Class Differences In Achievement (internal factors) Flashcards
Labelling
This is where teachers may attach a meaning or definition to a pupil, and label them as bright or thick, troublemaker or hardworking. Studies show teacher’s attach labels based on stereotyped assumptions about their class background and not on their academic ability.
Studies
Becker (1971) found that teacher’s would label pupils based on how close they came to fitting the image of the ‘ideal pupil’. The pupil’s work, appearance and conduct were key to influencing teacher’s judgements. However, Amelia Hempel-Jorgensen (2009) found that the notions of the ideal pupil varies from teacher to teacher, and is in accordance with the social-class of the school.
Labelling in secondary schools
Dunne and Gazeley (2008) found that in 9 state secondary schools, teachers ‘normalised’ the underachievement of wc pupils, and they felt like they could do nothing about it. However, they would overcome the underachievement of mc pupils. This is because they labelled wc parents as uninterested in their children’s education, but labelled mc parents as supportive. This led to the teachers setting extension tasks for underachieving mc pupils but entering wc pupils for easier exams. Teachers also underestimated wc pupil’s potential and those who were doing well were seen as ‘overachieving’.
Labelling in primary schools
Rist (1970) found that the teacher used information about children’s home background and appearance to place them in separate groups, seating each group at a different table in an American kindergarten. The pupils the teacher decided were fast learners whom she labelled the ‘tigers’ tended to be mc and of neat and clean appearance. She seated these at the table nearest to her and showed them the greatest encouragement. The other two groups were labelled the ‘cardinals’ and the ‘clowns’ and she seated them further away. These groups were more likely to be wc. They were given lower-level books to read and fewer chances to show their abilities e.g. they read as a group, not as individuals.
Labelling Theory is Deterministic
The labelling theory assumes that pupils who are labelled have no choice but to fulfil the prophecy and will inevitably fail. However other research says that that’s not always true (see Mary Fuller, 1984 from ethnic differences). Marxists also criticise the labelling theory for ignoring the wider structures of power within which labelling takes place. Labelling theory tends to blame teachers for labelling pupils, but fails to explain why they do so.
Marxists argue that labels are not merely the result of teachers’ individual prejudices, but stem from the fact that teachers work in a system that reproduces class divisions.
Self-fulfilling prophecy
This is a prediction that comes true simply by virtue of it having been made. Interactionists argue that labelling can affect pupils’ achievement by creating a self-fulfilling prophecy;
Step one: the teacher labels a pupil (e.g. intelligent) and on the basis of the label, makes predictions about him (e.g. he will make outstanding academic progress)
Step two: the teacher treats the pupil accordingly, acting as if the prediction is already true (e.g. give him more attention and expecting a higher standard of work)
Step three: the pupil internalises the teachers’ expectation, which becomes part of his self-concept or self-image so that he now becomes the kind of pupil the teacher believed him to be in the first place. He gains confidence, tries harder, and is successful. The prediction is fulfilled.
This can work both ways i.e. if the teacher has low expectations of a pupil, and communicates these expectations in their interactions, these children may develop a negative self-concept. They may come to see themselves as failures and give up trying, thereby fulfilling the original prophecy.
Teachers expectations: The study
Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) told a school they had a new test specially designed to identify those pupils who would ‘spurt’ ahead. This was untrue, because the test was in fact a simple IQ test. But the teachers believed what they had been told. They tested all of the pupils, but then picked 20% of them purely at random and told the school, again falsely, that the test had identified these children as ‘spurters’. On returning to the school a year later, they found almost half (47%) of those identified as sputters had made significant progress, with a greater effect on younger children. The teacher’s beliefs had been influenced by the ‘test’, and these beliefs had then been conveyed onto the children, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy in the pupils as a result.
Streaming
Streaming involves separating children into different ability groups or classes called ‘streams’. Each ability group is then taught differently from the other. Working-class children tend to be streamed into lower ability classes, whereas middle-class children tend to be streamed into higher ability classes. A self-fulfilling prophecy then arises and those in low-ability classes (typically the working-class) will underachieve and those in higher ability classes (typically middle-class) will do well.
Streaming- A-C economy
Gillborn and Youdell (2001) showed that teachers use stereotypical notions of ‘ability’ to stream pupils, and they found that teachers were less likely to see the wc and black children as having ability. As a result, these students were more likely to be placed into lower streams and entered for lower tier GCSEs. This streaming was linked to exam league tables. To be in a good position, it’s all about the percentage of pupils who achieve A* to C. Schools need a good position in the league tables to attract pupils and funding. This publishing of league tables has led to the ‘A-to-C economy’ whereby schools focus their time, effort and resources on those pupils that have the potential to get 5 grade Cs or more to boost the school’s league table position.
Gillborn and Youdell call this educational triage where students are ‘sorted’ into 3 groups:
Those who will pass anyway and can be left to get on with it
Those with potential, who will be helped to get a grade C or better
Hopeless cases, Who are doomed to fail
This educational triage becomes the basis for streaming. Teacher’s beliefs about the lack of ability of the working-class pupils are used to segregate them into lower streams or sets, where they receive less attention, support and resources. This results in lower levels of achievement for the wc.
Pupil subcultures
Pupil subcultures often emerge as a response to the way pupils have been labelled. Colin Lacey (1970) identified the concepts of differentiation and polarisation to explain how pupil subcultures develop: Differentiation: categorising pupils on ability and attitude/behaviour. ‘More able’ pupils are given high status by being placed in a high stream, whereas those deemed as ‘less able’ are placed in a low stream. Polarisation: Pupils respond to streaming by moving towards one of two opposite ‘poles’ or extremes’ i.e. pro-school vs. anti-school subculture.
Pro-school subculture
pupils in high streams (mainly middle-class) remain committed to the values of the school. They gain status through academic success.
Anti-school subculture
pupils in low streams (typically the wc) suffer a loss of self-esteem, thinking they are of an inferior status. They look for status another way e.g. cheeking a teacher, truanting, not doing homework, smoking etc. to feel accepted by peers now they have been ‘rejected’ by teachers and the school.
Studies
Stephen Ball (1981) showed that in Beachside comprehensive school, banding had produced the kind of polarisation described by Lacey. Ball found that when the school abolished banding, the basis for pupils to polarise into subcultures was largely removed and the influence of the anti-school subculture declined. However, differentiation continued and teacher’s continued to categorise pupils differently and were more likely to label middle-class pupils as cooperative and able. This positive label resulted in better exam results, showing the self-fulfilling prophecy.
Since Ball’s study and the Education Reform Act (1988) there has been a trend in more streaming and towards a variety of types of schools. Meaning there is still opportunity for schools and teachers to differentiate between pupils on the basis of their class, ethnicity or gender and treat them unequally.
Alternative Responses to Labelling and Streaming
Peter woods (1979) argues there are other responses to labelling and streaming, not just pupil subcultures:
Ingratiation: being the ‘teachers pet’
Ritualism: going through the motions and staying out of trouble
Retreatism: daydreaming and mucking about
Rebellion: outright rejection of everything the school stands for
John Furlong (1984) observed that many pupils are not committed permanently to any one response, but may move between different types of response, acting differently in lessons with different teachers.
Criticisms of labelling theory
Marxists- ignore the wider structures of power within which labelling takes place. Labelling theory blames teachers, but fails to explain so.
They also argue that labels are not merely the result of teachers individual prejudice’s, but also the fact that they work in a system that reproduces class divisions.
