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

This guide covers 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. Both sections sit in topic 6, Education and inequality, which is part of Paper 3 – Education, an A Level paper. The syllabus links topic 6 to the key concepts of Inequality and opportunity, and Socialisation, culture and identity.

Use the revision notes for this unit and the practice questions for this unit. The 9699 sociology hub and the 9699 checklist show where it fits. For theories of education, meritocracy and the curriculum (sections 5.1-5.3), see education, society and the curriculum. For sections 6.3-6.4, see ethnicity, gender and educational attainment.

Coverage table

Syllabus reference	What you must know or be able to do (from the document)	Where assessed
6.1	The difficulties in defining intelligence	Paper 3
6.1	IQ tests and the extent to which they are influenced by social factors	Paper 3
6.1	Intelligence as an influence on educational attainment	Paper 3
6.2	The relationship between material factors and educational attainment	Paper 3
6.2	Cultural explanations, including parental attitudes, values, speech codes and cultural capital	Paper 3
6.2	In-school factors, including labelling, ability grouping and pupil subcultures	Paper 3
6.2	Compensatory education programmes	Paper 3

How Paper 3 is set

The syllabus states that Paper 3 is a written paper of 1 hour 15 minutes worth 50 marks, and 21% of the A Level. You answer all four questions, which are worth an increasing number of marks:

• Question 1 is a short-answer question testing AO1 (knowledge and understanding).
• Question 2 asks for two explanations of an issue, theory or viewpoint (AO1 and AO2).
• Question 3 gives a sociological view in a quotation; you use sociological material to give two arguments against it (AO2 and AO3).
• Question 4 is an essay (26 marks) testing AO1, AO2 and AO3.

The marks for Questions 1-3 are not printed in the syllabus; your teacher will confirm them from past papers. In Paper 3, AO1 and AO3 each carry 36% of the marks and AO2 carries 28%, so evaluation matters as much as knowledge. The printed command words are Describe, Evaluate, Explain and Give.

6.1 The difficulties in defining intelligence

Intelligence sounds like one measurable thing, but there is no agreed definition.

Key terms

• Intelligence: a general ability to learn, reason and solve problems. Definitions differ on what counts.
• IQ (intelligence quotient): a score from a standardised test, set so that the average for a population is 100.
• g (general intelligence): the idea that one underlying ability explains performance on many different tests.
• Reification: treating an abstract idea as if it were a real, concrete thing.

Named ideas

• Spearman (1904) used factor analysis to argue that a general factor, g, underlies different mental tests.
• Gardner, in Frames of Mind (1983), proposed multiple intelligences, including linguistic, logical-mathematical, musical and spatial. Schools and tests reward only some of them.
• Sternberg, in Beyond IQ (1985), set out a triarchic theory: analytical, creative and practical intelligence.
• Gould, in The Mismeasure of Man (1981), argued that IQ and g are reifications: a number is mistaken for a real quality inside the head.

Evaluation. If psychologists cannot agree what intelligence is, a test can only measure the version its designers chose. Supporters of g reply that scores on very different tests tend to correlate. Gardner’s intelligences are hard to test, so his theory is difficult to check.

Worked paragraph. One difficulty is that intelligence may not be a single ability. Gardner argued for multiple intelligences, so a pupil strong in music may score poorly on a written IQ test. If schools use such scores to set pupils, a narrow definition becomes unequal opportunity. However, scores on different tests correlate, which suggests some general ability exists.

6.1 IQ tests and the influence of social factors

The first intelligence test was produced in France by Binet and Simon (1905), to identify children who needed remedial help within ordinary schools. Later tests were used to select and sort pupils.

How social factors can shape scores

• Cultural bias. Items assume knowledge more common in some groups. Early versions of the eleven-plus in England, used to select pupils for grammar schools under the tripartite system that followed the Education Act 1944, included questions about household servants and classical composers. These were easier for middle-class children. The test was redesigned in the 1960s to be more like an IQ test, but grammar schools stayed largely middle class.
• Language. Tests in the school’s standard language favour children who use it at home.
• Test-wiseness. Practice and coaching raise scores.
• The Flynn effect. Average IQ scores rose across many countries during the 20th century (Flynn, 1987, reported large gains in 14 nations). Genes do not change that fast, so the rise is widely taken as evidence that environment shapes scores.
• Flawed research. Kamin, in The Science and Politics of IQ (1974), questioned the twin studies of Cyril Burt, widely cited as evidence that IQ is mainly inherited. Burt’s correlations stayed identical to three decimal places even when new twins were added. Burt’s biographer, Hearnshaw (1979), concluded that most of Burt’s post-war data were unreliable or fraudulent.

