Abstract

In recent years, post global pandemic, it has been widely reported that the ‘gap’ has widened. Whatever term is attributed to this ‘gap’, the opportunity gap, the attainment gap, the education gap, it has the same detrimental consequence for children and their families. Society is not equal; opportunity is not equal. Depending where you are born and to whom, how much money they have and what their occupation is, is impactful on a child’s choices, education, social status and career prospects. Despite the ‘levelling up agenda’ there remains a ‘post code lottery’ for children and families. According to the census data published by The Office for National Statistics (2021) depending where you are born and live has an impact on life expectancy, children and families living in the poorest areas being negatively impacted the most, experiencing poor diet, healthcare, education, and opportunities.The following discussion will consider how building, promoting, and providing opportunity to develop cultural capital and social capital in early education may support the transition into better paid career opportunities, higher education and training and promote a more equal, fair, and inclusive society.

Keywords

Cultural Capital, Social Capital, Social Mobility, Inclusion, Marginalisation, Disadvantage, Hegemony, Opportunity, Labelling, Stigmatisation, Linguistic Capital, Levelling up

Levelling up in the United Kingdom

In February 2022 the government published its levelling up agenda in a white paper from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. It set out the actions to improve the opportunities and life chances of the poorer in society and recognised the inequality of opportunity across the regions. Within the document it highlights six capitals and states that together these six capitals will ensure equality of opportunity and a strengthening of local communities, infrastructure, skills, health, innovation, resources and local leadership. The white paper emphasizes the importance of capturing the skills and talents across the country in order to:

‘Preserve and enhance the economic, academic and cultural success stories of the UK’s most productive counties, towns and cities. But it is equally critical that we improve productivity, boost economic growth, encourage innovation, create good jobs, enhance educational attainment and renovate the social and cultural fabric of those parts of the UK that have stalled and not – so far – shared equally in our nation’s success’ (Gov.uk, 2022:2).

An interesting statement, a clear focus on improved productivity and a boost to economic growth on those parts that have ‘stalled’ however it could be debated as to why some parts of the UK have ‘stalled’ and not shared equally in the nation’s success. It could be suggested that those parts that have ‘stalled’ have done so because of the lack of opportunity, support, social care, investment, transport links and a general ‘running down’ of local amenities.

For example, it wasn’t too long ago that every area had its own local library, accessible to all, providing the opportunity to support and promote a love of literature, having free access computers, games, toy libraries and offering all manner of classes for both children and adults regardless of social background, academic ability or need. The local libraries offered a hub of cultural capital. There are multiple capitals and the white paper highlights six but fails to recognise the importance of cultural capital, it not being in the six named in the paper. Local libraries are amongst multiple other ‘hubs’ for cultural capital including museums, art galleries, theatre, historic houses and castles to name a few and cultural capital goes beyond the realms of buildings to encompass for example travel, food and language. A cultured person is one who is well travelled, well read, has manners and refinement, is well educated, appreciates the arts, remains current with world events, can communicate effectively in conversation, and understands etiquette and social norms and expectations.

The levelling up agenda has a focus on the outcomes, what is to be achieved, with little understanding of how to get there and the obstacles and barriers faced by those who are from ‘disadvantaged’ families/backgrounds, whatever that looks like for the individual.

In 2022, the Social Mobility Commission, an independent advisory non-departmental public body, recognised that social mobility is multi-faceted and complex and published the State of the Nation 2022: A fresh approach to social mobility to assess, promote and improve social mobility in England. In contrast to the Levelling Up white paper (2022) which has a focus on inequality, the State of the Nation (2022:10) states that;

‘Inequality is clearly an important theme in social mobility, and inequality does shape and affect opportunity. But inequality and social mobility are not the same thing’

The State of the Nation (2022:11) discusses how ‘cognitive ability is over-emphasised’ suggesting that it not about identifying and promoting the most academic learners, it isn’t about ‘getting smart kids into top universities and jobs’ but about promoting an inclusive society which respects all occupations and values all its members. It is therefore about matching the right person with the right occupation, valuing skills and vocational opportunities, it is about choice, it is about recognising the diverse range of skills, talents, interests and abilities and offering choice and opportunities. The State of the Nation (2022:11) states that culture and values are ‘sometimes acknowledged but are probably not given sufficient weight – we should not underestimate their impact’.

