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

These notes condense the study guide for this unit; go there for full explanations and worked paragraphs.

They 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 written paper of 1 hour 15 minutes worth 50 marks and 21% of the A Level. You answer four compulsory questions, ending with a 26-mark essay. Check your progress on the 9699 checklist, see the whole course on the 9699 sociology hub, and practise with the practice questions for this unit.

What the syllabus lists

6.1 Intelligence and educational attainment

• The difficulties in defining intelligence.
• IQ tests and the extent to which they are influenced by social factors.
• Intelligence as an influence on educational attainment.

6.2 Social class and educational attainment

• The relationship between material factors and educational attainment.
• Cultural explanations, including parental attitudes, values, speech codes and cultural capital.
• In-school factors, including labelling, ability grouping and pupil subcultures.
• Compensatory education programmes.

Key terms

Term	Definition
Intelligence	A general ability to learn, reason and solve problems; no agreed definition
IQ	A score from a standardised test, scaled so the population average is 100
g	One general ability thought to underlie performance on many tests
Reification	Treating an abstract idea, such as IQ, as if it were a real object
Cultural bias	Test items that assume knowledge more common in one group
Hereditarian view	Differences in intelligence, and so attainment, are mainly inherited
Material deprivation	Lack of money and what it buys: housing, diet, resources
Cultural deprivation	The claim that some homes lack the attitudes, values and language schools need
Immediate gratification	Seeking rewards now rather than waiting for larger ones later
Restricted code	Short, context-bound speech relying on shared understanding
Elaborated code	Explicit, detailed speech that makes sense out of context
Cultural capital	Knowledge, tastes and skills that schools reward as if they were ability
Labelling	Attaching a fixed identity to a pupil
Self-fulfilling prophecy	A prediction that comes true because people act on it
Ability grouping	Streaming, banding or setting pupils by judged ability
Educational triage	Focusing effort on pupils near a pass and writing off others
Polarisation	Pupils splitting into pro- and anti-school groups
Compensatory education	Extra resources to make up for disadvantage outside school

Theories and studies at a glance

6.1 Intelligence

Who	What	Finding or claim	One evaluation point
Binet and Simon (1905)	First intelligence test, France	Designed to identify children needing remedial help	Built for diagnosis, later used for selection
Spearman (1904)	Factor analysis	A general factor, g, underlies mental tests	Gould (1981) called g a reification
Gardner, Frames of Mind (1983)	Multiple intelligences	Linguistic, logical-mathematical, musical, spatial and more	Hard to test
Sternberg, Beyond IQ (1985)	Triarchic theory	Analytical, creative, practical intelligence	Shows IQ tests are narrow
Eleven-plus, England	Selection after the Education Act 1944	Early items on servants and composers favoured middle-class children	Redesign as an IQ-style test did not end the class pattern
Flynn (1987)	IQ trends in 14 nations	Large score gains over time	Too fast for genes, so environment matters
Kamin (1974)	Critique of Burt’s twin data	Correlations identical to three decimal places	Hearnshaw (1979) judged the post-war data unreliable or fraudulent
Jensen (1969)	Hereditarian	About 80% of IQ variation genetic; Head Start failed	Heritability within a group cannot explain group differences
Herrnstein and Murray (1994)	The Bell Curve	IQ predicts outcomes better than parental status	Highly controversial; ignores class effects on scores

6.2 Social class

Who	What	Finding or claim	One evaluation point
Gewirtz, Ball and Bowe (1995)	School choice	Middle-class parents used choice to keep their advantage; working-class choice more limited	Shows money and knowledge combine
Douglas (1964)	Parental attitudes	Working-class parents less involved in schooling	Lack of time is not lack of interest
Hyman	Values	Working class valued education less, saw fewer chances	Stereotypes a varied class
Sugarman	Values	Fatalism, collectivism, immediate gratification, present-time orientation	May reflect real limits, not choice
Bernstein (1971)	Speech codes	Schools use the elaborated code	He denied the restricted code was inferior
Keddie (1973)	Critique	Culturally different, not deprived	Shifts blame to schools
Labov	Critique	Non-standard speech carries complex logic	Supports “difference, not deficit”
Bourdieu and Passeron	Cultural capital	Schools reward middle-class culture as ability	Hard to measure
Sullivan (2001)	465 pupils, four schools	Reading linked to vocabulary and attainment	Class effect remained after cultural capital
Lareau (2003)	Unequal Childhoods	Concerted cultivation vs natural growth	Small number of families
Becker (1952)	Chicago teachers	“Ideal pupil” matched middle-class behaviour	Old, US-based
Rist (1970)	Kindergarten	Tables set by day eight, by appearance and background	One classroom
Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968)	Field experiment	“Bloomers” chosen at random gained most when young	Weak methods; replication problems
Ball (1981)	Beachside Comprehensive	Non-manual pupils more likely in top band	One school
Gillborn and Youdell (2000)	Two British secondary schools	Educational triage; setting and tiering	Shows policy pressures shape labels
Hargreaves (1967)	Streaming	Low-stream “failures” formed a delinquent subculture	Deterministic
Lacey (1970)	Hightown Grammar	Differentiation leads to polarisation	Pupils still have agency
Willis (1977)	12 “lads”	Counter-school culture	Small sample; lads chose their path
Head Start (1965)	US pre-school	Early gains often fade	Perry Preschool found later-life gains
Plowden Report (1967)	England	Positive discrimination for deprived areas	Assumes cultural deficit
Sure Start (1998), Pupil Premium (2011)	UK policy	Early-years support; money per disadvantaged pupil	Small sums against wider inequality