Evaluation. Test designers have tried to remove biased items and use non-verbal puzzles. But even “culture-fair” tests reward skills practised at home and in school.

Worked paragraph. IQ tests may measure social background as much as ability. The early eleven-plus asked about classical composers, which favoured middle-class children who met such music at home, so the test turned class advantage into apparent merit. Redesign reduced obvious bias, yet grammar schools stayed largely middle class, which suggests the problem lay deeper than individual questions.

6.1 Intelligence as an influence on educational attainment

The hereditarian view says differences in attainment mainly reflect differences in inherited intelligence.

• Jensen (1969), in the Harvard Educational Review, estimated that about 80% of the variation in IQ was genetic. He concluded that compensatory programmes such as Head Start had failed to raise IQ.
• Herrnstein and Murray, in The Bell Curve (1994), argued that intelligence predicts income and job performance better than parental status does, and that a “cognitive elite” was becoming separate from everyone else.

Evaluation. These works were highly controversial. Critics argue that heritability within a group says nothing about why groups differ. Higher middle-class scores may reflect resources, language and test familiarity, not genes. The argument can also be circular: tests are judged valid because they predict school success, then used to explain it. Few sociologists deny that ability plays some part; the debate is about how much.

Worked paragraph. Herrnstein and Murray claim that intelligence, not class, sorts people into positions. This would mean the class gap in attainment simply reflects ability. However, if IQ scores are themselves shaped by class, using IQ to explain the class gap is circular. The view also ignores in-school processes, such as labelling, that can lower the attainment of able working-class pupils.

6.2 Material factors and educational attainment

Material deprivation means lacking money and the things money buys.

• Poor housing: overcrowding leaves no quiet place to study; temporary housing means changing schools.
• Diet and health: hunger and illness reduce concentration and increase absence.
• Hidden costs: uniforms, trips, books, devices and internet access.
• Paid work: older pupils may work part-time or leave education early to earn.
• School choice: houses near high-performing schools cost more. Gewirtz, Ball and Bowe, in Markets, Choice and Equity in Education (1995), found that middle-class parents used school choice to keep their advantage, while working-class choices were more limited.

Evaluation. Material explanations show that the problem lies in inequality, not in families’ values. But many poor children succeed, so money cannot be the whole story. Material and cultural factors also overlap: money buys tutors, books and trips, which build cultural capital.

Worked paragraph. Learning needs space, time and resources. A child in overcrowded housing has nowhere quiet to revise, and a 17-year-old from a low-income family may leave education to earn. So the class gap may reflect unequal resources, not ability. Yet some children in poverty achieve highly, so cultural and school factors also matter.

6.2 Cultural explanations

The syllabus names parental attitudes, values, speech codes and cultural capital.

Cultural deprivation explanations claim some working-class families do not pass on the attitudes, values and language that schools need.

• Parental attitudes. Douglas, in The Home and the School (1964), found working-class parents placed less emphasis on educational achievement and were less involved in their children’s schooling.
• Values. Hyman, in an essay on the value systems of different classes, argued working-class people valued education less and saw fewer chances to rise. Sugarman described working-class values of fatalism, collectivism, immediate gratification and present-time orientation, against middle-class deferred gratification and future planning.
• Speech codes. Bernstein, in Class, Codes and Control (1971), distinguished the restricted code (short, context-bound, relying on shared understanding) from the elaborated code (explicit, detailed, context-free). Schools use the elaborated code, which middle-class children use more. Bernstein insisted the restricted code was not inferior, and that he was not offering a deficit account.

Criticism. Keddie, in Tinker, Tailor… The Myth of Cultural Deprivation (1973), argued working-class children are culturally different, not deprived. Labov, in “The Logic of Nonstandard English”, showed that non-standard speech can carry complex reasoning. Parents may value education but lack time because of long working hours.

Cultural capital shifts the blame from the home to the school. Bourdieu, with Passeron, argued that schools reward middle-class culture as if it were natural ability. Cultural capital takes three forms: embodied (tastes, language, confidence), objectified (books, art) and institutionalised (qualifications).

• Sullivan (2001) surveyed 465 pupils aged 15-16 in four schools. Reading and cultural activities were linked to vocabulary and cultural knowledge, which helped attainment. But a large direct effect of class remained after cultural capital was taken into account.
• Lareau, in Unequal Childhoods (2003), found middle-class parents used concerted cultivation (organised activities, reasoning, questioning authority). Working-class parents tended to use natural growth (directives, unstructured play). Concerted cultivation fitted school expectations.

