Intelligence and educational attainment

Intelligence and Educational Attainment – Cambridge A‑Level Sociology (9699)

1. Core Definitions (Paper 3 – Education)

• Intelligence: The capacity to acquire, understand and apply knowledge and skills. In sociological research it is usually operationalised by standardised cognitive tests (e.g., IQ, cognitive‑ability batteries).
• Educational Attainment: The highest level of formal education an individual successfully completes (e.g., GCSEs, A‑levels, university degree).
• Social Mobility: Movement of individuals or groups between social strata, measured in terms of education, occupation or income.
• Cultural Capital (Bourdieu): Non‑economic assets – language, attitudes, knowledge, dispositions – that facilitate success in the education system.
• Human Capital: Skills, knowledge and abilities that increase an individual’s productivity and earning potential.
• Socialisation (Paper 1): The process by which individuals learn the norms, values, beliefs and skills required to function in society.
• Identity (Paper 1): A set of meanings attached to an individual’s membership of social groups (e.g., class, gender, ethnicity).

2. Theoretical Perspectives on Education and Inequality (Paper 3)

Perspective	Key Proponents	Core Argument about Intelligence & Attainment	Implications for Inequality
Functionalist / Meritocratic	Parsons (1959), Durkheim (1893)	Education sorts individuals on the basis of merit – chiefly ability and effort. Intelligence is a natural endowment that predicts academic success and later occupational reward.	Justifies social stratification as efficient; assumes a level playing field.
Conflict / Marxist	Marx, Bowles & Gintis (1976)	Schools reproduce capitalist class relations. Tests of intelligence reflect the dominant class’s cultural logic; they legitimise existing class hierarchies.	Education maintains inequality; high‑ability labels mask class‑based advantage.
Cultural‑Reproduction (Bourdieu)	Bourdieu (1977)	Intelligence tests are a form of cultural capital. Middle‑class children possess the language, dispositions and “habitus” that align with test content, giving them higher scores.	Reproduces class and ethnic differentials; meritocracy is a myth.
Human‑Capital Theory	Becker (1964)	Education is an investment in skills. Higher cognitive ability raises the rate of return on that investment, leading to higher qualifications and earnings.	Emphasises individual responsibility; downplays structural barriers.
Interactionist / Labeling	Becker (1963), Rosenthal & Jacobson (1968)	Intelligence is socially constructed through expectations. “Gifted” labels trigger richer curricula and positive feedback, creating self‑fulfilling prophecies.	School practices can amplify or reduce inequality.
Feminist	Ridgeway (2011), Gilligan (1982)	Gendered expectations shape the way intelligence is measured and valued (e.g., spatial vs verbal tests). Girls may be under‑recognised in traditionally male‑biased domains.	Gendered patterns of attainment persist even when overall ability is equal.

3. Empirical Evidence on the Intelligence‑Attainment Link (Paper 3)

Study (Year)	Sample & Context	Intelligence Measure	Key Findings	Critical Evaluation
Jensen (1998)	2,500 UK pupils, ages 11‑16	Standardised IQ (verbal & performance)	r = .62 between IQ and GCSE grades	No control for SES; possible cultural bias in test items.
Hattie (2009) – Meta‑analysis	≈ 20 million pupils from 1,200 studies (global)	Various cognitive‑ability measures	Effect size d = 0.55 (moderate) for intelligence on achievement	Heterogeneous contexts; effect size varies by curriculum and country.
Gorard & See (2009)	5,000 English students (Key Stage 2–4)	Key Stage 2 cognitive test	Intelligence explained 25 % of GCSE variance after adjusting for SES	Cross‑sectional; causality cannot be inferred.
Fryer & Levitt (2004)	1,200 US twins, ages 7‑17	IQ at age 7	Genetic component accounted for ~50 % of educational differences	Twin design may over‑estimate genetics; environmental pathways under‑explored.
OECD PISA (2018) – UK analysis	4,300 15‑year‑olds	Reading, maths, science scores (proxy for cognitive ability)	Students from the highest income quintile scored ~120 points higher; gap persisted after controlling for school resources.	Performance scores are not pure IQ; cultural & linguistic factors influence results.

4. Mechanisms Linking Intelligence to Attainment (Paper 3)

• Cognitive Ability: Faster information processing, stronger memory, and better problem‑solving aid learning and exam performance.
• Teacher Expectations (Pygmalion Effect): High‑ability pupils receive more challenging work, richer feedback and greater encouragement.
• Parental Investment: Parents allocate more time, resources and tutoring to children perceived as “gifted”.
• Self‑Concept & Motivation: Positive test feedback builds academic self‑efficacy, encouraging persistence and higher aspirations.
• Peer Group Effects: High‑ability students often form study‑oriented peer networks that reinforce achievement.
• Curriculum Alignment: Standardised tests and national curricula frequently reflect middle‑class cultural norms, advantaging those who already possess relevant cultural capital.

