AQA Sociology Education Topic Companion Digital

aqa a level Sociology
EDUCATION
TOPIC COMPANION
www.tutor2u.net/sociology
Page 2 AQA A Level Sociology topic companion - EDUCATION
AQA A LEVEL SOCIOLOGY COURSE COMPANION:

EDUCATION
This A Level Course Companion has been designed specifically to support teaching and learning, taking a
systematic approach closely based on the AQA specification. The Education companion takes each point
from the specification and breaks it down into sections. Each section makes a clear link to the specification,
provides a checklist of what needs to be known and then explains key content, using both classic and some
more contemporary studies and examples.
The sections are:
• Consensus theories of education

• Conflict theories of education
• Differential achievement by social class
• Differential achievement by gender
• Differential achievement by ethnicity
• Relationships and processes within schools
• Educational policies
Each section includes regular evaluation of theories, studies or perspectives. This is written in the explicit
and developed way that students would need to try to emulate in the exam. Each section concludes with a
list of possible exam questions along with expert examiner hints. While potential questions are endless
(especially in relation to specific wording and the items) all the types of questions that could be asked are
included, providing opportunity to write about all the core content.
It is important to remember that in sociology you are encouraged to apply themes, knowledge and analysis
across topic areas, including between different substantive topics. When attempting questions from one
section, you should always be aware that you can and should use information from other sections. Two key
features of this companion help to facilitate this synoptic approach. These are:
• "making the link": where a connection between content in this module and that of another is
explicitly explored.
• "links to core themes": where AQA's core themes of socialisation, culture and identity, social
differentiation and power and stratification are applied to each area of the specification.
The language is designed to be reader-friendly, yet packed with key terminology and the sort of academic
style that A Level students need to develop in order to excel in their exams.
www.tutor2u.net/sociology Copyright tutor2u LIMITED

AQA A Level Sociology topic companion - EDUCATION Page 3
CONSENSUS THEORIES OF EDUCATION

Specification: the role and functions of the education system, including its relationship to
the economy and to class structure
WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW

Identify, outline, explain, analyse and evaluate:
§ Durkheim’s views on the functions of education
§ Parsons’ views on the functions of education
§ Davis and Moore on the functions of education
§ New Right views on the functions of education
Evaluate the view that:
• The education system is meritocratic
Functionalists suggest that education has three main functions:

• Secondary socialisation
• Role allocation
• Providing necessary skills for the economy.
These functions are explored by a number of functionalist writers.
Durkheim and Education

Durkheim argues the education system provides what he terms secondary socialisation as opposed to the
primary socialisation which is delivered by the family. While the family passes on particular norms and
values, secondary socialisation passes on universal norms and values that are shared by broader society.
This helps individuals to become fully-functional, normal members of society and this in term helps society
because people know how to behave.
The term norms refers to behaviour and attitudes which are considered normal, while values are those
things that people consider important to them. Functionalists believe that all members of society are
socialised into these norms and values, first through the family and later through institutions such as
education, the media and religion. It is in this secondary socialisation that people learn universalistic
values rather than just those values particular to their own family or community.
Durkheim thought education increasingly had to perform this role in a modern industrial society. In
agrarian societies, it was important to have a shared set of norms and values as a community. This fostered
solidarity, but it was what Durkheim termed mechanical solidarity: people had face-to-face contact with
each other and had very little contact – socially or economically – with people in other parts of the country
or the world. In this sort of society, the family can provide most of the socialisation. This is one reason why
education is perceived as a key function of the family. However, in a more complex, large-scale society
(one based on organic solidarity rather than mechanical solidarity) it is necessary to learn the shared
values of broader society. For this reason, a more organised education system is required.
Furthermore, the nature of an industrial society, means people have to learn certain skills in order to
function in that society and to perform specific economic roles. There are common pieces of knowledge
that everyone should have, but there are also specific competencies that different people require in order
to play their part in a complex industrial society based on a division of labour.
Copyright tutor2u LIMITED www.tutor2u.net/sociology

MAKE THE LINK
There is a clear and important link here between socialisation in relation to education and socialisation
in relation to families and households. George Murdock included education as one of the functions of
the family, but Talcott Parsons wrote about structural differentiation, and how the roles of the family
have increasingly been taken on by other agencies, especially the state. Education is a good example of
where this has happened and Durkheim suggests a clear reason for this: the complex nature of industrial
society requires socialisation into universal norms and values, not just the particular norms and values of
the family.
For Durkheim, the education system performs the secondary socialisation role by:
• Instilling social solidarity. By learning about history, children learn to see themselves as part of a
bigger picture and people should work together for common goals. Children also learn how to get
on with people from different backgrounds and with different experiences.
• Teaching social rules and how to abide by them. Schools ensure everyone follows a particular set
of rules and have to behave in the same way, regardless of relationships and friendships. Learning
to interact within a set of rules is learning how to function in society. This is important because it
limits deviance: children learn about punishment and with that learn self-discipline.
• Teaching specialist skills. Durkheim noted how people were going to work in mass production,
performing quite a specialist function using specialist skills. Where in agrarian society people might
have learned a particular job or craft from a parent, modern jobs required technical knowledge and
also industrial societies saw industrial change, so the nature of jobs changed from generation to
generation. Children had to learn skills and principles that would facilitate them working on an
assembly line. This does suggest that as well as learning shared values in school, children would not
necessarily all get the same education, but instead might learn different things depending on their
likely future roles.
Evaluating Durkheim on education

§ Marxists question where these shared values come from and whose interests they serve. They don’t
accept that there are a set of neutral norms and values that are best for everyone in society. Instead, as
we shall see the in the next section, they argue that the powerful in society use education to spread
their ideology.
§ There are a number of ways in which Durkheim’s ideas about education could now be considered
outdated. First, it imagines a society where a value consensus is possible and desirable. Postmodernists
would argue that contemporary society is diverse and multicultural and schools do not produce a
shared set of norms and values for the whole of society and nor should they. Furthermore, other
sociologists point out that the contemporary economy is no longer based around assembly lines and
therefore the education model that Durkheim describes may not suit the modern economy.
Furthermore, some question whether schools ever really provided adequate training for work, noting
that for most jobs the knowledge-based learned at school is of limited usefulness and much more
specific skills are taught through in-work training.
§ Hargreaves (1982) has argued that the education system encourages individualism and competition
rather than social solidarity and shared values. Educational norms discourage collaborative learning
(instead seeing it as cheating or copying) and instead encourages individuals to try and beat each other:
the opposite of social solidarity.
Parsons on education
Talcott Parsons’ ideas are very much influenced by Durkheim. Again he sees education as performing an
important role in terms of establishing shared norms and values, but Parsons is particularly interested in

how education facilitates role allocation. For Parsons, the education system helps society to be
meritocratic.
Meritocracy describes a society whereby jobs and pay are allocated based on an individual’s talent and
achievements rather than social status. Therefore, individuals that work hard will be rewarded in society,
whilst those who do not will not be rewarded. Instead of people holding positions in society based on what
their parents did and being born into a high or low status (ascribed status) people, through their efforts
and their abilities, attain achieved status. Education sifts and sorts people into their appropriate jobs. Of
course, one element of this is ascribed rather than achieved: natural ability, talent or intelligence. But this
is fair and how it should be and has nothing to do with family background, gender, ethnicity, etc.
The education system teaches people the value of making an effort, because effort is rewarded. That is
useful in itself but it also, according to Parsons, ensures that people end up performing the social roles to
which they are best suited. The intelligent and hardworking get higher qualifications that give them access
to the sorts of jobs that require those sorts of qualities.
MAKE THE LINK

There are some useful links with Crime and Deviance here, and particularly with the idea of Strain
Theory. Merton, another functionalist, argued that among the shared values of society was a shared idea
of people’s goals (when he was writing, in the USA, this was the American Dream of material success
and home ownership). He also wrote about how some people found it harder to get there than others;
not everyone was prepared to put in the hard work and that this was a source of crime and deviance.
While this might seem like an example of meritocracy having a dysfunctional outcome, it is worth
remembering that functionalists do think that deviance also has social functions.
Evaluating Parsons on education

§ Marxists criticise the functionalist view of role allocation and "sifting and sorting" arguing that the
appearance of meritocracy is nothing but ideology. They call this the myth of meritocracy. They argue
that the proletariat are persuaded to believe that the rich and powerful reached their positions
through their hard work and natural ability rather than because of their privileged birth because this
then leads them to accept inequality as fair. They argue instead that class inequalities are reproduced
in the next generation and that the education system plays a key role in this. As such they argue that
the myth of meritocracy plays an important part in developing a false class consciousness. Bowles and
Gintis conducted a study which demonstrated how IQ played a relatively small part in academic success
and then whether academic success translated into economic success also greatly depended on social
class, ethnicity and gender.
Davis and Moore on education

Davis and Moore further developed the idea of the education system facilitating meritocracy. They argued
that for society to function there had to be a system of unequal rewards. It is the ability to access a higher
reward that encourages individuals to put in extra effort. In other words, social stratification (what others
might term inequality) is essential. It is social stratification – a system of unequal rewards – that facilitates
meritocracy. Meritocracy works because of competition. The most important jobs, that need the most able
and determined people to carry them out, bring the most rewards (highest pay). Through intense
competition, the best get to the top. In this way, the education system sifts and sorts people into their
appropriate roles.

Evaluating Davis and Moore
§ A Marxist criticism of this is that social stratification – or inequality – is precisely what means the
education system manifestly fails to grade people by their ability or effort. Instead, the wealthy and
powerful have all manner of advantages which the education system reinforces. Overwhelmingly the
children of those with high-paid jobs leave the education system with the better qualifications and go
on to get high-paid jobs themselves. This is not meritocracy, but instead the reproduction of inequality.
The myth of meritocracy is what allows the rich to get away with entrenching their privilege and serves
to convince everyone else that the process is fair.
§ It is also not clearly the case that those who get the best qualifications do necessarily go on to get the
highest incomes. Factors such as social class also come into play here. Some people are able to access
high salaries without good qualifications, thanks to family connections, while at the same time there
are high levels of graduate unemployment and underemployment.
New Right views on education

As is often the case, the New Right have a similar perspective to functionalists. However, they tend to think
that contemporary state education fails to perform the role it should perform because of centralised state
control and policies that seek to standardise and improve equality. They argue that for education to be
properly meritocratic in the way described by Davis and Moore, it needs to be more competitive, more
about choice and winning and losing and less about collaboration and fairness. They would point to the
idea of sports’ days where everyone gets a prize and argue that this approach fails to provide people with
the drive and ambition to achieve in today’s society. For the New Right, there should be competition
within schools, competition between schools and as well as socialising pupils with the skills to prosper in a
market economy, this will also drive up educational standards too, as schools try to attract customers
(parents) with impressive results. Chubb and Moe, for instance, argued that the reason private schools (in
the USA) performed better than schools in the public sector was because the schools were answerable to
paying parents. The more the education system could follow this model, the better they would become.
This clearly has an impact on educational policies (see a later section).
Furthermore, New Right sociologists agree that education should impart shared values but again are
concerned about the way this happens in practice. They argue that in the 1960s and 1970s, schools came
to be dominated by local education authorities that might have values that differ from the value
consensus. For example, the New Right was concerned that children educated in local authorities that had
very left-wing councils might learn history that was not sufficiently patriotic (and therefore did not pass on
the shared values of all working for common goals as described by Durkheim) or there might be radical
ideas about gender or sexual orientation that would not reflect the views of the children’s parents. Again,
if education could be reorganised in such a way as to put the parents in control (to create a parentocracy)
then the value consensus would be set by the parents, and not by politicians who were often far from the
mainstream.
Evaluating New Right views on education

§ The problem with excessive competition in education is that the losers are children. This may teach
them some important life lessons, but it is undoubtedly a problem. Of course, there is a logic in Parsons
and particularly Davis and Moore’s view that some children are going to fail and receive the low
rewards, but there is an implication that this is them being allocated their appropriate social roles and
therefore this is functional. All these theories very much focus on the rewards for those with ability and
who put in the effort, but there is very little attention given to those at the other end of the scale.
While the implication from the functionalists is that it’s good for those who do not reach the top as
they access the appropriate roles for them, the implication for the New Right is that everyone should
push and struggle and fight to get the rewards, and yet the spur of fear of failure is fundamentally

important: everyone should want to win, but most people will lose.
§ The reasons why fee-paying schools get better results than state schools are more complex than just
putting it down to market principles. Yes, the schools are answerable to paying parents, but the
children of parents who can afford to pay are also likely to have various other advantages that
contribute to their academic success (see social class and differential achievement). Furthermore,
private schools are often selective and are able to choose the pupils that will perform well. Results in
selective state schools often compare favourably with fee-paying schools, irrespective of market
incentives.
§ While giving more power to parents was one way the New Right argued that “the right values” could
be imparted through education, the main approach to this was through central legislation, such as the
development of the National Curriculum in the UK and also policies such as Section 28 which strictly
limited what could be taught about sexual orientation. While the New Right claim to take a small-state,
market-led approach to social policy, this was top-down state interference in education of a sort that
you might otherwise expect them to oppose.
§ There are various strengths and criticisms of New Right approaches as they have been put into practice
which will be considered in the section on educational policies.
Links to Core Themes

§ One of the core themes of A Level sociology is socialisation and clearly functionalists see socialisation
as one of the principle functions of the education system. It is useful to write about secondary
socialisation and how it differs from primary socialisation.
Possible Exam Questions
1. Outline two functions of education. (4 marks)
2. Outline three ways in which the education system could be said to facilitate meritocracy (6 marks)
EXAM HINT: Be careful with these questions. Although they are low mark, quick questions (feel free to
bullet-point, for example) you do need to ensure that the answer fully satisfies the demands of the
question. The examiner may give just one mark per point if those points are not properly finished off. For
example “unequal rewards” might pick up 1 mark (from a generous marker!) but would need tying to
both education and meritocracy to pick up two.
3.
ITEM B
Functionalists are particularly interested in the role of education in society. They see one key function
of education as being secondary socialisation: teaching children the norms and values of wider society.
However, other sociologists, such as Marxists, argue that functionalists ignore the negative effects of
education for some and that education might not work in the interests of the whole of society, but just
of some powerful groups.

Applying material from Item B and your knowledge, evaluate the usefulness of functionalist views of the
education system in society today. (30 marks)
EXAM HINT: “Evaluate the usefulness” questions are reasonably straightforward as you essentially
consider the strengths and limitations of the various functionalist views on the topic. However, you need
to be cautious that is what you do, rather than simply describe functionalist theories and studies. Of
course the answer will include some accounts of the relevant theories but the important part is the
evaluation of whether or not those theories might be considered useful, not just who said what.

