Cambridge International A Level Sociology (9699): Paper 3 Education 6.1-6.2 – Intelligence, social class and educational attainment – Practice Questions

These are original questions written for Marlbridge, for revision and practice on this content. They are not reproduced past-paper questions, and they do not replicate the exam’s exact structure, question count or mark tariffs – examination boards hold copyright in their own papers. Use these alongside the official past papers from your board or school.

These questions cover sections 6.1 (Intelligence and educational attainment) and 6.2 (Social class and educational attainment) of the Cambridge International AS & A Level Sociology (9699) syllabus for examination in 2024, 2025 and 2026. This content is assessed in Paper 3 – Education, a 1 hour 15 minute, 50-mark paper of four compulsory questions that ends with a 26-mark essay. All people, places, programmes and data below are fictional.

Revise first with the study guide for this unit and the revision notes for this unit. The 9699 sociology hub and the 9699 checklist show where this unit fits.

Questions

1. Give two difficulties in defining intelligence. [2]

2. Describe two material factors that may lower a pupil’s educational attainment. [4]

3. Explain the difference between a restricted and an elaborated speech code. [4]

4. Explain two ways in which IQ test scores may be influenced by social factors. [6]

5. A researcher studied pupils in Calderbrook, a fictional school district. Pupils took an IQ test at age 11 and were divided into three bands. The table shows the percentage in each group who gained five or more exam passes at 16.

Tested IQ band at 11	Middle-class pupils (%)	Working-class pupils (%)
Top third	82	61
Middle third	64	38
Bottom third	41	19

(a) Using the data, describe two patterns in attainment. [4] (b) Explain what the data suggest about the view that intelligence is the main cause of differences in attainment. [6]

6. On the second day of term at Fernhill Primary, a fictional school, a teacher listens to each child read one sentence aloud. She then places the children in three reading groups. A researcher notes that the children whose parents are doctors or lawyers are mostly in the top group, and those whose parents work in a nearby factory are mostly in the bottom group.

(a) Give the sociological concept that best describes the teacher’s action. [1] (b) Explain how this could lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy. [4]

7. Imani’s parents are university lecturers. At weekends the family visits museums, and at dinner they debate the news. Kyle’s parents both work long shifts in a warehouse. Using the concept of cultural capital, explain two ways in which Imani may be advantaged at school. [4]

8. Explain two criticisms of cultural deprivation explanations of working-class underachievement. [4]

9. Bright Steps is a fictional pre-school programme in the fictional region of Westmere. The table shows mean reading scores (out of 100) for children who attended and a matched group who did not.

Age	Attended Bright Steps	Did not attend
5	63	51
8	67	61
11	71	69

(a) Using the data, give the gap between the two groups at each age. [3] (b) Evaluate what the data show about the success of compensatory education. [5]

10. “Anti-school subcultures are caused by working-class pupils’ own values, not by what happens in schools.”

Using sociological material, give two arguments against this view. [8]

11. Evaluate the view that intelligence is the main influence on educational attainment. [12]

12. Evaluate the view that material factors are more important than cultural factors in explaining social class differences in educational attainment. [16]

Answers

Questions 10, 11 and 12 are extended responses. The real exam marks these with levels of response, not point by point; the [1]s below show indicative creditworthy points.

1. Psychologists disagree whether intelligence is one general ability (g) or several, as Gardner argues [1]. Any test measures only the version its designers chose, so a definition can become “what the test measures” [1]. [2] Examiner insight: “Give” needs two distinct difficulties; two versions of the same point earn one mark.

2. Overcrowded housing [1] leaves no quiet space for homework or revision [1]. Poor diet or ill health [1] lowers concentration and raises absence [1]. [4] Examiner insight: each factor needs its effect on learning described, not just named.

3. The restricted code uses short, simple sentences [1] and relies on meanings shared by the speakers [1]. The elaborated code is explicit and detailed [1], so it makes sense out of context, which is the language schools use (Bernstein) [1]. [4] Examiner insight: explain both codes and the link to school; a definition of only one code caps the answer.

4. Cultural content: items may assume knowledge more common in middle-class homes [1]; early eleven-plus questions about classical composers favoured middle-class children [1], so scores partly measured background [1]. Coaching and familiarity: practice raises scores [1]; families who can pay for tutoring gain an advantage [1], and the Flynn effect shows scores rise with environment, not genes [1]. [6] Examiner insight: each explanation needs a social factor, an example and how it changes the score.

5. (a) Within each class, attainment rises with IQ band [1], e.g. working-class pupils rise from 19% in the bottom band to 61% in the top [1]. In every band, middle-class pupils do better [1], with a gap of 21 to 26 percentage points [1]. [4] (b) IQ band matters: within each class the top band beats the bottom by about 41-42 points [1]. But a class gap of at least 21 points remains at every IQ level [1], so intelligence does not explain it [1]. Bottom-band middle-class pupils (41%) outperform middle-band working-class pupils (38%) [1]. IQ scores may themselves reflect class, so part of the “IQ effect” may be class [1]. The data are from one fictional district, so the conclusion is that both matter, and intelligence is not clearly the main cause [1]. [6] Examiner insight: use specific figures from the table; “middle-class pupils do better” without numbers rarely earns full marks.