Acknowledging that inequality and social mobility are complex and multi-faceted, one questions why some, from disadvantaged backgrounds, are able to climb socially and achieve in their education and careers and others not. It could be suggested that cultural capital is an impacting factor. If a person is cultured, as described above, they are far more likely to take advantage of the opportunities that present, they are more inclined to make a good impression at interview, to converse with prospective employers, to recognise and promote their skills, talents and abilities and to present and conduct themselves in the expected manner. They would have a confident acquisition of language and vocabulary, be able to express themselves effectively and operate within the expected social norms. In contrast, a person might be academically clever and ‘bright’ but if they are unable to operate effectively in a social environment and unable to express and communicate effectively then their knowledge won’t be translated, they will fail to ‘fit in’ to the culture of the company and may find difficulty working collegiately within or directing teams. If we concentrated on getting the smart kids into top universities and jobs how do we ensure they are able to thrive in those social environments. One suggests that cultural capital, alongside a suite of other capitals, is highly influential in determining effective social mobility.

Social Mobility in Higher Education

Social mobility is an increasingly pressing issue for policy makers who are under immense pressure to ensure higher education opportunities are widely available and accessible. This is a complex social issue, which not only directly relates to the non-traditional student, that is those who have not followed a linear path from school- to college- to University, on entry to higher education but reaches far back into their early education and experiences. The Social Mobility Commission (2016: 87) stated that ‘despite recent progress, for every child who goes to university from a family in the bottom two income quintiles, seven do not’. By 2019/20 data from the Department of Education confirmed an increasing ‘gap’ between those going to University from poorer families (26.6%) and those from more affluent families (45.7%) despite the data from UCAS (2020:1) stating that:

‘A record 28,030 18 year olds from the most disadvantaged backgrounds across the UK have been accepted into university – up 8% on the equivalent point last year. This means 22.5% of all young people from the most disadvantaged backgrounds are due to start an undergraduate degree’.

This data reflects the intake of students in 2020 who were dramatically impacted by the Covid pandemic and the well documented difficult situation with exam results. Entry conditions to Universities had to be flexible to account for the pandemic and not further disadvantage learners resulting in a possible anomaly in data which may not be repeated in subsequent years, meaning data could decrease back to pre-pandemic levels in the next intake cycles.

Under the widening participation agenda, those from poor socio-economic areas and those who have underachieved at school ‘due to their disadvantaged circumstances’ are able to access higher education through Fastrack or Access programmes or to have their circumstances taken into account (Vignoles and Murray, 2016: 1). Despite the recognition that family background and socio-economic status has a dramatic effect on participation in higher education, and higher education opening its doors to allow for social mobility, there are still relatively low numbers of participants from these target groups.

There also needs to be acknowledgment that university is not for everyone, nor should it be. Choice and opportunity must for everyone, society and the economy also need skilled tradespeople and persons to fill the range of employment opportunities available that do not require a degree. There is no question that universities opening their doors to the under privileged is a stride forward in ensuring opportunities are available for all and some more modern universities pride themselves on doing just that, but other opportunities need equal focus. Training and support to enter employment which matches skills and talents, considering personal circumstance and focusing on achievement, wellbeing and improving standards of living and community cohesion cannot be overemphasised. However, the personal and economic benefit of a highly educated society remains particularly desirable, and figures published by the Department for Education (2018:1) stated that ‘graduates aged 16-64 earned a median salary of £34,000 in 2018, a rise of £1,000 from the previous year, while their non-graduate peers who chose a different path earned a median salary of £24,000’. Clearly, university is the pathway to higher paid careers for the majority and holds multiple benefits personally and for society. Those who chose higher education must be afforded the opportunity and support to pursue it, they must be enabled to access, flourish, and thrive in higher education environment and in the subsequent professional workplace. An abundance of cultural capital would enable students to grasp opportunities, promote their skills and abilities and converse in a professional environment, a lack in cultural capital would therefore be detrimental regardless of academic ability.

