You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
External factors such as poverty and cultural capital (Lesson 2) explain a great deal about why working-class pupils arrive at school already disadvantaged. But they cannot be the whole story, because the school is not a passive container that simply registers the inequalities pupils bring through the gate. Interactionist and conflict sociologists argue that schools actively produce inequality through their own everyday processes — through labelling, the self-fulfilling prophecy, streaming and setting, the formation of pupil subcultures, and the workings of a marketised system of league tables and selection. These are the internal factors. Understanding them is essential because they reveal that the school is itself a maker of class inequality, not merely a mirror of it — and the very best 30-mark answers show how internal and external factors interact rather than treating them as rival explanations to be ranked.
Key Definition: Internal factors are processes within schools and the wider education system — such as labelling, the self-fulfilling prophecy, streaming, setting, pupil subcultures, and marketisation/selection — that shape pupils' experiences and so affect their achievement, often independently of the ability they bring to school.
Spec Mapping: This lesson maps to AQA A-Level Sociology (7192), Paper 1, Education — the requirement to understand and evaluate the role and influence of processes within schools (labelling, the self-fulfilling prophecy, streaming, subcultures, the organisation of teaching and learning) as an explanation of differential achievement by social class. It pairs directly with Lesson 2 (external factors) and overlaps heavily with the dedicated "in-school processes" topic.
Synoptic Links: Internal factors draw heavily on interactionism (Becker's labelling theory, which originated in the sociology of crime and deviance — the same self-fulfilling-prophecy logic underlies Lemert's deviancy amplification and the idea of the "master status"). They connect to Marxism (Bowles & Gintis's hidden curriculum; the reproduction of class), to stratification (how schools sort pupils into a class-shaped hierarchy), and to educational policy (marketisation and league tables, the subject of later lessons). Methods in Context is everywhere here: most labelling evidence comes from observation and unstructured interviews (Becker, Rist, Lacey, Ball, Willis), so the validity, reliability, representativeness, and ethics of small-scale qualitative research are ready-made evaluation points you can deploy in any answer.
Key Definition: Labelling is the process by which teachers attach a meaning or definition to a pupil on the basis of perceived characteristics. Labels may be positive ("bright", "hardworking") or negative ("troublemaker", "less able"), and — crucially — they are often based on class, appearance, accent, and behaviour rather than on actual ability.
Labelling theory is rooted in the interactionist (or symbolic-interactionist) tradition, which studies the small-scale, face-to-face interactions through which social reality is constructed. Its central claim is that a label is not a neutral description but a social construction that reflects the labeller's assumptions — and that the label can then go on to shape the labelled person's behaviour and identity. Because teachers process large numbers of pupils quickly, they rely on "typifications" or mental shortcuts, and these shortcuts are heavily class-coded.
Howard Becker (1971) conducted interviews with around 60 Chicago high-school teachers and found that they judged pupils not by their actual ability or effort but by how closely they matched the teacher's image of the "ideal pupil." This ideal pupil was typically middle class in appearance, conduct, and attitude — well dressed, well spoken, polite, eager, and compliant. Working-class pupils, who diverged from this image, were more likely to be labelled as poorly behaved, badly motivated, and unlikely to succeed. Becker's study demonstrates that labelling tells us as much about teachers' class assumptions as about pupils' real potential: the same piece of behaviour can be read as "boisterous and able" in a middle-class child and "disruptive and limited" in a working-class one.
Rist (1970) observed an American kindergarten and found that the teacher grouped children by table using information about their home background and appearance rather than any assessment of ability. The clean, well-dressed children from better-off homes were seated nearest the teacher (the "tigers") and received the most attention, encouragement, and stimulating work; children from poorer backgrounds were seated furthest away (the "clowns" and "cardinals") and received less. These groupings, assigned within the first few days of school, hardened into the children's educational careers, because the tigers were taught more and so pulled ahead — a self-fulfilling prophecy in miniature, set in motion before any of the children had been formally assessed.
More recent British research deepens the picture. Dunne and Gazeley (2008) found, from research in secondary schools, that teachers "normalised" the underachievement of working-class pupils — treating it as inevitable and beyond the school's power to change — while regarding middle-class underachievement as a temporary problem to be tackled. Teachers also labelled working-class parents as uninterested and middle-class parents as supportive, and they set extension work for middle-class underachievers but entered working-class pupils for easier exams. The school's own labelling practices thus constructed and widened the class gap. Hempel-Jorgensen (2009) showed that the very definition of the "ideal pupil" varies by school context: in a largely working-class school the ideal pupil was defined by behaviour (quiet, passive, obedient), whereas in a middle-class school it was defined by academic engagement (curious, questioning, creative) — so working-class pupils are judged against a narrower, conduct-focused standard that does not reward the higher-order thinking examinations demand.
Internal processes also work through the clash between working-class identity and the identity the school demands. Archer et al. (2010) argued that the school promotes a "nerd"-free, middle-class habitus as the model of the successful learner — articulate, confident, "switched on" to high culture — which feels alien and inauthentic to many working-class pupils. Rather than accept symbolic exclusion, some working-class pupils invested instead in "Nike identities" built around branded clothing, style, and street culture, which gave them status and self-worth among peers but brought them into direct conflict with the school's uniform rules and academic values, pushing them further from engagement. Reay (2006) drew on Bourdieu's concept of habitus to show that working-class pupils who did succeed often experienced a painful sense of being "out of place," a "fish out of water" who had to suppress their class identity to fit a middle-class institution. These studies matter for internal factors because they show that underachievement is not only done to pupils through labelling but is also bound up with how pupils actively construct identities in response to a class-coded school — once again a meeting point of structure and agency.
