“I Heard It on the Grapevine”: How Parent and Student Networks Quietly Shape School and University Choices

Class, cultural capital, and social reproduction Method Power, institutions, and why policy never means what it says

Officially, families and students are meant to make education decisions using neutral, objective information: Ofsted reports, performance tables, prospectuses, league tables, UCAS fairs. In policy rhetoric, this is how educational quasi-markets are imagined to work: rational consumers comparing quality and choosing accordingly. In practice, many of the most important choices are shaped somewhere else entirely—on the grapevine.

The grapevine is the dense web of gossip, rumours, recommendations and off-the-record tips that circulates through parent networks, school corridors, workplaces, WhatsApp groups and community spaces. It deals in what Stephen Ball and Carol Vincent famously called “hot knowledge”: vivid, story-based information passed between people who trust each other and often treated as more reliable than anything published officially (Ball & Vincent, 1998). More recent work suggests that similar dynamics shape decisions about higher education too, with students often giving greatest weight to information from their social grapevine (Slack et al., 2014).

Hot knowledge vs cold knowledge

“Cold” knowledge is what policymakers like to imagine we use: performance data, inspection grades, glossy brochures, carefully curated websites. It is impersonal, standardised and supposedly fair.

“Hot” knowledge, by contrast, is personal and relational. It sounds like:

“Don’t send your child there, my neighbour’s son was bullied.”
“Everyone knows that sixth form only really pushes the top set.”
“My cousin went to that uni and said the course was a mess.”
“Our head of year says the apprenticeship route is a dead end.”

These snippets may be partial, outdated or completely wrong. But because they come from trusted others—friends, colleagues, relatives—they feel more real than a bar chart or a mission statement (Ball & Vincent, 1998; Slack et al., 2014).

Slack and colleagues (2014) extend Ball and Vincent’s distinction by adding a third category: “warm” information—semi-personal knowledge that comes from fleeting encounters at open days, taster events or interactions with student ambassadors. It is still relational, but based on looser ties than close family and friends. Taken together, this work shows that families and students rarely rely on cold data alone; they weave formal information together with hot and warm knowledge to make sense of a complex and uncertain landscape.

Who actually has a grapevine?

The key question is not simply whether hot knowledge exists (it always does), but who is plugged into the most powerful versions of it.

Middle-class parents often have:

Wider networks of other parents with similar educational histories.
Colleagues and friends in professional jobs who “know the system”.
Older children, cousins or family friends who have already navigated certain schools or universities.

Research on classed strategies of school choice suggests that these networks are part of a broader middle-class project of securing advantage in education markets (Ball, 2003; Reay & Ball, 1997). Through these ties, families gain early warnings about schools that are “on the way up”, subtle intelligence about which sets or subjects open doors, and insider stories about “the right kind” of university, course or internship.

Working-class, migrant or first-generation families are not without networks, but their grapevines may be:

More localised, with less access to people who know elite institutions from the inside.
Shaped by experiences of exclusion or bureaucratic mistreatment, leading to understandable distrust of official advice but without alternative high-status sources to draw on.
Fragmented across workplaces, communities and extended families that have had fewer opportunities to build educational capital over time.

Recent work on school-based parent networks shows that access to educationally useful information is uneven even within schools. Some parents enjoy “robust access” to advice, support and information through multiple ties, while others have only “basic access” via a single contact or none at all (Cox et al., 2021).

These patterns are not new. Post-war cohort research already showed that children’s educational trajectories were strongly shaped by home background and by how far parents were able (and encouraged) to engage with schools (Douglas, 1964), even if this was often framed at the time in terms of “parental interest” and cultural deprivation.

The problem is not that some people use the grapevine and others do not. The problem is that some grapevines are wired directly into powerful institutions, while others circulate mainly within communities that have historically been shut out.

How the grapevine reproduces inequality

When families rely on hot and warm knowledge, small differences in network position quickly become big differences in outcomes.

School choice: Parents with strong ties to teachers or senior staff often hear earlier about upcoming leadership changes, impending academy conversions or subtle reputational shifts. Others only find out when the Ofsted grade drops—or when local gossip has already damaged a school’s status (Ball & Vincent, 1998).
Set placement and subject choice: Information about which subjects “count” for university, which teachers are known to “get kids through”, and which combinations keep options open often travels informally, long before it appears in any options booklet (Reay & Ball, 1997).
Post-16 and higher education transitions: Young people with older siblings or cousins at university may receive detailed insider accounts of courses, campus cultures and placement opportunities. Those without such ties are left with prospectuses and open days that rarely show where support is thin or doors quietly close (Slack et al., 2014).