We cannot rely on the next creative genius that might impact medicine or science being a middle class white traditional student, in fact they probably won’t, so of course the creative and brightest need to have the higher education opportunities but they need to be able to ‘fit in’, thrive, develop, challenge, and accomplish, to fulfil their potential. Cultural and other capitals for example, linguistic and social capital must be well developed to enable them to navigate social arenas and habitus different to their own. They need to be able to adapt and be flexible, communicate effectively, have the confidence to challenge and be free from prejudice and marginalisation. Education is lifelong and attending university at the age of 19 or 20 is not always appropriate, available, or desirable at that age. It is not a ‘now or never’ situation and a person can decide to study at higher education at any age or stage of their lives, it is not the playground of the rich and the young, education is for all regardless of personal circumstance, background, age or ethnicity or any other protected characteristic.

If a student has not taken a linear path through education and has taken up other vocations before applying to enter higher education then they are more likely to be older than the traditional student population, those that have taken a linear path and are entering University straight from college or sixth form. With regards to mature students, Hunt (2016) expressed concern in the drop in numbers entering University and Dunne et al (2007: 49-59) explains that:

‘HE institutions can no longer afford to consider only the academic needs and abilities of students…greater recognition needs to be given to the sacrifices, challenges and conflicting commitments that face working, mature students. 

For many disadvantaged learners, completing college courses and then entering University at approximate age 19 is not an option for multiple reasons and for those non-traditional, older, more mature students there are many complex issues; social standing, socio-economic background, access to quality education and post 16 education, which have impacted social mobility despite the governmental focus. The former State of the Nation Report in 2016 (xi) had deep concerns that:

‘Low levels of social mobility are not just impeding the poorest in society, but are holding back whole tranches of middle, as well as low-income families, the so-called ‘treadmill families’, who are running harder and harder but standing still’.

Post global pandemic, European war, and a growing cost of living crisis, the divide deepens and widens. The Child Poverty and Action Group in 2021 stated that 4.2 million children were living in poverty in the UK, 29% of the child population. Children living in poverty have less opportunity to develop and experience cultural opportunities and build cultural capital. Households living in poverty are unable to offer the same cultural opportunities compared to the more affluent households. Less money is available for computers, internet, books and resources, visits to Museums, Art Galleries, Theatres, travel, cuisine, and extra-curricular activities, for example horse riding or music lessons.

For those that complete a degree programme and despite the widening participation focus, there remains an urgent need for professional job opportunities for graduates to prevent their migration from their local areas. Duckworth et al (2016) stated that the term widening participation means the targeting of under-represented students ‘and an outcome of change to create a more equitable higher education system and society’ as the retention and success of underrepresented groups has been an issue for concern (Crosling et al, 2009) for policy makers dating back to The Robbins Report in 1963, which concluded that ‘a highly educated population is essential to meet competitive pressures in the modern world’. Yet those from the poorer communities were least likely to transition in to HE, indicating there were ‘large reservoirs of untapped ability in the population’ (Robbins, 1963:268).

Over thirty years later, The Dearing Report (1997) also stated that a highly educated population was an important driver, but the focus was on the ability to improve the UK economy and compete internationally through investment in ‘the volume and the quality’ of higher education (The Dearing Report, 1997:88). In terms of widening participation, The Dearing Report provided data to illustrate that participation in higher education at the time had increased but ‘disparities in participation in higher education between groups’ still existed, which was explained to be those from poorer communities, determining a need for higher education to be ‘responsive to the aspirations and distinctive abilities of individuals’ (The Dearing Report, 1997:101).

It appears that the debate regarding opportunities, education, higher education and better paid professional jobs is not a current topic but policy makers have failed to act and have made little impact on the ‘gap’. It must be recognised that higher education is sometimes neither suitable nor desirable for everyone, but as previously stated, choice and opportunity must be available to all. The economic benefits are evident, more people in higher paid professions equals more contributions to tax and pensions and social benefits including better health, childcare and family structures (APLU, 2017; Behrman and Stacey, 1997). But even with higher participation rates, therefore ‘tapping into’ a wider talent pool, graduates from poorer areas or backgrounds fail to reach the higher paid positions. One suggests an apparent lack of cultural and social capital, amongst other capitals and lack of networks and connections, prevents many from even feeling able to apply for higher more powerful, better paid positions as the obstacles and barriers including childcare costs, caring responsibilities, poor transport links and lack of entitlement to name a few, are preventing social mobility.

Widening participation can be a vehicle of transformative change for the individual, the economy and therefore society in general (Vignoles and Murray, 2016). However, the concern is, the extent of change is dependent on diverse individuals ‘from a wide range of backgrounds [applying and participating] in higher education’ (Vignoles and Murray, 2016: 1). Indicating a need to address the discrepancies of higher education participation between differing social groups, to better provide for entry and retention of the non-traditional and under-represented and ensure better graduate prospects locally.

