Gender and Education

ISSN: 0954-0253 (Print) 1360-0516 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cgee20

‘The children have only got one education and you

have to make sure it's a good one’: parenting and
parent–school relations in a neoliberal age

Carol Vincent

To cite this article: Carol Vincent (2017) ‘The children have only got one education and you have
to make sure it's a good one’: parenting and parent–school relations in a neoliberal age, Gender
and Education, 29:5, 541-557, DOI: 10.1080/09540253.2016.1274387

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2016.1274387

© 2017 The Author(s). Published by Informa Published online: 12 Jan 2017.

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group

Submit your article to this journal Article views: 1955

View related articles View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cgee20
GENDER AND EDUCATION, 2017
VOL. 29, NO. 5, 541–557
https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2016.1274387

‘The children have only got one education and you have to
make sure it’s a good one’: parenting and parent–school
relations in a neoliberal age
Carol Vincent
UCL Institute of Education, London, UK

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This article draws on data from 20 years of qualitative projects with Received 16 May 2016
parents to discuss and analyse four issues. The first is the apparent Accepted 6 December 2016
responsibilities of parents to deliver both the school and home
KEYWORDS
setting which will provide ‘the best’ for their children. Second, the Sociology; parents; social
gendering of parental responsibilities. Third, I investigate how class; race and ethnicities;
class and ethnicity shape parents’ relationships with educational motherhood
institutions. Drawing on Bourdieu’s conceptual framework, I
consider how parents’ habitus and the forms and volumes of
capital they both possess and can activate inform their struggles
for position in the field of schooling. Fourth, I seek to complicate
the binary between middle-class and working-class parents with
the former commonly assumed to be powerful and effective in
the field of schooling, and the latter powerless and ineffective. I
conclude by considering the direction of future research on
home–school relations.

Introduction
The words of a white working-class London-based mother, cited in the title, sum up the
sense of responsibility many parents feel towards their children’s schooling. Yet, this is
almost always accompanied by a sense of unease as to how best to ‘make sure’ children
receive a ‘good’ education. This paper examines parents’ responses to this dilemma
drawing on data from my 20 years of research with parents. The data are from qualitative
projects based on semi-structured interviews with parents from a range of class back-
grounds and ethnic origins, and were collected as part of research into parent–school
relationships in primary and secondary schools (e.g. Vincent 1996, 2001); parents’ social
relationships with others unlike themselves (in terms of class and/or ethnicity) (Vincent,
Neal, and Iqbal 2016); middle-class and working-class parents choosing childcare
(Vincent and Ball 2006; Vincent, Ball, and Braun 2010) and the educational strategies of
Black (Caribbean-origin) middle-class parents (Vincent et al. 2012a; Rollock et al. 2015).
Considering this varied data set, I identify and consider four themes that arise. First, I
analyse the messages, shaped by a neoliberal climate, about the responsibilities of

CONTACT Carol Vincent [email protected] UCL Institute of Education, 20 Bedford Way, London WC1H
0AL, UK
© 2017 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
542 C. VINCENT

parents to deliver both the school and home setting which will provide ‘the best’ for their
children. Second, I will discuss the fundamental argument that ‘parent’ is, in practice, rarely
the gender-neutral term that it appears to be. I argue, using examples from my research,
that parenting responsibilities still fall most heavily upon women, and particularly upon
working-class women. Third, and turning to focus in particular on parents’ relationships
with schools and early years settings, I investigate how class and ethnicity shape
parents’ relationships with educational institutions, deploying data from several qualitat-
ive research projects with multi-ethnic groups of parents of pre-school, primary and sec-
ondary aged children. Drawing on Bourdieu’s conceptual framework, I consider how
parental habitus and the forms and volumes of capital they both possess and can activate
inform their struggles for position in the field of schooling. Fourth, I seek to complicate the
binary between middle-class and working-class parents, with the former commonly
assumed to be powerful and effective in the field of schooling, and the latter powerless
and ineffective. I attempt a more nuanced understanding of class position and how this
influences parents’ relationships with schools in two ways, first by drawing attention to
class fractions and the apparently forgotten ‘intermediate’ class, and second by drawing
on notions of intersectionality, and mapping out the potential intersections of class and
ethnicity. These four themes seem to me to address key issues regarding the direction
of contemporary parenting and home–school relations, and the role of class, gender
and ethnicity in shaping both parental experiences of policy and lived interaction with
schools. I conclude by considering the direction of future research on home–school
relations.

Theme 1. Learning how to parent

Over the last 20 years in England, public policy has focused on families, with state inter-
vention into what was once seen as a private sphere being increasingly accepted (Hollo-
way and Pimlott-Wilson 2014, 107). Thus, parenting classes, parenting orders and
parenting ‘warmth’ have all featured on recent policy agendas. As a result, parenting in
England is presented in policy as the way to ensure the child’s success, and parents,
mothers in particular, are firmly positioned as the individuals responsible for the child’s
emotional, social, educational, and physical development. Holloway and Pimlott-Wilson
note that Labour, coalition, and Conservative governments have been active in this
sphere, and discuss the different governments’ championing of parenting classes, analys-
ing this as the way the state seeks to develop the context in which the future ‘citizen-
workers’ are raised. Policy interventions under ex-Prime Minister Cameron included a
trial attempt to universalise parenting classes through CANParent1 – and an emphasis
on the importance of the home environment. Parenting classes are indicative of a ‘roll
out’ form of neoliberalism which reconstitutes neoliberalism in ‘a more socially interven-
tionist and ameliorative form’ (Peck and Tickell 2002, 388). However, Holloway and
Pimlott-Wilson (2014) argue that this emphasis on intervention into the family through
parenting classes is seemingly at odds with the government’s strategy of ensuring local
authorities reduce local state services (including those for families and children) in the
name of austerity, thereby signalling a return to the 1980s ‘roll back’ form of neoliberalism,
which sought to heavily reduce the welfare state. An insistence on parental responsibility
 GENDER AND EDUCATION 543

and self-sufficiency is, of course, a discourse with some utility when welfare state support
services are being reduced. Hence, the emphasis on parenting quality. For example:
What matters most to a child’s life chances is not the wealth of their upbringing, but the
warmth of their parenting. (David Cameron, Prime Minister 2010–2016, speech to Demos,
January 2010)

What parents do is more important than who they are. (Allen Report 2011, xiv)

