labelling and structures

Interactionists argue that teachers tend to label girls more positively than boys, which they argue has an influence on their achievement.

French & French found that teachers paid different types of attention to boys and girls in the classroom. In general boys received more negative attention because they were more likely to misbehave, whereas they interacted more positively with girls, and these interactions it focused on schoolwork rather than behaviour.

Much research suggest that teachers respond more positively to girls, whom they see as cooperative, than to boys, whom they see as potentially disruptive. This may lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy in which successful interactions with teachers promote girls' self-esteem and raise their achievement levels. In short, girls are more likely to receive a more positive label from teachers than boys.

As a consequence, boys are more likely to form anti-school subcultures, rejecting the norms and values of education.

Furthermore, Epstein explored how masculinity is constructed within schools. She found that working-class boys are likely to be harassed, labelled as sissies and subjected to homophobic (anti-gay) verbal abuse if they appear to be swots. This is because in working-class culture, masculinity is equated with being ‘tough’ and preferring manual work. Non-manual work, and by extension schoolwork, is seen as effeminate and inferior. As a result, working-class boys tend to reject schoolwork as irrelevant to their future needs and undermining their masculine values. As Epstein observes, 'real boys don't work' - and if they do they get bullied.

Furthermore, Neo-Marxist Willis found evidence of working-class boys rejecting the values of the education system after recognising they are in a state of false-class consciousness. His work highlights how not all individuals are socialised into being passive and obedient, conforming to a capitalist hierarchy. These boys rejected the school rules, skipping lessons, smoking and drinking and became disruptive in lessons. This provides evidence suggesting boys are more likely to form anti-school subcultures. However, when the boys rejected education, their lack of qualifications meant the only jobs available to them upon leaving school were low paid, status and skilled linked to specific genders. Willis’ work demonstrates how the boy’s pursuit of a traditional working-class male identity via manual work lead them away from academic subjects.

Evaluation

1. Not every teacher labels students in the same way, and the notion of ‘ideal pupil’ can differ between teachers. In addition, not all students passively accept labels given by teachers, some openly rebel in a more active way.

+fuller

2. Willis’ study was criticised as it was based within one subculture in one high school in Wolverhampton and as a result his findings cannot be generalised to wider society, as well as being out of date due to the amount of social change that has occurred since his research. Also, to summarise Postmodernists such as Heaton (1998), gender differences in educational achievement cannot be fully understood by looking at gender alone.