Internal- Class Differences in Achievement

• Labelling

  To attach a meaning of definition to something. Studies show teachers label pupils regardless of their actual ability or attitude, purely based on stereotypes about their class background. These studies are completed by Interactionist sociologists who are interested in small-scale interactions, how people attach labels, and the effects they have.
• Labelling

  Becker: carried out an important interactionist study of labelling, interviewing 60 Chicago HS teachers and finding that they judged pupils according to how closely they fitted the 'ideal pupil' image. Pupils' work conduct and appearance were key factors influencing judgements- seeing middle class pupils as closest to the ideal, and better behaved.
• Labelling

  Hempel-Jorgensen: found that different teachers have different notions of the 'ideal pupil', a largely working class school, where discipline was an issue, valued passive, quiet and obedient pupils (defined by their behaviour and not their ability). Whereas mainly middle class schools, where there are fewer discipline issues, valued personality and academic ability rather than being 'non-misbehaving'.
• Labelling in Secondary Schools

  Dunne and Gazeley: argue schools produce working class underachievement. Interviewing 9 English state schools, found teachers 'normalised' underachievement of working class pupils, seeming unconcerned like it was unpreventable. Though they believed they could overcome middle class underachievement. Largely due to pupils' backgrounds- w/c parents seen as unsupportive. Teachers dealt with the underachievement by setting m/c extension work, and entering w/c into easier exams- this then constructed the class differences in attainment.
• Labelling in Primary Schools

  Rist: study of American kindergarten found teachers used info about children's home backgrounds and appearance to place them into different groups. Tigers- fast learners, tended to be middle class and had a neat appearance, seated nearest to the teacher and shown greatest encouragement.

  Cardinals and Clowns- seated further away, more likely to be working class, given lower-level books, and fewer chances to show their abilities (group-based activities).
• The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy (SFP)

  A prediction which comes true simply by the virtue of it being made. Interactionists argue that labelling can affect student's achievement due to the SFP.

  1. Teacher makes a label and will make predictions about the student from this.
  2. The teacher will treat the student accordingly, acting like the prediction is already true.
  3. The pupil will internalise the expectation; making it a part of their self-concept, causing the prediction to be fulfilled.
• Teacher's Expectations

  Rosenthal and Jacobson: study of Californian primary school; deceived teachers claiming they had a test to identify 'spurter' pupils, it was untrue and an IQ test. Researchers tested all pupils and randomly selected 20% to be 'spurters'.

  After a year, 47% of 'spurters' had made significant progress (the effect was greater on younger students). The teachers had conveyed their new beliefs on pupils ability through their interaction- causing the SFP. Random selection demonstrated that teacher's beliefs do have the possibility to make pupils behaviour change.
• Streaming

  Involves separating students into different ability groups called 'streams'. Once placed in a lower stream, it is difficult to move up as teacher's have locked their low expectations of students. This demonstrates the SFP.
• Streaming

  Douglas: found that children placed in lower streams at age 8 had suffered a decline in their IQ score by age 11. Conversely, middle class pupils benefit from streaming, as they are likely to be in higher groups due to teacher's view of them as the 'ideal pupil'. They then develop more self-confidence, work harder and gain better results.

  Douglas: found that children placed in a higher stream at age 8 had improved their IQ score by age 11.
• Streaming and the A-To-C Economy (1)

  Gillborn and Youdell: show how teachers use stereotypical notions of 'ability' in London schools to stream pupils. Finding they are more likely to see working class and Black pupils as having less ability- meaning they are placed in lower streams and entered for lower exams. This denies them the chance to obtain the same grades as the middle class which widens the class gap in achievement.
• Streaming and the A-To-C Economy (2)

  Gillborn and Youdell: link streaming to the publishing of league table results; schools are ranked according to their performance. Schools need to obtain good league table results if they want to attract pupils and funding. Publishing these creates an 'A-To-C' Economy- they focus their time, resources and effort on those pupils who are seen as having the potential to gain 5 grade C's to boost their position.
• Educational Triage

  Gillborn and Youdell: argue that the 'A-To-C' Economy produces students being placed into 3 categories: those who will pass independently, those with potential who need to be helped further, and those who are hopeless cases and destined to fail. Teachers categorise using their stereotypical views- meaning working class and Black students are more likely to be seen as lacking ability, placed in lower streams which causes the SFP.

  The idea of the league table then becomes the basis of streaming (a consequence of marketisation).
• Pupil Subcultures

  Lacey: explanation of how subcultures develop-

  Differentiation- where teachers categorise pupils according to how they see their ability, attitude and behaviour; this can be through streaming.

