EDUCATION – Internal Factors of Class Differences in Achievement:
The Interactionist perspective focuses on processes within school and other educational institutions
to explain differential achievement.
While interacting with others, people interpret and attach meanings to the behaviour of those
around them.
Labelling and the self-fulfilling prophecy – Interactionalist
A label is to attach a meaning or definition to them. E.g. teachers may label a pupil as bright, thick,
troublemaker or hardworking.
Teachers may label pupils or classify them into different groups and then act in a different way based
on the label.
Howard Becker - study
Interviewed 60 Chicago high school teachers –
found they judged on how closely they fitted the image of ideal pupil e.g. appearance, how they
respond to discipline, how likeable they are, their personality etc leads teachers to attach good or
bad labels. Middle class is seen as closer to this ideal due to their conduct,appearance and work.
Amelia Hempel-Jorgensen found that the notions of the ideal pupil varies from teacher to teacher,
and is in accordance with the social-class of the school i.e. in a largely working-class Aspen primary
school where discipline was a major problem, the ideal pupil was defined as quiet, passive and
obedient, but in contrast the mainly middle-class Rowan primary school had very few discipline
problems and here the ideal pupil was defined instead in terms of personality and academic ability.
Labelling in secondary schools:
Dunne and Gazeley (2008) found that in 9 state secondary schools, teachers ‘normalised’ the
underachievement of working-class pupils, and they felt like they could do nothing about it.
However 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 (1970) found that the teacher used information about children’s home background and
appearance to place them in separate groups, seating each group at a different table in an American
kindergarten. The pupils the teacher decided were fast learners whom she labelled the ‘tigers’
tended to be middle-class and of neat and clean appearance. She seated these at the table nearest
to her and showed them the greatest encouragement. The other two groups were labelled the
‘cardinals’ and the ‘clowns’ and she seated them further away. These groups were more likely to be
working-class. They were given lower-level books to read and fewer chances to show their abilities
e.g. they read as a group, not as individuals.
SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY
It is a prediction that comes true simply by virtue of it having been made. It is created by labelling
which affects pupils’ achievement when self-fulfilling prophecy is made.
(A student often acts according their label as they believe that is what they are)
1. Teacher forms an impression of pupil
2. Pupil labelled as a troublemaker (e.g.) and teacher interprets behaviour as deviant
3. Pupil becomes aware of teacher’s label
4. Pupil self-concept starts to change (they think in a different way)
5. Pupil start living up to label
6. Initial label confirmed by behaviour; stronger labelling and more deviant behaviour occurs.
Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) told a school they had a new test specially designed to identify those
pupils who would ‘spurt’ ahead which was untrue. They tested all of the pupils, but then picked 20%
of them purely at random and told the school, again falsely, that the test had identified these
children as ‘sputters’. On returning to the school a year later, they found almost half of those
identified as sputters had made significant progress, with a greater effect on younger children. The
teacher’s beliefs had been influenced by the ‘test’, and these beliefs had then been conveyed onto
the children, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy in the pupils as a result.
SOCIAL CLASS AND LABELLING
Interactionists claim that class background affects the way that teachers label pupils.
M/C pupils fit in the teachers’ stereotype of the ideal pupil more than W/C and there W/C are more
likely to be labelled as deviant and lazy.
EFFECTS OF LABELLING
It can lead pupils being placed in different ability groupings within school.
E.g. lower class pupils lower sets
Those lower groupings are likely to be seen as less able and more likely to be disruptive which
forms pupil subculturesforms anti-school subcultures.
AO3 OF LABELLING THEORY
- The theory sounds deterministic. – assumes no choice but to fulfil the prophecy and
inevitably fail which is not always true as Fuller (1984) found that a group of black W/C girls
ignored their label of failure and worked harder to achieve success.
- Idea of ideal pupil varies Amelia Hempel-Jorgensen found that the notions of the ideal pupil
varies from teacher to teacher, and is in accordance with the social-class of the school i.e. in
a largely working-class Aspen primary school where discipline was a major problem, the
ideal pupil was defined as quiet, passive and obedient, but in contrast the mainly middle-
class Rowan primary school had very few discipline problems and here the ideal pupil was
defined instead in terms of personality and academic ability.
- Marx - Ignores wider structures of power – labelling theory blames teachers but doesn’t
explain why they do label – Marxists argues not only that teachers individual prejudices but
stem that fact teachers work in the system that reproduces class inequality
-
SETTING AND STREAMING
This involves separating children into different ability groups or classes called ‘streams’. Each ability
group is then taught separately from the others for all subjects.
Self fulfilling prophecy is likely to occur when children are streamed.
W/C students tend to find themselves put in a lower stream as teachers do not see them as the
‘ideal pupil’, lacking ability and have low expectations of them.
These students in the lower streams ‘get the message’ that their teacher has written them off as no-
hopers. This creates a self-fulfilling prophecy as the pupils live up the low expectations by
underachieving.
