External Factors SET

How does poor housing affect educational achievement?

AO1 (Knowledge + Cause & Effect):

• includes overcrowding, damp/cold conditions, and temporary accommodation.

• B/c factors disrupt study, sleep, and school stability - children’s learning negatively affected, reducing attainment.

AO2 (Application + Example):

• child sharing a bedroom - struggle study/ limiting preparation for exams and lowering GCSE grades.

• Families in frequent temporary accommodation change schools repeatedly, disrupting learning continuity/ social relationships, affects achievement.

AO3 (Evaluation + Cause & Effect):

• Deterministic (Other factors)

How does poor diet and health affect educational achievement?

AO1 (Knowledge + Cause & Effect):

• Poor nutrition → weak immune system, low energy, and absenteeism, disrupting learning.

• Poor health links: emotional and behavioural problems (e.g., hyperactivity, anxiety, aggression).

AO2 (Application + Examples):

• Howard (2001): children from poorer homes often have low energy and miss school → reduced attainment.

• Wilkinson (1996): higher rates of hyperactivity and anxiety in deprived children → disrupts classroom learning.

• Blanden & Machin (2007): externalising behaviours (fighting, tantrums) reduce lesson focus → lower grades.

AO3 (Evaluation + Cause & Effect):

• Programmes: school meal programmes, breakfast clubs, supportive teachers can reduce impact.

A Links:*

• Housing: cold/damp homes worsen health → absenteeism.

• Parents’ Education: educated parents provide better diet → improved cognitive performance.

How does lack of financial support impact educational achievement?

AO1 (Knowledge + Cause & Effect):

• Hidden costs of “free” schooling: uniforms, transport, books, computers, extra-curricular activities.

• Lack of funds → social exclusion, low self-esteem, reduced participation → negatively affects learning and attainment.

AO2 (Application + Examples):

• Tanner et al. (2003): children may miss equipment → bullied → affect confidence and engagement.

• Flaherty/Ridge (2002): 20% of children avoid free school meals due to stigma, missing nutritional support.

• Children working part-time → less time for homework → lower GCSE/A-level attainment.

• EMAs (abolished 2011): removal reduced post-16 financial support → some students unable to continue education.

AO3 (Evaluation + Cause & Effect):

• Mitigation: bursaries, subsidised resources, free school meals reduce disadvantage.

• Limitations: policies cannot fully overcome poverty; some students succeed due to resilience, supportive schools, and families.

A Links:*

• Housing & Diet: financial struggles worsen access to healthy food and stable accommodation.

• Cultural Deprivation: cannot afford enrichment activities (trips, clubs).

How does fear of debt affect working-class students’ university participation?

AO1 (Knowledge + Cause & Effect):

• Tuition fees and living costs create potential debt.

• Working-class students are more debt-averse → less likely to apply to university or attend prestigious institutions.

• Limited family support → financial constraints reinforce avoidance of higher-cost universities.

AO2 (Application + Examples):

• Callender & Jackson (2005): debt-averse students are 5x less likely to apply.

• Reay (2005): W/C students often choose local universities and work part-time, reducing chances of attaining high-class degrees.

• Dropout rates illustrate inequality: London Metropolitan 16.6% vs Oxford 1.5%.

AO3 (Evaluation + Cause & Effect):

• Some W/C students succeed despite financial constraints due to motivation, parental support, and school guidance.

• Material factors are significant: Mortimore & Whitty (1997) argue they strongly influence participation; Robinson (1997): tackling child poverty is most effective for increasing participation.

A Links:*

• Cultural deprivation: parental attitudes affect perceptions of debt and aspiration.

• Social class & inequality: material and cultural factors interact to shape participation.

What is cultural capital and how does it affect educational achievement?

AO1 (Knowledge + Cause & Effect):

• Bourdieu: cultural capital = knowledge, attitudes, values, language, tastes, and abilities associated with the middle class.

• Middle-class culture is favored by the education system, while working-class culture is devalued, giving middle-class children an advantage in school.

AO2 (Application + Examples):

• Middle-class children discuss books, music, and politics at home → familiar with abstract ideas → perform better in essays → higher GCSE grades.

