Social Class & Education: The Importance of Material Factors (WJEC Eduqas GCSE Sociology): Revision Note

Statistics on social class & educational achievement

• One way to describe a person's place in society is by their social class

  • This is typically determined by a person's occupation or that of their parents

• A child's eligibility for free school meals (FSM) is often used as an indicator of low income and, therefore, a lower social class

• According to national statistics, middle-class students consistently outperform working-class students in public examinations

• Students from middle-class backgrounds are also more likely to attend university or pursue other forms of higher education

  • E.g. in England, 28.6% of pupils on free school meals went into higher education by age 19, compared with 48.4% of other pupils (DfE, 2024/25)

• Sociologists have proposed several explanations for why working-class students tend to underachieve compared to their middle-class peers:

  • Home and background factors

    • Differences in home environment, income and parental support can affect educational success

    • Key ideas include cultural deprivation (a lack of knowledge, language or values) and material deprivation (a lack of money and resources)

  • School-based factors

    • Factors within the education system itself can also affect achievement

    • These include teacher labelling, streaming and setting, school culture and the type of school attended

Material deprivation

• Material deprivation refers to a lack of financial resources caused by poverty

• It is one way the home environment can affect children’s educational achievement, as it limits access to basic resources that support learning

• Material deprivation includes poor housing, low income, inadequate diet and lack of educational materials (e.g. books, computers and internet access)

How material deprivation affects educational achievement

• Poor housing conditions, overcrowding or a lack of a quiet space to study can make it difficult to concentrate or complete homework

• Illness and absenteeism are more common among working-class children who live in cold, damp or overcrowded homes

• Middle-class parents can afford private tuition, internet access, computers and homes in catchment areas of high-performing schools

• Working-class areas may lack early years provision, such as nursery education, which can affect later school performance

• The cost of higher education and student debt discourages some working-class students from applying to university

• Lower-income families may struggle to afford essentials like food, books or school uniforms, affecting health, attendance and motivation

Choice of school

• Low-income families have fewer school options due to catchment area restrictions and housing costs

• Middle-class parents can afford to move near desirable schools, a process known as “selection by mortgage”

• This reinforces inequality, as children from wealthier families are more likely to attend high-performing schools

Government support

• The Pupil Premium (2011) provides extra funding to schools for disadvantaged students to help close the attainment gap

• However, critics argue that funding is insufficient and does not fully address deep-rooted inequalities linked to poverty

Evaluation of material deprivation

• Improvements over time

  • The gap between disadvantaged pupils and others narrowed in the 2010s after the Pupil Premium was introduced, widened after the pandemic and in 2026 was still wider than in 2019 (DfE)

  • However, critics say these policies haven’t gone far enough to address inequalities between the classes

• Gender and ethnicity matter too

  • Differences in achievement aren’t just about class — gender and ethnicity also affect results

  • E.g. working-class White boys tend to underachieve more than girls or some ethnic minority groups

• Research limitations

  • Studies like Halsey, Heath and Ridge (1980) only looked at males, so their findings ignore women’s educational progress over time

  • Since the data is from people born decades ago, it may not reflect modern education systems or today’s social mobility

Key thinkers: Halsey, Heath and Ridge (1980) on social class and inequality

Method

• Halsey, Heath and Ridge (1980) drew on data from a face-to-face survey of over 8,000 males born between 1913 and 1952 who were educated in England and Wales

• They explored the social class origins and educational destinations of the men

• Social class was based on their father's occupation, and they were divided into three groups:

  • Service class (such as professionals and managers)

  • Intermediate class (such as clerical or sales workers)

  • Working class (such as manual workers in industry and agriculture)

Findings

• Halsey, Heath and Ridge (1980) found that an individual from the service class, as compared to one from the working class, had:

  • four times as great a chance of being at school at 16 years

  • eight times the chance of being at school at 17 years

  • ten times the chance of being at school at 18 years

  • 11 times the chance of attending university

Conclusions

• A higher percentage of working-class children than middle-class children left school at the first possible opportunity

• Middle-class children may have had a head start, as higher household income may have led to better quality housing and more study materials and support at home

• This supports the Marxist view of education, which argues that the education system is not meritocratic