Class differences in Achievement (internal factors)

• Teachers often attatch labels regardless of the pupils ability and attitude. The label based on sterotypes about their class and background. - labelling working-class negaitively and middle-class postively.

• Interactionists (study face-to-face interactions between pupils) such as Becker (1971) interviwed 60 high Chicago high-school teachers and found that they judged pupils on how well they fit in with the 'ideal pupil'.

He found that the teachers preferred middle class pupils as they fit closer to the ideal and were better behaved unlike working class pupils. 

Evaluation Point -

- However, different teachers may have different ideas of the 'ideal pupil' and a more recent study by Hempel-Jorgensen (2009) found that these ideas varied according tothe social class make-up of the school.

Dunne and Gazeley interviewed 9 English state seconday schools and found that teachers 'normalised' underachievement of working class pupils and said they couldn't do anything about it but believed they could overcome underachievement of middle class pupils. 

The teachers labelled working class parents as uninterested but labelled middle-class parents as supportive. 

This led to class differences, setting extension work for underachieveing middle class pupils but entering working class pupils for easier exams.

They concluded that the way teachers dealt with underachievement constructed class differences in levels of attainment. 

Ray Rist (1970) studied an American Kindergarten and found that teachers seperated kids at different tables based on their background. 

The teachers labelled who she thought were fastest learners, 'tigers' and they tended to be middle-class. she showed them greater encouragement.

The other two groups, 'cardinals' and 'clowns' were seated further away, they were more liekly to be working-class. She gave them less encouragement.

Evaluation points 

- Not very representitive as it was only a study on one Kindergarten class and it wasn't a very recent study. 

Self-fulfilling prophecy - A prediction that comes true by virtue of it having been made. 

Interactionists argue that labelling can effect pupil's achievement by leading to self-fulfilling prophecy. 

Step 1 - Teacher labels pupil and makes predictions about them.

Step 2 - Teacher treats pupil accordingly.

Step 3 - Pupil internalises the teacher's expectation and it becomes part of their self image. = prediction is fulfilled.

Evaluation points

- Schools are making an attmept to prevent self-fulfilling prophecy by banning the word 'naughty'.

Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) - studied a Californian Primary school and lied to the school that the test was to see who would 'spurt ahead'. The test was actually an IQ test but the teachers importantly belived what they had been told. 20% were picked at random and got told they were 'spurters', a year later 47% of the 'spurters' had made progress (effect was greater on younger children).

The teachers had conveyed the beliefs about them being 'spurters' and interacted with them accordingly. = body language, attention and encouragement. 

This suggests that if a teacher belives that a student is of a certain type, they cna make them into that type.

Self fulfilling prophecy can also produce underachievement if teachers are negative about a student, they will believe it and start to act on it. 

Self-fulfilling prophecy can lead to streaming. 

Becker shows that teachers tend not to see working class pupils as the 'idea pupil'. (they see them as lacking ability and having low expectations of them) As a result, working class pupils are more likely to be put into a lower stream. 

Once streamed, it's difficult to move into a higher stream. 

This creates a self-fulfilling prophecy as the pupils then underachieve as they live up to their teacher's low expectations. 

Douglas found that children placed in a lower stream at age 8 had suffered a decline in their IQ by age 11.

Middle class pupils beifit from streaming. They gain confidence and work harder thus resulting in better grades. These children that were placed in a higher stream at age 8, improved their IQ by age 11. 

A*-C Economy- A system in which schools concentrate their efforts on those they see as more likely to get 5 A*-C grades at GCSE and boost the school's position in the league table.

Educational Triage

Pupils

Triage

Those who will pass    Borderline C/D pupils-need extra help   Hopless cases

Evaluation points 

- Teachers no longer put pupils into groups anymore, external sources do based on target grades.

A group of pupils who share similar vaules and behaviour patterns and often emerge due to labelling and as a reaction to streaming. 

Lacey (1970)

• Differentiation - process in which teachers catergorise the pupils according to how they perceive their ability, attitude and/or behaviour.
• Polarisation - The process in which pupils respond to streaming by moving to a pro-school subculture or anti-school subculture. 

Pro-school subculture

They tend to remain committed to the values of the school, gain status through academic success.

Anti-school subculture

Those in lower streams, usually working class, suffer a low self esteem as the school has undermined their self worth. They then gain status by acting agaisnt the school= breaking rules.

Ball (1981) found that when Beachside abolished streaming, pupils didn't polarise into subcultures and the influence of anti-school subcultures declined. However teachers still catergorised pupils differently and still favoured the middle-class. 

This concludes that class inequality can still continue as a result of teacher labelling without subcultures or streaming.

Woods (1979) argues that pupils can respond in different ways

- Ingritation = being the 'teacher's pet'

- Ritualism = staying out of trouble

- Retreatism = daydreaming and mucking about

- Rebellion = outright rejection of everything the school stands for. 

- Labelling theory has been accused of assuming that pupils who have been labelled have no choice but to fulfill the prophecy and inevitably fail, however Fuller (1984) argues that this is not the case due to a study where a group of black girls in year 11 challeneged their anger about being labelled in pursuit of educational success and did not seek approval off teachers and relied on their own efforts.

This shows that people are still able to reject the labels given to them.

- Marxists criticise labelling theory for ignoring wider structures. It blames teachers for labelling but doesnt explain why they do so.

- Marxists argue that labels aren't the result of teachers' individual prejudices but stem from a system that reproduces class inequality. 

Habitus

It is the taken for granted or ways of thinking, being and acting that are shared by a particular social class. It includes tastes, lifestyles and fashion. 

The middle class has the power to define its habitus as superior and impose it on the education system hence putting them at an advantage above working class.

Symbolic capital/Symbolic violence

Archer found that working class pupils that to be educationally successful, they would have to change how they talk and presented themselves. Thus they felt unable to access 'posh' middle class spaces such as Uni or professional careers that were seen as 'not for the likes of us'. 

'Nike identites' 

Symbolic violence led the working class to seek alternative ways of creating self-worth, status and value'. They constructed meaningful class identities by consuming branded clothing such as Nike.

The right appearance earned symbolic capital and approval from peer groups and it prevented bulllying. 

However it led to conflict with the school's dress code and with teachers reflecting the school's middle class habitus, pupils who adopted these 'street styles' risked being labelled as rebels. 

Archer argues that the school's middle class habitus stigmatises working class pupil's identites. Their investment in Nike is not only a cause of their edcuational marginalisation but expresses their preference for a particular lifestyle.