Cameron’s speech and Allen’s report focus attention on what all parents could apparently
do to provide not only a consistent and authoritative parenting style, but also support for
their child’s intellectual development, through ensuring a home environment conducive
to learning. Thus, as Hartas (2015) notes, citing the 2011 Patterson report for think-tank
Centreforum, parenting is positioned as ‘an active weapon for counteracting disadvan-
tage’. Such a position acts to minimalise the effect of the social and economic conditions
in which parents are bringing up their children, as if poverty, including mental health
issues (more prevalent amongst the poor, see http://www.poverty.org.uk/62/index.
shtml, also Morgan et al. 2007) and low-quality and/or overcrowded and insecure
housing, does not impact on family life (Hartas 2015). Drawing on quantitative large-
scale data (from the Millennium Cohort Study, specifically data relating to children’s
school performance at 7), Hartas adds to the work of Sullivan et al. (2010) and Peruzzi
(2013) to evidence the argument that there is a ‘significant contribution of families’
socio-economic background (i.e. family income and maternal qualifications) to children’s
schooling outcomes’ (Hartas 2015, 31). Given these data, she strongly criticises the margin-
alisation of the material contexts of parenting, arguing that ‘parental support for learning
and warmth are re-coded as a commodity to maximise children’s human capital’ (Hartas
2015, 22; also Boddy et al. 2016). Dermott and Yamashita make a similar point in relation
to guidance on parenting, compared in England and Japan.
Focusing on advice offered in relation to education and food, we note that in both Japan and
the UK the relationship between money and the ability to perform idealised parenting prac-
tices is rarely mentioned. (Dermott and Yamashita 2014)

Arguments highlighting the power of parenting focus on the soft skills of parents, their
characters, their aspirations, and their temperament. This acts to ‘name the crisis as
moral’ (Jensen 2010), with blame falling on individual parents who fail rather than their
economic circumstances.
This discourse of the power of parenting assumes a causal relationship between parent-
ing and outcomes. As Ramaekers and Suissa (2012) argue, this encourages an approach to
parenting which is technical, about learning skills. Yet, as they argue, parenting a child is
more than the outcome of skills and techniques, learnt and perfected from television
nannies, social media, and parenting courses; it is a complex mixture of decisions,
actions, and emotions.
In affluent countries, parenting, mothering especially, has moved decisively beyond
providing food, shelter, and love. This shift has been referred to as ‘intensive mothering’
(Hays 1996) or ‘intentional parenting’ (Arendell 2001). The parenting practices of the afflu-
ent middle classes have been described by Annette Lareau as ‘concerted cultivation’
(Lareau 2003); that is, ‘becoming a parent means getting engaged in a project called
544 C. VINCENT

child’ (Karsten 2015, 568). As a middle-class London father said to me recently, this means
putting the children at the centre of the family’s activities:
You asking that question [about his friendships] it suddenly popped into my head that the
whole idea of parenting, for me as a parent, or my idea of being a parent was that I was
going to have children with the focus of children. So subsequently I have allowed my friend-
ships to go, my hobbies to decline as it were, my focus is my children. The flipside is that there
are people who have children but carry on with their relationships, with their friendships, with
their hobbies […] Those, I suppose like me, White middle class, do have a very definitive focus
on their children and will, not necessarily drop everything for it, but that is – my social calendar
is dictated by my children, which birthday parties they have got to go to (white middle-class
father, Junction school, London).2

The suggestion is made here that a particular social group – the white middle classes – are
more likely to focus on their children in this way. Implicit in the response is the idea that
this sacrificial approach to parenting (letting adult friendships and hobbies go) is more
than a simple description of the position many time-pressurised parents find themselves
in, but has additional claims to a moral good. This is the way one ought to parent, with the
children’s activities prioritised before all else. Lareau’s (2003) very valuable contribution of
‘concerted cultivation’ describes this way of parenting, which includes involving children
in paid-for extra-curricular activities, and also encouraging a particular style of talk with
debate and discussion, both within the family and without (Lareau describes how
middle-class children are encouraged to ask questions when visiting a doctor, and
begin to develop a conversational relationship of equals with professionals). She also
identifies the cost for parents, especially mothers – financial costs, but also of time,
labour, and effort – of this approach which prioritises the child’s development before all
else. The use of activities (sport, art, music, drama, and so on) aims to develop a portfolio
of skills and talents – what I have called elsewhere a Renaissance Child3 (Vincent and Ball
2007). Lareau has argued that concerted cultivation is a classed style of child-rearing,
prevalent amongst the professional middle classes. However, in a later study, Bennett,
Lutz, and Jayaram (2012) argued that working-class parents were also enthusiastic con-
cerning such activities, but that they were constrained in the options available to their chil-
dren. Working-class respondents relied far more heavily on cheaper activities, provided by
schools and churches, rather than private providers, and there were also lower rates of
working-class participation in elite cultural activities (such as orchestra). Some working-
class respondents saw activities as important, not necessarily for the skills learnt, but for
giving their children access to safe spaces in their neighbourhoods. Bennett, Lutz, and
Jayaram (2012) concluded that the differences between the social classes are therefore
not so much a question of class cultures (i.e. what parents understood to be important)
as ‘class related conditions in which they find themselves’ (152) (i.e. what they were
able to provide given the resources available to them).
In writing elsewhere about intensive mothering/parenting, involving practices of con-
certed cultivation, together with colleagues (Vincent and Ball 2007, Vincent et al. 2013 and
Vincent and Maxwell 2016), I have argued that in affluent countries of the Global North,4
we are moving towards the normalisation of this approach as a parenting strategy for all.
This normalisation imposes particular forms of behaviour on parents, especially mothers,
requiring them to develop self-sufficient, self-regulating children who achieve in a range of
academic and non-academic areas. Paying for piano lessons, sports coaching, drama
 GENDER AND EDUCATION 545

classes, and so on is a strategic response to many parents’ perception of their responsibility

to develop and ‘make up’ an individual, with a range of talents and skills. As Shirani,
Henwood, and Coltart say, ‘parenting becomes a source of risk and anxiety as what
happens is viewed as the product of individual, autonomous choices’ (2011, 26). Neoliberal
thought has reached into the private domain to promote the ideal subject as entrepre-
neurial (Lazzarato 2009). This involves calculation, rationality, and an adoption of respon-
sibility to be self-governing (Olmedo 2008) (and in the case of dependent children, to
accept parental responsibility for all aspects of a child’s development). Those who do
not wish to or cannot comply with these imperatives are at risk of censure. The majority
of activities, even those provided at schools, have some associated costs and parental
labour, so children from the poorest families are likely to be excluded.
The power of the discourse of intensive mothering comes from its promulgation and
presence. We can see the assumptions that inform it set out in parenting books, TV pro-
grammes, the huge range of market opportunities to buy goods and services to
develop your child (Thomson et al. 2011). Several studies of social media discuss the
extent to which these normative assumptions are developed, discussed, contested in par-
enting websites and blogs. Gambles (2010) writing about the largest UK parenting
website, mumsnet, argues that despite its successful public campaigns, a lot of mumsnet
conversations do – with varying degrees of support and empathy – promote private sol-
utions, promote changing individual maternal behaviour, rather than critiquing the wider
social and material contexts in which mothering takes place. Mothers are expected to work
to improve themselves. Again, context disappears. Similarly, Jensen commented about the
TV programme Supernanny,5 that it featured ‘the relentless individualisation of every
family problem at the expense of and in the place of context’ (2010, 182). So, the question
posed to parents is ‘what kind of a parent are you?’ and, once again, not ‘in what con-
ditions are you parenting?’ (Jensen 2010). This is not to say, however, that there is no resist-
ance to these discourses. Jensen (2013) argues further that mumsnet conversations reveal
posters positioning themselves ‘at a tangent to ideal motherhood, switching between par-
enting as a life project and its inevitable but containable failure’ (Elliott, Squire, and O’Con-
nell 2016). Recognising the likelihood of – even celebrating – the intermittent, occasional
failure, however, does not constitute a rejection of dominant mothering practices. Elliott,
Squire, and O’Connell (2016) examine in detail two blogs written by mothers and argue
that at various different points, both bloggers reproduce and transgress normative dis-
courses about families and mothering. Both Jensen’s and Elliott and colleagues’ examples
suggest instances of resistance to an intensive mothering discourse, but not outright
refusal. ‘The ironic self-identity of bad mother in these contexts is a partial and performa-
tive subjectivity adopted voluntarily by parents in the spirit of self-mockery, and on the
implicit understanding that one is not really failing’ (Jensen 2013, 141).
As I have indicated above, the demands of intensive parenting fall to different degrees
upon mothers and fathers, and it is to this issue that I now turn.

