Social class Education Internal factors Flashcards
Internal factors relating to social class and educational achievement
Internal factors
What is happening inside the education system
Labelling
Labelling someone : Attaching a meaning or definition to them
Teachers often label students based on stereotyped assumptions
Labelling in secondary schools
Howard Becker 1971 : Interviewed 60 Chicago high school teachers He found these teachers judged students against the image of the ‘ideal pupil’ Work conduct and appearance informed their judgement Becker found M/c students closer to ideal pupil and W/c students further away Labelled as ‘badly behaved’
Aaron Cicourel and John Kitsuse 1963 : Study of American school counsellors and career advisors Found labelling disadvantages W/c students Counsellors and career advisors claimed they assessed student suitability for higher education based on ability - Actually it was based on social class and race - White M/c students suitable for higher education, BAME W/c students advised to do apprenticeship ‘Not suitable’
Labelling in primary schools
Ray Rist 1970 : Study of American kindergarten Teacher used information on pupil homes and backgrounds to split the students into different table groups
‘Tigers’ table - M/c Fast learners Neat and tidy Most support and encouragement
‘Cardinals’ and ‘Clowns’ tables - W/c Lower-level work Read as a group rather than independently Less opportunities to show abilities
Rachel Sharp and Tony Green 1975 : Study of British primary school Mapledene Where children choose their own activities and develop at their own pace
Found M/c students appeared ‘ready’ to learn quicker More attention
W/c students engaged in ‘compensatory play time’ until deemed ‘ready’ to learn Less reading time and attention
The self-fulfilling prophecy Pygmalion effect
Step 1 : The teacher labels a pupil
Step 2 : The teacher treats the pupil accordingly
Step 3 : The pupil internalises the label
E.g. If a teacher labels a pupil close to the ideal pupil (Most likely to be M/c student) They will treat the pupil warmly and supportively The pupil will believe they are a good student and work conscientiously Achieve good qualifications
If a teacher labels a pupil as a bad student (Most likely to be W/c student) They will discipline the student and only provide them with negative attention The pupil will believe they are a bad student Maybe school is not for me They will not work conscientiously They will not achieve good qualifications
The self-fulfilling prophecy and streaming
Teachers can create self-fulfilling prophecies ‘What teachers believe, students achieve’
Streaming is : An extreme institutionalised form of labelling ‘Bright’ pupils in the top stream ‘Thick’ pupils in the bottom stream These streams may be determined by Year 7 tests, SATS results Streams may change throughout the students 5 years at school or they may stay the same
Colin Lacey 1970 : Description of streaming ‘A way of separating the sheep from the goats and educating them separately’
J.W.B Douglas 1964 : Found IQ of pupils in bottom sets fell over time and IQ of students in top sets increased Those in lower streams are denied access to same curriculum E.g. Not put in for higher level exams (Foundation maths and science Only can achieve Grades 5-1 rather than 9-1)
Pupil subcultures
Pupil subcultures : Groups of pupils who share similar values Often formed as a response to labelling and streaming
How are pupil subcultures formed?
Two processes
Differentiation - The process by which a teacher categorises pupils ‘Low status’ (Less able) (Bottom sets) ‘High status (more able) (Top sets)
Polarisation - A process by which students respond to streaming Moving towards a ‘pole’ or extreme Pro-school subcultures (Top set students) and Anti-school subcultures (bottom set students)
Pro-school subcultures : ‘Good’ students Behave conscientiously Contribute in class Do not talk to other students in class (Only about work) Do not disrupt class Gain status by good behaviour, good grades, good relationships with teachers Teachers view these students as ‘ideal pupil’ - High streams M/c committed to values of school
Anti-school subcultures : ‘Bad’ students ‘Class clown’ May shout out in class Laugh and distract other students Do not contribute in class Do not talk about work Disrupt class Gain status by being part of this subculture and group (collectivism), being macho, Gain status among friends Teachers view these students as disruptive, ‘liability’, discipline them - Low streams W/c Low self-esteem and self-worth Low confidence Label of failure pushes students to find alternative methods of gaining status Gain approval from anti-school peers
Solves status issue but turns into self-fulfilling prophecy of failure Behaviour pattern is a commitment to educational failure
Colin Lacy and David Hargreaves : Students who performed well in primary school and 11+ when there was no streaming, join anti-school subcultures and fail at secondary schools which stream
Pupil subcultures : Abolishing streaming
Stephen Ball 1981 : Looked at comprehensive school Beachside which was abolishing streaming Replacing streams and sets with mixed-ability groups He found this actually eradicated pupil polarisation and subcultures
However teacher labelling persisted Leading to self-fulfilling prophecies and M/c students outperformed W/c students still
The trend in the UK has actually been towards streaming There are now also more varieties of school types and therefore curriculums
M/c academic qualifications (sixth form)
W/c vocational qualifications (college)
The variety of pupil responses
Peter Woods 1979 : Pro and anti-school subcultures are not the only responses to pupil streaming and labelling
Alternative responses -
Ingratiation - Being ‘teachers pet’
Ritualism - Going through motions of school Staying out of trouble
Retreatism - Daydreaming Mucking around
Rebellion - Outright rejection of everything school stands for
No commitment Pupil responses may change Different lessons Different teachers
Limitations of labelling theory
Overarching claim of labelling theory : Underachievement is caused by teacher labelling Leading to self-fulfilling prophecy Leading to students joining anti-school subcultures Guaranteeing failure
Schools are not neutral They perpetuate social class inequalities
Limitations : Too deterministic ‘Destined to fail’ but some students ‘Turn it around’ Marxists would say labelling theory fails to account for wider structures of power Blames teachers without asking why teachers label
