Topic Theory/ Key findings
Sociologist
Labelling Becker (1971) Interactionist study on labelling. 60 Chicago high school teachers. Judged pupils and how closely they fitted into the
‘ideal pupil’, middle class being nearest to this, working class furthest as teachers believed they misbehaved. Pupils’
work, conduct and appearance - key factors influencing these judgements.
Jorgensen (2009) Aspen primary school (working class) behaviour was a problem- ‘ideal pupil’= quiet, passive and obedient – behaviour.
Rowan primary school (middle class) few behavioural problems- ‘ideal pupil’ = clever and outgoing – ability and
personality.
Dunne and Interviews in 9 English state schools.
Gazeley (2008) Working class- ‘normalised’ their underachievement, unconcerned as felt they couldn’t do anything and so gave
them easier exams. Underestimated their potential- those doing well seen as ‘overachieving’. Labelled parents as
uninterested.
Middle class- believed they could overcome underachievement – set extension work for underachieving pupils.
Labelled parents as supportive.
Rist (2010) Study of an American kindergarten. Labelling occurs from outset of a child's educational career. Teachers use
information about children’s home backgrounds and appearance to place them in separate seating groups. Fast
learners (labelled as tigers) were usually middle class and of neat and clean appearance, seated nearest to the teacher
and shown the greatest encouragement. Other two groups ‘clowns’ and ‘cardinals’ were usually working class and
given lower-level books and given fewer opportunities to show their abilities e.g. reading as a group.
Self-fulfilling Self-fulfilling When a label is internalised and comes true - by virtue of it having been made.
prophecy prophecy 1. Teacher labels pupil makes predictions about them
2. Teacher treats pupils according to that label e.g. lower ability work
3. Pupils then internalise the label which becomes part of their self-concept and they act out their prediction
This can lead to both high (Halo effect) and low achievement among pupils. Then the label made becomes the most
important thing about the individual i.e. their master status.
Rosenthal and Oak community school California. Told the school they had a test (IQ test) that would identify pupils that would
Jacobsen 1968 ‘spurt ahead’. The researchers lied about the IQ test results and picked 20% of students at random who they told
teachers were going to be ‘sputter’s’ and the other 80% were ‘average’. On year later, 47% of those identified as
‘spurters’ had made significant progress. Interactionist- what people believe to be true will have real effects- even if
it wasn’t true originally.
Streaming Becker (1971) Teachers don't see working class pupils as the ‘ideal pupil’ they see them as lacking and have low expectations of
them. Children get put in a lower stream and get labelled as low achievers. These pupils get this message which
creates a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Douglas Children in a lower streams at age 8 had suffered a decline in their IQ score by age 11 in contrast to those placed in a
higher stream, whose IQ improved.
Sociologist
Labelling Becker (1971) Interactionist study on labelling. 60 Chicago high school teachers. Judged pupils and how closely they fitted into the
‘ideal pupil’, middle class being nearest to this, working class furthest as teachers believed they misbehaved. Pupils’
work, conduct and appearance - key factors influencing these judgements.
Jorgensen (2009) Aspen primary school (working class) behaviour was a problem- ‘ideal pupil’= quiet, passive and obedient – behaviour.
Rowan primary school (middle class) few behavioural problems- ‘ideal pupil’ = clever and outgoing – ability and
personality.
Dunne and Interviews in 9 English state schools.
Gazeley (2008) Working class- ‘normalised’ their underachievement, unconcerned as felt they couldn’t do anything and so gave
them easier exams. Underestimated their potential- those doing well seen as ‘overachieving’. Labelled parents as
uninterested.
Middle class- believed they could overcome underachievement – set extension work for underachieving pupils.
Labelled parents as supportive.
Rist (2010) Study of an American kindergarten. Labelling occurs from outset of a child's educational career. Teachers use
information about children’s home backgrounds and appearance to place them in separate seating groups. Fast
learners (labelled as tigers) were usually middle class and of neat and clean appearance, seated nearest to the teacher
and shown the greatest encouragement. Other two groups ‘clowns’ and ‘cardinals’ were usually working class and
given lower-level books and given fewer opportunities to show their abilities e.g. reading as a group.
Self-fulfilling Self-fulfilling When a label is internalised and comes true - by virtue of it having been made.
prophecy prophecy 1. Teacher labels pupil makes predictions about them
2. Teacher treats pupils according to that label e.g. lower ability work
3. Pupils then internalise the label which becomes part of their self-concept and they act out their prediction
This can lead to both high (Halo effect) and low achievement among pupils. Then the label made becomes the most
important thing about the individual i.e. their master status.
Rosenthal and Oak community school California. Told the school they had a test (IQ test) that would identify pupils that would
Jacobsen 1968 ‘spurt ahead’. The researchers lied about the IQ test results and picked 20% of students at random who they told
teachers were going to be ‘sputter’s’ and the other 80% were ‘average’. On year later, 47% of those identified as
‘spurters’ had made significant progress. Interactionist- what people believe to be true will have real effects- even if
it wasn’t true originally.
Streaming Becker (1971) Teachers don't see working class pupils as the ‘ideal pupil’ they see them as lacking and have low expectations of
them. Children get put in a lower stream and get labelled as low achievers. These pupils get this message which
creates a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Douglas Children in a lower streams at age 8 had suffered a decline in their IQ score by age 11 in contrast to those placed in a
higher stream, whose IQ improved.