• Working-class children may use local dialects → teachers unconsciously judge language → lower attainment, despite correct content.

AO3 (Evaluation + Cause & Effect):

• Explains why middle-class children succeed beyond economic wealth.

• Criticism: not all working-class children fail; resilience, teacher support, and motivation can mitigate disadvantage.

• Highlights need for school policies (enrichment programmes, museums, music lessons, reading schemes) to provide access to cultural capital.

A Links:*

• Language & Speech Codes: elaborated code = part of cultural capital.

• Parents’ Education: educated parents transmit cultural capital through home learning.

• Material Deprivation: limited resources restrict access to cultural activities.

How do educational and economic capital affect educational achievement?

AO1 (Knowledge + Cause & Effect):

• Educational capital: skills and qualifications; economic capital: wealth and resources.

• Capitals can be converted: wealth → educational opportunities; cultural knowledge → qualifications.

• Middle-class families often use economic capital to enhance educational capital → advantage in attainment.

AO2 (Application + Examples):

• Private tuition, high-achieving schools, or “selection by mortgage” (Leech & Campos, 2003) → middle-class children gain higher grades.

• Working-class children often cannot afford tuition or catchment-area housing → limited school access → lower attainment.

AO3 (Evaluation + Cause & Effect):

• Explains social reproduction: advantages persist across generations.

• Criticism: scholarships, free-school programmes, and individual motivation allow some working-class children to succeed, showing capital is influential but not determinative.

• Policies can mitigate inequality, but structural advantages remain.

A Links:*

• Cultural capital: skills convert knowledge into grades.

• Material deprivation: lack of resources limits use of cultural/educational capital.

• Housing: “selection by mortgage” links economic capital to school access.

• Policy: scholarships, bursaries, school choice improve opportunities.

• Social class & inequality: structural advantages persist for middle-class families.

How does Sullivan’s study support or challenge Bourdieu’s theory of cultural capital?

AO1 (Knowledge + Cause & Effect):

• Sullivan surveyed 465 pupils; measured cultural capital via reading habits, TV/documentary viewing, museum/gallery visits, vocabulary, and knowledge of cultural figures.

AO2 (Application + Examples):

• Pupils who read complex fiction and watched serious documentaries → higher vocabulary and cultural knowledge → higher GCSE grades.

• Children of graduate parents had the highest levels of cultural capital → demonstrated middle-class advantage.

AO3 (Evaluation + Cause & Effect):

• Supports Bourdieu: cultural capital contributes to middle-class educational advantage.

• Challenges Bourdieu: even when cultural capital is equal, middle-class pupils still outperform working-class peers → economic resources and parental aspirations also influence achievement.

• Shows that cultural capital alone is insufficient; other factors (wealth, motivation, parental support) interact with attainment.

• Policy implication: enrichment programmes can help all pupils access cultural capital and reduce inequality.

A Links:*

• Cultural Capital Theory: supports Bourdieu but highlights limits.

• Economic Capital: wealth aids conversion of cultural capital into success.

• Parents’ Education / Aspirations: parental support matters beyond cultural knowledge.

• Material Deprivation: poor children may underperform despite cultural knowledge.

blank

blank

Explain how parents’ use of language affects children’s cognitive development and educational achievement.

AO1 (Knowledge)

• Hubbs-Tait et al - parents who use challenging, evaluative language (e.g., “What do you think?”) encourage children explain reasoning/ develops independent thinking & improves cognitive performance.

• Feinstein- educated parents use reasoning language/ praise, helping children to reflect on behaviour/ think critically = supporting intellectual development & school success.

• Bereiter & Engelmann - W/C language is often brief & descriptive = restricts abstract thinking/ limits achievement in subjects requiring elaborated language. (English GCSE)

• Bernstein restricted vs elaborated code, showing that schools value elaborated code, which gives M/C children an advantage.

AO2 (Application + Examples)

• A child whose parents read with them & ask analytical questions (e.g., discussing a museum visit) practises reasoning / explaining ideas = more confident in writing extended answers for GCSE History.

• Example: “Sana’s parents read to her nightly and ask why events happened — she writes stronger evaluative paragraphs in mocks.”

