If the term is not defined then

you can find a definition in your

textbook glossary.

Unit 3: Education key terms and sociologists/examples

Key terms
o Agents of socialisation
o Anti-school subculture
o Cultural capital
o Social capital
o Hidden curriculum
o Formal curriculum
o Labelling
o Self-fulfilling prophecy
o Meritocracy
o Patriarchy
o Racism
o Role allocation
o Social cohesion
o Consensus theory
o Conflict theory
o Correspondence theory
o Capitalism
o Exploitation
o Giant myth
o Gendering subjects
o Gender role socialisation
o Double standard
o Vocational education: educational training that provides practical experience in a
particular occupational field, as agriculture, home economics, or industry.
o Ideological state apparatus: ideological state apparatus A term developed by the
Marxist theorist Louis Althusser to denote institutions such as education, the
churches, family, media, trade unions, and law, which were formally
outside state control but which served to transmit the values of the state and the
ruling class’ ideology.
o Social class
o Ethnicity
o Gender
o Sex: either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and
most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions.
Biologically determined.
o Inequality
o Cultural factors: refers to influences such as language codes, values, attitudes,
encouragement from family and friends, expectations and so on.
o Material factors: refer to money and what money can buy such as additional
resources, additional tuition, type of housing etc.
o Internal factors: refers to processes within schools such as labelling and their effect
on educational achievement.
o Language skills: the ability to use language.
o Parental aspirations
o Cultural deprivation
 o Material deprivation
o Socialisation
o Parental encouragement: refers to the general process undertaken by the parents to
initiative and directs the behaviour of the children towards high academic
achievement.
o Economic capital: refers to money, property, and other assets.
o Attainment: a thing achieved, especially a skill or educational achievement.
o Pupil premium: is additional funding for publicly funded schools in England to raise
the attainment of disadvantaged pupils of all abilities and to close the gaps between
them and their peers.
o Irrelevant curriculum: the argument that such sociologists make that the formal
curriculum is not relevant to all.
o Ethos
o Middle class ethos: the idea that schools have an ethos that is situated within the
ideology of the middle-class rather than any other classes.
o Institutional racism
o White-centred curriculum or ethnocentric: the idea that the formal curriculum teaches
about the achievements of white culture and ignores the achievements and cultures
of other groups of people.
o Equal opportunities
o Crisis of masculinity: Some sociologists suggest there is a crisis of masculinity in
society. Men are confused over their identity since their traditional roles in the family,
the workplace and wider society. The decline in manual labour has meant that many
men are unemployed, boys may see this at home and it may led to a lack of
motivation to succeed in education.
o The feminisation of schools: Sewell (2010) argue that education has become
feminised (schools have become female-dominated). Sewell argues this has
benefited girls and left boys feeling less comfortable within education.
o Subcultures
o Pupil Premium

The role and purpose of education

Key sociologists/examples:

Sociologist(s Theory/study explained Detail how could you use

) this sociologist as
evidence
Durkheim The role of education in making children Use to evidence the
into good members of society and passing Functionalist perspective
on appropriate norms and values. In on the role and purpose
schools, children also gain a greater education.
understanding of the world and their place
in it. For example, the formal curriculum
(through subjects such as History,
Geography etc.) gives children a sense of
belonging.

Parsons Talcott Parsons continues this theme, Use to evidence the

arguing that schools take over the process Functionalist perspective
of socialisation from the family. Particularly, on the role and purpose
 norms and values not taught at home. In education.
the home, your status is ascribed (born
into) but in the wider society your status is
achieved through hard work yet. School is
a bridge to this meritocratic society.
Parsons also believes the school system is
meritocratic and fulfils the function of role
allocation (selecting individuals for their
future employment)

Davis and For Davis and Moore (1967) the education Use to evidence the
Moore (1967) system is a means of selecting or sifting Functionalist perspective
people for different levels of the job market, on the role and purpose
and ensuring the most talented and education.
qualified individuals are allocated to the
most important jobs. By grading people
through streaming and test results, the
education system is a major method of role
allocation – fitting the most suitable people
into the hierarchy of unequal positions of
society.
Bourdieu He argues that the upper and middle Use to evidence the
(1977) classes have the same cultural capital as Marxist perspective on the
schools and therefore succeed and role and purpose
working-class children fail. As a result of education.
this the upper and middle classes occupy
the higher level of employment in society.

