Social class differences in achievement (internal) Flashcards
Dunne and Gazeley (2008)
Interviews with teachers in nine secondary schools.
> found that negative teacher labelling is the most important cause of working class pupils underachievement.
> teachers “normalised” working class underachievement.
> these perceptions influenced how teachers interacted with working class.
> working class pupils realise their negative label, which results in a self-fulfilling prophecy - where they believe they cannot pass, due to the label and therefore underachieve.
> this leads to anti-school subcultures.
EVALUATION - small sample of only nine schools.
EVALUATION - labelling theory doesnt always lead to underachievement, it can sometimes lead to them being motivated to prove their negative label wrong.
Setting and Streaming
setting - refers to where pupils are grouped according to their ability in particular
streaming - where pupils are put into broadly similar ability groups across all of their subjects.
Jo Boaler (2005)
conducted a study of students aged 13-16 in maths class in two secondary schools.
> students at both schools were similar in terms of social class.
> in school A, students are taught in mixed classes. In school B, setting was used. An analysis of GCSE grades found that no social class differences in achievement were found where mixed ability class took place.
> school A also spoke more positively about their school.
> one student said that being in a lower set was like being in a “psychological prison”.
>
Pupil subcultures
numerous studies found that negative labelling led to deviant pupil subcultures, which are opposed to values of school.
being a member of deviant subculture contributed to failure and disruption of other pupils.
Paul Willis (1977)
studied 12 working class boys - the “lads” during their last year and a half of school and first 6 months at work.
> he found that the “lads” rejected the idea of educational qualifications and success.
> their anti-school behaviour demonstrated the counter-school values they have.
> messing around in class and being disruptive was how they expressed their anti-school views.
> they underachieved due to messing around, leading to low-pay jobs which were also rejected by the lads
> the counter-school subculture was transferred to a “shop-floor subculture”
EVALUATION - cant make generalisations as it was only 12 working class.
Marlin Mac an Ghaill (1994)
“macho lads” - in bottom two sets for all their subjects, academic failures and treated as such by their teachers.
> they rejected school values and teachers. They wanted to have a laugh.
> this contributed to underachievement.
“academic achievers” - saw hard work and educational qualifications as a route to success.
> they were in top sets and received preferential treatment from schools and teachers.
> tend to come from the upper levels of working class.
EVALUATION - the “academic achievers” help to evaluate the claim that social class inevitably has an impact on a pupils chances of success.
Louise Archer et al (2010)
research looked at how pupils home-background may interact with in-school processes to explain underachievement.
> they claim that there are certain styles, behaviours, values and attitudes that are associated with a particular social class - something referred to ass habitus - this is linked to cultural capital.
> since schools work with middle-class habitus, working class identity is de-valued and considered to be undesirable.
> the way that teachers and schools fail to recognise working-class identity in a positive way is referred to as symbolic violence - working class feel “worthless” and they do not “fit in” at school.
> to overcome this, working class must exaggerate characteristics of working-class identity.
> often brands like nike “Nike identities “are used to gain sense of self worth
EVALUATION - ignores working class pupils who are doing well in school