Must-know distinctions

• Intelligence vs IQ. IQ is a test score. Intelligence is the idea the score tries to measure.
• Hereditarian vs environmental. Is the gap about genes, or about resources, culture and schools?
• Material vs cultural. Lacking money vs lacking (or not having rewarded) attitudes, language and knowledge.
• Cultural deprivation vs cultural capital. Deprivation blames the home; cultural capital blames the school for rewarding one culture.
• Restricted vs elaborated code. Context-bound and implicit vs explicit and context-free.
• Home factors vs in-school factors. Outside the school gate vs labelling, grouping and subcultures inside it.
• Streaming vs setting. Streaming groups pupils for all subjects; setting groups them subject by subject.
• Short-term vs long-term success. Compensatory programmes may raise later-life outcomes but not test scores.

Mini essay plan

Question: Evaluate the view that cultural factors are the main cause of social class differences in educational attainment.

1. Introduction. Define cultural factors (attitudes, values, speech codes, cultural capital). Note the rival explanations: material, in-school and intelligence.
2. For: cultural deprivation. Douglas on parental involvement; Sugarman on values; Bernstein on speech codes. Link: home culture shapes readiness for school.
3. For: cultural capital. Bourdieu; Lareau’s concerted cultivation; Sullivan’s link between reading and attainment.
4. Against: deprivation is a myth. Keddie and Labov: difference, not deficit. Parents may lack time, not interest.
5. Against: material factors. Housing, diet, hidden costs, part-time work, school choice (Gewirtz, Ball and Bowe). Sullivan’s class effect remained after cultural capital.
6. Against: in-school factors. Becker, Rist, Ball and Gillborn and Youdell show schools produce failure. Hargreaves and Willis on subcultures.
7. Against: intelligence. Hereditarian claims (Jensen; Herrnstein and Murray), but IQ is itself shaped by class.
8. Conclusion. Judge which factor carries most weight. Cultural factors matter, but they combine with material resources and school processes. Cultural capital explains how schools convert class into “ability”.

Quick self-test

1. Give two reasons why intelligence is hard to define.
2. What did Binet and Simon design their 1905 test to do?
3. What does the Flynn effect suggest about IQ?
4. What problem did Kamin find in Burt’s twin data?
5. Name Lareau’s two parenting styles.
6. What did Sullivan find after controlling for cultural capital?
7. Describe one difference between the restricted and elaborated codes.
8. What did Rist observe by the eighth day of kindergarten?
9. What is educational triage?
10. What did the Plowden Report recommend?
11. Give one criticism of compensatory education.

Answers

1. Psychologists disagree on whether it is one ability (g) or several (Gardner, Sternberg); and any test measures only the version its designers chose.
2. Identify children who needed remedial help within ordinary schools.
3. Scores rose too fast for genetic change, so environment shapes IQ.
4. His correlations stayed identical to three decimal places even when new twins were added.
5. Concerted cultivation and the accomplishment of natural growth.
6. A large direct effect of social class on attainment remained.
7. The restricted code relies on shared context; the elaborated code spells meanings out.
8. The teacher had placed children at three tables, largely by appearance and background.
9. Focusing resources on pupils near a pass while writing off others.
10. A national policy of “positive discrimination” in favour of schools in deprived areas.
11. It can assume a cultural deficit in working-class homes, or it offers small resources against wide inequality.

Where marks are usually lost

• Defining intelligence as “what IQ tests measure” with no comment on why that is a problem.
• Saying IQ tests are biased without giving a social factor (language, cultural content, coaching).
• Presenting Jensen or Herrnstein and Murray without any criticism.
• Claiming Bernstein said working-class speech is inferior.
• Using “cultural capital” when the point being made is about cultural deprivation.
• Describing Rosenthal and Jacobson as a study of social class. It was about teacher expectations.
• Treating labelling and subcultures as inevitable. Always note that pupils can resist.
• Writing about one factor only in an essay that asks you to weigh explanations.
• Listing compensatory programmes with no judgement on whether they worked.

Official syllabus

These notes 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.