For students who are first in their family to consider higher education, this absence of familial experience is not a minor detail. Quantitative work on “first in family” status shows that lacking a family history of higher education is strongly associated with lower rates of participation and completion, even after taking account of other indicators of socio-economic disadvantage (Adamecz-Völgyi et al., 2020). Not having a family grapevine into higher education is, then, a structural risk factor rather than a minor biographical detail.

Qualitative research paints a complementary picture. O’Shea (2016a), for example, describes how first-in-family students often grow up with “silences” around university in the home: aspirations may be encouraged, but the everyday realities of higher education—how to apply, how to choose between institutions, what life and study will feel like—are largely opaque. Without older siblings or parents who can offer insider accounts, first-in-family students must navigate post-16 and higher education options with far less hot or warm information to draw on.

None of this requires anyone to hold explicitly hostile attitudes. Even well-meaning advice—“I’ve heard that school isn’t right for kids like yours” or “that course is very demanding, maybe pick something safer”—can steer students along classed, racialised and gendered tracks, echoing older patterns of differential encouragement and gatekeeping.

The intersection with capital and symbolic power

The grapevine does not operate in a vacuum. It sits on top of existing inequalities in economic, cultural and social capital.

Families with more economic capital can act on hot knowledge quickly: moving house into a “better” catchment, paying for transport across town, or covering lost earnings when supporting unpaid internships or placements.
Families with more cultural capital are better at decoding what is being said between the lines—understanding that “lively” means under-resourced, that “traditional” may signal strict behavioural regimes, or that “aspirational” often masks intense pressure.
Social capital shapes not only who you know but whose stories count as credible. A middle-class parent’s complaint may trigger swift institutional response; a working-class parent raising similar concerns risks being dismissed as difficult or uninformed (Coleman, 1988; Cox et al., 2021).

In Putnam’s (2000) terms, many of these ties are forms of bonding social capital that reinforce strong connections within relatively homogeneous groups, while more advantaged families are also better positioned to mobilise bridging ties that connect them to people and institutions beyond their immediate community. The most powerful grapevines typically combine dense bonding ties with well-placed bridging connections into schools, universities and professions.

Bourdieu’s (1986) work on capital offers a useful lens here. Families with dense stocks of economic, cultural and social capital are better placed to convert informal knowledge into concrete advantages—securing particular schools, subjects, placements or institutional reputations. Over time, these processes help transform the informal whispers of the grapevine into symbolic power. Certain schools, colleges and universities accumulate reputations as “good”, “stretching”, “inclusive” or “rough”, which then feed back into application patterns, resource flows and league table performance, consolidating existing hierarchies.

First-in-family students again illustrate this dynamic. O’Shea (2016b) argues that they are often read through a deficit lens—as lacking the “right” cultural capital for university—and that institutional responses tend to focus on “filling” them with legitimate dispositions and skills. From a grapevine perspective, the problem is not simply a lack of individual attributes. It is the absence of long-standing family networks that can offer hot and warm knowledge about how higher education works and how to be recognised as the “right kind” of student.

Digital grapevines and new inequalities

The grapevine is not just a matter of school gates and dinner parties. It is increasingly digital:

WhatsApp groups for classes, year groups and parent networks.
TikTok and Instagram accounts where students share candid opinions about schools, colleges or universities.
Online forums and review sites where applicants compare notes about accommodation, teaching quality or mental health support.

For parents, social media has become a major source of practical and emotional information. Research on parenting and social media suggests that many parents actively seek advice, stories and reassurance from other parents online and often attribute considerable trust to these sources. In effect, the grapevine now runs through group chats, feeds and comment threads as well as physical spaces.

These platforms can democratise information, giving voice to students and families whose experiences are routinely ignored in official narratives. They can make visible the everyday realities of racism, ableism, sexism or classism that never appear in glossy brochures.

Yet they can also amplify existing inequalities:

Whose voices dominate? The capacity to use digital tools effectively—devices, connectivity, confidence, literacy—varies systematically by social class and closely tracks existing inequalities in cultural and social capital. Those with greater “digital capital” are better placed to curate and interpret online information flows.
Which schools carry stigma? Negative reputations can attach rapidly to schools serving disadvantaged communities, making it harder for them to escape stigma even when conditions improve.
How do algorithms sort perspectives? Content liked and shared by already-privileged groups is more likely to be amplified and to appear as the “common-sense” view of a school or university.

The digital grapevine does not bypass old hierarchies; it is layered on top of them. Digital capital becomes another way in which some families can leverage their resources to navigate choice, while others are left scrolling through partial, stigmatising or confusing narratives.

What would a fairer grapevine look like?

If the grapevine is not going away—and there is little reason to think it will—the question becomes how to make information flows more equitable, rather than pretending everyone uses the system in the same way.

