Class Differences – Internal

THE INTERACTIONIST APPROACH:

  • Look at what goes on in school and, in particular, teacher-pupil relationships.

  • Suggests that teachers judge pupils not by ability or intelligence but by characteristics that relate to class, gender and ethnicity, such as attitude, appearance and behaviour.

  • Middle class teachers are more likely to perceive middle class behaviour as evidence of commitment to study, and working class cultural demeanour as evidence of indiscipline, lower ability or motivation.

  • May hold different expectations of eventual achievement, which in turn can affect pupil’s progress according to the ways in which they are labelled and sorted into ability groups.

    • In other words, a self-fulfilling prophecy can be seen to occur, whereby teachers’ expectations are translated into actual outcomes.

‘BEACHSIDE COMPREHENSIVE’ – BALL:

  • Labelling theories usually focus on the effects on the individual.

  • Argued that the same effects can be observed in whole groups.

  • Pupils were put into three bands based on information about their ability given by primary schools:

    • Band 1: mostly contained pupils from non-manual backgrounds.

    • Band 2: socially mixed.

    • Band 3: mostly manual backgrounds.

  • Results: Students entered school eager to learn, but due to effects of teacher attitudes and expectations, Band 1 ‘warmed to education’ and did well in school. Bands 2 and 3 ‘cooled down’ and underachieved.

ELLIOT’S STUDY:

  • Study set up a class of children split between blue and brown eyes – ‘inferior’ wore collars.

  • Those who are discriminated against feel as though their label puts them at a disadvantage and there’s no point trying to achieve anything as it wouldn’t be possible.

  • Those who were ‘superior’ felt as though they were at an advantage and that everything was possible for them as they were ‘better’.

ROSENTHAL AND JACOBSON’S STUDY:

  • Came into classrooms and said they’ve done tests on the children and found some late bloomers to the teachers (children were unaware).

  • Testing teachers’ input to intellectual and educational achievement of the children (if teachers expect more favourable results – will input more).

  • Kids who were ‘predicted’ to get intellectual did get more intellectual gain when tested later – even more than their non-mentioned peers.

  • Those expected to get more favourable results are more favoured by teachers in every way – feedback, giving answers, etc.

TEACHERS AND EXPECTATIONS:

  • Becker showed how teachers perceive the ‘ideal pupil’ to be one who conforms to middle-class standards of behaviour.

  • Hempel-Horgensen found the notion of an ideal pupil differed in working-class and middle-class English primary schools in a study of two English primary schools:

    • Working-class: Pupils were judged in terms of their behaviour – the ideal pupil was defined as quiet, passive and obedient.

    • Middle-class: Ideal pupil was defined in terms of personality and academic ability.

EDUCATIONAL TRIAGE:

  • The way the classroom is organised can be based on teacher’s expectations.

  • Marketisation has led to an A*-C economy.

  • Gillborn and Youdell believes this creates an ‘educational triage’.

  • Pupils → Triage → 1. The ‘walking wounded’, can be ignored as they will ‘survive’.

                                       2. Those who will ‘die’ anyway, also ignored.

                                       3. Those with a chance of ‘survival’ – given support in the hope of                                                   saving them.

  • This is called streaming.

  • Douglas found children placed in a higher stream at age 8 improved their IQ by age 11.

  • Students that will end up in category 2 are doomed to fail, will be students who aren’t the ‘ideal’ pupils as deemed by the teachers – usually working classes.

  • Marketisation and league tables have a big impact on the internal factors that create class differences.

PUPIL SUBCULTURES:

  • One response to pupil labelling is the creation of pupil subcultures.

  • Two main subcultures:

    • Pro-school subculture – pupils placed in higher streams, gain status through academic success, their values are those of the school.

    • Anti-school subculture – placed in lower streams, feel school has undermined their self-worth, they look for other ways of gaining status – from peers.

  • Alternatively, there’s a variety of responses based on 4 reactions to labelling:

    • 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 the school stands for.

TYPES OF SUBCULTURES:

  • The ‘Macho’ lads:

    • Hostile to school authority and learning.

    • Essential behaviour for ‘lads’ in Willis’ study in the 1970s for physical work.

    • 1980s this group often ended up unemployed after a spell in youth training.

  • ‘Nike’ identities:

    • Invest heavily in ‘style’ by consuming branded clothing – a way of ‘being me’.