Theme 2. The morality of mothering

As the quote above from the London father suggests, many men are more actively
involved with their own children than their fathers were with them (Dermott 2008).
However, O’Brien et al. (2016) point to the long legacy in England of a ‘mother-focused
546 C. VINCENT

employment policy’ and the relatively late arrival of statutory paternity leave (in 2003) to
explain the dominance and continuation of the gendered male breadwinner/female carer
roles. Thus, men’s primary contribution to the family remains that of breadwinner (e.g.
Doucet 2006; Miller 2011; Edwards and Caballero 2015), despite cultural appreciation of
involved fathers. In an earlier study with London-based middle-class fathers, it was clear
that they were in search of an emotionally intimate relationship with their children, but
less concerned with submerging themselves in the details of the organisation and man-
agement of children’s lives, a range of tasks still largely delegated to mothers. In a
follow-up study with working-class families with young children in the same areas of
London, we (Stephen Ball, Annette Braun, and myself) found the same dominance of
the provider discourse for men, and a lack of alternatives.
Neither the middle nor the working-class families presented a serious challenge to a tra-
ditional understanding of practiced family relationships with mothers centre-stage and
fathers on the periphery. Fathers were portrayed by the mothers as ‘helping out’ with the
numerous daily tasks of caring for young children and became ‘good men’ for doing so. In
turn, men in both studies took up their posts on the sidelines of daily childcare tasks. This
is in line with the continuing prevalence and pervasiveness of the discourses that stress the
fundamental and central role played by mothers in bringing up children, as evoked in the
class-crossing messages of ‘intensive mothering’, and coupled with the powerful ideologies
of fathers as financial providers and the primacy of the breadwinner model of fathering.
(Braun, Vincent, and Ball 2010, 33)

Shirani, Henwood, and Coltart (2011) argue that parenting is differently intensive for
men, as the men in their research describe risks and anxieties in relation to financial pro-
vision. However, I would argue a particular public ferocity is retained for women who ‘fail’
their mothering responsibilities (also Klett-Davis 2007; May 2008). There is indeed condem-
nation around absent fathers – think of the terms ‘feckless fathers’, ‘deadbeat dads’ – yet
women with children are discursively positioned as mothers first. If they are in paid work,
the identity of worker is additional; it is not necessarily voluntary as many women have
little or no option but to work, and of course, many women choose to work and are
highly invested in their careers, but this identity is an addendum to that of mother. For
men, as noted above, the situation is largely reversed, the adoption of an identity as
‘involved father’ is virtuous, but also optional.6 Whilst the moral imperative of being a
‘good’ mother remains acute for mothers in general, for working-class and poor women
particularly, adhering to an identity as respectable and responsible mothers can prove dif-
ficult (Skeggs 1997). Elliott, Powell, and Brenton’s (2015) American study of low-income
Black single mothers notes that their respondents emphasised the role of ‘sacrifice, self-
reliance and protection in their mothering practices’ (355). However, the women’s aware-
ness of the gap between their ideal, and the structural and material constraints in their
lives as they juggled insecure employment, poor housing, and institutional racism
impacted on their own well-being. ‘Their mothering largely involved fending off the
dangers, insecurities and vagaries of poverty, racism and sexism’ (366).
Intensive mothering is much easier, made more possible, if the mother has resources:
the ability to work flexibly and with autonomy, the ability to pay for regular, reliable child-
care, a secure and spacious place to live, and so on, what Elliott et al. call ‘privatised
mothering’. They do not define the term but I am suggesting that it signals mothering
 GENDER AND EDUCATION 547

underpinned and secured by economic resources and a lack of dependency on diminish-

ing state provision.
In an earlier paper on working-class mothers and childcare, we noted the way ‘public
political discourses have always surged and seethed around the lives of working-class
mothers’ (Vincent, Ball, and Braun 2010, 123). We focused on a set of contemporary and
contradictory political discourses that worked on and through the lives of the working-
class mothers in our research and thereby created tensions and impossibilities within
their lives. The mothers were required to avoid benefits, to be financially independent
and economically active, but also to care for their young children, and to have a presence
at their children’s school. For the participant lone mothers in particular, the contradictory
requirements of being simultaneously a ‘good’ mother and a ‘good’ citizen sometimes
appeared impossible, and induced guilt. Teachers may equate parental presence with par-
ental interest. Indeed, for many parents, nurseries and primary schools are the first public
sites from which the private sphere of the family is (partially) viewed. Judgements may be
made on issues from the contents of lunch boxes to children’s behaviour via parental
demeanour. Of course, forming opinions is a two-way process, as parents will generate
views on the school and members of staff. But whilst parents can utilise their power of
voice (via complaints to the headteacher, governing body, the school inspectorate,
Ofsted, for example) and ultimately exit, teachers (sometimes reluctantly) have greater dis-
ciplinary powers as a mediator between the family and other state institutions. This
process has of course increased exponentially with teachers’ responsibilities for safeguard-
ing children and their duties under the Prevent Strategy.7 I turn now to focus in more detail
on parents’ relationships with schools.