• CONTRAST a child exposed mainly to short, directive comments/ struggle to structure arguments/analyse causes = limiting marks.

AO3 (Evaluation + Cause & Effect):

• Marxists/Bourdieu: schools value M/C language (cultural capital), so W/C children may be disadvantaged even if their reasoning is strong.

• Interactionists: teacher labelling and expectations may shape achievement more than language alone.

• Nuance: many working-class pupils succeed despite restricted code, showing that other factors (motivation, teacher support) matter.

• Policy: schools could teach elaborated code or run parental literacy programmes to reduce the language gap.

Compare Bernstein’s restricted and elaborated speech codes and explain their impact on achievement.

AO1

• Bernstein distinguished restricted code (limited vocabulary, short/simple sentences, context-bound) and elaborated code (wide vocabulary, complex grammar, context-free, analytical).

• Elaborated code allows children to explain ideas fully, structure arguments, and reason independently,= improves performance in school tasks and exams.

• Restricted code, + W/C families, limits explanation & abstract thinking - disadvantage pupils in contexts that favour elaborated language.

AO2 (Application)

• Exams/textbooks use elaborated code; a pupil fluent in elaborated code can structure essays/justify arguments = scoring higher in GCSE (essay based)

• In classroom discussions, pupils using restricted code may struggle to participate effectively - receive less teacher attention/miss marks in oral assessments.

• EX: “A pupil who can explain ideas in full sentences scores higher on extended writing tasks, while a peer using short, context-dependent phrases struggles to communicate points clearly.”

AO3 (Evaluation + Cause & Effect):

• Bernstein: schools could teach elaborated code to reduce inequality.

• Critics argue that calling restricted code “deficient” is classist, and Troyna & Williams highlight a teacher speech hierarchy that disadvantages working-class pupils.

• Therefore, language affects achievement, but its impact is shaped by school culture and classroom interactions.

Explain Feinstein’s argument that parental education affects children’s achievement.

AO1 (Knowledge + Cause & Effect):

• Feinstein - parent’s own education is the most important single predictor of a child’s educational achievement.

• Educated parents influence children through parenting style, enrichment activities, and the use of resources, / develop cognitive skills and independent learning, = higher academic attainment.

• This effect is partly independent of income, showing that parental education shapes achievement beyond material wealth.

AO2 (Application + Example):

• EX: educated parent may set consistent routines, encourage independent learning, and provide educational resources.

• A child whose parent tutors them and takes them to science museums practises reasoning and problem-solving, gaining confidence and understanding, which leads to higher GCSE Science marks.

• Contrast: child w/ less educated parents/ fewer opportunities for enrichment, limiting exposure to ideas and academic support, which can hinder performance.

AO3 (Evaluation + Cause & Effect):

• Feinstein highlights within-class variation, showing that parental education explains differences even among families of similar income.

• Critics, especially Marxists, argue this ignores structural bias in schools, where middle-class cultural capital is valued, and that material deprivation interacts with education level, limiting opportunities for some children.

• Nuance: other factors like motivation, peer influence, and teacher support also affect achievement, meaning parental education is important but not the sole determinant.

Describe how parenting style (educated vs less educated parents) affects school outcomes.

AO1 (Knowledge + Cause & Effect):

• Educated parents often adopt an authoritative parenting style: consistent discipline, high expectations, and encouragement of exploration.

• Less-educated parents may use authoritarian or inconsistent discipline, emphasizing obedience over independent thinking.

• Authoritative parenting develops self-regulation, planning, and independent learning/ supports better school outcomes, whereas authoritarian styles limit autonomy and confidence, potentially hindering achievement.

AO2 (Application + Example):

• A student with structured homework routines, clear guidance, and tutor support (authoritative) practises planning and revision skills, improving GCSE performance.

• Example: “A child whose parents discuss study plans and provide consistent support is more likely to complete coursework on time and perform well in exams.”

• In contrast, a pupil from a chaotic or overly strict household may struggle to organise work and revise effectively, leading to lower attainment.

AO3 (Evaluation + Cause & Effect):

• Parenting style is not deterministic: some less-educated parents provide strong support, showing that outcomes depend on multiple factors.

