internal factors for class differences- labelling, ethnicity

• Education is the key to upward social mobility
• The education system has been criticised as being elitist, with middle-class children having an advantage over working-class children.
• Becker (1971)- interactionist studying how closely students were judged against the ideal student. Judgement was based upon: work conduct, appearance, behaviour and backgrounds/
• labelling: attach a meaning or a definition to a student, despite child's ability/ attitude/ stereotype assumption based on background/ wc labelled more negatively/
• Hempel- jorgensen: different teachers have different perspectives on who is their ideal students. For WC: quiet passive, obedient children. MC- defined in terms of personality and academic ability.
• Dune and Gazeley- ‘schools persistently produce working class underachievement through the labels and assumptions of teachers,’
• Rist- study of where teachers used information about the child’s background and appearance to put them into separate groups of tigers and clowns.
• Rosenthal and Jacobson- tested the self fulfilling prophecy in the work. They told the school that they had a new test designed to identify those who would ‘spurt’ ahead. This was untrue and it was simply a standard iq test. Children were randomly picked and identified as ‘spurt’. These children made significant progress.

  Suggests that teachers will accept prediction.
• Douglas- found that children put into high sets at the age 8 had an improved iq score by 11 and vice versa.
• Gillborn and Youdell- A-C economy. Teachers are less likely to see WC pupils as having ability and then are placed in lower sets and entered for lower tier papers. Links with the policy of publishing exam league tables where the school focuses money and resources for pupils who will get better grades to boost the school league table.
• Gillborn and youdell- educational triage of:

  those who will pass anyways.

  those with potential.

  hopeless cases.
• Gillborn and Youdell- they put labelling and teacher stereotyping as the product of the wider education system operating under marketisation. Policies directly affect these micro processes in school to directly create class differences.
• Lacey:

  differentiation: teachers categorising students based on their perception of the students abilities. Streaming puts them into groups of higher and lower, lower deemed as inferior status , higher deemed as superior status.

  polarisation: pupils respond to streaming and move to opposite poles or extremes.
• Lacey:

  pro school subculture: their values are apart of the school, gain status through academic success.

  anti school subculture: those placed in lower sets suffer low self esteem. School undermines their self worth and the labelling pushes them to gain status by down turning schools values.
• Ball: abolish banding (streaming type) in favour of teaching mixed ability groups. Once banding was removed, students less likely to polarise into subcultures.
• Woods- variety of pupil responses

  ingratiation: being teachers pet.

  ritualism: staying out of trouble.

  retreatism: daydreaming and mucking about.

  rebellion: rejection of school and what it stands for
• Furlong: many pupils are not committed to one pupil response, instead it may change depending on lessons and teachers.
• Criticism of labelling theory:

  1. Studies are useful in showing that schools are not neutral or fair institutions.
  2. Accused of determinism. Assumes people who are labelled have no choice but to fail.
  3. marxists argue labels aren’t a result of teachers, but stem through the fact that teachers work in a system that reproduces class divisions.
• Bourdieu’s- concept of Habitus of dispositions and lifestyle choices and consumption.
• Archer And Bourdieu

  symbolic violence: clashes between WC and MC as the working class gain status by seeking approval from their peers.

  symbolic capital: gain status and recognition from the school and are determined to have worth of value academically.
• Archer: Nike identities. Pupils where teachers looked down upon made them seek symbolic violence though class identities for themselves in styles, this creates a sense of self worth.

  Nike identities were a rejection of education.

  unrealistic because it’s not for them, they thinks it’s for posher people.

  undesirable because it wouldn’t suit their preferred lifestyle.
• Nicola Ingram: two groups of working class catholic boys of same deprived area did 11 plus exams. One group passed and gained a strongly middle class Habitus and high achievement, the other failed and went secondary where there were low expectation of its underachieving kids.
• Maguire- her own experiences of going grammar school ‘the working class culture capital of my childhood counted for nothing in this new setting.’
• Evan’s- studies group of 21 working class girls found that they were reluctant to apply to oxbridge universities and those who did felt a hidden barrier of not fitting in.
• Bourdie- working class people deem themselves not to be the likes of them to go to elite universities as it disrupts their habitus and affects their ability to fit in, this mindset excludes them from opportunities.
• Evan’s- girls has a stronger attachment to their locality. Only 4/ 21 decided to move out.
• Reay et al: self exclusion from elite or far away universities narrow options and limits their success for WC.
• Gillborn and Mirza- black children highest achievers in primary, but worst results when it came to GCSEs.
• Strand: 7-11 year old national cohort shows many black pupils fall behind after starting school and black Caribbean boys are not entitled to free school meals and did less progress than white peers.
• Labelling and teacher racism: teachers often see black and Asian pupils from being far from the ‘ideal pupil’ Black people seen as disruptive and Asians as passive.
• Black pupils and discipline:

  Gillborn and youdel: teachers were quick to to discipline black kids than others for the same behaviour. Argues that this is the result of racialised expectations. Conflict between white teachers and black students stem from racial stereotypes.
• Bourne: schools tend to see black boys as a threat and label them negatively leading to exclusion and affecting achievement.
• Osler (2001) black pupils are more likely to have internal exclusions of being sent out of class. More likely to be placed in pupil referral units that exclude them from mainstream curriculum.
• Gillborn and youdell- Black pupils have negative stereotypes and this led to them being placed in lower streams due to the educational triage.
• Foster- teachers stereotypes of black pupils as badly behaved could result to them being put to lower sets, streaming can cause self fulfilling prophecy.
• Wright- study of multi ethnic primary school show that Asians are victims of teacher labelling. Teachers had ethnocentric views and took for granted that standard English was superior. Teachers assume Asians have bad English = left them out of discussion/ simple talk
• Asians felt isolated when teachers disapproved of customs and mispronounced their names.
• Archer- teachers dominant discourse (way of seeing) deems ethnic minority pupils identities as lacking.

  1. ideal pupil identity: white middle class masculinised identity with normal sexuality. Achieves through natural ability.
  2. pathologised pupil identity- deserving poor Asian asexual or oppressed sexuality achieving through hard work and over achieving not natural ability.
  3. demonised pupil identity: black/ white WC hyper sexualised identity. Pupil is unintelligent, underachiever and culturally deprived.
• Archer- interviews show that black people were demonised as loud, challenging, sexual, unaspirational home cultures.
• Archer (2010) teachers stereotype girls as quiet. Passive and docile.

  Shain- argues when Asian girls challenges this by misbehaving and dealt with severely than other pupils.