Bowles and Bowles and Gintis argue there is a closer Use to evidence the
Gintis (1976) correspondence between social Marxist perspective on the
relationships in the classroom and those in role and purpose
the workplace. This correspondence is education.
essential for social reproduction – the
reproduction of new generations of workers
appropriately schooled to accept their roles
of capitalist society. Their correspondence
theory argues that schools are organised
to achieve exactly what the upper class
want. In order for n Capitalism to continue,
the upper class need a compliant working
class. The education system helps produce
this type of worker.

Sue Lees Sue Lees (1993) found a double standard Use to evidence the
(1993) of morality existed whereby boys demean Feminist perspective on
girls who are generally sexually the role and purpose
promiscuous and this is seen as education.
acceptable.
Becky Francis Becky Francis argues that boys dominate Use to evidence the
(2005) the classroom and generally attract more Feminist perspective on
attention, positive and negative, from the role and purpose
teachers. This leads to more teacher-pupil education.
interaction and less attention for girls within
the classroom.
Halsey et al Halsey et al, 1997 criticises the Use to criticise the
(1997) Functionalist and New Right perspectives Functionalist and New
on the marketization of education and the Right perspectives on the
idea that schools are meritocratic … role and purpose
education.
 Does competition between schools
raise standards? No
 Is choice available for all? No
 Can schools make up for the wider
inequalities in society? Available
evidence says no.

Chubb and Believe an education system controlled by Use to evidence the New
Moe (1990s) the state and local authorities is not the Right perspective on the
best means of achieving educational aims, role and purpose
as it imposes a single type of school education.
regardless of the wishes and needs of the
parents or local communities.
They argue there should be a free market
in education as competition will lead to
more efficient education system

Louis Saw the main function of the education Use to evidence the
Althusser system as the reproduction of an efficient Marxist perspective on the
(1972) and obedient labour force. This involves role and purpose
two things: education.
1. The reproduction of the
necessary technical skills
needed for employment
2. The reproduction of ruling class
ideology (dominant beliefs and
values) and the socialization of
workers into accepting this
dominant ideology (this is
known as false consciousness)
To prevent the working class from
rebelling, Althusser suggests the ruling
class try and persuade the working class to
accept and legitimize their exploitation.
This ruling class use the ideological state
apparatus to do this. The main ideological
status in western societies is the
educational system which:
 Passes on ruling class ideology
justifying the capitalist system
 Selects people for the different
social classes as adults, developing
the right attitudes and behaviour

Paul Willis In 1977 Willis studied a group of 12 Use to evidence the

(1977) working-class boys during their last year Marxist perspective on the
 and a half at school and their first few role and purpose
months at work. education.
Willis did not find a simple correspondence
between school and work. Nor did he find
that the lads were shaped by the
educational system. Instead the lads
rejected school and created their own
counter-school culture. But it was this
rejection of school which prepared them for
low-skilled, low-status jobs they were to
end up in.

Like Bowles and Gintis, Willis argues for a

correspondence between school and work.
But this is not produced by the school. The
lads produced the correspondence by their
rejection of school.

Factors affecting education

Key sociologists and examples:

Sociologist(s Theory/study explained Detail how could you use

) this sociologist as
evidence
Stephen Ball Material deprivation p.89. in 2013; the Use Ball to evidence
effects of banding and labelling p.95 1970 material deprivation and
study; working class
Middle-class parents might move to an underachievement.
area just to get their children into a school,
creating what has become known as Use Ball to evidence
‘selection by mortgage’. Families with low labelling and its
incomes will have to attend the nearest consequences.
school. Stephen Ball argues that there is,
therefore, far more parental choice of
schools if you have money.

In the late 1970s, Stephen Ball conducted

a study of Beachside Comprehensive
School, where the students were placed in
different bands. Ball found that the
students in the top bands were well-
behaved, hardworking and making
progress, whereas students in the lower
bands were poorly behaved, lazy and far
behind the top group academically.

