You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Schools are not just places where knowledge is transmitted — they are powerful sites where identities are formed, negotiated, contested, and sometimes imposed. This topic is the synoptic capstone of the Education unit: it asks you to see the pupil not as a passive object that the system processes but as an active agent who constructs a self in relation to a class-, gender-, and ethnicity-coded institution, and whose identity work then feeds back into their achievement. The AQA specification requires you to understand how education shapes class identity, gender identity, and ethnic identity, and — above all — how these dimensions intersect. The skill examiners reward most highly is the refusal to treat class, gender, and ethnicity as separate variables: the strongest answers show how they combine in specific contexts to produce distinctive identities and outcomes, with pupil agency and structural constraint held in tension throughout.
Key Definition: Identity is an individual's sense of who they are — their understanding of themselves in relation to others. Identity is not fixed or natural; it is socially constructed through interaction and shaped by social structures such as class, gender, and ethnicity. In the sociology of education, identity matters because how pupils see themselves as learners powerfully affects how they engage and achieve.
Spec Mapping: This lesson maps to AQA A-Level Sociology (7192), Paper 1, Section A: Education — drawing together the requirement to understand relationships and processes within schools (pupil identities and subcultures) with the analysis of differential achievement by class, gender, and ethnicity, and the interaction between them. It consolidates the internal-factor and identity material of Lessons 3-6 and is assessed through 10-mark "applying material from the Item, analyse two…" questions and 30-mark "applying material from the Item and your knowledge, evaluate…" essays.
Synoptic Links: Identity is the unit's most synoptic theme. Class identity rests on Bourdieu's habitus and cultural capital (Lesson 2, stratification); gender identity draws on Connell's hegemonic masculinity, which also runs through the family and gender debates; ethnic identity connects to Critical Race Theory and the sociology of beliefs. The whole topic is an extended case study in the structure-and-agency debate that underlies sociological theory. Methods in Context is central because almost all the evidence is ethnographic — observation and unstructured interviews (Archer, Mac an Ghaill, Sewell, Mirza, Fuller) — so the validity, representativeness, and ethics of small-scale qualitative research are built-in evaluation points.
Social class profoundly shapes pupils' experiences of education, not only through material and cultural factors (see Lessons 2-3) but also through the formation of class identities. The way pupils understand themselves as working class or middle class — and the way the education system responds to these identities — has a significant impact on educational outcomes.
Archer et al. (2010) conducted research with working-class young people from diverse ethnic backgrounds and found that many experienced a fundamental tension between their class identity and the identity required for educational success. The education system, Archer argues, operates with a narrow definition of the "ideal pupil" that is implicitly middle class — confident, articulate, interested in "high culture," future-oriented, and willing to defer gratification.
For many working-class pupils, performing this kind of middle-class identity felt inauthentic and disloyal to their family and community. Instead, they invested in alternative sources of identity and self-worth, particularly through consumer culture. Archer described how some working-class pupils constructed "Nike identities" — using branded clothing, trainers, and accessories to establish status, self-worth, and peer recognition.
These "Nike identities" served several functions:
However, these identities brought pupils into conflict with schools (which enforced uniform policies and viewed consumer culture as inappropriate) and detracted from educational engagement. Archer's work shows how the education system's failure to recognise and value working-class identities can push pupils away from learning.
Reay (2001, 2006) drew on Bourdieu's concept of habitus — the deeply ingrained dispositions, attitudes, and ways of seeing the world that are shaped by class background — to explore how class identity affects educational experiences.
Key Definition: Habitus (Bourdieu) refers to the internalised dispositions, tastes, and taken-for-granted ways of thinking that individuals acquire through socialisation within their social class. It shapes how people perceive and respond to the social world, including the education system.
Reay studied working-class students who had gained places at elite universities and found that they experienced profound feelings of being "out of place" and "not belonging." They described feeling like "a fish out of water" — aware that their accent, cultural knowledge, social skills, and habitus marked them out as different from their predominantly middle-class peers.
This experience created a painful "emotional labour" — working-class students had to constantly monitor and modify their behaviour, suppress their natural ways of speaking and acting, and perform a middle-class identity in order to fit in. Some managed this successfully but felt they had lost something of themselves in the process. Others withdrew or dropped out, unable to reconcile their working-class identity with the demands of the university environment.
Reay's work highlights that educational mobility is not simply a matter of qualifications — it involves a transformation of identity that can be psychologically costly and socially isolating.
Evans (2009) studied working-class pupils in an inner-city school and found that teachers frequently told pupils to be "ambitious" and to "aim high." However, the definition of ambition used by the school was implicitly middle class — it meant aspiring to professional careers, university education, and social mobility. Working-class pupils who aspired to skilled trades, local employment, or community-based careers were seen as lacking ambition, even though their aspirations were realistic and meaningful within their own communities.
This reveals the class bias embedded in educational discourse — the education system values certain kinds of aspiration (those associated with middle-class trajectories) while devaluing others.
Schools are key sites for the construction and performance of gender identity. Research has shown that different versions of masculinity and femininity are produced, reinforced, and challenged within the school environment.
