Alternative transcript:

pupil, because they speak in elaborated speech code which is used in schools, dress smart and they are polite towards teachers. They create negative labels towards working-class pupils, ignoring their intelligence capabilities. Rist has done research in a primary school, and he found that labelling occurs at the beginning of a child's education. This is because according to his research, teachers used information about a child's background and appearance in order to place them in groups. However, this has a negative effect on working class educational achievement. According to Dunne and Gazeley, due to labelling and assumptions of teachers, schools are constantly producing working class underachievement. In a similar way, Rosenthal and Jacobs argue that the "labelling" coming from teachers creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. Because teachers are the ones with power, the student internalises the label and it eventually becomes true. This explains why working class pupils are easily influenced by teachers and why middle class pupils do better in school. Overall, according to labelling and self-fulfilling prophecy, teachers are the reason for the failure of working class pupils. However, Marxists would argue that labels are not the result of a teacher's individual opinion, but wider societal influences that reproduce class inequalities. Another main internal factor causing working-class underachievement is streaming, which again is an interactionist perspective.Streaming is defined as the separation of pupils into different capability groups. Like labelling, it is only positive for middle-class pupils and negative for working-class pupils. Streaming is linked to the self-fulfilling prophecy. This is because it is believed that pupils from lower streams are less likely to achieve at school, while those in higher streams show improved performance. As Becker suggests, teachers are less likely to portray working-class students as the "ideal pupil" and this is why they are more likely to be put in lower streams. Students then get the idea from the teacher that they are less capable and it becomes difficult for them to move to higher streams. On the other hand, Douglas suggests that middle-class pupils are the ones viewed as the "ideal pupil", which leads to them being put in higher streams by their teachers. This is why middle class pupils gain confidence and show more improvement in educational achievement. Similarly, Gillborn and Youdel's study showed that streaming is unfair for working-class pupils. Their study showed that teachers place students in streams based on stereotypical assumptions. Due to those assumptions, they underestimate working class and black pupils and are more likely to be placed in lower streams. Moreover, those pupils are the ones who do lower-tier GCSES, which leads them to lack educational capital. Gillborn and Holborn also suggest that streaming can also be linked to marketisation of school results. This is because schools focus on capable students in order to boost league table ranking and write off students who have less chances of passing. For schools, it is important to show good results in order to attract more students and get more funding. The use of good results benefits them and this is why those league table ranks create the " A-to-C economy". Another thing it is linked to is called "educational triage". Again, Gillborn and Youdell suggest there is a process in which schools sort students into nurses depending on their chances of passing. This process shows which students are the ones who have the highest chance to pass, the ones which need extra help and the ones who are known as "hopeless cases". Due to the league table ranking, they focus only on those students classified as the ones who have the highest chance of passing.Ball would suggest that the system is designed to reproduce class inequality. Overall, streaming is another internal factor which negatively affects only the working class pupils, giving an advantage to those from privileged backgrounds. Due to this, middle class pupils perform better in school than working-class pupils. Another internal factor which affects mostly working class pupils is "Pupil subcultures". THey are referred to as a group of pupils which share similar values and behaviour patterns. They can be viewed as a response of labelling and streaming. Like labelling,pupil subcultures are often based on social class, gender and ethnicity. According to Lacey, subcultures develop through differentiation and polarisation. Differentiation is the categorisation of pupils according to their abilities, attitudes and behaviour, just like in streaming. However, polarisation refers to the way students respond to streaming by being divided into two opposing groups. Lacey links streaming to polarisation. He suggests that polarisation occurs in two ways known as "pro-school subcultures" and "anti-school subcultures". Again, different social classes respond in different ways. Pro-school subcultures are the ones which accept the values and ethos of the school and follow the rules. They tend to be students from higher streams who are motivated and always prepared for school. Also, they are largely from middle-class backgrounds and achieve their status from academic success. In contrast, anti-school subcultures include students from poorer backgrounds. They are the ones from lower sets, suggesting that they avoid doing school work, disrupt lessons and break the rules. Due to lack of efforts from teachers, students achieve their status in other ways. Instead of getting status from their teachers, like middle-class pupils, they get it from their peers. However, in order to achieve this they do not follow the rules. Both subcultures tend to have students whose attitudes are completely contrasting and have different goals and aspirations. On the other hand, Ball's research is related to abolished streaming involving teaching mixed-ability groups. Ball is a marxist. Based on his research, he came to the conclusion that even though streaming is removed there, class inequalities still remain. This is due to the fact that in the school he did the research, teachers continued to differentiate students and labelling was still in favour for middle-class students. The positive labelling again comes from the fact that they achieved better