Is the disparity in educational attainment among social classes caused by school processes such as labeling? (20 marks) Labeling is the act of assigning meanings or definitions to individuals or objects in order to enhance understanding, and it can be either positive or negative. In schools, teachers frequently give labels to students from middle-class backgrounds, considering them intelligent and likely to succeed academically, while perceiving working-class students as less capable. These labels assigned by teachers have an impact on a student’s academic performance and educational accomplishments.
Underachievement in schools can be attributed to various factors such as the self-fulfilling prophecy, streaming, and pupil subculture. Interactionist sociologists have extensively researched labeling by studying small-scale interactions among individuals in places like classrooms or playgrounds. In a study conducted by Ray Rist (1970) at an American kindergarten, teachers utilized children’s home background and appearance to categorize them into distinct groups and seated each group separately.
The teacher identified a group of pupils as the ‘tigers’, whom they believed to be fast learners. These students were usually from middle-class backgrounds and had a neat and clean appearance. The teacher gave them extra encouragement and seated them closer to themselves. The remaining two groups, called the ‘cardinals’ and ‘clowns’, consisted of working-class students who were seated further away. They were given lower-level reading materials and had fewer chances to showcase their skills. Howard Becker conducted another study in 1971, which involved interviewing 60 high school teachers in Chicago.
In his argument, Becker asserts that teachers assess students’ adherence to the “ideal pupil” standard, considering factors like appearance, academic achievements, and conduct. The perception is often that middle-class children are closer to this ideal while those from lower working-class backgrounds are seen as further away due to presumed misconduct. Sociologists argue that this categorization by teachers can result in a self-fulfilling prophecy where predictions about a student’s future behavior and accomplishments materialize simply because they were initially made.
According to interactionists, the act of labeling can impact a student’s academic performance by creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. When a teacher gives a positive label to a student, they form assumptions about their abilities and treat them accordingly, which might involve giving them additional attention and support. As a result, the student internalizes these assumptions and begins to behave in alignment with the type of learner initially perceived by the teacher. Consequently, this phenomenon enhances the student’s confidence and drives them to exert more effort in order to attain academic success.
According to research on labelling, teachers’ perceptions of their students can significantly impact their academic achievements. In 1968, Rosenthal and Jacobson conducted an experiment in a California primary school where they informed the school about a new test designed to identify high-potential students. However, the test was actually just a regular IQ test. After assessing all the students, the researchers randomly selected 20% and falsely informed the school that these students would show remarkable improvement. When Rosenthal and Jacobson returned after one year, they found that these identified students had indeed made noteworthy progress.
According to Rosenthal and Jacobson, the students’ test results had an impact on their teachers’ perceptions of them. Consequently, the teachers provided more attention, interaction, and encouragement to these students, leading to their progress. This illustrates the concept of self-fulfilling prophecy where the teachers accepted predictions about certain students being high-achievers and then believed they possessed specific traits. As a result, these teachers treated these students in a manner that aimed at shaping them into this particular type.
Self-fulfilling prophecy can result in lower achievement among students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds due to teachers having lower expectations for them. This is evident when teachers assign negative labels to working-class students, perceiving them as misbehaving, causing the student to internalize and conform to that label. Consequently, negatively labeled students may perceive themselves as failures and give up on trying, ultimately fulfilling the initial prophecy.
In contrast, some sociologists argue that streaming can affect a student’s educational attainment.
The concept of streaming involves the division of children into various ability groups or classes known as ‘streams.’ Each stream receives separate instruction based on their respective abilities across all subjects. In Becker’s research, teachers held the belief that working-class children were not ideal students and were perceived as lacking ability, resulting in their placement in lower streams. This created a self-fulfilling prophecy, as students internalized their teachers’ low expectations and consequently underperformed. For instance, Douglas discovered that children who were placed in lower streams at the age of 8 exhibited a decline in their IQ score by the time they reached 11 years old.
