internal factors influencing social class differences in achievement Flashcards
1
Q
what are internal factors and processes affecting pupils in school?
A
- labelling
- self-fulfilling prophecy
- pupil subcultures
- interaction between class identity and school values
2
Q
what is labelling in education?
A
- attaching a meaning or definition to someone
- teachers may label pupils as bright or thick
- labels can include troublemaker or hardworking
3
Q
how do interactionists view labelling in schools?
A
- teachers label based on class stereotypes, not actual ability
- working-class pupils often labelled negatively
- middle-class pupils often labelled positively
- interactionist sociologists study face-to-face interactions
- focus on how labels are given and their effects on pupils
4
Q
what did becker (1971) find about labelling?
A
- interactionist study based on teacher interviews
- 60 chicago high school teachers interviewed
- found teachers judged pupils by how close they were to the ‘ideal pupil’
5
Q
what influenced teachers’ judgements in becker’s study?
A
- pupils’ work, conduct and appearance
- middle-class pupils seen as closest to the ideal pupil
- working-class pupils seen as furthest from ideal
- working-class pupils regarded as badly behaved
6
Q
how do notions of the ideal pupil vary by school?
A
- hempel-jorgensen (2009) study of two english primary schools
- aspen (working-class): ideal pupil = quiet, passive, obedient
- behaviour more important than ability
- rowan (middle-class): ideal pupil = personality and academic ability
- fewer discipline issues, focus on ability over behaviour
7
Q
how do dunne and gazeley (2008) explain working-class underachievement? (labelling in secondary schools)
A
- teachers’ labels and assumptions cause persistent w/c underachievement
- based on interviews in 9 english state secondary schools
- found that teachers normalised w/c underachievement, felt little responsibility
- believed m/c underachievement could be overcome
- blamed home background:
- w/c parents seen as uninterested
- m/c parents seen as supportive
- led to class differences in support:
- m/c pupils given extension work
- w/c pupils entered for easier exams
- w/c potential underestimated, success seen as overachievement
- concluded teachers’ actions constructed class differences in attainment
8
Q
what did ray rist (1970) find about labelling in a kindergarten?
A
- labelling starts early in a child’s education
- teacher used their home background and appearance to group children
- ‘tigers’: middle-class, neat and clean, seated near the teacher, given greatest encouragement
- ‘cardinals’ and ‘clowns’: mostly working-class, seated further away, given lower-level books and fewer opportunities to show abilities
- group reading instead of individual reading for working-class pupils
9
Q
what is a self-fulfilling prophecy in education?
A
- prediction that comes true due to the label made
- step 1: teacher labels a pupil (e.g. as intelligent) and predicts academic success
- step 2: teacher treats pupil based on prediction (e.g. more attention, higher expectations)
- step 3: pupil internalises the expectation, becomes more confident, tries harder, and succeeds
- the prediction is fulfilled due to the label and treatment
10
Q
what did rosenthal and jacobson (1968) find in their study of oak community school?
A
- study at oak community school (california primary school)
- told the school about a new test to identify ‘spurters’ (pupils who would excel)
- the test was actually just a standard IQ test, but teachers believed the claim
- 20% of pupils were randomly selected and labelled as ‘spurters’
- after a year, 47% of spurters made significant progress
- greater effect on younger pupils
11
Q
what did rosenthal and jacobson suggest about teachers’ beliefs and the self-fulfilling prophecy?
A
- teachers’ beliefs about pupils were influenced by supposed test results
- teachers conveyed these beliefs through body language, attention, and encouragement
- this demonstrates the self-fulfilling prophecy
- by accepting the prediction, teachers helped bring about the expected outcome
- random selection of pupils shows that teachers’ beliefs can shape pupils’ development
- illustrates the interactionist principle: beliefs can have real effects, even if not originally true
12
Q
how can the self-fulfilling prophecy lead to under-achievement?
A
- teachers with low expectations may communicate these to pupils
- pupils develop a negative self-concept
- they may see themselves as failures and give up trying
- this leads to under-achievement, fulfilling the original negative prophecy
13
Q
how does streaming contribute to the self-fulfilling prophecy and under-achievement?
A
- streaming separates children into different ability groups, each taught separately
- teachers often have low expectations for **working-class pupils*, seeing them as lacking ability
- working-class pupils are more likely to be placed in lower streams
- once streamed, it’s difficult to move up to a higher stream
- children in lower streams may feel written off as no-hopers
- this creates a self-fulfilling prophecy where pupils underachieve to meet low expectations
- douglas found that children in lower streams had a decline in IQ from age 8 to 11
14
Q
how do middle-class pupils benefit from streaming?