Ball argues that this behaviour is a direct

consequence of labelling. The way the
students in the bands were labelled and
viewed by teachers affected their
academic progress. Students in the top
band were labelled as ‘bright’. They were
 expected to do well and encouraged to
make progress, or ‘warmed up’ as Ball
calls it. They reacted to this positive label,
saw themselves as ‘bright’ and worked
hard to keep improving, thus fulfilling the
label.
Comparison
Ball found that students in the lower bands
were viewed as ‘less able’, were not
expected to succeed and were ‘cooled
down’. The students’ expectations were
lowered by the teachers in line with the
band they were placed in. this affected
how the students viewed themselves and
their abilities and future.
Pierre Cultural capital p.86. Use to evidence cultural
Bourdieu As a Marxist, Bourdieu believes that the factors as to why the
(1986) upper classes control education. They working class
make sure that their culture is seen to be underachieve.
superior and is the one that is established
in schools. Upper-and middle-class
children therefore fit in at school more
easily and succeed because they have the
same culture, whereas working-class
children either leave school early or fail.

Bourdieu’s work does not really allow for

educational success among the working
classes. There does seem to be, however,
support from many sociologists for the
idea of cultural capital in one form or
another. A significant amount of research
suggests that upper-and middle-class
parents are more equipped to make sense
of and work within the education system
and be able to get what they want out of it.
Diana Reay Social capital p.87; irrelevant curriculum Use to evidence cultural
(1998) p.91; factors as to why the
working class
Diane Reay’s 1998 study of mothers’ underachieve.
involvement in their children’s primary
schooling found that, compared with
working-class mothers, middle-class Use to evidence internal
mothers better understood how the school factors as to why the
system worked and how to help their working class
children to succeed. They were more underachieve.
articulate and insistent and therefore more
successful at getting what they wanted.

Diane Reay argues that much of the

curriculum is not relevant to lower-
working-class children and consequently
they disengage from school. This could
involve them not going to school or
forming anti-school subcultures.
A.H. Halsey Material deprivation p.88. Use to evidence material
(1980) A.H. Halsey and his colleagues in a study deprivation and working
in 1980 found that material factors were class underachievement.
more important than cultural factors in a
child’s decision of whether to stay on at
school or not.
The Children’s Material deprivation p.88. Use to evidence material
Commission The Children’s Commission on Poverty deprivation and working
on poverty reported in 2014 that many parents are class underachievement.
(2014) struggling to pay for uniform, equipment,
school trips and lunches. The Commission
found that many children from low-income
homes were falling behind in school work
because they could not afford computers
or Internet facilities.
The Joseph The middle-class nature of schools p.90; Use to evidence internal
Roundtree material factors and ethnic minority factors as to why the
Foundation underachievement p.97 study in 2007; working class
underachieve.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation argues
that most schools have what they called a Use to evidence that ethnic
very ‘middle-class ethos’. (An ethos is minorities underachieve in
very difficult to define, but refers to the education due to material
spirit, atmosphere and guiding principles factors.
of the school). The Foundation goes on to
argue that it is difficult for working-class
children to relate to school as everything
about the school as everything about the
school is middle-class and therefore
unfamiliar and potentially unwelcoming.
Working-class pupils might feel that they
are not valued in schools. Some schools
include subjects such as motor mechanics
on their timetables. Practical subjects such
as fixing cars are manual skills that are
regarded as working class. Subjects such
as this have often had little status in
schools and lower-ability students might
be encouraged to follow them, thus
pointing the students towards non-
academic career paths.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation found in

2007that over half of Pakistani and black
African children in Britain were growing up
in poverty. Poverty can lead to poor,
overcrowded housing or even
homelessness, poor diet and poor health,
all of which are likely to affect how well
children do at school. It might be,
therefore, that poverty is a highly
significant reason for their
underachievement.
David Labelling p.93; anti-school subcultures Use to evidence internal
Hargreaves p.102 in the 1960s factors as to why the
(1967) working-class
David Hargreaves, an interactionist, underachieve.
looked at the process of how teachers
arrived at their labels and what they were
based on. He found that teachers made
fairly quick, speculative judgements of
their pupils and their abilities, based on
characteristics such as appearance,
whether they conformed to discipline, their
ability and enthusiasm for work and their
relationships with other children.
Hargreaves noticed that, after a while, the
judgements became more firm.

Although ability is one of the

characteristics teachers based their
labelling on, the others are more
associated with social class than
academic aptitude. If Hargreaves’
research is valid (trustworthy), then
teachers are more likely to label middle-
class pupils as ‘clever’ and working-class
pupils as ‘less-able’. This, then, could be
another explanation as to why middle-
class children do better at school than
their working-class friends.