Theme 3. Strategies for schooling

Using a Foucauladian analysis, Collet-Sabe (2016, internal project paper) analyses the dis-
course deployed by Spanish teachers about parents. He reminds us, referring to the work
of Donzelot and others, that state education in many countries was established as bringing
‘light, reason, civility, knowledge’ (6/7) to children and thus, schools were established
‘against’ families, particularly poor families from whom children were ‘rescued’, and that
traces of this attitude remain. Similarly, American researchers Smrekar and Cohen-Vogel
(2001, 75) speak of the ‘socially constructed scripts’ that institutionalise parent–teacher
relations (cited in Loder-Jackson et al. 2015, 227). These lay down relatively narrow par-
ameters for ‘good’ parent behaviour in the eyes of teachers, and parents can overstep
these boundaries by displaying either too much or too little interest (Vincent 1996). The
particularities of the local context are important, and I would draw attention here to the
recently increased performative climate in England within which primary school teachers
in particular work – and for long hours (see DfE 2014) – and which must impact on the time
and energy they have available for home–school initiatives.
A body of sociological research on parent–teacher relationships draws on Bourdieu (e.g.
Lareau 1989, 2003; Vincent 2001; Vincent and Martin 2002; Vincent et al. 2012a; Reay 2000,
2004; Horvat, Weininger, and Lareau 2003) in order to understand parents’ struggles for
position in the field of schooling. I will only rehearse the arguments briefly here. Bourdieu
argues that the practices and attitudes of individuals are shaped by their habitus, or dis-
positions, a ‘social inheritance’ that conditions an individual’s tastes, orientations, and
548 C. VINCENT

expectations. Thus, to give an example, some parents will understand themselves as

potential educators of their children, feeling confident in supporting their child’s learning
at school and also confident interacting with the teachers. The habitus of others will lead
them to consider the teachers as the ‘experts’, and home and school as separate spheres.
Habitus is a product of early socialisation, first of all within the family and then within other
spheres, such as school. Many parents, with whom I have talked over the years, attest to
how their own sense of themselves as learners has been shaped by their own schooling
experiences. These experiences are, of course, classed and raced. The respondents in
the Black middle-class project, for example, often recalled the prejudice of low expec-
tations (Gillborn et al. 2013). To give just one example, one of the respondents who
wanted to study law was advised by a school careers adviser, ‘to consider shop work
[…] I didn’t know any lawyers, certainly not any Black ones, never heard of any Black
ones … I became a solicitor but it was with no advice or guidance at all’.
However, habitus is not a determinist concept and it is also common for parents with
poor schooling experiences to express a strong intention to help their children succeed at
school. For example, in our project exploring the educational strategies of the Black middle
classes, parents’ determination to protect their children against what they understood as a
risk of still-pervasive low teacher expectations of black children, especially boys, informed
their often carefully thought out educational strategies (Vincent et al. 2012a). ‘Strategies’ is
here used to describe a mixture of conscious decisions and unconscious feelings – the
latter arising from the habitus – identifying what action is right and possible in particular
situations (Weis, Cipollone, and Jenkins 2014). So, parental strategies with regard to edu-
cation are informed by the forms and volumes of capitals they possess and their ability to
activate those capitals in the field of schooling. Parents may bring to bear economic capi-
tals (e.g. private education, tutoring, extra-curricular activities, moving house to be near a
school perceived as ‘good’), social capital (e.g. networks containing teachers and other
educational professionals who can provide help and advice), and cultural capital (knowl-
edge of the education system, confidence, a sense of entitlement, what Lareau (2008) calls
‘generic class resources’). However, Lareau also suggests that ‘the activation of capital’ may
not be effective for some parents in some situations and so parents do not achieve the
desired outcome (Lareau 2003, 196). I give two examples here. In an earlier study on
the exercise of parental voice in schools (with Stewart Ranson and Jane Martin), we
wrote about the parent forum in ‘Willow’, a London secondary school. The forum was
established as a discussion group for parents to debate school issues and a point of
contact between the school’s senior team and the parents. The majority of the regular
parent attendees had professional jobs, often in education or related public sector
areas, and had high levels of knowledge of the contemporary education system, all sug-
gestive of forms and volumes of cultural, social, and economic capital which should
have allowed them to be very effective in getting their voice heard. Yet, what struck us
was their hesitancy and deference in relation to the school on those occasions where
they tried to intervene regarding their own child. For this group of parents, both involved
in and broadly supportive of the school, making effective critical comments that were
taken on board by the school, was difficult (Vincent and Martin 2000). For some
parents, if ‘voice’ fails to work, ‘exit’ is usually possible, although not without cost. We
have used the example of Felicia from the Black middle-classes project to illustrate this.
Felicia became aware that her son was suffering racist abuse from his peers at his
 GENDER AND EDUCATION 549

private school. She activated her considerable stock of cultural capital in her initial inter-
actions with the school. However, her refusal to back down from naming racism led the
school to deny her any legitimacy, making Felicia’s cultural capital redundant in this situ-
ation. This example shows clearly that failure to activate capital is not, as might be
assumed, a parental failure. Indeed, we used the example of Felicia to draw attention to
the damage caused by White institutions who actively refuse to recognise the class
resources of Black middle-class parents (Vincent et al. 2012b).
In order to (partially) address this issue of the different forms and volumes of capital
which parents bring with them into a relationship with the school, I have argued pre-
viously that a more dialogic home–school relationship is required, looking especially at
one-to-one parent teacher meetings as a site for development (Vincent 2014). Currently,
we have a system where confidence and a sense of entitlement allow some parents to
demand and receive teacher time and attention, whilst others speak to teachers rarely.
One mother in my first empirical study of parent–teacher relationships hypothesised
that the sand-tray in the early years classroom was because children from the inner-city
area did not often get to visit to the seaside. Her reasoning, in the absence of any infor-
mation about learning through play, is perfectly logical, but also provides a glimpse of
the myriad misunderstandings possible when pedagogies go unexplained (Vincent
1996, 98). Thus, I have suggested focusing attention on the seemingly mundane
moment of parent–teacher conversations. Changes in the way that these are conducted
would include a discussion about, but also – and importantly – beyond the child’s attain-
ment, to include their relationships with teacher and peers, and their home life, interests
and enthusiasms. The aim is to construct a living, dynamic relationship, a dialogue of
equals, between teachers and parents, and one which focuses in particular on developing
a conversation with those parents who appear to lack the particular social and cultural
resources to allow themselves to be easily heard in school. The difficulty of finding a
space and a language in which to conduct such conversations cannot be underestimated.
However, an expectation of a more dialogic relationship between teachers and parents
would lessen the dependence on an individual parent’s will and capacity to scrutinise
their child’s school career independently.

Theme 4. Intersections and fractions

Much of the research on parental choice and parent–teacher interactions, including much
of my own, revolves around a binary: middle-class parents are positioned as seeing edu-
cation as a priority, sometimes anxious, but always informed, confident, networked, with
plentiful supplies of capitals in forms and volumes that are valuable in the field of school-
ing. They form networks with others like themselves to the extent that some (primary)
schools can be said to be ‘colonised’ by the middle classes (Butler and Robson 2003). In
popular discourse, middle-class parents can be engaged, but also overly so, and thus
given to ‘pushy’, entitled behaviour, and/or ‘helicopter parenting’.8 Working-class
parents, on the other hand, are presented in academic work as aspiring, but sometimes
poorly informed, trying to engage with an education system that appears distant to
them. In popular discourse, they are disengaged, uninformed, uninterested, and prone
to aggressive/inappropriate behaviour (for example, turning up to school in night wear9).
550 C. VINCENT