A
- middle-class pupils are more likely to be placed in higher streams
- teachers see them as ideal pupils, leading to higher expectations
- they develop a more positive self-concept, gain confidence, and work harder
- this results in improved grades
- douglas found that children in higher streams had an improved IQ from age 8 to 11
15
Q
what did gillborn and youdell (2001) find about streaming and class?
A
- study of two london secondary schools
- teachers use stereotypical notions of ability to stream pupils
- teachers are less likely to see working-class (and black) pupils as having ability
- these pupils are more likely to be placed in lower streams and entered for lower-tier GCSEs
- this denies them the knowledge and opportunity needed to gain good grades
- results in widening the class gap in achievement
16
Q
how do gillborn and youdell link streaming to exam league tables?
A
- link streaming to the policy of publishing exam league tables
- league tables rank schools based on exam performance (e.g., percentage of pupils gaining five or more GCSEs A* to C)
- schools need a good league table position to attract pupils and funding
- creates an ‘A-to-C economy’ in schools
- schools focus resources on pupils with the potential to get five grade Cs to improve their league table position
17
Q
what is educational triage (gillborn and youdell)?
A
- educational triage = sorting pupils based on predicted success
- inspired by medical triage in disasters or warzones
- schools sort students into 3 groups:
- those who will pass anyway – left alone
- those with potential to get a c or better – given help
- hopeless cases – given up on, warehoused in bottom sets
- based on stereotypes of working-class and black pupils as low ability
- leads to labelling and self-fulfilling prophecy of failure
- driven by league tables and the a-to-c economy
- leads to streaming – pupils placed in lower sets with less support
- results in lower achievement for working-class pupils
18
Q
how do marketisation policies affect class differences in achievement?
A
- marketisation policies affect micro level processes in schools
- policies include exam league tables, which:
- create competition between schools
- lead to sorting of pupils based on predicted success
-
class differences in achievement are produced because:
- schools focus on students with potential for league table success
- working-class pupils are more likely to be labelled as hopeless cases
- teacher labelling and stereotyping are influenced by the broader marketisation policies
19
Q
how do pupil subcultures develop?
A
- pupil subculture = group of pupils who share similar values and behaviour patterns
- often emerge as a response to being labelled, particularly as a reaction to streaming
- explained by Colin Lacey (1970) with:
- differentiation
- polarisation
20
Q
what is differentiation and how does it relate to streaming?
A
- differentiation = teachers categorising pupils based on ability, attitude, and/or behaviour
- streaming = a form of differentiation, placing pupils into separate classes
- more able pupils = placed in high streams, given high status
- less able pupils = placed in low streams, given inferior status
21
Q
what is polarisation in the context of streaming?
A
- polarisation = pupils respond to streaming by moving towards two opposite extremes
- Lacey’s study of Hightown boys’ grammar school found:
- boys were polarised into pro-school and anti-school subcultures
22
Q
pro-school subculture
A
- pupils in high streams (mainly middle-class) tend to:
- remain committed to the values of the school
- gain status through academic success
- form a pro-school subculture
23
Q
how do pupils in low streams typically respond? (anti-school subcultures)
A
- pupils in low streams (mainly working-class) often:
- suffer a loss of self-esteem due to inferior status
- seek alternative ways of gaining status, often by rejecting school values
- invert school values like hard work, obedience, and punctuality
- form an anti-school subculture to gain status among peers, e.g., cheeking teachers, truanting, smoking
24
Q
what are the consequences of joining an anti-school subculture?
A
- Joining an anti-school subculture may solve the problem of lack of status, but:
- it creates further problems, reinforcing poor academic performance
- it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy of educational failure
-
David Hargreaves (1967) found a similar response in secondary modern schools:
- boys in low streams were triple failures:
- failed their 11+ exam
- placed in low streams
- labelled as “worthless louts”
- boys in low streams were triple failures:
25
how do pupils in an anti-school subculture gain status?
