Howard Becker developed labelling theory. Labelling is when others – “usually those in more powerful positions – come to impose and identity upon us” (O’Byrne, 2011,P.153). His theory proposes that “social rules define situations and the kinds of behaviour appropriate to them” (Becker, 1973, P.1). Within the education system, the teacher would be seen as the person who enforces the rules, when a child acts in a way, which is ‘wrong’ they can then be labelled as deviant as they have not complied with the expected behaviour of the teacher. In deviance in classrooms (Hargreaves et al, 1975: cited in: Bartlett and Burton, 2012) teachers defined children on factors such as appearance, behaviour, attitude, ability to work and deviance. Bartlett and Burton (2012) suggest that from early on within the classroom setting, teachers label any type of behaviour and attach it to the ‘actor’. They also suggest that the only behaviour which is noticed in the school is bad behaviour; this then reinforces the behaviour thus making it more difficult for the ‘actor’ to resist the label.
“Invariably, we all label ourselves and others to signal different aspects of our identities” (Becker, 1973, P.2). Labels that have been allocated to us either during childhood or later on in life are generally internalised thus imposing boundaries and defining us into categories (ibid). For example, someone with a criminal record may find it harder when seeking work, even if they are reformed, the stigma, which comes with the label may make this difficult. "Our sense of self-identity is constructed largely in response to how others perceive us" (O'Byrne, 2011, P.151). Another example within the school setting would be if a working class child acts deviant once, the teacher will label that child negatively, if that child is to act deviant again later on it will reinforce the teacher perception of the child being deviant. However, if a middle class child was to act deviant, the teacher would assume that the problem can be solved and this was one off behaviour from the child (Bartlett and Burton, 2012).
To relate back to social class, labels such as ‘poor and rich’ have been said to leave a divide between the social classes and the educational opportunities available to children (Moncrieffe and Eyben, 2007, P.1). Kelly (1980) argues that we know now that labelling and the expectations of teachers do have an effect on children’s work and attitude thus why the abolishment of the 11+ selection process took place and by 1975 most schools had been comprehensive which aimed to end the divide between the social classes by allowing children to have the same educational opportunities and through mixed ability teaching.
Although it can be argued that the comprehensive system failed to abolish the divide between the social class and furthermore, went on to increase it.
Evidence which can be seen in figure (1) in my appendices suggests that pupils who are from ‘disadvantaged backgrounds’ attainment at GCSE is significantly lower then all other pupils. It can be suggested through Becker’s (1973) labelling theory that the reason for children who are eligible for FSM under achieving is because as they have already been labelled as less able due to their parents socio-economical background. Labelling theory supports the idea that parents can be reluctant to apply for FSM for their child as they do not want their child to be labelled negatively due to their socio-economic background.
However, it can also be argued that although being labelled as ‘working class’ can be seen as negative, it can also assist in making people with such a label strive for enhanced opportunities either in education or within the work field (Bartlett and Burton, 2012). Although it is said that it is hard to resist labels by Bartlett and Burton (2012) on the varity that it does happen, it can give the child a reason to push themselves further as the do not want to live up to the stereotype that comes with being labelled 'working class'.
“Invariably, we all label ourselves and others to signal different aspects of our identities” (Becker, 1973, P.2). Labels that have been allocated to us either during childhood or later on in life are generally internalised thus imposing boundaries and defining us into categories (ibid). For example, someone with a criminal record may find it harder when seeking work, even if they are reformed, the stigma, which comes with the label may make this difficult. "Our sense of self-identity is constructed largely in response to how others perceive us" (O'Byrne, 2011, P.151). Another example within the school setting would be if a working class child acts deviant once, the teacher will label that child negatively, if that child is to act deviant again later on it will reinforce the teacher perception of the child being deviant. However, if a middle class child was to act deviant, the teacher would assume that the problem can be solved and this was one off behaviour from the child (Bartlett and Burton, 2012).
To relate back to social class, labels such as ‘poor and rich’ have been said to leave a divide between the social classes and the educational opportunities available to children (Moncrieffe and Eyben, 2007, P.1). Kelly (1980) argues that we know now that labelling and the expectations of teachers do have an effect on children’s work and attitude thus why the abolishment of the 11+ selection process took place and by 1975 most schools had been comprehensive which aimed to end the divide between the social classes by allowing children to have the same educational opportunities and through mixed ability teaching.
Although it can be argued that the comprehensive system failed to abolish the divide between the social class and furthermore, went on to increase it.
Evidence which can be seen in figure (1) in my appendices suggests that pupils who are from ‘disadvantaged backgrounds’ attainment at GCSE is significantly lower then all other pupils. It can be suggested through Becker’s (1973) labelling theory that the reason for children who are eligible for FSM under achieving is because as they have already been labelled as less able due to their parents socio-economical background. Labelling theory supports the idea that parents can be reluctant to apply for FSM for their child as they do not want their child to be labelled negatively due to their socio-economic background.
However, it can also be argued that although being labelled as ‘working class’ can be seen as negative, it can also assist in making people with such a label strive for enhanced opportunities either in education or within the work field (Bartlett and Burton, 2012). Although it is said that it is hard to resist labels by Bartlett and Burton (2012) on the varity that it does happen, it can give the child a reason to push themselves further as the do not want to live up to the stereotype that comes with being labelled 'working class'.