capital is ‘knowledge of dominant culture’. Bourdieus’ (1977) main assertion is that schools are middle
class institutions, run by middle class people in which middle class pupils succeed. The dominant culture,
with which the middle classes have an affinity, forms the basis of the education system, and so students
from these social groups have a distinct advantage. Working class students do not share the same habitus
(way of living) as the middle class students; therefore do not acquire cultural capital that is knowledge
that can be translated into educational success and later into power and wealth. Working class culture is
seen as aberration and somewhat devalued by schools. Their lack of cultural capital disadvantages
working-class students immediately and furthermore continues to act as a barrier to learning.
Consequently, this means they are more likely to fail exams. By failing what appear to be ‘fair’ exams,
people voluntarily opt out of a system that is unlikely to benefit them. Furthermore, working-class failure
is contrasted with the educational success of the middle classes and it is upon this basis that privilege can
be justified and legitimised.
A concept, which informs my study, is that of ‘speech patterns’. There are two forms of speech patterns;
the elaborated code and the restricted code. Bernstein (1977) argues that middle class people have a
distinct advantage over working class students because schools are conducted through an elaborated code
(language that is precise, elaborate and detailed). The bottom line of Bernstein’s analysis is that middle
class people are more likely to use elaborated code, so children with this social background are more
familiar with it already, which therefore, makes them well practised in it, before they enter the school
gates. On the other hand, working class children use more informal language, known as the restricted
code. It is deemed unsuitable in school and immediately disadvantages the working-class from acquiring
the skills demanded by the education system.
A context that clearly shows how the elite gradually get favoured and therefore dominate the education
system, is a study by Rist (1977) who did a ethnographic study of an elementary school whereby a teacher
made children sit at tables according to her evaluations of their academic ability. These were based on
social class. The poor children whose parents were on welfare became known as the ‘clowns’ by second
grade, and sat at one table; the working class children, the ‘cardinals’, sat at another; and the ‘tigers’, the
middle class, sat at third. Rist followed these children through first and second grades and found that the
initial labels had stuck. What had begun, as subjective evaluations became objective ones as the school
continued to process the children based on their initial labels. Rist measured how the teacher
operationalised her expectations of these groups of children by the amount of time she spent with them,
and her use of praise. He then applied the concept of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Overall this context is
linked with my study as to the idea of the Elite being labelled as the intelligent group therefore there
expectations are high and do more for them to fulfil their label.
An additional context by sociologist Douglas (1964), focused on home background in-order to explain
the relative failure of working class children compared with their middle-class counterparts. He
conducted a longitudinal study of 5362 children born in 1946, tracking them through primary and
secondary schools. Douglas found that children with similar measured ability at age 7 varied a great deal
in their educational attainment, and by 11 the gap had widened and these differences related to social
class background. Pupils were also more likely to stay on at school if they were middle class. This
generalisation tends to influence the education system that is why they end up paying more attention to
the middle class rather then the working class.
(658 words)
Main Research Method
The main research method will be semi-structured interviews, which is a qualitative approach. I would
begin by interviewing two teachers from a comprehensive school, (one being male and the other female)
followed by two teachers from a grammar school. The teachers would provide me the knowledge of
whether or not they themselves acknowledge the class difference’s while teaching, they will be able to
tell me whether or not certain social backgrounds find it difficult to integrate with the education system,
this may help strengthen Bernstein’s concept of ‘speech patterns’ having an influence on social classes.
(I.e. as the middle class students are familiar with the speech pattern used at school they are well
integrated with the education system).
Subsequently, I will interview two students from both the comprehensive and grammar school in-order
for them to tell me whether school and home to them is a complete change of lifestyle and environment.
This will help come to a conclusion of whether or not my study supports Douglas’ context of the idea that
home-background effects the ability of the pupil.
The reason for me interviewing both the teachers and students will be so I get the views of both, who are
of a differing status and age group, which could help specify certain judgements being due to sex, age or
status. As the interviews will be semi-structured, it will enable me to probe, which is an advantage to
using this method.
I will be using a tape recorder so that I can replay the interviews to note down the answers received in
more detail. It would also help in focussing on the tone of voice of the pupil or teacher. Their tone in
voice may convey sarcasm, hatred, or any other feeling which I may detect more clearly afterwards rather
then at the time of the interview, as at the time my attention will be on the answers I receive not the way
in which I receive them.
My sample will be small scale, which means not every student and teacher in the school will be
interviewed, as of time constraints.
I will be interviewing students from my North-London, which is where I’m from this will enable them to
communicate with me in the same dialect.
I will write a letter to the school I wish to visit in advance, informing them of my purpose. I will make
clear that the students and teachers should not be informed of the study title, in-order for me to get a
range of opinions on the education system as a whole, I do not want the individual focusing on my area of
investigation, as other aspects they may cover may be of relevance.
(448 words)
Potential Problems:
Research will be small scale so it will not be possible to generalise my findings. The sample would be
unlikely to be a good representation of all social classes in the education system. My sample would be a
small case study based on eight people, half from a comprehensive school and half from a grammar
school, which allows us to get views of both the social classes.
The way the interviewee’s are chosen would cause the study to be un-reliable, random sampling can
result to being unreliable as there is no proper random sampling existent.
There is also the case that not every teacher in a comprehensive school is also of the middle class, which
could result in he/she’s views supporting the apposing group.
My personal social class may perhaps influence my questions when probing, which leads to asking
inclined questions.
A problem that may arise is that the students may feel they can-not be truly honest as of the interview
being taken place at school, where they may feel there loyalty lies.
A predicament that makes my study hard to carry out is the fact that the answers I receive whether good
or not so good may be dependant on the interviewee’s personality whether honest and kind or deceitful
and malevolent. Overall the source proves to being highly unreliable.
(220 words)