The binary distinction overlooks at least two points. The first is the idea of class
fractions, that middle-class and working-class parents – usually defined as such by
occupation – are not homogeneous groupings. Class theory influenced by Bourdieu has
moved much more towards a focus on lifestyle and social networks in addition to occu-
pation and income as ways of defining class position. The work of Mike Savage and col-
leagues has been influential here, especially in promoting the notion of the changing
nature of class. The Great British Class Survey with which the team has been associated,
and the subsequent analysis, has had critics (e.g. Bradley 2014) but it has succeeded, in
my view, in promoting beyond academic circles the notion that the established ‘centrality
of the boundary between the middle and working classes’ is inadequate (Savage 2015, 26).
Additionally, it is worth noting that some class positions are largely overlooked in research.
The key example here is the ‘intermediate’ class, those who hold occupations referred to
by the UK National Statistics Socio-Economic Classifications as ‘intermediate’ (e.g. clerical/
administrative/sales positions which offer ‘forms of employment regulation [that] combine
aspects from both the service relationship and the labour contract’ para 2.9, ONS 2010). We
know little about this large group in relation to their values and behaviours around parent-
ing and education, and whether these are distinctive from those of the middle and
working classes.
Broad class groupings such as ‘middle class’ and ‘working class’ are, of course, not hom-
ogenous. Research on middle-class fractions discusses, for example, the relationship
between class fractions and place of residence (Jackson and Butler 2015), school and child-
care choice (Vincent and Ball 2006; Reay et al. 2011), and orientation to children’s edu-
cation (Irwin and Elley 2011). Weis, Cipollone, and Jenkins (2014) have argued in their
study of American, mainly upper middle-class students applying to elite higher education
institutions, that as selective higher education is now understood as a viable destination
by an increasing number of people – a broad band of middle-class families – what we
are seeing in the US is ‘tensions within a social class’ (193) (the middle classes), as a par-
ticularly privileged segment act to accrue and preserve its own advantages in insecure
economic times. Forms of differentiation change in response to the desire of the more
established and secure sections of the middle classes to maintain and reproduce their
advantage (as the Weis et al. study shows). Research on working-class differentiation is
more limited (Vincent, Ball, and Braun 2008), although recent empirical work has
focused on the construction of identity in relation to education (Ingram 2011; Stahl and
Dale 2013; Weis 2013).
The second point on the limitations of the middle-/working-class binary is that
although the intersection of gender and class in relation to mothering and schooling
has been the focus of academic attention (e.g. see examples above, discussed under
Theme 2), race/ethnicity is missing from the somewhat simplistic accounts of the
middle-class and working-class relationships with schooling described above. There are
two further observations here. The first is that, despite some studies in the UK and else-
where (e.g. Crozier and Davies 2007; Byrne and De Tona 2012, 2014; Guo 2012 Bhopal
2014; Pattillo 2015), there is still relatively few accounts – particularly sociological
accounts – about the ways in which different minority ethnic groups – both established
populations and more recent migrants – choose and interact with schools. My second
observation is the need to more fully explore how race/ethnicity interacts with other
dimensions of identity to shape relationships with schools (also Theodorou and
 GENDER AND EDUCATION 551

Symeou 2013). This was one of the drivers for our research into the educational strat-
egies of the Black middle classes, to understand the intersection of class and race in
determining parental priorities and actions around the education of their children. This
is not the place for a detailed discussion of intersectionality, and so it is enough to
say here that in a seminal paper, Crenshaw (1991) emphasised that identities are not
reducible to just one dimension; that a theoretical focus on, say, class can simplify and
reduce, and through reduction, miss and misrepresent the experiences of, for
example, Black working-class women, and the inter-related roles of class, race, and
gender in their lives. In contrast, intersectionality theory seeks to understand the com-
plexity of social identity by focusing on gender, class, race, ethnicity, disability, and
sexual orientation – ‘the great axes of social differentiation’ (Bilge 2010, 58) to which
we might also add age and religion – and ‘postulat[ing] their interplay in the production
and reproduction of social inequalities’ (Bilge 2010, 58). Intersectionality emphasises
fluidity, and the importance of different locales, situations, spaces, times, different dispo-
sitions and subjectivities, for understanding particular interactions and identities. All
identities can be conceived of as consisting of intersectional dimensions, although the
focus has more often been on marginality, rather than privilege (Nash 2008).
A challenge in the analysis of the research with Black middle-class parents was to hold
both class and race in productive tension, trying to understand the workings of both, and
their points of interdependence for the respondents, in particular situations. In our pub-
lished work, we have illustrated and analysed the way in which parents carry out what
can be thought of as intersectional work, drawing on the range of economic, cultural,
and social resources available to them (Vincent et al. 2012b; Rollock et al. 2015). The
respondents in our project invested time and energy in the development of their children
as successful learners, confident in their identity as young Black men and women. They
worked to defend their children and themselves from racism, stereotyping, and seemingly
entrenched low expectations. In order to avoid/resist misrepresentations of themselves
and their children, parents deployed a range of strategies. When meeting teachers, they
considered their dress, their demeanour, carefully managed the presentation of their con-
cerns and strategically deployed their knowledge to present themselves as ‘other’ than the
negative, and stereotypical perceptions of Black working-class parents’ behaviours and
attitudes, which they felt informed the perceptions held by white teachers of black
parents.
A more general challenge for researchers is how to use an intersectional analysis,
yet also define the limits of their enquiry in a way that allows focus, without simplifying
and flattening social reality. We (Iqbal, Neal, and Vincent 2016) faced this in a recent
project, exploring the way in which social class and ethnicity affect the friendships
made, maintained or avoided by adults and children living in highly diverse London
localities. Whilst planning the project, we were aware that gender and religion were
also likely to be key dimensions affecting how the adults and children interacted, and
indeed, so it proved. We argued that we could defend our focus on class and ethnicity
as one that could provide us with some analytical focus and coherence, and root our
analysis in the ‘specific ontologies of each set of social relations’ (Bilge 2010, 68),
whilst being open to the myriad points of intersection which compose an individual
identity. However, the degree to which this is a persuasive argument is for others to
judge.
552 C. VINCENT

Conclusion
To return to the words of the mother cited in the title of the paper ‘making sure children
get a good education’ is an uncertain process for most – even leaving aside the contested
question of what constitutes a ‘good’ education. Parents respond to this in different ways
(Symeou 2007). Some may buy a private education – with all the resources, access to net-
works, and a high chance of returns – that that suggests (Kenway, Fahey, and Koh 2013).
Some may seek to manage the ‘risk’ (the risk being that the child’s potential may not be
fully realised) through high levels of monitoring and intervention (Vincent and Martin
2000; James et al. 2010). Others may simply hope for the best (Vincent 2001). There are
gaps in our knowledge as I have indicated above. One is the persistence of the binary
of middle class and working class in analyses of parental involvement that obscures
class fractions and a consideration of who might be understood as ‘intermediate’ class.
Second, a more thorough understanding is required of how intersectional dimensions
of identity (class, ethnicity, gender, religion, and so on) shape both parenting and parental
involvement with schools, and, third, the way in which neoliberal discourses on parental
responsibility and self-sufficiency are taken up and contested by different social groups.
What is clear is that the category of ‘the parent’ presented as such, in broad and apparently
neutral terms, hides a wide range of behaviours, privileges, and disadvantages. Parental
ability to exercise agency varies, as agency is a ‘socio-culturally mediated capacity to
act’ (Ahearn 2013, 240). An understanding of these socially structured constraints and
opportunities is crucial if we are to understand the transmission of cultural capital
within the family: what Bourdieu calls ‘the best hidden and socially most determinant edu-
cational investment’, that is the awareness ‘that ability or talent is itself the product of an
investment of time and cultural capital’ (2004, 17).
Therefore, as I see it, there is a need to develop further analyses of family life with regard
to parenting and parental involvement with schools. That is analyses of how the individual
habitus is affected by having children. Boterman and Bridge (2015) write of the way
habitus is rearticulated (to various degrees) in relation to entering the new field of parent-
hood, and of how families develop particular practices, assumptions, expectations. Explor-
ing ‘families as realised social fictions’ (Burke, Emmerich, and Ingram 2013, 172), the stories
families tell about themselves – how ‘we’ do things here, what ‘we’ value, how ‘we’ spend
time – will allow us to analyse how their understandings shape and affect parental invol-
vement with education.

