Student No: 1207845

1

Social Class and Educational Achievement in Modern Britain: A

Case Study Focussing on the Social Class Achievement Gap of

White Working Class Pupils in Relation to Secondary School

Choice within the English Education System

Joshua B. Gardiner

Anglia Ruskin University,

Faculty of Health and Social Care and Education

England, UK

E-mail: joshua.gardiner@student.anglia.ac.uk

Keywords: Neoliberalism, Social Democracy, Achievement Gap,

Educational Achievement, England, Sweden, Education System, Social

Class, Equity, Achievement, Functionalism, Marxism, School Choice

Word Count: 3,001 words (excluding references)

Student No: 1207845

2

Social Class and Educational Achievement in Modern Britain: A

Case Study Focussing on the Social Class Achievement Gap of

White Working Class Pupils in Relation to Secondary School

Choice within the English Education System

Today, in the twenty-first century, ‘social class’ remains the strongest indicator for

measuring educational achievement in England and the issue of ‘social class

achievement gap’ is one of the most significant in the developed world (Cassen and

Kingdon, 2007; Dyson et al., 2010; Perry and Francis, 2010). Over the years,

accumulated research in England has identified a consistent trend in where white

working class pupils are the lowest achieving group in the country, and the difference

between their educational achievement and that of their less deprived white peers is

larger than for any other ethnic group within the same social class (Perry and

Francis, 2010; Sodha and Margo, 2010).

This issue of achievement gap has been at the fore-front of policy concern by all of

the three main political parties, all across the ‘political divide’ over the last ten years

in England. Its severity fuelled by its effect on the wider social inequality and social

mobility in England (Perry and Francis, 2010; Smith, 2010).

This recent research has resulted in increasing study and debate amongst numerous

educationalists and sociologists over the years on the theme of white working class

underachievement within English secondary schools, encompassing the realms of

current and traditional socio-political ideology and ideological perspectives,

paradigms, critical theory and ontological and epistemological beliefs (Perry and

Francis, 2010; Hill and Cole, 2004). All of which provide differing socio-political lenses, revealing the differing opinions on

the values, aims and purposes of education provision and the differing

interpretations of the evidence (through the use of positivist and interpretivist

sociological paradigms) on the levels of educational achievement between the social

classes within the English education system (Hill and Cole, 2004; Kelly, 2009; Marsh,

2009). Ultimately raising the question as to whether educational inequality exists

within the English education system today.

Student No: 1207845

3

Over the years, from the early nineteenth century to the present day, equal

educational provision within the English education system has been moulded and

shaped by numerous ideological shifts (culture wars), from political, sociological and

educational ideological perspectives on the purposes and functions (epistemological

and ontological beliefs) of the education system and education at large (Bartlett and

Burton, 2012; Hill and Cole, 2004; Kelly, 2009; Lawyer, 2008; Marsh, 2009).

Today, in light of these ideological shifts, many educationalists through a

functionalist analysis of the education system argue that from the rise of the

Conservative Government in 1979, leading to the new Labour government in 1997

and to the present day with the current Coalition government. The English education

system has been structured, developed and founded upon Neo-Liberalistic ideology

and its relating and dominating functionalistic sociological theory (Bartlett and

Burton, 2012; Hill and Cole, 2004; Lawyer, 2008).

Through the provision of a capitalist education system which has utilised education

reforms demonstrating the government’s rhetoric of choice, difference, diversity and

raising standards, via numerous innovative market-oriented reforms. Emphasising

and upholding privatization and competitive markets within education (Bartlett and

Burton, 2012; Hill and Cole, 2004; Kelly, 2009).

‘Functionalism’ (sometimes referred to as ‘structural functionalism’) originates from

the work of Emile Durkheim (1858 – 1917), and is closely associated with the

theories of Talcott Parsons (1902-1979) and Davis and Moore (1967) (Hill and Cole,

2004; Dillon, 2010).

Functionalistic sociological theory is based upon epistemological and ontological

beliefs on the aims, functions and purposes of education of which are rooted within

the positivist paradigm model of research. This perspective visualises the main

primary role and function of schooling and the education system as being part of a

huge complex social system. Which contains numerous interrelated social

structures, cultural forces and political powers for the socializing and role allocating

of pupils into the social norms and values of society. With the aim(s) of meeting the

functional requirements of the social system and maintaining social cohesion and

social equilibrium (Hill and Cole, 2004; Grenfell et al, 1998; Dillon, 2010).

