisation still leads to boys choosing STEM subjects and girls choosing humanities/arts, affecting career trajectories.

Wider Social Changes and Female Expectations

Changes in society have significantly boosted girls’ ambition:

  • Impact of Feminism: Feminist movements challenged traditional female roles, leading to greater self-esteem and career aspirations among girls.
  • Changes in Employment: The decline of traditional male manufacturing jobs (manual labour) and the growth of the service sector (requiring communication and qualifications) has made education more valuable to girls.
  • Changing Female Ambitions: Girls today are less likely to rely solely on marriage and more likely to see a career and financial independence as their main life goal (sociologists call this a "super-girl" identity).

The 'Crisis of Masculinity'

Some sociologists (like Sewell) argue that boys' underachievement is linked to a crisis of masculinity:

  • Traditional masculine roles (breadwinner, manual worker) have disappeared.
  • Boys may feel demoralised and disconnected from the relevance of education, leading them to form anti-school subcultures as a way to assert status (e.g., through violence or defiance).

Gender and Subcultures

  • Girls' Subcultures: Often focused on academic achievement, conformity, and supportive friendships, which help maintain high effort levels.
  • Boys' Subcultures: More likely to be anti-school, equating academic effort with being 'soft' or 'feminine,' leading to wasted potential.

Teacher Expectations and Gendered Behaviour

Teachers interact differently with boys and girls, reinforcing gender patterns:

  • Girls: Often perceived as mature, organised, and hard-working. Teachers spend less time disciplining girls and more time facilitating their learning.
  • Boys: Often perceived as disruptive or demanding attention. While boys may get more attention overall, a large proportion of this is negative (discipline), which can lower motivation and achievement.
Key Takeaway on Gender

The success of girls is largely due to wider societal changes that raised their expectations. Boys' underachievement is often linked to the decline of traditional male roles and negative subcultures that view academic effort as incompatible with masculinity.