The Class Divide in Lunchboxes: What Diane Reay Taught Us About Inequality in Schools

If you want a crash course in Britain’s class system, forget reading the Financial Times or people-watching at a Waitrose café. Just stand outside a school gate at lunchtime. In one corner, you’ll spot little Oliver unpacking his carefully curated bento box of organic quinoa salad, artisan cheese slices, and ethically sourced blueberries. In another, you’ll find young Jayden wrestling open a packet of Wotsits, hoping the canteen sausage roll hasn’t gone cold. It’s lunch, but it’s also sociology in action—a perfect metaphor for Diane Reay’s searing critiques of the British education system.

Reay, a sociologist whose pen cuts as sharply as her insights, has spent years dissecting how schools are less places of learning and more battlegrounds for perpetuating privilege. Her work isn’t just academic—it’s a magnifying glass held up to the absurd inequalities baked into an education system that pretends to be fair while reinforcing every stereotype about British class distinctions. And nowhere is this more evident than in the humble lunchbox, where hummus meets sausage roll and the great British class divide plays out with unnerving precision.

Meritocracy: The Great British Bedtime Story

Ah, meritocracy. The idea that anyone, no matter their background, can succeed with a little hard work and a lot of grit. It’s a concept so deeply embedded in British culture that we teach it to children alongside the Gruffalo. But as Reay would argue—and does, brilliantly—it’s a myth, a comforting bedtime story told by the middle classes to justify their own advantages.

In theory, schools are supposed to be the great levellers, where every child gets an equal shot at success. In reality, they’re more like the Hunger Games, with working-class children entering as tribute while middle-class parents sponsor their kids with private tutors, catchment area hacks, and suspiciously glowing personal statements.

Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of cultural capital—the idea that the middle classes possess the knowledge, behaviours, and connections that schools value—fits seamlessly into Reay’s critique. Middle-class parents don’t just understand the system; they wrote the manual. From school application forms to parents’ evenings, they navigate every step with the ease of someone who’s already been here before (because they probably have). Meanwhile, working-class parents are left trying to figure out why the “choice” part of school choice feels more like a trapdoor than an opportunity.

And it’s not just about academics. Middle-class parents use cultural capital to shape the social environment, too. Take the lunchbox. It’s no longer just about feeding your child; it’s about signalling your parenting credentials. Pack a lunch with a kale smoothie and homemade sourdough, and you’re not just a parent—you’re a lifestyle brand. Send your kid with a Dairy Milk and a bag of Monster Munch? Expect a quiet word from the headteacher about “setting a good example.”

League Tables: The Middle-Class Olympics

League tables are ostensibly about measuring school performance, but in reality, they’re just another way to rank privilege. Schools at the top of these tables tend to be in affluent areas, with glossy facilities, extensive extracurricular programmes, and an Ofsted report so glowing it practically radiates smugness. Schools at the bottom? They’re left fighting over the scraps of funding, battling high teacher turnover and crumbling infrastructure.

Reay’s critique of league tables is biting and uncomfortably accurate. Far from incentivising improvement, these rankings create a self-fulfilling prophecy: good schools attract middle-class families, whose children come pre-loaded with cultural capital and a knack for violin practice. Meanwhile, schools serving disadvantaged communities are left grappling with the Herculean task of meeting arbitrary targets while pretending the photocopier isn’t broken again.

But here’s the kicker: league tables don’t just reinforce inequality—they’re a source of middle-class anxiety. Reay often points out how middle-class parents obsess over ensuring their children attend the “right” schools, treating the process like the Olympics of social climbing. It’s not uncommon to hear of families moving house, changing postcodes, or inventing heartfelt conversion stories to secure a spot at a desirable faith school.

The absurdity of it all wouldn’t be out of place in a sitcom. Imagine a parent’s outrage when they discover that the Ofsted-outstanding school they fought tooth and nail to get into still serves chips on Fridays. Scandalous.

Lunchbox Wars: Quinoa vs. Crisps

If there’s one place where all this inequality becomes laughably transparent, it’s lunchtime. The lunchbox isn’t just a vessel for sandwiches—it’s a status symbol. For middle-class parents, the contents of their child’s lunchbox are as carefully curated as their Instagram grid. Each item tells a story: the hummus says “we care about health,” the eco-friendly packaging whispers “we care about the planet,” and the organic oat bars scream “we care more than you.”

For working-class parents, lunchboxes are a much simpler affair. They’re about affordability, convenience, and practicality—because who has the time or money to make an organic frittata when you’re working two jobs and trying to keep the lights on? But in schools, these differences are magnified and judged. Healthy eating policies, for example, often disproportionately affect working-class families, whose choices are framed as irresponsible or inadequate.

Here, Reay’s work intersects with Erving Goffman’s concept of stigma. The school lunchbox becomes a site of subtle (and not-so-subtle) judgement, where teachers, peers, and even other parents police what’s considered acceptable. It’s not just about food—it’s about power, control, and the relentless middle-class need to perform their virtue at every opportunity.

The Emotional Cost of Inequality

One of the most poignant aspects of Reay’s work is her focus on the emotional toll of inequality. For working-class families, the education system isn’t just a logistical challenge—it’s a source of constant anxiety and stress. Parents worry about being judged, children feel out of place, and the system seems designed to remind them at every turn that they don’t belong.

Take school uniforms. Middle-class parents love to wax lyrical about the virtues of uniforms as “great levellers,” conveniently ignoring the fact that branded blazers, regulation skirts, and PE kits are expensive. And when a child turns up wearing budget supermarket alternatives instead of the approved supplier, the result isn’t equality—it’s embarrassment.

Reay’s insights echo Max Weber’s concept of the “iron cage” of bureaucracy. The very structures that are meant to create fairness—uniforms, lunch policies, league tables—often trap working-class families in cycles of judgement and exclusion. It’s not enough to comply with the rules; you have to comply in the “right” way, and that’s a game only some families know how to play.

The Counterargument: Surely It’s Not That Bad?

Of course, critics of Reay’s work might argue that she paints too bleak a picture. After all, Britain’s education system provides free schooling to all children, and many would point to success stories of working-class students who have thrived against the odds. Isn’t that proof that the system works?

Not quite. As Reay herself would argue, these success stories are exceptions, not evidence of systemic fairness. For every working-class child who makes it to Oxbridge, there are countless others whose potential is stifled by a lack of resources, opportunities, and support. The system may work for a lucky few, but it fails the many—and that failure is neither accidental nor inevitable.

What Can We Do?

Reay doesn’t just critique the system; she offers a way forward. She advocates for policies that genuinely level the playing field: increased funding for disadvantaged schools, less reliance on league tables, and a focus on inclusion rather than competition.

But perhaps the biggest lesson from Reay’s work is the need for cultural change. Schools don’t operate in a vacuum—they reflect the values and inequalities of the society around them. If we want a fairer education system, we need to address the broader structural issues that perpetuate inequality, from housing to employment to healthcare.

Conclusion: Diane Reay’s Lessons on Lunch and Life

Diane Reay has a knack for taking the mundane—lunchboxes, league tables, uniforms—and showing us how they reveal the profound. Her work is a reminder that education isn’t just about academics; it’s about identity, power, and the stories we tell ourselves about fairness.

So the next time you see a lunchbox filled with organic kale crisps and homemade granola, spare a thought for what it represents: not just privilege, but a system that rewards it. And the next time someone calls a sausage roll a “poor choice,” channel your inner Diane Reay and remind them that the real poor choice is accepting an education system that’s anything but equal.