Applying material from Item B and your knowledge, evaluate sociological explanations of social class differences in educational achievement (30 marks)

Last Updated on November 2, 2026 by Karl Thompson

An A-level sociology essay for AQA Paper 1 (7192/1), Education with Theory and Methods. This is the 30-mark question from the June 2018 paper (Question 04), answered in full using the PEAC system (Point – Explain – Analyse – Criticise). A one-page plan follows the essay.

This post used to answer an older-specification question: “Evaluate the extent to which home-based, rather than school-based, factors account for social class differences in educational achievement.” The essay below answers that question too, because the June 2018 Item asks you to weigh exactly the same two sets of factors.

You might like to review these revision notes before reading the essay:

• The effects of material deprivation on education
• The effect of cultural deprivation on education
• Cultural capital and educational achievement
• Class differences in education: the role of in-school factors

The question with Item

Read Item B below and answer the question that follows.

Item B
Social class differences in achievement are found at all stages of the education system and sociologists have put forward several explanations for these differences. Some sociologists focus on factors outside school, such as the material circumstances of pupils’ families or the ways in which parents socialise their children. Other sociologists see factors internal to the education system itself as responsible.

However, it can be argued that it is the interaction between these external and internal factors that produces class differences in educational achievement.

Applying material from Item B and your knowledge, evaluate sociological explanations of social class differences in educational achievement (30)

Source: AQA A-level Sociology, Paper 1 (7192/1), June 2018, Question 04.

The mark scheme

What the top band needs

To reach the top level (25–30), an answer needs sound, conceptually detailed knowledge of a range of relevant material, good use of Item B, and explicit analysis and evaluation leading to a conclusion. For this question, AQA’s mark scheme suggests evaluation can come from weighing material against cultural factors, internal against external factors, or how they interrelate. In practice:

• Use the Item’s structure. Item B contrasts factors outside school, such as family material circumstances and parental socialisation, with factors inside the education system, and suggests the two interact. That gives you three sections and a conclusion.
• Range. The mark scheme’s concepts and sources include material deprivation, cultural capital, habitus, labelling, the self-fulfilling prophecy and educational triage, and sociologists such as Bourdieu, Bernstein, Becker, Ball, Reay and Sullivan. You won’t use them all, but a top answer covers both sides of the Item with named evidence.
• Weigh, don’t list. Every paragraph should end by saying how far the explanation goes, ideally by setting it against another one.

Model answer

Introduction

Social class differences in achievement appear at every stage of education. In 2025/26, 27.5% of disadvantaged pupils in England achieved grade 5 or above in GCSE English and maths, compared with 54.3% of other pupils. As Item B suggests, sociologists explain this in two broad ways. Some focus on factors outside school, such as the material circumstances of the family and the way children are socialised at home. Others focus on factors inside the education system, such as teachers’ expectations and the way pupils are grouped. This essay will argue that both sets of factors matter, and that the most convincing explanations are those that show how they work together, as Item B suggests.

Point 1: Material deprivation

Point. Material deprivation theorists argue that working class children achieve less because their families lack money and resources.

Explain. Children in poorer homes are more likely to live in overcrowded or cold housing with no quiet space to study, to have a poorer diet, and to miss more school through illness. Their families find it harder to pay the hidden costs of schooling, such as trips, equipment and a computer at home, and older pupils are more likely to take part-time jobs that compete with study. Leon Feinstein (2003), using the 1970 British Cohort Study, found gaps in children’s development by family background as early as 22 months.

Analyse. This explanation fits Item B’s reference to family material circumstances, and it matches the way the government measures disadvantage: through free school meal eligibility, which is a measure of income, not culture. Money also affects choice of school. Richer parents can buy houses in the catchment areas of the best state schools, often called “selection by mortgage”, or pay private school fees. Connor et al. (2001) found that cost was one of the factors that put some working class young people off university, although it was not the main one; wanting to start work and be independent, and less confidence about succeeding, mattered more.

