Internal Class Differences in Achievement Flashcards
(27 cards)
Labelling
Studies show that teacher attach
meanings (labels) to pupils
regardless of their actual ability or
attitude, stereotypical assumptions
means the MC are labelled
positively and the WC negatively.
Becker:Labelling
Studied labelling by interviewing 60 Chicago high
school teachers, and found they attach labels to
pupils depending on how close the match the ideal
pupil.
* These judgements were made using pupils’ work,
conduct and appearance. Teachers saw MC pupils as
closest to the idea pupil, and saw WC pupils as badly
behaved.
Hempel-Jorgenson
Argues the ‘ideal pupil’ depends
on the overall class of the
school.
* WC primary school- ideal
pupil is quiet, obedient and
passive, defining them by
behaviour instead of ability.
* MC primary school- ideal
pupil is defined by
personality and academic
ability, instead of just a ‘non-
misbehaving pupil’ at the WC school.
Labelling in Primary Schools
Rist (1970)- study found teachers use info about pupils’
home background/appearance to sort them into groups.
* Tigers- were MC ‘fast learners’ who have a clean
appearance. They received the most help and
attention.
* Cardinals & Clowns- WC groups were given lower
level books and ability work. They received less
help/attention and were seated further away from
the teacher.
labelling in secondary schools
Dunne & Gazeley (2008)- schools reproduce WC underachievement because of teacher’s labels and assumptions.
* Interviews from 9 schools found teachers normalised WC pupils’ underachievement and didn’t think they could do anything about it, all while thinking they could overcome MC underachievement.
* Reason for this- teachers have different beliefs about pupils’ home backgrounds, labelling WC parents as uninterested and MC parents as supportive.
This causes class differences in class where the teacher will address and help MC underachievement and do nothing for WC pupils.
process of self fulfilling prophecy
- Teacher labels pupil (EG: trouble-maker) and makes a prediction based on this (EG: pupil will underachieve).
- Teacher treats pupil like the label and acts like the prediction already came true
(EG: ignoring/not helping the pupil) - Pupil internalises the teacher’s expectation of them, and it becomes part of their self-image. (EG: pupil gets no help, so resigns themselves to being a trouble-
maker)
The prophecy is now fulfilled.
Rosenthal and Jacobson(Teachers expectations)
Study of primary school shows the prophecy at work.
* Their experiment made pupils do a simple IQ test, but told teachers the ‘special’
test had identified spurter pupils who would do really well.
* A year later- the randomly picked pupils had actually improved academically.
This is because the teachers labelled the pupils as achievers and gave them more
encouragement and support than other pupils. This led to a self-fulfilling prophecy where the pupils succeeded academically.
Streaming
Streaming- sorting children into
groups (‘streams’) based on their
ability, so they can be taught
separately.
The self-fulfilling prophecy is very
likely to happen when pupils are
streamed.
Streaming and the A-C Economy
Gillborn & Youdell (2001)- study of 2 high
schools shows how teachers use stereotypes
of ‘ability’ to stream pupils.
- WC/black pupils- seen as low ability, so
are placed in low streams and entered for
foundation papers. This denies them the
knowledge and opportunities needed to
get better grades. - They link streaming to exam league
tables- Schools need a good position to
attract pupils and funding, which is based
on how many A-C grade pupils get. This
means schools will focus on pupils with
the potential to get 5 Cs so the table
position is boosted.
Becker and Streaming
shows that WC pupils aren’t seen as the ideal pupil. This makes it harder for them to move up streams, as teacher expectations put them in the lower ones.
This causes a self-fulfilling prophecy where the pupil lives up to the expectation of underachieving.
At the same time, MC pupils benefit from streaming, as teacher expectations place them in high ability groups, boosting their self-concept and helping them succeed.
Educational Triage
Gillborn & Youdell call this process educational triage
because pupils are sorted into those who will pass
anyway, borderline pupils (can get a C, so receive the
most resources/help), and hopeless cases who will fail
regardless.
- Teacher stereotypes- mean WC and black pupils are
mostly labelled as hopeless cases, and are therefore put
in low streams. This makes a self-fulfilling prophecy where these pupils end up failing.
Evaluation of streaming
- Gillborn & Youdell show how teacher
labelling/stereotypes combined with streaming
causes a MC/WC achievement gap. - They also put it into wider context very well,
showing how marketisation policies have
become a part of streaming/labelling. - However, they don’t explain that pupils are not
passive puppets, and that the prophecy isn’t
always fulfilled.
