Educational rights activist Geoffrey Canada said, “Middle class families know education

begins at birth.” Because of this predominant mentality among the middle class, parents

reinforce a sense of entitlement and provide concerted cultivation early on, allowing children to

develop the necessary skills to succeed educationally and in life. Contrarily, low income families

do not see education as part of their responsibility. With prevalent financial worries, their main

concern is providing their children with shelter and food as opposed to providing the building

blocks for success. Often these mentalities are reinforced through class and yield social

reproduction. A combination of class factors such as economic, cultural, and social capital and

behavior significantly shape educational outcome and occupation, ultimately altering life

chances.

First, different classes have variable access to economic capital, which results in

promoting or limiting childhood activities, skills, and access to quality education. Violence,

volatile and financial tension, often evident in low income households, negatively impacts a

child’s life outcome. For example in Unequal Childhoods, despite Ms. Taylor’s annual income

of $20,000, she is able to stretch her expenses to accommodate Tyrec’s desire to play football.

However, what bothered her most was the investment in time, which she had little of due to her

busy job. Conflict in scheduled work time can often interfere with possible scheduled

extracurricular activities. Alternatively, Garrett Tallinger, from a middle class family, has access

to many extra-curricular activities, which cost more than $4,000 a year. Furthermore, the

consistent work hours of his parents, allow them to be able to chauffer him around to all of his

scheduled activities ranging from soccer games, baseball games, swimming, and piano etc.

Stable income and time afforded from consistent work hours allow for Garret to capitalize upon

a hectic schedule full of extra-curricular activities that can enhance his advantages early on in
life. Financial tension can also affect the child’s performance at school. This is evident with

Katie Brindle, who is unable to go to school for an entire week because her mom cannot afford

or access a laundry washer and dryer. Harold McAlister’s household is unable to serve second

helpings of food due to financial strain, and poor nutrition can affect children’s mental

capabilities and concentration levels. Moreover, exacerbated financial tension can rise and result

in violence, as seen between Jane McAlister and her sister Jill, who stole Harold’s t-shirts to sell.

This volatile environment can put children under duress and can be strenuous on their mentality

as well. When financial burdens were reduced, parents were able to focus more time on their

children. In Restoring Opportunities, Inez, a single mother of two children, entered the

experimental New Hope program, which provided her with supplemental income. In turn, with a

greater degree of financial stability, she was able to provide better child care and be more

diligent about finding educational experiences and recreational programs for her children. This

advantage is evident in other beneficiaries of the program as well, with boys participating in the

New Hope program scoring 33 points higher in achievement than boys in comparison families

not in the program. Various other negative consequences arise from low income families . Low

income families are more likely to move during the school year, resulting in a difficult transition

for kids into the new school. Furthermore, low income families tend to be segregated into low

income schools, which pose a challenging environment for teachers. Despite the greater

difficulty in teaching at these schools, salary schedule pays teachers based on experience and

academic credentials. Thus, there is no incentive for teachers to stay and teach at a high poverty

school, resulting in teacher turnover and an inconsistent learning environment for students.

Next, we examine how different parents have varying cultural capital, which affects

educational outcomes and occupation. Here, educated parents serve as agents of social
reproduction through which they utilize concerted cultivation to capitalize on teachable moments

and expand the horizons of their children. Both Alexander Williams and Stacey Marshall benefit

from this parenting method. Ms. Marshall is extremely active on Stacey’s behalf and often

intervenes with her educational opportunities. When she found out that Stacey was facing

difficulty with Tina the gymnastics instructor, Ms. Marshall intervenes and addresses Tina as

being problematic, for not accommodating her teaching style to Stacey instead of having Stacey

adapt. Moments of assertiveness like this on behalf of their child often results in a twofold

advantage as children will receive tailored efforts to meet the child’s needs. It also teaches

Stacey to be assertive, so that she feels comfortable providing input on new gymnastic programs

she was considering and is able to converse with adults. Stacey’s mom is also able to understand

the rules of the game, so that when her daughter did not test into the gifted program, Ms.