Student No: 1207845

4

In light of this functionalistic viewpoint, one of the most major and striking

educational reforms of which has been enforced within the English education system

over the years is the educational objective of creating a competitive market system

by increasing parent’s choice of schools for their children. (Bartlett and Burton, 2012;

Kelly, 2009).

The origin of parental school choice in secondary education can be traced back to

the Conservative government during the 1980s, through the Education Act in 1980

and the Education Reform Act in 1988. Acts of which introduced the ‘assisted places’

scheme and the ‘open enrolment’ scheme. Schemes of which provided money for

academically gifted children to attend higher performing private schools if they

passed the school entrance exam, and provided parents greater choice in the school

their child attended (Ball, 2003; Bartlett and Burton, 2012; Kelly, 2009; Marsh, 2009).

These market-oriented reforms gave the schools greater autonomy in their

operations in pupil intake and also provided more funding to schools on the basis of

student enrolment numbers, increasing competition between schools in attracting

and admitting more students (Bartlett and Burton, 2012; Chowdry and Sibieta, 2010;

Kelly, 2009).

At its origin, these Neo-Liberalistic educational reforms was founded upon the

reigning political objective and belief that such reforms would relinquish educational

inequalities, increase academic achievement, close the achievement gap and

promote social justice. In theory, it was believed that a minority of parents would be

given the choice between local state schools and private schools, while the majority

of parents would be given a greater choice between local state schools (Bartlett and

Burton, 2012; Gewirtz et al, 1995; Kelly, 2009; Marsh, 2009).

However, in recent years substantial evidence has been conglomerated of

increasing selectiveness of schools, rather than the educational diversity of school

choice by the parents in the school their child attends (Bartlett and Burton, 2012;

Gibson and Asthana, 2000; Whitty, 1998).

This has led to increased hierarchy and elitism in schools instead of educational

diversity (Teelken, 2000). In where schools are becoming alerted to particular ethos,

quality and standards of which parents are attracted to. This has led schools into

utilising strategies and methods in order to promote the school’s image to attract the

Student No: 1207845

5

right kind of pupils into their schools (Kelly, 2009; Gibson and Asthana, 2000; Orfield

and Frankenberg, 2012; Whitty, 1998; Teelken, 2000).

Such strategies have included the selecting of those pupils who match the ethos of

the school and the excluding those pupils who do not. These strategies and methods

of pupil selection have resulted in the reproducing of consistent educational

inequalities of class and race, leading to the social exclusion and educational

legitimatising of the white working class pupils within the English educational system

today (Gibson and Asthana, 2000; Whitty, 1998; Teelken, 2000).

This evidence has identified that the result of these market-oriented reforms in

increasing competition among schools raises educational inequality, by giving

stronger educational purchasing power to the middle-classes, increasing their ability

to ‘manipulate the educational market system’ to their advantage and provide

superior un-equal educational opportunities and for their children by choosing the

best and the highest achieving schools, increasing their likelihood of educational

achievement (Ball, 2003; Gewirtz et al, 1995; Chowdry and Sibieta, 2010; Davis,

2000; Feinstein, 2003)

Whereas lower classed and poorer parents do not possess these advantages and

purchasing power and thus have to choose the only available lower performing

schools and so their children miss out on these educational opportunities, ultimately

decreasing their levels of education achievement (West and Pennell, 1999; Whitty

and Power 1997).

From the functionalistic sociological perspective this is the overall aim of these

educational reforms, to maintain the social cohesion and order in the education

system and in the society at large. By providing un-equal educational opportunities to

middle and upper classed pupils whereas disadvantaging the lower classes (Bartlett

and Burton, 2012; Dillon, 2010; Hill and Cole, 2004).

According functionalist theorists, class inequality is visualised as being a positive

factor that should be increased within the education system and is required and

desirable, for the maintaining of a stable and integrated education system. In where

all are absorbed into their classed functions, purposes and roles which results in a

consensus of understanding, and a functional education system (Bartlett and Burton,

2012; Dillon, 2010).