    • Generally heavily gendered – girls had a hyper heterosexual feminine style.

    • Heavily policed by peer groups, non conforming was ‘social suicide’.

    • Right appearance brought symbolic capital and avoided bullying.

    • School is unrealistic ‘not for the likes of them’, and doesn’t suit their style.

  • The new entrepreneurs:

    • New successful pro-school subculture who embraced new vocationalism of 1980s and 90s.

    • Rejected academic curriculum, saw it as a waste of time; accepted new vocational ethos with new teachers and industrial contacts.

    • Able to achieve upwards mobility by studying subjects such as business studies and computing; exploiting school-industry links to their advantage.

  • Gay students:

    • Comment on the heterosexist and homophobic nature of schools.

    • Believe there’s too much emphasis on the naturalness of heterosexual relationships and two-parent nuclear family.

  • The academic achievers:

    • From mostly skilled manual working-class backgrounds.

    • Adopted a more upwardly mobile route via academic success.

    • Have to cope with stereotyping and accusations made by ‘lads’.

    • Cope by either confusing the bullies by deliberately acting in an effeminate way, or by having the confidence to cope with the jibes.

  • Real Englishmen:

    • Small group of middle-class pupils, usually from liberal professional backgrounds (parents typically university lecturers, writers, in media, etc.).

    • Rejected teachers seeing their own knowledge and culture as superior.

    • See motivations of some other subcultures as shallow.

    • Have values that don’t fit with school but aspire to university and professional careers.

    • Do this by achieving academic success in a way that appears effortless (whether it was or not).

  • Females:

    • Deviance defined by sexual behaviour rather than troublemaking.

    • Three possible routes for those not achieving in education:

      • Labour market – securing a job.

      • Marriage market – acquiring a permanent male partner.

      • Sexual market – having sexual relationships whilst also maintaining reputation to not damage marriage prospects.

  • Ethnic minorities:

    • Enables them to cope with and counter negative experiences they suffer, to redeem themselves – sometimes to educational cost.

    • Many black boys reject school and education in favour of a culture of conspicuous consumption (having goods known as expensive to ‘show off’) and street credibility.

    • Black girls reject teachers’ low expectations of them; strive to achieve in alternative ways.

    • Bangladeshi males adopted aspect of black subcultural response.

    • Many Asian girls perceived as passive and relatively invisible; achieve while disguising their rebellion.

EVALUATION OF CLASSROOM STRUCTURES:

  • Streaming:

    • Students grouped by ability for some/all lessons.

    • Top stream is most academic and bottom is low achievers.

    • Ensures most able aren’t held back and least able get support.

    • Strengths:

      • Those in higher streams aren’t held back and succeed.

    • Weaknesses:

      • Least able often don’t get the right support.

      • Reinforces idea that lower streams are inferior.

  • Mixed ability:

    • All abilities taught together.

    • Teaching differentiated to engage weaker pupils, whilst challenging the more able.

    • Proponents believe there’s both social and educational benefits.

    • Allows for broader social mix, reducing conflict in society and ensures labelling on the basis of behaviour doesn’t affect attainment.

    • Recognises that ability isn’t fixed – children develop in spurts rather than all at same time.

    • Strengths:

      • Less social boundaries.

      • Pupils not directly told if they’re smart or not.

      • More self confidence.

    • Weaknesses:

      • ‘Smart’ kids can’t be pushed more.

      • ‘Not smart’ or ‘in the middle’ pupils can be negotiated.

EVALUATION (LABELLING THEORY):

  • Willis’ study:

    • 1970s – great media concern over behaviour in inner-city comprehensives.

    • Looked at development of mainly male working-class groups of undisciplined pupils or anti-school subcultures.

    • Identified ‘lads’ – main aim at school was to have a ‘laff’ by rejecting values of school – and a more conformist group – referred to by ‘lads’ as ‘ear’oles’.

  • This is a strength of labelling theory because it shows that schools aren’t neutral grounds or fair institutions; actively create inequality and labels.

  • Strengths:

    • Its focus on small-scale interaction can provide a lot of detail on school situations.

  • Weaknesses:

    • Deterministic in assuming that those labelled have no choice but to fulfil these labels.

    • Critics argue they ignore the wider society, which clearly plays a major role in relation to class differences in attainment.