Notes
1. CANParent trials ran from 2012 to 2014 (with a later period of extension) in three areas of
England with different demographies. The aim of the trial was to stimulate a market in uni-
versal parenting classes. Parents of children aged up to five (later six) were given a voucher
to ‘spend’ on classes offered by a range of providers. There was a low take up (about 4% of
the eligible population) but high degree of satisfaction reported amongst those who did par-
ticipate (over 90% of participants were mothers) (Lindsay et al. 2014). Cameron seemingly
had had plans to continue with the aim of universalising such classes. See, for example,
Cameron’s speech in January 2016 on ‘life chances’. https://www.gov.uk/government/
speeches/prime-ministers-speech-on-life-chances. The direction on families and parenting
by Theresa’ May’s Conservative government remains unclear at the time of writing (Decem-
ber 2016).
 GENDER AND EDUCATION 553

2. This ESRC-funded project explored the way in which social class and ethnicity affected the
friendships of adults and children living in super diverse areas in London (see e.g. Vincent,
Neal, and Iqbal 2016 for more details).
3. Renaissance child is an adaptation of the idea of Renaissance man – used to refer to men with
a range of talents and knowledge across a wide range of areas. The term refers back, of course,
to the Italian Renaissance, starting in the late middle ages.
4. The literature drawn on here is largely Anglo-American but see also, for example, Karsten’s
(2015) work in Hong Kong, Bach’s (2014) in Denmark, Stefansen and Aarseth (2011) on
middle-class parenting to ‘enrich intimacy’ in Norway, and Cho (2015) on extra-curricular
music activities in Korea.
5. Supernanny is a reality TV show, first broadcast in 2004, in which Jo Frost, the ‘supernanny’,
was shown helping families with their children’s behavior. The series also has a website:
http://www.supernanny.co.uk/
6. O’Brien et al. (2016) note the need for more research on fathers from minority ethnic groups.
7. ‘From 1 July 2015, all schools [and registered childcare providers] are subject to a duty under
section 26 of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015, in the exercise of their functions, to
have ‘due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism. This duty is
known as the Prevent duty’ (Department for Education 2015, 4; Coppock and McGovern 2014).
8. Helicopter parenting is a popular term that describes parents who hover closely around their
older children, trying to micro-manage their lives.
9. The letter of a headteacher in Darlington who wrote to parents in January 2016 asking them
not to wear nightwear when visiting the school was widely commented on in the media, see
for example, http://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/jan/27/wave-support-schools-
ban-parents-wearing-pyjamas-skerne-park-darlington

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Funding
This work was supported by grants from the Economic and Social Research Council [grant numbers:
R000239232 (Choice and Provision in local pre-school child care markets); RES-000-23-0770 (Local
Childcare cultures: Working class families and pre-school childcare); ES/G0349X/1 (The Educational
Strategies of the Black Middle Classes); ES/K002384/1 (Adults’ and Children’s Friendships Across
Social Class and Ethnic Difference)].

Notes on contributor
Carol Vincent is a Professor of Sociology of Education at UCL Institute of Education. She has
researched and written extensively on parents and home-school relations. She is currently research-
ing how teachers understand and promote ‘community cohesion’ and British Values’.

References
Ahearn, L. 2013. “Privileging and Affecting Agency.” In Privilege, Agency and Affect, edited by C.
Maxwell and P. Aggleton, 240–247. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Allen, G. 2011. Early Intervention: The Next Steps. London: Department for Education.
Arendell, T. 2001. “The New Care Work of Middle Class Mothers.” In Minding the Time in Family
Experience: Emerging Perspectives and Issues, edited by K. Daly, 163–204. Oxford: Elsevier.
Bach, D. 2014. “Parenting Among Wealthy Danish Families: A Concerted Civilising Process.”
Ethnography and Education 9 (2): 224–237.
554 C. VINCENT