Marshall had her tested privately and advocated for Stacey to be admitted into the program. Ms.

Williams too values communication as she frequently engages Alexander with parent child

dialogue, introduces him to TIME articles that broaden his worldview, and verbally negotiates

with him. She utilizes this as teachable moments so that he can develop effective communication

skills early on, which he does at the doctor’s office. There, he corrects the doctor on his age and

speaks up by actively asking the doctor about the bumps on his armpit. In fact, as seen in

Restoring Opportunities, maternal IQ and education determine child’s language usage, not

income. Professional parents on average speak 11 million words to their toddler versus welfare

parents who speak 3 millions. This provides middle class children with an early advantage, as

72% of middle class kids start school knowing their letters as opposed to only 19% of the poor

kids. Another notable difference between middle class parents and poor parents is how they use

their language to guide their child’s behavior. Middle class parents tend to use reasoning with
their child as opposed to poor parents who use directive behavior. This is mirrored in how Alex

is more willing to ask questions proactively as seen at the doctor as opposed to Harold who does

not as he is not accustomed to being assertive with authority figures. Harold is also a product of

the accomplishment of natural growth, wherein his mother sees her responsibility as providing

food and shelter rather than cultivating his interests as middle class parents do. Therefore, even

though Harold is gifted at basketball, his mother does not propel him to hone his skills through a

basketball team. Furthermore, he is often left to organize his own free time. For children whose

parents do not know the rules of the game, teachers can often become advocators. Duncan and

Murnane show how Urban Assembly School for Law and Justice have involved teachers who

help council students on college applications and financial aid.

Similarly, culture capital promotes more help seeking behavior in middle class children

who will be able to benefit in educational and future occupational settings. The educational

environment evokes the zero sum game, wherein teachers have limited time and resources to

disperse among their students, so the benefit of one student at the expense of another. Students

from different class backgrounds utilize different micro-interactional strategies as explained by

the Bourdieu model. Middle class students tend to be more vocal and asks for a wider range of

help ranging from requesting assistance, clarification, more information, and fact checking,

whereas the working class if they did ask for help would ask for assistance or clarification. In

fact, the average middle class 5th grader in Calarco’s study made seven requests for help across

four subject periods versus the working class students who made on average one request. This

helps the middle class students to complete their work faster and more correctly as they know the

rules of the game and the benefits. Aidan, a middle class student, raised his hand and when Mrs.

Hudson did not see, he stood up and walked over to Ms. Hudson to ask his question so that he
could receive the help he felt entitled to, faster. On the other hand, Hayley, a working class

student, raised her hand for 3 minutes, during which Ms. Hudson helped several more assertive

students before finally noticing Haley. In this assertive manner, middle class children profit from

their cultural capital by completing their work faster, more efficiently, and have a greater

understanding of concepts. The Bourdieu model also mentions how different mechanisms feel

natural for different classes, so even when working class children learn the assertive habits of

middle class children it feels unnatural. When student Zach misses the teacher’s instructions, he

must approach and ask Mr. Fischer to repeat his instructions. However, this is a stressful

situation for Zach who rotates his arms like helicopter blades and speaks softly while avoiding

direct eye contact. These assertive or lack of assertive habits can extend further on in life as well.

Stacey Marshall was coached by her mother to seek help from advisors and teacher assistants,

who were “paid for” such tasks, demonstrating greater “entitlement” and self-efficacy from such

knowledge. Conversely, Tara Carroll was shy and her working class mother inculcated at a

young age to avoid potentially annoy8ing the instructor. Thus, she did not learn to properly

dropa course and suffered a low grade because of her unequal cultural knowledge. Thus Lareau

demonstrates how social class potently shapes one’s life and can mitigate access to entitled help

and learning opportunities.

