Essay: How important are  labelling theories as  explanations of inequalities of educational achievement. [Click on the Education Link above for related information]

Document last edited: 06/09/2009

How important are labelling theories as explanations of inequalities of educational achievement.?

In UK society there are significant social class, gender and ethnic inequalities of educational achievement. With regard to each of these social groupings these inequalities have been explained in terms of different theories which emphasise differences in IQ [which it is claimed may be mainly inherited], differences in cultural and material circumstances operating outside of the school environment and processes operating within the schools themselves which involve negative and positive labelling.

Most secondary schools [and some primary schools operate systems of streaming, banding or setting in which pupils  are allocated to streams, bands or sets according to the teachers’ perceptions of their abilities in the belief that pupils learn more effectively when they are taught in groups of similar abilities rather than in mixed ability teaching groups. However critics argue that the allocations of pupils to ability groups may be neither accurate nor fair and that that many teachers operate with a concept of the "ideal pupil" who has primarily middle class characteristics so that working class students are more likely to be allocated to lower sets not on the basis of their ability or potential but because of their appearance, behaviour or language style. Also in any case they are more likely to have received adverse reports from middle schools and middle class parents might be more likely to complain if their children are allocated to lower sets whereas working class parents might accept the allocation of their children to lower sets in the belief that "teachers know best."

Interactionist theorists have argued that these processes of streaming setting and banding involve the negative and positive labelling respectively of mainly working class pupils in the lower sets and mainly middle class pupils in the higher sets which has adverse consequences for the educational prospects of the lower set pupils. .Hargreaves study of mainly white working class secondary modern school boys in the 1960s demonstrated that low stream pupils were denied academic status within the school and that they therefore tried to regain status among their peers by misbehaviour and unwillingness to work which led to the development of anti-school subcultures in lower streams. Further problems arose because if students were labelled by teachers as "worthless louts" or suchlike, this would encourage more misbehaviour, more teacher criticism and subsequently more misbehaviour. Also, it was possible that "better" teachers were assigned to higher sets and that teacher preparation for lower set students because these students were seen as incapable of real progress. In general terms therefore, lower set students were labelled as failures and the system of setting created the conditions for the self-fulfilling prophecy in that by allocating students to lower streams, the teachers actually created the conditions which ensured failure.

Additional criticisms of setting, banding and streaming were made by Nell Keddie in "Classroom Knowledge" (1970) where she claimed that a supposedly undifferentiated Humanities course was delivered differently according to the sets of the students and that, for example, teachers chose not to teach the more complex, theoretical ideas to mainly working class, lower set students on the not necessarily accurate assumption that these students would not understand them. Obviously this was likely to restrict these students’ progress. Stephen Ball (Beachside Comprehensive 1980) is also critical. He presents evidence that teachers were continuing to label low band students extremely negatively as for example, "a waste of time" while the reverse was true in relation to higher band students. However, he did also raise the strong possibility that even if so-called mixed ability teaching was introduced, there could still be informal setting within individual classes such that this so-called mixed ability teaching would not necessarily overcome the problem of labelling and self-fulfilling prophecies.

Female pupils have for many years outperformed male pupils in 16+ examinations but it is only in the last 10 years or so that they have overtaken males at Advanced Level and Degree level although there remain important gender differences in optional subject choice at GCSE , Advanced and Degree levels. It has been claimed that in the 1960s and 1970s traditionally minded teachers were less likely to encourage girls to follow professional careers  which may have persuaded many intelligent girls to leave school at age 16.For example, Michelle Stanworth (1983) in a study of a Further Education College suggested that both male and female teachers had stereotypical views about students’ future career prospects; were less likely to remember quiet girls names; asked more questions of boys; that boys were more likely to join in discussions. Overall, "the interaction in the classroom seemed to disadvantage girls considerably and both teachers and students played a part in this."

However Sue Sharpe has shown that young female attitudes to employment have changed and their educational achievements have improved and it is quite possible nowadays that females are more likely than males to be positively labelled by their teachers with overall beneficial effects for females but disadvantageous effects for females as has been shown in a recent study by Becky Francis. Yet it is also important to remember that female educational achievements vary very considerably according to their social class and ethnicity and that not all female pupils may experience positive labelling. 


Patterns of educational achievement among ethnic minority pupils are complex and it is certainly true that Chinese and Indian -Origin students out perform white students educationally. There are concerns, however, that Afro-Caribbean boys and to some extent Pakistani and Bangladeshi students are under-performing in general and that Afro-Caribbean origin boys are especially likely to be excluded from school. Several studies suggest that conscious or unconscious teacher racism and negative labelling may affect some ethnic minority pupils adversely but also that many teachers try their best to help ethnic minority students and that in any case ethnic minority  students certainly do not necessarily accept  negative labels when they are applied to them.

