2. Education
Topic 2: Class differences in achievement – internal factors
Labelling
Label To label someone is to attach a meaning/definition to them
Eg. Teachers may label a student as bright or thick, troublemaker or
hardworking
Teacher labelling Studies have found that teachers often attach such labels regardless of
the pupil’s actual ability or attitude
Instead, these labels are born of stereotypes and assumptions based
on their social class background
Eg. Working-class children labelled negatively and middle-class children
labelled positively
Interactionist These sociologists study small-scale, face-to-face interactions between
individuals
Eg. In the classroom or playground
Becker (1971) Carried out an interactionist study of labelling based on interviews with
60 Chicago high-school teachers
Found that they judged pupils according to how closely they fit their
image of the ‘ideal pupil’
Eg. Key factors in deciphering this image were pupils’ work, conduct
and appearance
Ideal pupil Teachers saw middle-class children as a closer representation of the
ideal pupil than working-class children because they regarded them as
less well-behaved
Jorgensen (2009) Found that the ideal pupil may be regarded differently according to the
social class make-up of the school
Eg. In largely working-class primary schools, the ideal pupil was seen as
quiet, passive and obedient (defined by behaviour)
Whereas middle-class based primary schools viewed the ideal pupil by
their academic ability and personality
Labelling in secondary
schools
Dunne and Gazeley (2008) Argue that schools persistently produce working-class
underachievement because of labelling
From interviews in 9 secondary schools, they found that teachers
normalised working-class underachievement by seeming unconcerned
and feeling they could do little to nothing to improve it – unlike the
underachievement of fellow middle-class peers
, Teacher beliefs A large reason for this was the teacher’s assumption about the role of
pupil’s home backgrounds
Eg. W/c parents were uninterested and m/c parents were supportive
This led to differences in how teachers dealt with pupils they perceived
as underachieving
Eg. Setting extension work for underachieving m/c pupils but entering
underachieving w/c pupils for foundation tier exams
Labelling in primary schools
Rist (1970) Studied an American kindergarten and found that the teacher used
information about the children’s home background and appearance to
place them in separate groups, seated at differently positioned tables.
Tigers and clowns Those who were middle-class and appeared clean were labelled as
fast-learners who were seated nearer the front of the classroom and
shown the greatest encouragement
Those who were the opposite were labelled as clowns and given lower-
level treatment where they had few chances to showcase their abilities
Eg. Given easier books which they had to read as a group instead of
individually
The self-fulfilling prophecy
Self-fulfilling prophecy A prediction that comes true simply by the virtue of it being made
Interactionist Argue that labelling can affect a pupils’ achievement by creating a self-
fulfilling prophecy
How it operates Step 1: teacher creates a label
Step 2: teacher treats the pupils as though it is already true
Step 3: pupil internalises the teacher’s expectation which manifests the
prediction to become true
Teachers’ expectations
Rosenthal and Jacobson Studied a primary school in California which showed the self-fulfilling
(1968) prophecy in action
They convinced the teachers that they developed a specially designed
test to identify those pupils who would ‘spurt’ ahead – this was untrue
The researchers picked 20% of the students completely at random and
falsely informed the school that these children were going to be
‘spurters’
Upon return a year later, they found 47% of those falsely identified as
‘spurters’ had indeed made significant progress – the effect was
greater on younger children
Topic 2: Class differences in achievement – internal factors
Labelling
Label To label someone is to attach a meaning/definition to them
Eg. Teachers may label a student as bright or thick, troublemaker or
hardworking
Teacher labelling Studies have found that teachers often attach such labels regardless of
the pupil’s actual ability or attitude
Instead, these labels are born of stereotypes and assumptions based
on their social class background
Eg. Working-class children labelled negatively and middle-class children
labelled positively
Interactionist These sociologists study small-scale, face-to-face interactions between
individuals
Eg. In the classroom or playground
Becker (1971) Carried out an interactionist study of labelling based on interviews with
60 Chicago high-school teachers
Found that they judged pupils according to how closely they fit their
image of the ‘ideal pupil’
Eg. Key factors in deciphering this image were pupils’ work, conduct
and appearance
Ideal pupil Teachers saw middle-class children as a closer representation of the
ideal pupil than working-class children because they regarded them as
less well-behaved
Jorgensen (2009) Found that the ideal pupil may be regarded differently according to the
social class make-up of the school
Eg. In largely working-class primary schools, the ideal pupil was seen as
quiet, passive and obedient (defined by behaviour)
Whereas middle-class based primary schools viewed the ideal pupil by
their academic ability and personality
Labelling in secondary
schools
Dunne and Gazeley (2008) Argue that schools persistently produce working-class
underachievement because of labelling
From interviews in 9 secondary schools, they found that teachers
normalised working-class underachievement by seeming unconcerned
and feeling they could do little to nothing to improve it – unlike the
underachievement of fellow middle-class peers
, Teacher beliefs A large reason for this was the teacher’s assumption about the role of
pupil’s home backgrounds
Eg. W/c parents were uninterested and m/c parents were supportive
This led to differences in how teachers dealt with pupils they perceived
as underachieving
Eg. Setting extension work for underachieving m/c pupils but entering
underachieving w/c pupils for foundation tier exams
Labelling in primary schools
Rist (1970) Studied an American kindergarten and found that the teacher used
information about the children’s home background and appearance to
place them in separate groups, seated at differently positioned tables.
Tigers and clowns Those who were middle-class and appeared clean were labelled as
fast-learners who were seated nearer the front of the classroom and
shown the greatest encouragement
Those who were the opposite were labelled as clowns and given lower-
level treatment where they had few chances to showcase their abilities
Eg. Given easier books which they had to read as a group instead of
individually
The self-fulfilling prophecy
Self-fulfilling prophecy A prediction that comes true simply by the virtue of it being made
Interactionist Argue that labelling can affect a pupils’ achievement by creating a self-
fulfilling prophecy
How it operates Step 1: teacher creates a label
Step 2: teacher treats the pupils as though it is already true
Step 3: pupil internalises the teacher’s expectation which manifests the
prediction to become true
Teachers’ expectations
Rosenthal and Jacobson Studied a primary school in California which showed the self-fulfilling
(1968) prophecy in action
They convinced the teachers that they developed a specially designed
test to identify those pupils who would ‘spurt’ ahead – this was untrue
The researchers picked 20% of the students completely at random and
falsely informed the school that these children were going to be
‘spurters’
Upon return a year later, they found 47% of those falsely identified as
‘spurters’ had indeed made significant progress – the effect was
greater on younger children