CONFLICT THEORIES OF EDUCATION

Specification: the role and functions of the education system, including its relationship to
the economy and to class structure

Outline, analyse and evaluate
• Marxist views of the role of the education system in capitalist society
• Correspondence principle (Bowles and Gintis)
• Willis on anti-school subcultures
• Bourdieu on cultural capital
• Feminist views on the role of the education system in patriarchy society
Evaluate the view that the education system primarily serves the interests of capitalism
Evaluate the view that the education system primarily serves the interests of patriarchy
Evaluate the view that the education system reproduces inequality in society
Louis Althusser
Louis Althusser argued that the education system was part of what he called the ideological state
apparatus. He argued that the bourgeoisie maintain power by using both repressive state apparatus
(coercive power like the police and the army) and ideological state apparatus: institutions that spread
bourgeois ideology and ensure that the proletariat is in a state of false class consciousness. Schools and
educational institutions are, for Althusser, part of the ideological state apparatus: they prepare working-
class pupils to accept a life of exploitation. In a way this is similar to Durkheim’s view that education serves
to teach people the norms and values of society, to preserve the value consensus, only for Althusser these
norms and values are those that serve the interests of the ruling class and it is a capitalist consensus that
prevents necessary social change.
Education can perform this ideological role through both the formal curriculum and through other aspects
of school life (which is often described as the hidden curriculum). In terms of the formal curriculum,
decisions about what is taught and what is not taught impact the nature of the value consensus that the
education system produces. When former education secretary Michael Gove argued that pupils should
learn more British history, he meant British history where the British are heroic: repelling invaders, winning
battles, ending slavery, defeating fascism and all the great men and women and kings and queens. He
certainly did not mean the history of Britain invading and occupying other countries, starting wars over the
opium trade, of leading the slave trade, of indifference to suffering in Irish and Indian famines. If education
was simply about imparting knowledge one would expect all of that to be in the curriculum. If education
were about developing a “neutral” value consensus there would be a strong argument for including it: only
by learning about the past can we avoid repeating it. But the UK education system is much more keen to
learn from the mistakes of Germans, Russians and Americans, while learning the triumphs and justice of
the British. A lesson that Britain is always right, that our leaders are wise and just and that it is important
to preserve our great traditions, is a very effective conservative ideology that helps people to believe that
it would be wrong to push for radical social change.
Outside the formal curriculum, education also teaches us about hierarchy, respect for authority, obeying
the rules. Again, while functionalists might argue these are important values and skills for society to
function properly, Marxists like Althusser would argue that that these serve to keep the rich and powerful
in their positions and to prevent rebellion and revolution. It is a good example of how sociological
perspectives work: two groups are observing the same social phenomena but from very different points of
view.

Bowles and Gintis

Bowles and Gintis, a pair of Marxist sociologists, identified a "correspondence" between school and the
workplace. School and work (particularly for working-class pupils and workers) both involve uniforms, strict
time-keeping, hierarchy, rewards, punishments, etc. They argued that this prepared pupils for life in the
capitalist system and prevented rebellion or revolution. The reason schools act in this way is because they
work directly in the interests of the capitalist system and the ruling class and their principle purpose is to
produce the workforce. They use the phrase: “work casts a long shadow over school.”
Aspect of education Correspondence with the workplace under

capitalism
Hierarchy. In school there is a clear hierarchy, with Hierarchy is also apparent in the workplace with a
the head teacher at the top, a hierarchy of staff boss (or CEO) at the top of the company, different
and the pupils at the bottom. Often there is an levels of management beneath that, with the
internal hierarchy of pupils too, with prefects, etc. workers at the bottom. Some workers might be
given supervising roles, like prefects.
Rewards and sanctions. School pupils are The rewards for work are pay and perhaps, in
rewarded with good marks or with credits/house some workplaces, bonuses, etc. Again, the reward
points/certificates/stars, etc. According to Bowles is for forbearance; for doing as instructed and
and Gintis this is often not because of the working tirelessly without complaint and for
academically best work, or even necessarily the attending on time and not leaving early, etc.
most effort: what is rewarded is compliance,
subservience, punctuality, perseverance, etc. Again workers can find themselves going through
disciplinary procedures or even losing their jobs
Pupils also receive sanctions of various kinds, when they step out of line, which is again reflected
usually for disruptive behaviour (some of which in school.
could be considered creative or innovative from a
different perspective).
Passive and docile. School essentially trains people The capitalist system is seeking a passive, docile,
(largely because of the nature of what is rewarded unimaginative and uncomplaining workforce. The
as described above) to be passive, docile and bosses have the ideas and expect the workforce to
uncomplaining. Schools discourage creativity and get on with the work without complaint, and pupils
complaints (is this true? What do you think?) and generally do because they have been trained to do
encourage deference and subservience. that at school.
Motivation. Again, relating to the two previous In the same way, at work people are encouraged
points, school encourages the idea that the to look to the reward (pay) rather than the work
motivation to do well is an extrinsic reward (e.g. itself. Work in the capitalist system is tedious and
marks and qualifications). There is no unfulfilling, but the education system has trained
encouragement of the idea that there might be pupils not to seek fulfillment at work and instead
intrinsic reward in having learnt something, or the to be satisfied with external rewards.
feeling of a job well done. This is key to Marxist theory about work: Marx
argued that people want to do interesting and
fulfilling work, and capitalism prevents them from
doing this – it alienates them from their work
because they’re just a cog in a larger system: one
piece in an assembly line.
Fragmentation. Another important feature of The workplace too is fragmented: people do their
school life is the way that knowledge is task with little knowledge of what else happens in
fragmented. Pupils learn knowledge in clear, the process. This is again part of the alienation of

delineated disciplines and making connections the worker under capitalism and helps the bosses
between them is discouraged. control the situation. While the workers create the
products, no one worker has an overview of the
whole process.
Again it is worth pointing out that functionalists would agree with a lot of this, but see it as a positive thing.
Yes, education prepares people for what it is going to be like in the workplace, but it’s important that it
does. Because functionalists do not see the workplace and the relationship between the employer and
employee as one of fundamental conflict, they see preparation for work as a positive function of the
education system.
Evaluating Correspondence Theory

• Bowles and Gintis conducted their research in 1976 and perhaps their findings are more applicable
to when they were writing than they are to the present day. After all, the modern workplace is
much less like the one described by Bowles and Gintis than the workplaces of the 1970s. Of course
there are still factory jobs similar to those described, but a lot of jobs are very different.
• Of course, this in itself is a further criticism of the education system today, because some say it
continues to correspond with the workplaces of a different era, and so no longer prepares people
for the modern workplace. (This can be seen in the work of Ken Robinson, who argues that the
education system is based on the principles of industrialism but stifles creativity and does not
prepare people for their working lives today).
• However, other criticisms suggest that the education system is no longer as described, and again
this is describing schools in the 1970s. In contemporary schools, some suggest, pupils are
encouraged to get involved with democratic structures and also to complain about aspects of
school they dislike, and to come up with ideas for improvements. These are all things that Marxists
would generally assume were unwanted in the workplace in a capitalist system
Paul Willis “Learning to Labour”

We will consider Paul Willis’ famous study Learning To Labour (1977) in a later section (about processes
within schools) but he does take a different Marxist view on how school prepares children for the
workplace from that of Bowles and Gintis. For Willis, the experience of being a working-class “lad” at
school prepares young people for the boredom of manual labour by allowing them to develop a distinct set
of values which serve as a coping mechanism. He writes about an anti-school subculture, but it is the
culture of “having a laff” and entertaining themselves which prepares them for the tedium of work, rather
than developing the qualities of subservience and passivity. While doing the right thing and working hard is
what is rewarded by the school, it is not what is rewarded by the anti-school subculture, and it is the
appreciation of peers that provides a more important external reward than grades and qualifications for
pupils who do not expect to do well. For “the lads” the worst thing you could be is an “ear’ole” (a
teacher’s pet or swot)
The outcome, however, is the same: an easily exploitable workforce which serves the interests of
capitalism. For Willis, “the Lads” – at work – have their little rebellions through schoolyard humour and
mockery, which contributes to there never being the sort of big rebellion that could really threaten the
capitalist system.
See Processes Within Schools for full details of Willis’ study.
This is a neo-Marxist idea. It does not argue explicitly that the schools deliberately and consciously set out
to prepare the workers for their coming exploitation. Willis, like other neo-Marxists, would recognise that a

lot of teachers, even some educational managers and educational policy-makers, are not deliberately
working on behalf of the bourgeoisie and the capitalist system and indeed some might consciously seek
not to. However, the class nature of capitalist society makes it very difficult to work against the exploitative
nature of the system or even to recognise your own function in facilitating that exploitation. This can also
be seen in neo-Marxist theories that see the education system’s principle function as being reproducing
inequality. It is not necessarily that teachers set out to ensure working-class pupils fail and middle-class
pupils succeed, but it happens.
Pierre Bourdieu, Basil Bernstein, cultural capital and language codes

Capital is usually used to refer to money. According to Marxists, having capital gives the wealthy power.
Pierre Bourdieu (a sociologist influenced by Marxist ideas) argued that it is not only money that gives the
wealthy power, but cultural assets too. He argued that the children of middle-class or wealthier parents
are likely have knowledge, behaviour, attitudes and cultural experiences that ensures that they succeed in
education (and society). This is because sometimes schools assess cultural capital rather than what has
been learnt in school and also teachers will perceive cultural capital as intelligence, and this in turn leads to
them applying a positive label to the pupils.
Bourdieu developed the concept of habitus by which he meant a culture or worldview that is associated
with a social class or social group. Our life experiences, as a member of that group, deeply embed in us
habits, skills and ways of behaving and thinking. As such, cultural capital is not just knowing the names of
classical composers or slipping into a bit of Latin (though both can be useful skills) but can also be
demonstrated through much more subtle and deeply-ingrained attributes. Because teachers are often
middle class themselves, they have a middle-class habitus and therefore find it easier to relate to pupils
who are similar. Aspects of a working-class habitus can be interpreted negatively or unconsciously
associated with being less academic or intelligent.
These ideas are further explored by Basil Bernstein (and will be considered in greater depth when
considering factors that impact differential achievement by social class). He wrote about the different
language codes used by people of different social classes. He argued that teachers, textbooks, exam
papers and middle-class pupils share a different language code to working-class pupils. This contributes to
schools reproducing inequality. The differences between the elaborate language code and the restricted
language code are considered in much more detail in a later section. Essentially, large parts of the
education system assess people not on intelligence, merit or effort, but on the extent to which they have a
middle-class habitus.
Evaluating neo-Marxist views on education

• One potential problem for all Marxist theories of education is that people who work in education
are famously left-wing biased (!) and often got into education specifically to do the opposite of
what they are accused of in these theories. Many teachers give their reason for joining the
profession as being that they wanted to make a difference. However, the neo-Marxist argument
that this is often about processes that happen unconsciously or semi-consciously rather than
Althusser-style brainwashing seems more credible. While schools might be full of teachers who
encourage their pupils to challenge and question authority and who are highly critical of aspects of
capitalism and bourgeois society, those same teachers might easily unconsciously assume pupils
with a working-class habitus and who always speak and write in a restricted rather than elaborate
language code are less able, less engaged, less interested or making less effort.
• However, school teachers come from a wide range of social backgrounds. As the percentage of
pupils from a working-class background going on to university degrees has increased, so the

number of teachers from a working-class background has also increased, and these teachers will
recognise working-class habitus and should understand issues relating to language codes. However,
some would argue that, whatever someone’s background, by the time that person is working as a
teacher they have become middle-class and will have adopted a middle-class habitus. However, if
this is the case, then that suggests it is less deeply-ingrained than Bourdieu suggests.
• Interactionists would argue that what is being described here is teachers and pupils constructing
meaning from their interactions and, while social class is clearly a key factor, social actors have
agency to respond to one another in these ways and not driven by the fundamental structures of
society. Many neo-Marxists would have some agreement with this, showing they do not fit neatly
into a structure/action macro/micro typology.
Feminist views on the role of education

Feminist sociologists again have large areas of agreement with functionalists and Marxists in so far as they
see the education system as transmitting a particular set of norms and values into the pupils. However,
instead of seeing these as either a neutral value consensus or the values of the ruling class and capitalism,
feminists see the education system as transmitting patriarchal values.
For example, Heaton and Lawson (1996) argued that the hidden curriculum taught patriarchal values in
schools. They noted traditional family structures in textbooks (along with many other gender stereotypes,
subjects aimed towards specific genders, gender divisions in PE and sport and the gender division of labour
in schools (predominantly female teachers and male managers).
Liberal feminists would point out these remaining issues of patriarchy in education while also
acknowledging significant strides towards equality in the education system. In the 1940s and 50s, under
the tripartite system, boys had a lower pass rate for the 11+ than girls (essentially institutionally failing girls
in order to ensure more boys can succeed) and some subjects being specifically for one gender or the other
used to be institutional rather than based on apparent preference. Today, once subjects become optional,
there are quite clear gender preferences for one subject or another, but all subjects are open to all pupils.
Perhaps the biggest change, since the 1980s, is that girls now outperform boys in education so if the
system is a patriarchal one, designed to favour boys, it is singularly failing. However, Michelle Stanworth
(1983), for instance, noted that there will still higher expectations of boys and teachers would be more
likely to recommend boys apply for higher education than girls at the same academic level.
Radical feminists argue that the education system is still fundamentally patriarchal and continues to
marginalise and oppress women. It does this through some of the processes already noted (reinforcing
patriarchal ideology through the formal and hidden curriculum and normalising the marginalisation and
oppression of women so that by the time girls leave school they see it as normal and natural rather than as
patriarchal oppression). Radical feminist research has also looked at sexual harassment in education and
how it is not treated as seriously as other forms of bullying (e.g. Kat Banyard, 2011).
Black and difference feminists point out how not all girls have the same experience in education and that
minority-ethnic girls are often victims of specific stereotyping and assumptions. For example, teachers
might assume that Muslim girls have different aspirations in relation to career and family from their peers.
There have been studies of the specific school experiences of black girls, which we will consider in more
detail in future sections.
Where feminists acknowledge that there has been a great deal of improvement for girls in education, they
would point to feminism itself as being one of the main reasons for this. Sue Sharpe (1996) found that
London schoolgirls in the 1970s had completely different priorities and aspirations from similar girls in

1996. She found that while in the 1970s girls’ priorities were marriage and family, in the 1990s this had
switched dramatically to career. While there are a number of potential reasons for this, legislative changes
such as the 1970 Equal Pay Act and the 1976 Sex Discrimination Act are likely to have played their part,
hence supporting a liberal feminist perspective).
What all feminists agree on is that the education system does work as an agent of secondary socialisation
which teaches girls and boys what are seen as universal norms and values and gender scripts that are
actually those of contemporary patriarchy and that girls and boys learning these values prevents social
change and challenges to patriarchy.
Evaluating feminist views on the role of education

• Two features of contemporary education, at least in the UK, which critics of feminist views on
education often point out are: 1) education is an increasingly female-dominated sector (most
teachers are women, an increasing number of managers are women because they are drawn from
the available teachers) and 2) the education system is increasingly resulting in female success and
male underperformance. If this is a system designed to ensure men are in the top positions in
society and women are marginalised into a domestic role, then it would appear to be failing. The
education system is sending more and more girls into higher education (Michelle Stanworth’s
research on this is now out of date).
• However, while there is clearly some truth in these criticisms, it is still clear that there is a glass
ceiling and a gender pay gap so the education system might be creating lots of highly-qualified
girls, they are still losing out to their male peers when it comes to top jobs and higher incomes.
They are also still more likely to take time off for child-rearing, work part time and to carry out the
majority of housework tasks. Feminists point out that the education system largely normalises this
(alongside other agents of socialisation such as the family and the media) and so even highly-
qualified women often accept this as inevitable or normal. At the same time men are socialised to
also consider this normal.

