“The large gaps in student achievement between advantaged and disadvantaged schools in

Australia are well known” (Cobbod, 2018, n.p.). This disadvantage is further compounded

when students from Low Socio-Economic schools (SES) miss out on access to teachers. The

government policies towards teachers is making the issue worse by favouring high

performing and high socio-economic schools’ access to teaching recourses. Ironically, there

is better government funding for schools that are already advantaged than for schools with

low socio-economic status. There has been a movement by the Australian Government to

ensure that people from low socio-economic backgrounds attend school, however it has not

considered that schools are underfinanced and understaffed to cater to these students’ needs.

There is a requirement that the schools are not only given resources, but also staffed

appropriately for the number of students that they are required to teach. (Griffith’s, 2010, pp.

4–5). This essay will demonstrate that there is a disadvantage and a lack of teaching resources

among the low SES community that will not only impact students throughout their schooling

education but will also affect their future endeavours. Using a social practice framework,

Bourdieu theory on social capital, habitus and field, this essay will further examine how

education policies and teaching pedagogy contributes to this alienation amongst Socio-

Economic students.

The social practice framework is a tool for examining discourses of socio-economic status

(SES). The framework, often thought of as related to French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, is

considered to excel in the fact that it considers both the individual’s persona and character, as

well as the social structures that surround that individual (Gale, 2008, n.p.). Bourdieu

explored three types of capital – a term used in this case to describe socio-economic assets.

He determined these three forms of capital to be the most significant contributors to an

individual’s power (Gillies, 2004; Swartz & Zolberg, 2004). He believed that the ability to

access said capital was correlated to class group positions, power and dominance. The first of
these three, social capital, is an expression of how well connected an individual is in social

groups and communities; their level of competence in speech, confidence and attitude.

Economic capital relates to the person’s financial assets, and cultural capital describes how

well developed a person’s understanding of community, power and culture are. The

combination of these three types of capital indicate the level of advantage a student might

have in their school community, based on their social, economic and cultural classes, with

those who do not possess a high level of capital in either area being at a disadvantage

(Bourdieu, 1977) (Gaddis, 2012).

The large differences between socio-economic classes can also be used as a context to

examine power relations. It has been reasoned that power is not something that can be

possessed and utilised by individuals but is actually a factor of society as a whole and

becomes evident in social interactions and normalities (Foucault, 1977, as cited in Maynard,

2007). As explored by Bourdieu, the impact of power lies in its influence over how

individuals interact with the institutions in which they seek positions. Positions within a

hierarchy are attained based on power and status; how much capital one possesses, and those

positions themselves further represent power and status in a new context (Allen, 1998; Apple,

1982; O ‘Brien & Fathaigh, 2005; Swartz & Zolberg, 2004; Thomson, 2005). It follows that

individuals who understand this interaction between institution and capital will be advantaged

in attaining their desired place within the system (Allen, 1998; O ‘Brien & Fathaigh, 2005;

Swartz & Zolberg, 2004; Thomson, 2005). Given that the positions obtained based on power,

themselves grant further power (Holmes et al., 2003; Maynard, 2007), it becomes clear that

marginalised groups are designed to remain marginalised within this system, while groups of

people with advantage are only promoted to more advantage, increasing discourse between

them. (Nayler & Keddie, 2007).