Labelling is the way teachers respond to the pupils, they build up a picture of each pupil based on their catchment area type, appearance, conformance to discipline, ability, enthusiasm to work, likeability, interaction with pupils, personality and if they deviant. They form a working hypothesis, which is a theory about what sort of pupil each child is. They form tests throughout the year to confirm or contradict their hypothesis. The teachers come to a state of stabilization where they feel “know” each pupil.
Labelling is seen to effect progress of pupils. Teachers are able to affect their pupil’s progress directly and indirectly within the school environment. Teachers group the pupils by choosing which exams they should enter or what streams or bands to put them in. This affects the options open to a pupil and limits their achievement.
Teachers have expectations if pupils, they often are seen to encourage the bright pupils more than the underachievers. This means the pupils start to see themselves as either bright or dumb and act accordingly. This means they fur fill the prophecy: predictions made by the teachers. Attainment level is to some degree a result of interaction between pupil and teacher.
Some pupils do the opposite and try to prove the labels wrong. They devote themselves to their schoolwork to ensure success. This shows negative labels can have a reverse effect. Effects of labelling is unpredictable, it can be positive or negative.
Groups of pupils can be treated in different ways. In comprehensive schools, pupils are put in classes according to supposed ability for certain subjects. They know which set they are in and where it ranks in relation to the other sets. The bottom set will always know they are the lowest achievers of the year group. Teachers form stereotypical views of the bands. If a child is in the bottom set it will normally be assumed that they don’t work hard and are deviant.
Within a school not all the pupils conform or what no be the ideal pupil, they often form their own subcultures and reject the values of the school. Pupils attempt to protect their sense of worth and retain a positive self-concept. These pupils are conformists.
Troublemakers seek out each others company and reward one another a higher status if they are seen to be breaking rules, disrupting lessons, being naughty, not handing work in, cheating or playing truant. These are non-conformists delinquents.
Every pupil adapts to school in a variety of ways. They can be categorised into eight different groups. Ingratiation is a positive form of adaptation; pupils try to ingratiate themselves, identify with teachers and try and earn their favour. Other pupils often regard these pupils as “teachers pet”. Compliance, is also positive, pupils comply with rules in order to achieve success in exams. Opportunism is where pupils fluctuate between trying to gain approval of the teachers and of peers. Ritualists are deviant. They reject the goals of education, however they are not difficult to control. They follow rules but don’t aim to achieve or gain approval of the teacher. Retreatists are also deviant, they reject the rules of school but are not outright rebels. They daydreaming class, muck about, have a laugh. They are not consciously trying to oppose school values. Colonization is where they have no importance to academic success but will try to get away with enough to “keep their noses clean.” They want to avoid trouble but will copy or cheat if they think they can get away with it. Intransigence is the most difficult of adaptations for schools to cope with. Pupils are indifferent to academic success and reject standards of behaviour. They are less afraid to colonize to hide their deviance. The final adaptation is rebellion the pupils reject both goals and means and replace them with alternatives. Examples of this are teenage girls going to school to meet boys and are more concerned with the way they look than their academic success. It has been observed that these adaptations often relate to classes.
The studies are all based on detailed evidence and look at day-to-day life of schools. The views are less deterministic and find other reasons behind underachievement besides IQ and home background. Practical applications of these findings could lead to better teaching and reduce conflict and deviance within schools. The studies are descriptive but often don’t explain the phenomena they describe, so there uses are limited.
