Bourdieu (1986) argues that the culture transmitted by the school, a middle-class institution, is related to the culture of the wider society. Lamont and Lareau (1988) add that schools value middle class language patterns, organizational structures and authority relations. Parental possession of these values is assumed to support the academic achievement of their children since these parents are able to relate to school staff and are comfortable in getting involved at school, while their children possess the cultural capital to appreciate the curriculum and can readily adapt to school life. Bourdieu and Passeron (1979) highlight how the cultural heritage of privileged French students, rather than parental finances, helped them to succeed at university. Not only their predisposition towards intellectual pursuits, but also their general values, provide the students with the skills that help them more readily to acquire the knowledge needed in higher education.

Literacy has been described as one form of cultural capital (Bhola, 1996; Cook-Gumperz, 1986; Luke, 1995b) and an instrument of social power which defines social class (Willms, 1997a). Both the granting and restricting of access to available resources and the capital of schooling has become bound in social structures that serve to maintain the status quo (Toohey, 1996). Willis (1976) explains that the dominant groups are skilled in "symbolic manipulation of language and figures", therefore ensuring "success of their offspring and the reproduction of their class privilege" (p. 194).

Bourdieu's concepts help explain the existence of persistent inequalities in a stratified society. People become part of their particular culture by learning how to interpret and use its signs and symbols (Langer, 1991). Although one may adopt new attitudes, beliefs and opinions, one cannot readily escape from the dominant pattern of one's class. This was discussed earlier with the case of Orr (1995).