• This clearly links to the core theme of socialisation as, just like with the functionalists, conflict
theorists see education as major agent of socialisation. The difference is about whether that
socialisation is really for the interests of the general functioning of society or of a particular
powerful social group (the bourgeoisie or men, or bourgeois men!)
• Conflict theories are also clearly linked to stratification and power. The source of the conflict in
each theory is about the way society is stratified and about who has power. Instead of seeing values
and norms as being somehow neutral and therefore a consensus on them being in everyone’s
interests, conflict theorists point out that these norms and values come from those with power and
they are used to serve their interests and maintain social stratification. However, some neo-
Marxists and some feminists do note that teachers and schools may not always work directly in the
interests of those with power, as they do not necessarily come from an especially powerful social
group themselves. Teachers might, in the old Marxist phrase, be relatively autonomous from the
bourgeoisie or the patriarchy.

1. Outline two ways the education system can be said to support patriarchy. (4 marks)
2. Outline three ways in which the education system can be said to support captitalism. (6 marks)

3.
Item A
Although Marxist sociologists essentially agree with functionalists that the education system teaches
people norms and values and sifts and sort them into their future roles, they argue that the education
system does not work in everyone’s interests but instead supports capitalism and the interests of the
ruling class.
Applying material from Item A, analyse two ways in which the education system can be said to support
capitalism. (10 marks).
EXAM HINT: This is essentially the same question as question 1, only here they want 10 marks rather
than 4. The main points may well be the same, but different skills are being tested here, not just whether
you can remember two ways. First, there is reading and using the item. There are hooks in the item, and
they take a little bit of fishing (here the hooks are in the description of functionalism rather than
Marxism) and then there is the development and analysis required to reach the higher marks. Remember
evaluation is credited in these questions.
4.
ITEM B:
There is lots of evidence that girls outperform boys in school, therefore some would argue that
feminism is no longer relevant to the sociology of education: that feminists have succeeded in making
education equal for boys and girls.
However, different feminist sociologists raise a number of issues relating to gender and education such
as the reinforcement of stereotypes. Feminists also offer useful explanations for why educational
achievement for girls has improved so much since the 1970s.
Applying material from Item B and your knowledge, evaluate the usefulness of feminist ideas to our
understanding of education in the UK today. (30 marks)
5.
ITEM B:
Marxists agree with functionalists that the education system is designed to prepare people for work
and also to shape people’s norms and values. However, they believe that this is to serve the interests
of the ruling class and capitalism rather of society as a whole.
They also believe meritocracy is a myth: an ideological weapon to disguise the fact that the education
system reproduces the class inequalities that exist in society.
Applying material from Item B and your knowledge, evaluate Marxist views of the role of the education
system. (30 marks)

EXAM HINT: This style question is not so very different from the “evaluate the usefulness” ones, but is
more focused. Instead of being asked generally about “education in the UK today” you are asked about
“the role of the education system” and so the question should be carefully focused on the role, through
the analysis and evaluation.

DIFFERENTIAL ACHIEVEMENT BY SOCIAL CLASS

Specification: differential educational achievement of social groups by social class, gender
and ethnicity in contemporary society
’

• Describe differences in educational achievement by social class.
§ Explain, analyse and evaluate how out-of-school factors influence differences in educational
achievement by social class.
§ Explain, analyse and evaluate how in-school factors influence differences in educational
§ Explain, analyse and evaluate how material factors influence differences in educational
§ Explain, analyse and evaluate how cultural factors influence differences in educational
The statistics
The government collects a great deal of data about educational achievement. However, it does not directly
collect in relation to social class. Social class is a notoriously difficult concept to operationalise as there is
some disagreement about how classes should be defined and measured. However, one useful way to
consider education data is to look at achievement in relation to those who are eligible for free school
meals (FSM). FSM eligibility is means tested based on household income.
Measured in this way, it is clear that there is a significant achievement gap between those eligible for FSM
and the rest. At GCSE level that gap has been quite consistent at between 26 and 28% for the last decade.
For example, in 2014/15 60% of pupils not eligible for FSM got 5 GCSEs at A*-C, compared with 33% of
those who were eligible. While this is a shocking difference (those with a higher household income are
almost twice as likely to get 5 GCSEs at A*-C) some suggest that these figures might even understate the
differential achievement as pupils from higher-income households are also more likely to take the more
challenging “eBacc” subjects at GCSE, whereas for much of this period schools were able to get improved
GCSE scores by entering lower-ability pupils for less challenging courses including some BTEC courses
which counted for multiple GCSEs and included no examinations.
Other studies have suggested that some progress is being made with narrowing the achievement gap,
although they present a complex picture where in fact things are getting worse for the most disadvantaged
pupils, despite some progress on class differential achievement overall.
Over the coming sections we will read about a number of achievement gaps in UK education, but today it is
still social class which is by far the biggest determinant of educational outcomes.
There have been various attempts to explain these differences. A view that is unpopular among
sociologists is that intelligence (and so-called intelligence quotient - IQ) is inherited, genetically, and
therefore middle-class pupils are simply more intelligent than working-class pupils because they have more
intelligent parents. This leads to a classic nature vs. nurture debate. People point to research by both
Jensen and Eysenck including a study which found that identical twins reared in different environments
have very similar IQs, although their study has been criticised extensively. Jensen argued that 80% of
intelligence was genetic. There have been multiple criticisms of the reliability and validity of IQ tests. Can
any test really measure IQ? Most tests also test knowledge of the style of questions asked. People can
improve their IQ score by practicing the tests: practice does not actually make them more intelligent.

Therefore, if you have been introduced to similar sorts of questions or conundrums before you will appear
to be more intelligent than those who have not. An alternative “nature” argument is one where material
circumstances and the environment go hand-in-hand with nature: poor health, including poor diet during
pregnancy, can impact IQ, according some doctors.
Sociologists accept that they cannot discount genetic or other natural phenomena but are able to
confidently explain that it does not provide anything like the full picture. For example, Douglas (1964) was
able to demonstrate that a middle-class child of “average” intelligence was much more likely to pass the
11+ exam than a working-class pupil of “average” intelligence. The 11+ was an exam which determined
which secondary school children attended and was meant to separate the academic from the practical.
(We shall consider this in further detail in the Educational Policies section). So something happens to
children, relating to their social class, that impacts their educational achievement.
Sociologists seek to explain these differences as being a result of either in-school (or internal) factors or
out-of-school (or external) factors. This in turn relates to whether this relates to structural factors – the
way society is organised – or to processes that occur within schools themselves.
Sociologists further look at material and cultural explanations. That is, whether the differences are because
working-class children have less money than middle-class children, or because they have different
attitudes or values.
Out of school factors

The key out-school factor that might impact differential achievement by social class is material
deprivation. Material deprivation is the inability to afford basic resources. This will mean pupils are unable
to afford things like sufficient food, heating or clothing and educational resources, which is subsequently
very likely to affect educational performance and lead to underachievement. Research shows that poor
diet and under-nourishment can lead to poor educational performance and clearly poor health and
subsequent poor attendance at school has a direct impact on achievement. Access to the internet, books, a
quiet place to work are all important material factors. Furthermore, it is more likely that working-class
pupils will need to undertake employment alongside their studies in order to bring in more income into the
household. While a small amount of part-time employment can be beneficial educationally, working too
many hours can seriously impact educational performance, both because there is insufficient time for
study, and also because pupils are too tired to concentrate at school. Pupils from households with higher
income can afford educational visits and also to pay for private tuition.
In contrast to material factors there are also cultural factors that can impact educational achievement.
Some argue that working-class pupils are likely to be culturally deprived, often because of inadequate
socialisation. They argue that the norms and values of many working-class families are not those that lead
to getting the best out of the education system. This argument comes both from a Marxist/neo-Marxist
perspective (the idea that cultural capital gives middle-class pupils advantages) and from New Right views,
that see particularly “underclass” households as reproducing values and attitudes that are detrimental to
educational achievement. These arguments have led to some proposing compensatory education policies,
which we will consider in the Educational Policies section.
It is argued by some sociologists that there is a significant cultural difference between middle-class and
working-class pupils. From a right-wing perspective, one aspect of this is said to be that working-class
pupils expect immediate gratification, whereas middle-class pupils understand the benefits of deferred
gratification. The impact of this is that working-class pupils prefer to leave school as soon as they can and
get a job, while middle-class pupils will delay paid employment in order to attain higher qualifications and
get higher-paid occupations as a result. This approach appears blames working-class families themselves

for differential achievement by social class. This idea is particularly associated with the sociologist
Sugarman (1970) who was influenced by Hyman (1967) who argued that working-class families were less
interested in social mobility than middle-class families. This approach to cultural deprivation is presented
as an alternative to Marxist, structuralist explanations for why the children of working-class parents tend
to go through the education system and enter working-class occupations. It is not, they argue, because the
education system exists to reproduce class inequalities, but instead because working-class children do not
appreciate how to get the best out of the system. Douglas (1964) argued that working-class parents took
less interest in school and education and therefore pushed their children less and indeed often encouraged
them to focus on goals outside school and education.
An alternative, left-wing consideration of cultural deprivation comes from Pierre Bourdieu and his concept
of habitus. Habitus refers to the norms, values, attitudes, and behaviours of a particular social group or
social class. The idea is often, then, associated with the idea of cultural capital. That is, that the middle-
class have a cultural advantage in the education system because they have particular attitudes and
behaviours that are deemed superior or correct by other middle-class people (and that tends to include
teachers, examiners, employers, etc.) For Bourdieu and Bernstein it is not that the cultural norms of the
middle-class are better but that they are better rewarded. The knowledge, skills and experiences gained in
a middle-class habitus are more useful in education than working-class ones (regardless of which is more
useful in other aspects of life).
Another important factor is social capital. Social capital refers to the networks and relationships a person
possesses based on class membership, which enables them to build and maintain relationships with others.
For example; a middle class individual with high social capital will be able to build and maintain productive
positive relationships with teachers. Teachers sometimes know pupils’ parents socially, or are aware of
them and have different expectations as a result of this. Pupils can sometimes succeed in educational tasks
because of out-of-school social connections who have relevant specialist or professional knowledge.
Evaluating out of school factors

§ A lot of government policies have been put in place to try and resolve out-of-school factors over many
years, and yet the statistics remain stubbornly clear: social class is perhaps the main predictor of
educational achievement. Policies directly designed to combat material factors included Educational
Maintenance Allowances, Pupil Premium, free school dinners, etc. While some policies have been
given longer to succeed than others, it is clear that governments have tried to compensate for this and
that, while they may have had various useful impacts, they have not shifted the statistics. Similarly, in
terms of cultural deprivation, policies such as Surestart have been put in place to try and deal with
issues relating to parenting, etc.
§ However, while governments and schools will try hard to ensure that those without material means are
not disadvantaged they cannot prevent those who do have the material means from purchasing an
advantage, whether this be the small minority of pupils who attend fee-paying schools, or the many
more who pay for private tuition or are able to buy or access extra resources of various sorts. As such,
it is highly likely that wealth or the lack of it will have an impact on education attainment. People would
not spend many thousands of pounds on this wide range of educational services if it did not pay any
dividends in improved results.
§ There is something of a chicken/egg situation with some of the cultural factors. Working-class children
may have preferred immediate gratification, been less concerned with social mobility and have parents
more interested in them finding work than continuing in education because that was realistic. If
working-class children predominantly do not succeed as well in school and are less likely to go onto
higher education, etc. then such pupils and their parents might be being realistic in not focusing on

such goals, rather than suffering from cultural deprivation. Furthermore, it might sometimes simply be
a material necessity. A family might need the child’s income and could not afford for them to stay in
education any longer than is essential. As such what might at first appear to be a cultural phenomenon
might in fact be a reaction to or a result of material factors.
In school factors
As well as factors outside school affecting the achievement of pupils, depending on their social class, so
factors within the school can have a significant impact. These are often suggested by interactionist
sociologists who argue that it is not necessarily the structures of society that impacts educational
achievement, but the relationships and interactions between pupils and between teachers and pupils.
Some neo-Marxists agree with interactionists that these relationships can have a significant impact. Some
of the theories and studies relating to this are detailed in a later section (Relationships and Processes
Within Schools) and therefore this section tends to give more of an overview.
One important example of an in-school factor is labelling. Labelling theory was developed by the
interactionist sociologist Howard Becker in relation to the concept of deviance, but other sociologists have
developed the concept in the context of education. While details about labelling and the concept of a self-
fulfilling prophecy will be considered in detail later, the broad idea is that teachers subconsciously label
their pupils. Some of them are labelled as clever, well-behaved, etc. and others are labelled as trouble,
naughty or stupid. The way the teacher will interact with the pupils differently, depending on how they
label them and the student will in turn react to that labelling and one way they can react is to internalise it,
accept it and live up to it. The important point here is that teachers might be more likely to label working-
class pupils (especially working-class boys) negatively and therefore could create low achievement by
expecting it.
Another important internal factor is the existence of anti-school subcultures. Theories and studies about
this, such as Paul Willis’ “Learning to Labour” are detailed in other sections, but the key point is that some
students (particularly working-class boys, according to Willis) form subcultures within the school that are
hostile to the school. For them, praise from teachers is bad, getting into trouble is good. The norms and
values of the subculture are of messing about and avoiding work and to welcome poor grades. The
subcultures have little interest in achievement and therefore it is unsurprising that the students who are
likely to form such subcultures are also statistically likely to underperform.
Another in-school factor is suggested by Basil Bernstein and it is the idea that teachers, textbooks and
external examiners use a particular language code (the elaborate code) which middle-class pupils are also
able to use, while working-class pupils tend to use the restricted code. Language codes are the different
ways people communicate and Bernstein argues that middle-class pupils can switch between casual
speech (the restricted code) and the elaborate code that is used in more formal situations. This is simply a
result of the language codes used in the home and the life experiences that they have had (and therefore
this links with the concept of cultural capital).
Working-class pupils, in contrast, tend to only use the restricted code. That is the code of informal spoken
English that often features colloquialisms and idiomatic turns of phrase, non-standard grammar and
simplistic sentence structure. The elaborate code often uses unexpected words and phrases, or uses words
to mean something different from its usual meaning. This form of language often finds its way into
textbooks and exam papers and therefore middle-class pupils are at an immediate advantage. To give an
example, from an A Level Politics exam paper from several years ago:
“The powers of the prime minister are considerable.” Discuss.