The intention remains to encourage better social outcomes by improving life chances for the student, their families and for society through the gain of potential skills and knowledge (Crosling et al, 2009). Widening participation in higher education however does not come without its difficulties, it has been reported that groups made up of very diverse individuals can lead to lower cooperation levels (Chapman, 2001) due to the different perspectives of individuals. Thum (2015:1) discusses how this lack of cooperation may be due to fear of ridicule, fear of difference and fear of showing vulnerability, but states that seeing different perspectives can lead to ‘true solutions instead of compromises’. An assumption, therefore, that difference and diversity can lead to better integration, acceptance, and empathy.

Understanding the journey and perspectives of the non-traditional student is therefore increasingly important if we are to achieve social mobility and opportunities for all and the focus and development of cultural capital needs to begin in early education. It is clear, that it is in everybody’s interest to ensure a person is provided the opportunity to achieve and fulfill their potential. This may be through higher education or through vocational routes or into skilled trades and apprenticeships. It remains that having a fulfilling career and having the opportunity to make choices to improve one’s quality of life and to offer an altruistic contribution to their community or society at large comes from having choice and opportunity accompanied by developed capitals.

A Historic Exploration of Hegemony and Cultural Capital Using a Bourdieusian Lens

It is recognised that traditional students are those rich in cultural capital, frequenting ‘highbrow’ cultural experiences (Bourdieu, 1994; Bowl, 2001; Dumais and Ward, 2010: Harrison and Waller, 2010; Schuetze and Slowey, 2002). A presumption could be made that non-traditional students, in contrast, have not had such rich cultural experiences. Traditional students are those ‘likely to have followed an unbroken linear path through the education system’ (Bye et al, 2007:24), the non-traditional students would likely be first generation, older and therefore not taken a continuous path (Moor, 2001). The traditional student body would consist of a homogeneous (all the same) group of young, male, middle class learners (Allen, 2000: Faiia, 2007; Coll and Zalaquett, 2007). Any student excluded from this group: female, mature, ethnically diverse and working class would therefore be classed non-traditional. Students with learning disabilities would also have been excluded from the traditional category (Schuetze and Slowey, 2002).

According to Rautopuro and Vaisanen (2001:6) perceptions of non-traditional students in relation to their ‘achievement, motivation, satisfaction with study experiences, retention and reasons for pursuing education’ would be varied and different to that of the traditional student (Rautopuro and Vaisanen, 2001:6). Bowl (2001) suggests that non-traditional students have a higher level of engagement, but this can disguise the many complex barriers that may affect their retention and ultimately their attainment.

It is recognised that non-traditional students may be ill-equipped to deal with the educational environment (Espinoza, 2012; Harvey,2011; Hillage and Pollard, 1998) therefore one suggests the responsibility for developing employability, professionalism and capitals for the non-traditional students is placed firmly upon the education system.

Historically, research has focused on the non-traditional student from the perspective of the education institution rather than the perspective of the learner and much attention given to retention of non- traditional students came from a deficit model ideology (Woodrow, 1999). This deficit view leads to the non-traditional student being positioned as ‘less motivated, less well prepared, less qualified and a threat to academic standards and norms’ (Duckworth et al, 2016: 262). The notion that the non-traditional student might be a threat and in danger of ‘rocking the boat’ (Collins, 1992:185) and potentially de-stabilising the power of the ‘ruling class’ (Bates, 1975:351-366) that exerts hegemonic control over society, could be directly related to Gramsci’s theory of hegemony (1975).

The term hegemony can be traced back to Russian revolutionaries such as Plekhanov, Axelrod and Lenin who not only advocated a hegemonic society but insisted on its necessity to separate the elite from the masses (Bates, 1975). It was recognised that the systems in which society operates is ‘reinforced by a dominance of ruling class ideas and values’ (Bates, 1975:352). The notion that the lower classes are almost brain washed into thinking and actively believing the ideology of the dominant classes which explains and justifies ‘their own subordination’ (Scott, 1990: 72), is referred to as false consciousness. Heywood (1994:85) suggests it is false consciousness which keeps the lower classes from recognising and rejecting their oppression as they are unable to recognise they are being oppressed and exploited.

