Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Class Differences in Achievement: Internal Factors - Coggle Diagram
Class Differences in Achievement: Internal Factors
Streaming
Douglas:
children placed in a lower stream at age 8 suffered a decline in their IQ by age 11, whereas children in higher ability streams saw improvement in IQ.
Streaming: separating children into different ability classes (streams) across all subjects. SFP more likely to happen when students are streamed.
Becker
: teachers see w/c pupils as lacking ability, not ideal pupils. They have low expectations of them and are more likely to place them in lower streams
Once streamed, difficult to move up, children are locked into their teacher's low expectations of them and they "get the message" that they have been written off as no-hopers.
Creates SFP as students DO end up underachieving
M/c pupils benefit from streaming- seen as ideal pupils and likely to be placed in higher streams
Develop a positive self-concept, gain confidence, work hard, improve their grades
Gilbourne and Youdell (2001)
Streaming is linked to the publishing of exam league tables which rank schools according to exam performance e.g. number of pupils achieving 5 or more GCSEs at A*-C.
Educational Triage
A-C economy creates an educational triage, pupils are sorted into 3 categories:
Those who will pass anyway and can be left to get on with it
Those with potential, borderline C/ D pupils who are targeted for extra help
Hopeless cases, who are doomed to fail
w/c and black pupils labelled as the hopeless cases and warehoused in bottom sets= SFP and failure
Streaming and A-C Economy
Investigated effects of streaming in 2 London Secondary Schools
Teachers used stereotypes of ability to stream pupils.
Less likely to see w/c as having ability so they were placed in lower streams, entered for lower-tier GSCEs
= denied knowledge and opportunity to gain good grades, widens class gap in achievement
Publishing league tables creates an A-C economy as schools focus their time, effort and resources on pupils they see as having potential to get five grade C's to boost the school's league table position. Good ranking= attracts more pupils and more funding.
Pupil Subcultures
Lacey (1970): Development of Subcultures
Differentiation
The process of teachers categorising pupils according to their perceived ability or behaviour. Streaming is a form of differentiation as pupils are categorised into separate classes. Higher ability pupils= given high status and placed in higher streams, less able pupils= put into lower streams, given inferior status
Polarisation:
A response to streaming, where pupils move towards one of two opposite "poles" or extremes.
In his study of a grammar school, Lacey found that streaming polarised boys into a pro-school and an anti-school subculture.
Anti-school Subculture
Pupils in low streams suffer a loss of self-esteem, the school undermines their self-worth by placing them in a position of inferior status. This pushes them to search for alternative ways of gaining status, inverting the school's values of hard work, obedience. They form anti-school subcultures where they gain status from peers by being cheeky, not doing work, truanting etc.
Joining an anti-school subculture is likely to become a SFP of educational failure, since the group expects the bad behaviour from the pupil and their work remains poor/ gets worse
Hargreaves (1967)
found anti-school subcultures in a secondary modern school as a response to labelling and streaming. Boys in lower streams feel like triple failures: failed 11+, were placed in lower streams and been labelled as worthless. They responded by forming groups where high status was given to those who break school rules- anti-school subcultures.
Pro-school Subculture
Pupils in high streams remain committed to the values of the school, they gain their status in an approved manner, through academic success. They share the values of the school, so form a pro-school subculture.
Ball (1981)
Streaming should be abolished in favour of mixed ability groups
Studied a comprehensive school that was removing the use of banding: when this streaming was abolished, pupils no longer polarised into subcultures, influence of anti-school subcultures declined.
However, differentiation still continued as teachers still categorised pupils differently, e.g. labelling m/c as cooperative, able. They did better at exams= inequalities can continue from teacher labelling even without streaming/ subcultures
Pupil subculture: group of pupils who share the same beliefs, norms, values and behaviours. often emerge as a result of labelling or streaming.
Self-fulfilling Prophecy
Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968): Pygmalion Effect
Gave students at a primary school a standard IQ test but told teachers it was to identify students that could "spurt ahead"
Said that 20% of students were identified as "spurters" when they were actually picked at random
After returning a year later: 47% of children labelled as spurters had made significant progress
Teacher beliefs about the pupils were influenced by the test results and this was conveyed in their interactions with pupils (body language, amount of attention, encouragement)
SFP can produce underachievement: if teachers have low expectations of a student and communicate this in their interactions, the child can develop a negative self-concept- see themselves as failures, give up trying = prophecy fulfilled
A prediction that directly or indirectly causes itself to become true. E.g. when a label is applied to a student and they are treated accordingly, they internalise that label, living up to the teacher expectations as it becomes part of their self-image, thus fulfilling the prediction.
Labelling
The Ideal Pupil
Becker (1971):
Studied labelling using interviews, found that teachers judge pupils by how closely they fit their image of the "ideal pupil"
Pupils' work, conduct, and appearance were key factors influencing teacher's judgements. Pupils from m/c backgrounds seen as closer to the ideal pupil image than w/c pupils, who were viewed as badly behaved.
Hempel-Jorgson (2009):
Teacher stereotypes of an ideal pupil vary based on the social class make-up of the school.