A significant minority of candidates did not understand the meaning of the word considerable in this
context. Whereas many pupils were able to see that this was a question they were well-prepared for
(evaluating whether or not the prime minister was very powerful) others got into difficulties evaluating
whether or not people considered the powers of the prime minister. The second group had not misread
the question but they had tried to make sense of it in the restricted code. The writer of the question would
not have tried to trip up the candidates who misunderstood; the meaning of the question was obvious to
them because it was in the language code that they routinely used. The students who understood the
question would have been surprised that some of their classmates did not: people tend not to be
conscious of their own use of language codes. Teachers and exam writers tend to spot if they’ve used
unusual or complex vocabulary and provide a definition or glossary. But this isn’t about difficult
vocabulary, but about sentences and phrases that use familiar words but in unfamiliar ways.
In fact, teachers will often use sentences and refer pupils to articles and sections in textbooks that are
largely meaningless to some of their pupils. This is not because those pupils are less intelligent than those
that understand them. If the teacher taught the lesson in French and some pupils in the class spoke French
and therefore understood, that is not necessarily because they are more intelligent, they just happened to
have learnt that language.
Evaluating in school factors

• In reality, it is hard to fully divide factors up between in-school and out-of-school as both impact
each other. Something like language codes for instance is really both an out-of-school and in-school
factor as it relates both to how people speak at home and in school. Anti-school subcultures might
explain why working-class pupils underperform, but the question of why working-class pupils join
them is more complex and must at least in part relate to matters outside school.

§ Clearly these sections on different social groups relate very closely to the core theme of stratification.
However, in the case of differential achievement in education, it is this form of stratification – social
class – which is by far the most directly influential. It is important to consider who these different
identities intersect. Social class is very clearly a factor in determining educational achievement, but it
also works alongside ethnicity and gender.

1. Outline two cultural factors that may affect social class differences in educational achievement (4
marks)
EXAM HINT: Help the examiner out and make your two points really distinct. Bullet points on separate
lines is a good idea. Don’t expect the examiner to try and dig your two points out of a paragraph where
they’re all jumbled up together.
2. Outline two in-school factors that may affect social class differences in educational achievement (4
marks)
EXAM HINT: Remember, while you need to make sure you finish off your point and get both marks each
time, these answers need to be brief. Do not give the examiner paragraphs here. For example: “labelling;
anti-school subcultures” would get at least 2 marks. “Labelling working-class children leading to a self-
fulfilling prophesy; working-class boys joining anti-school subcultures and therefore not placing any
value on educational achievement” would get all 4.

3. Outline three material factors that may affect social class differences in educational achievement (6
marks)
4. Outline three out-of-school factors that may affect social class differences in educational
achievement (6 marks)
5.
ITEM B:
There is still a significant gap between educational outcomes for people of different social classes.
Children with the lowest household incomes are eligible for free school meals. 15% of boys and 10% of
girls eligible for free school meals leave school with less than 5 GCSEs. For both genders this is three
times as many as for those who are not eligible for free school meals. Therefore, it is clear that how
much money a family has is a major factor in how well pupils succeed at school. Sociologists disagree
on why this might be the case.
Many sociologists suggest that it is pupils’ experiences in school that determine whether they are
successful or not, while others disagree and suggest that pupils’ home life and family background has a
larger impact.
Applying material from Item B and your knowledge, evaluate the view that differential educational
achievement by social class is mainly due to in-school factors. (30 marks)

DIFFERENTIAL ACHIEVEMENT BY GENDER


• Describe differences in educational achievement by gender.
• Explain, analyse and evaluate in-school factors that influence differences in educational
achievement by gender.
• Explain, analyse and evaluate out-of-school factors that influence differences in educational
achievement by gender.
The statistics
The data is much more easily collected for gender and achievement as it is routinely collected. In terms of
students getting 5 GCSEs at A*-C, the gap between girls and boys grew through the last decade to reach
nearly 9% in 2016 in favour of girls. While this is not a gap of the size experienced by social class, it is still a
very significant and quite consistent difference. Girls also consistently get more A* and A grades than boys
too.
It can also be seen at other levels of education. Girls outperform boys at A Level too, though not quite so
dramatically as at GCSE. Boys are more likely to get A*s though, while girls have been more likely to get As
(the results are quite close at this point). However, 2017 was the first time in 17 years that boys
outperformed girls in terms of high grades altogether (A*s and As). Some speculated that this might have
been linked to the introduction of linear A Levels and the end of the old modular AS/A2 system. However,
it is suggested that this statistic might be a little misleading as girls are much more likely to sit A Levels than
boys. Boys only sat 45% of all A Levels in 2017 and only “beat” the girls in terms of A* in a handful of
subjects. This is a different gender education gap, and is repeated in university entries, and would suggest
that rather than boys catching up with girls post-16, more underachieving boys are taken out of these
statistics altogether and are taking other qualifications instead, such as apprenticeships. It is worth noting
that similar reforms to GCSEs (replacing modular exams with linear ones) has not halted the girls’
advantages in the system.
The gap is also present in pre-school with a Save the Children study in 2016 suggesting that boys are nearly
twice as likely as girls to fall behind before school even begins.
Unlike social class, this achievement gap is a relatively modern phenomenon. In the 1960s, boys were
much more likely to be entered for O Levels at all, although girls did start outperforming boys in the
subjects they did take from the late 60s. Right through the 1970s and 1980s boys were much more likely to
stay in school post-16 and to carry on to university. Boys particularly outperformed girls in science subjects
and mathematics. So when considering sociological explanations for these differences, we need to
consider explanations for the change, not just the current pattern.

It is worth noting that many people believed, in the 1950s and 1960s, that the reason why boys
outperformed girls at school were biological: boys’ brains were better designed for rational thought and
girls were too emotional to perform very well in education. It’s just as well they didn’t need to, because no
qualifications were required to get married and have children.

There is plenty of biological and psychological evidence now to show that such explanations were
nonsense, and of course the consistent way girls outperform boys in education makes that point very
clearly.
One reason often presented for why girls are now outperforming boys throughout school in most subjects
and at most levels, is because of the changes in the status and role of women in society. Historically, most
girls expected to leave school, get married and become a housewife, with a husband who went to work.
Only a minority of girls would expect to have a career and therefore it is hardly surprising that for a long
time boys outperformed girls in education. Although there has not been a complete change - there is still a
gender pay gap, women still do more housework than men, women are still more likely to stop work or go
part-time to bring up children – most girls do now expect to work and there are of course many female
role models who have gained very good qualifications and gone on to perform important roles. So the
most important out-of-school factor is that greater equality for women in society has made educational
achievement more worthwhile for girls and there has been a corresponding boost in girls’ achievement.
KEY STUDY: SUE SHARPE “JUST LIKE A GIRL” (1994)

One important study that helps illustrate this point is that carried out by Sue Sharpe, where she
conducted interviews and distributed questionnaires to working-class schoolgirls in London in the 1970s
and the 1990s to compare their changing priorities and attitudes.
The original “Just Like A Girl” was about girl’s priorities in the early 1970s, and how it impacted on
school and education. It was a study of how society constrained women and limited their aspirations.
She found that early gender socialisation meant that girls attached relatively little importance to
education. When listing their priorities, career came bottom (after job and well below love, marriage and
children). From such a perspective there is no real incentive to perform strongly in education.
By the 90s, Sharpe found that there had been a “gender quake”. Girls’ priorities had more-or-less
reversed. Career came before love or marriage. These girls were more confident, more ambitious,
committed to gender equality and were more assertive too. There had been a significant shift from the
perspective of the girls. It is worth bearing in mind that Sharpe did not think that all was fine in the
1990s. Particularly for working-class girls like those she was studying, their aspirations and priorities
would not necessarily square with their real experiences. They were still likely to be expected to
prioritise family over career when it came to it and to do the bulk of the housework. But the change in
attitude could certainly provide one explanation for the dramatic shift in girls’ achievement at school.
The reasons for the change in attitudes are put down, at least in part, to changes in the law that were
occurring when the first research was conducted.
It is unusual to find a sociological perspective that is itself an explanation for significant social change, but
the feminist movement clearly played a significant part in bringing about the changes in the roles and
status of women in society.
This change was also observable not just in the material reality of female careers, but in the broader
culture. Girls’ magazines and television programme and toys all changed to reflect and reinforce this social
change. The sorts of careers advice girls might get from home, school and elsewhere also shifted.
As such, while the change in the role and the status of women can be seen as one massive out-of-school
factor, it can also be broken down into a number of closely-related factors:
• The feminist movement changing attitudes regarding women’s role in society

• The change in the nature of work for women.

• The change in family life and family structure and the move towards more “symmetrical families”.
• Change in media representations of women and girls.
As for out-of-school factors for why boys might be underperforming: the nature of the economy has led to
what some call a crisis of masculinity. The absence of traditional male employment has led to lack of
certainty about what, particularly working-class boys might do in the future. New Right sociologists, like
Charles Murray, suggest that the presence of welfare benefits has led to boys being happy to leave school
without qualifications, with no aspirations beyond being unemployed.

• Sue Sharpe makes a compelling case that changes in gender roles in society has led to changes in
priorities and aspirations for girls which in turn has led to better educational performances.
• However, Sharpe herself points out that there is still a long way to go so and women are still
oppressed in society, there is still the gender pay gap, glass ceiling, etc. Therefore, while this is a
convincing explanation for improvements in girls’ educational achievement and for something
closer to parity, it does not, on its own, explain why girls outperform boys so clearly and
consistently.
• New Right “underclass” theories are generally criticised for “blaming the victim” (in this case
supposedly feckless boys). However, the broader point about the change in the economy is
interesting. However, boys in the 1950s and 1960 generally outperformed girls despite a significant
number knowing that they would go on to work in industries where school qualifications where not
necessary, whereas today gaining qualifications is much more critical, as those sorts of jobs have
largely gone. As such, you might expect to see the opposite attitude change.
In school factors
There are a number of explanations suggested by sociologists for how processes within schools themselves
could explain both the previous underachievement of girls and the contemporary gender gap (or
underachievement of boys).
As for why girls used to underperform, there were many possible reasons:
• Teachers’ low expectations of girls.
• Resources such as textbooks and reading schemes reinforcing gender stereotypes.
• Boys’ dominance of the classroom and monopolising the teachers’ attention.
• School encouraging deference and passivity from girls (and assertiveness and competitiveness from
boys).
• Girls being concerned that intelligence was an unattractive characteristic from the perspective of
boys (intelligence not being seen as a feminine trait).
• School careers guidance pushing girls towards low-paid or domestic roles.
• Gender division of subjects reinforcing gender stereotypes (such as girls studying home economic
while the boys do metalwork).
Most of these suggestions come from feminist sociologists such as Michelle Stanworth and psychologists
like Carol Dweck. They serve as good explanations for the trends at the time they were studying but might
now be somewhat outdated. In-school factors for why girls now outperform boys in school are perhaps
more interesting.
The first point to make is that, while there are occasional moral panics in the media about why boys are

underperforming, the new gender gap in educational achievement is not due to boys performing less well
than they did in the past, it is because girls have improved faster than boys have (at least in terms of
examination results). A number of suggestions have been put forward as to why this is:
Just as there were attempts at biological explanations for a gender gap the other way, there are also
suggested biological explanations for this gender gap. Because girls mature faster than boys physically, it
has been suggested that they might do so intellectually too. There is also evidence that even during the
early years, girls have stronger linguistic abilities than boys, which suggests that it might be innate. While
this could explain why, now there is more equality in education, girls have surpassed boys rather than just
having caught them up, not everyone is convinced by these arguments. Of course there are many boys
who are better than many girls linguistically or in terms of intellectual development, so while there is some
evidence of a gender or sex-based pattern, it does not appear to be universal and this therefore questions
the idea that it is simply natural. Furthermore, some feminists point out that reading and spending time on
stories might be part of a female gender script for young infants which could explain the advantage in the
early years in related skills, rather than it being genetic.
One argument that is often put forward is the idea of the femininsation of education (as suggested by
Sewell (2006). A few aspects of this process are suggested. One is the predominance of female teachers in
the profession. This is not a new thing, as such, although certainly since more and more children are taught
in co-educational schools rather than single-gender schools more boys are taught by women for more of
their educational careers. It has been suggested that aspects of education, for example reading, are
associated with a female role because mothers and (female) teachers are (predominantly) the people who
read to children. Furthermore, it has been suggested that educational achievement is increasingly
measured against skills where girls excel more than boys, and this point was made particularly about the
high levels of coursework in GCSE and, later, A Level. The suggestion was that girls had better
organisational skills and were more perfectionist, therefore coursework suited them rather than boys, for
whom exams were better suited. This argument was put forward by Mitsos and Browne (1998).
There have also been a number of initiatives to support girls’ education. GIST stands for Girls Into Science
and Technology and was a project in the early 1980s to try and address gender differences in subject
choice and encourage more girls to choose sciences at school. It was followed by the similar WISE
campaign, which still exists today. These sorts of initiatives have encouraged more girls to study science
and this in turn has led to more female students succeeding.
Indeed, some argue that reforms brought in by the 1988 Education Reform Act have played a big part in
this change. The arrival of the National Curriculum means that all students must study the sciences, for
example, so the sorts of gender divisions into gendered subjects happens much less and much later in
education today. This in turn leads to more girls aspiring to perform well in such subjects and go on to
university or high-income occupations. Another change – the introduction of school performance league
tables – might have led to schools focusing on improving girls’ achievement as it was previously risking
bringing down their position in the league table.
The sorts of processes within schools discussed in relation to social class can also be a factor here. While in
the past girls might have been labelled negatively, often girls can be labelled as the ideal pupil, while boys
might be labelled as more likely to be trouble. While this can lead to misbehaving girls as being seen as
“doubly deviant” it helps create the situation where girls are positively labelled and respond with attention
and hard work while it is expected that boys will mess about. While some have pointed out that teachers
spend more time with boys than girls, Swann and Graddol note that the majority of interactions between
teachers and girls are educational, many of the interactions between teachers and boys are more about
discipline or crowd control.

Related to this, it is also more likely that boys will form or join anti-school subcultures. While Willis’ study
is usually considered in relation to social class, it is important to note that “the lads” were boys as well as
working class.
Furthermore, it is argued that teachers may turn a blind eye to some “laddish” behaviour, assuming it
would be hard to do anything about it anyway, but in doing so, boys’ education is suffering (not necessarily
just those misbehaving but their peers also).

• While when GCSEs were first introduced there was quite a lot more coursework and, for a while,
there was more coursework in A Levels, this has not been the case for some years. Indeed, there is
now relatively little coursework in either set of qualification and girls keep beating boys. So it would
appear girls are better at exams too. Possibly skills like being well-organised and showing attention
to detail are actually quite useful in preparing for exams as well as in producing coursework!
According to Elwood (2005) even when there was more coursework in the qualifications, exam
performance was the primary indicator of final grades.
• While there are many concerns about boys’ education it is worth remembering that boys’
achievement has been improving too, just not as quickly as girls. So perhaps the in-school factors
that focus on why boys underachieve are mis-directed.
EXAM HINT: Remember, if you get questions about gender you should always refer to men/boys as well
as women/girls. Therefore factors effecting boys’ achievement are as important to learn and remember
as those effecting girls’ achievement.