Criticise. HOWEVER, material deprivation cannot explain why some poor children do very well, or why pupils on free school meals from some minority ethnic groups achieve much more than poor White British pupils. The most dramatic part of Feinstein’s finding has also been challenged: Jerrim and Vignoles (2013) argued that some of it may be a statistical effect called regression to the mean. Connor’s findings point to attitudes as well as money, which takes us to cultural explanations.

Point 2: Cultural deprivation and parental socialisation

Point. Cultural deprivation theorists argue that working class children are socialised into norms, values and ways of speaking that don’t equip them for school.

Explain. Barry Sugarman (1966) argued that working class subculture valued immediate gratification, fatalism, a present-time orientation and collectivism, while the middle class valued deferred gratification and individual achievement, which suit education much better. Basil Bernstein argued that working class children were more likely to be limited to a restricted speech code, while middle class children could also use the elaborated code, which is the language of teachers, textbooks and exams.

Analyse. This fits Item B’s reference to parental socialisation. It also has some support from more recent research: Goodman and Gregg (2010) found that 81% of the richest mothers hoped their nine-year-old would go to university, against 37% of the poorest mothers. But the same study found these attitudes were closely tied to income, so this evidence links cultural and material factors rather than supporting cultural deprivation on its own.

Criticise. HOWEVER, Nell Keddie (1973) called cultural deprivation a myth. Working class children are not deprived of culture; they have a different culture, which schools fail to value. William Labov made the same point about language, and Bernstein himself insisted that the restricted code was not inferior. Cultural deprivation theory also blames working class families for their children’s results, and Diane Reay’s (1998) research suggests working class mothers care about and support their children’s education just as much as middle class mothers do.

Point 3: Cultural capital

Point. Pierre Bourdieu argued that middle class children succeed because schools reward middle class culture, which he called cultural capital.

Explain. Middle class children grow up with the knowledge, tastes and ways of speaking that schools value, and a habitus that makes school feel natural. Their parents are better educated and know how the system works. Reay found that middle class mothers could turn their effort into advantage more effectively, through help with homework and confident dealings with teachers. Gewirtz, Ball and Bowe (1995) found that middle class “privileged/skilled choosers” were much better placed than working class “disconnected choosers” to get their children into the best schools.

Analyse. Cultural capital is the explanation that best captures the interaction Item B describes. It starts at home but works through the school: home background matters because schools reward it, and parents’ cultural capital matters because it gets children into better schools. It also avoids blaming working class culture. The problem is located in what schools choose to value.

Criticise. HOWEVER, Alice Sullivan’s (2001) study of 465 pupils found that cultural capital explained only part of the class gap in GCSE results: a large direct effect of class remained after it was controlled for. Much cultural capital is also bought with economic capital, through private schooling, tutoring and trips, so it can be hard to say where material factors end and cultural factors begin.

Point 4: Factors inside schools

Point. Interactionists argue that processes inside schools create or widen class differences.

Explain. Howard Becker (1952) interviewed 60 Chicago teachers and found they judged pupils against an “ideal pupil” who was, in practice, middle class. Labels like this can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Stephen Ball (1981), in his study of Beachside Comprehensive, found that pupils of similar ability were more likely to be placed in the top band if their fathers had non-manual jobs, and that pupils in the lower bands became more anti-school. Gillborn and Youdell (2000) found that league tables encouraged schools to practise educational triage, concentrating resources on borderline pupils and writing others off.

Analyse. These studies fit the second view in Item B. They suggest that achievement isn’t settled before a child arrives: schools sort pupils in ways that are influenced by class, and the sorting then shapes how pupils see themselves and how hard they try.

Criticise. HOWEVER, labelling theory can be deterministic: not every pupil accepts a label, and some reject it and work harder. Many of the classic studies are small, old or American. And much of the class gap is already there by the end of primary school, which secondary-school processes can’t explain.

Point 5: Home and school working together

Point. The strongest evidence suggests that home and school factors interact, which is the view Item B ends with.