M/C pupils tend to benefit from streaming as they are likely to be placed in higher streams,
reflecting the view of ‘ideal pupil’. This means they gain confidence, work harder and improve their
grades.
THE A-TO-C ECONOMY
Gillborn and Youdell link streaming to the policy of publishing exam league tables.
These rank each school according to its exam performance- e.g. in terms of the % of pupils gaining 5
or more GCSE grades A* to C. Schools need to achieve a good league position if they are to attract
pupils and funding.
Publishing league tables creates an ‘A-to-C economy’ in schools. This is a system which schools focus
their time, effort and resources on those pupils they see as having the potential to get 5 grade Cs
and so boost the school’s league table position.
This publishing of league tables has led to the ‘A-to-C economy’ whereby schools focus their time,
effort and resources on those pupils that have the potential to get 5 grade Cs or more to boost the
school’s league table position. Gillborn and Youdell call this educational triage where students are
‘sorted’ into 3 groups:
Those who will pass anyway and can be left to get on with it
Those with potential, who will be helped to get a grade C or better
Hopeless cases, Who are doomed to fail
This educational triage becomes the basis for streaming. Teacher’s beliefs about the lack of ability of
the working-class pupils are used to segregate them into lower streams or sets, where they receive
less attention, support and resources. This results in lower levels of achievement for the working
class.
Teachers do this using a stereotypical view of W/C (and black) pupils as lacking ability. They are likely
to be labelled as ‘hopeless cases’ and put into bottom sets. This produces self-fulfilling prophecy and
failure.
Pupil Identities
Sociologists are interested in how pupils’ class identities that are formed outside school interact with
the school and its values to produce educational success and failure.
HABITUS
Habitus’ (Bourdieu, 1984) is the learned ways of thinking, being and acting that are shared by a
particular social class.
No class habitus is not intrinsically better than another’s, the middle-class 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 and so on. These
middle-class pupils gain ‘symbolic capital’ or status and recognition from the school are deemed to
have more worth or value.
The school then devalues the working-class habitus, so working-class pupils’ tastes (e.g. clothing,
appearance, accent) are deemed tasteless and worthless. Archer found that working-class pupils felt
that to be educationally successful, they would have to change how they talked and presented
themselves.
SYMBOLIC CAPITAL AND SYMBOLIC VIOLENCE
Schools have a M/C habitus; pupils who have been socialised at home into M/C tastes gain symbolic
capital which is recognition from the school and are deemed to have worth or value.
The school devalues the W/C habitus, so that W/C pupils’ tastes (e.g. in clothing, appearance and
accent) are deemed to be tasteless and worthless.
Bordieu calls the withholding of symbolic capital ‘symbolic violence’. By defining the W/C and their
tastes and lifestyles as inferior, symbolic violence reproduces the class structure and keeps the lower
classes ‘in their place’.
This creates a clash between W/C pupils’ habitus and the school’s M/C habitus. As a result, W/C
students may experience the world of education as alien and unnatural.
E.g. Archer found that W/C pupils felt that to be educationally successful, they would have to change
their identity e.g. how they talk. Thus, for W/C students, educational success is often experiences as
a process of ‘losing yourself’ and they felt unable to access M/C spaces such as university and
professional careers, as they were seen as ‘not for the likes of us’.
NIKE IDENTITES
This is wearing top brands as a way of W/C pupils being themselves because without them, they
would feel inauthentic.
Pupils seek alternative ways of creating status and value, through constructive meaningful class
identities.
The right appearance earned symbolic capital and approval from peer groups and brought safety
from bullying- not conforming “social suicide”.
At the same time, it led to conflict with the school’s dress code. M/C habitus stigmatises (great
disapproval) W/C identity. Seen as rebellious
Nike identity was a way of portraying ‘not going uni’- a rejection of W/C pupil . seen as unrealistic for
W/C ppl like us to go to uni as they won’t fit in. It is undesirable as they won’t be able to afford street
identity if they live off student loans.
Archer concludes that W/C investment in Nike is not the only cause of their educational
marginalisation by the school – it expresses their positive preference for a particular lifestyle.
As a result, W/C chooses self-elimination or self exclusion from 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.
W/C IDENTITY AND EDUCATIONAL SUCCESS – conditions to success
Archer’s study largely deals with the relationship between W/C identity and educational failure.
But some W/C pupils do succeed.
Key study by Ingram (2009):
2 groups of W/C catholic boys from the same highly deprived neighbourhood in Belfast – 1 group
passed the 11+ exam and went to a grammar school; the other group failed and went to secondary
school.
Grammar school has a strong M/C habitus of high expectation and achievement, secondary school
has a low expectation of its underachieving students.
Ingram found that having a W/C identity was inseparable from belonging to a W/C locality. The
neighbourhood’s dense networks gave an intense feeling of belonging; street wear and culture was a
key part of the boys’ habitus and sense of identity.