§ As with all the differential achievement topics, this closely links with stratification. What is interesting
here is that girls are outperforming boys, so the typical pattern of stratification we might expect
(education working on behalf of the patriarchy and therefore favouring boys) is absent. It is worth
noting that while girls are outperforming boys, middle-class boys are outperforming working-class girls.
In this area, social class has a significantly bigger impact than gender.

1. Outline two in-school factors that influence boys’ achievement at school (4 marks)
2. Outline three out-of-school factors that influence girls’ achievement at school (6 marks)
3.
ITEM B:
Girls now outperform boys throughout school. Sociologists disagree about why this might be the case,
with some focusing on processes within schools and others looking at factors outside school and in wider
society.
There are also still differences in the subjects that girls and boys choose to study at school and college,
especially in vocational courses. Again, sociologists disagree about whether this is due to factors inside
the school or in society at large.
Applying material from Item B and your knowledge, evaluate sociological explanations for gender differences
in educational attainment and subject choices. (30 marks)

DIFFERENTIAL ACHIEVEMENT BY ETHNICITY


• Describe differences in educational achievement by ethnicity.
• Outline, analyse and evaluate in-school factors that influence differences in educational
achievement by ethnicity.
• Outline, analyse and evaluate out-of-school factors that influence differences in educational
achievement by ethnicity.
The statistics
Differential achievement by ethnicity refers to the fact that pupils from some ethnic backgrounds perform
better in school than others. While some sociologists point to cultural and material deprivation – outside
school factors – to explain these differences, others look to processes inside the school such as labelling
and institutional racism.
Black pupils statistically underperform in school while pupils of Indian or Chinese heritage often
“overperform”. However, the picture is not straightforward. Female black pupils are more likely to go into
higher education than girls from several other ethnicities (including white British) and Bangladeshi pupils
achieve above the national average at GCSE but are among the groups least likely to go to university. As
such, these statistics are unlikely to be able to be explained by one factor – like teacher racism – and a
combination of factors are likely to be at play.
In terms of achieving 5 A*-C grades at GCSE, pupils from a Chinese heritage tend to perform best (74% in
2014), Indian next (73% in 2014) with white British trailing behind (56% in 2014, a little below the national
average) and children from Pakistani backgrounds and African Caribbean backgrounds further behind still
(51.4% and 47% respectively in 2014). The lowest performing ethnic groups are Irish traveller and
Roma/Gypsy groups (at 14% and 8% respectively).

Sociologists are clear that home and family background does have an impact on differential educational
achievement. For example, first generation immigrants in particular might find language barriers
impacting their educational achievement. There is some scepticism about the impact of this – Driver and
Ballard (1981) found that Asian children who spoke a different language at home were as good at English
as their classmates by the age of 16 and language barriers do not persist in subsequent generations.
However, it is clear that language issues might impact the achievement of a minority of pupils. However,
other issues relating to language might have a larger impact. A strong accent and use of dialect terms and
non-standard English grammar might influence teacher labelling and indeed this relates to Bernstein’s
work on restricted and elaborate language codes (even though Bernstein focused on social class rather
than ethnicity). As such it is clear that home factors might influence achievement, especially if they
combine with an in-school process like labelling.
Other aspects of home life and culture can have an impact on educational attainment. For example, a
number of studies (including Archer and Francis, 2006) have identified a family emphasis on education and
educational success within Chinese families in the UK. Others have pointed to close-knit families in some
Asian communities, such as Indian families, and how this often combines with high parental expectations
to lead to high-achieving children.

Family life can also be a negative factor rather than a positive one. Just as some sociologists think a close-
knit family might engender high achievement, some think that high levels of divorce and single parenthood
can have a negative impact on educational achievement, either through the absence of a male role model
or because of resultant material deprivation. There is a higher than average incidence of single parenthood
among African-Caribbean families so this is presented as a factor influencing the achievement of black
pupils.
Of course, the explanations for the statistical differences might relate to other factors altogether, most
notably social class. Statistics show that Bangladeshi, Pakistani and African-Caribbean pupils are far more
likely to be in receipt of free school meals (and therefore have a low household income) than Indian or
Chinese pupils. As such, the factors that explain why working class pupils achieve less well than middle
class pupils can also go some way to explaining why some ethnic groups achieve less well than others. Of
course, this is not a straightforward case of the cause of the difference being class rather than ethnicity:
racial discrimination is likely to be one of the factors that causes some ethnic groups to be in lower social
classes than others so a combination of factors is at work. However, all of the out-of-school factors relating
to social class can also be applied to ethnicity to go some way to explain differential achievement
(including the underachievement of white British working-class boys).

§ While high expectations and close-knit families might go some way to explain Indian and Chinese
high achievement, such high expectations and close-knit families exist in Pakistani and Bangladeshi
UK communities too, and yet they tend to underperform unlike their Indian classmates. This
suggests that other factors, such as social class, might be at play.
§ While lone parent families might be a factor relating to underachievement, it is also likely that
strong, independent women (African-Caribbean mothers) can be a powerful role model, particularly
for black girls. Other research has suggested that, once adjustments are made to take account of
social class, there does not appear to be a significant correlation between having a lone parent and
educational underachievement.
In school factors
The first of these is that the curriculum itself is ethnocentric, as is the structure of school life. Curriculum
content is centred around a white British or European view of the world with the content and focus of
history and literature being European and most languages classes in schools being French and German
rather than non-European languages. School holidays are based around the Christian calendar (for the
most part) and assemblies are based on Christian worship.
Similarly, racism within the school is also a factor. This could be present in a number of ways such as racist
individual teachers, racial stereotypes informing labelling and institutional racism. While individual racist
teachers undoubtedly exist, it is unlikely to have a significant impact on achievement statistics. The
teaching profession does not have a discriminatory ‘canteen culture’ of the sort alleged to exist in the
police force. However, racial stereotypes informing labelling is much more widespread. Gillborn (1990)
found that teachers often had high expectations of Chinese and Indian pupils and Asian girls and that this
could lead to a self-fulfilling prophesy of success. He also cautioned that negative labelling, particularly the
‘myth of the black challenge’ (an assumption that black pupils would challenge the authority of both
teachers and the school) could contribute to a self-fulfilling prophesy of failure. It is also argued by Wright
(1992) among others that schools might be institutionally racist in spite of non-racist staff; that is that
policies and procedures within the schools discriminate against certain ethnicities unintentionally. One
example is school uniform policies that might exclude certain forms of religious dress, such as headscarves.

These factors, especially labelling based on racial and ethnic stereotypes, are likely to have had a significant
impact on achievement.
Pupil subcultures are also a factor influencing differential achievement by ethnicity. Just as Paul Willis
found that working class white boys were likely to form anti-school subcultures, the same can be seen with
groups of black or Asian ‘lads’. Similarly, some ethnic groups might form pro-school or pro-education
subcultures. Therefore, the norms and values of small groups of pupils, and their relationship with school
and education, can have a significant impact on achievement.
KEY STUDY: HEIDI SAFIA MIRZA “YOUNG, FEMALE AND BLACK” 1992
Mirza conducted a wide-ranging study, using multiple research methods about the experiences of pupils
in schools in London. While there were a range of pupils in her original sample, and she conducted
questionnaires, observations and interviews with many pupils, her final detailed case study was with
three black girls.
Mirza wrote about a “myth of underachievement” about black women. The black girls in her sample got
better results than the white pupils and the black boys. While other theories have suggested teacher
racism and labelling undermines the self-esteem of black girls, there was no evidence of this in her
study. While there was some evidence of teacher racism and labelling, the girls had particularly high self-
esteem. (For example nearly half the black girls who responded to her questionnaire named themselves
as the person they most admired!) The girls were conscious of racism and low expectations from some
teachers, but they responded to prove them wrong (in this sense more of a self-refuting prophecy).
Mirza found that black girls were sometimes anti-school but were generally pro-education and wanted
to get good qualifications and get on in life. In so far as they formed a subculture within the school, it
was one which helped them achieve well, sometimes in the face of unhelpful teacher interactions.
These conclusions are similar to and support those of Mac An Ghaill (1988) who found minority-ethnic
subcultures that were against school as an institution (partly as a result of the experience of racism) but
were not against education itself.

• While an ethnocentric curriculum and school calendar could explain some marginalisation of pupils
who observe non-Christian religions and potential difficulties with some subjects, it doesn’t really
explain the statistical differences that we see: white British and European pupils are not those that
are most successful. There is no particular reason why Indian and Chinese pupils, or black or Asian
girls, would be less effected by an ethnocentric or Eurocentric curriculum than pupils from other
backgrounds.
• Theories relating to subcultures struggle to explain why certain social groups will or will not form an
anti or pro school subculture. So while the existence of subcultures is undoubtedly an issue, other
factors must be at play if some ethnic groups are more likely to form and join them than others.

§ The three differential achievement sections all relate to stratification. But it is important to
remember that social class appears to be the most important. While there are clear and persistent
patterns relating to ethnicity, rather like with gender it is not a straightforward case of the more
powerful social groups achieving higher results. And those differences are not as acute as those

relating to social class in any case. What makes this section of the specification interesting is that
different identities and kinds of social stratification interact and intersect and it is impossible to
entirely consider one without the others.
1. Outline two ways in which factors inside school might affect ethnic differences in educational
EXAM HINT: As usual, be careful to finish the points. Identifying an internal factor is not sufficient, you
need to explain (briefly) why it might affect ethnic differences in educational achievement. In other
words, an answer like “teacher racism and anti-school subcultures” would get 2 marks not 4, because
the points are unfinished.
2. Outline three ways in which factors outside school might affect ethnic differences in educational
3.
ITEM A:
Statistics about ethnicity and educational achievement are not a simple case of children from the
majority white population performing better than those from minority ethnic groups, but actually
different minority ethnic groups perform very differently. While some groups, like children from Chinese
or Indian backgrounds often achieve very well (and, on average, much better than children from white
British backgrounds) others, such as those from Pakistani and African-Caribbean backgrounds
underachieve.
Applying material from Item A, analyse two reasons why some minority ethnic groups achieve higher
results in education than others. (10 marks)
EXAM HINT: The “hooks” here are the ethnic groups. There are a few possible hooks to go with, as it
might be the student could develop a specific point about Chinese pupils or Indian pupils and why they
“over-achieve” and similarly something relating to either Pakistani or African-Caribbean pupils and why
they may “underachieve”. Remember, while the hook might sometimes be effectively a brief answer
that only requires explanation and development, often it will signpost towards answers rather than
provide them. This is a good example of that.
4.
ITEM B:
There are significant differences between the educational attainment of pupils from different ethnic
backgrounds. Children from Chinese or Indian backgrounds tend to achieve very well, while black
children tend to perform poorly. The patterns are not straightforward, with different ethnicities

performing more or less well at different points in their education. Sociologists disagree about why this
is the case.
Many sociologists suggest that it is pupils’ home life and family background that determine whether
they are successful or not, while others disagree and suggest that factors within school have the biggest
impact.
Applying material from Item B and your knowledge, evaluate the view that differential educational
achievement by ethnicity is predominantly due to pupils’ home backgrounds. (30 marks)
EXAM HINT: Remember that your answer will include in-school and out-of-school factors. You must keep
the focus on the question though, so when explaining in-school factors you need to link those paragraphs
back to the question by explaining that they show that the differential achievement by ethnicity is NOT
necessarily predominantly due to pupils’ home backgrounds. Always remember that “in-school” and
“out-of-school” factors are rarely so well-defined. Most factors involve elements of both.

RELATIONSHIPS AND PROCESSES WITHIN SCHOOLS

Specification: relationships and processes within schools, with particular reference to
teacher/pupil relationships, pupil identities and subcultures, the hidden curriculum, and
the organisation of teaching and learning

• Explain, analyse and evaluate labelling theory
• Explain, analyse and evaluate sociological explanations of pupil identities
• Explain, analyse and evaluate sociological explanations of subcultures in schools
• Explain, analyse and evaluate the concept of the hidden curriculum
• Explain, analyse and evaluate the impact of setting, streaming and banding.
Labelling Theory
Labelling theory was developed by Howard Becker and is most associated with the sociology of deviance.
It is applied to education in the context of teachers applying labels to their pupils in relation to their ability,
potential or behaviour. These labels can be positive or negative and can result in a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Labelling is seen as an inside-school factor that could explain differential achievement in schools by class,
ethnicity or gender. Because labelling theory is an interactionist theory, there is no suggestion that a self-
fulfilling prophecy is inevitable: people could also choose to reject the label. This is sometimes described as
a self-refuting prophecy. So if for example a pupil was labelled as a failure, the pupil may internalise that
label and go on to fail. However, it is also possible the pupil may become more determined to prove the
teacher wrong and succeed.
KEY STUDY: ROSENTHAL AND JACOBSON “PYGMALION IN THE CLASSROOM” (1965)

One of the most famous studies of the impact of labelling in education was this field experiment by
Rosenthal and Jacobson. The study took place in elementary schools (primary schools) in the USA.
The pupils were given an IQ test at the beginning and end of the process. Teachers were given the
results showing pupils who were identified as “spurters”. Actually the results were completely random.
Along with those pupils labelled as having great academic potential, there was a “control” group of
pupils who had not been so labelled, whose progress could be compared with those who had. At the
end of the process the pupils who had been (randomly) identified as “spurters” had developed much
more than those who had not.
The experiment has been repeated many times with similar results, demonstrating a degree of reliability.
From a research methods perspective, there are potential ethical issues with experimenting on children
and interfering with their education in this way.
Their findings supported the idea of a self-fulfilling prophecy whereby if teachers labelled pupils as high-
flyers or unusually gifted, their attainment came to reflect that label (and, theoretically, the opposite
would also be true, with negative labels).
Just as teachers might label some pupils as troublemakers or lacking in ability, teachers are also likely to
have an image in their minds of the ideal pupil: hard-working, conscientious and studious, helpful and
articulate. Stereotypes about some social groups might lead to the stereotypical ideal student being
middle class and white (and also quite possibly female). This can produce the halo effect. This term refers
to one possible impact of a positive label being applied to pupils by teachers. If a pupil has been labelled
positively (as an ideal pupil perhaps) then their behaviour will be interpreted differently than the same
behaviour might be for a different pupil. As such they are less likely to be disciplined. In other words,

teachers see the “halo” and so even when they are misbehaving or underperforming it is interpreted
differently. Of course, again, it is also possible that teachers will be more strict with such pupils as a result
of having higher expectations.
Gilborn and Youdell argue that schools perform a triage (like nurses at A and E) categorising pupils into
those who will achieve anyway (and therefore don't require too much input), hopeless cases (who would
be a waste of effort) and borderline cases who require attention and input to get their 5 Cs at GCSE. They
linked this with the pressure on schools to maintain their position on league tables and the published A*-C
rate. Therefore, this could be seen as a connection between education policy (e.g. marketisation policies
like league tables) and processes within schools, such as labelling. It is a very direct way in which labelling
might impact pupils’ experience of education and outcomes from education.
Evaluating labelling theory

• It is very hard to prove the extent to which teachers label, how much pupils are aware of such
labelling and its impact. This is especially the case as most sociologists interested in the theory
argue that labelling could have many possible (and sometimes contradictory) effects.
• Interactionist sociologists (who are the ones most interested in labelling) do not look at structural
reasons for why some pupils are labelled and others are not. However, it is clear from various
studies, that working-class pupils and pupils from certain minority-ethnic groups are much more
likely to have a negative label applied to them than, say, a white middle-class girl.
• Mirza argued that labelling did not have a negative effect on the black girls she studied. In fact, if
anything it made them more determined to succeed (although this could be seen as a self-refuting
prophecy and interactionists would acknowledge this was a possible outcome from labelling.) What
is interesting of course, and labelling theory does not help us with this, is why some pupils would
internalise a label and others seek to reject it and whether certain social groups would be more
likely to react one way or another and why.
Pupil subcultures
KEY STUDY: PAUL WILLIS “LEARNING TO LABOUR” (1977)

Paul Willis conduced a famous case study, where he analysed a group of working-class schoolboys (“the
Lads”) with a particular focus on their attitude to study and school. Willis came to the topic from a
Marxist perspective and was interested in why the children of working-class parents tended to go on to
do working-class jobs and to consider alternative explanations for why the education system tended to
reproduce class inequalities from those offered by fellow Marxists such as Bowles and Gintis.
Willis’ “Lads” subverted the values of the school: for them academic success was frowned upon while
"mucking about" was rewarded. They identified themselves in opposition to the ear'oles (those who
conformed to the school's expectations who might be considered a pro-school subculture.)
“The lads” did not see school as really being for them, it was for the middle-class kids. They just had to
get through it as best they could until they could leave and get a job. They got through it by “having a
laff”, truancy, pushing all boundaries and generally being the opposite of the school’s image of an ideal
pupil.