Some possibilities include:

Treating parent and student networks as legitimate policy concerns, not background noise. Work on school choice and family–school partnerships highlights how access to useful information is a structural barrier that limits the equity potential of choice policies. School staff often act as informal “liaisons of choice”, but this role is uneven and under-supported. Policymakers rarely ask which families can mobilise these informal brokers and which are left reliant on cold information alone.
Supporting community-based mentoring schemes. Programmes that connect young people from under-represented backgrounds with student ambassadors, professionals or near-peers can provide trusted warm information that does not rely on existing family networks. For first-in-family students in particular, such schemes can help substitute for the missing familial grapevine into post-16 and higher education.
Training teachers, advisers and outreach staff to recognise their own position within privileged grapevines. Studies of family–school relationships suggest that educators’ assumptions about “engaged” parents are often classed and racialised, affecting whose concerns are treated as legitimate. Making the informal guidance they share more transparent—and ensuring it reaches students without strong family networks—may help reduce hidden gatekeeping.
Publishing more contextual, legible information. Calls for information interventions in school and higher education choice emphasise not only simplifying written information but also making it meaningful for those with fewer resources to decode it. This might include clearer data on course intensity, support structures, attrition patterns and graduate destinations, presented in ways that first-in-family applicants can actually use.

From a sociological perspective, this is about redistributing forms of social and cultural capital, not just providing more leaflets. It means taking seriously the forms of lay expertise that parents and students already hold, rather than treating official data as the only legitimate knowledge about schools and universities.

None of this eliminates inequality in one stroke. But taking the grapevine seriously shifts attention from individual “choices” to the social infrastructure of decision-making: who hears what, from whom, and with what credibility.

Limits, tensions and alternative readings

This account has emphasised how grapevine networks often amplify middle-class advantage, but there is always a risk of sliding back into deficit stories about working-class, migrant and first-in-family families. Research also points to rich local knowledges and solidaristic networks that do not map neatly onto conventional notions of “capital”, yet still help young people navigate constrained options and push back against stigmatising narratives about their schools and communities.

The digital grapevine carries similar tensions. While it frequently reproduces existing hierarchies, online spaces can also be used by marginalised students and parents to share experiences, organise and make alternative evaluations of institutions visible. Paying attention to these more ambivalent dynamics complicates any neat story of victims and beneficiaries: the same networks that reproduce inequality can sometimes be mobilised to contest it, depending on local contexts, histories and forms of collective action. These tensions and alternative readings will be explored in more depth in a future article.

Why this matters for how we tell our stories

The appeal of the grapevine is that it feels human, relational and trustworthy in a system that often feels distant and opaque. People want more than performance indicators; they want to know how a school or course feels, whether “people like us” belong there, and what happens when things go wrong.

The danger is that these stories are deeply unevenly distributed. When some groups live in information-rich environments and others in information-poor ones, “choice” becomes another language for privilege. Recognising the grapevine as a mechanism of classed and racialised advantage—and updating that analysis for a digital, platform-mediated era—offers one route towards reimagining guidance, outreach and policy so that insider knowledge ceases to be a private asset and becomes a shared resource.

References

Adamecz-Völgyi, A., Gregor, M., Kollo, J., & Scharle, Á. (2020). Is “first in family” a good indicator for widening university participation? Economics of Education Review, 78, 102031. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2020.102031
Ball, S. J. (2003). The risks of social reproduction: The middle class and education markets. London Review of Education, 1(3), 163–175.
Ball, S. J., & Vincent, C. (1998). “I heard it on the grapevine”: “Hot” knowledge and school choice. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 19(3), 377–400. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142569980190307
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). Greenwood.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95–S120.
Cox, A. B., Steinbugler, A. C., & Quinn, R. (2021). It’s who you know (and who you are): Social capital in a school-based parent network. Sociology of Education, 94(4), 253–270. https://doi.org/10.1177/00380407211029655
Douglas, J. W. B. (1964). The home and the school: A study of ability and attainment in the primary school. MacGibbon & Kee.
O’Shea, S. (2016a). First-in-family learners and higher education: Negotiating the “silences” of university transition and participation. HERDSA Review of Higher Education, 3, 5–23.
O’Shea, S. (2016b). Avoiding the manufacture of “sameness”: First-in-family students, cultural capital and the higher education environment. Higher Education, 72(1), 59–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9938-y
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster.
Reay, D., & Ball, S. J. (1997). “Spoilt for choice”: The working classes and educational markets. Oxford Review of Education, 23(1), 89–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305498970230108
Slack, K., Mangan, J., Hughes, A., & Davies, P. (2014). “Hot”, “cold” and “warm” information and higher education decision-making. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 35(2), 204–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2012.741803