• Social policy, e.g., parenting classes or family support programmes, can mitigate negative effects, helping children achieve better outcomes despite less-structured parenting.

• Structural/contextual factors (school quality, teacher expectations) also interact with parenting to shape achievement, meaning parenting is influential but not the sole determinant.

How do parents’ educational behaviours (reading, museums, homework help) influence achievement? Give examples.

AO1 (Knowledge + Cause & Effect):

• Educated parents engage in activities that stimulate cognitive development, such as reading, teaching numbers/letters, museum visits, and homework support.

• Because these activities develop vocabulary, reasoning, and background knowledge, children are better equipped to understand and analyse school material, improving academic performance.

• This links to cultural capital: children gain skills and knowledge valued in schools, giving them an advantage over peers with less-enriched home environments.

AO2 (Application + Example):

• Regular visits to the British Museum or reading trips build vocabulary and contextual knowledge that pupils can use in essays.

• Example: “A pupil who has visited museums and reads widely can include detailed historical examples in GCSE History essays, improving marks and demonstrating evaluative skills.”

• Children without these enrichment experiences may struggle to provide context or detail, limiting essay performance.

AO3 (Evaluation + Cause & Effect):

• Evidence supports early intervention policies, highlighting the benefits of home enrichment for cognitive development and school success.

• Critics argue schools should provide these experiences if families cannot, but policy alone may not fully replicate home advantages, meaning achievement gaps may persist.

• Other factors, such as motivation and teacher support, also interact with enrichment to shape outcomes, showing it is influential but not the sole determinant.

Explain Bernstein & Young's point about parents’ use of income and educational resources.

AO1 (Knowledge + Cause & Effect):

• Bernstein & Young  argue that middle-class parents invest income in educational toys, books, and activities, which develop reasoning, problem-solving, and cognitive skills.

• Because children engage with these resources, they acquire skills valued in schools, improving exam performance and academic achievement.

• This illustrates how material resources and cultural capital interact to shape educational outcomes.

AO2 (Application + Example):

• Paying for music lessons or subscription STEM kits develops analytical and problem-solving abilities that pupils can use in exams.

• Example: “A pupil who practices problem-solving through STEM kits gains skills applied in GCSE Physics, increasing the likelihood of higher marks.”

• In contrast, children whose families cannot afford these resources may have fewer opportunities to practise these skills, potentially limiting achievement.

AO3 (Evaluation + Cause & Effect):

• Shows that material and cultural factors interact: income enables enrichment, while cultural knowledge (how to use resources effectively) also matters.

• Feinstein (2008) notes parental education still influences achievement beyond income, showing income is important but not the sole determinant.

• Policy implication: schools could provide enrichment resources to reduce inequality, but home opportunities still give some pupils an advantage.

Explain Douglas (1964) on parental attitudes and educational achievement.

AO1 (Knowledge + Cause & Effect):

• Douglas found that working-class parents tend to place less value on education, show less ambition for their children, and have lower levels of school contact.

• Because of this, children may be less motivated, receive less guidance, and ultimately achieve lower grades.

• This highlights the role of parental attitudes and engagement in shaping educational outcomes.

AO2 (Application + Example):

• A child whose parents rarely attend parents’ evenings may miss key information about extra revision sessions, leading to poorer preparation for exams.

• Example: “Because parents do not attend meetings, the child may not know about exam workshops or homework support, reducing performance in GCSE assessments.”

• In contrast, a child with highly engaged parents benefits from guidance and encouragement, boosting motivation and attainment.

AO3 (Evaluation + Cause & Effect):

• Blackstone & Mortimore (1994) argue that fewer parents’ evenings may be due to work commitments or the school atmosphere, rather than a lack of interest, showing parental attitude is not the sole factor.

• Keddie (1973) criticises Douglas for victim-blaming, suggesting structural inequalities explain differences in achievement.

• Therefore, parental attitudes influence motivation and outcomes, but structural and contextual factors also play a critical role.

Explain Sugarman’s four features of working-class subculture and their effect on education.