W/C communities place great emphasis on conformity. The boys had great pressure to ‘fit in’
especially for the grammar school boys, who experienced a tension between their neighbourhood
habitus and their M/C school.
E.g. one boy was ridiculed by his classmates for coming to school in a tracksuit on non-uni day. By
opting to ‘fit in’ with his neighbourhood habitus, he was made to feel worthless by the school’s
habitus an example of symbolic violence in which pupils are forced to abandon their ‘worthless’
W/C identity, if they want to succeed.
CLASS IDENTITY AND SELF-EXCLUSION
The clash between W/C identity and the habitus of HE is a barrier to success. This is due to a process
of self-exclusion.
E.g. Evans (2009) studied a group of 21 W/C girls from a S. London comprehensive studying for their
A-Levels. She found that they were reluctant (hesitant) to apply to elite universities and that the few
that did apply felt a sense of hidden barriers and of not fitting in.
Bordieu (1984), many W/C people think of places like Oxbridge as being ‘not for the likes of us’. The
feeling comes from their habitus. Such thinking becomes part of their identity and leads W/C pupils
to exclude themselves from elite universities.
Evans found that the girls had a strong attachment to their locality. E.g. 4/21 intended to move away
from home to study.
Reay et al (2005) says that self exclusion from elite or distant uni’s narrows the options of many W/C
pupils and limits their success.
W/C pupils are forced to choose between maintaining their W/C identity or abandoning them and
conforming to the M/C habitus of education in order to succeed.
SUBCULTURES (PRO AND ANTI-SCHOOL)
A pupil subculture is a group of pupils who share similar values and behaviour patterns. They often
emerge as a response to the way pupils have been labelled and also as a reaction to streaming.
Lacey (1970) – middle class Grammer schools
Concept of differentiation and polarisation to explain how pupil subcultures develop: Consequences
of streaming, setting and labelling
1: Differentiation
The process of teachers categorising pupils according to how they perceive their ability, attitude
and/or behaviour. E.g. streaming is a form of it, since it categorises pupils into separate classes.
2: Polarisation
The process in which pupils respond to streaming by moving towards one of two opposite ‘poles’ or
extremes. E.g. Lacey’s study of a boys’ grammar school shows that streaming polarised boys into a
pro-school and anti-school subculture.
THE PRO-SCHOOL SUBCULTURE
Pupils placed in high streams (largely M/C) tend to remain committed to the values of the school.
They gain their status in the approved manner, through academic success.
Their values are those of the school: they tend to form a pro-school subculture.
THE ANTI-SCHOOL SUBCULTURE
Pupils placed in low streams (largely W/C) suffer a loss of self-esteem, as they are placed in a
position of inferior status by the school.
This label of failure makes them find alternatives of gaining status. This involves inverting the
school’s values of hard work, obedience and punctuality.
Pupils form an anti-school subculture as a way of gaining status among their peers, e.g. by truanting,
not doing homework, smoking etc.
Lacey says that joining an anti-school subculture is likely to become a self-fulfilling prophecy of
educational failure.
ABOLISHING STREAMING
Ball (1981) studied Beachside comprehensive which was in the process of abolishing banding. He
found that when the school abolished it, the basis for pupils to polarise into subculture was removed
and the influence of the anti-school subculture declined.
Differentiation still continued and teachers continued to categorise pupils different and label M/C
pupils as able. This positive labelling was reflected in their better exam results, suggesting a self-
fulfilling prophecy had occurred.
Ball’s study shows that class inequality can continue as a result of teachers’ labelling, even without
the effect of subcultures or streaming.
THE VARIETY OF PUPIL RESPONSES
Pro and anti school subcultures are 2 possible responses to labelling and streaming.
Woods (1979) says there are other responses than subcultures, these include:
- Ingratiation: being the ‘teacher’s pet’
- Ritualism: going through the motions and staying out of trouble
- Retreatism: daydreaming and mucking about
- Rebellion: outright rejection of everything school stands for.
Furlong (1984) observes, many pupils are not committed permanently to any one response, they
may move between different types and act differently in lessons with different teachers.
Relationship between internal and external
Internal and external factors are often interrelated, and so cannot be viewed consistently as
separate explanations:
Working-class pupils’ habitus and identities formed outside school may conflict with the school’s
middle-class habitus, resulting in symbolic violence and pupils feeling that education is not for the
likes of them
Working-class pupils using the restricted speech code (external cultural factor) may be labelled by
teachers as less able, leading to self-fulfilling prophecy (internal factor)
As Dunne and Gazeley show, an internal factor – what teachers believe about working-class pupils’
home backgrounds (an external factor) – actually produces underachievement
Poverty (an external material factor) may lead to bullying and stigmatisation by peer groups (an
internal process within school), which may in turn lead to truanting and failure