As well as anti-school subcultures, like "the Lads" in Willis' study, other groups of students can form pro-
school subcultures. These pupils are likely to strongly buy into the ethos and identity of the school, be
supportive of its rules and principles and to place high value on compliant behaviour, hard work and
academic success.
You can also find subcultures like those identified by Mirza and Mac an Ghaill, who might well be anti-
school (in terms of the institution) but are pro-education and wish to succeed educationally.
Evaluating studies of pupil subcultures

• Post-modernists, like Bauman and Maffesoli, would tend to see subcultures today more in terms of
cultural identity rather than the product of labels or has having clear links to differential
achievement or attitudes to school. Subcultures in school are more likely to be defined by music
and fashion preferences than by social class or pro- or anti-school.
• For Willis, studying subcultures was not just about the processes and interactions at school but how
these intersect with life outside school and the structures of society. For Willis, the important point
was that these were working-class boys who would not get good qualifications and would therefore
go on to do jobs not dissimilar to those their fathers did. It was all about how the education system
reproduced itself. Most interactionist sociologists would think that the subculture formation and
the relationship between the pupils and the teachers was an interesting enough phenomenon in its
own right, without applying it to the structural divisions in society.
Pupil identities
Post-modernists in particular are interested in pupil’s identities. There is some overlap between issues of
identity and labelling and subculture (as a pupil’s identity might be partly shaped by a label placed on them
by teachers or peers, or pupils may identify themselves largely by the subculture they are part of). Identity
relates both to how people see themselves and how others see them.
However, pupil identities are very complex and are likely to be shaped by influences both inside and
outside school. Pupils begin schools with identities that they are born into or emerge from their family, in
terms of ethnicity and gender and possibly social class. At school, pupils’ identities are shaped by their
interactions with other pupils and with teachers. Things like teacher labels and attitudes to school (and
attendant subcultures) are part of that mix. However, postmodernists argue that identity is increasingly a
matter of choice. Maffesoli (1997) wrote about “the time of the tribes” and how people opt into “tribes”
(or subcultures) based on consumption patterns (like popular music or fashion) rather than on attitudes to
school. In contemporary schools it is often the case that pupils group together around music and fashion
(like “goths”, “emos”, etc.) or whether they play sport or enjoy art, etc. While there might be some
correlation between these groups and other identities, such as class or gender, postmodern identities may
be more about who we choose to be than how others choose to paint us, and they are also fluid.
The hidden curriculum

The concept of the hidden curriculum has already been raised on a few occasions in this topic, as it comes
into many of the theories about the role of education. It is, however, an example of the processes and
relationships that occur within school itself.
As well as the formal curriculum - the subject knowledge taught in classes and assessed in examinations –
schools teach their pupils a whole range of other things in a more subtle or covert way. If you are a
functionalist, these are the norms and values necessary for society to function properly and for the
individual to function in that society. Conflict theorists like Marxists and feminists would see this subtle

teaching of norms and values as teaching people to accept the principles of capitalism or patriarchy. This
learning includes things like understanding manners and behaviour, respecting authority and
understanding hierarchy.
Setting, streaming and banding

Setting is where individuals are placed into groups (sets) based on their ability. It differs from streaming in
that someone might be in top set for English and bottom set for Maths, rather than being in an ability band
across the board.
Streaming refers to splitting pupils into groups based on their ability, which they stay in across all their
subjects.
The term banding is also used to describe this process, where pupils of similar academic ability are taught
together. Pupils might be placed in the top, middle or lower band based on their prior attainment. Critics
suggest that this shows that selection by academic ability still exists in comprehensive schools (see the next
section on educational policies).
Setting, streaming and banding are also institutional labels (as, arguably, are predicted grades and target
grades). The same points raised about other forms of labelling apply here. People may be placed in the
bottom set or lower band and therefore assume that they are not very intelligent and produce work
accordingly. At the same time, the self-image created by placing someone in a high set may give the
student the confidence to perform well. Of course, a student placed in a bottom set may work very hard to
prove they have been wrongly placed. A student placed in a top set who cannot keep up with the work
may really struggle (and part of the reason for this might be a label of being a failure within that set,
whereas they might get a more positive label finding things more comfortable in a lower set).
Sometimes schools try and disguise that banding is occurring by giving the bands or streams neutral names
rather than 1, 2, 3 or A, B, C. Setting is more flexible than streaming as it is easier for people to move up or
down sets in, say, English than to move streams across the board. Streaming is, arguably, rather like the
selective tripartite system (which you are about to read about in the next section!) but under one roof.
Links to core themes

• This topic area closely links with the core themes of culture and identity. Schools have their own
culture and within that culture there is the potential for several subcultures. Pupils have their own
identities that are shaped by processes in schools and relationships with teachers and peers.
• As this topic area is applied, it is also highly relevant to the core theme of stratification as this topic
essentially adds the detail to the “in-school factors” referred to throughout the previous three
sections.

1. Outline two ways in which teacher labelling might effect a school pupil. (4 marks)
2. Outline three features of an anti-school subculture (6 marks)
EXAM HINT: This is a possible but potentially quite tricky question. Try not to overthink it. Remember for
6 marks they are looking for three brief points. So for example, often made up of working-class pupils,
they invert the values of the school, they don’t value educational achievement.

3.
Item A
Comprehensive schools were introduced to replace the selective system that had existed and the way in
which a majority of pupils were labeled as failures by the test that was taken to decide which school you
went to at 11.
Setting and streaming takes place in modern comprehensive schools, where children are taught in
groups of similar ability, rather than all being taught together.
Applying material from Item A, analyse two criticisms of setting and streaming in school. (10 marks)
EXAM HINT: Identifying the hooks in these questions can be quite difficult and this one has deliberately
been left quite oblique. At first glance, nothing is really said about criticisms of setting and streaming, it
is merely described after an apparently unrelated sentence about educational policy. However, the two
hooks are in that first sentence: “replace the selective system” and “labeled as failures”. This should
then lead to two good paragraphs on 1) the way in which setting (and streaming rather more
pertinently)
4.
ITEM B:
Interactionists are particularly interested in the processes that occur within schools – the interactions
between teachers and pupils and within groups of pupils – rather than the big structural concerns of
Marxists, functionalists and feminists.
One example of an interactionist study in education was Gillborn and Youdell (2000) who found that
black pupils believed that teachers tended to have low expectations of them and that this appeared to
be due to a negative label, connected to ethnic stereotypes.
Applying material from Item B and your knowledge, evaluate the usefulness of interactionist ideas to our
understanding of education in the UK today. (30 marks)

EDUCATIONAL POLICIES
Specification: the significance of educational policies, including policies of selection,
marketisation and privatisation, and policies to achieve greater equality of opportunity or
outcome, for an understanding of the structure, role, impact and experience of and access
to education; the impact of globalisation on educational policy.

Outline, analyse and evaluate the impact of the following policies:
• The 1944 Education Act (the Butler Act)
• Comprehensivisation
• New vocationalism
• The 1988 Education Reform Act
• New Labour policies
• Further marketization and privatisation policies
Outline, analyse and evaluate the impact of globalisation on educational policy.
Educational policies are initiatives brought in by governments (or proposals by other political parties) that
have a significant impact on schools or other aspects of the education system. Significant policies include
the 1944 Education Act, the implementation of comprehensive schools, the marketization policies of the
1988 Education Reform Act and some subsequent policies as well as recent initiatives like Free Schools.
Policies often relate to attempting to improve standards or reduce inequality.
1944 Education Act

"Rab" Butler's 1944 Education Act made secondary education universal and free for the first time. Because
of this aspect of the act, it is sometimes considered alongside the forming of the NHS and national
insurance as being part of the founding of the post-war Welfare State. However, it is important to
remember that the act was brought in before the end of the war, and not by Attlee’s reforming Labour
government, but by the war-time coalition government, and by a Conservative Education Secretary.
The thinking behind the act applied some of the educational theories of the time to a new system in which
all pupils would take a test at the age of eleven which would decide which school they should go to. The
act established three types of schools (known as the tripartite system): grammar schools, secondary
modern schools and technical schools. In fact, very few technical schools were ever built so the system
was a two-tier one in most parts of the country.
The act, therefore introduced a system of academic selection. The test was known as the 11+ and this
would determine which school children should attend. Traditionally the test would include English and
Maths as well as verbal and non-verbal reasoning. Where 11+ exams still occur today, they tend just to
include verbal and non-verbal reasoning in order to try and ensure a more level playing field for pupils
coming from a wide range of different primary schools. It aimed to test intelligence and the 11+ remains
in areas that still have selective grammar schools today.
The tripartite system created three types of state-funded secondary school. Based on the results of the 11+
test, pupils deemed academic would attend grammar schools, those considered to have a “technical
intelligence” would attend technical schools and those considered to have “practical intelligence” (in
reality, everyone else) would attend secondary modern schools. Because so few technical schools were
built, it was generally viewed by parents and pupils as a test that was passed or failed: those who passed

went to the grammar schools and those who failed went to the secondary moderns. Those who designed
the act presented that schools as “equal but different” and argued that academic intelligence was not
superior to other types of intelligence just different, but in reality, of course, the academic education was
more likely to lead to further study and qualifications, and therefore higher-paid positions in the future.
Grammar schools Pupils who performed strongly in their 11+ examination and were therefore
considered to be academic attended state grammar schools. Since
comprehensivisation, grammar schools are now uncommon but still exist in several
local education authorities. However, the Conservative Party's current policy,
pushed forward by Theresa May, is to introduce a new generation of grammar
schools which they consider will support social mobility.
Certainly that was always one of the arguments made in their favour. State
grammar schools could provide a path, previously only available to a minority who
were lucky to get scholarships to various independent schools, for working-class
pupils to access excellent secondary education, gain high qualifications and with
that access to university and professional occupations.
Technical schools Technical schools were intended to focus on ‘technical’ subjects such as mechanics
and engineering, and prepare students to work in related trades. However, while
grammar schools and secondary moderns were rolled out nationwide, there were
significantly fewer technical schools. At their peak, less than 3% of pupils attended
one.
Local education authorities tended to find that they could use existing schools to
provide a two-tier system, but that technical schools required building new stock,
with specialist equipment and recruiting new specialist staff. Where they were built
they could seem like a consolation prize for those just missing out an a space in the
grammar school, rather than “equal but different”.
Secondary Secondary modern schools were those which pupils deemed to have a practical
modern schools intelligence attended. However, very few technical schools were ever built so
therefore all pupils, other than the approximately 20% selected for the grammars,
attended these schools.
These schools did not have sixth forms and it was generally assumed that pupils
would leave these schools to go to full-time employment, initially at 15 and later at
16.
Evaluating the impact of the 1944 Education Act

• The educational psychological theory that underpinned the idea of there being three different types
of intelligence (academic, technical or practical) and that children had one or the other is now
broadly discredited.
• As such, many argued that a test at 11 was unfair for a number of reasons. First, it did not facilitate
the way pupils might develop at different ages or demonstrate different skills and aptitudes at
different times (some pupils were able to try again at 13). Second, it did not account for pupils
having a range of strengths and skills rather than being strictly one thing or another.

• Because there were (for the most part) just the two types of school and it was broadly seen as pass
or fail, the vast majority of pupils were told at age 11 that they were failures. As an experiment in
labelling on a massive scale, it is very interesting. That grammar school pupils performed better in
public examinations is of course to be expected, having been selected on ability, but label of
academic (or not) and the expectation to achieve well (or not) must also play a huge part in that
difference.
• One of the major criticisms of the Tripartite system was the fact that grammar schools were
overwhelmingly middle-class and secondary moderns overwhelmingly working class. Despite
supporters of the system claiming it was meritocracy in action and a vehicle for social mobility, its
overwhelming effect was to reproduce social class inequalities: to propel the children of middle-
class parents into middle-class occupations and the children of working-class parents into working-
class occupations.
• There are a number of possible explanations for the class divide in selective education:
- Out-of-school factors and in-school factors at primarily school had already impacted so
much on pupils that the class divisions in educational achievement were already fully in
place by age 11 and this impacted 11+ results, especially in the Maths and English papers.
- Primary schools in middle-class areas expected significant numbers of their pupils to pass
the 11+ and attend the grammar school and therefore prepared pupils for the test, whereas
primary schools in more working-class areas did not (partly due to labelling).
- The 11+ tests favoured middle-class pupils in a number of ways. 1) English composition
pieces were often along the lines of “You spent the last 4 weeks of the summer holiday
staying in a farm. Write a letter to the farmer’s wife, thanking her for your stay” which is
easier to write if you have had similar experiences. Test questions that were intended only
to test intelligence often also tested certain types of knowledge (or cultural capital) at the
same time. For example, one 11+ test included an anagram question where four anagrams
were presented and the 11-year-old had to pick the odd one out. The person who set the
test imagined it was testing the pupils ability to solve anagrams, but it also tested the pupils
ability to recognise the words:
LNADEH
SHRABM
ZOMRAT
RUNTER
Any ideas? (Answer: RUNTER but do you know why? Would you have known at 11? How?)
- Some working-class parents might not have wanted their child to go to the grammar school
This is not just because of the sorts of things Douglas and Sugarman wrote about (cultural
deprivation) but for quite practical reasons. While all state education was free, pupils would
expect to leave the secondary modern quite early (initially 15) and get a job while parents
might expect to have to support a child in the grammar school for a few more years.
Furthermore, they might worry that there were further additional expenses at the grammar
school (because most parents could afford more extras). Finally, some working-class parents
would be concerned that their child would not fit in at the grammar school because most of
their peers would come from a different background (and perhaps speak in different
accents, etc.) Some working-class pupils might not want to go to the grammar school for
similar reasons.
- Middle-class parents could afford to get private tuition for their children to prepare them
for the 11+ test.