Strengths. Labelling theory shows that teacher expectations are shaped by class bias rather than pure ability; it is supported by a substantial and developing body of qualitative research (Becker, Rist, Rosenthal & Jacobson, Dunne & Gazeley); and it demonstrates that inequality is partly produced within schools, not merely imported from outside, which external-factor theories cannot show.
Limitations. Labelling theory is often criticised as deterministic — it implies that once labelled, a pupil cannot escape, whereas in reality some pupils reject negative labels. Fuller (1984) found that Black girls given negative labels worked harder to disprove them rather than conforming. The theory also focuses on small-scale interaction and may neglect the broader structural causes of inequality (capitalism, poverty). Marxists ask why teachers hold class-biased images in the first place — and answer that the whole system is structured to reproduce class, an explanation interactionism leaves out. Finally, much labelling evidence comes from small, sometimes dated, often American studies, raising real questions of representativeness and current relevance.
Key Definition: The self-fulfilling prophecy occurs when a prediction (such as a teacher's label) becomes true simply because it has been made. The label alters how the labeller treats the person, who then behaves in ways that confirm the original prediction.
Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) carried out a classic field experiment in a California elementary school they called "Oak School." They told teachers that a (fictitious) test had identified certain pupils as "spurters" about to bloom intellectually. In fact the "spurters" had been chosen entirely at random. When the researchers returned a year later, the randomly chosen spurters — especially the youngest children — had made significantly greater measured progress than their peers. The only thing that had changed was the teachers' expectations: believing these children would bloom, teachers gave them more attention, warmth, encouragement, and challenging work, and the children responded by achieving more. The study is the textbook demonstration that teacher expectation can manufacture the very ability it claims merely to detect. (Evaluation note: the study has been criticised on methodological and ethical grounds — the test was bogus and the effect harder to replicate in older pupils — but its core insight is widely accepted.)
The negative version of this process is arguably even more important for understanding class inequality, and can be set out as a cycle:
flowchart TD
A[Teacher labels pupil 'less able' based on class, accent, appearance] --> B[Teacher treats pupil accordingly: less attention, easier work, lower expectations]
B --> C[Pupil internalises the label and lowers their self-concept]
C --> D[Pupil reduces effort or disengages]
D --> E[Pupil underachieves]
E --> F[The original label is 'confirmed' and reinforced]
F --> A
It is essential to stress that the self-fulfilling prophecy is a tendency, not an iron law. As Fuller and others show, some pupils break the cycle by rejecting the label outright — a key evaluation point that prevents labelling theory from collapsing into determinism. The cycle also helps explain how a small initial advantage (Rist's "tigers") or disadvantage compounds over a whole school career.
Key Definition: Streaming places pupils into a single fixed ability group for all subjects, based on a general judgement of overall ability. Setting places pupils into ability groups subject by subject, so a pupil can be in a high set for one subject and a lower one for another.
Lacey (1970), in his study of Hightown Grammar, identified two linked processes:
Keddie (1971) added an important dimension: studying classroom interaction, she found that teachers did not just treat streams differently — they gave them different knowledge. Pupils in higher streams received more abstract, theoretical, "high-status" knowledge appropriate to examinations, while pupils in lower streams received more concrete, watered-down, "common-sense" knowledge. Lower-stream pupils were thus denied access to the very knowledge they would need to succeed, regardless of their effort — a structural barrier built into the act of streaming itself.
Ball (1981) studied Beachside Comprehensive, which used banding (a form of streaming). He found that teachers held lower expectations of pupils in the lower bands, taught them less enthusiastically and less demandingly, and expected them to misbehave — a textbook self-fulfilling prophecy. When the school abolished banding and moved to mixed-ability teaching, the influence of anti-school subcultures declined and the polarisation between pupils softened — powerful evidence that streaming itself, not just the pupils, generates underachievement. Hargreaves (1967), in Social Relations in a Secondary School, had earlier found the same dynamic in a secondary modern, where boys in the bottom streams, having been branded "worthless" by the school, formed a delinquent subculture that rewarded toughness and defiance as a way of recovering self-esteem.
Strengths. There is strong, consistent evidence (Hargreaves, Lacey, Ball, and later Gillborn & Youdell) that streaming reinforces existing inequalities, and that working-class pupils are disproportionately placed in lower streams even when their measured prior attainment is similar to that of higher-placed middle-class pupils. Ball's natural experiment (banding abolished, gap narrowed) is especially persuasive because it isolates the effect of streaming itself.
Limitations. Setting (subject by subject) is more flexible than rigid streaming and may reduce some harm, since a pupil is not condemned across the whole curriculum. Some teachers and parents argue ability grouping allows the most able to be stretched and the strugglers to be supported at the right pace. And even where formal streaming is absent, informal differentiation and labelling persist within the mixed-ability classroom, so abolishing streams does not abolish the underlying process — a point that connects back to labelling theory and shows the limits of structural reform.
Key Definition: A pupil subculture is a group of pupils who share distinctive values, norms, and behaviour, typically formed in response to the labels and the stream or set the school has placed them in.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.