The construction of the ‘ideal pupil’ and pupils’ perceptions of ‘misbehaviour’ and discipline: contrasting experiences from a low‐socio‐economic and a high‐socio‐economic primary school

Abstract

To cite this article: Amelia Hempel-Jorgensen (2009) The construction of the 'ideal pupil' and pupils' perceptions of 'misbehaviour' and discipline: contrasting experiences from a low-socio-economic and a high-socio-economic primary school, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 30:4,[435][436][437][438][439][440][441][442][443][444][445][446][447][448] To link to this article: http://dx.AmeliaHempel-Jorgensen a.hempel-jorgensen@ioe.ac.uk This paper examines the effect of school social class composition on pupil learner identities in British primary schools. In the current British education system, highstakes testing has a pervasive effect on the pedagogical relationship between teachers and pupils. The data in this paper, from ethnographic research in a workingclass school and a middle-class school, indicate that the effect of the 'testing culture' is much greater in the working-class school. Using Bernsteinian theory and the concept of the 'ideal pupil', it is shown that these pupils' learner identities are more passive and dominated by issues of discipline and behaviour rather than academic performance, in contrast to those in the middle-class school. While this study includes only two schools, it indicates a potentially significant issue for neo-liberal education policy where education is marketised and characterised by high-stakes testing, and schools are polarised in terms of social class.

Working-class girls and child-centred pedagogy: what are the implications for developing socially just pedagogy?

“…Learners' subject positions are reproduced on a daily basis through interactions between pupils and between teachers and pupils. For example, in a performative pedagogy, relationships between teachers and pupils are more likely to be characterised by a focus on discipline and rules, time-keeping and the importance of achievement in tests (Hempel-Jorgensen 2009). In a competence-based pedagogy on the other hand, we might expect the ideal pupil to be characterised by high levels of gendered self-regulation, and exhibiting characteristics of independence, autonomy, rationality and humour (Walkerdine 1990).…”

The ‘collateral impact’ of pupil behaviour and geographically concentrated socio‐economic disadvantage

“…The evidence put forward has been drawn from research studies of children's behaviour such as Meltzer et al (2000), McCulloch et al (2000), McLeod and Kaiser (2004), McLeod and Fettes (2007) and Ermisch (2008), from research into how schools can be successful in disadvantaged areas (Mongon and Chapman 2008b;Leadbetter 2008), from analysis of administrative attainment and exclusion data (NAO 2003;DCSF 2008bDCSF , 2008cDCSF , 2008dHansard 2007), and from studies showing how groups of learners may be affected by behaviour in a number of learning contexts (Willis 1977;Banks et al 1992;Gates, Coward, and Byrom 2007;Dunne and Gazeley 2008;Hempel-Jorgensen 2009). There can be little doubt that average educational attainment is lower in areas of concentrated disadvantage, that difficult behaviour can affect others' learning, and that behavioural and mental disorders are more common amongst the socio-economically disadvantaged.…”

“…These stages are: that the cognitive development of children is linked to socio-economic status and that geographic areas with high concentrations of socio-economic disadvantage tend to have low levels of educational attainment (Feinstein 2003;National Audit Office [NAO] 2003; Gates, Coward, and Byrom et al 2007); that the incidence of behaviour and mental disorders is correlated with socio-economic deprivation and also with lower attainment (amongst the presenting individuals, not others) (McCulloch et al 2000;Meltzer et al 2000;McLeod and Kaiser 2004;Hansard 2007;Ermisch 2008); and finally, in a separate section, the indirect and direct evidence that behaviour can affect the learning and attainment of others (e.g. those in the same class at school) (Meltzer et al 2000;Willis 1977;Banks et al 1992;Gates, Coward, and Byrom 2007;Dunne and Gazeley 2008;Hempel-Jorgensen 2009).…”

“…But in contrast to these practical approaches, the theoretical factors put forward as explanations of underattainment amongst the disadvantaged do not highlight the impact of pupils' behaviour on other pupils' ability to learn. literature review summarises proposed explanations as varied as the gene pool, an idea also with some currency in society (Ashley 2009, 184), constraints on parental resources and lower *Email: hugh.david@ncn.ac.uk levels of parental engagement (for example, Hills and Stewart 2005;Lupton 2005), the construction of learning environments and social identities that reinforce external social segregation (for example , Ball 2003;Hatcher 2006; see also Dunne and Gazeley 2008), and the impact of external performance management regimes (Au 2008;Hempel-Jorgensen 2009). But the negative impact of pupils' behaviour on other pupils ability to learn is absent as an explanation, except for the limited case of 'negative peer pressure' (Mongon and Chapman 2008a, 13).…”

Pupil composition and accountability: An analysis in English primary schools

“…However, Thrupp's theoretical work arose out of the study of secondary schools and it is not immediately obvious that his theory has application in primary schools largely because while we might expect to see issues of alienation, discipline and social control as being significant in some schools (Hempel-Jorgensen, 2009), these are unlikely to coalesce around subcultures of resistance in the sense, described for example, by Willis (1977).…”