Student No: 1207845

6

Contrary to this positivist, functionalistic paradigm, the interpretivist paradigm argues

that the social norms and values of society exist not in a fixed social structure, but in

an organic state of which change in response to elements of social life, through

individuals interpretation and response to them. These are external forces which

influence individual’s social actions, but are not used as forces of a social system

used for ruling these individuals as the positivist paradigm argues (Bartlett and

Burton, 2012; Dillon, 2010; Flick, 2002).

The overall objective of the interpretivist paradigm is to research, analyse and

interpret the origins of individual’s understandings, perspectives and experiences

within particular situations or events and their reasons for their social actions in

response to these situations within society (Denscombe, 2003; Dillon, 2010).

Contained within the realm of the interpretivist paradigm is the key concept of

‘identify construction’ as being the developmental process in where an individual

absorbs social structures and understandings with which they use to develop their

own perceive beliefs and perceptions of their belonging to and success within

education (Bruner, 1986; Pollard and Triggs, 1997).

These social structures are sourced within individual’s social, cultural and material

contexts and experience of their family backgrounds, cultures and the wider society.

These social structures develop an individual’s cultural norm and values. The cultural

tools of behaviour, languages, tradition, beliefs, understanding, contexts and

perspectives, with which they utilise when they enter the education system, using

them to develop their approaches to education and the mediation of their academic

learning (Dunn, 1988; Richards and Light, 1986; Pollard, 2012).

In light of the interpretivist paradigm, over the years numerous conflict theories have

arisen and been devised on the basis of this paradigm directly conflicting against the

positivist functionalist sociological theory and its relating neo-liberalistic ideology and

educational policy within the English education system. This has led to development

of the interpretivist Marxist sociological theory by Karl Marx (1818 – 1883) and the

creation of the ‘reproduction theories’ such as those devised by the neo-Marxist

reproduction theorists Bowles and Gintis (1976) and Bourdieu and Passeron (1977)

(Dillon, 2010; Hill and Cole, 2004).

Student No: 1207845

7

These critical theories argue that the education system is used as a capitalist and

exploitative mechanism of the functionalistic social system, of which reproduces

social inequality within education, by maintaining the privileged and powerful social

positions of the middle and upper social class groups (the bourgeoisie) from

generation to generation, whilst exploiting the lower working class (the proletariat)

(Dillon, 2010; Hill and Cole, 2004; Hurst, 2000).

At the centre the interpretivist Marxist sociological perspective, Marx developed his

concept of ‘dialectical materialism’ which linking in with the interpretivist paradigm

argues that the education system (and the larger social system) is changed,

developed and categorised through a continuous process of conflict and tension

between the differing social classes in terms of economic and social forces,

experiences and conditions, leading to their dominance of or exploitation within the

education system (Dillon, 2010; Hill and Cole, 2004; McGregor, 2000).

Marx argued that the functionalistic sociological theory provides a distorted and false

view of class consciousness (class understanding of their roles and place with

education and the society at large). In that functionalism conceals the social conflict

between the lower and middle classes within education and supports the middle

class as being the dominate class. In where it indoctrinates the lower classes with

the false truth that exploitation, marketization and competition within the education

system is the social norm (Dillon, 2010; Hill and Cole, 2004; Holmes et al, 2007;

Haralambos and Holborn, 1991).

This then leads into the work of Bowles and Gintis (1976) and their theory of ‘the

correspondence principle’. Central to their theory was their development of the key

term of ‘hidden curriculum’, encompassing all of which is taught and learnt

unofficially within the process of schooling. Bowles and Gintis saw this hidden

curriculum as the utilitarian medium containing the structuring social interactions and

individual educational rewards used by the teachers to socialise pupils and shape

the future workforce by awarding pupils differently on the basis of personality traits

and their cultural backgrounds and transmit the overarching importance of social

hierarchy in where all know their place with society (Bowles and Gintis, 2001; 2002;

Bowles, Gintis and Osbourne, 2002; Dillon, 2010; Gintis, 2000).