- Middle-class parents whose children failed the 11+ test might take their children out of the
state sector altogether and pay for them to attend an independent school rather than the
secondary modern
• The 11+ was also accused by many of favouring white pupils. In the post-war period there was
significant immigration from the Commonwealth, with people from the West Indies, India, Pakistan
and Bangladesh arriving in the UK and children entering the education system. Because the 11+ was
meant to simply measure intelligence, cultural differences and even language barriers should not
really have played a part, but they certainly did. Again the test itself was written in an ethnocentric
way. The writers of the test (probably) did not deliberately write the test in ways that favoured
white British pupils, but they made various assumptions that had that effect.
• By the 1960s, many educationalists, particularly on the political left, were keen to replace the
tripartite system and the principle of academic selection for something more egalitarian.
Comprehensivisation
Comprehensive schools are local schools which do not select pupils on the basis of academic ability: they
are mixed ability schools. In the 1960s, there were many criticisms of grammar schools and selective
education, arguing that they were socially exclusive and divisive. The Labour government, after 1964,
encouraged the development of these schools and through the 1970s they took the place of grammar
schools and secondary modern schools in most areas of the country.
There was no single piece of legislation, like the 1944 or 1988 education acts which replaced the tripartite
system with comprehensives. Instead it was educational policy over a long period for local authorities to
redevelop their school stock in that way. While the real drive for the policy came from the Labour
government of 1964-1970 and the education secretary Anthony Crosland, the government that actually
closed the most grammar schools was the Conservative one of 1970-74, with education secretary Margaret
Thatcher (somewhat ironically).
Crosland approach the issue from a belief in equality: both equality of opportunity and more equality of
outcome. He wrote about wanting to give every child “a grammar school education”. Increasingly children
did not sit a test at 11 and instead went from primary school to the local comprehensive school where
children of all ability ranges were accommodated. Many of these schools had sixth forms (or had close links
with a local sixth form college) and therefore opened up the possibility of studying beyond 16 to more
pupils.
Although there have been many reforms to the UK education system since the 1960s, particularly in terms
of qualifications and who runs schools, most pupils today still attend comprehensive schools largely of the
sort envisaged in the 1960s: where all pupils, regardless of ability, attend the same school. A few education
authorities never implemented the changes and have therefore kept the 11+ and the grammar schools
since 1944 (although the secondary moderns generally rebranded as comprehensives). To confuse matters
a little further, quite a lot of former grammar schools kept their names when they became comprehensives
and so are still called “the grammar school” despite not being selective. As such, schools are not always
clearly labelled.
Evaluating the impact of comprehensivisation

• The comprehensive principle has had longevity and is still the norm in most education authorities in
the UK.

• It never quite did what was claimed of it. Arguably it simply moved selection into one school. Most
comprehensive schools use some system of banding, setting or streaming and, as such, there is still
selection in the school and while pupils of all ability are taught under the same roof, they are rarely
taught in the same classroom. The social divisions that existed between schools can still be
observed between sets.
• However, most comprehensive schools certainly have a more flexible approach to “selection” than
the old tripartite system, so late development is better catered for, as is having strengths in
different areas. It is not unusual for someone to be in a high set for Maths and lower one for English
(or vice versa).
• Instead of social divisions between schools being based on school selection, they increasingly came
to be about location. Comprehensive schools in largely middle-class areas had very different
demographics from those in inner-city areas or on large council estates. This in turn often translates
into largely-middle-class comprehensives with strong academic results and less successful working-
class ones (for reasons discussed in the early section about social class and differential
achievement).
• Critics of comprehensive schools argue that their “one size fits all” approach ignores the fact that
children are all different. Alistair Campbell (Tony Blair’s press officer) talked of “the bog standard
comprehensive” when explaining the government’s decision to encourage more “specialist”
schools (e.g. performing arts schools, technology schools, etc.)
• A major criticism came from some on the New Right, that comprehensive schools prevent
meritocracy. The journalist Andrew Neil argued that in the post-war period, people from relatively
less well-off backgrounds (lower middle-class, perhaps) could reach the very top of society. He
pointed to people like prime ministers Harold Wilson and Margaret Thatcher as products of
grammar schools) whereas he argued that in the 2000s it was back to a situation where only the
very rich reached the top: those who attended top private schools like Eton (e.g. David Cameron or
Boris Johnson). His argument was that the comprehensive system did not provide the meritocratic
path that grammar schools did.
• However, others have questioned Neil’s conclusions. While there is circumstantial support for his
point based on the very small sample of people who have become UK prime minister (!) there is
much more evidence of people from a much wider range of social backgrounds getting to
university, acquiring professional qualifications and getting into higher-earning professions as a
result of comprehensivisation. This is true of minority-ethnic and female students as well as
working-class ones.
• A larger criticism of comprehensivisation, as it was conceived in the 1960s, was about whether it
produced the workforce that the UK economy needed. Crosland had written about every child
getting “a grammar school education” but was that what every child (and the economy) needed?
Forcing rooms full of bored teenagers to try and appreciate Shakespeare was not preparing them
for lives at work. (Some Marxists would disagree, as learning to cope with being bored is arguably
an important skill for the drudgery of work under capitalism). The schools were facilitating some
pupils to go on a do further study (as the tripartite system had done for the grammar school
children) while the others were leaving with a little knowledge of Shakespeare, patchy arithmetic
and abstract science. As they entered the workplace only a very little of this knowledge was very
useful.

New vocationalism
In 1976, the Labour Prime Minister, James Callaghan, made a famous speech at Ruskin College in Oxford, in
which he argued that the education system was not producing pupils with the right skills that were needed
for the modern economy. Comprehensivisation had tended to result in all pupils attempting academic
qualifications, but many jobs required practical and technical skills, rather than knowledge of Shakespeare
or history. The speech inspired new educational developments that resulted in a wave of new vocational
qualifications being introduced in the 1980s, such as GNVQs and BTECs.
Vocational education is an alternative to academic education and focuses on preparing pupils for work in a
particular industry or field of employment. The 1980s saw the growth of vocational qualifications such as
GNVQs and BTECs in subject areas such as bricklaying, hairdressing, childcare or travel and tourism.
Stereotypically this form of education is seen as being of lesser value compared with academic
qualifications. Governments regularly try to reboot vocational education and try to achieve parity of
esteem between vocational and academic qualifications
Traditionally working-class pupils are more likely to be enrolled on these courses than middle-class pupils.
In 2016 the Conservative Government pushed for vocational education to be seen as an alternative to
university-based education by offering apprenticeships to job sectors which may not be accessible without
a degree. For example, there are now apprenticeships in engineering, accountancy and software
engineering. Level 3 BTECs recently had examined units added to them (rather than being all coursework)
to increase the level of challenge. Now the government is proposing T Levels to replace BTECs.
Probably the biggest recent change in vocational education has been the growth of modern
apprenticeships where pupils spend most of the week in the workplace and perhaps two days in school or
college doing theoretical work or maths and English qualifications. This has particularly grown since
compulsory education age was lifted to 18.
Evaluating the impact of new vocationalism

• One significant criticism of modern vocational education is the idea that it essential brought back a
two-tier system that comprehensivisation had sought to eradicate. Overwhelmingly, vocational
qualifications were taken by working-class pupils and they clearly existed to facilitate those pupils
getting working-class jobs. Often lower-ability, often working-class pupils were then removed from
some academic classes, leaving something more akin to a grammar school. This has especially been
the case where pupils receive their vocational training in a different establishment (such as a local
college).
• The idea that this was reintroducing grammars and secondary moderns by the backdoor is further
supported by the fear that – at various times – the vocational qualifications were not valued very
highly. One of the reasons for the regular reboots of vocational qualifications is the idea that
employers (and indeed parents and students) did not value them in the same way as academic
qualifications like GCSEs and A Levels.
• On the other hand, sometimes vocational qualifications have been accused of being valued too
highly. Until quite recently, some Level 2 BTECs were said to be the equivalent to several GCSEs,
leading to rather misleading school and pupil performance data, for instance.
1988 Education Reform Act

The Conservative government of Margaret Thatcher was strongly influenced by New Right ideas and these
were put into practice in the far-reaching Education Reform Act of 1988. The act included a number of

high-profile initiatives such as: the National Curriculum (all pupils learning the same subject content at the
same time); SATs tests; GCSEs; league tables; more parental choice; budgeting powers for head teachers;
funding per pupil. Together these established a market mechanism in the education system where (in
theory at least) parents had information about schools (league tables and inspection reports) could choose
where to send their children and the schools that attracted parents consequently attracted funding. As
such, there was an incentive to get the best exam results and for schools to compete against each other.
This approach is often described as marketization
Key provisions of the act include:
NATIONAL The Education Reform Act of 1988 introduced a national curriculum into UK
CURRICULUM schools for the first time. This meant that pupils in all state schools were taught
the same topics at the same time in the same subjects. Although there is still a
national curriculum it is more flexible than that originally introduced in 1988 and
is not compulsory in free schools or academies which now make up the majority
of secondary schools and a significant proportion of primary schools in the UK. It
never applied to private schools.
Two reasons for introducing this curriculum are:

• It made it easier to compare schools using stanadardised tests
• It took control away from local education authorities (some of which, the
government thought were politically extreme: “loony left”).
Another practical rather than New Right reason for the reform was to make it
easier for pupils to move between schools.
SATs SATs are Standard Attainment Tests and were introduced by the Education
Reform Act of 1988 along with the national curriculum. The idea was that as all
students were learning the same core curriculum content they could be tested at
the same time with a national test and fair comparisons could be made between
schools at 7, 11, 14 and then at GCSE across the country (GCSEs were brought in
to replace the O Level). The tests then, according to their supporters, provide
essential information for parents when they are published in school league
tables.
LEAGUE TABLES Once comparable performance data was available, from the national curriculum
and SATs, it was possible to publish a list of schools in order of performance, so
that parents could make an informed choice about which school they wanted
their child to go to. Prior to the 1988 Education Reform Act, school places were
based entirely on catchment area (where the pupils lived). While this remains
one of the most important factors, the act gave parents some choice over
primary and secondary schools. Parents were able to look at the league tables
and see which schools performed best.
This was intended to create a parentocracy. This is a term used to refer to the
idea that the parents are in charge of the education system. It refers particularly
to the marketisation policies of 1988 and subsequently which aimed to give
parents significantly more choice over their children's education.
FORMULA FUNDING To complete the “market” process, the schools were funded on the basis of how
many pupils they attracted. This gave the school a huge incentive to perform
well and be placed highly on the league tables in order to attract parents who
were essentially the customer. This led to competition between schools (which

the New Right would consider a positive development) in order to attract

parents which theoretically was a driver of standards.
LOCAL An additional element to this was that headteachers (along with governors) had
MANAGEMENT OF to start looking after the school budget, rather than that being a responsibility of
SCHOOLS the local authority. Again this had a dual function: it further cemented
marketization (as it was the head’s responsibility to ensure that the school was
run efficiently) and it took more power away from local authorities which the
government distrusted.
The act also introduced the option for schools to opt out of local education authority control. These grant-
maintained schools could be seen as the fore-runners to the academies introduced over a decade later.
Another important measure that stemmed from the 1988 Education Reform Act was OFSTED. OFSTED
stands for the Office for Standards in Education and was established in 1992 (under John Major's
government) but developed from the logic of the 1988 act in that (among other functions) it gave more
information to parents to help them make choices in the parentocracy of an increasingly marketised
education system. The regulatory body replaced local inspectors with a standardised national body. They
visit schools (and colleges and nurseries) regularly and produce reports on whether they are meeting
nationally-agreed standards for the quality of education provision. When parents are choosing which
primary or secondary school they wish their child to attend, they may read OFSTED reports to get more
information.
Evaluating the impact of the 1988 Education Reform Act

• Many of the principles of the 1988 act have remained in place since that date, despite several
changes of government, suggesting that those measures were effective.
• The national curriculum was criticised by many teachers for being too restrictive and proscriptive.
Over time this has changed significantly and there is more flexibility in it. This does make it harder
to standardize, although English and maths teaching remains quite proscriptive.
• There have been many criticisms of SATs and league tables. The fear with SATs was that pupils
(especially young pupils) were being put under too much pressure with such regular testing. Also
there was a concern that pupils were then simply being taught to the tests, and a lot of broader
education was being missed. As for league tables, they put a lot of pressure on schools to get the
best SATs results, potentially at the expense of other aspects of education. In more recent times,
league tables are also produced relating to “value added” (how well pupils have progressed) which
might give some parents more useful information. High places on the original league tables might
merely have shown that the school happened to have a lot of high-achieving pupils in it in the first
place. For example, selective grammar schools always appear high on the league tables, but it
would be surprising if they did not! The value-added league tables are often very different from
those measuring outcomes regardless of starting position.
• Some question how much choice parents really have, or whether it is more an illusion of choice.
Most parents have a fairly limited list of schools that they could reasonably get their children to in
the morning, some of these will have other entry restrictions (e.g. academic selection or faith-based
criteria) and the most popular schools will be very over-subscribed. Schools only have a limited
number of places, although if schools were consistently over-subscribed they might expand.
• It is also clear that the system favours parents with more money. First, parents often move house
specifically to be able to get the school of their choice (and housing near high-performing schools is

more expensive), some even change their children’s address (perhaps to a grandparents) or have
them baptised and start attending a particular church. In other words, there are various ways to
“play the system” that parents need to both be aware of and have the time and intention to do in
order to be able to take advantage of the system. For example, parents will often place their first
choice primary school first and follow it up with highly over-subscribed schools that are out of area
for their other choices in the knowledge that local authorities like to be able to publicise that all
parents got one of their top three choices. Again, this playing of the system can be related to
cultural capital, and parental attitudes to education. Of course, some parents may be very proactive
about education but be concerned that such approaches are unethical.
• As well as concerns as to whether there is a genuine functioning market, there are also concerns
about the impact such a market would have it were to function. Fully-subscribed schools that are
already performing well get extra funding and those schools that, for one reason or another, are
lower in the league tables get less funding. From the perspective of the comprehensive principle of
trying to ensure that every child got the best possible education, this would seem irrational: schools
that needed to improve would get fewer resources to enable them to do so. The market principle
ignores the point that many children will still go to the undersubscribed schools. These will
increasingly be pupils from less privileged backgrounds who might need more support not less. This
issue has been addressed, in part at least, by the more recent policy of pupil premium.
• Overall, some criticise these reforms as having given an illusion of control to parents, to have put a
lot of pressure on pupils, teachers and education managers, and to turn schools’ focus from
educational matters to being efficient and attractive to potential parents.
New Labour education reforms