In his study  "How the West Indian child is made educationally subnormal in the British school system: the scandal of the Black child in schools in Britain" [1971] Bernard Coard has argued very powerfully that the UK education system makes Black children become educationally subnormal by making them feel inferior in every way . They are told that their accent and language are inferior; white is associated with good and black with bad; white culture is celebrated while black culture is ignored; pupil racism is widespread and black pupils are adversely affected by labelling, streaming and self-fulfilling prophecies .

It has been claimed that Bernard Coard did not support these criticisms of the  UK education system with detailed empirical data but he did nevertheless succeed in articulating very powerfully the concerns of the Black community and other writers have provided strong support for  his general conclusions in their much more detailed studies. Thus in Cecile Wright's research in primary schools [1992] it is suggested that teachers often failed to involve Asian pupils sufficiently in class discussion because of an inaccurate assumption that these students had poor language skills and that they also undervalued Asian culture in some respects. However, teachers also had higher expectations of Asian origin than of Afro-Caribbean origin pupils.

Heidi Mirza's 1997 study of black and white secondary school pupils aged 15-19 suggested that although there was evidence of teacher racism and negative labelling this did not undermine  the self-esteem of the pupils. There were also many white teachers who genuinely wanted to help their black students but this help was sometimes misguided and the students actually received more effective help from black teachers. In some cases although the pupils were keen to do well, Mirza believed that they were held back because of poor relationships even with well meaning white teachers.

M. Mac An Ghaill[1992] investigated the experiences of Afro-Caribbean and Asian origin students in Further Education. All of the students were conscious of racism in UK society generally but disagreed about the extent of racism in the education system. Students did not necessarily allow racism and negative labelling to affect them adversely. Instead they adopted various survival strategies to improve their prospects: survival through accommodation, making friendships with helpful teachers and keeping out of trouble.

In a significant study of two London Comprehensive schools, Gilbourn and Youdell[2000] argued that ethnic minority students were disadvantaged in several respects. There were few cases of open teacher racism and many teachers were committed to helping ethnic minority students but the authors argued that the relative failure of Afro-Caribbean students  could be explained by the facts that when all students were tested on entry to the schools , black students were more likely to be consigned  to lower sets and to remain there for the rest of their school careers, which among other things meant that they were most likely to be entered for lower tier GCSE examinations. Then , due to a system of so-called educational triage, teachers concentrated their attention firstly on borderline cases who might gain 5 A*-C GCSEs, secondly on high achievers and only minimally on students [who were often black] who  were considered unlikely to gain A*-C passes. It could therefore be argued that the educational achievements of black students were adversely affected by a combination of institutional racism and negative  expectations of individual teachers.

It does appear likely that labelling theories do provide part of the explanation for social class, gender and ethnic inequalities of educational achievement. However the studies supporting labelling theory  have also been criticised on the methodological grounds that they may be based upon small and therefore not necessarily representative samples; that researchers' reliance on observational methods may undermine the studies' reliability and validity and that they sometimes [but not always] present a rather passive description of the individual who is assumed to accept the labels applied to him/her with little criticism.

Finally perhaps the most important criticism of interactionist theories  is that such theories neglect the importance of factors external to the school as determinants of educational success or failure.. Thus, sociologists have pointed out that many working class and ethnic minority students may face cultural disadvantages leading to lack of educational ambition and that girls may have been socialised mainly by out of school factors to see their futures mainly as housewives and mothers rather than in terms of careers although important changes  in female attitudes to education and employment may be underway . These theories can also be criticised very severely but their existence does suggest that labelling and other factors operating within the school are not the only explanations of differential educational achievement.

Perhaps more important are the material disadvantages that working class boys and girls and many ethnic minority students (who are disproportionately more likely to be working class) may face. Thus materially disadvantaged students may have poor diets; they may lack energy and be prone to illness and absence; they may be forced to look after sick siblings because parents are unable to take time off work; they may not have a quiet room for study; they may be unable to afford books, personal computers, additional private tuition, trips abroad and they may be forced to take part time employment, not as an interesting option which can be ended once important examinations approach but in order to contribute financially to their own upkeep.

In conclusion it is true that labelling  processes are important determinants of educational achievement as is shown in interactionist studies. However, these studies have weaknesses as well as strength and factors outside of school, cultural and material, also help to explain social class, gender and ethnic differences in educational achievement.