This theory was supported by Rosenthal and Jacobsen. They conducted a field experiment in order to test the self-fulfilling prophecy. They chose a group of children at random following IQ tests. These children were then told that they were ‘gifted’. They subsequently received praise and encouragement from their teachers, and when given a second set of IQ tests, performed better than they did before and then their peers. While the ethics of this experiment are more than questionable due to the level of deception, and can be criticised because of the lack of a straightforward relationship between intelligence, attainment and IQ texts, it does suggest that there is some truth to Becker’s theory, and that students will, to a certain extent, live up to the labels given to them.
However, not all research supports the labelling theory. One piece of research which is in opposition to this theory was conducted by Fuller. She conducted a study in a London comprehensive using black female students. They were told they would perform badly, yet they overturned their labels and were motivated by them to achieve highly. She therefore argued that the self-fulfilling prophecy is too deterministic and too simplistic, and while this may be the case, we can see from Rosenthal and Jacobsen’s study that labelling does have an effect on students.
Another way in which differential achievement between the classes may be produced is through setting and streaming. This is a process in schools in which students are put into groups, supposedly based on achievement, and taught separately. They aim of doing so is so that teaching is more specialised to the needs of each group. However, the basis on which children are grouped can be questioned, along with whether this process is in the best interests of the children, particularly the working class children. This ineffectual setting process was highlighted by Ball. Ball looked at first years (year 7’s), who had been put into sets on the basis of information provided by their primary schools, this was not just based on ability, but a lot depended on behaviour (the closest the students were to the ideal pupil- white, middle class and female). This meant that working class children were immediately more likely to be put into a lower set, not because of ability, but because they were not the ideal students, which put them at a disadvantage in their education through no fault of their own.
It can be argued that being in a lower set would not put the children at that much of a disadvantage, as the point of setting was to provide more tailored education. However, this was disputed by Keddie. She conducted a study in a comprehensive in London and found that, despite all children being entered into the same exam, those in lower sets were given access to less knowledge. This was perhaps because the teachers felt like that they could not handle as much of the course as the children in the higher sets, but it does mean that the children are put at a severe disadvantage. She also then found differences in terms of class and perceived ability. This was because the working class children were more likely to challenge the teachers, compared to the more passive middle class. This meant that the children would be setted with working class in the lower sets, despite possibly being of at least equal intelligence, because of their perceived behaviour by teachers, and would suffer as a result- the classifications and evaluations of students intelligence are socially constructed and biased towards the middle class, and the working class are disadvantaged as a result, and consequently achieve lower.
However, we cannot argue that the differential achievement of the working class is entirely the fault of the educational system, as demonstrated by Willis. Willis was a neo-Marxist, and as such would be expected to place blame on the system of education for being biased towards the bourgeoisie, and supressing the working class proletariat, resulting in differential achievement. However, in his experiment “learning to labour”, Willis identified two disting groups: the working class ‘lads’ and the middle class ‘ear’oles’
From this, Willis argued that the working class were complicit in their exploitation and actively failed themselves, disagreeing with previous Marxist theorists Bowles and Gintis, claiming that they did not account for the role of human agency: it is not just the fault of the system, the working class children actively rebel against the culture of school, forming their own counterculture.
As well as this, we must also acknowledge other out of school factors and the parts that they play, for instance working class children and families being lacking in material and cultural capital, meaning that they cannot afford to access the education system to its fullest, afford materials, or able to work the system. As well as there being differences in the perceived parental expectation of the classes. And while these issues can each be debated, we cannot deny that there are factors external to the schooling system that have an effect on the differences in achievement that we can see between the classes.
We can therefore see that, while there are factors outside of the school that affect achievement, there are a number of factors that occur in school, such as labelling and streaming, which research has suggested has a powerful effect on the achievement of children, creating differences between the classes.
by
alexhurst (student)
