Labelling

• Howard Becker was the first sociologist to highlight the issue of labelling and its impact on students’ academic success.

• Labels can be positive (e.g., ‘bright’, ‘hardworking’) or negative (e.g., ‘disruptive’, ‘badly behaved’).

• Becker interviewed 60 Chicago teachers and concluded that they tended to share a picture of the ideal pupil, which was used as a benchmark to judge the pupils they taught:

  • Ideal pupil traits: motivated, intelligent, and well-behaved.

  • Pupils closest to this ideal were usually from middle-class backgrounds, while those farthest from it were from working-class backgrounds.

Interactionist Perspective

• From this perspective, meanings and roles are not fixed; they are negotiated in interaction situations.

• David Hargreaves (1975) examined how teachers and pupils negotiate a ‘working consensus’ in the classroom:

  • Teachers use tactics to assert control (e.g., compromises for good work/behaviour, rewards, and punishments).

  • Students negotiate by appealing to justice—comparing their treatment with others or pitting teachers against each other.

  • Successful negotiation leads to a consensus in the classroom.

Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

• Definition: A prediction that, by being made, comes true.

• Pupils may internalize the labels they receive and act accordingly, fulfilling the expectations set for them.

• Hargreaves (1975) outlined factors determining whether a label ‘sticks’:

  • Frequency of labelling

  • Student's perception of the teacher's authority

  • Amount of peer support for the label

  • Context of labelling (public vs. private).

Research Findings

• Research indicates some labels are accepted more readily than others.

  • Bird (1980) found that pupils were more likely to accept ‘academic’ labels than ‘behavioural’ labels.

  • Nash (1972) examined how teachers’ beliefs about ‘good’ and ‘bad’ students influenced students' behaviour and academic success.

Group Labelling

• Whole groups or even schools may be labelled:

  • Private schools tend to attract positive labels, whereas comprehensive schools in poor areas generally receive negative labels.

  • Gerwirtz (1998) argued that the type of school attended can create a self-fulfilling prophecy regarding success or failure.

Evaluation of Labelling Theory

1. Tautologous Argument:

   • Labelling is both a cause and an effect of differential treatment.

   • Teachers label working-class boys as ‘underachievers,’ indicating prior awareness of academic performance differences.

   • Thus, if differential achievement causes teacher labelling, it cannot be the initial cause.

2. Determinism:

   • The concepts of labelling and self-fulfilling prophecy are criticized for being too deterministic, suggesting irreversibility once a process begins.

   • Studies show some students can resist labels; for example, Mirza found that black girls worked against negative labels to succeed.

Ability Grouping in UK Schools

• Types: Setting, streaming, and banding allocate children to different year groups based on academic ability.

  • Streaming involves separating students based on ability within the same year.

  • Banding assigns students to bands based on primary school reports.

  • Setting may result in students being in different ability groups for different subjects.

Impact of Streaming and Class Differences

• Hargreaves (1967): Boys at Lumley School were streamed by ability, showing a correlation between social class and academic placement, with middle-class children in top streams and working-class children in lower streams.

• Hargreaves noted that streaming affected students' self-perception as successes or failures, fostering subcultures based on labelled experiences.

Pupil Subcultures

• Researchers argue that pupil subcultures arise from group settings and streaming. Lacey (1970) identified two subcultures:

  • Subculture of Success: Characterized by hard work, respect, and positive teacher feedback (middle-class).

  • Subculture of Failure: Defined by anti-school behaviour and seeking peer prestige rather than academic achievement (working-class).

Mac an Ghaill (1994)

• Studied Year 11 students in a West Midlands comprehensive:

  • Identified three working-class male peer groups shaped by the organization of sets, curriculum types, and teacher-student dynamics:

    1. Macho Lads: Relegated economically, they rejected school values and authority.

    2. Academic Achievers: Valued education for future success, occupying top sets.

    3. New Enterprisers: Focused on vocational routes with aspirations for skilled jobs.

Cultural Deprivation and Education

• Ideas around compensating working-class children for family disadvantages include:

  • Education Action Zones: Collective efforts to improve educational services through partnerships with communities.

  • Sure Start programmes (2000): Initiatives targeting poor preschool children to prevent truancy and boost achievement.

Outside Factors Affecting Educational Achievement

• Factors include:

  • Material Deprivation: Affects learning abilities due to poor nutrition, lack of resources, and the need to work.

• Cultural Explanations:

  • Parental attitudes, values, speech codes, and cultural capital influence achievement levels.

  • Cultural Capital (Bourdieu): The cultural knowledge that facilitates navigation in educational contexts.

• Douglas (1964): Found that variables like parental encouragement, family size, and family position impact educational attainment.

Speech Codes (Bernstein, 1971)

• Two types of language codes:

  • Restricted Code: Simple language conveying direct meanings, used across all classes.

  • Elaborated Code: More complex and context-independent; predominantly used by middle-class families and teachers, leading to advantages for middle-class children in academic settings.

Immediate vs. Deferred Gratification**

• Immediate Gratification: Working-class students may leave school early for immediate work rather than pursuing education.

• Deferred Gratification: Middle-class children are more likely to view education as a long-term investment for higher status jobs.

  • Goodman and Gregg (2010) found differences in university expectations between affluent and less affluent mothers.

Key Sociologist: Diane Reay

• Professor of education at Cambridge, studied inequalities in education related to social class.

• Advocate for black femenism