Assess the view that teacher labelling is the main cause of working-class pupils’ underachievement in school.

The disparity in educational attainment between working-class pupils and their middle-class counterparts is a persistent issue within the education system. While some sociologists argue that teacher labelling plays a significant role in perpetuating this gap, others posit that broader societal factors, such as cultural and material deprivation, hold greater influence. This essay will critically examine the view that teacher labelling is the main cause of working-class underachievement.

Interactionist sociologists, notably Becker, highlight the impact of negative labelling on working-class pupils. Teachers often possess preconceived notions of the ‘ideal pupil,’ which tends to align with middle-class values and behaviours. Consequently, working-class students, who may not conform to these expectations, are often labelled as disruptive, lazy, or lacking potential. This negative labelling can become a self-fulfilling prophecy, as students internalise these labels and adjust their behaviour accordingly, ultimately leading to underachievement. Rosenthal and Jacobson’s study, where teachers’ expectations were manipulated, demonstrated the powerful impact of labelling on student performance, lending credence to this perspective.

Furthermore, Hargreaves’ research suggests that middle-class pupils benefit from a ‘halo effect.’ Their perceived adherence to the ‘ideal pupil’ image leads to positive labelling and preferential treatment, further exacerbating the achievement gap. This bias is also evident in setting practices, where teachers, often relying on subjective interpretations rather than objective measures, place students in groups that reinforce existing class-based stereotypes. As Hargreaves, along with Ball and Keddie, argue, streaming and banding can have a profound impact on a child's self-perception and academic trajectory. This view is further supported by Dunne and Gazeley, who found that teachers' judgments of pupils are often intertwined with their social class background.

However, attributing working-class underachievement solely to teacher labelling presents a deterministic view. While labelling undoubtedly plays a role, it is crucial to acknowledge that students can resist and overcome negative labels. The existence of anti-school subcultures, as explored by Willis and Mac an Ghaill, demonstrates that students are not passive recipients of labels. These subcultures, while often viewed negatively, can provide a sense of belonging and resistance, highlighting the complex interplay between agency and structure.

Moreover, focusing solely on teacher labelling ignores the broader societal structures that contribute to working-class disadvantage. Marxists, such as Bowles and Gintis, argue that the education system functions to reproduce existing class inequalities. The hidden curriculum, they argue, instills obedience and compliance in working-class pupils, preparing them for their designated roles in a capitalist society. This perspective underscores the limitations of focusing solely on individual interactions within the classroom, emphasizing instead the systemic nature of class inequality.

Furthermore, cultural and material deprivation, as highlighted by Sugarman, Bernstein, Douglas, and Murray, cannot be ignored. Working-class pupils often face disadvantages outside the classroom, including limited access to educational resources, financial constraints, and a cultural deficit perspective that undervalues their experiences and knowledge. These factors place them at a significant disadvantage, regardless of teacher perceptions. The importance of parental support, as emphasized by Feinstein, Douglas, and the JRF 2010 report, further underscores the multifaceted nature of the issue.

Finally, it is essential to acknowledge the intersectionality of social class with other social categories, such as gender and ethnicity, as highlighted by Gilborn. Working-class pupils from minority ethnic backgrounds often face compounded disadvantages, highlighting the need for a nuanced understanding of inequality within education.

In conclusion, while teacher labelling undeniably contributes to the underachievement of working-class pupils, it is not the sole or even the primary cause. A comprehensive understanding of this complex issue requires acknowledging the interplay of individual interactions, broader societal structures, cultural and material deprivation, and the intersectionality of social categories. Addressing working-class underachievement necessitates a multi-faceted approach that tackles both individual biases within the classroom and the systemic inequalities that permeate society as a whole.