- Pupils form a **delinquent subculture** where:
- **high status** goes to those who **flout the school's rules**
- this behaviour helps **guarantee their educational failure**
26
how did Stephen Ball's study challenge the idea of pupil subcultures? (abolishing streaming)
- Ball studied **Beachside comprehensive**, which abolished **banding** (type of streaming) in favour of **mixed-ability groups**
- **polarisation** was largely removed, reducing the influence of the **anti-school subculture**
- However, **differentiation** continued:
- teachers still **labelled middle-class pupils** as **cooperative and able**
- **positive labelling** led to **better exam results**, reflecting a **self-fulfilling prophecy**
- Ball's study shows **class inequalities** can persist due to **teachers' labelling**, even without subcultures or streaming
- After **Education Reform Act** (1988), **streaming** increased and schools began differentiating based on **class, ethnicity, or gender**, leading to **unequal treatment**, as seen in studies like **Gillborn and Youdell** (2001)
27
what other responses to labelling and streaming are possible?
- **Peter Woods** (1979) identified other responses:
- **ingratiation**: being the **'teacher's 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) noted pupils may **move between responses**, acting differently with different teachers
- the theme of **pupil subcultures** extends to **ethnicity, gender, and class**
28
strength: labelling theory and studies
- most studies examined here are influenced by **labelling theory**
- **labelling theory** suggests **underachievement** is due to **negative labelling** and being placed in **lower streams**
- This creates a **self-fulfilling prophecy**, where pupils:
- join **anti-school subcultures**
- these subcultures **guarantee their failure**
29
weakness: interactions within schools
- studies show that **schools are not neutral** or **fair institutions** as cultural deprivation theorists suggest
- Instead, **interactions within schools** can **actively create social class inequalities**
30
weakness: determinism
- Labelling theory is accused of **determinism**, assuming labelled pupils will **inevitably fail** and have no choice but to fulfil the prophecy
- However, studies like **Mary Fuller's (1984)** show this is not always the case
31
weakness: Marxists
- **Marxists** criticise labelling theory for **ignoring wider structures of power**
- Labelling theory blames **teachers** for labelling pupils but fails to explain **why** they do so
- **Marxists** argue that labels stem from the fact that **teachers work in a system** that **reproduces class divisions**
32
how do class identities affect educational success and failure?
- sociologists are interested in how **pupils' class identities** formed outside school interact with **school values**
- **archer et al** (2010) focus on how **working-class pupils' identities** interact with school and produce **underachievement**
- to understand this, they use **bourdieu's** (1984) concept of **habitus**
33
what is habitus and how does it affect education?
- **habitus** refers to **learned, taken-for-granted ways of thinking, being, and acting** shared by a social class
- it includes **tastes, preferences, and outlook on life** based on **social class**
- **middle-class habitus** is seen as **superior** and imposed on the education system
- schools value **middle-class tastes and preferences**, giving **middle-class pupils an advantage**
- working-class culture is regarded as **inferior**, linked to **bourdieu's concept of cultural capital**
34
how does habitus create inequality in education?
- schools have a **middle-class habitus**, giving **middle-class pupils symbolic capital** (status and recognition)
- **working-class habitus** is **devalued** by the school, with **working-class tastes** seen as **tasteless and worthless**
- this **withholding of symbolic capital** is called **symbolic violence** (Bourdieu), which **reproduces class inequality** and keeps lower classes ‘in their place’
- there is a **clash** between **working-class pupils' habitus** and the school's **middle-class habitus**
- archer found that working-class pupils may feel that **education is alien and unnatural** to them, and experience **educational success** as a process of **"losing yourself"**
- they feel unable to access **middle-class spaces** like **university** or **professional careers**, seeing them as **"not for the likes of us"**
35
how do pupils respond to symbolic violence and create self-worth?
- pupils are aware that **society and school look down on them**, leading to **symbolic violence**
- to create **self-worth and status**, they invest in **'styles’** (e.g., branded clothing like **Nike**)
- wearing brands like **Nike** was a way of **'being me'**; without them, they felt **inauthentic**
- pupils' identities were also **gendered**, with girls adopting a **hyper-heterosexual feminine style**
- style performances were **policed by peer groups**; not conforming was seen as **'social suicide'**
- the right appearance earned **symbolic capital, peer approval, and protection from bullying**
36
how do pupils' styles conflict with the school's middle-class habitus?
- pupils' **'street' styles** (e.g., Nike) conflict with the school's **middle-class habitus**
- teachers view **street styles** as **bad taste** or even a **threat**, labelling pupils as **rebels**
- **Archer** argues that the school's middle-class habitus **stigmatises working-class pupils' identities**
- for pupils, **'Nike' identities** are a way of gaining **symbolic capital and self-worth**, while the school sees them as **tasteless**
37
why do working-class pupils often reject higher education?