Studied 2 primary schools:
In the largely w/c primary school, staff identified discipline/ behaviour as a major problem, ideal pupil was quiet, passive and obedient- characteristics based on behaviour, not ability
The mainly m/c primary school had very few discipline problems, so ideal pupil defined in terms of personality and academic ability rather than as a "non-misbehaving student"
Dunne and Gazeley (2008):
Schools persistently produce w/c underachievement because of labels and assumptions by teachers. The way that teachers explained and dealt with underachievement itself created class differences in achievement.
Interviews in 9 secondary schools:
Found that teachers saw w/c underachievement as normal and seemed unconcerned by it, felt there was nothing they could do to change this, blamed it on pupils' home life and labelled w/c parent as uninterested in their child's education
Meanwhile teachers believed they could overcome underachievement of m/c pupils and labelled their parents as supportive.
Class differences in how teachers dealt with underachievement:
m/c underachievers get extension work and extra support
w/c get entered for easier, lower-level exams
w/c pupil's potential is underestimated- those doing well seen as "overachieving"
Primary Schools
Rist (1970):
studied American kindergartners, found that teachers used information about children's home background and appearance to place them in separate groups.
Those labelled as fast learners (tigers) tended to be m/c, with a neat and clean appearance. They were seated at the table closest to the teacher and were showed most encouragement.
The other 2 groups labelled as cardinals and clowns were seated further away, given lower-level books, and fewer chances to show their abilities e.g. read as a group, not individually. They were more likely to be w/c.
Woods (1979)
Other responses to labelling/streaming :
Ingratiation:
being the teacher's pet, very favourable attitudes to the school
Ritualism:
going through the motions of attending school, but don't care for academic success or teacher approval
Retreatism:
values of school are rejected, mess around at school but without directly challenging authority
Rebellion:
outright rejection of everything the school stands for
Furlong (1984)
: Pupils are not committed permanently to any one response, they may move between different types of responses, acting differently in lessons with different teachers
Pupil Class Identities
Bourdieu (1984):
Habitus
M/c has the power to define its habitus as superior and to impose it on the education system. The government, head teachers, majority of teachers all have a m/c habitus= the school puts a higher value on m/c tastes= advantage for m/c pupils
Symbolic Capital:
since schools have a m/c habitus, pupils who have been socialised into m/c tastes/preferences gain symbolic capital (status and recognition from the school, they are given worth/value.)
Habitus
: the learned ways of thinking and acting that are shared by a particular social class, such as their tastes about lifestyle, consumption (fashion, leisure), their outlook on life, their expectations for what is normal for "people like them"
Symbolic violence:
the withholding of symbolic capital. School devalues w/c habitus so w/c pupils' tastes are seen as tasteless and worthless. By defining w/c habitus as inferior, symbolic violence reproduces class structure, keeps the w/c "in their place". This causes w/c pupils to feel alienated from education.
Archer (2010):
w/c pupils felt that in order to be successful in school, they would have to change they way they talked and presented themselves. For w/c, educational success comes at the cost of "losing yourself". They are unable to access posh, m/c spaces e.g. uni, professional careers
Nike Identities
Style is heavily policed by peers, not conforming was "social suicide". The right appearance earned symbolic capital, approval from peers, safety from bullying.
However this conflicts with the school dress code. Teachers opposed w/c "street styles" as bad taste or even as a threat, and pupils are labelled as rebels. Thus, education's m/c habitus stigmatises w/c identities.
Many w/c pupils conscious that society/ school looked down on them, this symbolic violence leads them to seek alternative ways of getting self-worth, status, value. They construct meaningful identities for themselves by investing heavily in "styles" and branded clothing e.g. Nike
This plays a part in rejection of higher education, which is seen as:
Undesirable as it doesn't suit their preferred lifestyle/ habitus
Unrealistic as its "not for people like us", but for richer, posher people they do not fit in with. Also seen as unaffordable/ risky
Archer et al:
w/c pupils choose self-exclusion from education- not only do they get the message that its not for them, but they actively choose to reject it since it doesn't fit in with their identity
W/c Identity and Self Exclusion
Evans (2007):
studied 21 w/c girls at a comprehensive school, found they were reluctant to apply to elite unis e.g. Oxbridge- the few that did felt a sense of hidden barriers and of not fitting in.
They were strongly attached to their locality- only 4/21 intended to move away from home to study
Bourdieu
: w/c people see places like Oxbridge as not for their likes of them due to their habitus (beliefs about opportunities available to them)= exclude themselves from elite universities
More w/c students now in university than ever before, but the habitus of higher education is still a barrier
Reay et al:
self-exclusion from elite or distant unis narrows options for w/c pupils, limiting their success.
W/c identity and Educational Success
Ingram (2009):
studied 2 groups of w/c boys from the same highly deprived area: one went to grammar school, the other to local secondary school.
Found that having a w/c identity was inseparable from belonging to a w/c locality- the neighbourhood's dense network of friends/ family shaped the boys' habitus and gave them a strong sense of belonging.
Street culture/ branded sportswear also found to be a key part of habitus.
W/c communities greatly value conformity= pressure to fit in, grammar school boys conflicted between habitus of their w/c neighbourhood and m/c school.
Ingram
: the choice is between unworthiness at school for wearing certain clothes and worthlessness at home for not
Ridicule for expressing w/c identity in school is symbolic violence, pupils forced to abandon it to succeed