exam results, suggesting that self-fulfilling prophecy occurred. Moreover, he found that class inequalities continue due to teacher's labelling even without subcultures. Labelling theory links to pupil subcultures, as it determines a student's capability based on assumptions. Fuller, would criticise the labelling theory for being too deterministic. This is because it assumes that pupils who are labelled have no choice but to fulfil the prophecy and become that label. Moreover, there is evidence that nowadays working-class pupils are doing better in school than before, suggesting that labels don't always determine a student's capabilities. The last internal factor which affects working-class underachievement is "Pupil's identities". Overall, it is suggested that schools shape a pupil's identity based on how they are seen. Bordieu introduced a concept called habitus, which refers to the granted ways of thinking and acting,shared by a particular social class. This concept is really important, as sociologists such as Louise et Al,use it to explain why it produces working class underachievement in schools. Different social classes share a different habitus. However, schools place more value on middle-class tastes and culture, which shows that their habitus influence education. Similarly, the cultural capital of the middle class is way more respected in schools and universities. This is also why the middle class are more likely to go to prestigious universities, as their habitus is similar to what universities offer. Another that is mentioned by sociologists when talking about pupil identities is symbolic capital. It portrays how advantaged middle-class pupils are in terms of socialisation. They are socialised at home with middle-class tastes and preferences, which are valued in school. Therefore they gain status from the school. On the other hand, working-class pupils' tastes and preferences are criticised by the school, as they are seen as worthless and tasteless. Sociologists call the contrast between different symbolic capitals "Symbolic violence". It is seen as an unfair thing, as it reproduces class inequality. Working class pupils feel judged by their preferences, which is seen as something unfair. The same situation happens in universities. This is because there is a clash between working and middle class habitus. Students from poor backgrounds may feel judged in an "university environment", as they do not follow middle class principles. Moreover, this is why many students decide not to go to prestigious universities, as they won't feel like they are in the "right place". This is also known as "self-exclusion". According to Archer, in order to achieve a difference, those students felt that in order to succeed they had to change the way they present themselves to create a better impression. Therefore, they have to "lose themselves" in order to achieve educational capital. Symbolic violence leads to pupils seeking alternative ways in order to feel "self-worthy". One of the ways they did that is by investing in branded styles such as "Nike". Wearing famous brands makes working-class pupils feel valued and this way they feel free to express their style. Moreover, they get the respect from peers, this is why for working-class students it's really important to dress appropriately for the likes of those around them. However, this creates a conflict between students and teachers. Teachers see this kind of style as absolutely inappropriate for school and refer to them as "street styles". Also, they see this as a cause of "underachievement", as it creates the impression that they are rebels. It is important to point out that middle-class students are unlikely to wear such brands. Therefore,schools don't illustrate the working class' choice of styles as an important thing. Critics suggest that a student shouldn't feel less valued based on their style preference. Overall, these concepts and studies illustrate the unfair treatment of the working-class students based on their culture, tastes and preferences. However, middle-class students are respected and would never be judged by their teacher. Therefore, working class students are forced to abandon their identity and conform to the middle-class habitus in order to feel worthy in society. The only solution to this problem is to change how the school operates in favour of the working-class. In conclusion, there are many criticisms made by different sociologists which explains why the school system functions in order to benefit only middle class students. Firstly, except for internal factors there are also external factors that disadvantage the working class. For example, the use of speech codes benefits the middle class students only. The restricted code used by working-class students is not valuable. Also books,exams and teachers all use elaborate speech codes which are not taught to working class students. Another example is material deprivation. Working-class families are more likely to live in poverty, therefore they can't provide their children with the necessary environment to succeed in school. Another criticism is the fact that ethnicity also plays an important role in students' underachievement in schools. For example black students are more likely to be seen as "troublemakers", therefore they get labelled by teachers due to assumptions. Therefore they are likely to underachieve as they are not supported by the school system. On the other hand, according to statistics, asian students achieve the best results in exams compared to any other ethnicity. Showing that ethnicity actually matters and actually defines how you are seen by teachers. Last but not least, the factor which also affects working-class underachievement can also be gender. This is because working-class girls are more likely to be more successful in school than boys, they are seen as positive role models. They are also more likely to continue higher education. Moreover, according to statistics black girls achieve better at school than black boys. All of these factors show that they are equally important as the internal ones. There no need for comparison as they all explain how schools operate unfairly and how society has become influenced by stereotypical assumptions and class inequality. Working class children's self-worth has been destroyed and influenced by societal expectations and prejudices in schools.