The internal factors of educational underachievement refers to factors within the school that affect how pupils academically succeed, for example; interactions between pupils and teachers and inequalities between schools. Sociologists can suggest the reasons why these internal factors occur through a child's class, ethnicity and gender; such as the labelling theory, the self-fulfilling prophecy, pupils subcultures and institutional racism. Despite judging or stereotyping a person based on their class, ethnicity or gender being widely condemned in our modern society, it is clear from research that it still occurs in schools, however it is not necessarily intentional.

The labelling theory suggests that teachers label pupils depending on how well they fit their idea of an 'ideal pupil'. These labels do not often reflect the pupil's actual ability or attitude, but they are based on stereotypical assumptions from a pupil's class background, ethnicity or potentially their gender. Ray Rist's study in 1970 of an American kindergarten showed that a child's home background and appearance determined what groups they were separated into on each table, not the child's ability. 'Ideal pupils' were commonly found to be middle-class children of whom had a clean and neat appearance. These children were seated closest to the teacher being given the most encouragement. The remaining groups labelled 'clowns' and were seated furthest from the teacher. Children in these 'clown' groups were likely to be of working-class and were given lower-level reading books and fewer opportunities to demonstrate their abilities. Pupils from an ethnic minority group such as black and Asian pupils could also be likely to be placed in the 'clown' group according to Gillborn and Youdell's study in 2000, which found that teachers expectations of black pupils were 'racialised' and conflict between white teachers and black pupils stem from racial stereotypes and not the pupil's actual behaviour. This shows that pupils from ethnic minority groups may also be negatively labelled by teachers. Labelling may cause pupils from ethnic minority groups or lower-class backgrounds to be disadvantaged to academically progress if they are placed in the 'clown' groups, as they do not have access to higher-level books and learning resources that 'ideal pupils' may have access to. Giving a perfectly able child lower level books may stop them academically progressing and therefore may lead to underachievement. However, it could be argued that parents could give their children access to higher-level books and learning resources at home so they can academically progress. Pupils could learn higher-level information at home to achieve higher grades if they are not being able to learn it in school. On the other hand, surely it is the schools responsibility to do this as schools are there to help children academically progress. If a child comes from a working-class background, his/her parents may not be able to afford higher-level books or learning resources.

The self-fulfilling highlights the importance of the labelling theory as it stems from it. A self-fulfilling prophecy is a prediction that comes true simply because it is made in the first place. Predictions can be made by teachers based on their labels already made about pupils. Pupils are then treated accordingly to their prediction, for example; if a pupil is predicted to achieve higher grades, that pupil is given more attention and the expectations of that pupil's standard of work is higher. Pupils can internalise these predictions and it can become part of their self-image, so the pupil may become the kind of pupil the teacher expected him/her to be. This can improve educational achievement in a pupil, or it can deteriorate it. Due to working-class and ethnic minority pupils being most likely to be labelled negatively, a negative prediction is also likely. If a self-fulfilling prophecy occurs, these pupils may lack confidence and therefore may not try hard in school, leading to educational underachievement. Streaming is linked with self-fulfilling prophecy as it involves separating children into different ability groups of which each ability group is then taught separately and differently. Studies show that self-fulfilling prophecy is likely to occur when a child is streamed. Therefore, if a child is streamed into a lower ability group, that child will experience negative self-fulfilling prophecy and may lose confidence and consequently not try hard, leading to them underachieve in school. Labelling, self-fulfilling prophecy and streaming are all linked with each other and clearly play an important role in educational underachievement. The importance of their role would support the view that internal factors are the main cause of educational underachievement as they are internal factors themselves. However, the labelling theory has been accused of assuming pupils have no choice but to fulfil their labelled prophecy, which is not necessarily the case.

Another important internal factor to consider is pupil subcultures. A pupil subculture is a group of pupils who share similar values and behaviour patterns; these subculture groups often emerge as a result of the way pupils have been labelled or streamed. Colin Lacey's study in 1970 shows how differentiation and polarisation can explain how pupil subcultures develop. Differentiation is the process of teachers categorising pupils according to how they see their ability, attitude and behaviour. Streaming is a form of differentiation, and those who are deemed 'more able' are placed in a high stream class so are given higher status. Those deemed 'less able' are given an inferior status by being placed in a low stream class. On the contrary, polarisation is where pupils respond to streaming by moving towards one of two opposite extremes; the pro-school subculture or the anti-school subculture. The pro-school subculture consists of pupils with higher status and therefore higher confidence, so are more likely to try harder to academically succeed, being committed to the values of the school which can be seen as 'ingratiation' and 'ritualism'. The anti-school subculture is quite the opposite, this subculture consists of pupils who are placed in low streams and therefore have low self-esteem because of their inferior status. Inverting the school's values of hard work and obedience is an alternative way of gaining status among their peers, which can be seen as 'rebellion' and 'retreatism'. This subculture encourages educational underachievement and really shows what a bad effect streaming and labelling can have. It would seem this furthermore supports the view that internal factors are the main cause of educational underachievement, however streaming does not occur in all schools as some schools choose to have mixed ability classes. This makes explaining educational underachievement in schools with mixed ability classes more difficult as there are less internal factors, so external factors may need to be looked at as being the main cause of educational underachievement.