David Hargreaves researched an anti-

school subculture in a boys’ secondary
school in the 1960s. the boys in this group
were cheeky to teachers, did not do their
homework and were continually disruptive
in class. They did not seem to be worried
that this delinquent behaviour would lead
to their failure at school. Hargreaves used
the theory of labelling to explain why the
boys behaved in this way. Hargreaves saw
that the boys in the ‘A’ stream, the top
stream, were succeeding academically.
They worked hard and conformed to
school rules. But the boys in the ‘C’
stream, bottom but one, were failing
academically. They rejected the goals of
the school and formed an anti-school
subculture.
In his study, Hargreaves argued that the
boys in the top stream were labelled
successes and were rewarded by the
school. They had status and recognition
by being in the top stream. Their self-
image was positive and they did not feel
they had to impress anyone.

The boys in the lower stream had no

 status. They were labelled by the school
and teachers as failures and everyone
knew they were failures by their position in
the low stream. Hargreaves argues that
they dealt with this by rejecting the school
and its goals and replacing them with
goals of their own, which they could reach
and which would give them status in their
friends’ eyes at least. They joined with
others in a similar position and, in this
way, solved the problem of being a failure
and bolstered their self-image.
Becker (1967) The ideal pupil p.93. Use to evidence internal
Similar results were found in the research factors as to why the
of Howard Becker. Becker, another working-class
leading interactionist, also argues that underachieve.
teachers build up an image of their
students in a very short period of time. He
found that teachers hold ideas in their
heads of what an ‘ideal’ pupil is like.

Becker found that this image of an ideal

pupil is based on performance, conduct,
attitude and appearance. His research
discovered that teachers see middle-class
pupils as most closely matching this image
of an ideal pupil and working-class pupils
as least like it. So, children appeared to be
being pre-judged and their ability
assessed on these factors, not just on
their actual ability.
Nell Keddie The effects of banding and labelling p.95. Use to evidence internal
(1970) factors as to why the
Students in different sets and bands might working-class
be treated differently and taught underachieve.
differently. In her 1970s study, Nell Keddie
found that students in the lower streams
were allowed to talk more, given a simpler
form of knowledge, less homework and
were not stretched. Not surprisingly, the
students in the lower sets did not do well
in the end-of-year examinations.
Tower Cultural factors p.97. Use to evidence cultural
Hamlets Bangladeshi pupils in the Tower Hamlets factors are responsible for
area of London have seen a remarkable ethnic minority
rise in their success rates which has put underachievement.
them above the national average. A study
in London argued that this might be partly
due to the area’s success in recruiting
teachers from Bangladeshi backgrounds
who have a better understanding of the
children’s language, culture and other
needs. This successful programme
suggests that the effects of poverty might,
 in some circumstances, be overcome.
Steve Strand Parental aspirations and ethnic minority Use to criticise cultural
(2014) achievement p.99 factors are responsible for
Steve Strand, putting together evidence ethnic minority
for a report in 2014, found that parents underachievement.
from Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Indian
backgrounds were more likely than white
British parents to have higher educational
aspirations for their children and were
more likely to be involved with their
children’s work and with the school.
Tony Sewell Subcultures and ethnic minority Use to evidence cultural
(1997) achievement p.99. factors are responsible for
ethnic minority
Tony Sewell, in a study from 1997, argues underachievement.
that peer group pressure is very
influential among young, disaffected
African-Caribbean males. He found that
the African-Caribbean boys who are
brought up in one-parent families, lack a
positive male role model at home and are
more likely to turn to the culture of the
street. This subculture emphasises an
aggressive form of masculinity and rejects
people from authority, such as police
officers and teachers. In school, this
attitude might lead to opposition to
teachers and to academic achievement.
The subculture is seen as compensating
for the racism black children face in
schools.
Paul Connelly Male subcultures and ethnicity p.99. You Use to evidence
(1998) can also use Connelly to illustrate internal/cultural factors are
institutional racism: Within schools, responsible for ethnic
teachers tend to see African-Caribbean minority underachievement.
males as aggressive, challenging and
disruptive. Often this is a misreading of
African -Caribbean youth subculture –
ways of walking; talking and dressing are
sometimes interpreted by teachers as a
challenge to their authority when none is
intended. As a result of these
misconceptions, African-Caribbean tend to
be singled out for punishment when White
and Asian students are just as guilty. This
leads some pupils to suspect teachers of
racism and this can led to anti-school
subcultures.