Mac an Ghaill (1994) conducted an ethnographic study of masculinity in a secondary school (The Making of Men) and identified several distinct versions of masculinity:
| Group | Characteristics | Relationship to Education |
|---|---|---|
| Macho Lads | Valued physical toughness, fighting, and sexual conquest; rejected intellectual pursuits | Anti-school; saw academic work as feminine and therefore threatening to their masculinity |
| Academic Achievers | Valued academic success and were comfortable being studious | Pro-school; managed to combine academic identity with a secure masculine identity |
| New Enterprisers | Valued vocational skills, business, and technology | Engaged with school on their own terms; saw vocational subjects as compatible with masculinity |
| Real Englishmen | Middle-class boys who affected a casual indifference to school while actually working hard | Strategically engaged; maintained an effortlessly successful image |
Mac an Ghaill's study is important because it shows that masculinity is not a single, fixed identity — it is plural and contested. Different groups of boys construct different versions of what it means to be male, and these versions have different implications for educational engagement and achievement. The "Macho Lads" are the most educationally disadvantaged because their version of masculinity is fundamentally incompatible with the values of the school.
Connell (1995, 2005) introduced the concept of hegemonic masculinity — the dominant form of masculinity in any given context that subordinates both femininity and alternative forms of masculinity. In many schools, hegemonic masculinity emphasises:
Key Definition: Hegemonic masculinity (Connell, 1995) is the culturally dominant ideal of masculinity in a given context. It defines what a "real man" should be and subordinates alternative masculinities (e.g., academic, gay, or sensitive masculinities) as inferior.
Boys who conform to hegemonic masculinity may resist academic engagement because working hard is seen as "feminine" or "gay." This helps explain why boys — particularly working-class boys — underachieve, and why the gender gap in achievement is widest in subjects associated with literacy and communication (traditionally coded as feminine). The process by which a dominant masculine identity translates into underachievement can be set out as a chain, which a strong essay can use to organise the argument:
flowchart TD
A[Hegemonic masculinity dominant in peer culture] --> B[Academic effort coded as 'feminine' or 'uncool']
B --> C[Working-class boy must choose: peer status or schoolwork]
C --> D[Visible effort risks losing peer status]
D --> E[Boy disengages from literacy-based subjects]
E --> F[Underachievement, widest in English and communication]
F --> A
Connell also argues that schools actively produce gender identities through their structures and practices: the gendered division of school sports (football for boys, netball for girls), the gender composition of the teaching workforce, and the hidden curriculum of gender expectations all reinforce particular versions of masculinity and femininity. This connects directly to the family and to wider gender debates, since the masculinities pupils bring to school are first formed through primary socialisation.
Ringrose (2007) analysed the way girls' educational success has been represented in media and policy discourse. She found that the narrative of the "successful girl" has created new pressures — girls are expected to be simultaneously academically successful, attractive, sexually confident, and emotionally intelligent. This creates an impossible standard that produces anxiety, stress, and perfectionism among girls, even as they outperform boys in examinations.
Fuller (1984) studied a group of Black Caribbean girls in a London comprehensive and found that they developed a distinctive identity strategy in response to negative labelling by teachers. Rather than internalising the low expectations placed upon them (as the self-fulfilling prophecy would predict), they used anger at racism as fuel for academic success.
Crucially, however, they did not become conformist "ideal pupils." They maintained an anti-school but pro-education stance — they worked hard in class and valued qualifications, but they did not respect teachers, follow school rules, or defer to school authority. Their identity combined academic ambition with a rejection of the institution that they perceived as racist.
Fuller's study is important for several reasons:
Mirza (1992) extended Fuller's analysis through a detailed study of Black Caribbean girls in two London schools. She found that the girls were ambitious, hardworking, and committed to educational success. However, their aspirations were frequently undermined by teachers' "racialised expectations" — well-meaning but limiting assumptions about appropriate careers and aspirations for young Black women.
Mirza identified three types of teacher who affected the girls' experiences:
| Teacher Type | Behaviour | Impact on Pupils |
|---|---|---|
| The Colour-Blind | Treated all pupils the same, ignoring racial differences | Failed to recognise or address racism |
| The Crusader | Well-intentioned but patronising; tried to "save" Black pupils | Undermined pupils' autonomy and self-confidence |
| The Liberal Chic | Superficially anti-racist but unwilling to challenge the system | Offered symbolic support without meaningful change |
None of these approaches effectively supported the girls. Mirza concluded that institutional racism operated through these everyday interactions, limiting the opportunities available to Black Caribbean girls even when individual teachers had good intentions.
Sewell (1997) studied Black Caribbean boys in a London secondary school and found that they navigated a complex identity terrain shaped by racism, peer pressure, and media representations of Black masculinity. As discussed in Lesson 4, most boys were conformists or innovators — pro-education, even if sometimes anti-school. However, the small minority of "rebels" — who adopted an exaggerated, hyper-masculine, anti-school identity drawn partly from media representations of Black street culture — were disproportionately visible and shaped teachers' perceptions of all Black boys.
Sewell argued that the "street" identity offered an alternative source of status and respect for boys who felt rejected by the school. However, it was ultimately self-defeating, as it reinforced teachers' negative stereotypes and led to exclusion and underachievement.
Sewell (2009) later controversially argued that the key factor in Black Caribbean boys' underachievement was not institutional racism but the absence of strong father figures, which left boys vulnerable to anti-educational peer culture. This argument has been criticised for ignoring structural racism and blaming Black families.
Schools shape identity through multiple mechanisms:
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.