Marketisation and selection policies are internal factors of educational underachievement that are due to the wider education system, not due to specifically the school and its teachers. Marketisation brought in funding formula, exam league tables and competition. Funding formula gives a school the same amount of money for each pupil they have- so pupils who are less able are disadvantaged because they may need more resources to help them academically progress which costs more money. Exam league tables rank each school according to its exam performance, which links in with competition to attract pupils, but it does not reflect the level pupils abilities. The pressure for schools to have a good league table position creates an 'educational triage' according to Gillborn and Youdell's study. Schools catergorise pupils into 'those who will pass anyway', 'those with potential' and 'hopeless cases'. Pupils labelled as lacking ability are likely to be classified as 'hopeless cases' and ignored, despite them needing extra attention. That means those who are lacking ability are not likely to progress, which produces a self-fulfilling prophecy and consequently failure. Marketisation also enforces the pressures of pupil selection onto schools; more able, mostly middle-class pupils are more likely to gain better grades to give the school a higher league ranking, so are more likely to be selected. Schools with higher league ranking will then become popular and attract other able and middle-class pupils, which will increase the schools funding and league table ranking further. Popular schools can afford to screen out less able pupils from commonly working-class backgrounds, whereas unpopular schools are obliged to take them so get worse results, become less popular and there funding is decreased. Will Bartlett in his study in 1993 argues that marketisation leads to popular schools; it allows 'cream-skimming' to occur, which is the selection of higher ability pupils to achieve the best results and reduce the costs of teaching. Marketisation also allows 'silt-shifting' to occur, which is off-loading pupils with learning difficulties as they get poorer results and cost more to teach. This puts lesser able, mostly working-class children and children from ethnic minority groups at a disadvantage, as this makes them more likely to attend a failing school where they will not academically progress as well.

Dominant internal factors affecting the educational underachievement of pupils from ethnic minority groups are the said to be 'ethnocentric curriculum' and institutional racism. In 1986, Troyna and Williams described the curriculum in British schools as ethnocentric due to it giving priority to the English language and white culture. The ethnocentric curriculum can be seen as a form of institutional racism; discrimination that is built into the way a school operates. In 1996, Hatcher found race issues were given low priority in schools and racist behaviour was failed to deal with. This ethnocentric curriculum and institutional racism within schools show how ethnic minority pupils can be disadvantaged as their needs are disregarded and their ethnicity can be shown to have low importance which may negatively affect their confidence. However, despite Asian and Indian culture not being taught in schools, Indian and Chinese pupils' achievement is still above national average, which could suggest the impact of the ethnocentric curriculum and institutional racism aren't actually that great.

The internal factors affecting achievement due to gender differences include equal opportunities policies, positive role models, the structure of GCSEs and teacher attention. Equal opportunities policies have been introduced to enforce that boys and girls are equally capable and entitled to the same opportunities. One of these policies was the National Curriculum introduced in 1988, which made boys and girls study roughly the same subjects so all career options were available to both genders. An increase in female teachers shows female pupils that positions of importance can in fact be achieved, so these teachers can act as encouraging role models. However, this is a particular advantage for girls, and due to primary schools being mostly dominated by female staff, this has been labelled as 'feminised'. The structure of coursework has a large impact on the achievement of boys and girls; Stephen Gorard found in 2005 that when coursework was introduced as a major part of most GCSE subjects, this created a gender gap in achievement as girls are more successful in coursework than boys. This gender gap is shown through the fact girls now achieve higher grades that boys in GCSEs; they have overtaken boys. However, the gap in increasingly becoming smaller. Lastly, according to Dale Spender's study in 1983, more attention is given to boys than girls, and teachers spend more time interacting with boys which could have a negative effect on girls educational achievement. However, other sociologists have found different, and suggest the reason why boys receive more attention is due to discipline reasons. If boys only receive negative attention due to discipline, this may cause a self-fulfilling prophecy in boys which could lead to underachievement. It is clear that the educational system offers far more equality towards pupils of different gender than previously, however a gender gap in achievement still exists which puts boys at a disadvantage. Radical feminists are not satisfied with the current equality given to both genders, and argue that the system remains male-dominated as women are still under-represented in many areas of the curriculum, like history.

In conclusion, internal factors are obviously significant in affecting the educational underachievement of pupils, especially pupils of working-class, ethnic minority, or a male gender. Whether internal factors are the main cause of educational underachievement is questionable as such things like self-fulfilling prophecy, streaming, pupil subcultures and institutional racism which all can lead to failure, are not guaranteed to occur. Pupils who have been negatively labelled can use this label to prove teachers wrong and excel their academic progress. Therefore, if a pupil has been negatively labelled but this does not affect the pupil, and that pupil is still failing- external factors must be involved causing underachievement. For the majority of failing pupils to be working-class, this shows that external factors must be significantly involved in making those pupils underachieve, so it seems fair to say that neither internal nor external factors can be considered more important than the other in causing educational underachievement. However, it depends on the case, middle-class children who fail in school are not likely to experience such external factors as material or cultural deprivation, so internal factors would be the main cause in that case. Bernstein would agree with the view that internal factors are the main cause of educational underachievement because his study is 1975 concluded that the reason for linguistic deprivation in children is down to the schools failure of not teaching the elaborated to working-class children; so internal factors were responsible. I personally disagree with Bernstein's conclusion because I think teaching should be enforced at school and at home to ensure information is properly absorbed and remembered by the pupil. The significance of internal and external factors affecting educational underachievement, in my opinion, are generally equal.

*All information from AS Level Sociology textbook written by Rob Webb, Hal Westergaard, Keith Trobe and Liz Steel*