A number of sociologists imply that processes inside school such as labelling, streaming and subcultures are the key to explaining working class underachievement. It is shown that teachers tend to label their students, and there appears to be a pattern of negatively labelling students from working class backgrounds (E.g., labelling a student as unintelligent and thus will fail exams) and a given label often leads to a self-fulfilling prophecy (A student who has been labelled as a failure will then go on to live up to that label, such as failing their exams). Becker (1971) and Keddie (1971) did research to support this notion and found that indeed, teachers tend to evaluate pupils in terms of their own ideal student, by looking at appearance, personality, speech and social class.
Negative labelling can mean that students get put into lower streams and less input from their teachers to help students achieve. Ball (1981) proved this when his study found that pupils in the top streams were from higher social classes and teachers had higher expectations of them and taught them in different ways. As further support, Keddie (1971) also found that teachers allowed pupils in the top streams access to higher levels of knowledge which the working class, in lower streams, didn’t get access to. Therefore this limit that is placed on their knowledge can mean that the students won’t do as well in exams.
Anti-school subcultures (students in which may be disruptive in lessons, thus won’t be paying attention in lessons, leading to lack of knowledge and therefore underachievement in exams) tend to form as a response to negative labelling and frustration with low status (being in low streams). Hargreaves (1975) found that those in bottom streams were more likely form anti-school subcultures and go against norms. Woods (1983) also found that, although there are a variety of reactions from school, negative reactions towards school were more likely to come from working class students.
Although labelling, streaming and anti-subcultures are positive ways in trying to explain underachievement, as they look at experiences inside school, there are also limitations to these explanations. For example, these explanations don’t look at how factors outside of school (such as cultural deprivation) can influence achievement. The labelling theory is also limited as it is too deterministic; it isn’t always the case that being negatively labelled means you’re more likely to fail.
Material Deprivation (a poor family which could not afford at least three things other families take for granted) outside of school is shown to be factor in explaining underachievement at school. Pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds are more likely to leave school at 16, Halsey (1980) found that the most important factor preventing working class students staying on at school was a lack of financial support (being able to afford text books, travelling costs). Douglas (1964) also found that children in deprived living conditions (poor housing, overcrowding, poor diet) didn’t do very well in ability tests compared to kids from privileged backgrounds. Such poverty can also lead to health problems and absence from school which may also cause underachievement.
Cultural deprivation (working class culture and parenting aren’t aimed at educational success) has also be shown to be a factor in educational achievement. Some styles of parenting emphasise the importance of education more than others, a pattern of which there appears to be within different social classes. Some sociologists say that working class children don’t have the knowledge and values that help achievement. It may be things such as books, museum visits and parental interest and knowledge of education (which working class children lack experience with) that help middle class pupils succeed. Douglas (1964) thought that the level of parental interest was the most important factor in affecting achievement. He found that middle class parents (whose children achieve higher than those from the working classes) are more likely to visit schools for open evenings. However, some sociologists reject parental interest as an explanation for working class underachievement by mentioning that it may not be the case that working class parents are less interested in their children’s education, but more of a case that they just might not be able to attend to do shifts that they work.
As can be seen, there are a variety of factors that affect working class underachievement, none of which seem to have more of an effect than others. It may be that the key in explaining working class underachievement is in a combination of the explanations mentioned above.
