Labelling in schools
Labelling in schools can arguably affect educational achievement, this essay will be the assessing the effects of labelling such as the “ideal pupil” and how they help or hinder the children. Labelling is attaching a meaning of definition to define someone, the labels that you give someone are often based on social class, appearance and speech just to name a few.
In item A it states that “teachers judged pupils according to how well they fitted an image of the “ideal pupil”” this is fitting to what Becker say. He carried out an important internationalist study of labelling. He set up interviews with 60 Chicago high schools teachers, he found that they judged pupils according to how closely the fitted an image of the “ideal pupil”. He found that the factors that influenced how a teacher judged a student were: work, conduct and appearance. The teachers generally found students from middle class backgrounds to be more fitting to the view of an “ideal student”, and working class children the furthest away from it as because they were regarded as badly behaved.
Furthermore, Cicourel and Kitsuse’s study of educational counsellors in American high schools shows how this kind of labelling can disadvantage working-class students. Counsellors play a big part in deciding which students go in to which course. it seemed they generally favoured the working class “ideal” pupils to go to the courses they wanted rather than the working class students, judging them on the class rather than there ability like they claimed. Where students has similar grades the counsellors were more likely to give more collage potential to middle class children rather than working class pupils. This is similar to the information in item A “working class pupils were negatively labelled as non-academic and often as difficult”
It seems as though labelling occurs from the outset of a child’s educational career, this is shown in Rist’s study of American kindergarten. He found that a teacher used
In item A it states that “teachers judged pupils according to how well they fitted an image of the “ideal pupil”” this is fitting to what Becker say. He carried out an important internationalist study of labelling. He set up interviews with 60 Chicago high schools teachers, he found that they judged pupils according to how closely the fitted an image of the “ideal pupil”. He found that the factors that influenced how a teacher judged a student were: work, conduct and appearance. The teachers generally found students from middle class backgrounds to be more fitting to the view of an “ideal student”, and working class children the furthest away from it as because they were regarded as badly behaved.
Furthermore, Cicourel and Kitsuse’s study of educational counsellors in American high schools shows how this kind of labelling can disadvantage working-class students. Counsellors play a big part in deciding which students go in to which course. it seemed they generally favoured the working class “ideal” pupils to go to the courses they wanted rather than the working class students, judging them on the class rather than there ability like they claimed. Where students has similar grades the counsellors were more likely to give more collage potential to middle class children rather than working class pupils. This is similar to the information in item A “working class pupils were negatively labelled as non-academic and often as difficult”
It seems as though labelling occurs from the outset of a child’s educational career, this is shown in Rist’s study of American kindergarten. He found that a teacher used