5197546
Labelling.
- 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
- 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.
- Becker (1971)- internationalist study- interviews with 60 teachers, found that they judged
pupils to how closely they fitted an image of the ideal pupil.
- 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.
- 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.
- Interactionist view= children from
different class backgrounds=
labelled differently
- 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.
- 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.
- :)- 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.
- :(- Marxists argue that labels are not just because of teacher's prejudices, but the fact
that schools produce class divisions.
- :(- It ignores wider structures within power, it blames teachers, but fails to
explain why they label.
- :(- Accused of determinism- assumes those with negative labels have no
choice but to fulfil the SFP. Fuller shows that this is not true.
Want to create your own Mind Maps for free with GoConqr? Learn more.