Additionally, sociologists contend that the educational achievement of pupils is influenced by pupil subcultures. One example is the pro-school subculture, which consists of pupils assigned to higher streams and committed to school values. These pupils are predominantly from the middle class and tend to perform well academically. Conversely, the anti-school subculture comprises pupils from working-class backgrounds who reject school values. They are often placed in lower streams due to low self-esteem, and this labeling as “failures” motivates them to seek alternative forms of status.
Gaining social status among peers can be attained through different actions, such as skipping school, smoking, consuming alcohol, and mistreating teachers. Nonetheless, these behaviors lead to inequalities in social hierarchy. This is due to the fact that schools tend to prioritize values associated with the middle class, placing working-class students at a disadvantage. Consequently, middle-class individuals are often perceived as smart, resourceful, and capable, which they internalize and excel academically. Conversely, working-class students are frequently evaluated based on their societal upbringing rather than their true talents.
Compared to their middle-class counterparts, working-class students are more likely to fail due to internalizing negative stereotypes about their social class. Sociologists argue that factors outside of school also play a role in academic performance disparities based on social class. These external factors include cultural and material deprivation, which refers to insufficient upbringing and socialization experienced by children from working-class families. This leads to a lack of essential “cultural equipment” like language proficiency, self-discipline, and critical thinking abilities.
The underachievement of working-class children in education is attributed to multiple factors, according to cultural deprivation theorists. These factors include the restricted speech code, a deficit in intellectual stimulation, and the influence of the working-class subculture. Bernstein (1975) categorizes speech codes into elaborated and restricted forms. The working class predominantly uses the restricted code, which consists of a limited vocabulary and simplistic sentence structures, possibly even relying on gestures.
The middle class utilizes a more sophisticated method of communication, characterized by a wide range of vocabulary and intricate sentence structures. This type of language is commonly found in educational settings, including classrooms, textbooks, and tests. As a result, children from the middle class have an advantage when it comes to education. Conversely, working-class children have less access to intellectual stimulation because their parents are less likely to provide educational toys and activities that would enhance their cognitive skills.
According to cultural deprivation theorists, working-class children are at a disadvantage in terms of intellectual development compared to their middle-class peers when starting school. This is due to three factors within the working-class subculture that contribute to lower academic performance. One of these factors is the presence of fatalistic beliefs among working-class children, which make them believe that personal efforts cannot improve their situation.
The working class differs from the middle class in their approach to gratification. While the middle class practices deferred gratification, the working class believes in immediate gratification. This means they prefer immediate rewards instead of making sacrifices and working towards future rewards. Additionally, according to Hyman, the working class does not place value on education because they do not see its benefits for themselves. Douglas supports this by stating that working-class parents show less support and interest in their child’s education. For instance, they are less likely to attend parent’s evening compared to middle-class parents.
Children from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are more likely to experience material deprivation, which can have a detrimental effect on their academic success. Material deprivation encompasses a lack of essential resources for survival, such as inadequate housing, insufficient nutrition, and limited income. Furthermore, working-class parents often struggle to afford educational opportunities that enhance their child’s learning and performance in school, such as field trips. Moreover, overcrowded living conditions in these households further hinder students’ ability to find suitable spaces for completing homework and studying.
The educational achievement of a child is affected by various factors, resulting in working-class children facing more disadvantages compared to their middle-class counterparts. This inequality primarily stems from the higher likelihood of working-class children experiencing material deprivation. According to Marxist sociologist Bourdieu (1984), the success of middle-class children in education can be attributed to their parents’ possession of greater capital and assets. Middle-class parents have both economic and cultural capital, which they utilize to give their children an advantage by acquiring educational capital. As a result, this allows their offspring to attain middle-class occupations and accumulate more economic capital, thus perpetuating the advantages enjoyed by the middle class across generations.
In general, sociologists agree that disparities in educational achievement based on social class originate from school processes like labeling. However, there are additional internal factors that contribute to these differences among social classes, including the self-fulfilling prophecy, streaming, and pupil subculture.
However, social class differences in educational achievement can be attributed to external factors, including cultural and material deprivation. Some scholars have criticized cultural deprivation theorists for placing blame on the working class for their lack of success. Critics argue that the working class simply possess a different culture than that of the school, which puts them at a disadvantage.
