Pupil Subcultures

What is a Pupil Subculture?

AO1:

• Group of pupils with shared values/behaviours.

• Emerges in response to labelling and streaming.

AO2 (Example):

• A WC pupil placed in a lower stream may join a group that mocks homework & rules → gains peer status but fails academically.

• MC pupil in a high stream works hard → gains teacher approval & good grades → pro-school subculture.

AO3:

• Shows micro-level effect of labelling on peer group formation.
  – Deterministic: some pupils resist peer pressure.
  – Not all pupils polarise; other responses possible (Woods, Furlong).

Links:

• Labelling → Self-Fulfilling Prophecy → Streaming → Pupil Subcultures

Lacey: Differentiation & Polarisation

AO1:

• Differentiation: categorising pupils by ability → high vs low streams.

• Polarisation: pupils respond by moving to extremes:

  • Pro-school: commit to school values, MC, high-stream.

  • Anti-school: reject school values, WC, low-stream.

AO2 (Example):

• Low-stream boys truant, skip homework → gain status among peers (anti-school).

• High-stream girls join maths/reading clubs → pro-school, get good grades, recognition from teachers.

AO3:

• Explains why WC pupils underachieve despite similar ability.
  – Some pupils adopt mixed strategies (Furlong, 1984).
  – Only explains peer-group effects; doesn’t account for home background or material factors.

Abolishing Streaming (Ball, 1981)

AO1:

• Beachside Comprehensive abolished banding → mixed-ability classes.

• Result: polarisation reduced → anti-school subcultures declined.

• Differentiation continued: teachers still labelled MC pupils positively → SFP still occurred.

AO2 (Example):

• A mixed-ability class allowed low-stream WC pupil to interact with higher-achieving peers → reduces peer pressure to reject school → increases engagement.

• MC pupils still praised for neatness, effort → maintain achievement advantage.

AO3:

• Shows policy can reduce peer-group based failure.
  – SFP still occurs via teacher labelling → class inequality persists.
  – Highlights interaction of micro (teacher) & macro (policy) influences.

Other Pupil Responses (Woods, 1979; Furlong, 1984)

AO1:

• Not all pupils form pro- or anti-school subcultures. Other responses:

  • Ingratiation: teacher’s pet

  • Ritualism: minimal effort, stay out of trouble

  • Retreatism: daydreaming, mucking about

  • Rebellion: rejects school values entirely

• Many pupils move between responses depending on class/teacher (Furlong).

AO2 (Example):

• A pupil may act like a ritualist in maths (low interest) but ingratiate in English to gain praise.

AO3:

• Adds nuance to Lacey/Ball → pupils are not passively shaped by labelling.
  – Can complicate prediction of achievement → harder to make generalisations.
  – Shows interaction between individual agency and structural/class effects.

Links:

• Labelling → Streaming → Pupil Subcultures

• Cultural capital → may influence which responses pupils adopt

• Class inequality → working-class pupils more likely to adopt anti-school behaviour

Pupil Subcultures Criticisms

Deterministic

Marxists - Ignores Wider structure of power within which labelling takes place

Blames teachers but doesn’t explain why

Teachers work in a system that reproduce class divisions