Goffman (1963) explains that labelling, stigmatisation and marginalisation are exerted by advantaged groups to keep the lower classes down and to protect and justify their higher status. It is the advantaged groups that make the rules of society and determine what is of value and it is no coincidence, the advantaged groups possess all the required features and attributes (Duckworth et al, 2016). Gamsu (2017:3) believes that the whole ‘school system is organised around the needs of educating the elite’ and states that the education system is arranged to prosper the white, middle-class male and marginalise and oppress anyone else, suggesting the non-traditional learner needs to experience transformative change and adopt new social and linguistic practices to engage with higher education. Without support to become conversant in the ‘elaborated code’ (Bernstein, 1971:125) non-traditional students may feel out of their depth and inadequate due to their restricted linguistic capital (Bourdieu,1990), which is required by the dominant culture to succeed. Linguistic deprivation is due to cultural deprivation (Bernstein, 1971) or lack of cultural capital in the Bordieusian sense and has a negative impact on attainment and educational success.

Valencia (2012) discusses that deficit thinking is the result of socially constructed schemes of representation and the use of specific parlance blames the victim for their own predicament and standing in society. In agreement Duckworth et al (2016:264) discuss how the discourse of ‘deficit and failure’ individualises the problem and the person becomes responsible for their own deficit. Language such as ‘culturally disadvantaged’ and ‘cultural deprivation’ have been historically used to indicate the fault of the person not the establishment and could be used as a form of oppression and to shift the responsibility to the learner rather than the institution (Leese, 2010). In accordance, Duckworth et al (2016:262) discuss how:

‘Western societies are characterised by structured inequality conveyed through a class system based on power, which is both hierarchical and potentially damaging and conflictual’.

The non-traditional student will indeed have a struggle to break the mould and move out of the position which has been deemed suitable for their position and ranking in society as the structural inequalities, which according to Duckworth et al (2016) are embedded within society. A change of culture is required to better provide for and embrace the diversity of the non-traditional student (Bowl, 2001: Meuleman et al, 2014).

Bourdieu (1986) introduced the concept of habitus, which refers to habits, skills, values and beliefs constructed through experiences. Habitus is dependent on both those experiences and of social capital, it allows the student to navigate social environments drawing on the concepts previously constructed. If habitus is dependent on experiences and the non-traditional student has not had the opportunity to build enough habitus through the lack of cultural opportunities, for example to appreciate fine art or opera then they are likely to feel like an imposter and out of their depth when operating in higher social status groups (Bourdieu and Passeron, 1990). It is presumed therefore, the traditional student is in possession of the expected skill set, language, behaviour and cultural capital to entitle them to membership of the desired group.

Krauss and Chiu (cited in Gilbert et al, 1998:39) discuss language being at the ‘core of social psychology: attitude change, social perception, personal identity, social interaction, intergroup bias, stereotyping and attribution’, which is an interesting concept, if language is attributed to identity and therefore defining oneself and ones belonging, then it must also attribute one to a particular group. This would suggest a change of language is needed to be able to move between groups or gain entry to a new group. Eastman (1985:15) determined that ‘a social group’s shared attitudes are coded in culture-specific vocabulary (“group talk”) and how familiarisation with “group talk” is required for group entry’. In order that the non-traditional student quickly adapts to the new social arena they must learn ‘new social and linguistic practices’ (Daddow, Moraitis, and Carr, 2013:33). Adopting the language and behaviours of another group viewed as higher in status in order to gain entry would certainly require an amount of ‘bluffing’ which would instill a fear of exposure and a feeling that one is ‘not up to the job’ and an imposter (Kets de Vries,2005:110).

Clance and Imes (1978:1) coined the term ‘imposter phenomenon’ and identified that it is mostly women who feel like imposters and ‘maintain a strong belief that they are not intelligent; in fact they are convinced that they have fooled anyone who thinks otherwise’. Moving into social groups viewed above one’s station must only compound fears of being an imposter and add to anxiety and lack of confidence. Non-traditional students are unlikely to have the cultural capital, social capital and language skills required for a speedy and successful adaption to their new environment (Rautopuro and Vaisanen, 2001; Wheelan, 2010). There is concern that non-traditional students are subsequently in a disadvantaged position and may find difficulty transitioning to higher education (Hockings, 2010) because their previous habitus no longer serves them (Bourdieu, 1990).