Bennett, P., A. Lutz, and L. Jayaram. 2012. “Beyond the Schoolyard: The Role of Parenting Logics,
Financial Resources, and Social Institutions in the Social Class Gap in Structured Activity
Participation.” Sociology of Education 85: 131–157.
Bhopal, K. 2014. “Race, Rurality and Representation: Black and Minority Ethnic Mothers’ Experiences
of their Children’s Education in Rural Primary Schools in England, UK.” Gender and Education 26 (5):
490–504.
Bilge, S. 2010. “Recent Feminist Outlooks on Intersectionality.” Diogenes 57 (1): 58–72.
Boddy, J., J. Statham, I. Warwick, K. Hollingworth, and G. Spencer. 2016. “What Kind of Trouble?
Meeting the Health Needs of ‘Troubled Families’ through Intensive Family Support, Social
Policy and Society.” FirstView Article, March, pp. 1–14.
Boterman, W. R., and G. Bridge. 2015. “Gender, Class and Space in the Field of Parenthood:
Comparing Middle-class Fractions in Amsterdam and London.” Transactions of the Institute of
British Geographers 40: 249–261.
Bourdieu, P. 2004. “Forms of Capital.” In The RoutledgeFalmer Reader in the Sociology of Education,
edited by S. Ball, 15–29. London: Routledge.
Bradley, H. 2014. “Class Descriptors or Class Relations? Thoughts Towards a Critique of Savage et al.”
Sociology 48 (3): 429–436.
Braun, A., C. Vincent, and S. Ball. 2010. “Working Class Fathers and Childcare: The Economic and
Family Contexts of Fathering in the UK.” Community, Work and Family 14 (1): 19–37.
Burke, C., N. Emmerich, and N. Ingram. 2013. “Well-founded Social Fictions: A Defence of the Concepts
of Institutional and Familial Habitus.” British Journal of Sociology of Education 34 (2): 165–182.
Butler, T., and G. Robson. 2003. London Calling: The Middle Classes and the Re-making of Inner London.
Oxford: Berg.
Byrne, B., and C. De Tona. 2012. “‘Trying to Find the Extra Choices’: Migrant Parents and Secondary
School Choice in Greater Manchester.” British Journal of Sociology of Education 33 (1): 21–39.
Byrne, B., and C. de Tona. 2014. “Multicultural Desires? Parental Negotiation of Multiculture and
Difference in Choosing Secondary Schools for Their Children.” The Sociological Review 62: 475–493.
Cho, E. 2015. “What Do Mothers Say? Korean Mothers’ Perceptions of Children’s Participation in Extra-
curricular Musical Activities.” Music Education Research 17 (2): 162–178.
Collet-Sabe, J. 2016. “Parents Are a Problem for Schools? Understanding Teacher Discourse in Spain.”
Internal Project Paper, University of Vic.
Coppock, V., and M. McGovern. 2014. “‘Dangerous MINDS’? Deconstructing Counter-terrorism
Discourse, Radicalisation and the ‘Psychological Vulnerability’ of Muslim Children and Young
People in Britain.” Children & Society 28: 15–29.
Crenshaw, K. 1991. “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics and Violence Against
Women of Color.” Stanford Law Review 43: 1241–99.
Crozier, G., and J. Davies. 2007. “Hard to Reach Parents or Hard to Reach Schools? A Discussion of
Home–School Relations, with Particular Reference to Bangladeshi and Pakistani Parents” British
Educational Research Journal 33 (3): 295–313.
Department for Education. 2014. Teachers’ Workload Diary Survey 2013. London: DfE.
Department for Education (DfE). 2015. The Prevent Duty: Departmental Advice for schools and
Childcare Providers. London: Department for Education.
Dermott, E. 2008. Intimate Fatherhood. London: Routledge.
Dermott, E., and J. Yamashita. 2014. “Resource-free Parenting: The Not So Curious Absence of Money
in Policy Discourses of Good Parenting in the UK and Japan.” Social Policy and Society 13: 129–141.
Doucet, A. 2006. Do Men Mother? Fathering, Care and Domestic Responsibility. Toronto: University of
Toronto Press.
Edwards, R., and C. Caballero. 2015. “An Exploration of Racial Considerations in Partnered Fathers’
Involvement in Bringing Up Their Mixed/Multi-race Children in Britain and New Zealand
Fathering: A Journal of Theory.” Research, and Practice About Men as Fathers 13 (2): 164–181.
Elliott, H., C. Squire, and R. O’Connell. 2016, under review. “Narratives of Normativity and Permissible
Transgression: Mothers’ Blogs About Mothering, Family and Food in Resource-constrained Times.”
Elliott, S., R. Powell, and J. Brenton. 2015. “Being a Good Mom: Low Income, Black Single Mothers
Negotiate Intensive Mothering.” Journal of Family 36 (3): 351–370.
 GENDER AND EDUCATION 555

Gambles, R. 2010. “Going Public? Articulations of the Personal and Political on Mumsnet.com.” In
Rethinking the Public: Innovations in Research, Theory and Politics, edited by N. Mahony, J.
Newman, and C. Barnett, 29–42. Bristol: Policy Press.
Gillborn, D., N. Rollock, C. Vincent, and S. Ball. 2013. “‘You got a pass, so what more do you want?’:
Race, Class and Gender Intersections in the Educational Experiences of the Black Middle Class.”
Race Ethnicity and Education 15 (1): 121–139.
Guo, Y. 2012. “Diversity in Public Education: Acknowledging Immigrant Parent Knowledge.” Canadian
Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l’éducation 35 (2): 120–140.
Hartas, D. 2015. “Parenting for Social Mobility? Home Learning, Parental Warmth, Class and
Educational Outcomes.” Journal of Education Policy 30 (1): 21–38.
Hays, S. 1996. The Cultural Contradictions of Motherhood. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Holloway, S., and H. Pimlott-Wilson. 2014. “‘Any Advice Is Welcome Isn’t It?’: Neoliberal Parenting
Education, Local Mothering Cultures, and Social Class.” Environment and Planning A 46: 94–111.
Horvat, E., E. Weininger, and A. Lareau. 2003. “From Social Ties to Social Capital: Class Differences in
the Relations Between Schools and Parent Networks.” American Educational Research Journal 40
(2): 319–351.
Ingram, N. 2011. “Within School and Beyond the Gate: The Complexities of Being Educationally
Successful and Working Class.” Sociology 45 (2): 287–302.
Iqbal, H., S. Neal, and C. Vincent. 2016. “Children’s Friendships in Super-diverse Localities: Encounters
with Social and Ethnic Difference.” Childhood. Published online before print March 18, 2016.
Irwin, S., and S. Elley. 2011. “Concerted Cultivation? Parenting Values, Education and Class Diversity.”
Sociology 45 (3): 480–495.
Jackson, E., and T. Butler. 2015. “Revisiting ‘Social Tectonics’: The Middle Classes and Social Mix in
Gentrifying Neighbourhoods.” Urban Studies 52 (13): 2349–2365.
James, D., D. Reay, G. Crozier, P. Beedell, S. Hollingworth, F. Jamieson, and K. Williams. 2010.
“Neoliberal Policy and the Meaning of Counterintuitive Middle-class School Choices.” Current
Sociology 58 (4): 623–641.
Jensen, T. 2010. “Warmth and Wealth: Re-imagining Social Class in Taxonomies of Good Parenting.”
Studies in the Maternal 2 (1). www.mamsie.bbk.ac.uk.
Jensen, T. 2013. “‘Mumsnetiquette’ Online Affect Within Parenting Culture.” In Privilege, Agency and
Affect, edited by C Maxwell and P. Aggleton, 127–145. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Karsten, L. 2015. “Middle-class Childhood and Parenting Culture in High-rise Hong Kong:
On Scheduled Lives, the School Trap and a New Urban Idyll.” Children’s Geographies 13 (5):
556–570.
Kenway, J., J. Fahey, and A. Koh. 2013. “The Libidindal Economy of the Globalising Elite School
Market.” In Privilege, Agency and Affect, edited by C Maxwell and P. Aggleton, 15–31. London:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Klett-Davis, M. 2007. Going It Alone: Lone Motherhood in Late Modernity. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Lareau, A. 1989. Home Advantage. Langham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Lareau, A. 2003. Unequal Childhoods. Berkley: University of California Press.
Lareau, A. 2008. “Race, Class, and the Transmission of Advantage.” In The Way Class Works: Readings
on School, Family, and the Economy, edited by L. Weis. New York: Routledge.
Lazzarato, M. 2009. “Neoliberalism in Action: Inequality, Insecurity and the Reconstitution of the
Social.” Theory, Culture & Society 26 (6): 109–133.
Lindsay, G., M. Cullen, S. Cullen, V. Totsika, I. Bakopoulou, S. Goodlad, R. Brind et al. 2014. The
CANParent Trial: Final Evaluation. Research Report RR357. London: Department for Education.
Loder-Jackson, T., A. McKnight, M. Brooks, and T. Perry. 2015. “Revisiting Black Feminist Thought and
Home-school Relations in the US South.” In Handbook of Urban Educational Leadership, edited by
Muhammad Khalifa, Noelle Witherspoon Arnold, Azadeh F. Osanloo, and Cosette M. Grant, 224–
236. Langham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
May, V. 2008. “On Being a ‘Good’ Mother: The Moral Presentation of Self in Written Life Stories.”
Sociology 42 (3): 470–486.
Miller, T. A. 2011. Making Sense of Fatherhood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
556 C. VINCENT