When the Labour Party came into power in 1997, there were a number of changes to education policy, but
much of the education agenda could be seen as a continuation of the marketization agenda. One example
is the introduction of academies. Academies are state-funded schools that are funded directly by the
government rather than by the local education authority. They were originally introduced under Tony
Blair's Labour government (although were similar to grant maintained schools introduced by Margaret
Thatcher) but were expanded very significantly by the Conservative Michael Gove when he was education
secretary. The schools can set their own admissions policies and do not have to follow the National
Curriculum. Most English secondary schools are now academies, and there are a significant number of
primary academies too. They are run by Academy Trusts and some are parts of large chains. When they
were originally introduced under the Blair government it was usually a status imposed on failing schools to
enable them to improve (it tended to come with a significant cash injection). Today, the government is
trying to make all schools academies.
The Labour government was also the first to introduce tuition fees for university. However, while later
increases in tuition fees arguably introduced some manner of market into higher education, because the
original fees were £1000 for every course at every institution, it is not best understood as part of the
marketization agenda and instead was just a way of raising more revenue to pay for the sector.
Other educational policies at this time were intended to improve equality of opportunity (and to some
extent outcome).
It has been noted already that there is an achievement gap between middle-class and working-class pupils
and that this gap is even evident before formal school begins. As such, out-of-school factors must be at
play, at least to some extent Some policy-makers have looked at ways in which education policy can
compensate for material or cultural deprivation. A good example is the development of SureStart centres

by the Labour government after 1997 and also, more recently, the implementation of the pupil premium, a
Liberal Democrat policy, by the coalition government between 2010 and 2015.
Sure Start centres were established by Tony Blair’s New Labour government as a form of compensatory
education. Recognising the achievement gap, particularly by social class, even in early years education led
to the establishment of centres that could provide parenting and health advice from pregnancy through to
pre-school, as well as providing childcare and early years education. These centres still operate although a
number were closed during “austerity” cuts following the 2007 financial crisis. They have generally been
deemed to have been a success.
The Educational Maintenance Allowance (EMA) was introduced where school and college students aged
16-19 could be paid up to £30 a week for attending. The plan was again to compensate for material
deprivation, allowing students to pay for books or travel and therefore have equal access to further
education to their better-off peers.
Education Action Zones were introduced in 1998. They followed on from a 1960s initiative, Education
Priority Areas and brought together a group of schools with parents, community groups and businesses
and aimed to attract sponsorship and investment from the private sector. As such they are sometimes
listed, along with academies, as being policies that continued the marketization agenda of the 1980s
although supporters point out that the action was targeted at areas with high levels of deprivation. The
policy was not deemed a great success, attracting limited sponsorship and achieving disappointing
improvements, and was not continued beyond its initial 5-year term. they are quite a neat example of how
New Labour policies often combined New Right marketization ideas with an egalitarian agenda.
Evaluating the impact of New Labour education reforms

• Some of the policies in this period did not appear entirely consistent. The government first got rid
of “grant maintained schools” but then essentially reintroduced them when they introduced
academies; they set a target of 50% of school leavers attending university but then introduced
tuition fees and replaced student grants with loans, etc. The latter point is also an example of
where the government seemed to continue the work of previous governments (the previous
conservative government had been phasing out student grants and replacing them with loans) or
beginning programmes that would be extended greatly by future governments, such as the
academy programme or indeed the introduction of university tuition fees (which would eventually
be increased to over £9000 by the Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition).
• The policy of Education Action Zones was not deemed a great success, attracting limited
sponsorship and achieving disappointing improvements, and was not continued beyond its initial 5-
year term.
• The EMA was scrapped by the Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition in 2010. Although this was
largely justified in terms of cutting public spending, there were criticisms of the policy. It was felt
that students did not necessarily spend the money appropriately and that it assumed pupils with
better-off parents necessarily received financial support from them (which, over 16, was not
necessarily the case). The policy was replaced with a pot of money held by schools and colleges that
they could use to alleviate financial hardship at their discretion.
Marketisation and privatization

Privatisation is a process where institutions or other bodies are transferred from being owned by the state
(or government) to being owned by private companies. Examples of privatisation in the education system

include academies and Free Schools which are run and owned by private companies or corporations that
have significant control over them, even though they continue to be funded by the tax payer through the
government. There has also been an increase in the use of private providers of further and higher
education.
Ball and Youdell, in 2007, identified endogenous and exogenous privatisation in the UK education system.
Endogenous privatisation means the schools are privatised from within. Rather than the greater role of
private companies (exogenous privatisation) the impact of marketisation policies has led to schools
operating increasingly in the manner of private companies. They advertise against their competitors; there
are school takeovers; parents are increasingly like consumers and there is payment by results. This could
be seen as the major impact of marketization policies in the 1980s and 90s.
In contrast to endogenous privatisation there has been direct and actual privatisation with academies and
free schools (and FE colleges) run by private corporations/companies/trusts and boards rather than by the
government. There has also been a growth in private companies providing educational services (such as
tutor2u!) and private companies running examination boards. This trend is supported by the New Right
which sees it as more efficient and innovative and likely to drive up standards. This trend has certainly
been increase under the coalition and Conservative governments since 2010.
The coalition government (2010-2015) and its education secretary Michael Gove was influenced by
educational policies in Sweden where local demand from parents, community groups or companies can
lead to the establishment of "free schools" (government-funded schools that are not controlled by local
government). In the UK these are new academies and have included new faith schools, schools with
different educational philosophies, schools linked to businesses and also some private schools seeking to
offer their pupils free tuition. The Swedish situation is somewhat different as companies are able to make a
profit from the schools in Sweden whereas that is not permitted in the UK.
Evaluating the impact of further marketization and privatization

• The impact of free schools is subject to some debate with many planned schools not having
recruited sufficient pupils to open while others have proved popular and successful. A review of the
policy in Sweden has found that they have failed to raise standards overall and they have increased
social and religious segregation in society. Some groups there wish to reverse the policy.
• Academisation has proved controversial, especially with teachers who have often associated the
move with attacks on their pay, conditions and professional integrity. School managers are often
very positive about the move as it provides access to more funding and provides options, especially
in terms of efficiency savings across academy trusts and chains, which are not available under local
authority control.
• Political concerns about the policy have focused on accountability. This has been brought to the
fore in recent times with academy chains withdrawing from some schools with very little
accountability, causing problems for the schools and the parents. While this is in a small minority of
the schools, it does raise concerns now that most schools have this status.
• While legally companies establishing free schools and academies are not allowed to be profit-
making, critics say that individuals are able to make a lot of money from the schools, including
profit-making companies who various services are contracted out to, and therefore some managers
will make decisions based on profit rather than education.

Globalisation and education policy

Globalisation refers to the idea that in recent decades the world has become more interconnected; the
idea of a "global village". This is said to have happened economically (through trans-national corporations
and global institutions like the World Bank), politically, socially and culturally. Modern technology means
that communication and travel around the world is easier than ever. Education has been impacted by
globalisation as schools and education systems now compete on a global league table rather than just local
or national competition. For example, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
publish a yearly report which details where each country falls within a global league table.
Globalisation has also had a major impact on the UK economy, so the sorts of jobs that the education
system needs to prepare people for has changed and, arguably, the system has to change to meet this.
Furthermore, education policy is increasingly influenced by policies that have proved successful in other
parts of the world.
The UK’s economy has changed in a number of ways, arguably as a result of globalisation. As
manufacturing jobs have been exported to other countries, particularly in the developing world, so the UK
economy has come to depend more on the service sector. Arguably, therefore, the old correspondence
between the school and the factory (as described by Bowles and Gintis) is no longer relevant for most
pupils. Today’s workplaces are likely to be very different. Instead different skills and expectations need to
be delivered through the hidden curriculum.
The UK economy is unable to compete with many of the emerging economies in the world in terms of
manufacturing because of the very cheap labour costs in those countries. Instead, it has been suggested
the UK instead needs to compete in terms of skills. This influenced the Labour policy in the 1990s of trying
to get half of all school leavers to study degrees, for instance. Also this inevitably leads to comparisons
between the UK and comparable economies in terms of educational standards. In 2016, the UK ranked 16th
globally in science standards, 22nd in reading and 27th in maths, out of 70 countries (according to the
OECD). This means the UK is lagging far behind higher-placed countries. Singapore and Hong Kong top the
rankings in all areas. Finland is the highest-placed European country, coming in 4th in science and 5th in
reading (and somewhat further back at 12th in maths.
As such, another impact of globalisation on education policy has been borrowing best practice from the
education systems in other countries that perform much better than the UK. However, it is not always easy
to learn the lessons from this data. The UK borrowed several ideas from the Swedish education system
(such as free schools) but then Sweden’s place in the tables fell rather sharply. The successful systems used
in Singapore and China are very different from that used in successful European systems like Finland and
Estonia, so it is difficult to know which sort of approach is more appropriate for the UK.
Evaluating the impact of globalisation on education policy

• Not all sociologists agree that globalisation is really happening, or at least that anything particularly
new has occurred in the last 30 years or so. That is, the education system has always had to
respond to changes in the world economy.
• The lessons to be learned from other countries’ successful systems might not lessons that current
governments feel they can really respond to, given current political priorities. Finnish and Singapore
education systems could not be much more different, but what they do both do is have high
esteem (including good pay) for teachers and subsequently have very high standards of teaching.

Policy today
Current education policies from the main UK parties:
Conservative Party New grammar schools. It is not entirely clear what is planned here as Theresa May
said that all schools could be grammar schools (which they cannot really be). This
policy initially appeared to have been postponed following the 2017 election,
although the education secretary is an advocate.
Ending free school dinners for all infants (which was introduced by the coalition
government – a Liberal Democrat policy) and replace it with free breakfasts
instead. Again, this policy appears to have been postponed.
Labour Party Free university tuition fees.
A National Education Service. Again, this idea has not been explained in great
detail.
Liberal Democrats Pupil premium. When the Liberal Democrats were in the coalition government,
they introduced the pupil premium, where pupils from low-income households
attracted more funding than other pupils, paying for resources and projects that
help those pupils.
In 2017 they proposed trebling this for Early Years education.
Links to core themes

• Policy issues inevitably link with the core theme of power as it requires power to introduce policies.

1. Outline two ways in which globalisation has affected education policy (4 marks)
2. Outline three ways in which educational policies have sought to improve equality of opportunity or
outcome (6 marks)
3.
Item A
Globalisation refers to the idea that in recent decades the world has become more interconnected; the
idea of a "global village". We now know much more about what happens in other countries.
UK governments are concerned about ensuring that the UK’s economy is competitive and that school-
leavers are equipped for the modern workplace.
Applying material from Item A, analyse two ways in which globalisation has affected education policy. (10
marks)
4.
ITEM B:
Some sociologists argue that education policy inspired by New Right ideas has been primarily
concerned with creating a market in the education system, where schools compete to attract parents
and pupils.

However, there are several education policies that do not contribute to this marketisation, such as the
Pupil Premium, a Liberal Democrat policy introduced by the coalition government, that meant children
from low income households brought with them additional funding for a school which must be spent in
ways that benefit disadvantaged pupils.
Applying material from Item B and your knowledge, evaluate the view that the main purpose of recent
education policy has been to create an education market. (30 marks)
5.
ITEM B:
Decisions about the UK education system are increasingly influenced by events and factors far from the
UK and in other countries.
Governments trying to develop education policies that serve the needs of the economy have to
consider the global nature of modern business and work and whether the UK can compete with other
economies around the world, some of which have very different education systems and attitudes to
education to the UK.
Applying material from Item B and your knowledge, evaluate the impact of globalisation on education
policy in the UK. (30 marks)
6.
ITEM B:
Since the Butler Act of 1944, governments have brought in a wide array of education policies, often
reflecting the political priorities of the parties in power. However, a lot of policy has focused on making
the system more equal (although governments might differ in their definition or understanding of
equality).
However, there do appear to be other functions of education policy, from servicing the economy and
competing with other countries to improving rigour and standards.
Applying material from Item B and your knowledge, evaluate the view that the main purpose of education
policy since 1944 has been to reduce inequality. (30 marks)

www.tutor2u.net/sociology
@tutor2uSoc
ALevelSocStudentGroup
tutor2uSoc SKU: 09-4125-10881-0

AQA Sociology Education Topic Companion Digital

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

AQA Sociology Education Topic Companion Digital

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

aqa a level Sociology

AQA A LEVEL SOCIOLOGY COURSE COMPANION:

The sections are:

• Consensus theories of education

www.tutor2u.net/sociology Copyright tutor2u LIMITED

CONSENSUS THEORIES OF EDUCATION

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW

Functionalists suggest that education has three main functions:

These functions are explored by a number of functionalist writers.

Durkheim and Education

Copyright tutor2u LIMITED www.tutor2u.net/sociology

Evaluating Durkheim on education

www.tutor2u.net/sociology Copyright tutor2u LIMITED

MAKE THE LINK

Evaluating Parsons on education

Davis and Moore on education

Copyright tutor2u LIMITED www.tutor2u.net/sociology

New Right views on education

Evaluating New Right views on education

www.tutor2u.net/sociology Copyright tutor2u LIMITED

Links to Core Themes

Possible Exam Questions

1. Outline two functions of education. (4 marks)

Copyright tutor2u LIMITED www.tutor2u.net/sociology

www.tutor2u.net/sociology Copyright tutor2u LIMITED

CONFLICT THEORIES OF EDUCATION

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW

Copyright tutor2u LIMITED www.tutor2u.net/sociology

Bowles and Gintis

Aspect of education Correspondence with the workplace under

www.tutor2u.net/sociology Copyright tutor2u LIMITED

Evaluating Correspondence Theory

Paul Willis “Learning to Labour”

Copyright tutor2u LIMITED www.tutor2u.net/sociology

Pierre Bourdieu, Basil Bernstein, cultural capital and language codes

Evaluating neo-Marxist views on education

www.tutor2u.net/sociology Copyright tutor2u LIMITED

Feminist views on the role of education

Copyright tutor2u LIMITED www.tutor2u.net/sociology

Evaluating feminist views on the role of education

Links to Core Themes

Possible Exam Questions

www.tutor2u.net/sociology Copyright tutor2u LIMITED

Copyright tutor2u LIMITED www.tutor2u.net/sociology

www.tutor2u.net/sociology Copyright tutor2u LIMITED

DIFFERENTIAL ACHIEVEMENT BY SOCIAL CLASS

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW

Copyright tutor2u LIMITED www.tutor2u.net/sociology

Out of school factors

www.tutor2u.net/sociology Copyright tutor2u LIMITED

Evaluating out of school factors

Copyright tutor2u LIMITED www.tutor2u.net/sociology

“The powers of the prime minister are considerable.” Discuss.

www.tutor2u.net/sociology Copyright tutor2u LIMITED

Evaluating in school factors

Links to Core Themes

Possible Exam Questions

Copyright tutor2u LIMITED www.tutor2u.net/sociology

www.tutor2u.net/sociology Copyright tutor2u LIMITED

DIFFERENTIAL ACHIEVEMENT BY GENDER

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW

Out of school factors

Copyright tutor2u LIMITED www.tutor2u.net/sociology

KEY STUDY: SUE SHARPE “JUST LIKE A GIRL” (1994)