5. Social‑Class, Ethnicity and Gender Inequalities in Attainment (Paper 3)

5.1 Social‑Class Inequality

• Consistent gap: PISA 2018 shows a 120‑point difference between the highest and lowest income quintiles in the UK.
• Class‑based cultural capital (e.g., books, language, extracurricular activities) improves test preparation and familiarity with exam formats.
• School‑level effects: Schools in affluent areas have higher average test scores, better resources and more experienced teachers.

5.2 Ethnicity and Educational Attainment

• DfE (2022) data: Asian pupils achieve higher average GCSE grades than White pupils; Black Caribbean pupils lag by ~0.5 GCSEs.
• Item bias: Sullivan & Heath (2020) demonstrate that culturally specific references in test items disadvantage many minority pupils.
• Intersectionality: Working‑class Black pupils face a “double disadvantage” – class‑related resource gaps plus ethnic‑related bias.

5.3 Gender Differences

• Reading & language: Girls consistently outperform boys (PISA 2018).
• Spatial & some maths items: Boys tend to score higher.
• Teacher expectations: Lower maths expectations for girls can reduce confidence and achievement.
• Intersectional patterns: Low‑SES girls from minority ethnic groups show the widest attainment gaps.

6. Education and Social Mobility (Paper 3)

• Human‑Capital View: Higher intelligence → higher qualifications → upward occupational mobility.
• Empirical illustration: Sutton Trust (2021) – pupils in the top 10 % of cognitive‑ability tests are three times more likely to attend a Russell Group university, but mainly when they also come from middle‑ or upper‑class families.
• Conflict perspective: Because intelligence tests are socially biased, they can cement existing class positions rather than open pathways for mobility.
• Interactionist view: Labeling “gifted” can open doors (special programmes, scholarships) or close them (tracking into low‑expectation streams) depending on school context.

7. Curriculum Influences, Market Forces & Cultural Capital (Paper 3)

• Official Curriculum: National Curriculum (England) defines core subjects, assessment criteria and the “knowledge‑and‑skills” framework.
• Test‑Driven Curriculum: High‑stakes exams (GCSE, A‑level) encourage “teaching to the test”, reinforcing the primacy of cognitive‑ability measures.
• Marketisation: Academy and free‑school models compete for high‑ability pupils, leading to ability‑segregated schools and greater class/ethnic segregation.
• Cultural‑Capital Alignment: Curriculum content (literary canon, scientific terminology) often mirrors middle‑class cultural norms, advantaging students who already possess that capital.
• Policy response (2023): “Curriculum for Excellence” pilot introduced contextualised assessment to reduce cultural bias and broaden the definition of intelligence beyond traditional IQ.

8. Criticisms & Limitations of the Intelligence‑Attainment Link (Paper 3)

1. Cultural & Linguistic Bias: Standardised tests may favour middle‑class language and experiences, disadvantaging working‑class and minority pupils.
2. Deterministic Outlook: Over‑emphasis on innate ability can mask the role of school quality, pedagogy and broader social policy.
3. Reductionist Measurement: IQ captures only certain cognitive domains; emotional, creative and practical intelligences are omitted.
4. Interaction with Socio‑Economic Context: SES moderates the intelligence‑attainment relationship; high‑ability children from low‑income families often under‑perform due to limited support.
5. Methodological Issues: Many studies are cross‑sectional, rely on single‑time‑point tests, or use twin designs that may over‑state genetic influences.

9. Expanded Policy Implications (Paper 3)

• Early Childhood Interventions: High‑quality preschool programmes (e.g., Sure Start) improve cognitive development, especially for disadvantaged children.
• Reducing Test Bias: Implement contextualised or adaptive testing that accounts for linguistic and cultural background.
• Targeted Support for High‑Ability, Low‑SES Pupils: Scholarships, mentorship schemes and additional tutoring to ensure talent is not wasted.
• Gender‑Responsive Pedagogy: Role‑model programmes, bias‑aware teacher training and spatial‑skills enrichment for girls.
• Ethnic‑Equity Monitoring: Publish disaggregated attainment data; fund community‑based tutoring for under‑represented groups.
• Curriculum Reform: Broaden the definition of “intelligence” to include creative, practical and emotional skills; embed growth‑mindset approaches that stress effort over fixed ability.
• School Funding Equality: Allocate additional resources to schools serving high‑need communities to narrow the resource gap that underpins class and ethnic disparities.

10. Suggested Diagram (Paper 3)

Paper 1 – Socialisation, Identity & Methods of Research

1. Socialisation: Primary & Secondary Agents

• Primary agents: Family, peers, school, religious institutions – transmit core norms and values.
• Secondary agents: Media, workplace, higher education – reinforce or modify earlier socialisation.
• Key concepts: social control, conformity, resistance, resocialisation, anticipatory socialisation.