Student No: 1207845

8

In linking in with the interpretivist paradigm, they argued that this ‘hidden curriculum’

contains the values and behaviours of which the school praises and enforces as

being the personality traits (cultural dispositions, understandings and social class

identifications/identity constructions) of those pupils who will become good workers

and will obediently accept their role(s) within society, rather than on these pupil’s

cognitive achievement and performance. Such pupils are rewarded and praised

within the system with greater educational opportunities than those who do not

possess and show evidence of these personality traits (Bowles, 1972; 1998; Bowles

and Gintis, 2001; 2002; Dillon, 2010).

This then links in directly with the work of Bourdieu and Passeron (1977) in

Bourdieu’s theory of ‘social/cultural reproduction of inequality’. Bourdieu used this

theory to emphasize his belief that the education system is not meritocratic (of which

the functionalist sociological perspectives claims) but instead upholds and

reproduces a class divided society. In where the schools are not a multicultural

institutions of which provide equal educational opportunities to all social classes, but

is instead a middle-classed institution of which provides un-equal educational

opportunities to the middle class alone, exploiting the lower working class (Bourdieu,

1986; Bourdieu and Passeron, 1977; Dillon, 2010; Hill and Cole, 2004).

Mirroring Bowles and Gintis’ theory of ‘the correspondence principle’ and the ‘hidden

curriculum’ and linking in with the interpretivist paradigm, at the heart of Bourdieu’s

theory he believed that within school there exists a ‘hidden curriculum’ and a

‘dominant cultural form’ of which emphasises and upholds the right sets of cultural

characteristics, behaviours, understandings and orientations that all pupils are

expected to possess and conduct themselves within the school and the education

system at large (Bourdieu, 1986; Bourdieu and Passeron, 1977; Dillon, 2010; Hill

and Cole, 2004)

Bourdieu defined these cultural characteristics and values as ‘cultural capital’ and

‘habitus’. The elite knowledge, understandings, mannerisms, behaviour and

communication (social class identifications/identity constructions) of which is

naturally inherited by and is familiar with middle classed pupils of which is foreign to

lower class pupils (Bourdieu, 1976; 1986; Dillon, 2010; Hill and Cole, 2004;

Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, 2011).

Student No: 1207845

9

Bourdieu argued that when these middle classed pupils show possession of these

‘right types’ of cultural capital of which they are already attuned to and are familiar

with, they find it easier in transmit themselves within the schools culture. These

pupils are then deemed as being part of the school’s dominant cultural form and

receive superior educational encouragement, praise and opportunity, leading to their

increased levels and chances of educational success (Bourdieu, 1986; Dillon, 2010;

Hill and Cole, 2004).

Whereas, the lower working classed pupils who are not familiar with these middle

class cultural norms (cultural identities) use their own inherited cultural capital

(cultural identities) from their working classed backgrounds with which to transmit

and conduct themselves within the school’s culture. However their ignorance of the

‘right types’ of culture capital leads into their incompatibility in transmitting

themselves within the schools culture and in some directly opposing the school’s

culture. Ultimately resulting in their exploitation and rejection by the school and their

overall decreased levels of educational success (Bourdieu, 1986; Dillon, 2010; Hill

and Cole, 2004).

Therefore, through the sociological lenses of the interpretivist Marxist sociological

theory and the reproduction theories of Bowels and Gintis (1967) and Bourdieu and

Passeron (1977). In light of their theories, the middle class individuals are provided

with un-equal educational purchasing power in manipulating the educational market

system to their advantage, by showing their natural possession of the ‘right types’ of

cultural capital and dispositions (cultural identities) they inherit from their cultural

origins and backgrounds, of which matches the dominant middle class school culture

and ethos (Dillon, 2004; DiMaggio and Mohr, 1985; Gibson and Asthana, 2000; Hill

and Cole, 2004; Whitty, 1998).

These middle class individuals are then selected into the highest performing schools

and find it easier to transmit themselves within the school culture, receiving greater,

un-equal educational opportunities, increasing their chances of educational

achievement (Dillon, 2004; DiMaggio and Mohr, 1985; Hill and Cole, 2004).