Worked paragraph. Bourdieu argues schools are not neutral: they reward the cultural capital of middle-class pupils, such as an elaborated way of speaking and familiarity with books. A middle-class child therefore appears “bright” when they are drawing on their upbringing. Sullivan supports this in part, but she found class still affected attainment after cultural capital was measured, so cultural capital is only a partial explanation.

6.2 In-school factors

Labelling is attaching a fixed identity to a pupil. A self-fulfilling prophecy occurs when the label shapes treatment and the pupil comes to fit it.

• Becker (1952) studied Chicago teachers, who judged pupils against an image of the “ideal pupil” that matched middle-class behaviour.
• Rist (1970) observed an American kindergarten where, by the eighth day, the teacher had seated children at three tables, judged largely on appearance and family background rather than ability.
• Rosenthal and Jacobson, in Pygmalion in the Classroom (1968), told teachers at a Californian elementary school that about 20% of pupils, chosen at random, would “bloom”. The youngest of these pupils made larger IQ gains. The study has been criticised for weak methods and replication problems.

Ability grouping (streaming, banding, setting):

• Ball, in Beachside Comprehensive (1981), found that pupils from non-manual backgrounds were more likely to be placed in the top band than pupils of similar ability from working-class homes.
• Gillborn and Youdell, in Rationing Education (2000), studied two British secondary schools and described educational triage: resources went to pupils near a pass; others were written off. They linked setting, exam tiering and triage to class inequalities.

Pupil subcultures:

• Hargreaves, in Social Relations in a Secondary School (1967), found that pupils labelled as failures and placed in low streams formed a delinquent subculture, gaining status by breaking rules.
• Lacey, in Hightown Grammar (1970), described differentiation (ranking pupils) and polarisation (pupils splitting into pro- and anti-school groups).
• Willis, in Learning to Labour (1977), studied 12 working-class “lads” who formed a counter-school culture.

Evaluation. Interactionist studies show schools can create failure. But they can be deterministic: some pupils reject negative labels and work harder. Willis’s lads chose their culture partly because they expected manual work, so in-school and out-of-school factors combine.

Worked paragraph. Ball found that pupils from non-manual homes were more likely to reach the top band than working-class pupils of similar ability. Lower bands then met lower expectations, so the school’s own decisions widened the gap. However, not all pupils accept their placement, so the effect varies.

6.2 Compensatory education programmes

Compensatory education gives extra resources to disadvantaged children or areas, to make up for disadvantages outside school.

• Head Start (USA, 1965), part of the War on Poverty, offered pre-school education. Studies often find early IQ gains fade out. The Head Start Impact Study, mandated in 1998, studied about 5,000 three- and four-year-olds.
• Perry Preschool (Ypsilanti, Michigan, 1962-1967) followed participants into adulthood. At age 19, 67% of the pre-school group had graduated high school against 49% of the control group.
• England and Wales: the Plowden Report (1967) recommended “positive discrimination” in favour of schools in deprived areas. Education Action Zones followed the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. Sure Start, announced in 1998, supported young children and parents. The Pupil Premium (2011) gives schools extra money per disadvantaged pupil.

Evaluation. Some gains appear in later life rather than in test scores. Critics argue that many programmes assume a cultural deficit in working-class families, and that small, short programmes cannot offset wider inequalities.

Worked paragraph. Compensatory education assumes disadvantage can be repaired early. Head Start produced gains that often faded, which Jensen used to argue IQ cannot be boosted. However, the Perry Preschool follow-up found higher graduation rates, which suggests benefits may show in life outcomes rather than test scores. How “success” is measured shapes the verdict.

Common errors

• Treating IQ as a fixed, accurate measure of ability without questioning how it is defined.
• Writing “Bernstein said working-class speech is inferior”: he denied this.
• Mixing up cultural deprivation (the home lacks something) with cultural capital (the school rewards one class’s culture).
• Listing studies without linking them to the question.
• Treating labelling as automatic: pupils can reject labels.
• Forgetting material factors in a question about culture, or the reverse, when the best answers weigh them.
• Describing compensatory programmes without judging whether they worked.

Where to go next

For the socialisation and research methods behind these studies, see socialisation, identity and methods. For early socialisation in the home, see The Family (9699).

Official syllabus

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