Explain. Paul Willis’s (1977) study of twelve working class “lads” shows this clearly. Their counter-school culture formed inside school, but it drew on the working class masculinity and expectations of manual work they brought with them from home. Private schooling is another example. About 6% of pupils in England (6.3% in 2025/26) attend independent schools, which their parents’ economic capital pays for, and the Sutton Trust’s Elitist Britain 2025 found that 62% of senior judges were privately educated. Money at home buys a different school, and the school then adds its own advantages: smaller classes, high expectations and useful contacts. Contacts are what Bourdieu called social capital.

Analyse. If home and school work together, asking which matters more may be the wrong question. Middle class advantage at home turns into better schooling, and working class disadvantage is compounded.

Criticise. HOWEVER, there are schools that achieve strong results with disadvantaged intakes. Mossbourne Community Academy in Hackney, for example, became known for doing so through strict discipline and high expectations. Examples like this suggest schools can make a real difference, though case studies of individual schools are a weak basis for general claims.

Conclusion

Material deprivation explains a lot about who starts behind, cultural deprivation is largely discredited as an explanation on its own, and in-school processes show how schools can widen the gap. The most convincing explanation is cultural capital, because it explains how advantages at home are turned into advantages at school, and because Sullivan’s work shows it alongside a material effect rather than instead of one. Social class differences in achievement are best explained, as Item B suggests, by the interaction between factors outside and inside the education system.

Essay plan

Paragraph	Point	Key evidence	Criticise
Introduction	The class gap; the Item B debate	27.5% v 54.3%, grade 5+ English and maths (2025/26)	Signpost: interaction
1	Material deprivation	Housing, diet, costs, part-time work; Feinstein (2003); selection by mortgage; Connor et al. (2001)	Doesn’t explain successful poor pupils or ethnic differences; Jerrim and Vignoles (2013)
2	Cultural deprivation and parental socialisation	Sugarman (1966); Bernstein; Goodman and Gregg (2010)	Keddie (1973), Labov: different, not deficient; Reay
3	Cultural capital	Bourdieu (habitus); Reay (1998); Gewirtz, Ball and Bowe (1995)	Sullivan (2001): partial explanation; capitals overlap
4	In-school factors	Becker (1952); Ball (1981); Gillborn and Youdell (2000)	Deterministic; old, small studies; gap present before secondary school
5	Home and school interact	Willis (1977); private schools (6.3%; 62% of senior judges); social capital	Schools that succeed with disadvantaged intakes; limits of case studies
Conclusion	Interaction, with cultural capital as the best bridge	Item B’s final point	—

KT’s Commentary

When this came up in 2018 I rated it the easiest question on the paper, and it is, as long as you don’t treat it as a memory test. Most students can list material deprivation, cultural deprivation, cultural capital and labelling. What separates the top band is using the Item’s last idea, that inside and outside factors interact, as the argument that runs through the whole essay.

The quickest way to lose marks is to describe cultural deprivation as though it were cultural capital. They point in opposite directions: one blames the home, the other blames the school. If you get that distinction straight, and use Keddie or Reay to show you know why cultural deprivation is criticised, you’re already ahead of most of the scripts I marked.

Signposting and Related Posts

This essay has been written for students studying the education topic, as part of the AQA’s A-Level Sociology course.

For other 30-mark essays on achievement, see evaluate the importance of cultural factors in explaining patterns of educational achievement and evaluate sociological explanations of gender differences in educational achievement. For the figures, see social class and educational achievement statistics.

For links to more essays, please see my main page on exam advice, short answer questions and essays, and the full set of notes on the sociology of education page.

Please click here to return to the homepage – ReviseSociology.com

Sources

AQA (2018) A-level Sociology 7192/1, Paper 1: Education with Theory and Methods, June 2018: question paper and final mark scheme. Reproduced for educational purposes. Past papers are available from AQA’s past paper finder.

Department for Education (2026) Key Stage 4 performance, 2025/26; Schools, pupils and their characteristics, 2025/26. Explore Education Statistics.

Sutton Trust (2025) Elitist Britain 2025.

Full references for the studies are on the posts linked at the top of this page.