AO1 (Knowledge + Cause & Effect):

• Sugarman identifies four working-class subcultural values: Fatalism, Collectivism, Immediate Gratification, Present-Time Orientation.

• Because these values prioritise the present and collective norms over long-term planning, pupils may be less motivated to pursue educational goals, reducing attainment.

• Fatalism: belief that fate determines outcomes; Collectivism: loyalty to peer group over individual success; Immediate Gratification: preference for short-term rewards; Present-Time Orientation: focus on current rather than future benefits.

AO2 (Application + Examples):

• Fatalism: a pupil thinks “It won’t matter” and stops revising, reducing exam performance.

• Collectivism: peer pressure discourages attending Saturday revision sessions, limiting learning opportunities.

• Immediate Gratification: a pupil prefers working part-time or gaming instead of completing coursework, lowering grades.

• Present-Time Orientation: pupil prioritises social activities today over planning for future exams, affecting long-term attainment.

AO3 (Evaluation + Cause & Effect):

• Criticism: Sugarman’s theory is deterministic and over-generalising, assuming all working-class pupils follow these values.

• Structural/material factors (e.g., poverty, work hours) may explain behaviours, showing that subcultural values interact with broader constraints.

• Many working-class pupils resist these pressures, demonstrating that values influence but do not determine achievement.

Why does Sugarman say these subcultural values exist? Give an example linking work structure to values.

AO1 (Knowledge + Cause & Effect):

• Sugarman (1970) argues that job structure shapes subcultural values.

• Middle-class jobs offer career progression, encouraging long-term planning and deferred gratification.

• Working-class jobs are insecure with limited promotion, encouraging present-focused values, which reduce motivation for long-term educational goals.

AO2 (Application + Example):

• Example: In an area with many zero-hours contracts, adolescents see unstable work and do not expect long-term returns from qualifications.

• Because of this, they are less likely to prioritise studying or revision, reducing attainment in GCSEs or A-levels.

AO3 (Evaluation + Cause & Effect):

• Material conditions shape culture, so policies addressing job security and career prospects could increase motivation and long-term planning.

• Not all adolescents adopt present-focused values; some resist subcultural pressures, showing that work structure influences but does not fully determine educational motivation.

What is compensatory education? Give UK & US examples and evaluate effectiveness.

AO1 (Knowledge + Cause & Effect):

• Compensatory education policies provide extra resources to children from deprived homes, aiming to improve school readiness and attainment.

• Mechanisms include early intervention, enrichment activities, and parental support.

AO2 (Application + Examples):

• USA: Operation Head Start (1960s) — preschool, home visits, educational media (Sesame Street); improves literacy, numeracy, and cognitive skills.

• UK: Sure Start — preschool support and parenting programmes; Education Action Zones — extra funding for schools in deprived areas; improves school readiness and social skills.

• Because these interventions target early learning and home support, children gain knowledge and skills they can apply at school, improving attainment.

AO3 (Evaluation + Cause & Effect):

• Evidence shows early intervention improves school readiness, giving children a better start.

• Critiques: policies cannot fully overcome structural inequalities such as poverty, housing, and local deprivation; access and quality vary, limiting overall impact.

• Long-term attainment may still depend on school quality, family support, and neighbourhood factors, showing compensatory education is helpful but not sufficient alone.

Explain Keddie’s criticism of cultural deprivation (the “myth” argument).

AO1 (Knowledge + Cause & Effect):

• Keddie argues that cultural deprivation is a myth; working-class children are culturally different, not deprived.

• Schools devalue working-class culture, causing disadvantage in assessments.

• Because schools treat working-class language and behaviours as inferior, children may underperform despite having the necessary knowledge.

AO2 (Application + Example):

• Example: A pupil uses local dialect in an essay with accurate content but is marked down because the school treats the dialect as inferior.

• Because the school fails to value the pupil’s cultural background, their exam grade does not reflect true ability, showing institutional bias.

AO3 (Evaluation + Cause & Effect):

• Keddie’s view shifts responsibility to schools to value diverse cultures and adapt teaching.

• Supports inclusive curricula and teaching strategies that reduce bias.

