Sociology: Education: Class differences in achievement (Internal)

?
what are the internal factors?
labelling, self fulfilling prophecy, streaming, pupil subcultures, pupil identities
1 of 39
what is labelling?
attaching a meaning/definition to a student. made by ability/attitude/stereotyped assumptions, usually by class background.
2 of 39
who are especially interested?
interactionists: small scale, micro, how individuals are labelled and the effects
3 of 39
Becker (int)
study on Chicago high school, teachers labelled based on how close student is to 'IDEAL PUPIL', based on work/conduct/appearance, can be different IP but tends to be male mc white academic
4 of 39
Hempel-Jorgensen
study of primary schools, ideal pupil based on social class make up of school eg in public(wc)discipline issue so passive, quiet, obedient are ideal 'non-misbehaving', private (mc) few discipline issues, defined by personality and academic ability
5 of 39
Dunne+Gazeley
schools persistently reproduce wc underachievement as teacher NORMALISE it, label wc parents as uninterested+mc as supportive, deal with differently eg push mc students but put wc into easier exams. UNDERESTIMATE wc pupils, do well seen as overachiev
6 of 39
Rist
starts from outset , found evidence of american teachers using children's home backgrounds+appearance to put into groups. mc group challenged+higher learning, wc lower learning w fewer opp to show abilities, not challenged.
7 of 39
what is a SFP?
prediction that comes true because it was made. eg label student as intelligent, treated accordingly+challenged, pupil internalises+ becomes part of self image, becomes successful
8 of 39
Rosenthal+Jacobson
evidence of sfp at California primary school, fake (standard iq test) 'spurt test' identified 20% as spurters, almost half had made significant progress a year on. influenced by teachers beliefs, interaction (body lang, attention, encouragement) help
9 of 39
c
can also produce underachievement: communicates expectations,children can develop negative SELF CONCEPT, see as failure gives up and fulfils prophecy
10 of 39
what is streaming?
separating children by ability, creates SFP
11 of 39
Becker
teachers don't see wc as ideal, see as lacking ability and have low expectations, children in lower streams 'get the message' teachers have no hope, difficult to move out of teachers locked in expectations.
12 of 39
Douglas
study of 8 year olds/ lower streamed have lower iqs by 11, mc benefiting from higher stream, have positive self concept, more confidence, work harder and improve grades, by 11 iq improved
13 of 39
Gillborn+Youdell
study of 2 lnd secondary schools/ teachers use stereotypical notions of ability to stream. wc+b into lower stream, lower gcses, less opportunity/knowledge, widens class gap. link to A-to-C economy, publishing exam league tables, schools need good
14 of 39
c
for funding/attract students, creates A-to-C, school focuses time and effort on pupils w potential to get 5c, boost schools position. EDUCATIONAL TRIAGE, focus on those who can pass or excel, wc more likely to be warehoused in the hopeless case, sfp
15 of 39
what is a pupil subculture?
share same values/behaviour patterns. reaction to labelling and streaming.
16 of 39
Lacey
develop through 1)DIFFERENCIATION: catergorised by ability eg lower stream/status inferior, 2) POLARISATION: pupils respond to streaming to either pro or anti pole
17 of 39
study to support
polarisation in grammar school/ high stream mc become pro, committed to values of sschool eg academic success, low stream wc became anti, loss of self esteem, undermined position of self worth, need to gain status among peers eg truanting
18 of 39
Hargreaves
study secondary/ school sees boys in lower streams as TRIPLE FAILURES, (11+,stream,label worthless dropouts), solution to form DELINQUENT Subc, status by rebelling against school, this guarantees failure
19 of 39
Ball
study of beachside comprehensive/ used banding(mixed ability) differentiation continued by polarised, still labelled mc as more cooperative and able (better exam results suggests sfp), shows inequality continues wo subcultures/streaming
20 of 39
what has there been a trend towards since balls study
after 1988 educational reform act, trend to streaming+variety of school types (more academic), new opportunities to differentiate between cge