Paul Connolly looked at a group of boys

he called ‘bad boys’ in a primary school.
They had a strong sense of what it meant
to be masculine and achieved their status
within their group not from academic
 success but from being ‘tough’, being the
best footballers and being the most
successful with girls. Teacher labelling of
them had also played a part.
Paul Willis Anti-school subcultures p.103. Use to evidence internal
(1977) factors are responsible for
Paul Willis found an anti-school subculture working class
in a school he studied in 1977.He followed underachievement.
a group of 12 boys in Year 10 who called
themselves ‘the lads’. They deliberately
missed lessons, messed about and were
only interested in having a ‘laff’ as they
called it. They refused to do their
homework and made fun of the students
who did follow the school rules calling
them ‘earoles’. Willis does not see this as
a response to labelling. He argues instead
that the boys simply saw through the ‘lies’
of the school system. School was telling
them that if they worked hard and did well
at school they would get a good job. The
boys realised that in fact it was not
possible for all working-class young men
like them to succeed in a career, and so
they made the choice to reject schooling
and just enjoy themselves instead. The
boys believed that most of them would end
up I factory jobs like their fathers,
whatever happened at school, and so did
not need the knowledge from school.
Sue Sharpe Changes to norms as a reason for girls Use to evidence cultural
(1970s) outperforming boys p.107. factors as to why girls
outperform boys in
In her research in the 1970’s, Sue Sharpe education.
found that the priorities of young working-
class girls growing up were marriage,
children and a job. When she repeated the
research in the 1990s, she found the girls’
choices put a greater stress on their
having equality with men. There was more
confidence among the girls and an
emphasis on the importance of having a
job or career and being able to support
themselves if they chose not to marry or if
their marriages did not work.
Carolyn Laddish subcultures p.108. Use to evidence internal
Jackson Carolyn Jackson in her research in 2006 factors as to why girls
(2006) found that appearing ‘cool’ was necessary outperform boys in
for boys to be popular at school. It was education.
considered ‘uncool’ to work, and academic
work was seen as feminine. In her study,
ideas of masculinity centred around
heterosexuality, toughness and power.
This led the boys to adopt ‘laddish’
 behaviour. This involved disrupting
lessons and being assertive to appear
‘hard’. Jackson also found that this
behaviour provided the boys with an
excuse if they failed academically.
Becky Francis Gendered subjects. She claims that Use to evidence the
(2000) despite the fact girls have recently caught Feminist perspective on
up with boys in the sciences, and continue gendered subjects.
to outperform boys in languages at GCSE,
there remains a marked difference in Use to evidence cultural
subject choice according to gender at A factors as to why the
level and beyond. working class
underachieve.
Becky Francis has argued that many
working-class parents do have high
aspirations for their children, but do not
have the social capital to understand the
‘rules of the game’; that is, they do not
have the insider knowledge or social skills
to enable them to make sense of or work
their way around the school system.
Barry Described working class subculture as: Use to evidence cultural
Sugarman – Fatalistic  accepting the factors as to the working
(1960) situation rather than class underachieve in
working to improve it education.
– Present-time orientated 
living for the moment rather
than planning for the future
– Concerned with immediate
gratification  taking
pleasures now rather than
making sacrifices for the
future.
– Collectivism  the idea that
the social group is more
important than school or
school work
• Middle class subculture was seen
as being the opposite of this.
These differences were seen to
place working class students at a
disadvantage.

Basil According to Bernstein (1971), a working Use to evidence cultural

Bernstein class person communicates in restricted factors as to why working
(1971) code as a result of the conditions in which class pupils underachieve
they were raised and the socialisation in education.
process. The same is true for the middle
class person with the exception that they
were exposed to the elaborated code as
well. Teachers use the elaborate language
code and this may be a reason working-
class underachievement.
Angela Angela McRobbie (1991) argues girls Use to evidence cultural
McRobbie succeed in education because they factors as to why girls
(1991) develop subcultures outside school which outperform boys in
help them succeed. McRobbie suggests education.
there is a bedroom subculture where girls
chat and read which helps them develop
skills, such as communication, will help
them to succeed in education. Boys’
subcultures both inside and outside school
tend to regard hard work negatively.