Despite an apparent lack of cultural and social capital, appropriate habitus, imposter phenomenon and restricted linguistic and social practices the non-traditional learner has historically demonstrated motivation, commitment and resilience (Bowl, 2011; Bradley & Cleveland-Innes, 1992). Although there may be commonalities, each non-traditional student has personal experiences, a unique habitus and many complex characteristics that should be examined and explored on an individual basis as it is recognised that they are more goal orientated, reflective and analytical (Richardson, 1994) and have the potential to achieve as well if not better than their traditional, younger counterparts (Winefield, 1993; Kuh, 1993).

It becomes clear that if non-traditional learners, those from poor economic backgrounds, difficult life histories, those underrepresented, marginalised and oppressed in society are to break the mould, the development of capitals such as cultural and social capital, needs to be firmly embedded into early education. Children need to be enabled, empowered, and equipped to compete, with confidence in the rules of social norms and expectations.

It is important to recognise that capitals, using a Bourdieusian lens (1977) are not distinct, they overlap, interweave and inter-connect and they are interdependent and fluid in nature (Hawthorn, 2017). Bourdieu’s forms of capital (1977) provide a framework to aid the analysis and interpretation of the structures within which the individual operates. Bourdieu (cited in Jenkins, 1992:74) believed that society and ‘social life’ is far more complex than simply the ‘aggregate of individual behaviour’ but is dependent and contributes to the societal structures.

In contrast, Althusser (1969) expressed that it is society that imposes the rules and structures and that individuals do not have any influence of, contribution to, or ability to change them. Rejecting the ideology that everything causes everything else and insisted that dominance and subordination have allowed society to form and are indeed the glue that holds society together. Althusser (1969:179) stated that society must always have hierarchy and dominance and although;

‘One element can displace another to assume the dominant role, such variations occur within a structure which is invariant to the extent that it always has a dominant element’.

Althusser (1969) therefore believes that domination is in fact essential to the structure of society and social mobility is controlled by the determining external factors of the dominant culture.

Social Capital through a Bourdieusian Lens

Social capital (Bourdieu, 1979) is connected to class and emphasises struggle, conflict and power exertion. Social capital describes the socio-occupational groups, resources and potential that aggregate members of the social class share, which provide each member with a network of support and ‘the backing of the collectively owned capital’ (Richardson, 1986:51).

The accumulation of social capital acts as a resource to deal with the struggles in different social fields. Bourdieu (1979) believed however, that individuals do have the capacity and are able to exert power over their future trajectory and through accumulating capital their opportunities and trajectories improved. The amount of social capital, therefore, will either aid or hinder an individual’s ability to operate within the social arena in which they find themselves (Siisiäinen, 2000: Bourdieu and Passeron, 1990: Bourdieu, 1979). Again highlighting the importance of capitals being a focus in early education.

Bourdieu (1979) noted that of all the capitals; social, cultural, economic and symbolic which all interact and correlate with each other, it is economic which is the most effective and efficient capital for social mobility which firmly roots the individual in their habitus or class (Bourdieu, 1979).

Imposter Phenomenon, the Oppression of the Working Class

Bourdieu (1994) highlighted that working class students would find the cultural, social and economic differences difficult to negotiate, leading to a feeling of a fish out of water (Bathmaker, 2015). Bourdieu (cited in Waquant, 1989:43) states:

‘When the habitus encounters a social world of which it is the product, it finds itself “as a fish in water”, it does not feel the weight of water and takes the world about itself for granted’.

In opposition, to feel like a fish out of water would mean that the individual has encountered a habitus different to its own, feels the weight of the surroundings and has difficulty navigating an unfamiliar world. Feeling like an imposter is compounded when one must adopt new language and behaviour to fit into an unfamiliar group (Daddow, Moraitis, and Carr, 2013), or different social class. Therefore, to feel a sense of belonging, one must feel the same as others in the group, have commonalities, feel welcomed, accepted, valued and equal. However, Bourdieu observed that people are schooled in the reproduction and accepted competencies of their social class and are conditioned to accept their social position and all the opportunities or lack of opportunities that it brings (Hunter, 2010: Harker, 1990). Social class discourses positions learners firmly within their class and is evident through the language used to describe themselves and their situation (Bourdieu, 1987). For example, there may be a perception that the people that go to university are ‘posh’ and ‘rich’, and that, university ‘isn’t for the likes of me.’ The social class discourses that positioned one firmly within their class can be evident through the language used to describe oneself and one’s situation.