21 of 39
woods
multiple responses to l+s: integration (teachers pet), ritualism (through motions), retreatism (daydreaming), rebellion (outright rejection)
22 of 39
furlong
many pupils not committed to one particular response, move between depending on class and teacher
23 of 39
criticism of labelling theory
good: shows schools not neutral, can actively create class inequalities. Marxists: ignoring wider power structure, blaming teachers but why do teachers label? prejudice must stem from system that reproduces inequalities
24 of 39
fuller
deterministic, not always true that children have no choice but to fulfil prophecy
25 of 39
Archer et al
focus on interaction between wc pupils and school, use BORDIEUS habitus
26 of 39
what is a habitus
dispositions, learned ways of thinking/acting shared by particular social class, group habitus formed as response to class position, mc have power to define own as superior (impose on educ system) more valuable, advantage
27 of 39
what is symbolic capital?
pupils who have been socialised into mc tastes gain SC, status/recognition from the school given value, school devalues wc deemed inferior/tasteless.
28 of 39
what is symbolic violence?
withholding SC is SV, defining wc taste/lifestyle as inferior creates SV, reproduces class structure keeps lower class in their place, wc+mc habitus clash, wc experience education as alien/unnatural.
29 of 39
Archer
wc feel like need to change to be educationally successful, process of LOSING YOURSELF, feel unable to access posh mc places like uni/professional careers, not for the likes of us.
30 of 39
what are Nike identities?
SV meant wc need to seek alternative ways of gaining self worth,/status/value, construct meaningful identity by heavily investing in styles eg consumer brands. stay as themselves through label, inauthentic without, strongly gendered, girls hyper
31 of 39
c
heterosexual feminine style, policed by peers, not conforming SOCIAL SUICIDE, earn SC+approval eg no bulling, conflict w school mc dress code, street style risked labelled rebels, part of rejection of unrealistic/undesirable higher educ: for posh/
32 of 39
c
clever, unaffordable and risky investment, doesnt suit habitus eg living in loan cannot afford, NI response to marginalisation, also express positive lifestyle prefer, wc choose SELF ELIMINATION/EXCLUSION actively reject, doesnt fit way of life
33 of 39
Ingram: why some wc succeed?
study belfast catholic/ pass 11+ grammar, local secondary, grammar mc habitus, local wc habitus low expect, wc identity inseparable from belonging to wc locality, network of f+f gave sense of belonging, street culture key part of h, wc emphasis
34 of 39
c
conformity, pressure to fit in, grammar felt tension between wc habitus+ mc school habitus, eg wearing tracksuits, SV forced to abandon worthless identity.
35 of 39
Evans: more wc going to uni
still barriers, study of 21 wc girls s LND/ relunctant to apply to higher unis like oxbridge, few who did felt hidden barriers + strong attachment to locality only 4/21 moving away from home
36 of 39
Bourdieu: oxbridge
wc think of places like Oxbridge as not for likes on us, comes from habitus, beliefs on actual opportunities exist for wc, exclude themselves from elite universities.
37 of 39
Reay et al
self exclusion from elite/distant universities narrows options and limits their success
38 of 39
how are internal and external interrelated?
1) wc habitus comes into conflict+results in SV 2) wc use of restricted speech code can label/sfp 3) teachers beliefs can produces undera 4) poverty leads to margin/stigma, lead to truant/failure 5) streaming+a-to-c can link to wider external eg fund
39 of 39

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

what is labelling?

Back

attaching a meaning/definition to a student. made by ability/attitude/stereotyped assumptions, usually by class background.

Card 3

Front

who are especially interested?

Back

Preview of the front of card 3

Card 4

Front

Becker (int)

Back

Preview of the front of card 4

Card 5

Front

Hempel-Jorgensen

Back

Preview of the front of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Sociology resources:

See all Sociology resources »See all Education resources »