Morgan, C., T. Burns, R. Fitzpatrick, V. Pinfold, and S. Priebe. 2007. “Social Exclusion and Mental Health:
Conceptual and Methodological Review.” The British Journal of Psychiatry 191: 477–483.
Nash, J. 2008. “Rethinking Intersectionality.” Feminist Review 89: 1–15.
O’Brien, M., S. Connolly, S. Speight, M. Aldrich, and E. Poole. 2016. “The United Kingdom.” In
Father Involvement in the Early Years, edited by M. Adler and K. Lenz, 157–191. Bristol: Policy
Press.
Office for National Statistics (ONS) 2010. “SOC2010: Vol 3 National Statistics – Socio Economic
Classifications.” Accessed May 5, 2016. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/classifications/current-standard-classifications/soc2010/
soc2010-volume-3-ns-sec--rebased-on-soc2010--user-manual/index.html.
Olmedo, A. 2008. “Middle-class Families and School Choice: Freedom Versus Equity in the Context of
a ‘Local Education Market.’” European Educational Research Journal 7 (2): 176–194.
Pattillo, M. 2015. “Everyday Politics of School Choice in the Black Community.” Du Bois Review: Social
Science Research on Race 12 (1): 41–71.
Peck, J., and A. Tickell. 2002. “Neoliberalizing Space.” Antipode 34: 380–404.
Peruzzi, A. 2013. From Childhood Deprivation to Adult Social Exclusion: Evidence from the 1970 British
Cohort Study. CLS Working Paper 2013/15. London: Centre for Longitudinal Studies, UCL IOE.
Ramaekers, S., and J. Suissa. 2012. The Claims of Parenting: Reasons, Responsibility and Society. London:
Springer.
Reay, D. 2000. “A Useful Extension of Bourdieu’s Conceptual Framework? Emotional Capital as a Way
of Understanding Mothers’ Involvement in their Children’s Education?” The Sociological Review 48:
568–585.
Reay, D. 2004. “Gendering Bourdieu’s Concepts of Capitals? Emotional Capital, Women and Social
Class.” The Sociological Review 52: 57–74.
Reay, D., et al. 2011. White Middle Class Identities and Urban Schooling. London: Palgrave.
Rollock, N., D. Gillborn, C. Vincent, and S. Ball. 2015. The Colour of Class. London: Routledge.
Savage, M. 2015. Social Class in the 21st Century. Pelican: London.
Shirani, F., K. Henwood, and C. Coltart. 2011. “Meeting the Challenges of Intensive Parenting Culture:
Gender, Risk Management and the Moral Parent.” Sociology 46 (1): 25–40.
Skeggs, B. 1997. Formations of Class & Gender: Becoming respectable. London: Sage.
Smrekar C., and L. Cohen-Vogel. 2001. “The Voices of Parents: Rethinking the Intersection of Family
and School.” Peabody Journal of Education 76 (2): 75–100.
Stahl, G., and P. Dale. 2013. “Success on the Decks: Working-class Boys, Education and Turning the
Tables on Perceptions of Failure.” Gender and Education 25 (3): 357–372.
Stefansen, K., and H. Aarseth. 2011. “Enriching Intimacy: The Role of the Emotional in the ‘Resourcing’
of Middle Class Children.” British Journal of Sociology of Education 32 (3): 389–405.
Sullivan, A. et al. 2010. The Consequences at Age 7 of early Childhood Disadvantage. A Report to the
Northern Ireland Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. London: IOE.
Symeou, L. 2007. “Cultural Capital and Family Involvement in Children’s Education: Tales from Two
Primary Schools in Cyprus.” British Journal of Sociology of Education 28 (4): 473–487.
Theodorou, E., and L. Symeou. 2013. “Experiencing the Same but Differently: Indigenous Minority
and Immigrant Children’s Experiences in Cyprus.” British Journal of Sociology of Education 34 (3):
354–372.
Thomson, R., M.-J. Kehily, L. Hadfield, and S. Sharpe. 2011. Making Modern Mothers. Bristol: Policy Press.
Vincent, C. 1996. Parents and Teachers: Power and Participation. London: Falmer Press.
Vincent, C. 2001. “Social Class and Parental Agency.” Journal of Education Policy 16 (4): 347–364.
Vincent, C. 2014. “Padres y maestros hacia el diálogo. Una perspectiva inglesa (Parents and Teachers:
Moving Towards Dialogue. An English perspective).” Profesorado: Revista de Currículum y
Formación del Profesorado 18 (2): 35–50.
Vincent, C., and S. Ball. 2006. Childcare, Choice and Class Practices. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Vincent, C., and S. Ball. 2007. “Making Up the Middle Class Child: Families, Activities and Class
Dispositions.” Sociology 41 (6): 1061–1077.
Vincent, C., S. Ball, and A. Braun. 2008. “‘It’s like Saying ‘Coloured’’: Understanding and Analysing the
Urban Working Classes.” The Sociological Review 56 (1): 61–77.
 GENDER AND EDUCATION 557

Vincent, C., S. Ball, and A. Braun. 2010. “Between the Estate and the State: Struggling to Be a ‘Good’
Mother.” British Journal of Sociology of Education 31 (2): 123–138.
Vincent, C., and Jane Martin. 2000. “School-based Parents’ Groups – A Politics of Voice and
Representation?” Journal of Education Policy 15 (5): 459–480.
Vincent, C., and C. Maxwell. 2016. “Parenting Priorities and Pressures: Furthering Understanding of
‘Concerted Cultivation’.” Discourse: Cultural Politics in Education 37 (2): 269–281.
Vincent, C., S. Neal, and H. Iqbal. 2016. “Encounters with Diversity: Children’s Friendships and Parental
Responses.” Urban Studies. Published Online on March 22, 2016.
Vincent, C., N. Rollock, S. Ball, and D. Gillborn. 2012a. “Being Strategic, Being Watchful, Being
Determined: Black Middle Class Parents and Schooling.” British Journal of Sociology of Education
33 (3): 337–354.
Vincent, C., N. Rollock, S. Ball, and D. Gillborn. 2012b. “Intersectional Work and Precarious
Positionings: Black Middle-class Parents and Their Encounters with Schools in England.”
International Studies in Sociology of Education 22 (3): 259–276.
Vincent, C., N. Rollock, S. Ball and D. Gillborn. 2013. “Raising Middle-class Black Children: Parenting
Priorities, Actions and Strategies.” Sociology 47 (3): 427–442.
Weis, L. 2013. Working Class Without Work: High School Students in a De-industrialisng Economy.
New York: Routledge.
Weis, L., K. Cipollone, and H. Jenkins. 2014. Class Warfare. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.