It takes time to indoctrinate oneself within a class system and cultural capital is formed through the immersion into cultural practices associated with one’s class (Bourdieu, 1987). It therefore could be suggested that these terms were generally used by family members, friends and people in the wider social circle to position the participant and keep them firmly in their class with a general acceptance of one’s place in society and the lack of opportunities available due to one’s social standing.

It is suggested that society must operate within dominant social structures but actually existing and operating, actuality, in itself underpins and supports the dominant, hierarchical structures (Godelier, 1977). It would therefore be supposed that subordination is cooperation ‘to subsist and reproduce [the] way of life’. This is in concurrence with the conclusions of Marx and Engels (1965:20) that ‘the proletariat carries out the sentence [which] the proletariat, passes upon itself’ reinforcing and maintaining social structures (Richardson, 1986).

Bourdieu holds similar beliefs, that the individual is indoctrinated to the rules of culture and socialisation through learning from a very early age (Jenkins 1992). Again, attesting to the fact that cultural capital needs to be supported, developed and embedded into early education.

Bourdieu (1990:132) refers to individuals as ‘agents’, actively choosing the habitus in which they reside by adopting a suitable identity and conforming to the expected behaviour. This indicates that external and internal structures are inter- dependent, and our world shapes our habitus, and our habitus shapes our world. The status of the individual within the habitus, whether and in how far they are dominant or subordinate, depends on the accumulation of economic, social, and cultural capital.

One would suggest, to ‘break free’ from the constraints of a class status there needs to be a realisation that it is no longer required or indeed an expectation to operate within these structures and accruing confidence and self-belief might have an effect on opportunities. The realisation that one no longer needs to conform to the expected behaviour of the imposed class position, no longer adhering to actuality, no longer reproducing the way of life (Godelier, 1977) and behaving in a subordinate manner, makes way for greater opportunity and a feeling of empowerment and happiness. Rather than social structures being ‘maintained and reinforced’ there might be an emergence of a newfound confidence, directly attributed to feeling of belonging.

Sacrifice

In order to acquire, build or develop cultural and social capital it is accepted that there must be an amount of sacrifice (Grenfell, 2007). Bourdieu (1978:839) terms this as ‘deferred satisfaction’ and Richardson (1986) states that making sacrifice in the short term for long term gain is a regularly accepted practice, but self-improvement is always at a personal cost. The expected level of embeddedness is dependent on the level of personal investment and on how similar to, or how much, the new activity fits with other aspects of personal life (Holtom et al, 2006), how far the new activities relate to the activities accepted in the social group or class to which one belongs. Sacrifice relates to what must be given up pursuing the benefits of the new social arena and represents the personal cost to be forfeited. The personal cost could also include losing friends and leaving a community that provides safety and belonging. The more one must sacrifice or give up the more the difficult the transition will be (Holtom et al, 2006). Although Bourdieu (1986) states that the rewards ‘are commensurate with’ the sacrifice.

Women are also likely to experience guilt when they make decisions that affect their self-perceptions and when the group or class they belong to exerts a particular gender role (Hattery, 2001). Kaplan et al (1991) stress how women need to effectively adapt to a man’s world if they are to survive in a competitive marketplace, which is somewhat unhelpful as society in general presents challenges regarding women and childcare, maternity leave usually meaning a break in career, missed opportunities and a subsequent lack in progression (Stiver, 1991: Hall et al, 2004).

If children in the early years are supported in the development of capitals and have an expectation that they will be able to make their own choices and have and accept opportunities where they will be able to ‘fit in’ to different social groups and norms and gender roles are put firmly in the past, then surely the level of sacrifice, guilt and imposter phenomenon will be much less, if present at all. A focus on support, encouragement, redefinition of role, responsibility/charge, making change, confidence, and empowerment, contributed to the building or shifting in capital. By investing in cultural capital, social capital and linguistic capital, a sense of self and self-worth, a redefinition of standing and role might emerge and learners might be able to make the shift to become confident change makers (Pelham and Swann, 1989), made possible by the support and encouragement from teachers, families, communities and peers. When a learner is well equipped with capitals, has confidence and is empowered, the fear of failure is reduced. Feeling failed, a fear of failure itself and a fear of trying and failing, is replaced by a fear of underachievement and a drive to attain with increased ambition.

