Pupils' class identities and the school

Habitus & Education (Bourdieu)

AO1:

• Habitus: dispositions/tastes/lifestyles shaped by class.

• Schools have middle-class habitus → value MC tastes & devalue WC culture.

• Links to cultural capital: MC pupils gain advantage.

AO2 (Example):

• MC pupils’ way of speaking, reading, and interests match school expectations → recognition & success.

• WC pupils’ street culture, accents, clothing clash with school → feel alienated.

AO3:

• Explains why class inequality persists even without material deprivation.
  – Not deterministic: some WC pupils adapt & succeed.
  – Overlooks individual agency or peer support.

Links:

• Cultural capital → MC advantage

• Symbolic capital/violence → peer & school recognition

Symbolic Capital & Symbolic Violence

AO1:

• Symbolic capital: status given for MC-aligned behaviour/tastes.

• Symbolic violence: devaluing WC tastes → reinforces class hierarchy.

• Schools reward conformity to MC habitus; punish WC expressions.

AO2 (Example):

• WC pupils’ Nike clothing → peer recognition, but teachers label as “bad taste”.

• Wearing Nike = “being me” → gains symbolic capital among peers.

AO3:

• Shows cultural reproduction of inequality.
  – Some WC pupils navigate both worlds → hybrid identities.
  – Peer recognition can compensate for school devaluation.

Nike Identities & Peer Status (Archer et al, 2010)

AO1:

• WC pupils create self-worth/status via branded clothing and style.

• Conflict between school’s MC habitus and “street style”.

• Resistance to elite education because it is “not for people like us”.

• Unrealistic (richer posher people) Undesirable, (Doesn’t suit their preferred habitus/lifestyle, affordability)

AO2 (Example):

• Sean: Nike tracksuits vs. “posh” Gucci for MC pupils.

• Girls adopt hyper-heterosexual feminine style to assert identity.

• Non-conformity → bullying; conformity → school conflict.

AO3:

• Highlights identity as a form of agency.
  – Produces self-exclusion from education opportunities.
  – Reflects cultural & material intersection (style requires resources).

WC Identity & Success (Ingram, 2009)

AO1:

• WC pupils in MC schools experience tension: home/community habitus vs. school habitus.

• Strong local networks → intense pressure to conform to working-class norms.

AO2 (Example):

• Callum ridiculed for tracksuit on non-uniform day → choice between “unworthiness at school” or “worthlessness at home”.

• Street culture and peer conformity challenge school identity norms → symbolic violence.

AO3:

• Explains micro-level identity conflicts in achievement; shows school-community clash.
  – Highlights limits of habitus theory: not all WC pupils fail.
  – Suggests peer and neighbourhood context is crucial alongside school.

Class Identity & Self-Exclusion (Evans, 2009; Reay et al, 2005)

AO1:

• WC pupils often self-exclude from elite universities due to habitus: seen as unrealistic/undesirable.

• Strong attachment to locality reinforces staying in familiar spaces.

• Self-exclusion is both structural (school habitus) and identity-based (WC culture).

AO2 (Example):

• 21 WC girls studying A-levels → few applied to Oxbridge; fear of “not fitting in” + financial/cultural barriers.

• Locality ties → only 4 willing to move away for uni.

AO3:

• Explains continued WC underrepresentation at elite universities despite more participation overall.
  – Cultural/identity barriers sometimes outweigh financial barriers.
  – Shows interplay of agency (self-exclusion choice) & structure (MC school habitus).

Habitus & Symbolic Violence LINK

AO1:

• WC pupils’ habitus formed outside school may conflict with MC school habitus.

• Leads to symbolic violence → WC tastes/identities devalued.

AO2 (Example):

• Pupils feel alienated → may reject school or underachieve.

AO3:

• Shows how external class identity interacts with internal school processes.
  – Some WC pupils navigate both worlds successfully → not deterministic.

Speech Code & Labelling

AO1:

• WC pupils may use restricted speech code (external cultural factor).

• Teachers label pupils as less able → triggers self-fulfilling prophecy (internal).

AO2 (Example):

• Teacher expectation → pupil internalises low ability → underachievement occurs.

AO3:

• Shows interactionist mechanism between external culture and internal classroom processes.
  – Middle-class pupils advantaged by elaborated code → more likely to succeed.

Teacher Assumptions & Home Background

AO1:

• Teacher assumptions about WC parents (external factor) affect expectations and treatment of pupils (internal factor).

AO2 (Example):

• Dunne & Gazeley: teachers “normalise” WC underachievement → WC pupils entered for easier exams.

AO3:

• Explains class differences in attainment even when ability is similar.
  – Highlights importance of teacher perception & bias.

Poverty & Peer Interaction

AO1:

• Poverty (external, material) → stigmatisation and bullying (internal school interaction).

• Leads to truancy, disengagement, and failure.

AO2 (Example):

• Poor pupils cannot afford uniform/equipment → peer rejection → internalised low self-esteem → underachievement.

AO3:

• Demonstrates link between material deprivation outside school and internal classroom outcomes.
  – Intersection of internal and external factors strengthens cycle of disadvantage.

National Policy & School Practices

AO1:

• External policies (league tables, funding rules) influence internal processes (streaming, labelling).

• “A-to-C economy” → schools prioritise pupils likely to pass → WC pupils in lower streams.

AO2 (Example):

• Gillborn & Youdell: WC/black pupils disproportionately entered in lower tiers → self-fulfilling prophecy.

AO3:

• Highlights structural factors driving internal inequalities.
  – Shows macro-level policy can exacerbate micro-level classroom effects.