Labelling.

Labelling.

1. Labelling in secondary:

   • Becker (1971)- internationalist study- interviews with 60 teachers, found that they judged pupils to how closely they fitted an image of the ideal pupil.
     • Pupils work, conduct, and appearance= key factors in labelling. M/C children= closest to ideal
   • Cicourel & Kitsue (1963)- educational counsellors- labelling disadvantaging W/C, course deciding. Found inconsistency in the way children were assessed for courses. Judged on social class/ race.

2. Labelling in primary:

   • Rist (1970)- Found the teacher used information about the child's home, and appearance to put them in groups and seating. The fast learners 'tigers' tended to be M/C and had a neat appearance, seated near to the desk/ gave greatest encouragement. The 'clowns' & 'cardinals'= seated further away / lower level books/ W/C.
   • Sharp & Green (1975)- Children choose own activities/ developed at their own pace/ when they were ready to learn they would seek help. those who weren't ready should engage in compensatory play. The M/C children= started earlier, W/C= ignored. This supports the interactionism view, and negative labelling of W/C= result of inequalities in wider society.

3. Interactionist view= children from different class backgrounds= labelled differently

4. High status and knowledge:

   • Keddie (1971)- found both pupils and knowledge can be labelled as high or low status. Streamed by ability & the same course. She found the top class were given abstract knowledge, theoretical, high status knowledge. Whereas the bottom group were given descriptive, common-sense, low status knowledge. The withholding of high status knowledge from W/C= increases class differences in achievement.
   • Gilbourn & Yodel (2001)- teachers use notions of ability to decide which children have the ability to get 5 A*-C. They found W/C & black pupils= more likely to be perceived as not having the ability to do so= put in lower sets/ lower tiers.

5. :)- useful in showing interactions within schools and class inequalities- not neutral institutions.

   • :(- Accused of determinism- assumes those with negative labels have no choice but to fulfil the SFP. Fuller shows that this is not true.
     • :(- It ignores wider structures within power, it blames teachers, but fails to explain why they label.
       • :(- Marxists argue that labels are not just because of teacher's prejudices, but the fact that schools produce class divisions.