Pupil subcultures
subcultures- groups of pupils who share
similar values/behaviour patterns.
These subcultures usually emerge in
response to labelling and as a reaction to
streaming.
pro-school subculture
Were mostly MC pupils placed in high
streams, and were committed to and
shared the school’s values.
* Gaining status- in the approved manner
(academic success).
anti-school subculture
Were mostly WC pupils placed in low
streams, and had low-self esteem due to
the school giving them an inferior status.
* Gaining status- label of failure pushed
them to get status by inverting school
values like obedience and being on time.
* Status was also gained through peers, by
cheeking teachers, not doing homework,
etc.
However, the outcome was the same-
joining the anti-school subculture also led
to a fulfilled prophecy of failure, just like
streaming does.
Woods-variety of pupils responses
He argues there are many responses to
labelling/streaming than just 2 subcultures-
* Ingratiation- teacher’s pet.
* Ritualism- go through the motions, stay out of
trouble.
* Retreatism- daydreaming & messing about.
* Rebellion- outright rejecting everything school
stands for.
Furlong (1984)- pupils aren’t fixed in one response, it
can change between certain lessons and teachers.
Explains how pupil subcultures develop-
- Differentiation- the process of teacher categorising and labelling pupils based on how they
see their behaviour/ability/attitude. Streaming is a form of differentiation that gives high
status to ‘able’ pupils and an inferior status to less able pupils in lower streams. - Polarisation- process of pupils responding to streaming by moving to one ‘pole’/extreme. EG:
Lacey found anti/pro school subcultures when studying a grammar school.
Abolishing streaming:
Ball (1981)- studied a comprehensive that was switching from streaming to teaching mixed-ability groups.
* With streaming abolished, he found anti-school subcultures declined, and the basis for polarisation is removed.
* However- differentiation still occurred, teachers still categorised pupils and labelled the MC more favourably.
Ball therefore suggests that class differences continue due to teacher labelling, as streaming removes the issue of subcultures.
criticisms of labelling theory
Does well at showing school’s class inequalities,
challenging the idea that they’re fair institutions.
* Too deterministic- assumes pupils will passively accept
label, Fuller’s (1984) study of black girls shows this
isn’t true.
* Marxists- labelling theory ignores the wider structure
that labelling takes place in, blaming teachers for
labelling pupils but not explaining why they do it.
* Marxists- argue it’s not teacher’s individual prejudices,
it’s that their own job stems from a system that
reproduces class inequality.
Pupils class identities and school
Sociologists look at how pupils’ class identities that are formed outside of school interact with the school and it’s values- and whether this produces educational success or failure.
Archer et al (2010)- focuses on the interaction between WC pupil’s identities and school- and how this makes
underachievement.
Pupils Identities :Nike Identities
Symbolic violence led WC pupils to finding other ways to
obtain worth and status.
* They did this by constructing class identities revolving
around fashion and brands such as Nike.
* These style performances were policed by peers, so not
conforming was ‘social suicide’. The right appearance
gained pupils symbolic capital from their peers, as
education already denied them of it.
* However- the school’s MC habitus clashed with WC
identities as it went against rules and dress codes, and
risked pupils being labelled as rebels.
- Nike styles can be WC pupils rejecting higher education-
they see it as unrealistic for ‘people like us’, and
undesirable as living of student loans costs them their style identity.
Habitus (Bourdieu, 1984):
This is the learned and taken-for-granted ways of thinking, being or acting in a social class.
* This includes tastes, preferences, outlook on life, consumption (fashion, leisure) and the expectations for ‘people like us’.
* The MC has the power to define their habitus as superior, making it imposed on the education system, where schools see WC habitus as inferior
symbolic capital
status/recognition from the school that they’re superior.
Symbolic capital & symbolic violence:
Schools have a MC habitus, so MC
pupils who are already socialised into it
at home have symbolic capital-
status/recognition from the school that they’re superior.
- For the WC, school devalues their
habitus, seeing their tastes, such as
clothing, as tasteless and worthless.
This withholding of symbolic capital is
called symbolic violence, where WC
pupils’ experience of education is
unnatural and alienated. - Archer- WC pupils felt they had to ‘lose
themselves’ in the MC’s habitus in
order to succeed educationally.