6. (a) Labelling (or ability grouping) [1]. [1] (b) The teacher’s judgement rests on one short reading, which may reflect home background [1]. Children in the bottom group may get simpler books and lower expectations [1]. They may come to see themselves as poor readers [1], so their progress slows and the prediction comes true, as Rist found [1]. [4] Examiner insight: a self-fulfilling prophecy answer needs all three steps: label, changed treatment, pupil’s response.

7. Imani’s museum visits give her knowledge that schools value [1], so she understands lessons and texts more easily [1]. Debating at home builds the confident, explicit language teachers reward [1], which Bourdieu argues schools mistake for natural ability [1]. [4] Examiner insight: application marks need Imani’s details, not a general definition of cultural capital.

8. It blames working-class families [1], when Keddie argues they are culturally different, not deprived [1]. It ignores material limits: parents working long shifts may lack time, not interest [1], so low involvement does not prove low values [1]. [4] Examiner insight: name who makes the criticism or what evidence supports it to move beyond assertion.

9. (a) Age 5: 12 points [1]. Age 8: 6 points [1]. Age 11: 2 points [1]. [3] (b) The gap shrinks from 12 to 2 points, a fade-out like that often found for Head Start [1]. Attenders are still slightly ahead at 11 [1]. Reading scores are one measure; Perry Preschool found benefits in adult outcomes such as graduation [1]. Gains may fade because later schooling does not build on them [1]. Critics argue such programmes assume a cultural deficit and cannot offset wider inequality [1]. [5] Examiner insight: “Evaluate” needs a judgement on both what the data show and what they leave out.

10. Argument 1: schools create subcultures. Hargreaves found pupils labelled as failures in low streams formed a delinquent subculture [1]. Lacey showed differentiation leads to polarisation [1]. So the subculture is a response to the school’s ranking [1], not something pupils bring with them [1]. Argument 2: subcultures are not simply working-class values. Ball found that working-class pupils were more likely to be placed in lower bands than similar middle-class pupils [1], so school decisions sort them [1]. Gillborn and Youdell found educational triage wrote off some pupils, giving them reasons to disengage [1]. Many working-class pupils join pro-school groups, so class values cannot be the whole cause [1]. [8] Examiner insight: each argument must directly oppose the quotation; describing a subculture without saying how it challenges the view scores little.

11. Hereditarians such as Jensen (1969) estimated about 80% of IQ variation is genetic [1], and Herrnstein and Murray (1994) argued IQ predicts outcomes better than parental status [1]. IQ scores do predict school results [1]. However, intelligence has no agreed definition: Gardner and Sternberg describe several kinds [1], and Gould called IQ a reification [1]. IQ tests reflect social factors: the early eleven-plus favoured middle-class knowledge [1], and the Flynn effect shows environment raises scores [1]. Kamin exposed flaws in Burt’s twin data [1]. The argument is circular if tests are validated by school success and then used to explain it [1]. Other influences are strong: material deprivation [1], cultural capital (Bourdieu; Sullivan) [1] and labelling (Rosenthal and Jacobson; Rist) [1]. Conclusion: ability plays some part, but it is shaped and filtered by class. [12] Examiner insight: top answers question the concept of intelligence itself rather than only listing other causes.

12. Material factors: overcrowded housing and poor diet reduce study time and concentration [1]. Hidden costs of trips, books and devices exclude poorer pupils [1]. Older pupils may leave to earn [1]. Gewirtz, Ball and Bowe found working-class parents’ school choices were more limited than middle-class parents’ [1]. Sullivan found a class effect remained after cultural capital was measured, which supports a material or structural cause [1]. Cultural factors: Douglas found less parental involvement in working-class homes [1]. Sugarman described immediate gratification and fatalism [1]. Bernstein argued schools use the elaborated code [1]. Bourdieu argued schools reward middle-class cultural capital [1], and Lareau showed concerted cultivation fits school expectations [1]. Evaluation: Keddie and Labov argue cultural deprivation is a myth [1]. Material and cultural factors overlap, because money buys cultural capital [1]. Both ignore in-school processes such as banding (Ball) [1] and educational triage (Gillborn and Youdell) [1]. Compensatory programmes that targeted culture often faded, which may suggest culture is not the main problem [1]. Conclusion: material factors set limits, cultural factors shape how schools judge pupils, and schools turn both into results [1]. [16] Examiner insight: an essay that weighs the two factors against each other, and reaches a reasoned judgement, scores higher than two separate lists.

Where marks are usually lost

• Naming a material factor without saying how it affects learning.
• Writing a general definition of cultural capital when the question gives a scenario to apply.
• Saying IQ tests are biased without naming the social factor involved.
• Describing table data without quoting figures, or misreading the gap between groups.
• Explaining only one step of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
• Presenting hereditarian views with no criticism.
• Arguing for the quotation in a “give two arguments against” question.
• Listing studies in an essay without a judgement about which factor matters most.

Next steps

Check your weaker areas with our diagnostics, revisit the study guide, and then try the ethnicity and gender practice set for sections 6.3-6.4. If you want a teacher to go through your answers, Book a free trial class.

Official syllabus

These questions follow the Cambridge International AS & A Level Sociology (9699) syllabus for examination in 2024, 2025 and 2026, sections 6.1 and 6.2 and the details of the assessment for Paper 3.