Interactionist sociologists have explained underachievement in the form of the Hidden Curriculum. The Hidden Curriculum is all the unofficial or informal learning that takes place inside schools and the classroom. Sociologists argue that through the Hidden Curriculum of streaming and teacher expectations, educational success and failure are socially constructed. What this means is that the success or failure in schools is not a natural phenomenon, linked to genetic ability alone. Rather the experiences that children have in schools shape and influence the qualifications they emerge with at the end of their schooling.
Sociologists have argued that factors such as the structure of the school or the way teachers deal with different types of pupils also have an important effect on educational achievements. Marxist sociologists, in particular, have suggested that this Hidden Curriculum is the most important part of schooling, because it legitimates inequality through the application of the label “Failure” to those from a working class background. Those so labelled end up in working class occupations, believing that their low position in the social hierarchy is a result of their own inadequacy.
The issue of streaming in schools is an important one, sociologically and politically. Streaming is usually the traditional mode for teaching although many now argue for progressive teaching – which is less divisive than streaming. On the other hand, streaming allows the appropriate pitching of lessons for both bright and less able students. However, critics of streaming argue that it institutionalises failure, condemning large numbers of the less able to educational underachievement. Thus they are suggesting that streaming is a formal way of labelling pupils as successes or failures.
Teachers’ expectation of children’s performance depends on a whole range of factors, such as gender, ethnicity and social class. It is argued that these expectations are important because they provide the framework within which individual pupils perform and within which they are classified as a success of failure. Thus it can be said that stereotypes operate in the classroom generally and they affect the performance of those who are subject to the stereotypes. This as a labelling process operates in schools.
This Labelling Theory focuses exclusively on school factors and specifically classroom interaction between teachers and pupils. It argues that teachers judge or label pupils on the basis of factors such as race, behaviour, attitude, and appearance for example. Middle-class white pupils are seen as “ideal” pupils by the educational system and so they receive more positive teacher attention. According to Rosenthal and Jacobson, teachers communicate their labels and stereotypes to pupils through the Hidden Curriculum. Pupils’ can then internalise these labels and this may result in a self-fulfilling prophecy. A self-fulfilling prophecy occurs when individuals live up to a label that has been placed upon them.
Positive labelling may lead to white middle-class pupils being streamed more highly than working class and ethnic minorities. Keddie found that top stream pupils are treated more favourably than bottom stream pupils, in terms of teacher control and access to high status knowledge. Bottom stream pupils pick up this Hidden Curriculum message that failure is their fault and so pupils develop a negative self-image, which Willis stated, may turn to deviant sub-cultures, as a result of labelling. Hargreaves notes that these pupil’s award each other the status denied to them by the school by carrying out anti-school behaviour. This, however, then confirms their failure in the school’s eyes.
The Labelling Theory has been frequently criticised, however. Many sociologists argue that it ignores social influence external to the classroom, for example material disadvantages, biological disadvantages, ADHD for example. Many have seen that a student’s behaviour is a result of conscious choice to reject schooling rather than a reaction to teacher labelling. Also, Fuller notes that pupils can resist teacher labels. A negative label may result in hard work to disprove the label.
Much research into language has identified class differences in spoken and written language, which disadvantages working class and ethnic minority pupils. The middle-classes succeed not because of greater intelligence but merely because they used the preferred way of communicating. Language has also been seen as a particular problem for West-Indian children, who may speak different dialects of English; and children from homes where a language other than English is spoken. Bernstein’s examination of language codes demonstrated the idea that working class children are generally socialised into a restricted language code, characterised by a limited vocabulary and context-bound speak, as two examples. This differs from that of the middle-class, who are generally socialised into an elaborate language code. The different language patterns people adopt affects their educability. This is because the formal teaching in schools and examinations are carried out in the elaborate language code. Working class children are likely to underperform at school because the language code they learn or adopt clashes with the speech patterns used in schools – it is in effect inappropriate for educational success.
All these factors help to determine a student’s educational achievement during their school life from such things as, not only their genetic ability, but their class, race, gender, capital, language and many more besides.