  Polarisation- where pupils respond to the streaming, doing this by moving towards one of two opposite extremes (either pro or anti-school).
• Pro-School Subculture

  Pupils placed in high streams (largely middle class) tend to remain committed to the values of the school. They gain their status in an approved manner, through academic success. Their values align with the school.
• Anti-School Subculture

  Pupils placed in low streams (largely working class) suffer a low self-esteem, as the school has undermined it through placing them in a position of inferior status. Their label pushes them to search for an alternative way to gain status- through inverting the schools rules and values, gaining status from their peers. This then causes the SFP.
• Abolishing Streaming

  Ball: investigated a school which was in favour of mixed-ability groups, as banding was abolished polarisation then disappeared- which caused the influence of anti-school subcultures to decline. But differentiation still continued; teachers still categories middle class as more cooperative and able. Their (+) labelling was reflected in better exam results, suggesting the SFP had occurred.

  Demonstrating that teacher labelling can continue to produce class inequalities- regardless of subcultures or streaming.
• Abolishing Streaming- Response

  Since Ball's study, and the Education Reform Act 1988, there has been a trend towards more steaming and a variety of different types of schools (with varying curriculums). This has created more opportunities for for schools and teachers to differentiate between pupils on the basis of their class, ethnicity or gender.
• Pupil Responses

  Woods: argues there are other responses to streaming than just pro and anti-school subcultures.

  Ingratiation- being the 'teacher's pet'

  Ritualism- going through the motions and staying out of trouble

  Retreatism- daydreaming and messing around

  Rebellion- outright rejection of everything the school stands for

  Many pupils aren't committed to any one, but may move between different responses; acting differently in different lessons.
• Criticisms of the Labelling Theory

  Accused of determinism, seeing those who have been labelled as having no choice but to fulfill the prophecy- Fuller's study disproves this.

  Marxists claim that it ignores the wider structures of power within which labelling occurs- it blames teachers, but fails to explain why they do so. They argue that labels don't stem from teachers' individual prejudices, but stem from the fact they work in a system which reproduces class divisions.
• Pupil's Class Identities and the School

  Archer et al: focuses on the relationship between working class identities and the school, and how this causes underachievement.

  Habitus- refers to the dispositions or learned ways of thinking, being and acting shared by a particular social class. Including their preferences of lifestyle and consumption- formed as a response to their position in the class structure.

  Middle class have the power to define their habitus as superior and impose it on the education system.
• Pupil's Class Identities and the School

  Archer et al:

  Symbolic Capital- as schools have a middle class habitus, pupils who are socialised into these preferences gain 'symbolic capital'; the status and recognition from the school, they are deemed to have worth and value.
• Pupil's Class Identities and the School

  Archer et al:

  Symbolic Violence- the school devalues the working class habitus, deeming their tastes as worthless, this prevents them from 'symbolic capital'. This then reproduces the class structure and keeps the working class 'in their place'. The clash of habitus may make the education system feel unnatural to students- finding that students felt they had to change the way they present themselves to be educationally successful. Feeling unable to access more middle class areas like university.
• 'Nike' Identities

  Archer: found many working class pupils were conscious of how society and the school looked down on them. To gain status, they invested in their style- this was a way they could gain status from peers and earn 'symbolic capital' from them, and it brings safety from bullying.

  Though this appearance conflicts with the schools dress-code, causing them to be targeted by teachers.

  Investment into this identity isn't the cause of their educational marginalisation, it is a way for them to express their lifestyle and actively reject school for not aligning with it.
• Working Class Identity and Self-Exclusion

  Ingram: explain why working class pupils don't succeed, even in better schools. W/c boys from a deprived area in Belfast had passed their 11+ exam and attended the grammar school. This school had a strong middle class habitus.

  The boys found their w/c identity was inseparable from belonging to a working class locality (a key part of their habitus), the community placed emphasis on conformity so they felt great pressure to 'fit in' in both areas.

  One boy was ridiculed for wearing his w/c clothes on non-uniform, an example of symbolic violence.
• Class Identity and Self-Exclusion

  Despite class inequalities persisting, many more w/c pupils attend university (success of government policies). But the clash in habitus is a barrier to success, due to self-exclusion.

  Evans: found w/c girls were reluctant to apply to elite universities; and found that many had a strong attachment to their locality with only 4 out of 21 intending to move to study. Resulting in them limiting their scope of success.

  Bourdieu: claims many w/c students see elite universities as not for 'them' due to their habitus, their thinking then excludes them.