2. Identity Formation

• Social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner): Identity derived from group memberships (class, gender, ethnicity, nationality).
• Intersectionality: Overlapping identities produce unique experiences of advantage/disadvantage.
• Identity change: Life‑course transitions (e.g., leaving school, migration) can reshape self‑concept.

3. Research Methods in Sociology

Method	Data Type	Typical Design	Strengths	Limitations
Surveys (questionnaires)	Primary quantitative	Cross‑sectional or longitudinal	Large samples; statistical analysis	Self‑report bias; limited depth
Experiments	Primary quantitative	Laboratory or field; random assignment	High internal validity; causal inference	Low external validity; ethical constraints
Ethnography	Primary qualitative	Participant observation, in‑depth interviews	Rich, contextual insight	Time‑consuming; researcher bias
Secondary Data Analysis	Secondary quantitative/qualitative	Analysis of existing datasets (e.g., census, PISA)	Cost‑effective; large‑scale trends	Limited control over variables; outdated data

4. Key Research Issues

• Ethics: Informed consent, confidentiality, anonymity, protection from harm.
• Reliability & Validity: Consistency of measurement; extent to which a tool measures what it claims.
• Sampling: Random vs purposive; representativeness and generalisability.
• Bias: Social desirability, researcher bias, cultural bias in instruments.

Paper 2 – The Family

1. Theoretical Perspectives on the Family

• Functionalist: Family provides socialisation, emotional support and economic stability (Parsons, 1955).
• Marxist / Neo‑Marxist: Family reproduces capitalist relations by transmitting labour power and reinforcing class inequality.
• Feminist: Highlights gendered division of labour, patriarchy and the unpaid “second shift”.
• Symbolic Interactionist: Family is a site of meaning‑making; roles are negotiated through everyday interaction.

2. Diversity and Social Change

• Rise of co‑habitation, same‑sex couples, lone‑parent families and blended families.
• Impact of welfare reforms, housing policies and cultural shifts on family form.
• Statistical trend (ONS, 2022): Lone‑parent families now account for ~15 % of households in England.

3. Family Roles and Changing Relationships

• Gender Equality: Dual‑earner households, shared childcare, but persistent “gender pay gap” and “motherhood penalty”.
• Inter‑generational Care: Growing proportion of older adults needing support; “sandwich generation” pressures.
• Parenting Styles: Authoritative, authoritarian, permissive – linked to child outcomes (e.g., academic achievement, self‑esteem).

4. Family and Educational Attainment (Link to Paper 3)

• Parental cultural capital (books, language, expectations) directly influences test performance.
• Family income determines access to private tutoring, extracurricular activities and stable study environments.
• Family structure: Children from two‑parent families on average achieve higher GCSE grades than those from lone‑parent families (DfE, 2021).

Paper 4 – Globalisation, Media & Religion

1. Globalisation: Core Concepts

• Global‑local tension: Homogenisation (McDonaldisation) vs hybridisation (local adaptation).
• Key flows: Economic (trade, capital), cultural (media, ideas), political (NGOs, supranational bodies).
• Theoretical perspectives:
  • World‑systems (Wallerstein): Core‑periphery relations and dependency.
  • Neoliberal (Harvey): Market‑driven integration, deregulation.
  • Post‑colonial (Said): Cultural imperialism and resistance.

2. Media: Ownership, Control & Effects

• Ownership structures: Public service (BBC), commercial (ITV, Channel 4), digital platforms (Netflix, YouTube).
• Theories of media effects:
  • Agenda‑setting: Media shape what audiences think about.
  • Cultivation: Long‑term exposure influences worldviews.
  • Uses & gratifications: Audiences actively select media to satisfy needs.
• Media representations of class, ethnicity and gender can reinforce stereotypes or provide counter‑narratives.

3. Religion: Contemporary Patterns

• Secularisation thesis: Decline of religious belief and institutional authority in modern societies.
• Pluralism: Growth of new religious movements, Islam, and non‑religious identities (e.g., “nones”).
• Religion and education: Faith schools, religious curricula, and the impact of religious affiliation on educational aspirations.

4. Intersections with Education (Link to Paper 3)

• Global curricula (e.g., International Baccalaureate) reflect transnational cultural flows.
• Media portrayals of “gifted” or “high‑achieving” students shape public expectations of meritocracy.
• Religious schools often reproduce middle‑class values while also providing pathways for social mobility for specific ethnic groups.

Summary

Intelligence, measured mainly through cognitive tests, shows a moderate‑to‑strong correlation with educational attainment. Functionalist perspectives view this as evidence of meritocracy, whereas conflict, cultural‑reproduction, feminist and interactionist theories argue that tests reproduce class, ethnic and gender inequalities. Empirical studies confirm that socioeconomic status, cultural capital, teacher expectations and school resources mediate the intelligence‑attainment link. The broader sociological syllabus connects these ideas to socialisation processes, family dynamics, global‑cultural flows, media representations and religious contexts. Effective policy therefore must address both the development of cognitive abilities and the structural conditions that shape how intelligence is measured, valued and rewarded.