Whereas, the lower working class individuals do not naturally possess and inherit the

‘right types’ of cultural capital and dispositions (cultural identities), and miss out on

the educational purchasing power of the middle class. There absence of this cultural

Student No: 1207845

10

capital, results in their difficulty in transmitting themselves within and in some cases

directly conflicting with the dominant middle class school culture and ethos (Dillon,

2004; DiMaggio and Mohr, 1985; Gibson and Asthana, 2000; Hill and Cole, 2004).

Leading to their rejection and exclusion by the highest performing schools and are

thus left to choose the only available lowest performing schools. Ultimately,

decreasing their chances of educational opportunity and leading to higher chances of

educational underachievement (Dillon, 2004; Hill and Cole, 2004; Gibson and

Asthana, 2000; Whitty, 1998).

In conclusion, reaching a judgement of the English education system, through the

enlightenment of the current and traditional dominant Neo-Liberalistic ideology and

its relating positivist, functionalistic sociological theory. As evidenced within the

educational policy, structure and the market-oriented reform of school choice.

Leading into the critical analysis of the interpretivist paradigm and the critical theories

of the Marxist sociological theory and the neo-Marxist reproduction theories of

Bowles and Gintis and Bourdieu and Passeron. Through their sociological lenses

educational inequality exists within the English education system, in where the

school choice and educational market system is used as a functionalistic mechanism

and social structure for maintaining social inequality by providing the monopolisation

and ownership of school choice to the middle classes, whilst exploiting the white

working class pupils, leading to greater levels of their educational underachievement

within the English education system today.

Word Count – 3000 words

Student No: 1207845

11

References

Ball, S. J. 2003. Class Strategies and the Education Market: The Middle Classes

and Social Advantage. London: RoutledgeFalmer

Bartlett, S., and Burton, D., 2012. Introduction to Educational Studies. 3rd edu.

London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Bowles, S., 1998. “Endogenous Preferences: The Cultural Consequences of

Markets and Other Economic Institutions,” Journal of Economic Literature 36

March: pp. 75–111.

Bowles, S., 1972. “Schooling and Inequality from Generation to Generation”.

Journal of Political Economy. May/June. (80):3. pp. 219-51.

Bowles, S., and Gintis, H., 2001. “The Inheritance of Economic Status:

Education, Class and Genetics”. International Encyclopaedia of the Social and

Behavioral Sciences: Genetics, Behavior and Society. Volume 6. Marcus

Feldman and Paul Baltes. Eds. New York: Oxford University Press and Elsevier.

pp. 4132-141.

Bowles, S., and Gintis, H., 2002. “The Inheritance of Inequality”. The Journal of

Economic Research. Summer. (16):3. ABI/INFORM Global. pp. 3-30.

Bowles, S., Gintis, H., and Osbourne, M., 2002. “The Determinants of Individual

Earning: Skills, Preferences and Schooling”. Journal of Economic Literature.

December. (39):4. pp. 1137-176.

Bourdieu, P., 1986. The Forms of Cultural Capital. [pdf] Goettingen: Otto Schartz

& Co. Available at:

<www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/bourdieu-forms-

capital.htm> [Accessed 20 December 2014].

Student No: 1207845

12

Bourdieu, P., 1976. The School as a Conservative Force in Scholastic and

Cultural Inequalities in Schooling and Capitalism. Eds R Dale et al. London:

Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Bourdieu, P., and Passeron, J., 1977. Reproduction in Education, Society and

Culture. London: SAGE

Bruner, J. S., 1986. Actual Minds, Possible Worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Cassen, R., and Kingdon, G., 2007. Tackling low educational achievement.

York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Chowdry, H., and Sibieta, L., 2010. “Proposed Pupil Premium could increase

School funding Inequalities”. Press Release for the Institute of Fiscal Studies.

Davis, N., 2000. The School Report: Why Britain’s Schools are Failing. Vintage:

London

Denscombe, M., 2003. The good research guide. 2nd Ed. Maidenhead: Open

University Press.

Dillon, M., 2010. Introduction to Sociological Theory: Theorists, Concepts, and

their Applicability to the Twenty-First Century. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

DiMaggio, P., and Mohr, J., 1985. Cultural Capital, Educational Attainment and

Marital Selection. American Journal of Sociology. (90):pp.1232-1261.

Dunn, J., 1988. The Beginnings of Social Understanding. Oxford: Blackwell.

