Education - Class Differences in Educational Achievement: Internal Flashcards
What are the 5 aspects of internal factors of W/C educational unerachievement?
- Labelling
- The self-fulfilling prophecy
- Streaming
- Subcultures
- Identities
Define labelling.
When teachers assign percieved identities to students, whether or not they may be true - such as labelling a W/C pupil a ‘troublemaker’ becuase of their messy clothes even if they are a good student.
Becker (1971) and the ‘ideal pupil’:
- Chicago high school teachers judge students based on how closely they fit their idea of the ‘ideal pupil’
- This was more likely to be M/C pupils
Criticize Becker (1971).
Its an american study, different culture = not fully generalisable.
Hempel-Jorgensen (2009) and variety in ‘ideal pupil’:
Different teachers in diferent schools will have different ideas about what the ‘ideal pupil’ is
- In the W/C Aspen Primary, the IP is quiet and obedient, reflecting the behaviour issues of the school
- In the M/C Rowan Primary, the IP is defined by personality and ability, rather than behaviour, reflecting their lack of behaviour issues
What did Dunne and Gazeley (2008) say about “normalisation”?
- Schools normalise the underachievement of W/C pupils
- Unlike M/C underachievement which they believed could be overcome.
- This led them to put little effort into overcoming the underachievement such as by entering them in easier exams
- Unlike M/C pupils who would recieve extension work
What was the main factor in Dunne and Gazeley (2008)?
The pupil’s home background: W/C parents were labelled as uninterested, unlike M/C parents who would pay for tutoring and extracurriculars.
Rist (1970) and the ‘tigers, cardinals, and clowns’:
The teacher in an American kindergarten organised kids into tables based on their home background and appearance:
- ‘tigers’, who were M/C and neat;
- ‘cardinals’ and ‘clowns’ who were W/C.
The latter were given lower level books and forced to read in groups, now showing individual ability.
What are the three steps to the self-fulfilling prophecy?
- Label: Teacher labels pupils
- Treatment: Teacher treats pupil accordingly
- Internalisation: pupil internalises the label and becomes it
Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) and the ‘spurters’ (methodology):
- Oak community, Californian primary school
- Tell the school that you have a test that can tell them which students will ‘spurt’ ahead (lie)
- Randomly assign 20% of pupils as ‘spurters’
- Come back to the school and see how pupils have changed
Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) and the ‘spurters’ (results):
47% of (especially younger) ‘spurters’ made significant progress; they suggest that teacher’s perceptions of the pupils’ potential affected how they acted towards them, such as body language or additional help.
How does Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) prove the self fulfilling prophecy?
The teachers labelled the ‘spurters’ as having higer potential, so acted differently around them, encouraging them to internalise the label and helping them to develop.
How does streaming affect the W/C?
W/C pupils are more likely to be put into lower streams, either leading them to ‘get the message’ that they’re no-hopers or locking them out of getting heigher grades.
Douglas (1964) and IQ:
Pupils placed in lower streams at 8 suffered decline in IQ by 11.
Gillborn and Youdell (2001) and the ‘A-C economy’:
Given the publication of exam league tables that rank schools based on how many A-C pupils they have, schools will focus more on pupils that are on the brink of getting Cs in order to push themselves up in the table and abandon all ‘hopeless cases’.
