Internal Factors

• Labelling


  Becker - teacher’s would label pupils based on how close they came to fitting the image of the ‘ideal pupil’. Pupil’s work, appearance and conduct influence teacher's judement.

  But, Amelia Hempel-Jorgensen - the ideal pupil varies from teacher to teacher, and with the social-class of the school.

  E.g. in a largely w/c primary school, discipline was a major problem, the ideal pupil = quiet, passive & obedient. But a m/c primary school, few discipline problems, ideal pupil defined in terms of personality and academic ability.
• Labelling in secondary schools


  Dunne and Gazeley - in 9 state secondary schools, teachers ‘normalised’ the underachievement of working-class pupils, and they felt like they could do nothing about it but they would overcome the underachievement of middle-class pupils. This is because they labelled working-class parents as uninterested in their children’s education, but labelled middle-class parents as supportive. This led to the teachers setting extension tasks for underachieving middle-class pupils but entering working-class pupils for easier exams.
• Labelling in primary schools


  Rist - the teacher used information about children’s home background & appearance to place them in separate groups, seating them at a different table in a kindergarten. The 'fast learners' were labelled as ‘tigers’ and tended to be m/c and of neat appearance. They were seated at the table nearest to her and she showed them the greatest encouragement. The other two groups were labelled the ‘cardinals’ and the ‘clowns’, were more likely w/c and she seated them further away. They were given lower-level books to read and fewer chances to show their abilities.
• Self fulfilling prophecy


  This is a prediction that comes true simply by virtue of it having been made.

  Interactionists argue that labelling can affect pupils’ achievement by creating a self-fulfilling prophecy;

  Step 1: the teacher labels a pupil and on the basis of the label, makes predictions about him.

  Step 2: the teacher treats the pupil accordingly, acting as if the prediction is already true.

  Step 3: the pupil internalises the teachers’ expectation, which becomes part of his self-image. The prediction is fulfilled.
• Teachers' expectations study


  Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) told a school they had a new test specially designed to identify those pupils who would ‘spurt’ ahead but truly was a simple IQ test. They tested all of the pupils, but randomly picked 20% of them and told the school these children were ‘spurters’. A year later, they found 47% the 'spurters' made significant progress, with greater effect on younger children. The teacher’s beliefs were influenced by the ‘test’, and these beliefs had then been conveyed onto the children, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy in the pupils.
• Streaming

  Gillborn and Youdell showed that teachers use stereotypes of ‘ability’ to stream pupils, and they found that teachers were less likely to see the working-class and black children as having ability. So, these students were more likely to be placed into lower streams and entered for lower tier GCSEs.
• Educational Triage


  Publishing of league tables has led to the ‘A-to-C economy’ where schools focus their time, effort & resources on those with the potential of 5 Cs + to boost league table position. This is educational triage where students are ‘sorted’ into 3 groups: Those who will pass without extra help. Those with potential, who will be helped to get a grade C +. Hopeless cases, who are doomed to fail. This becomes the basis for streaming. Teacher’s beliefs about lack of ability of w/c are used to separate them into lower sets/streams, with less support so low achievement.
• Pupil Subculture


  Pupil subcultures often emerge as a response to the way pupils have been labelled. Lacey identified differentiation and polarisation to explain how pupil subcultures develop: Differentiation: categorising pupils on ability and attitude/behaviour. ‘More able’ pupils are given high status by being placed in a high stream, whereas those deemed as ‘less able’ are placed in a low stream.

  Polarisation: Pupils respond to streaming by moving towards one of two opposite ‘poles’ or extremes’ i.e. pro-school vs. anti-school subculture.
• Subcultures


  Pro-school subculture: pupils in high streams remain committed to the values of the school and gain status through academic success.

  Anti-school subculture: pupils in low streams suffer a loss of self-esteem, thinking they are of an inferior status. They look for status another way e.g. not doing homework, smoking etc. to feel accepted by peers now they have been ‘rejected’ by teachers and the school.
• Ball study


  Ball showed that in Beachside comprehensive school, banding had produced the kind of polarisation described by Lacey. He found that when the school abolished banding, the basis for pupils to polarise into subcultures was largely removed and the influence of the anti-school subculture declined. But differentiation continued and teacher’s still categorised pupils differently and were more likely to label m/c pupils as cooperative and able. This positive label resulted in better exam results, showing the self-fulfilling prophecy.
• Habitus


  Bourdieu - 'habitus' is the learned ways of thinking, being and acting that are shared by a particular social class. The m/c has the power to define its habitus as superior and to impose it on the education system. Therefore the school puts a higher value on middle-class tastes, preferences etc.

  The school then devalues the working-class habitus, so w/c pupils’ tastes are seen as tasteless and worthless.

  Archer - w/c pupils felt that to be educationally successful, they would have to change how they talked and presented themselves
• Nike Identities


  The ‘Nike’ identity refers to w/c pupils seeking alternative ways of creating self-worth, status and value so they constructed class identities for themselves by investing heavily in ‘styles’ e.g. Nike. Girls would also dress hyper-heterosexual feminine style. Style performances were heavily policed by peer groups and not conforming was ‘social suicide’. The right appearance earned symbolic capital and approval from peer groups. But this can clash with the m/c habitus in schools and results in the w/c being labelled rebellious if they adopt this style.
• Nike Identities


  M/c see these ‘Nike’ identities as tasteless, but to the young w/c they are a means of generating symbolic capital and self-worth. Nike styles also led to the rejection of higher education by the w/c as it's seen as unrealistic & undesirable. Archer et al = w/c pupils’ investment in ‘Nike’ identities isn't also expresses their positive preference for a particular lifestyle. So w/c pupils actively reject education, not only because they ‘get the message’ that they do not fit into education, but also because it does not fit in with their identity or their way of life.
• Labelling theory is deterministic


  The labelling theory assumes that pupils who are labelled have no choice but to fulfil the prophecy and will inevitably fail. However other research (Fuller's study) says that that’s not always true. Marxists also criticise the labelling theory for ignoring the wider structures of power within which labelling takes place. 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.
• Alternative Responses to Labelling and Streaming

  Woods - other responses:

  • Ingratiation: being the ‘teacher’s pet’.
  • Ritualism: going through the motions and staying out of trouble.
  • Retreatism: daydreaming and mucking about.
  • Rebellion: rejection of everything the school stands for.