Dyson, A., Goldrick, S., Jones, L., and Kerr, K., 2010. Equity in Education:

creating a fairer education system. Manchester: Centre for Equity in Education,

University of Manchester

Student No: 1207845

13

Feinstein, L., 2003. Inequality in the early cognitive development of British

children in the 1970 Cohort. Economica. (70):1. pp. 73-79.

Flick, U., 2002. Qualitative Research. State of the Art. Social Science

Information. SAGE Publications: London. Q1(41):5. pp. 5-24.

Gewirtz, S., Ball, S. J., and Bowe, R., 1995. Markets, Choice and Equity in

Education. Buckingham: Open University Press

Gibson, A., and Asthana, S., 2000. What’s in a number? Commentary on Gorard

and Fiz’s ‘Investigating the determinants of segregation between schools?’.

Research Papers in Education. (15):2. pp. 133-153.

Gintis, H., 2000. “Strong Reciprocity and Human Sociality,” Journal of Theoretical

Biology, 206: pp.169–179.

Grenfell, M., James, D., Hodkinson, P., Reay, D., Robbins, D., 1998. Bourdieu

and Education: Acts of Practical Theory. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge Falmer.

Haralambos, M. and Holborn, M., 1991. Sociology; Themes & Perspectives. 3rd

edition. Collins Educational: Hammersmith, London.

Homes, D., Hughes, K. and Julian, R., 2007. Australian Sociology. A Changing

Society. 2nd Edition. Pearson Education Australia: Frenchs Forest, NSW.

Hill, D., Cole, M., 2004. Schooling and Equality: Fact, Concept, and Policy.

Abington, Oxon: Routledge Falmer.

Student No: 1207845

14

Hurst, D.E., 2000. The Janus-Faced Nature of Society. Living Theory: The

Application of Classical Social Theory to Contemporary Life. Allyn and Bacon.

Boston.

Lawyer, S., 2008. Identity Sociological Perspectives. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Kelly, A. V., 2009. The Curriculum: Theory and Practice. 6th edition. London:

Sage.

McGregor, C., 2000. Class. Sociology: Australian Connections. 2nd Edition. Allen

and Unwin: Sydney, Australia.

Marsh, C. J., 2009. Key Concepts for Understanding Curriculum. 4th edition.

Oxon: Routledge.

Orfield, G., and Frankenberg, E., 2012. Educational Delusions? Why Choice Can

Deepen Inequality and How to Make it Fair. Berkeley, CA: University of California

Press.

Perry, E., and Francis, B., 2010. The social class gap for educational

achievement: a review of the literature. [pdf] thersa.org. Available at: <

http://www.thersa.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/367003/RSA-Social-Justice-

paper.pdf> [Accessed 24 December 2014].

Pollard, A., and Triggs, P., 1997. Reflective Teaching in Secondary Education.

London: Cassell.

Pollard, A., 2012. Reflective Teaching. London and New York: Continuum

International Publishing Group.

Richards, M., and Light, P., eds., 1986. Children of Social Worlds. Oxford:

Blackwell.

Student No: 1207845

15

Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, 2011. Pierre Bourdieu [online] Available at:

<routledgesoc.com/profile/pierre-bourdieu> [Accessed 24 December 2014].

Sodha, S., and Margo, J., 2010. A generation of disengaged children is waiting in

the wings. London: DEMOS.

Smith, E., 2010. “Underachievement, failing boys and moral panics”. Evaluation

and Research in Education. 23 (1): pp. 282-95.

Teelken, C., 2000. “Markey forces in education a comparative perspective in

England and Scotland”. Scottish Educational Review. (32):1. Pp. 21-32. Scottish

Academic Press, PLC.

West, A., Pennell, H., and Noden, P., 1998. School Admissions: Increasing

Equity, Accountability and Transparency. British Journal of Education Studies.

June. (46):2. pp. 188-200.

Whitty, G., 1998. “New Labour, Education and Disadvantage”. Education and

Social Justice. (1):1. pp. 2-8.

Whitty, G., and Power, S., 1997. “Quasi-markets and curriculum control: Making

sense of recent educational reform in England and Wales”. Education

Administration Quarterly. (33):2. pp. 219-241.

References Count – 45 References