Using Learning Outside the Classroom to Develop Cultural and Social Capital

Since the publication of the Learning outside the classroom Manifesto in 2006 (DfES:1), learning outside the classroom has gathered momentum as it stated that learning outside the classroom provided:

‘often the most memorable learning experiences, help[ing] us to make sense of the world around us by making links between feelings and learning. They stay with us into adulthood and affect our behaviour, lifestyle and work. They influence our values and the decisions we make’.

It has since been widely agreed that learning Outside the Classroom contributes to the development of wellbeing, self confidence and self-esteem (Malone, 2008; Rouse, 2015; Ofsted,2008; CLOTC, 2020; Young Citizens, 2021;). The Education Endowment Foundation (2021) discussed how the ‘gap’ between disadvantaged learners and their peers might be closed by offering opportunities through learning outside the classroom which build skills to support cognition, self-confidence, resilience, internal motivation, and metacognition. Learning outside the classroom opportunities for example, beach school, forest school or museum education offer quality cultural experiences where children can learn in an interactive, fun, multi-sensory, immersive experience. Using the local areas, for example, a beach school if located near the coast, allows children to experience the world in a less restrictive manner, encouraging them to use all of their senses to engage in the experience, work independently, explore and discover whilst building understanding of nature, the environment and the changing coastline. Within such visits to beach school or museums or Art galleries, children have the opportunity for explorative play, encouraging imagination, inquisition, curiosity and trail and error learning experiences but also are indoctrinated into the more cultural world. Children learn that spaces such as museums and Art galleries are accessible, enjoyable and encourage engagement. They learn how to act, speak and behave when in these different environments, they are encouraged to feel a sense of belonging and ownership, that they ‘fit in’ to these cultural spaces. Schools can engage with the locally available resources to promote storytelling and imaginative play, develop confidence and safe risk taking in outdoor places, develop social skills, working in teams, supporting and helping each other, empathy and respect whilst building vocabulary and language.

Conclusions/ Reflections and Impact on Practice

Cultural capital, along with other capitals as discussed above, must be developed in the early years of childhood and education if all children are to be able to compete at an equal level. If ‘levelling up’ is to ever be achieved, then alongside the infrastructural changes, children need be able to operate effectively in the social arenas that they encounter. They need to be able to communicate effectively, translate their knowledge, skills, and attributes, have confidence to direct their own trajectories, make their own informed choices, take responsibility for their contribution to society and pursue opportunities. Opportunities must therefore be available and attainable and allow graduates to have access to higher paid jobs and career paths whilst remaining in their local communities. Children need to be supported in the development of a deep level of self-understanding and reflection which is essential to negotiate the social field and build habitus to achieve greater understanding and self-improvement (Bourdieu, 1984; Biesta, 2007; Goodson, 2013).

Learning is more that qualifications and formal education, but an experience of learning for life, from life, (Biesta, 2007) meaning that the process of biographical learning is of high importance. The identification of the connections between experiences, change and transitions through reflections can provide empowerment and aid further personal and professional development, promoting self-appreciation and lifelong learning. Alongside academic subjects, children’s spiritual, moral, social, and cultural development need to be a focus and indeed is outlined in the Ofsted inspection framework handbook (2019 section 28) as an area that inspectors will focus upon and state that:

‘All schools are also required to promote the spiritual, moral, social, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils at the school and of society; and prepare pupils at the school for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of later life’.

Schools can gain recognition for their promotion of spiritual, moral, social and cultural development (SMSC) and can gain a national quality mark from YoungCitizens.org (2021:1) for achieving excellence in these areas, who point out that there is ‘strong evidence show[ing] that promoting SMSC in schools can contribute to raising academic standards and improving children’s life chances’. Continuing to explain that:

‘Spiritual, Moral, Social and Cultural provision has the potential to raise aspirations. It can also develop empathy, deepen spirituality, connect young people with their communities and develop their core values. It creates opportunities for pupils to learn and practise human virtues and values such as compassion, hope, faith and forgiveness. Through high quality SMSC education we have the opportunity to nurture reflective wisdom that will enable our children to make wise and appropriate choices that will prepare them for life in modern Britain’.