Then, different social behaviors and social capital associated with certain classes affects

ease of access for career and education opportunities. For example, Alexander Williams was able

to intern at a medical office in high school due to his mother’s network connections. Because of

this strong network early on, middle class students like Alexander are exposed to these

environments and the associated behaviors needed in these environments. In Pedigree, Rivera

supports this assertion when she examines the hiring process and the specific definition of
cultural merit within elite professional services firm. The first gateway requires applicants to

have attended an elite school. There is less emphasis on GPA and academic rigor and instead,

emphasis on behavior and activities. Those who participate in intensive and expensive activities

are viewed as passionate and resourceful. However, because these activities are expensive, it

rewards those who were born of a higher class. Furthermore, when employees ask applicants to

describe their story, employees are looking to hear a specific storyline involving individual

choice, purpose, and triumph, stories which are more aligned with those from a privileged

background. Alternatively, the less privileged tell stories of their luck, constraint, and diversions,

which automatically is associated with the less privileged. The case study interviews also

emphasize behavior over mathematic skills, and those who have interacted with employees of

EPS are already familiar with the normalized behavior. This is cyclic and serves to promote ease

of access of the privileged into privileged employment opportunities. In this manner, social

capital often takes priority over academic merit and allows for the gatekeepers to define cultural

merit, where in employees reward job based skills, class based ones, maximize profit and

affection between similar people. Children of lower income families do not have this reinforced

behavior nor skills aligning with EPS’ definition of cultural merit. Instead, they tend to have

more antisocial behavior, lower achievement levels, and more problematic behaviors as

suggested by Duncan and Murnane. Consequently, when low income children are segregated

into low income schools, they cannot cooperate and promote a peaceful learning environment.

The cooperative learning environment suffers, and students will not be likely to pass the

threshold of state proficiency exams. If that occurs, lower funding will perpetuate social

reproduction and inequality.

 Consequently, class is not completely deterministic due to the existence of

inherent disadvantages (i.e. disabilities), “anomalous upward mobility,” and the synergism of

race, class, and health. Despite Ms. Handlon’s efforts to work with Melanie on improving her

grades and her efforts to intervene, she is unsuccessful in promoting Melanie’s academic success

because she refuses to get Melanie tested for a learning disability and address those specific

needs. Additionally, in the New Hope supplemental income program discussed in Restoring

Opportunities, boys benefit more and not only do better academically (scoring 33 points higher

in achievement than boys in comparison families) but also have more “positive social behavior”,

fewer disciplinary problems, and less frequent behavior problems. All of this will contribute

positively to their life chances as they continue their education and gain social capital. However,

factors such as gender can impact life outcome despite equal class and education. Ferguson

shows how gender can limit a female’s life outcome through the glass escalator effect, wherein

men consistently have an advantage over women in the workplace environment and receive

higher wages and faster promotions even when men are the minority. Although upward mobility

faces many obstacles, there are rare instances of its success as seen with Nick Nevins who came

from a working class family and was able to become an endocrinologist working at an Ivy

League institution. Although he lacked cultural guides, through fortunate circumstances he had

“guardian angels” who guides his college and medical school application. For example, when

Nick was waitlisted for Columbia Medical School, he spoke to the Emergency Department

physicians where he volunteered and they got him admitted. Without these guardian angels, he

interests would not have been nourished, and no one would have intervened. However, it is

important to note that there exist few anomalies and few families have the opportunity to engage
in such supplemental income programs. Therefore, class does remain a crucial factor in

determining life outcomes.

Here we argue that different classes have differential economic, cultural, and social

capital and behavior, which affect not only their educational outcome but also life chances.

These factors serve as longstanding features of class stratification and obstacles to upward

mobility. Early education, entitlement attitudes, and social reproduction through instilled

economic, cultural, and social capital promote better life opportunities for middle class children

and the “right” type of behavior in engaging and pursuing these opportunities. Therefore,

institutions reward middle class upbringing over lower class upbringing. External education

through school and internal education through the family has become an integral part of a child’s

upbringing, one which has great ramifications throughout the rest of their lives.