School Policies and Processes - Labelling Setting and Marketisation
School Policies and Processes — Labelling, Setting and Marketisation
This topic focuses on in-school factors that affect educational achievement and how government education policies have shaped the system.
Labelling Theory
Labelling is the process by which teachers classify and categorise pupils based on characteristics such as class, gender, ethnicity, appearance, speech and behaviour — often with little relation to actual ability.
Becker (1971)
Howard Becker interviewed 60 teachers in Chicago and found that they judged pupils against an ideal pupil image. The ideal pupil was:
- Middle-class
- Well-spoken (elaborated code)
- Well-dressed and clean
- Keen, motivated and cooperative
- Working-class pupils were seen as furthest from this ideal and were labelled negatively
The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
A self-fulfilling prophecy occurs when a prediction comes true because of the behaviour it provokes:
1. Prediction — a teacher labels a pupil (e.g. "bright" or "a troublemaker")
2. Treatment — the teacher acts on the label (more/less attention, higher/lower expectations, placed in higher/lower sets)
3. Response — the pupil internalises the label and behaves accordingly
4. Outcome — the original prediction is fulfilled
Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) — the "Pygmalion in the Classroom" study: researchers told teachers that certain randomly chosen pupils were "spurters" who would make rapid progress. When retested a year later, those pupils had indeed made greater gains — purely because teachers' raised expectations influenced how they were treated.
Negative self-fulfilling prophecy: A pupil labelled as "no-hoper" receives less attention, is placed in a lower set, becomes demotivated, and achieves poorly — confirming the teacher's initial judgement.
Pupil Subcultures
Labelling can create pupil subcultures — groups of pupils who share attitudes towards school.
| Subculture | Characteristics | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Pro-school | Accept the school's values; work hard; seek teacher approval; often in top sets | Lacey (1970) — "differentiation and polarisation" |
| Anti-school | Reject school values; disrupt lessons; gain status from peers through misbehaviour; often in bottom sets | Willis (1977) — "the lads" formed an anti-school subculture of resistance |
Lacey (1970) — studied Hightown Grammar and found that streaming created polarisation: top-stream boys developed pro-school subcultures while bottom-stream boys developed anti-school subcultures. The school's own organisation produced failure.
Setting and Streaming
Setting = grouping pupils by ability in individual subjects (you can be in a high set for Maths and a low set for English).
Streaming = placing pupils in a single ability band for all or most subjects.
Impact of Setting and Streaming
Positive effects:
- Allows teachers to pitch work at the right level
- Stretches the most able; provides support for the less able
- Widely used and accepted by parents and teachers
Negative effects:
- Pupils in lower sets/streams receive a less challenging curriculum — this limits their achievement and future options
- Setting is closely linked to social class — working-class pupils are disproportionately placed in lower sets, even when their prior ability is similar to middle-class peers
- Creates a self-fulfilling prophecy — being in a low set sends a message that the school has low expectations
- Difficult to move up once placed — sets tend to be sticky
- Gillborn and Youdell (2001) — schools practise educational triage, focusing on borderline C/D pupils to boost league tables while neglecting those deemed "hopeless cases" in lower sets
Gillborn and Youdell (2001) — The A-to-C Economy
Schools under pressure to maximise the proportion of pupils achieving 5+ A*-C grades (now grade 4+) engage in triage:
- Safe — pupils predicted to pass easily (left alone)
- Treatable — borderline pupils who might pass with extra support (given intense attention)
- Hopeless — pupils considered unlikely to pass (effectively written off)
This system disproportionately disadvantages working-class and Black Caribbean pupils, who are more likely to be categorised as "hopeless" and placed in lower sets.
Marketisation of Education
Marketisation means introducing market forces (competition, choice, league tables) into the education system. The key policy was the Education Reform Act 1988 under the Conservative government.
Key Features of Marketisation
| Policy | How it works |
|---|---|
| League tables | Schools ranked by exam results; parents use these to choose schools |
| Ofsted inspections | Schools inspected and graded; results published |
| Open enrolment | Parents can apply to any school, not just the nearest one |
| Formula funding | Schools receive funding per pupil — more pupils = more money |
| National Curriculum (1988) | All state schools teach the same core subjects — standardises what is taught |
| Academies and Free Schools | Schools freed from local authority control; run independently or by chains |
The Functionalist/New Right View
Marketisation improves standards because:
- Competition forces schools to improve or lose pupils and funding
- Parents can choose the best school for their child
- Underperforming schools are exposed by league tables and Ofsted
- Chubb and Moe (1990) — argued that state-run education is inefficient; market forces drive up quality
The Marxist/Sociological Critique
Marketisation increases inequality because:
- Ball, Bowe and Gewirtz (1994) identified two types of parent-choosers:
- Privileged skilled choosers (middle-class): research schools, attend open days, use social networks, move house into catchment areas, know how to appeal
- Disconnected local choosers (working-class): choose the nearest school, have less information and cultural capital
- Cream-skimming — popular schools select the most able (and often most middle-class) pupils
- Silt-shifting — unpopular schools end up with disproportionate numbers of disadvantaged pupils
- League tables encourage educational triage and "teaching to the test" rather than genuine learning
Key Education Policies
| Policy/Year | What it did | Perspective |
|---|---|---|
| Tripartite System (1944) | 11+ exam sorted pupils into grammar, secondary modern or technical schools | Meritocratic in theory; in practice, reproduced class inequality |
| Comprehensive schools (1965) | Abolished the 11+ in most areas; all-ability schools for all pupils | Aimed to reduce inequality; criticised for streaming within schools |
| Education Reform Act (1988) | National Curriculum, league tables, Ofsted, open enrolment, formula funding | New Right — marketisation and competition |
| Academies (2000s onward) | Schools run independently of local authorities; sponsored by businesses or trusts | Aimed at improving underperforming schools; critics say they increase privatisation |
| Free Schools (2010) | New schools set up by parents, teachers, charities or businesses | Coalition/Conservative — parent choice; critics say they divert funding from existing schools |
| Pupil Premium (2011) | Additional funding for schools for each disadvantaged pupil (FSM, looked-after) | Aimed at closing the class gap |
| EBacc (2010) | Performance measure requiring English, Maths, Science, a language and history/geography | Raises standards but narrows curriculum and disadvantages creative and vocational learners |
Privatisation of Education
There is a growing trend towards privatisation — the involvement of private companies in education:
- Academy chains and Multi-Academy Trusts (MATs)
- Private companies running school services (catering, cleaning, IT)
- Private tutoring — a billion-pound industry that benefits wealthier families
- Ball (2007) — warned of an "education services industry" where profit motives override educational goals
Evaluation
Has marketisation improved education?
- Standards have risen (higher GCSE pass rates, more university entrants)
- BUT: grade inflation, teaching to the test, and persistent class/ethnic gaps
- Competition benefits schools in affluent areas with culturally-capitalled parents
- Working-class families have less real "choice" — they are constrained by geography, information and resources
Exam Technique
For a policy question, describe the policy briefly, explain its intended effect, then evaluate its actual impact using sociological evidence. Always link to class, gender or ethnicity. A strong answer contrasts the New Right/functionalist view (marketisation raises standards) with the Marxist/critical view (it reproduces inequality).