Also the cultural deprivation explanation for working class underachievement clarifies that working class children are also linguistically deprived. Sociological theorist Bernstein deliberated this theory. The core of Bernstein's original intuition, "an obstinate idea in me which I could neither give up nor properly understand" as he calls it, is that there is a difference between working class and middle class speech, and that this difference is fraught with educational consequence. Restricted and elaborate codes are Bernstein’s description of the two distinct speech codes. Bernstein’s theory states that middle class families promote elaborated codes and that elaborated codes are the currency of formal educational systems therein some children, mainly middle class start at a tremendous advantage in the race for educational certification.
The cultural deprivation supposition projects a number of ideas explaining working class underachievement but this theory has been criticised. Firstly the fact that some working class children do well defies all of the explanations. Also it is complicated to measure attitudes and values so it can not be known that all working class parents lack interest. In addition to this critics of this approach argue that cultural differences are not as important as the material disadvantages suffered by working class children.
Theorists have also censured this supposition. Lynch and O'Neill argue that it is poverty that often lies behind poor school performance. Additionally, Aggleton showed how some middle class students resist schooling and leave with poor qualifications. However, the major difference from working class school failures is that the students in Aggleton's study where not held back in the labour market by their lack of academic qualifications because they had 'cultural capital'. Further more Jackson and Marsden in 'Education and the Working Class' argued; working class children caught between two cultures-home/school. Parents were eager but had limited resources and relationships with staff were awkward
Cultural capital was an explanation formed by Pierre Bourdieu. Bourdieu believed that middle class children, possess and are rewarded with power and success. Bourdieu thought that the middle class own the sort of culture that enables educational and social advancement while the working class do not. Akin to cultural deprivation this theory has been criticised. It is said not to have as much importance as material factors and Bourdieu was too vague about the values of the theory.
Sub-cultural aspects have been suggested to explain working class underachievement. Sub-culture supposed to be the fact that middle class people and working class people have different value systems and that the working class practice in immediate gratification while the middle class do not. Sugarman and Hymen agreed that sub-cultural factors explained working class underachievement.
This theory like others has also been criticised. This theory is generalising for that reason it may not be so of all working class and middle class people. Also this theory is seen as less important than material factors and has been contradicted as some working class pupils do well in their education.
Material factors focuses on income inequality and the material problems that are associated with it. This theory describes how the working class tend to leave school at sixteen rather than carrying on into further education and shows evidence of a link between parental occupation and the attainment of children. When Halsey, Heath and Ridge attempted to determine the effects of material and cultural factors on educational attainment they established that both factors influenced the type of secondary school a child attended but once at secondary school cultural factors had no effect on educational attainment.
Even though some sociologists have proven that material factors do have an effect on working class educational attainment, some working class children are successful in their education even with material deprivation there fore it is said by some sociologists that it must be cultural factors that effects working class achievement at school.
Finally, rather than focusing on the relationships outside of the school, inside school factors have been considered for an explanation for the lack of success working class children have in education. This type of approach centres around the concepts of labelling theory and self-fulfilling prophesy, believing that if someone is labelled in a particular way, other will respond to their behaviour in terms of that label, and the person will act in terms of that label, resulting in a self-fulfilling prophesy. This has been illustrated in studies by Rosenthal & Jacobson, where it has been shown that a teacher perception of a pupil’s abilities strongly affects how that pupil progresses.
Streaming is another feature of inside school factors, streaming is pupils are put into ability groups. Lacey and Hargreves examined the effects of streaming in schools, and found that children from working class backgrounds were more likely to be placed in lower ability streams. They also found that in these classes, the children were denied high-quality teaching and knowledge, and that the teachers spent more time controlling behaviour than teaching the class. This works to artificially disadvantage those in the lower ability streams, disadvantaging those from working class backgrounds.
It is not just the above factors that need to be taken into consideration. Other clarifications have been formed for the explaining of working class underachievement, one example of this is Genetic explanations. Since intelligence is 'fixed' it can be scientifically measured therefore objective tests have shown that working class students are less intelligent than middle class students. These measured differences in IQ explain class inequalities in educational achievement and it explains that class differences in educational achievement are continuing over time because intelligence is mainly inherited. This approach was firstly associated with Eysenck and Jenson
Like all explanations and theories for the educational underachievement of working class children this theory has also been criticised. It is said that there is no agreed definition of intelligence and there is no way to exclude the influence of environmental factors i.e. type of question and type of answer. as well as this IQ tests cannot tell us about 'potential' and IQ scores can be affected by variables that are independent of intelligence - reactions to the test situation, nervousness, distrust, lack of familiarity.
In conclusion, there are many different explanations of class-based differences in educational success. However, they are not necessarily isolated, and the factors identified on one theory may be a cause of the factors outlined in another. The reasons for class-based differences may therefore be very complex, and not able to be explained by a single factor in isolation.