Schools' role in addressing social class differences

Schools can play a significant role in reducing social class differences in educational attainment, particularly for working-class pupils. This occurs because well-structured schools with skilled teachers can motivate students and create equal opportunities. For instance, governments have implemented measures like placing underperforming schools under 'special measures' or issuing 'notice to improve' to enhance quality in working-class areas.

Labelling theory in the classroom

Labelling theory, also known as an interactionist approach, examines how interactions between teachers and pupils inside schools contribute to social class differences in attainment. This perspective focuses on processes like surveillance (monitoring pupils) and evaluation (judging their behaviour and ability) rather than external social factors.

Core ideas of labelling theory

Interactionists argue that pupils form a self-concept - their view of themselves - based on reactions from influential figures like teachers. Labels attached by teachers often stem from stereotypes rather than objective measures like intelligence.

How labelling manifests in schools:

• Ideal pupil stereotype - Teachers may see the 'ideal pupil' as someone with good performance, conduct, attitude, and appearance, often associating these traits with middle-class backgrounds.
• Class-based assumptions - Working-class pupils might be stereotyped as troublesome or less able, especially if from council estates or broken homes, while middle-class pupils are viewed more positively.

This leads to differential treatment, where middle-class pupils are seen as closer to the ideal, potentially widening attainment gaps.

Becker's research

Becker interviewed teachers and found they judged pupils against an 'ideal pupil' image, with middle-class children fitting it best in terms of behaviour and potential.

Hargreaves, Hester, and Mellor's study

• Method - Interviews with teachers and observations of classroom interactions in two secondary schools.
• Results - Teachers labelled pupils through four stages: speculation (initial guesses), working hypothesis (tentative judgements), elaboration (building on evidence), and stabilisation (fixed labels). Once labelled as 'deviant', pupils struggled to shake off negative perceptions.
• Conclusions - Labels become self-reinforcing, making it hard for teachers to view labelled pupils positively.

Gillborn and Youdell's findings

• Results - Teachers often labelled working-class pupils as disruptive, unmotivated, and lacking parental support, leading to perceptions of low ability.
• Conclusions - This resulted in lower expectations, placement in lower ability groups, and entry into foundation-level GCSE exams, limiting high-grade potential.

Dunne and Gazeley's research

• Method - Quantitative and qualitative data from 22 teachers in nine state secondary schools.
• Results - Teachers stereotyped working-class parents as hostile to education and judged pupils accordingly.
• Conclusions - Class biases influenced teacher attitudes, disadvantaging working-class students.

These studies show how labelling perpetuates inequality by shaping teacher expectations and pupil experiences.

The self-fulfilling prophecy

The self-fulfilling prophecy occurs when a pupil internalises a teacher's label and behaves in ways that confirm it, turning the prediction into reality. This process links directly to labelling theory and explains how negative labels can lower attainment, especially for working-class pupils.

How the self-fulfilling prophecy works

Schools communicate labels through selection (choosing pupils for opportunities), testing (assessing ability), and setting (grouping by ability). For example, in lower sets, teachers may have lower expectations, which undermines teaching quality and pupil motivation.

Rosenthal and Jacobson's experiment

• Method - A social experiment exploring how teacher expectations influence pupil performance.
• Results - These pupils showed greater improvement, as teachers conveyed positive expectations through interactions.
• Conclusions - Teacher expectations, positive or negative, can become self-fulfilling by influencing pupil performance.

This demonstrates how labels transmitted in classrooms can create cycles of success or failure.

Ability grouping and its effects

Ability grouping, such as setting, involves placing pupils into groups based on perceived ability for specific subjects. This practice can influence social class attainment, often disadvantaging working-class pupils.

Types and debates around ability grouping

• Setting - Pupils are grouped by ability per subject, allowing tailored teaching but potentially creating rigid hierarchies.
• Mixed ability groups - Preferred by some educators as they avoid stigma and allow flexibility for pupils to move based on improvement.

Critics argue setting reinforces inequalities through stereotypes.

Impacts on pupils

• Placement biases - Bright working-class pupils may end up in lower sets due to negative stereotypes about their attitudes, leading to a self-fulfilling prophecy.
• Bottom-set challenges - Pupils in lower groups often face low self-esteem, poorer teaching quality, and stricter control, as teachers assume they need constant supervision.
• Subculture formation - Lower-set pupils may form anti-school subcultures, where peers reward rule-breaking behaviour.

Gillborn and Youdell

Setting disadvantages working-class pupils by placing them lower based on stereotypes, limiting their opportunities.

Ireson, Hallam, and Hurley's study

• Method - Large-scale comparison of 45 comprehensive schools using setting.
• Results - Setting had minimal impact on overall GCSE results.

Wiliam and Bartholomew's research

• Method - Study of setting in maths.
• Results - Pupils in bottom sets were significantly disadvantaged in attainment.

These findings suggest setting can perpetuate class differences rather than equalise opportunities.

Pupil subcultures

Pupil subcultures are groups within schools where peers share values, often in response to labelling or grouping. These can be pro-school (supporting education) or anti-school (opposing it), influencing attainment.

Formation and types

• Conformist subcultures - Often in top sets, where pupils work hard and follow rules.
• Anti-school subcultures - Common in lower sets, involving rebellion like smoking or disrupting lessons to gain peer status.

This rebellion can stem from status frustration - feeling undervalued by the school system - leading pupils to seek approval through deviance.

Hargreaves' observations

• Method - Study of a secondary school in the 1960s.
• Results - Setting created conformist (top-set) and delinquent (lower-set) subcultures, with delinquent boys compensating for low status through anti-school acts.
• Conclusions - Subcultures arise from school structures, affecting behaviour and attainment.

Evaluating labelling and subcultures

While labelling and subcultures explain some class differences, evaluations highlight limitations and alternative influences.

Key critiques

• Varied responses - Not all labelled pupils rebel; some conform or switch behaviours depending on context.
• Other factors - Subcultures may form due to cultural rejection of education rather than just labelling.

Willis' study

• Method - Ethnographic research on 'the lads' in a working-class school.
• Results - The anti-school subculture rejected school for factory jobs, redefining it as 'having a laugh'.
• Conclusions - Subcultures stem from working-class culture, not solely labelling or frustration.

Woods' observations

• Results - Working-class pupils reacted to labelling in diverse ways, from conformity to subtle rebellion, without always joining deviant groups.
• Conclusions - Responses are fluid, not fixed.

Mac an Ghaill's research

• Method - Study of Year 11 pupils in a working-class comprehensive school.
• Results - Identified subcultures like academic achievers, macho lads, new enterprisers, and real Englishmen.
• Conclusions - Subcultures vary and are influenced by factors beyond class.

Recent studies emphasise gender and ethnicity in subculture formation, showing that labelling interacts with these elements to shape attainment.