Class Differences in Education Revision Cards AS Sociology (Internal Factors)

Class Differences in Education Revision Cards AS Sociology (Internal Factors) AQA

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: Pheebie
  • Created on: 16-02-12 18:07

Labelling- Labelling in Secondary Schools

Becker (1971)

Teachers labelled pupils dependant on the ideal pupil. They saw middle class students as the closest to the ideal pupil.

Cicourel and Kitsuse (1963)

Study of US Councillers found inconsistancies in assesments of students.Concillers were more likely to judge students on background and class in comparison to ability. 


1 of 12

Labelling- Labelling in Primary School

Ray Rist (1970)

US Kindergarten found teachers grouped students on ability (e.g. tigers, cardinals and clowns) Teachers spent most time and encouraged the tidiest , more middle-class pupils.

Sharp & Green (1975)

UK Mapledene 'Child centred play' Students would come to teacher when they wanted help- the middle class children wanted to learn more and working class wanted to play more, so still received less and more unequal education. 


2 of 12

Labelling- High and Low Status Knowledge

Keddie (1971)

Pupils are streamed into A, who are given high status knowledge and less able C streamed pupils who are given low status knowledge and therefore are less able to pass tests. 

Gillborn and Youdell (2001)

Black pupils are less likely to be perceived to achieve 5A*-C GCSEs and therefore would be put into lower sets. This denies them knowledge to get good grades and accounts for the gap in achievement.  


3 of 12

Self-fulfilling Prophecy- Teacher Expectations

Rosenthal & Jacobson (1968)

When children were identified as "spurters" teachers encouraged them more than other children and therefore they did better because they get more help and encourage them more. It also means children not identified as "spurters" may under achieve because they aren't given the help and support they need.


4 of 12

Self-fulfilling Prophecy- Streaming

Becker (1971)

Teachers don't see working class students as the ideal pupils and therefore are put into lower streams. Once streamed it is usually difficult to move up to a higher band. Children in low streams tend to be written off as a 'no-hoper.' 

Douglas (1964)

Children put into lower streams age 8 suffered a decline in IQ by age 11. Middle class pupils generally benefit as those who are put into higher streamed age 8 improved there IQ by age 11.

5 of 12

Pupil Subcultures- Pro/ Anti subcultures

Lacey (1970)

Differentiation:- Teachers categorise pupils according to ability, attitude and behaviour. They're streamed according to this.

Polarisation:- Pupils responding to streaming and move towards opposite poles.

Pro-school subculture:- Pupils in high streams tend to commit more to school rules and values.

Anti-school subculture:- Label of failure pushed them to other ways of gaining status amongst there peers gaining further problems for those who get involved with it. 

Hargreaves (1967) 

Pupils form groups and subcultures to cope with their labels.

6 of 12

Pupil Subcultures- Abolishing Streaming

Ball (1981)

When streaming is abolished pupil subcultures declined, yet differentiation and labelling continued. Inequalities can still continue as a result of teachers labelling, even without the effect of subcultures and streaming.


7 of 12

Pupil Subcultures- Variety of Pupil Responses

Woods (1979)

  • Ingratiation:- Being Teachers pet.
  • Ritualism:- Going through motions but saying out of trouble.
  • Retreatism:- Daydreaming and mucking about.
  • Rebellion:- Out right rejection of all that school stands for.

Furlong (1984) 

pupils aren't permanently committed to one response and are able to move between subcultures. 


8 of 12

Pupil Subculture- Limitations of Labelling Theory

Fuller (1984)

Study shows if you are labelled one way you do not necessarily full filled that prophecy.

Marxist View

Labelling theory blames teachers but fails to explain why- the labels stem from a system that reproduces class division.


9 of 12

Marketisation and Selection- Educational Triage

The A-C Economy & Educational Triage

Gillbourn & Youdell (2001)

A's- Black and working class pupils who are 'Hopeless cases' and will fail

B's- Need support to pass and make a difference to exam league table.

C's- Are clever enough to pass anyway.

The pupils are both streamed and labelled into these- then the self-fulfilling prophecy takes place. 


10 of 12

Marketisation and Selection- Competition & Selecti

Barlett (1993)

Marketisation leads to more popular schools

  • Cream Skimming:- Selecting higher ability students who gain the best results and cost the least to teach.
  • Silt- Shifting:- Off-loading pupils with learning difficulties, who are expensive to teach and get poorer results. 


11 of 12

Marketisation and Selection- Attracting middle cla

Walfords (1991) 

Technology colleges were liked by middle class parents as they were seen as the next best thing to grammar schools.

Fitz (1997)

Schools attracted parents by buying a new organ and renaming the canteen the'dining hall' to attract middle class parents.

Ball et al (1994)

Schools spend so much on marketing themselves over special needs or other areas.

Macrae (1997)

Sixths forms and colleges will offer more academic subjects to attract middle class parents.

12 of 12


No comments have yet been made

Similar Sociology resources:

See all Sociology resources »See all Education resources »