- **seen as unrealistic**: not for **'people like us'**, but for **richer, posher, cleverer people**
- pupils felt they would **not fit in** and it was **unaffordable** and **risky**
- **seen as undesirable**: did not suit their **lifestyle or habitus**
- living on a **student loan** meant not affording the **street styles** that shaped their identity
- **archer et al** argue that **'nike identities'**:
- contribute to **educational marginalisation**
- reflect a **positive preference** for a different way of life
- leads to **self-elimination or self-exclusion** from education
- pupils **reject education** because it **doesn't fit their identity or lifestyle**
38
does archer's study explain all working-class pupils' experiences?
- archer's study mainly focuses on the link between **working-class identity and educational failure**
- however, it recognises that **some working-class pupils do succeed**
39
what did nicola ingram (2009) find about working-class identity and school success?
- studied two groups of **working-class catholic boys** from the same **deprived area** in belfast
- one group at **grammar school** (passed 11-plus)
- one group at **secondary school** (failed 11-plus)
- **grammar school** had a **middle-class habitus** of **high expectations**
- **secondary school** had a **low-expectation habitus**
- **working-class identity** was tied to **locality, with family, friends, and street culture** shaping their **habitus** (like Archer study)
- **branded sportswear** was key to their identity
- Ingram notes **conformity** was important in the **working-class community**
- grammar school boys felt **tension** between their **working-class neighbourhood** and the **middle-class school habitus**
40
example of Ingram’s study
- example: **callum** wore a **tracksuit** on non-uniform day to fit in with **neighbourhood habitus**
- was **ridiculed** by classmates due to the **school's middle-class habitus**
- faced a **choice** between feeling **unworthy at school or worthless at home**
- this is an example of **symbolic violence**, where pupils must **abandon working-class identity** to succeed
- meg **maguire** (1997) said her **working-class cultural capital** meant **nothing** in grammar school
41
how does working-class identity affect access to elite universities?
- more **working-class young people** now go to **university**, but **clash of habitus** still creates barriers
- **self-exclusion** is a key factor
- sarah **evans** (2009) studied **21 working-class girls** in south london doing a-levels
- they were **reluctant to apply** to **elite universities** like oxbridge
- those who did apply felt **hidden barriers** and a **sense of not fitting in**
42
why do working-class students often avoid elite universities?
- **bourdieu** (1984) says many working-class people see places like **oxbridge** as **'not for the likes of us'**
- this belief comes from their **habitus**, shaping what they see as **possible or realistic**
- it becomes part of their **identity**
- leads to **self-exclusion** from **elite universities**
43
how does attachment to locality affect working-class students' choices?
- **evans** found working-class girls had a **strong attachment to locality**
- only **4 out of 21** planned to **move away** for university
- **reay et al** (2005) say this leads to **self-exclusion** from **elite or distant universities**, limiting success
- studies by **evans, ingram, and archer** show:
- the **middle-class education system devalues** working-class experiences and choices
- working-class pupils must choose between **keeping their identity or conforming** to the **middle-class habitus** to succeed
44
the relationship between internal and external factors
- class differences in achievement are shaped by **interrelated internal and external factors**
- examples:
- **working-class habitus** may **conflict** with school's **middle-class habitus**, causing **symbolic violence**
- **restricted speech code** (external) may lead to **teacher labelling** (internal) and **self-fulfilling prophecy**
- **teachers' beliefs** (internal) about **home background** (external) can cause **underachievement** (dunne and gazeley)
- **poverty** (external) may cause **bullying** (internal), leading to **truanting and failure**
- **educational policies and league tables** (external) drive **labelling and streaming** (internal) - **gillborn and youdell**
45
contemporary
- **stereotypes in teacher judgements**: trainee teachers often stereotype pupils with special educational needs, which can lead to biased expectations and influence how students are treated and perform.
- **impact of streaming on self-confidence**: being placed in lower ability groups can harm students’ self-esteem and lead to poorer performance, reinforcing the labels given
- **teacher expectations affect achievement**: when teachers expect less from certain pupils, those students may perform worse due to internalising those expectations—fulfilling the original label.
- **anti-school subcultures**: pupils labelled as "failures" may form groups that reject school values, leading to lower achievement and reinforcing educational inequality.
- **resisting negative labels**: some pupils, like the black girls in mary fuller's study, resist negative labels and still achieve academic success, showing labels don’t always determine outcomes.
