They are then ignored, remain behind and the negative stereotypes of working class children being less able and unruly continues. Labelling also leads onto the self-fulfilling prophecy. The self-fulfilling prophecy is when the pupil internalises the label or expectation given to them by a teacher. Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) studied self-fulfilling prophecy by introducing a new test designed to identify pupils who would ‘spurt’ ahead. All pupils were tested but 20% were picked at random and were identified as ‘spurters’.
This is a limitation of their study because the 'lower IQ' students are getting ignored/not the main focus to the teacher so these students will not improve as much. This can lead to poor relationships between teach and some lower ability students because they are judged negatively and put into lower sets, they are labelling them. The teachers focus and pay more attention to the ideal pupil, the pupils seen as the ones who clearly have the ability and potential to do well. Subcultures also have an effect on educational achievement of individuals; they can be created due to different social characteristics of individuals such as class, ethnicity, gender, youth
The self-fulfilling prophecy is a prediction that comes true simply by it being made, which leads to a student’s underachievement. If teachers have low expectations of certain children and they are aware of these expectations, these children may develop a negative self-concept. They may come to see themselves as failures and give up trying, thereby fulfilling their original prophecy and leading to underachievement. Studies show that self-fulfilling prophecy is particularly less likely to occur when children are streamed. Streaming involves separating children into different ability groups or classes called 'streams'.
this impacts on the life chances of the young person because they may not be able to fully put their trusts in the adults around them because of all the new changes they have gone through. They may struggle to ask for help in later life and rely on themselves more. A young person may have moved schools which will interrupt their education and mean they will not do so well in class and could become disruptive to other pupils. A young person may become resentful of their parents and communication could of broken down, and this could to lead to them having negative feelings about themselves. This could mean that a young person turns to drugs or alcohol and not be able to access higher education or get a good job.
Cecile Wright (1992) found that Asian pupils are also a target of labelling by teachers. Teachers may speak down to them assuming that they cannot speak the English language as well as white pupils. Because of this they are more likely to be left out of class discussions and will therefore feel isolated. Asian students are seen as a "problem they can ignore". She found that this leads teachers to have ethnocentric views about these students.
(d) In school factors can have a big impact on the social class differences in education achievement. However, it isn’t the only factor. In school factors include labelling; this is done by both students and teachers. Pupils will be labelled based on social class; a working class child is more likely to be labelled as degrading names. This labelling can lead to the self-fulfilling prophecy; this disadvantages them because the teacher is favouring other students.
That is why; students should be allowed to grade their teacher. Opponents of students’ grading their teacher claim that this would indirectly give the students authority over teachers. They say that students are young, shallow, and immature. They would intentionally fail teachers who do not give them a below average amount of work or teachers who do not give them high grades. According to them, teachers will not focus on teaching the students.
Individuals whose deviance becomes known may be more likely to continue in a deviant path because their previous peer circle has deemed them as ‘deviant’ and has ostracized the individual from their peer circle. In turn, because their peers have labeled an individual, they will be more likely to behave in a deviant fashion. Labeling can also insulate individuals from deviant behavior through positive labels. In a similar fashion, teachers that label their students are likely to find that their expectations will impact end of year school outcomes. Specifically, teachers that have labeled their students as ‘slow’ or of below average intelligence will find that their students will perform to the teacher’s expectations.
For example, it may ruin the feeling of safeness in the school environment for that student. It can even inhibit their ability to excel in academics. In an article written by Elisha Mcneil, it states: A growing body of evidence highlights the connection between adverse childhood experiences and academic problems. The effects of trauma can impair a child’s cognitive ability, while the stress of a dysfunctional or unstable home life can make children act out or shut down in the classroom. In a way, I think that a school not being trauma-informed almost creates an unsafe environment for the student.
He argues that if pupils don’t achieve success individually within competitive exams, they tend to rebel and fail to develop a sense of belonging within their school causing the pupil to reject the values of the school and therefore of wider society. Parsons, another functionalist also believes that