• Critique: schools still need to teach standard forms of language for assessment purposes, so balancing inclusivity with exam requirements is important.

Explain Troyna & Williams (1986) on schools’ “speech hierarchy.”

• AO1: Troyna & Williams — schools rank types of speech: middle-class highest, working-class lower, minority languages lowest; the hierarchy produces disadvantage.

• AO2 (Example): A teacher prefers a polished verbal answer from a middle-class pupil and gives more praise/feedback; working-class students get less positive reinforcement.

• AO3: Highlights institutional prejudice and teacher attitudes as important causes; suggests teacher training and curriculum change.

Explain Blackstone & Mortimore’s (1994) critique regarding parental involvement.

• AO1: Blackstone & Mortimore — working-class parents often do care but are prevented by long/irregular hours, transport or school atmosphere; some schools have poor parent-contact systems.

• AO2 (Example): A parent working night shifts can’t attend daytime parents’ evenings; school assumes lack of interest rather than structural barriers.

• AO3: Suggests policies should make schools more accessible (flexible meetings, better communication), rather than blaming parents.

Make a balanced evaluation: Is cultural deprivation a convincing explanation for working-class underachievement?

• AO1: Cultural deprivation offers explanations via language, parenting, subculture.

• AO2: Evidence exists (Feinstein, Bernstein, Douglas) and policies (Sure Start) target early years. Real-life examples: targeted nursery programmes improving school readiness.

• AO3: But criticisms are significant: Keddie (myth), Troyna & Williams (institutional bias), Marxist view (reproduction of inequality), material deprivation effects. Conclusion: Cultural deprivation explains part of the problem (especially cultural transmission), but must be combined with structural/material explanations to fully account for underachievement.

Link language to cultural capital (Bourdieu) — give example & evaluation.

• AO1: Bourdieu: cultural capital = non-economic assets (language, attitudes) that help educational success. Bernstein’s elaborated code is a form of embodied cultural capital.

• AO2 (Example): A child from a family who visits galleries and uses elaborated code can draw on cultural knowledge in essay answers, impressing examiners.

• AO3: This link explains why middle-class language matters (not innate superiority but social value). Use it to criticise cultural deprivation’s victim-blaming.

Link parental education to teacher labelling & streaming.

• AO1: Parental engagement and articulation influence teachers’ perceptions; teachers may label pupils and set lower expectations, leading to streaming.

• AO2 (Example): A parent who regularly engages with teachers may result in their child being placed in higher set for Maths.

• AO3: Shows interaction of home & school factors; supports labelling theory and self-fulfilling prophecy explanations.

Link working-class subculture to material deprivation — how do they interact?

• AO1: Subcultural values may arise from material circumstances; lack of resources reinforces present-time orientation.

• AO2 (Example): In an area with poor housing and precarious jobs, families may prioritise immediate needs, reducing emphasis on long-term education.

• AO3: Demonstrates need for multi-factor explanations and integrated policy (income support + education).

Link cultural deprivation to compensatory education and evaluate.

• AO1: Compensatory education aims to offset cultural deficits via early enrichment.

• AO2 (Example): Sure Start’s parenting programmes aim to teach literacy strategies to parents, improving children’s school readiness.

• AO3: Effective for early years but limited by funding, access and deeper structural inequalities. Use to show policy response and limits.

Link Bernstein’s speech codes to Troyna & Williams’ “speech hierarchy.”

• AO1: Bernstein: codes affect communication competence. Troyna & Williams: schools rank speech types, disadvantaging non-standard speech.

• AO2 (Example): A child with strong regional dialect may be overlooked in class discussions; teacher feedback favours standardised, elaborated language.

• AO3: Use together to show both micro (language use) and institutional (teacher ranking) mechanisms producing disadvantage.

Link Keddie’s critique to Marxist theory (Bourdieu) — how do they support each other?

• AO1: Keddie: cultural difference not deprivation; Marxists/Bourdieu: schools reproduce class advantage by valuing middle-class culture.

• AO2 (Example): Curriculum content and assessment styles reflect middle-class experiences (e.g., references to museum culture, travel).

• AO3: Combined they shift blame from families to institutions and structure — powerful evaluative tool in essays.